Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Why do people here keep on forgetting that more buses = more drivers = higher operating costs? Is this a short-term memory thread?

More driver = more jobs = more property taxes.

Makes you wonder why they didn't choose automated transit over manual following that logic...

If only there were a cheaper, fully automated, electrically powered alternative.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Re: Central vs side platforms

It is all a matter trade offs cost wise. With side platforms, the only excavation you need wider than the tunnel is the station box, which can allow for narrower tunnels. Central platforms require approaches to widen the distance between the tracks. Since more excavation = more dollars, if the extra amount of excavation costs more than putting in a second elevator and over building stairs/escalators for the side platforms you go with side platforms, and vice versa.

Thanks, so it's just a cost trade-off.

I'm starting a rumour that stations will be gold leaf covered. They come in at $90M each now (2.25x initial estimate) and the tunnel is up to $735M!

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Franky

Thanks, so it's just a cost trade-off.

I'm starting a rumour that stations will be gold leaf covered. They come in at $90M each now (2.25x initial estimate) and the tunnel is up to $735M!

Well, given that Toronto's 130m stations, only two floors down on the Spadina extension are coming in north of $130 million each, Ottawa's stations price have nowhere to go but up.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Well, given that Toronto's 130m stations, only two floors down on the Spadina extension are coming in north of $130 million each, Ottawa's stations price have nowhere to go but up.

People have mentioned overbuilt bus transfer stations... Toronto has an interesting one proposed for Yonge/Steeles where the buses have a mid-street ramp down to an underground 25-bay bus terminal with a subway station underneath

http://www.vivanext.com/assets/files/enviroAssess/subways/yonge/updates/Station_Layout_Concepts.pdf slide 23

[MalcolmTucker]

Well, that isn't the same line that has been costed, but I assume the one you talk of will be even more expensive.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Well, that isn't the same line that has been costed, but I assume the one you talk of will be even more expensive.

Yep... the other Steeles West station on Spadina (one of the $130+ million station) is getting 18 bus bays, split between separate terminals for each transit system (York and Toronto)
http://www3.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commiss...29_2009/Reports/TYSSE_Steeles_West_S.pdf

Back to Ottawa... the Bayview Station looks pretty cool (see rocketphishes images below)

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

the sun has another video about the tunnel.. it shows some of the station profiles http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/200.../news/ottawa/2009/10/23/pf-11508501.html

And here are the station profile images that accompanied the video:

[MalcolmTucker]

Source: Ottawa Sun

That the graphic misses the tunnel between the Conference Centre and the Laurier is a tad disconcerting.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Yes, it was.

The NS LRT would have been in place today, drastically increasing the reach of rapid transit in this city. Planning would have been completed for the EW line.

Neither of which would have addressed the mess downtown.

Instead, we've barely built anything in the last 3 years, and will barely build anything for many more years.

The disaster is that our transit system has become stagnant.

That's no one's fault but Council and Staff. They've had plenty of opportunity to do something, but they've just got themselves into a process trap.

But I guess you don't care about transit, just rail.

Wrong. My opposition to a bad rail transit project is proof of that. But you, well, since you supported a bad transit project, I guess you don't care about transit.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The bus tunnel concept is sounding more attractive all the time as we only have to pay for the tunnel, we eliminate congestion downtown and Albert and Slater can continue to be used even if the tunnel reaches capacity. Furthermore, the bus tunnel will allow direct services across the city to keep the number of transfers reasonable. Think about it, a bus tunnel results in no need to convert the Transitway to rail, no need to purchase trains, and no need to build elaborate transfer stations at Baseline, Lincoln Fields, Tunney's Pasture, Bayview, Hurdman and Blair. This latter item is really starting to drive up the cost of the project.

You're starting to sound like Andy Haydon.

A bus tunnel would have to be wide enough for two lanes. That's a lot more material to pull out. We may even need two of them (if the 1988 study is followed, which it likely would be). The stations would probably be built with two lanes per direction, though it'll prove pointless. The stations themselves will have to be side-loaded, so no cost savings there. The way DOTT has increased, I doubt the bus tunnel(s) would come in at less than $1B.

The worst of it all though is that it won't solve congestion nearly as much as people think it will. People keep thinking that it's the cross streets that cause the delays, but they're not the biggest source of problems. It's simple dwell time. It always has been. Tunney's Pasture Station already suffers from minor westbound jams in the evenings, and it has a lot less loading than will the downtown stations, which, if the logic of the DOTT applies, will only be two in number and therefore really busy.

