Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Franky]

DO you think they mean ALRT?

[lrt's friend]

ALRT by its acronym is light rail. More likely subway technology, with or without overhead wires.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

ALRT by its acronym is light rail. More likely subway technology, with or without overhead wires.

Well, Automated LRT means grade-separated which means there MUST be a tunnel downtown, whereas (true) LRT would be driven and could be run on the surface with crossing gates.

ALRT would allow more frequent service (no drivers means smaller trains can be used) and require less vehicles (because they get used more, say on 90 s headways instead of 120 s). Station lengths could be reduced 33% if they were calculated for 120 s headways instead of 90 s.

[MalcolmTucker]

This is messed up but in the end technology choice doesn't really matter. You can still technically run HRT in non-exclusive corridors if you use overhead power. Maybe they are thinking of using high floor vehicles so they can cut down on station lengths in the tunnel, and the vehicles pitched to them was the Toronto Rocket car.

Only if your going automated do you really need exclusive corridors.

[Kitchissippi]

If they do decide on HRT/metro, then they really should also change the first phase to be Lincoln Fields to Hurdman.

[RTWAP]

FYI, from wiki:

Light in this context is used in the sense of "intended for light loads and fast movement", rather than referring to physical weight, since the vehicles often weigh more than those on so-called heavy rail systems.

I wonder if the HRT option is being discussed because of the feedback from June's technology forum discussions. The city got a lot of feedback from other transit operators around North America and the consensus was to build for the future, not the present. Operators shared stories of building to handle their expected demand in 15-20 years, and then exceeding it after 3 or 4 years. That's an expensive mistake because retrofitting to expand capacity is much more expensive than building it in to start with.

And regardless of what capacity the system is built to, the city was also encouraged to avoid selecting technology that limits the growth capacity.

IIRC, the city was looking at a number of ppd that was 20% below the low end of a metro system. Given the feedback above, that would suggest that more 'streetcar-like' configurations of LRT are not good solutions and that technology choices with higher capacity loads are a better fit. Which implies grade separation, automation, and longer stations.

There really seems to be a divide between the two ideas of rail. Ken Gray seems to best represent the idea for streetcars on steroids, trains that mix with traffic and basically act like buses, with slightly higher capacity, slightly lower operating costs, and significantly less operational flexibility (can't avoid traffic accidents, can't do express routes). Above all else, I think the thing that killed the first LRT plan was the estimates of 40+ minute commutes from Barrhaven to downtown. It was apparent that the 'R' in LRT was for 'Rail' and not 'Rapid'.

I'm in favour of a more metro-like solution but I don't think we, as a city, have had the conversations we need to have about this. We need to discuss it and come to consensus on what we really need. If we build a backbone that can't be rapid then people facing the longest commutes will see no benefit to it.

At the end of the day I wouldn't be surprised to see a rapid rail backbone and a few light rail lines too. Heck, maybe we'll even have LRT's running up Bank Street, bringing people to the redeveloped Lansdowne.

[lrt's friend]

Welcome new contributor RTWAP!

The problem I have seen is this city's inability to reach consensus on any matter. The closer we come to consenus and actually prepare to accomplish something concrete, the more naysayers suddenly come out of the woodwork. You can count on it. It is like a signal. We are going to build something then a certain type of taxpayer needs to stop it, at all cost.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Ciemny

How is HRT cvheaper then LRT if it needs its own specific rights of way and the technology is slightly different, this I do not understand. Is this even appropriate in Ottawa....maybe with our longer distances to the suburbs....could bring rail there sooner. Also what about headways..........

HRT isn't cheaper than LRT since it pretty much has to be grade-separated with everything everywhere. It might be cheaper to operate if the trains are very long and/or automated or travel considerably faster, but that's about it. I don't see how HRT would help bring rail to the suburbs any sooner due to being more expensive. HRT has headways that can be even shorter than LRT due to complete corridor separation.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I always thought that heavy rail trains had slower acceleration.

Assuming we're talking about heavy rail metro (and not mainline railways) I'm not sure. They're heavier in part because of more motive power and taking up power from a third rail means greater power availability.

When we talk about grade separation, does this mean that all level crossings have to eliminated? If so, does this not mean that we have to trash the North-South rail plan for south of Hunt Club that includes a number of level crossings.

Yes, and yes. It also means that my favourite whipping target - the roller coaster overpasses of the railways - would also have to be deleted as they exceed the gradient that HRT can climb. Instead of going over they would have to go under (which is what they should have done all along anyway).

