Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Franky

Half million dollar home - fairly common for inside the greenbelt I guess. On top of that it doesn't cover capital costs which come out of income taxes.

That last point seems like a good one - fare zones might help. A 10 km trip (over and back) costs $4.60 or to look at it another way, $46/100 km or about 46 l/100 km! It's at least 4x what it costs to gas up a car (even SUV) for the same trip!

If fare zones were to be introduced, the ideal boundary should be the Greenbelt, since not too many routes cross it and there is a buffer zone. Any in-city zone would be difficult to manage.

(Rural Ottawa could form a Zone 3 boundary, while outside Ottawa could form a Zone 4 boundary)

If a fare zone boundary were introduced, the fares should be:

ZONE 1 - $2.75 or 2 tickets ($2.30)
ZONE 2 - $4.00 or 3 tickets ($3.45)
ZONE 3 - $5.25 or 4 tickets ($4.60)
ZONE 4 - $5.25 or 4 tickets ($4.60) + local fare set by outside municipality

During the evenings (after 7 pm) and weekends and holidays, all fares should be Zone 1.

[Richard Eade]

Since some people want us to stay on track with this thread I'll try to oblige:

Tunneys Pasture Station:

Recommended Design
The recommended design for Tunney's Pasture Station follows the approved “Parallel” design alternative, and
incorporates the following major elements:
• A new, temporary, upper level bus terminal located on vacant land north of the existing station
• Modifications to the existing bus ramp west of the station to allow buses to reach the new upper level BRT
platforms
• Conversion of the existing lower level BRT platforms to 120 m LRT platforms, with allowance for future platform
extension (to the east) to accommodate 180 m platforms
• Removal of the existing platform canopies on the lower level and the construction of a new, fully enclosed canopy
spanning over the LRT tracks
• Rehabilitation and re-use of existing station facilities located on the upper level
• Widening of the existing pedestrian overpass to accommodate increased passenger volumes
• Re-building the existing stairway connection between the upper and lower levels at the west end of the station
• An underground pedestrian connection leading from the LRT platforms to the new upper level BRT platform
located to the north of the existing station
• 2 storage tracks west of the new LRT platforms to accommodate out of service or disabled trains

OK, so let’s look at the design:



First thing I notice is the huge bus platform island that is only partly used – what a waste of space! And it is only partly used because of the route the buses need to take (shown in blue, above). Notice that EVERY BUS will travel through the Holland/Scott intersection. Either run the buses the other way around the island and save the intersection, or ditch the island completely and just use the platforms on either side of the trench. And speaking of islands; what is that big waste of space at the top of the ramp for?

While we are removing components, let’s get rid of the pedestrian tunnel from the bus island to the track level. The only reason people are being allowed to cross the tracks there is because the trains don’t go west of there. Once the line is extended, there will be no crossing the tracks and the bus island will be removed. This feature is a lot of money and work for nothing. Simply add a surface crossing from the bus island to east of the bus bridge. There is only one busy direction of bus flow.

Speaking of bus flow, what is the purpose of the inlet from Yarrow? Yarrow is a one-way street. Also, it appears that buses destined for the Lay-by need to go around the whole loop before they can get to the west end access to the Lay-by; again, helping clog the Holland/Scott intersection.

The back-filling of the trench so that there can be a smoother, straighter ramp for the articulated buses also limits the length of the storage tracks west of the station to only 120m. But then the station is also only 120m “with allowance for future platform extension (to the east) to accommodate 180 m platforms”. To the east? When David Hopper was asked about a centre platform, he answered that the Holland Structure limited the trench width too much. Isn’t the existing platform about 130m in length if we include the unused sections under the bridges? I guess they are going to shorten them.

While I’m calling attention to the claims, the statement on the map that the “Existing entry and pedestrian bridge to remain” may be a bit misleading since the bridge needs to be widened by a factor of three to handle the expected crowds. I wouldn’t say that qualifies as remaining. Yes there will be a bridge in that spot, but it will be a different bridge.

