Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Franky]

The Byron/Richmond route would require a lot of trees be cut down. I know there is a Community Association that will fight to keep their bit of greenspace.

[eternallyme]

That Richmond/Byron plan definitely would be a preferable alignment.

There is little operational loss in reducing Richmond Road to 2 lanes, as traffic volumes and flow don't really warrant 4 lanes. The whole route should be at-grade, except for beneath Richmond and Woodroffe.

As for stations, the length of the route is 4.2 km between Lincoln Fields and Westboro. That would warrant 3 new stations on that section, since in a higher-density urban area spacing should be about 1 km.

Dominion Station should be relocated into the field to the west. The route should remain below grade until it clears Richmond Road (necessary to fit a station in there). It should return to grade between Fraser and Westminster Avenues.

The second station (Sherbourne Station) should be at Sherbourne Road. It should be at-grade, with a pedestrian overpass to safely cross the tracks. All of Westminster, Windermere, Wavell and Redwood should be closed at Byron to avoid grade conflicts (access to Richmond Road would be at Fraser and Woodroffe), although a crossing for emergency vehicles only could be introduced at Redwood or Wavell.

The route should dip below grade at Lockhart in order to clear Woodroffe (that cannot be closed), returning to grade at Ancaster (which would be closed). The third station (Woodroffe Station) should be between Ancaster and Woodland. Due to the high amount of expropriation required for a surface alignment, it should then drop into a tunnel between Richardson and the entrance to Lincoln Fields.

As for the trees being cut down, not nearly as many as the Parkway alignment for sure.

[waterloowarrior]

Off the tracks

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/tracks/2084865/story.html

The Ottawa CitizenOctober 8, 2009Comments (3)
Just when Ottawans thought they had heard everything on the light-rail file, the innovative souls at city hall have another bright idea.

Confusing enough that the experts on Laurier Avenue already have two options for rail, now they have a third: "light metro." It's a heavier, larger system than conventional light rail. Perhaps city planning staff could design a system to carry freight as well, to offset construction costs.

Seriously, this is about as odd an idea as has come out of city hall in some time. Digging a trench along the old Byron trolleyway park just north of Highland Park for these beasts? That's just slightly less brutal a planning decision than running steam trains through slums in 19th-century Manchester. Already you can hear the sound of low-heeled sensible shoes of the well-heeled in Highland Park, marching toward city hall. The members of the formidable Westboro Community Association are devouring raw meat.
This would be a good time for councillors and staff to take a vacation.

Worse is that the transportation chairwoman Maria McRae didn't know a thing about these discussions. Neither did the councillor for the area, Kitchissippi's Christine Leadman. Nor did the public.

However Bay Councillor Alex Cullen, the chairman of the city transit committee, was aware of this third option. In fact, during the last election campaign, Cullen supported a heavy-rail plan. Now suddenly this eccentric idea has come to the fore.

During the first light-rail debate, critics condemned the supposed secrecy. At least in that case an argument could be made that the secrecy was necessary, in order to protect proprietary information. But if transportation officials are now back to square one and talking about heavy rail, that's something people should know about.

Cullen knew that that this light metro is on the table. If he can't see the
folly of the idea, then his aspirations to be mayor of Ottawa just got hit by a train.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[waterloowarrior]

Third Open House and Presentation of the Recommended Plan and Technology Choice

Monday, October 26, 2009
Ottawa City Hall
Main Floor Rotunda Area
110 Laurier Avenue West
Transit Routes: 5, 6, 14, and Transitway routes

The City of Ottawa is undertaking planning and functional design for the DOTT that will result in the expansion and improvement of its downtown rapid transit network. This project is identified as a priority within the City’s Transportation Master Plan Update, which recognized the need for a rapid transit facility fully separated from general traffic through Ottawa’s downtown to accommodate existing and future transit ridership, while improving service reliability.