If grade separation means no level crossings, how can this possibly be cheaper to build?

It isn't. Who said such a thing? Cullen said it was "cheaper" but he might have meant "to operate" as there could be operational savings. Maybe the vehicles are cheaper since the high-floor style does not necessitate specialized design and engineering (I'll have to check on this one). Or he might not know what he's talking about.

I also get concerned about trains carrying even more passengers. That just points to the likelihood of even less frequent service.

The good news here is that we're unlikely to get longer trains than 180 m, whatever we do.

Do heavy rail trains also impact the curves that the trains can handle? Does this mean that Transitway conversion will involve greater costs?

Yes, and quite possibly. The Transitway was designed for conversion not just to light rail but to full heavy rail metro as well. BRT was sometimes called a "bus-based metro". It will have consequences in corridors like the Pinecrest Creek corridor between Lincoln Fields and Baseline (which is basically a rural highway right now), and also in whatever happens between Dominion and Lincoln Fields. For the conversion itself it means no possibility of phasing out BRT and phasing in rail - it will require a complete shutdown.

Does this all just extend the debate before anything actually gets built?

Yes


I figured this discussion was coming when I was at the technology forum back in June(?). There seemed to be quite the enthusiasm for either light metro (ALRT/SkyTrain) or full metro. Some people were all gung-ho for full grade separation (no worries!) and complete automation (no strikes!). Some even wanted Asian-style platform sliding doors. I pointed out that a metro-style system would have implications for future suburban extensions, the conversion itself, and for vehicle and station design (what point is there in low-floor designs when everything is grade-separated anyway?). Metro systems are the easy answer to everything except cost and time-to-completion. By making them separate from everything else, the difficulties of everything else can just be excluded; such difficulties as do exist are solved with more money.

My longer term concern is that rapid transit will increasingly become out-of-sight and out-of-mind. I don't really regard travelling long distances underground in trenches and tunnels to be desirable from the user's point of view.

If we're going to contemplate a metro then frankly it should be done around routes quite different than those of the Transitway. There should be a north-south route coming from Hull, under the river and down the Bank Street alignment to about Billings Bridge. An East-West alignment should follow Carling Avenue - downtown - Rideau/Montreal Rd. A metro should have lots more walk-on opportunities than any of the Transitway corridors currently do.

[waterloowarrior]

Like Dado and RTWAP said, I don't think we should be too suprised given some of the discussion at the LRT technology forum. Alstom for instance recommeneded metro over LRT. Staff previously had said that a report to council on technology specifications was planned for this fall.

[lrt's friend]

Good grief, doesn't this point to a very faulty planning process since Larry O'Brien's election? The politicians have been planning the rail system instead of the rail and transit experts.

I agree that a metro system should run through dense neighbourhoods where people live, work, shop and play to maximize walk-on access and to encourage the most intensification. The Transitways have always served a completely different purpose, moving commuters into the city from the suburbs.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Good grief, doesn't this point to a very faulty planning process since Larry O'Brien's election? The politicians have been planning the rail system instead of the rail and transit experts.

But this HRT stuff is all coming from non-politicians. The same is true of the "need" for a tunnel, it's unusual depth and paucity of stations, as is every other anomaly that Richard and I have identified. I don't subscribe to the "it's all the politicians' fault" theory one bit. We don't have any rail experts on staff (they left when it was clear the O-Train wasn't going to be extended) and none of our senior transit "planners" even has a degree in planning - they're all engineers and they think that qualifies them to be a transportation planner. The most senior bona fide planner is Colin Simpson and he's the only one I can talk to without getting immediately ticked off; the rest are far too condescending. The engineers also seem to think it's acceptable to make stuff up on the fly if they don't know. You practically have to have a briefcase full of sourced notes of anything conceivable on hand if you talk to them. To even get the O-Train pilot in the first place Bob Chiarelli had to have then-GM Ian Stacey pushed out of OC Transpo, such was the internal opposition from within the BRT-loving bureaucracy. Our transportation planning problems have existed long before Larry O'Brien showed up; it's just the longer the problems fester the more apparent they become.

[waterloowarrior]

The Third Option for Rail



By Kenneth_Gray Tue, Oct 6 2009 COMMENTS(0) The Bulldog
Filed under: light rail, City of Ottawa, OC Transpo, Alex Cullen, transit


Here is a memo, dated Oct. 5 and supplied by Bay Councillor Alex Cullen, concerning the new third option for rail transit in Ottawa:
This memo is to update Councillors on the development of the LRT Technology Choice report that will be tabled at the October 21, 2009 Transit Committee.