The interesting thing about the failures at Tunney's is how useless the passing lane actually becomes. Once the platform is full of buses, drivers arriving have little choice but to join the queue since they can't tell if there are passengers to pick up or not without going past the platform (since westbound express routes pick up passengers at Tunney's, virtually all buses have to go past the platform). If the platform isn't full, they can sometimes overtake some of the buses that are there and stop, but once the platform fills up that option disappears. Drivers arriving later won't overtake those who are already waiting while those already in the queue can't necessarily see when a spot opens up. Luckily the jams usually clear at Tunney's because even though all express drivers go past to see if anyone wants to get on, not every one actually ends up needing to stop. But downtown - that will not be the case. Every bus will stop every time and the passing lanes will only be of marginal benefit. In a way, even John Bonsall realized this in November 2007 when he suggested in his promotion of bus tunnels that two lanes were not necessary at stations in the tunnels (though he forgot about the need to be able to pass disabled buses in the narrow bore tunnels).

The tunnels approaching either side of the Downtown East station would be clogged up with buses because the passenger loadings of ~2.5 current stations (Metcalfe, Bank and some of Kent) would be going through the East station. The congestion problem would just be moved underground, out of sight and out of mind.

And so the current high-cost model would persist.

[acottawa]

I think a bus tunnel has been studied several times (including in the process that led to the current proposal) and each time has been found to be extremely expensive with a limited capacity.

Moreover, deep-tunnel, rail-based transit is a proven technology used in cities all over the world. I'm not aware of any city that uses BRT underground in a downtown area. Look at how much a very limited tunnel at baseline costs and how much time it will take to complete construction (in an area that does not have the space constraints of downtown).

People in Ottawa (and Gatineau) seem to have a strong aversion to transfers - a common (and simple) practice everywhere else. I wonder if this is because a transfer in Ottawa ususally involves standing in the middle of a wind-swept field or a crowded sidewalk). I guess a key element of getting buy in is to reassure people that transfers will be easier than what they have been used to.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think a bus tunnel has been studied several times (including in the process that led to the current proposal) and each time has been found to be extremely expensive with a limited capacity.

Moreover, deep-tunnel, rail-based transit is a proven technology used in cities all over the world. I'm not aware of any city that uses BRT underground in a downtown area. Look at how much a very limited tunnel at baseline costs and how much time it will take to complete construction (in an area that does not have the space constraints of downtown).

People in Ottawa (and Gatineau) seem to have a strong aversion to transfers - a common (and simple) practice everywhere else. I wonder if this is because a transfer in Ottawa ususally involves standing in the middle of a wind-swept field or a crowded sidewalk). I guess a key element of getting buy in is to reassure people that transfers will be easier than what they have been used to.

Seattle. Plus, they just added light rail to it (the tunnel was not originally designed for light rail, so it took 2 full years with the tunnel closed to convert it, since they needed to lower the floor)

As you can see below, only the stations in the underground portion have passing lanes, otherwise it looks like two narrow single bore tunnels. The tunnel was originally for trolley buses only, but now allows hybrid buses in addition to light rail. Source: Wiki (University Street Station in Seattle, taken by SarekOfVulcan.)

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Dado

You're starting to sound like Andy Haydon.

A bus tunnel would have to be wide enough for two lanes. That's a lot more material to pull out. We may even need two of them (if the 1988 study is followed, which it likely would be). The stations would probably be built with two lanes per direction, though it'll prove pointless. The stations themselves will have to be side-loaded, so no cost savings there. The way DOTT has increased, I doubt the bus tunnel(s) would come in at less than $1B.

The worst of it all though is that it won't solve congestion nearly as much as people think it will. People keep thinking that it's the cross streets that cause the delays, but they're not the biggest source of problems. It's simple dwell time. It always has been. Tunney's Pasture Station already suffers from minor westbound jams in the evenings, and it has a lot less loading than will the downtown stations, which, if the logic of the DOTT applies, will only be two in number and therefore really busy.

The interesting thing about the failures at Tunney's is how useless the passing lane actually becomes. Once the platform is full of buses, drivers arriving have little choice but to join the queue since they can't tell if there are passengers to pick up or not without going past the platform (since westbound express routes pick up passengers at Tunney's, virtually all buses have to go past the platform). If the platform isn't full, they can sometimes overtake some of the buses that are there and stop, but once the platform fills up that option disappears. Drivers arriving later won't overtake those who are already waiting while those already in the queue can't necessarily see when a spot opens up. Luckily the jams usually clear at Tunney's because even though all express drivers go past to see if anyone wants to get on, not every one actually ends up needing to stop. But downtown - that will not be the case. Every bus will stop every time and the passing lanes will only be of marginal benefit. In a way, even John Bonsall realized this in November 2007 when he suggested in his promotion of bus tunnels that two lanes were not necessary at stations in the tunnels (though he forgot about the need to be able to pass disabled buses in the narrow bore tunnels).

The tunnels approaching either side of the Downtown East station would be clogged up with buses because the passenger loadings of ~2.5 current stations (Metcalfe, Bank and some of Kent) would be going through the East station. The congestion problem would just be moved underground, out of sight and out of mind.

And so the current high-cost model would persist.

A single tunnel (with perhaps 3 lanes) would work OK so cost would be comparable to the rail ones.

Off-bus ticketing and question asking would improve dwell time. Off-bus ticketing is not possible on Albert/Slater because of lack of space.

Conversion of the tunnel to other technology would be fairly straightforward.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Franky

A single tunnel (with perhaps 3 lanes) would work OK so cost would be comparable to the rail ones.

Off-bus ticketing and question asking would improve dwell time. Off-bus ticketing is not possible on Albert/Slater because of lack of space.

Conversion of the tunnel to other technology would be fairly straightforward.

No it is not, you just need space for some ticket machines, and a bureaucracy attitude adjustment that it is ok to not have 100% control in exchange for efficiency. No need for a fare paid zone at the stations downtown.

[waterloowarrior]

Gatineau Interested in Using Prince of Wales Bridge for Transit
http://communities.canada.com/ottawaciti...-prince-of-wales-bridge-for-transit.aspx
By KENNETH_GRAY TUE, OCT 27 2009 COMMENTS(0) THE BULLDOG

Filed under: City of Ottawa, OC Transpo, bus, transit, Prince of Wales Bridge, Gatineau
Gatineau's transit authority STO has approached senior city staff about using the abandoned Prince of Wales Bridge.

"I would be interested in supporting using the O-Train across the bridge," said Barrhaven Councillor Jan Harder, who was told by a senior staffer this week that STO had made overtures to the City of Ottawa on the issue. "There is interest in the Prince of Wales Bridge."

Harder did not know if the STO wanted to put buses or trains across the old rail bridge which is on the same old freight train line as Ottawa's O-Train. The city bought the bridge for its scrap-metal value years ago in hope of putting the transit train across the span.

The councillor envisages a huge transit transfer point at Bayview where STO could move passengers to the Transitway downtown. She had not heard anything about cost, an operation date, or who would pay for the link.

Gatineau has opted for a rapid-bus system for transit, much the same as Ottawa's Transitway. That Quebec city has been the stumbling block for using the Prince of Wales Bridge because rail was not planned for Gatineau's transit future.

The news of Gatineau's interest in the bridge is a breakthrough for transit in the community. With only four bridges between the two parts of the national capital region, using the Prince of Wales would create a fifth, very economical link to join the communities.

[waterloowarrior]

City Hall unveils updated LRT plans
Monday, 26 October 2009
By Jessica Sims
http://centretownnewsonline.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1070&Itemid=126
Views : 64
Favoured : None
Published in : Centretown News, Breaking News

City Hall hosted an open house Monday night to show the public its most recent plans for light rail transit between Tunney’s Pasture and Blair Road.

On display were the final route, location and design for all 13 stations, including what the underground stops downtown would look like.

In total it showed 12.5 km of new light rail lines, including the 3.2-km tunnel stopping at four downtown stations (Downtown East, West, Rideau and the University of Ottawa).

Dennis Gratton, senior project manager, says this is a concept plan that still needs approval from the transportation committee in December, and then from city council.

The stations at Bayview, Lebreton, Hurdman and Blair would get some of the most remodelling, with platforms widened and new shelters built.

The underground stations would have two access points with escalators, elevators and stairs leading travellers 30 to 35 metres below street level. These stations are supposed to greatly reduce bus volume downtown, and the plan says the exclusive bus lanes along Rideau Street might even get converted for normal traffic.