Previous open houses provided an overview of potential alignments and alternative station designs, as well as the Maintenance and Storage Facility needed to support operation of the new rapid transit line. In May, 2009 Ottawa City Council approved the recommended alignment and station locations. Since that time the project team has commenced functional design of the project to develop more details regarding the planning, design and construction and cost of all elements of the project.
The City has also carried out a study to determine the appropriate transit technology for the DOTT and future extensions to the City of Ottawa’s rail rapid transit network. The findings and recommendations of this study will be presented as a part of this open house and presentation.
Your Input is Needed!

The open house and presentation will showcase the functional design work that has been completed for the DOTT project as well as the recommendations of the Transit Technology Choice Study. Your participation in this event, which will help shape the future of Ottawa, is important. The open house will run from 5 to 8:30 p.m. The presentation will begin at 7 p.m.
Project Information

Information on the DOTT project is available on the City’s website at: ottawa.ca/tunnel. In addition, you can send comments by e-mail, regular mail or fax using the contact information provided below.
Project Contact

Dennis Gratton, MCIP, RPP
Senior Project Manager
Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability
Planning and Growth Management Department
City of Ottawa
110 Laurier Avenue West, 4th Floor
Ottawa, ON K1P 1J1
Tel: 613-580-2424 ext. 27890
Fax: 613-580-2578
E-mail: [email protected]
The Project Environmental Assessment (EA) Phase will be initiated after completion of the Project Planning and Functional Design Phase. This will consist of a co-ordinated EA that meets the requirements of the new “Transit Project Assessment Process” (Ontario Regulation 231/08) under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (OEAA) and the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA).

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by Dado

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 ...

I was not aware there was a debate about the depth of the tunnel, or the number of stations. Could you direct me to wherever the loud noises are?

Thanks.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

That Richmond/Byron plan definitely would be a preferable alignment.

There is little operational loss in reducing Richmond Road to 2 lanes, as traffic volumes and flow don't really warrant 4 lanes. The whole route should be at-grade, except for beneath Richmond and Woodroffe.

As for stations, the length of the route is 4.2 km between Lincoln Fields and Westboro. That would warrant 3 new stations on that section, since in a higher-density urban area spacing should be about 1 km.

Dominion Station should be relocated into the field to the west. The route should remain below grade until it clears Richmond Road (necessary to fit a station in there). It should return to grade between Fraser and Westminster Avenues.

The second station (Sherbourne Station) should be at Sherbourne Road. It should be at-grade, with a pedestrian overpass to safely cross the tracks. All of Westminster, Windermere, Wavell and Redwood should be closed at Byron to avoid grade conflicts (access to Richmond Road would be at Fraser and Woodroffe), although a crossing for emergency vehicles only could be introduced at Redwood or Wavell.

The route should dip below grade at Lockhart in order to clear Woodroffe (that cannot be closed), returning to grade at Ancaster (which would be closed). The third station (Woodroffe Station) should be between Ancaster and Woodland. Due to the high amount of expropriation required for a surface alignment, it should then drop into a tunnel between Richardson and the entrance to Lincoln Fields.

As for the trees being cut down, not nearly as many as the Parkway alignment for sure.

That seems like a viable alternative. I wouldn't want to be responsible for the public consultation on that one though.

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by Dado

Send them to Calgary. ... Calgary's planners have figured they can manage 36 trains per hour (100 s headways) downtown, when the most we'll need is 25 trains per hour in 2031 (assuming Emme2's modelling is worth what we pay for it, anyway). Calgary doesn't use full grade-separation. Calgary has multiple lines converging on the downtown without grade-separation of the crossings, something we don't even have to worry about. And that's downtown, whereas we're talking about grade separation or not elsewhere. In short, we're not at the point where we need grade separation downtown, let alone needing it everywhere else.

I would be interested in knowing what your preferred option for a surface system in downtown Ottawa would look like (i.e., its alignment, station locations, level of transit priority, etc.).