The selection of the appropriate transit mode(s) for the City of Ottawa is a major component of the Transportation Master Plan process. As part of this process, City staff have been working towards a recommendation of rail technology, based on a) the predicted passenger volumes, b) its fit into the urban environment, c) minimizing operating costs, d) ability to respond to future changes to the City and the demand for travel, e) technological innovation f) it being a proven solution and, lastly g) its suitability for Ottawa's climate.

You will recall that the City of Ottawa hosted an international Transit Technology Forum back in June to help us determine the appropriate transit mode(s) for Ottawa's future rapid transit system. Many of you were in attendance at this Forum that brought together manufacturers, operators and transit experts from across North America to discuss various types of transit systems, best practices and lessons learned, with the objective of identifying optimal rail technology solutions for Ottawa.

One of the recommendations from the forum participants, given the size and ridership projections of the City of Ottawa, was that we explore Light Metro technology as an option. Light Metro is an electric Light Rail technology that is characterized by: higher carrying capacity, exclusive rights of way, advanced train control systems, short headway capability, and floor level boarding.

City staff, as part of the due diligence necessary in preparing the LRT Technology Choice Report, is in the process of analyzing a range of technologies, and will be presenting their recommendation to Transit Committee the 21st of October. The technology recommendation, as indicated in the Rapid Transit Plan Implementation Critical Path report, will be available as part of the DOTT EA Open House on October 26, 2009 before asking for Committee approval on November 18 and Council approval on November 25th.

If you have any further questions please don't hesitate to contact me at extension 12230.


Original signed by:


Nancy Schepers

[waterloowarrior]

So are they studying light metro or heavy rail... or both? Or are they saying that light metro is a type of heavy rail? I'm confused. Reminds me of the media calling the NS line a commuter rail line, an LRT and a streetcar.

Heavy Rail Option Proposed in June: Schepers
Josh Pringle
Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Ottawa's Deputy City Manager says City Staff are doing the "due diligence necessary" in studying Heavy Rail Transit as a technology option for the Transportation Master Plan.

Nancy Schepers says the idea of Light Metro technology as an option was recommended during an international Transit Technology Forum hosted by the City of Ottawa back in June.

In a memo to Councillors, Schepers says Light Metro is an electric Light Rail technology characterized by higher carrying capacity, exclusive rights of way, advanced train control systems and floor level boarding.

A report tol be presented to the Transit Committee on October 21st will make a recommendation for the technology for the plan.

Schepers says City Staff have been working towards a recommendation of rail technology based on: A) the predicted passenger volumes, b) its fit into the urban environment, c) minimizing operating costs, d) ability to respond to future changes to the City and the demand for travel, e) technology innovation, f) it being a proven solution and g) its suitability for Ottawa's climate.

Some City Councillors are criticizing City Staff for looking at Heavy Rail Transit over the Light Rail Transit technology approved in the Transportation Master Plan.

Councillor Doug Thompson says heavy rail is "probably not a good omen" for the city, adding it's "casting doubts, I think, on whether we have our act together.

Thompson tells CFRA News it looks like the city is "off the track", and Council doesn't have its act together on transit.

[lrt's friend]

I was thinking the same thing. Are they talking about heavy rail or skytrain type train, which is automated light rail or both? Now Jan Harder is resurrecting commuter rail. They are all over the map. Talk about indecisive. I keep looking at what Denver is doing. They determined what corridors were available, and then what technology made sense on each corridor and finally worked out the details.

Ottawa really doesn't look like they know what they are doing. Look at Metrolinx as well. How long did it take to come up with their much more complex rapid transit expansion plan? They have left us in the dust.

[Kitchissippi]

This whole planning process has been so badly managed and Council has been ill-informed. My feeling is that there has been cowardice at the start to put out big thinking to prevent an outcry, and the preoccupation with cheap solutions is catching up with future limitations. I would have asked the industry experts much earlier, and along with their pitch, get them to propose their idea for the transit system appropriate to their technology with some rough ideas in costs

[MalcolmTucker]

^ Preoccupation on old solutions, as in from the previous plan, not cheap solutions. That they were thinking about low floor LRT up to this point is what got the project 180m long stations to get the amount of people through they wanted. With most of the stations already built, the cost savings for stations low floor vs high floor is minimal, but then you end up with monster long stations.