Yet David Gladstone, a Centretown resident and founder of Friends of the O-Train, is not impressed with what he saw.

“It takes badness to new, new depths,” he says. “There’s absolutely no indications of value for money, there’s no estimates of ridership, there’s no description of what the problem was that this massive investment is actually going to solve.”

He also says the plan should have built on existing infrastructure, such as the railway lines that are already in place and the bridge over the Ottawa River.

Last week, city staff gave a new estimate of $2.1 billion for the transit plan, $400 million more than their previous estimate in December, 2008.

Gratton says the costs were raised because of factors that only became apparent in the new concept plan. These include the number of escalators and elevators needed, knowing what property to have to buy, and an art budget of around $10 million. The tunnel will also be 700 metres longer than first expected.

[Franky]

$168M/km or $269M/mile - yikes.

[waterloowarrior]

open house info is up... be sure to view the PDFs for the full information
http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/transit_tunnel/op_3/index_en.html

recommended plan (has each station/segment)
http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/transit_tunnel/op_3/recommended_plan/index_en.html

breakdown of project costs
http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/transit_tunnel/op_3/costs_35.pdf

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Dado

You're starting to sound like Andy Haydon.

A bus tunnel would have to be wide enough for two lanes. That's a lot more material to pull out. We may even need two of them (if the 1988 study is followed, which it likely would be). The stations would probably be built with two lanes per direction, though it'll prove pointless. The stations themselves will have to be side-loaded, so no cost savings there. The way DOTT has increased, I doubt the bus tunnel(s) would come in at less than $1B.

The worst of it all though is that it won't solve congestion nearly as much as people think it will. People keep thinking that it's the cross streets that cause the delays, but they're not the biggest source of problems. It's simple dwell time. It always has been. Tunney's Pasture Station already suffers from minor westbound jams in the evenings, and it has a lot less loading than will the downtown stations, which, if the logic of the DOTT applies, will only be two in number and therefore really busy.

The interesting thing about the failures at Tunney's is how useless the passing lane actually becomes. Once the platform is full of buses, drivers arriving have little choice but to join the queue since they can't tell if there are passengers to pick up or not without going past the platform (since westbound express routes pick up passengers at Tunney's, virtually all buses have to go past the platform). If the platform isn't full, they can sometimes overtake some of the buses that are there and stop, but once the platform fills up that option disappears. Drivers arriving later won't overtake those who are already waiting while those already in the queue can't necessarily see when a spot opens up. Luckily the jams usually clear at Tunney's because even though all express drivers go past to see if anyone wants to get on, not every one actually ends up needing to stop. But downtown - that will not be the case. Every bus will stop every time and the passing lanes will only be of marginal benefit. In a way, even John Bonsall realized this in November 2007 when he suggested in his promotion of bus tunnels that two lanes were not necessary at stations in the tunnels (though he forgot about the need to be able to pass disabled buses in the narrow bore tunnels).

The tunnels approaching either side of the Downtown East station would be clogged up with buses because the passenger loadings of ~2.5 current stations (Metcalfe, Bank and some of Kent) would be going through the East station. The congestion problem would just be moved underground, out of sight and out of mind.

And so the current high-cost model would persist.

Yes, $1B was the estimate for a bus tunnel. Still a far cry from the cost we are talking about for building a rail tunnel and converting the Transitways.

You can still have some of the rail tunnel benefits, namely preboarding payment, which will definitely speed up service, whether rail or buses. Also, the other benefit, is that Albert and Slater will still be accessible from the Transitways, so not all buses need to be routed into the tunnel. This is where the capacity benefit really comes from. There has also been mention of having the buses running in the opposite direction so that central platforms are possible within the tunnel.

If you would have read my full post, we would be increasing our downtown capacity to at least 380 buses per hour, at least double of what we can handle today. This will be more than LRT can ever handle.

You can also redesign the bus network to more resemble LRT with fewer routes running through downtown so fewer passengers are waiting at stations at any one time.

Concerning costs, a bus tunnel will save us billions in capital costs (Transitway conversions) and you can pay a lot of bus drivers with that saving. Also, those bus drivers will be taxpayers funnelling their money back through the tax system. Train cars with no drivers do not pay taxes.

[Franky]

The single 3-lane bus tunnel idea has some interesting possibilities. If the stations were staggered, such that the passing lane can be used for station bypass, the tunnel would be the complete paved section and only the platform box would be needed to complete a station.