Weren't they dooming and glooming that one not too long ago? Of course that means they can keep buses running in the West Transitway trench, which means that the NCC won't be rid of the buses (suckers!), and it means that OC Transpo can keep running express buses all the way from Kanata, made all the easier by the construction of the final legs of the West Transitway. Once they get downtown, they can keep going on Albert and Slater (now clear of those pesky 90-series buses that actually carry the bulk of the passengers) and out down the Central Transitway (since the tunnel goes below) and then across either the existing or the new "interim" bridge before landing at Hurdman, where they can head off down the SE Transitway or that bizarre Hospital Link busway that won't go to the hospitals. Yes, I do imagine that Carling has a decent chance after all.

How would these buses make their way between Tunney’s Pasture and Bayview, since there would be rail stump between these two stations that would occupy the current Transitway section? Also, I can’t see how the Albert/Slater Coalition would allow this to happen. This being said, for me, this arrangement would be a hell of a lot better than taking a feeder to Tunney’s Pasture or, more likely, Bayview. One could easily see the STO buses using Albert and Slater as well.

I’ll re-iterate what I’ve said before about the Carling route. It would a lot more expensive and I would expect its ridership to be lower (especially during the peak periods), because it would be slower, and bypass Tunney’s Pasture and Westboro, two busy stations that will continue to grow. Having the main east-west line bypass Tunney’s Pasture in particular is nonsensical. And there is plenty of development potential along the existing corridor and even more so if they go down Byron/Richmond.

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by Deez

- The NS line will remain LRT/non grade separated and there would therefore be a transfer at Bayview. If/when we ever get a regional transportation planning authority or if Gatineau comes to it senses, this line will extend north across the river to the old City of Gatineau. Rapibus —.

You are entitled to your opinion regarding Rapibus, although you did not explain why you have those views. Irrespective, I’d venture to say that the people of Gatineau would much prefer a direct ride to downtown Ottawa (which most of them currently enjoy) or a one-transfer ride over the nightmarish two-transfer bus feeder/rail system that the City of Ottawa seems to want to impose on them.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

That Richmond/Byron plan definitely would be a preferable alignment.

There is little operational loss in reducing Richmond Road to 2 lanes, as traffic volumes and flow don't really warrant 4 lanes.

You should tell that to the City - it's in the TMP to widen it to 4 lanes someday. One of the biggest ancillary benefits of LRT in the Richmond/Byron corridor would be that it would physically block any attempt at widening Richmond.

The whole route should be at-grade, except for beneath Richmond and Woodroffe.

As for stations, the length of the route is 4.2 km between Lincoln Fields and Westboro. That would warrant 3 new stations on that section, since in a higher-density urban area spacing should be about 1 km.

Dominion Station should be relocated into the field to the west. The route should remain below grade until it clears Richmond Road (necessary to fit a station in there). It should return to grade between Fraser and Westminster Avenues.

I'd split the tracks as they emerge from the tunnel and run one down each side of the tramway park. The westbound track would be alongside Richmond and would take out the third/fourth lane(s) along there, thus reducing the tree stumping count. The eastbound track would be alongside Byron where there's a bit of a paved then gravel shoulder and poor quality grass in which the hydro poles stand before the tree line is reached - the width can be judged by the presence of the cube van:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&geo...QOLYil5c5PUV2xDi4-OQw&cbp=12,233.47,,0,5

The second station (Sherbourne Station) should be at Sherbourne Road. It should be at-grade, with a pedestrian overpass to safely cross the tracks.

Or you just do what Calgary does - put it at grade. Stations are fairly safe locations for crossings since the trains are either stopped or slowly to come to a stop.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_...KwmEiMAaPH4vHHQ8iWQg&cbp=12,38.21,,0,6.7

All of Westminster, Windermere, Wavell and Redwood should be closed at Byron to avoid grade conflicts (access to Richmond Road would be at Fraser and Woodroffe), although a crossing for emergency vehicles only could be introduced at Redwood or Wavell.

Not having a crossing at Redwood/Cleary is a bit of a downer - that neighbourhood is really getting cut off from Richmond under this scheme.