I think the project should just be put out to tender with the corridors they want it built in, and the capacity the city wants, and let the bidders decide the technology. All these stupid arguments could be put to bed.

[lrt's friend]

Do we really know what corridors that we want for rail transit? There is disagreement about this too. This is how pathetic our attempts have been.

[eternallyme]

The biggest problem is that the city bureaucrats are acting like dictators and are unwilling to let an independent consultant get involved.

[Franky]

Or that LRT isn't a good solution to our transit problems.

[waterloowarrior]

Light-rail ruckus over nothing
 
'Heavy rail' reports wrong, as any informed councillor should have known
 
BY RANDALL DENLEY, THE OTTAWA CITIZENOCTOBER 6, 2009 7:40 AMBE THE
 
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Light+rail+ruckus+over+nothing/2070203/story.html
 
Randall Denley
Photograph by: The Ottawa Citizen, The Ottawa Citizen

Is it too much to expect that city councillors in charge of making a multibillion-dollar transit decision would grasp the basic elements of the project?

There was yet another rail shocker Monday when the media revealed that the city is considering a heavy rail system as an alternative to the light rail councillors have been talking about for years. It's actually not true, but that didn't stop some city councillors from reacting in shock and horror.

When people here use the term "heavy rail," they are generally referring to something like the O-Train, which is big and diesel-powered. Councillor Alex Cullen, who says his comments were misconstrued in a media interview, says there is absolutely no heavy-rail option on the table, but the city is considering two different types of light-rail technology.

Councillors Maria McRae and Christine Leadman expressed frustration at yet another rail surprise. Councillor Doug Thompson followed that up on the radio, saying that council had dropped the ball. Actually, it hasn't, but too many councillors aren't in the game.

If councillors wanted to know what was actually going on, all they had to do was call deputy city manager Nancy Schepers, who is in charge of the rail project. By mid-afternoon Monday, Schepers had heard from exactly zero councillors seeking clarification.

This will probably be news to councillors, but back in June the city (that's the place where you work, folks) organized a two-day symposium that brought together major North American rail transit operators and three of the largest manufacturers to provide the latest thinking on what kind of light-rail cars are available and what would best suit Ottawa. Half a dozen councillors put in an appearance at the event, but only two actually stuck around for the whole thing.

Rail operators from other cities were advising Ottawa to look seriously at a type of light rail called "light metro," Schepers says. While still electric light rail, light-metro trains are larger than the overhead-wire types that Ottawa had been talking about and they have to be grade-separated. In other words, they aren't suitable for running on city streets. This will likely disqualify the light-metro option in the end, but Schepers says the trains are cheaper to buy, carry more people and are cheaper to operate than the smaller electrified trains. Given those advantages, she felt that the city should assess these larger-light rail trains as well as the overhead-wire-powered ones. A report on the merits of each and a staff recommendation will be released later this month and there will be lots of time for public consultation.

Councillors know they will have to make a technology decision and they have been walked through the timetable. What they didn't know is which light-rail alternatives are being considered. Of course, they could have asked.

None of this constitutes a new plan. The city wants a light-rail system from Tunney's Pasture to Blair Road through a downtown tunnel. Councillors have made that decision. It probably even seems familiar to them. What's left to decide is what type of light-rail cars the city will specify.

It's an important decision, but it will have little effect on the first phase of the rail plan. The whole Tunney's to Blair route is grade-separated and changes in station design won't cost more, Schepers says.

The real impact of the decision will come when the city is finally able to extend rail further east and west. The light-metro trains would require expensive grade-separation. The alternative would be to use light rail and require people to transfer at Blair and Tunney's, as they will do in the short term from buses. That doesn't sound too desirable. Getting through the Ottawa River Parkway would also be a problem for the light-metro cars. The alternative is a grade-separated system on Byron, which has long been on the list to be considered. This alternative still shocked councillors McRae and Leadman. The time they spent posing for a picture in front of a puddle on Byron might have been better spent informing themselves about what's going on.

McRae complains that staff hasn't told councillors all the details in a timely way. It wouldn't have hurt to have spelled out the two alternatives being assessed, but both are light rail and the answer was only a phone call away.

A councillor's job is to know what's going on and tell the public, not to amplify things that barely qualify as half-truths. There is really no excuse for not being on top of the vital light-rail file.

Contact Randall Denley at 613-596-3756 or by e-mail, [email protected]

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen