Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[canadave]

I've always supported the idea of bringing transit back to Sparks Street. It's downtown's most logical surface transit route, IMO.

Unfortunately, I don't think the NCC would ever allow the City to run rail down its precious mall, in spite of the fact that it would do a lot to revitalize one of our most neglected places downtown.

[Franky]

5.2.2. LRT-Only Surface Option
To accommodate all of the Central Area rapid transit requirements in 2031, it is estimated that a single LRT
vehicle operating every 0.6 minutes will be required. This frequency is too high for practical rail operation
and can be addressed by linking LRT vehicles together. An operating frequency of approximately every
2-2.5 minutes is the minimum for practical rail operation, which would necessitate trains comprised of four
vehicles linked together to carry the projected 2031 ridership. This results in a train length of 120 metres.
The platforms necessary to accommodate these train lengths would have significant negative impacts on
adjacent properties by blocking lanes and garage entrances. The findings of the North-South Corridor LRT
project EA study showed that a two-vehicle train with a required platform length of 60 metres was the
practical maximum that could be accommodated without having to consider the closure of adjacent
property accesses. This was sufficient to accommodate the forecast North-South Corridor LRT ridership
but will not accommodate the total required 2031 ridership (4 car trains required).

It should be noted, however, that there were stops on every block along Albert and Slater Streets during the 1970s and 1980s.
Thus, accommodating all of the 2031 transit demand on the surface with LRT in a single corridor is not
possible. The blocks on Albert and Slater Streets have enough property access requirements that they can
not accommodate the length of trains necessary at the minimum practical operating frequency.
Consequently, an additional LRT-only surface corridor would be required to accommodate the long-term
transit demand, which would disrupt operations on that street and due to the expense not be a cost-effective
solution.

Therefore the LRT-only surface option is not an acceptable downtown transit solution.

Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008

Based on 2031 phd of 15,000, it looks like surface could accommodate only 7,500 phd which is less than the current level served by buses. Both Albert and Slater for example would need bidirectional tracks.

BTW, I'm not sure where the 120 m for 4 LRV trains comes from. Should be more like 100 m.

[MalcolmTucker]

^low floor LRVs are generally a tad longer than the german standard 25 m, mostly in the 29 m range with couplings

[Richard Eade]

I suppose most of you have heard the news that the estimated cost for the LRT plan is rising. From what I've read, the biggest culprit is the Maintenance Facility, at about $75M more than Staff’s expected $100M. The other big ones are the two end points, Tunneys and Blair Stations. After Baseline Station, there really should be no surprise that the big transfer stations cost a lot more than planned.

Tunneys is also giving planners a bit of trouble geometrically. It seems that the new bus ramp will limit the distance west of the station so longer trains can’t be switched to the other track.



A possible solution is to use only a single platform and switch the trains east of the station.



A draw-back to this solution is that it will limit headways since a previous train must be clear of the station and the switch before the next train can cross the switch.

OK, I’ll mention it; if they extended the train to Westboro, there would be plenty of room west of Westboro Station for switching. As well, there would be enough room to store about 85 trains on parallel storage tracks between Tunneys and Westboro. That could also mean that they don’t need to buy the entire parcel of land for the LRT Yard right away. This could save - or, rather postpone - tens of millions of dollars.

I'm not sure Councillor Cullen was correct when he said that the section of Transitway in front of the VIA Station wasn't designed for LRT. There is room for a 120 metre station, but to fit a 180 metre one, the geometry needs to change. That will, I think, require all three structures to be replaced. So far, Staff seem to feel that they can save the west driveway underpass. We will see.

Blair Station will be another Baseline Station. It will run way over a reasonable cost. Staff is finally beginning to realize that interfacing the train, and two Transitways is not a small excersize.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

^low floor LRVs are generally a tad longer than the german standard 25 m, mostly in the 29 m range with couplings

So, 3 high-floor LRVs (75 m) would mean about 11,250 phd but would require higher stations. That's not much more (if any) than what we now have.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I suppose most of you have heard the news that the estimated cost for the LRT plan is rising. From what I've read, the biggest culprit is the Maintenance Facility, at about $75M more than Staff’s expected $100M. The other big ones are the two end points, Tunneys and Blair Stations. After Baseline Station, there really should be no surprise that the big transfer stations cost a lot more than planned.

Tunneys is also giving planners a bit of trouble geometrically. It seems that the new bus ramp will limit the distance west of the station so longer trains can’t be switched to the other track.



A possible solution is to use only a single platform and switch the trains east of the station.



A draw-back to this solution is that it will limit headways since a previous train must be clear of the station and the switch before the next train can cross the switch.

Why don't they just switch the train track at a crossover before the station. Even if the 'outbound' track is full, a train can offload and reload on the inbound track and make the switch on the way out (or vice versa)
This is what Calgary does at all four termini.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Franky

So, 3 high-floor LRVs (75 m) would mean about 11,250 phd but would require higher stations. That's not much more (if any) than what we now have.

Yeah, but if you run it on sparks, or another street, you can keep Alberta & Slater going aswell. One surface LRT route will not handle what Ottawa thinks it needs 30 years from now. You could basically do a full surface LRT with removing the transit way buses and it would work for awhile, at which point you can attempt to squeeze on longer trains like Calgary is doing (two weekends ago in Ottawa the blocks at least seemed at least 100m long, Calgary right now has a block too short for 75m trains and isn't hurting because of it, what matters most is the stations) and eventually building a tunnel for lines as needed

[Dado]

Let's go over this again.

To accommodate all of the Central Area rapid transit requirements in 2031, it is estimated that a single LRT vehicle operating every 0.6 minutes will be required. This frequency is too high for practical rail operation and can be addressed by linking LRT vehicles together. An operating frequency of approximately every 2-2.5 minutes is the minimum for practical rail operation, which would necessitate trains comprised of four vehicles linked together to carry the projected 2031 ridership. This results in a train length of 120 metres.

So here they have just finished telling us that 4-car trains running every 2-2.5 minutes (actually 2.4 if the 0.6 min per car figure is used) would provide the needed capacity. The 120 metres is from LRVs of 30 m, which is pretty standard now (longer than Calgary's 25 m).

After that, of course, the excuses begin (see unofficial motto: "it can't be done"):

The platforms necessary to accommodate these train lengths would have significant negative impacts on adjacent properties by blocking lanes and garage entrances. The findings of the North-South Corridor LRT project EA study showed that a two-vehicle train with a required platform length of 60 metres was the practical maximum that could be accommodated without having to consider the closure of adjacent property accesses.

This isn't true on every block. They just gave up without trying. Given their willingness to have only two underground stations, we can certainly get away with only three surface stations (six platforms). Some blocks can readily accommodate 4-car trains with no impacts at all. On others, there are possible impacts. A real study would have investigated what they were and tried to come up with solutions. Perhaps a building already has access off a different road, or could be accommodated on a different road. They mention "without having to consider the closure of adjacent property accesses" but they never actually go out and consider that option at all - it's implicitly rejected, out of hand. It's a bit ironic considering their willingness to knock down 25 houses in a row near Pinecrest, but closing property accesses downtown - that we can't do.

Where 120 m of clear space is not available and an access can't be closed, we can consider other options. Trains don't need the full 120 m of platform to facilitate passenger movements - they need a series of smaller platform spaces next to the doors, akin to the platform extenders for the O-Train. There is no need for a 14" high platform opposite the couplers of the LRVs, for example. You could have a curb cut in the platform at those points, with a standard height sidewalk of 6" in place of the platform. On a coupled pair of Siemens S70s, the distance between the doors across the couplers is some 12 m. Assuming an access width of 3 m, and 1.5 m of full-height platform either side of the doors, you're left with 6 m, or rather 2 lengths of 3 m, to rise the 8" from sidewalk height to platform height. Well that's quite doable - that's a 200 mm rise in 3000 mm, or 6.67%. In other places, it's possible that the height of the access above the street is more than 6", perhaps even as much as the 14" of the platform itself. If that's the case, then the slope can be further reduced.

The point of all the foregoing is that if there is a will, there is a way, but because there was no will they found no way. The all too prevalent "it can't be done" attitude triumphs again.


Then there are statements that are just plain weird:

It should be noted, however, that there were stops on every block along Albert and Slater Streets during the 1970s and 1980s. Thus, accommodating all of the 2031 transit demand on the surface with LRT in a single corridor is not possible.

How does the second sentence (Thus,...) follow from the first? There's no flow of logic here. The fact of there having being stops on every block in the past does not mean that LRT on a single surface corridor is not possible. What this incoherent bit of reasoning tells me is that they never seriously considered surface LRT - someone was told to write up a quick bit on why "it can't be done" and it ended up not even making sense.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Yeah, but if you run it on sparks, or another street, you can keep Alberta & Slater going aswell. One surface LRT route will not handle what Ottawa thinks it needs 30 years from now. You could basically do a full surface LRT with removing the transit way buses and it would work for awhile, at which point you can attempt to squeeze on longer trains like Calgary is doing (two weekends ago in Ottawa the blocks at least seemed at least 100m long, Calgary right now has a block too short for 75m trains and isn't hurting because of it, what matters most is the stations) and eventually building a tunnel for lines as needed

The blocks in downtown Ottawa are generally of the standard 24 lots of 50' frontage by 100' depth arrayed in two rows of 12. That makes the block 600' long, or 180 m. We need to accommodate 120 m long trains, so we've got lots of space to spare and lots of options with respect to platform placement within the block length.

I suggested exactly what you have above to the City during their consultations - surface now, tunnel later - and clearly it wasn't taken up.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I suppose most of you have heard the news that the estimated cost for the LRT plan is rising. From what I've read, the biggest culprit is the Maintenance Facility, at about $75M more than Staff’s expected $100M.

I always thought that was undercosted based on what Calgary was paying out in the northeast.

The other big ones are the two end points, Tunneys and Blair Stations. After Baseline Station, there really should be no surprise that the big transfer stations cost a lot more than planned.

Tunneys is also giving planners a bit of trouble geometrically. It seems that the new bus ramp will limit the distance west of the station so longer trains can’t be switched to the other track.

This has got to be the dumbest problem I've heard of yet. It's a classic case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

Tunney's is to be a temporary terminus until such time as a route to the west is chosen (be it via Westboro or along Carling), correct? That, presumably, won't be a long-lived situation - i.e. LRT should be running west long before 2031, and once it is buses should no longer be running in the trench from Westboro, right? That means that Tunney's only needs to accommodate the length of train that will be used during the period it is a temporary transfer station - that is, it needs to accommodate 3- or 4-car trains of 90 or 120 m, not 6-car trains of 180 m.

I understand that Tunney's can accommodate 120 m trains west of the station. So what, exactly, is the problem?

I'm not sure Councillor Cullen was correct when he said that the section of Transitway in front of the VIA Station wasn't designed for LRT.

He's not correct. But, supposing he was, why isn't he ticked off at the consultants who designed the thing, and why isn't he demanding that they pay the cost of fixing it?

There is room for a 120 metre station, but to fit a 180 metre one, the geometry needs to change. That will, I think, require all three structures to be replaced. So far, Staff seem to feel that they can save the west driveway underpass. We will see.

Yep, that's the actual problem. It wasn't designed for a 180 m station.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Dado

Then there are statements that are just plain weird:

It should be noted, however, that there were stops on every block along Albert and Slater Streets during the 1970s and 1980s. Thus, accommodating all of the 2031 transit demand on the surface with LRT in a single corridor is not possible.

How does the second sentence (Thus,...) follow from the first? There's no flow of logic here. The fact of there having being stops on every block in the past does not mean that LRT on a single surface corridor is not possible. What this incoherent bit of reasoning tells me is that they never seriously considered surface LRT - someone was told to write up a quick bit on why "it can't be done" and it ended up not even making sense.

I agree that Delcan tends to work from the conclusion backwards. They wrote the transit and transportation study for LL.

This last sentence might be about providing service to every block. If the street is closed off or made impassable to buses, it would require some sort of streetcar maybe or some other method to move passengers to stations? Compared to tunnels 9 storeys below ground and every 800 m, this seems like a very weak argument in deed.

[Franky]

Mayor decries call to return to old transit plan without tunnel
By Patrick Dare, The Ottawa CitizenSeptember 24, 2009 6:25 AM
OTTAWA — Mayor Larry O’Brien says a call to abandon the city’s new transit plan that includes a downtown tunnel is a “ridiculous” suggestion that “cannot work” in a growing city like Ottawa.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mayor+...t+plan+without+tunnel/2025967/story.html

[eternallyme]

For any surface plan to work, the following would be necessary:

1) Full traffic signal interception (i.e. the LRT vehicle has the ultimate say in traffic signal operations so it does not need to stop)

2) The street configuration that IMO would work best:
*EB trains on Slater, WB trains on Albert using outside lane
*All right-side parking access is lost and there would be no right turns anywhere on those two streets (for safety reasons)
*Buses would use the middle lane, with a separate island platform at stops
*One lane in each direction (from Metcalfe to Bronson) would be maintained for taxis and local access (left turns only, with limited on-street stopping if any).
*Mackenzie King Bridge would be closed to all non-transit traffic. Two large island platforms would work best, one for eastbound trains and buses (trains on outside and buses on inside), and one for westbound.

[lrt's friend]

What alarms me about the article is the 10 year prediction of when Phase 1 will be completed. This is coming from Nancy Schepers. The date is getting further and further in the future. This now takes us to 2019 or 2020. We are moving fast! How many more Transitway extensions will be approved and completed in that timeframe?

[lrt's friend]

The solution to cost overruns: build Phase 1 in pieces according to Councillor Qadri. The response: So, does that mean that we build the tunnel and add the trains later according to Councillor Bedard.

I laughed and cried at the same time.


I am starting to wonder whether Jim Watson will run for mayor, not that he really wants to, but because the city is in such a mess.

[canadave]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The solution to cost overruns: build Phase 1 in pieces according to Councillor Qadri. The response: So, does that mean that we build the tunnel and add the trains later according to Councillor Bedard.

Ah, the Cincinnati school of thought. Wonderful.

[Dado]

Was Bédard being serious or facetious?

As for Qadri, doesn't he know that Phase I is already being built in pieces, which, for reasons that are hard to fathom, are called "increments"? What does he want, a yet smaller step? How about "accretions"?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Dado

Was Bédard being serious or facetious?

As for Qadri, doesn't he know that Phase I is already being built in pieces, which, for reasons that are hard to fathom, are called "increments"? What does he want, a yet smaller step? How about "accretions"?

Yes, Bedard was being facetious, but he was also making a point. How little track are we willing to build in order to get the tunnel? Qadri was saying that if costs got unaffordable for Phase 1 and that meant what was presently submitted for funding, then we would build even that in parts. If the tunnel was considered all important as many including the mayor suggest, then we could end up with a Bayview-Hurdman route, for example.

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by Franky

Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008

Based on 2031 phd of 15,000, it looks like surface could accommodate only 7,500 phd which is less than the current level served by buses. Both Albert and Slater for example would need bidirectional tracks.

I think that surface LRT would work best along Albert Street. The north side of that street has relatively few property access points:
- The blocks between Metcalfe and Bay either have no access points at all or alternative access from Queen Street could easily be implemented.
- The alignment between Elgin and Metcalfe could be angled so as to maintain access to north side properties.
- The alignment between Bay and Bronson could be shifted towards the south side of Albert Street in order to maintain access to the hotel and office building on the north side.
Thus, two side-by-side lanes for the exclusive use of the LRT can be had without sacrificing access to property. We could keep our four downtown stations, which would help distribute the passenger load. There would be, however, a permanent loss of parking.

With regard to capacity:
- The City of Ottawa seems to admit that 30 trains per hour would be feasible. Studies for Calgary suggest that capacity of 36 trains per hour may be possible. With an alignment on Albert where the only interference would be from cross-traffic, it is perhaps possible to match the capacity claimed for Calgary.
- The downtown blocks are long enough to accommodate 4-car trains.
- The City uses a figure of 135 passengers per car. Calgary seems to be using practical capacity per car of 180 passengers.
A conservative estimate of capacity would be 16,200 pphpd (30 trains per hour, 4-car trains and 135 passengers per car). An optimistic estimate would be 26,000 pphpd (36 trains and 180 passengers per car).

Assuming the least costly option is chosen (i.e., the existing Transitway is converted to LRT and thus the South is served mainly by the SE Transitway corridor), peak-hour loads in 2031 would be 13,700 from the East and 12,800 from the West. So clearly, even with a conservative estimate of capacity, we would be okay well past 2031.

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by Franky

Mayor decries call to return to old transit plan without tunnel
By Patrick Dare, The Ottawa CitizenSeptember 24, 2009 6:25 AM
OTTAWA — Mayor Larry O’Brien says a call to abandon the city’s new transit plan that includes a downtown tunnel is a “ridiculous” suggestion that “cannot work” in a growing city like Ottawa.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mayor+...t+plan+without+tunnel/2025967/story.html

Ken Gray wrote an excellent column and I hope that it forces a serious rethink of the tunnel.

The tunnel is not needed and the money saved could be better spent extending the system to ensure it is viable from the beginning. With only two stations buried deep underground, it wouldn't serve transit riders and the downtown core very well.

Obviously, the person who wrote the media lines for the Mayor did not read the column very carefully. Mr. Gray didn’t propose a return to the city’s former transit plan. Instead, he proposed, in his column, running rail down Albert Street. Carefully thought out, such an arrangement would work well, yet still retain vehicle access where needed.

Also, where does the estimate of a train every 90-seconds "at birth" come from? We wouldn't need such headways until past 2050.