The route should dip below grade at Lockhart in order to clear Woodroffe (that cannot be closed), returning to grade at Ancaster (which would be closed). The third station (Woodroffe Station) should be between Ancaster and Woodland.

Ancaster is too far east (too close to the station at Sherbourne), and too close to the underpass as well - I'm pretty sure it would still be sloped until about Allison. Between Harcourt and New Orchard makes the most sense because it's right opposite the traffic light at New Orchard, giving closer to access to the nursing home and the apartments on Ambleside as well as being a logical place for a grade crossing of an extended New Orchard to replace the current mixture of outlets and inlets (trains are stopped or about to come to a stop). From a NIMBY perspective New Orchard is least objectionable as well since it only goes one block south of Byron - the possibility of the much feared "cut-thru" traffic is much reduced with New Orchard.

Due to the high amount of expropriation required for a surface alignment, it should then drop into a tunnel between Richardson and the entrance to Lincoln Fields.

Eh? Just move Richmond over into the field (the line of trees would separate Richmond and the rail line) and expropriate the gas station at McEwen, then run the line down the former Richmond roadbed. The access to the infill in the triangle formed with Hartleigh and Midway is currently on Richmond (due to NIMBY) but provision was made (probably quietly ) for an access on Midway with a little bit of wall knocking-down:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&geo...4Y94KvRwjvcHQ6_VveRCg&cbp=12,357.04,,0,5

The last problem is the apartment tower opposite McEwen, but it is manageable. There is room to get light rail in between it and the bridge:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&geo...CHo5XxYbrhSvLcJw2ZYSw&cbp=12,189.98,,0,5

If you pan the above view to the left you can see that there is enough room to create a new access to Edgeworth on the south side of the rail line, which itself can then be extended to Richmond on an overpass of the rail line (since the LRT line would have to be going into a short trench to drop the grade to Lincoln Fields, and putting it into a cutting alongside the infill is probably just as well). Currently it's closed off (good 'ol NIMBY) but all that would be required is to move the cut-off point to the position of the following view:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&geo...8ok3J4pDbSHgZizmsyg&cbp=12,330.87,,0,2.2
(pan to the left to see the space for the access from the apartment block)

Midway and Edgeworth could also be connected up (pan right), to restore access to Richmond from the infill project without fundamentally changing traffic patterns. A nice roundabout in this area might be the way to solve the issue of traffic converging on a single point from 5 or 6 directions as well as a neat way to change Richmond's alignment without.

Shifting Richmond as it comes off the bridge to go through the gas station would possibly compromise the access to the apartment on the other side of Richmond - but since the gas station will be gone the access can go through there instead, or a new access could be built to the north through the former tramway alignment.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Suzie

I would be interested in knowing what your preferred option for a surface system in downtown Ottawa would look like (i.e., its alignment, station locations, level of transit priority, etc.).

We discussed one option back in June or July for the sole use of Albert.

If Albert and Slater continue to be used, there are two options as I see. One is to continue using the current bus lanes in the second lane out arrangement, with platforms and parking/utility/turn lanes in the curb lane. Platform curb cuts opposite the LRV couplers could be used where there is no other low-cost option.

A second option is to place the tracks in the current utility lane, with the platform in the second lane (as a sort of island). There are some definite advantages with this arrangement. For one, all traffic is kept to the left of the trains. Right turn lanes can be created in the platform lane (past the platform), with signal pre-emption over right-turning traffic by the trains. Back-ups of right-turning traffic won't impede the trains, just regular traffic. Elsewhere, where there isn't platform, the second lane could be given over to parking and loading. Some degree of low-level physical separation (like a two foot-wide "median" with concrete bollards) would be needed to prevent mindless wandering into the tracks. Loading (and platform access) would simply be across the tracks (bearing in mind that even at peak periods there'd only be a train every 2.5 minutes). Such an arrangement also visually narrows the street. Naturally, the disadvantages are a virtually complete cutting-off of accesses behind platforms (meaning other options have to be explored) and the separation of the platform from the sidewalk could raise concerns of safety and lack of pedestrian continuity.

