Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

As for Gatineau riders, it will be a problem. Gatineau is pretty fixed on buses at this point and would not likely want to pay anything to have rail access.

Isn't the north end of the Prince of Wales Bridge (PoW) fairly near Terrasses de la Chaudiere? If a train crossed the PoW, passed north of the Terrasse and Place du Portage, and returned across the Portage Bridge, wouldn't that cover the main commuter destinations? I admit that is doesn't cover (old) Gatineau or Aylmer, but I imagine they could have Rapi-bus bringing people to the train. Such a centralized train could encourage higher density redevelopment of the Hull sector.

I’m not sure if an alignment north the Terrasses and Place du Portage is possible at all. It is pretty built up there. There is more space to the South but it would be on the wrong side of Taché/Laurier. As such, I don’t think such an alignment would serve the Terrasses and Place du Portage very well. Also, would there be sufficient space there for one or two major transfer stations? There would be a sharp turn at Laurier and the Portage Bridge, and another near downtown Ottawa.

How would the service work from a system perspective? Would some trains from eastern Ottawa (e.g., Orleans) travel through downtown Ottawa, turn north at Portage Bridge and go to Hull, and turn south to cross the PoW bridge, and continue on to southern Ottawa along the O-Train corridor? I don't think Rapi-bus riders would find such a service very attractive, with a transfer so close to the final destination.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Suzie

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.

36 trains per hour is 100-second headways.

Do you have a link to that Calgary study about 36 trains per hour in the city core? I'm interested to see how they do it.

Wonder if high-floor trains fixes the transitway conversion problems too? Shorter trains means tighter curves (maybe) and shorter platforms.

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by Franky

36 trains per hour is 100-second headways.

Do you have a link to that Calgary study about 36 trains per hour in the city core? Is that per direction? I'm interested to see how they do it.

It is mentioned on Page 3 of http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/Downtown_Final_Report.pdf

Warning it's a big PDF file

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Suzie

It is mentioned on Page 3 of http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/Downtown_Final_Report.pdf

Warning it's a big PDF file

Makes you wonder about Delcan... Jeopardy style engineering; give us the answer and we'll come up with the question, or in this case - report.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ That is how most reports are sadly. I assume they are not all done out of a central office (might be a wrong assumption but who knows), so different teams would be working on them with bureaucrats. The Calgary Report above highlights something unique about what Delcan knows about Calgary, that they can advise to cross major roads at grade, close intersections, limit access if it saves money.

The Ottawa bureaucrats working on reports with a Delcan Team might always shy away from the 'cheap and dirty' solution, whereas the Calgary bureaucrats mantra is to bring it in at the lowest cost (or at least show the options that are cheaper to be so horrendous as to the politicians choosing the most optimal trade off).

The recommended option for the SE LRT crosses one of the major downtown access roads at grade (Macleod Trail). The alternative crosses both one ways that feed Macleod Trail (8 total lanes). Both of these aren't really good things to do, but the report was still accepted by council ( a report being accepted makes it a quasi statutory plan, it may change in the future, but if anything comes before council that could make it harder to implement the plan, or make it cheaper or more expensive recommendations are given).

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Suzie

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

...

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.

Mr. Gray, unfortunately, has a tendency to mix in references to the old N-S LRT project while putting forth his case for surface LRT as part of the current TMP. He muddies the waters and makes it all too easy for less-than-careful-or-knowledgeable audiences to dismiss his message. His problem is he cannot bring himself to acknowledge that the N-S LRT's downtown arrangement was also flawed and capacity-limiting. One- and two-car trains were just not going to cut it.


Had N-S LRT been built, it would have more-or-less replaced the current BRT platforms (which are generally set out one lane into the streets) with LRT platforms. To compensate for the loss of BRT platforms, new BRT platforms would have been built in the 'other' blocks that currently lack bus stops, but these platforms would not have been built out into the street - the platforms and the sidewalks would have been one-and-the-same, likely leading to increased platform and sidewalk congestion, which we know increases bus dwell times. This was proposed to nominally allow the LRVs to pass stopped buses and would have been done by replacing virtually all parking on Albert and Slater. However, with the increased sidewalk congestion and increased bus dwell times, the buses would have backed-up in the curb lane and eventually into the LRT lane (since the buses have to travel past the LRT platforms in the LRT lane).

Had it been built, I figure that within a year or two of its operation it would have become pretty evident that the arrangement was not working and was never going to work. My fear - perhaps paranoid and conspiratorial, I admit - was that this would have allowed the Andy Haydons and John Bonsalls of the world to push their bus tunnels and Barrhaven-UoO would be all the LRT we would get for another generation. The other possibility, I suppose, is that people would soon start demanding that rail be extended at least as far east as Hurdman and then to remove the buses from downtown. Unfortunately, because the LRT platforms downtown would only have been built for 2-car trains, we would be hard-pressed to actually accommodate the passenger flows. At 100 s headways, we could just push through 10-12,000, depending on actual loadings. That would be one train every second light cycle, with no real room for growth. We would then have to contemplate extending platforms or building new, longer platforms in the 'other' blocks within a couple years of their initial construction. I can imagine plenty of comments of the type "this council is so dumb"...

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

^ That is how most reports are sadly. I assume they are not all done out of a central office (might be a wrong assumption but who knows), so different teams would be working on them with bureaucrats. The Calgary Report above highlights something unique about what Delcan knows about Calgary, that they can advise to cross major roads at grade, close intersections, limit access if it saves money.

The Ottawa bureaucrats working on reports with a Delcan Team might always shy away from the 'cheap and dirty' solution, whereas the Calgary bureaucrats mantra is to bring it in at the lowest cost (or at least show the options that are cheaper to be so horrendous as to the politicians choosing the most optimal trade off).

The recommended option for the SE LRT crosses one of the major downtown access roads at grade (Macleod Trail). The alternative crosses both one ways that feed Macleod Trail (8 total lanes). Both of these aren't really good things to do, but the report was still accepted by council ( a report being accepted makes it a quasi statutory plan, it may change in the future, but if anything comes before council that could make it harder to implement the plan, or make it cheaper or more expensive recommendations are given).

It seems to me, it's one thing to give more "answers" with price tags/caveats, but to screen out (prune) potential answers because they might be better than the expected answer, is just wrong.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Suzie

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.

Any surface LRT option would certainly require complete lane separation, I don't know if the City's study looked into that or assumed mixed traffic like the flawed Chiarelli plan.

The biggest issues are at the endpoints. The curves between Mackenzie King and Campus are too tight for LRT operation. The southern curve could easily be straightened, but the northern curve - a 90 degree angle - would require complete reconstruction.

Given the amount of traffic and movements beneath, an elevated section would probably be best between Campus and Mackenzie King, which would match up best to keeping the LRT on the existing Mackenzie King Bridge. Buses would go in the middle lanes with a split downtown alignment (what I recommend), the south side with an Albert Street LRT and the north side with a Slater Street LRT.

Due to the grade between Bay Street and LeBreton, a short tunnel would be required there no matter what.

Also, I would abandon the Carling LRT thought due to the high number of at-grade crossings at higher speed, and approve the Richmond/Byron alignment in the west end which has fewer grade conflicts.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

^ That is how most reports are sadly. I assume they are not all done out of a central office (might be a wrong assumption but who knows), so different teams would be working on them with bureaucrats. The Calgary Report above highlights something unique about what Delcan knows about Calgary, that they can advise to cross major roads at grade, close intersections, limit access if it saves money.

Beside the different attitude, what struck me most when I was in Calgary and when reading this report (again) and other Calgary planning reports is how Calgary deals with projections: they determine what level of infrastructure is needed at certain population levels, whereas we in Ottawa (Ontario?) try to figure out what the population will be in a certain year and then figure out our infrastructure to match. What that means is we're constantly refiguring everything due to poor population projections, whereas all Calgary needs is a reasonable guess as to how long it will take until a certain population level is actualized, and then move projects up or down according to realized and anticipated near-future growth. It's a far better way of dealing with booms and busts in population growth.

[lrt's friend]

Why are we building rail maintenance yards on more expensive land inside the Greenbelt that could better be used for intensification in the future?

[waterloowarrior]

Mayor slams Watson for linking 9/11, light rail
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mayor+slams+Watson+linking+light+rail/2044468/story.html
O’Brien says minister was ‘way out of line’

BY PATRICK DARE, THE OTTAWA CITIZENSEPTEMBER 28, 2009 11:02 PM


OTTAWA — Mayor Larry O’Brien says he is disappointed that provincial Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Watson is wading into Ottawa’s commuter-rail debate with concerns over security.

O’Brien said Monday that Watson’s reference in a weekend story to security concerns in the post-9/11 era were “way out of line.”

Watson, who is the MPP for Ottawa West-Nepean, was quoted as saying that a downtown tunnel for Ottawa’s new rail system could be stalled because it goes near Langevin Block at Wellington and Elgin streets, which houses the prime minister’s office. Watson said the federal government could have concerns about the tunnel in the heightened security of post-9/11.

“I’m very disappointed in Jim for saying that,” said O’Brien. “Twenty-nine hundred people died at 9/11. To bring in that kind of disaster in order to create an argument for a municipal issue is certainly way out of line.”

“I can’t comprehend why he would connect those two dots. If it wasn’t sad I would say it’s bizarre.”

O’Brien said it’s within Watson’s rights to comment on the city’s proposed public transit system, which includes a tunnel downtown, rail lines east-west and north-south, and bus service extensions into the suburbs. But the mayor said the key officials deciding the fate of the project are Transportation Minister Jim Bradley, Infrastructure Minister George Smitherman and Premier Dalton McGuinty.

The mayor added that subway systems in other capital cities operate very well under or near important sites of government. He noted that there is a Pentagon stop in Washington, the famous London Tube goes under many British landmarks and the Toronto subway rumbles under many Queen’s Park offices.

Watson’s press secretary, Adam Grachnik, said the minister was saddened that his concerns have been made out to be disrespectful to the victims of 9/11. Grachnik said the security issue is just one point Watson has raised in regards to the 25-year, $5-billion plan. The minister has also expressed concern about rising costs involving the first 10-year phase, expected to cost about $1.7 billion, as have some councillors.

Nancy Schepers, the deputy city manager in charge of the file, said Monday that it’s been clear all along that project costs could only be accurately set through an environmental assessment study, which goes to council next month.

With files from Kate Jaimet

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citize

[Dado]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Why are we building rail maintenance yards on more expensive land inside the Greenbelt that could better be used for intensification in the future?

That's a question that has some pretty wide-ranging answers. What brought this on, out of curiosity?


Operationally, you'd want your rail yard to be either close to the centre (for deployment in two or more directions), or rail yards at the extremities (close to the beginning/end of runs). Given the disposition of the early LRT network in Ottawa, we don't have much opportunity to put them at the extremities (putting the main yard south of the Airport would lead to a lot of dead-heading). A rail yard is also a place of considerable employment, let's not forget, and we would want that to be more central. If there is vacant land and it is used for a rail yard, then that does count as intensification of a sort. Besides, converting all urban industrial lands over to commercial/residential is not necessarily in our long-term interest, and Ottawa does not have a lot of industrial land left (compare, for example, to Calgary, which we tend to think of as the Office tower HQ of the oil patch - yet it has a lot of industrial land on its east side). There are also "clustering" advantages to being situated in an area with other industrial uses - if you need something special done, you don't have far to go to get it (and develop it, test it, etc.). If a rail yard is going into a brownfield site, then so much the better than cleaning that up for something else and then turning a greenfield into another brownfield.

Another consideration is heavy rail access for vehicle delivery. It would be an absolute travesty for light rail vehicles to arrive by their dozens by truck. In Ottawa, that really limits where a rail yard can go, especially given the limited early LRT network. That consideration effectively limits choices to the Walkley Yard area, the Bayview area, the Hurdman area or the northern parts of the Alta Vista/Cyrville industrial area. Were we to build LRT on the Hospital-Cumberland corridor, that would actually open up a number of options in the central and southern Alta Vista industrial areas, as well as east of the Queensway near the end of Cyrville. It would be possible to create additional options for heavy rail delivery by treating the LRT line itself as an industrial spur from some railway connection point to the rail yard, but that requires a conscious decision to design all curves, grades, structures and clearances from the connection point to the yard to heavy rail standards - and not to be neurotic about sending big diesel locos down the LRT line, which basically rules out that option in Ottawa ("It can't be done").


In the long term, assuming LRT goes out to Kanata, Orleans, Barrhaven and Riverside South, we're going to have a lot of trouble locating future rail yards in any of those areas. The location of the line in Kanata and Orleans take it miles from any railways and Barrhaven only counts if someone can convince the feds to give over Greenbelt near Fallowfield (ok, the line to Kanata crosses one but no one is going to build a rail yard there next to the horses and campers). Even assuming that heavy rail access isn't an issue (LRVs delivered to the central yard, then sent out along the track itself) there again aren't too many options in any of them since we have little land zoned or set aside for industrial uses anywhere near the rapid transit corridors. Only the Cumberland corridor I think could claim to have anything compatible along it.

[Franky]

So, rail yards are another reason to build out right away.

[lrt's friend]

Thank you Dado. That was informative.

My question was driven by a number of things.

One of things that appears to be driving LRT costs up is the rail maintenance facility. Land acquisition costs?

I just look at the possible location and it is in area that is ripe for significant intensification. Adjacent lands are or will be intensified. Will we displacing employment already on site? It just seems to me that this location which became low density industrial around the rail lines in the 1950s and 1960s is now being transitioned into higher density retail and offices, at least in the immediate vacinity.

We had previously selected a rail maintenance facility next to proposed employment lands and away from residents. Have we already spent money to acquire land there? Where is it cheaper to build the facility?

To me, heavy industrial and low density industrial complexes are best located on the fringe of the city.

Just me thoughts and questions.

[MalcolmTucker]

Well, if the original n-s route somehow gets built first, you can build it out by the airport no?

[lrt's friend]

It won't happen. We have compromised the original value out of the N-S plan.

[eternallyme]

How much would it cost to build the ultimate LRT system - right to all the suburbs - immediately?

[Dado]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Thank you Dado. That was informative.

My question was driven by a number of things.

One of things that appears to be driving LRT costs up is the rail maintenance facility. Land acquisition costs?

I think that reality finally got to them. I've never believed the $100M figure. Calgary's most recent maintenance facility in the NE cost them $110M a few years ago for something that won't store as many vehicles as we'll need and which is not their main facility either.

I just look at the possible location and it is in area that is ripe for significant intensification. Adjacent lands are or will be intensified. Will we displacing employment already on site? It just seems to me that this location which became low density industrial around the rail lines in the 1950s and 1960s is now being transitioned into higher density retail and offices, at least in the immediate vacinity.

Which site? I'm unaware of them having chosen one at this point in time. They had shortlisted Bayview, Hurdman North and a site in the St. Laurent area.

We had previously selected a rail maintenance facility next to proposed employment lands and away from residents. Have we already spent money to acquire land there? Where is it cheaper to build the facility?

We had some weird deal with the airport to get airport lands for it... not sure what the status of that is now. As to cost, that would depend on a few things beyond acquisition. Remediation is one, but as Richard likes to say, shouldn't we be doing that anyway? A site next to an active railway sure makes delivery of all the material to construct a rail facility a lot easier - after all, it requires lots of track, ties, ballast and catenary poles as well as other heavy equipment (lifts, cranes) so before we can really get going on the Bowesville site we'd have to extend the track to it. It also requires a lot of concrete for the interior portion, so presumably a site that's easier for concrete trucks to get to is better than one that is hard to get to. From the point of view of time, and under the assumption that more time = more cost, I would think that a facility near active railways and next to major roads and/or a concrete plant would be the least time-consuming and the least costly, all else being equal.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

How much would it cost to build the ultimate LRT system - right to all the suburbs - immediately?

Over $4.5B, including vehicles. I know because I went out and calculated it over a year ago based on the early TMP documentation. It might be closer to $5B now with the refinements they've been doing to the tunnel plan.

That also excludes a bunch of BRT corridors, like March Road in Kanata, Blair Road, Baseline Road, new buses and it included conversion of the SE Transitway (rather than the O-Train) and LRT on the Hospital-Cumberland corridor. If you were to follow the TMP's "post-2031" network exactly, it would cost more still.

[MalcolmTucker]

How much for downtown to Kanata/Stitsville? Since it seems it would be easiest to build while keeping transitway open for other directions/suburds. Then can convert the rest one at a time as more money is available.