Running the trains on the left side of the streets has been ruled out in the past due to the number of accesses that would be affected, especially on Slater.

How would these buses make their way between Tunney’s Pasture and Bayview, since there would be rail stump between these two stations that would occupy the current Transitway section? Also, I can’t see how the Albert/Slater Coalition would allow this to happen. This being said, for me, this arrangement would be a hell of a lot better than taking a feeder to Tunney’s Pasture or, more likely, Bayview. One could easily see the STO buses using Albert and Slater as well.

I don't know how they would make their way east of Tunney's Pasture. All that I can be sure of is if that trench is without rails west of Tunney's Pasture, it will be used for buses. They'll find a way.

You are entitled to your opinion regarding Rapibus, although you did not explain why you have those views. Irrespective, I’d venture to say that the people of Gatineau would much prefer a direct ride to downtown Ottawa (which most of them currently enjoy) or a one-transfer ride over the nightmarish two-transfer bus feeder/rail system that the City of Ottawa seems to want to impose on them.

Where do you get the idea that that's what the City of Ottawa wants to do? The only idea I get is that they have no idea what they're going to do at all because neither they nor the STO nor the NCC has thought about it. I could go into a great long spiel about how each has studied only its narrow little thing without regard to anyone else or the good of the wider region as a whole but it's just tiresome.

[Kitchissippi]

Personally I would like to see light metro as the chosen technology and at the same time, since it will probably favour a Byron/Richmond route, a reconsideration of the phasing like this:



My thought on this is that we could probably live with this set up far longer than a Tunney's to Blair line if the funding dries up. Also, implementation would have the least effect on Transitway operations with buses using the entire length of the Ottawa River Parkway while the route is being constructed. If the DOTT was extended to Hurdman, BRT operations could remain virtually untouched until the MRT comes on line.

There would also be an option that future expansion would be surface LRT, for example a Kanata to Carling line or an Orleans to Confederation line.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Personally I would like to see light metro as the chosen technology and at the same time, since it will probably favour a Byron/Richmond route, a reconsideration of the phasing like this:



My thought on this is that we could probably live with this set up far longer than a Tunney's to Blair line if the funding dries up. Also, implementation would have the least effect on Transitway operations with buses using the entire length of the Ottawa River Parkway while the route is being constructed. If the DOTT was extended to Hurdman, BRT operations could remain virtually untouched until the MRT comes on line.

There would also be an option that future expansion would be surface LRT, for example a Kanata to Carling line or an Orleans to Confederation line.

Would the future LRT require a transfer to MRT?

There's a lot of interesting stuff on that map. Is it from the city or did you make it?

The O-train into Gatineau would curve in towards Place du Portage? Single or double track? Electric or diesel?

Interesting connection from Barrhaven to Kanata and a new bridge from Lincoln fields to Aylmer?

No LRT to the Airport, only BRT?

Oh, and more stations in the DT tunnel?

[Kitchissippi]

I made the map up from the old TMP studies, with a few additions

[Dado]

Originally Posted by RTWAP

I was not aware there was a debate about the depth of the tunnel, or the number of stations. Could you direct me to wherever the loud noises are?

Thanks.

Earlier pages in this thread is where you'll find the most loud noises. Page 59 and the pages that follow is a pretty good place to start. You can also go back about a year ago to find a little bit more info.

There hasn't been much of a debate per se on these issues here - I'd venture to say most of us here are in agreement that two stations in the core is one station too few. Most, though not all of us, also think that station depths of 25-30 m (8-10 storeys) is far from ideal, especially given that there isn't any great rationale for it (it's being done for what appears to be two reasons: to allow the route to pass beneath certain downtown buildings with deep parking garages and to allow the stations to be mined out from below rather than dug down from the surface). There's been somewhat more debate on the desirability of a tunnel at all.

Ken Gray over at the Citizen has been talking about the cost of a tunnel and how that might jeopardize the entire plan, but he hasn't gone into the specific issues like depth and number of stations.

[waterloowarrior]

O-Train: Steady or stuck?

tim wieclawski/metro ottawa

http://www.metronews.ca/ottawa/local/article/339239--o-train-steady-or-stuck

Tomorrow, the O-Train marks its eighth year of service in Ottawa.

TIM WIECLAWSKI
METRO OTTAWA
October 14, 2009 5:29 a.m.
Be the first to comment
Print article
Text size

Tomorrow, the O-Train will mark its eighth anniversary of service and supporters say they are frustrated that such a “perfect” system hasn’t progressed one inch beyond its original configuration.

Yesterday morning, members of Friends of the O-Train took a celebratory ride on the train to mark the bittersweet occasion.

That the O-Train has become an integral piece of the transit network is reason to celebrate, said Friends of the O-Train founder David Gladstone. When it was launched, critics called it the “Train to Nowhere,” he said.

Today, it accounts for more than 10,000 trips per day. “It is a core transit service. There would be immense problems caused if you have no O-Train,” said Gladstone.

Since the day it first ran, the O-Train had stops being called out — all five of them — and a digital display announcing the next stop. It’s similar to the technology the city is considering spending $17 million to put on buses.

But Gladstone and others are frustrated that despite its success, the O-Train is still stuck in its infancy.

Members of the Friends of the O-Train insist service should be expanded over to Gatineau via the Prince of Wales Bridge and south to Leitrim Road.

A recent report said it would cost $40 million to get the Prince of Wales Bridge in a good enough condition to extend the O-Train, but Friends of the O-Train member David Jeanes said that report was a hypothesis, and the real amount would be far lower.

Wasn't it partially their fault that such a “perfect” system hasn’t progressed one inch beyond its original configuration....?

[waterloowarrior]

City sketches LRT procurement timeline
By Peter Kovessy, Ottawa Business Journal Staff
Wed, Oct 14, 2009 4:00 PM EST
http://www.ottawabusinessjournal.com/295650365586026.php


A city official says the municipality will begin qualifying construction consortiums in mid-2010 to build the first phase of Ottawa's light-rail line, including the downtown tunnel that some are calling the biggest construction project in the city's history.

The request for qualifications process is expected to take eight months to a year and will be followed by a request for proposals being issued to qualified consortiums once preliminary design work is completed, said senior city project manager Dennis Gratton, adding actual construction should begin in 2012 or 2013.

A report must still go before committee and council outlining the procurement process, but city staff have already met with officials at Infrastructure Ontario, an arm's length provincial Crown corporation that uses private financing to renew and build public assets.

Speaking at the inaugural National Capital Heavy Construction Trade Show Wednesday, Mr. Gratton said the discussions have included the prospect of Infrastructure Ontario leading the project. The degree of private-sector involvement has also been debated, including the potential of having a private company operate or maintain the system, using an increasingly common public-private partnership model such as design-build-finance-maintain or design-build-finance-operate.

While it has not been definitively decided, Mr. Gratton said he believes government officials will award one large contract to a single consortium, rather than award several smaller contract packages. This was the route taken with the original north-south rail line, which would have been built by a consortium led by Siemens Canada Ltd., PCL Constructors Canada Inc. and Dufferin Construction Co.

This means that smaller companies must find the large firms that will be bidding on the project and align themselves with a bigger team. One local company with relevant niche expertise is Intera Engineering Ltd., which specializes in bedrock hydrogeology engineering consulting services.

"We need to find out who need to talk to, to make sure we are not forgotten," said Intera senior engineer Anthony West.

Ahead of the actual construction contract, there are several light-rail-related business opportunities o the horizon, particularly for Ottawa landowners.

The city has shortlisted approximately 10 candidate properties for the maintenance and storage facility. Staff will make a recommendation to council in December to purchase a particular property, which must be about 30 acres and be close to the rail line, said Mr. Gratton.

Additionally, the city issued a request for information earlier this year for downtown "mining" sites that will be used as staging areas, as well as to provide ventilation, emergency access and allow equipment to be transported underground.

While Mr. Gratton said in an interview that the city has received a "very good response" to the request for information, he said the city has not shortlisted any excavation sites.

The first phase of the city's light rail proposal calls for a 12.5 kilometre line, running from Tunney's Pasture in the west to Blair station in the east. It includes a 3.2-kilometre downtown tunnel, running from just east of Booth Street to the University of Ottawa campus, and 13 stations.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Wasn't it partially their fault that such a “perfect” system hasn’t progressed one inch beyond its original configuration....?

Have you not been to the odd Transit Committee meeting? Practically every session it seems they are there arguing to get the O-Train extended to Leitrim or to Gatineau or to Fallowfield, David Gladstone to the point of being tedious. I'm not too sure how the lack of progress in extending the O-Train can be blamed on them, of all people.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

City sketches LRT procurement timeline
By Peter Kovessy, Ottawa Business Journal Staff
Wed, Oct 14, 2009 4:00 PM EST
http://www.ottawabusinessjournal.com/295650365586026.php


...
Speaking at the inaugural National Capital Heavy Construction Trade Show Wednesday, Mr. Gratton said the discussions have included the prospect of Infrastructure Ontario leading the project. The degree of private-sector involvement has also been debated, including the potential of having a private company operate or maintain the system, using an increasingly common public-private partnership model such as design-build-finance-maintain or design-build-finance-operate.

While it has not been definitively decided, Mr. Gratton said he believes government officials will award one large contract to a single consortium, rather than award several smaller contract packages. This was the route taken with the original north-south rail line, which would have been built by a consortium led by Siemens Canada Ltd., PCL Constructors Canada Inc. and Dufferin Construction Co.

This means that smaller companies must find the large firms that will be bidding on the project and align themselves with a bigger team.

One would have thought we would have learned from the last time around... one giant contract, from end to end. Absolutely brilliant. I wonder if that is to include the vehicles as well? I sure hope not. And please no more of these infernal design-build-finance-maintain/operate partnerships. Calgary - that's Calgary, in Conservative Alberta where we might expect a greater willingness to go with partnerships - only does design-build. Perhaps they've figured out that such partnerships are not so good for the taxpayer.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by Dado

Have you not been to the odd Transit Committee meeting? Practically every session it seems they are there arguing to get the O-Train extended to Leitrim or to Gatineau or to Fallowfield, David Gladstone to the point of being tedious. I'm not too sure how the lack of progress in extending the O-Train can be blamed on them, of all people.

I am referring to their lobbying that helped to kill the viable, funded plan to extend, double track, and electrify the line. LRT in the hand is worth more than sidings and Budd cars in the bush...

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Dado

One would have thought we would have learned from the last time around... one giant contract, from end to end. Absolutely brilliant. I wonder if that is to include the vehicles as well? I sure hope not. And please no more of these infernal design-build-finance-maintain/operate partnerships. Calgary - that's Calgary, in Conservative Alberta where we might expect a greater willingness to go with partnerships - only does design-build. Perhaps they've figured out that such partnerships are not so good for the taxpayer.

Extensions to different lines in Calgary are operated in different ways. The small one or two stop extensions are tendered as multiple small projects, not one big one. The West LRT line, is one big detailed design, build, and partially finance through transfer and future development of land (but the city bought the land, is buying the LRT cars, and did most of the preliminary design).

The SE LRT will likely be contracted as a design, build, operate, finance since it does not tie into existing lines, will use different LRVs, will have its own independent maintenance, etc.

Different things work for different projects. If Ottawa ends up with an automated light metro, a design build operate would be great since you could avoid any problems OC Transpo staff might have with automated trains taking their jobs (they would still complain, but the contract is a contract).