At the risk of veering too far from the approved, can anyone come up with a more efficient/better design for Tunneys?

[MalcolmTucker]

An economized station:

[RTWAP]

Maybe the layby is where it is because idled buses imply drivers on potty breaks.

Buses entering the station from the West on the BRT, and subsequently departing the station to the West on the BRT should not leave the station in the interim. The exit onto Yarrow should only be for routes that depart the Transitway at this station, or local feeders that drop riders of and then return to the local streets. And the entrance off Scott should only be for local feeder access to the station, and buses entering the transitway for a Westbound leg.

I'd also nix the tunnel, and instead connect the two stations with a covered walkway across the bus loop. They're probably trying to protect pedestrians (the Transitway design philosophy is to quiver in absolute terror in the presence of a bipedal lifeform), but you can accomplish safety without rigid separation. A covered walkway across the road allows for excellent lighting, and strong visual cues that this is not just a roadway. If it was also raised slightly that helps even more, and making it a covered from the worst of the elements should encourage use. To blend this with an idea from elsewhere on the forum, if the station curbs are elevated slightly to reduce the step-up when alighting a bus, then that would also imply an uncomfortably high curb and help reduce jaywalking and encourage use of the covered pedestrian crosswalk.

[MalcolmTucker]

Oh, the loop i was implying was a real loop, so pedestrians circulate on the outside, buses on the inside so you don't need any pedestrian bus interaction, except at the Yarrow exit and cross transitway bridge which hopefully shouldn't be used during normal operation at all. (Why build the LRT and yet have a bus continue past the end of the transitway?)

With a roundabout south of the local bus platform, there would be no need for the local buses to pass into the bigger bus loop.

Simplify and economize should be the mantra of bureaucrats that want to save this project!

[Franky]

What if buses didn't go to Tunney's but continued on to the city core? A turnaround point would be required, but trips from the West would go to the core directly and trains would go to Tunney's same as they would in the future. I would extend the line to Trim rd. on the East side to eliminate the Blair transfer station, maybe using the Train Yards route to get to the Hurdman transfer station. Hurdman is needed for the SouthEast transitway anyway.

I doubt eliminating the transfer stations will be enough to bring the sticker price down enough? How low (high) do you think the cost can go? Down to $1.2B or more if more conversion happens/doesn't matter?

Is the $6.6B the sticky point?

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by Franky

What if buses didn't go to Tunney's but continued on to the city core? A turnaround point would be required, but trips from the West would go to the core directly and trains would go to Tunney's same as they would in the future. I would extend the line to Trim rd. on the East side to eliminate the Blair transfer station, maybe using the Train Yards route to get to the Hurdman transfer station. Hurdman is needed for the SouthEast transitway anyway.

I doubt eliminating the transfer stations will be enough to bring the sticker price down enough? How low (high) do you think the cost can go? Down to $1.2B or more if more conversion happens/doesn't matter?

Is the $6.6B the sticky point?

If we're hoping to build more LRT and get the system up to some efficient scale then we need to show ridership. Providing express bus service and underused LRT will not exactly convince the senior levels of government to invest further.

The best argument for more LRT is a busy transfer station.

EDIT: And that $6.6B figure bothers me. It's not that it's inaccurate, and this isn't directed at you Franky. But one of the knocks against the first LRT plan was that it seemed overly focused on the first phase, without a well thought-out approach to the entire system and the challenges of the city as a whole. So the city goes back to the drawing board and comes up with a pretty decent plan that covers a long time frame and shows how everything fits together, so people will have confidence that the first phase is not some leap into the unknown, rife with mistakes that will be expensive to fix when an overall plan is put into place.

And the response to the long-term plan is "Wow, that's a lot of money." Of course it's a lot of money. It's a long term plan for a very significant piece of city infrastructure. How much will the city spend on roads over the next few decades?

[Franky]

Originally Posted by RTWAP

If we're hoping to build more LRT and get the system up to some efficient scale then we need to show ridership. Providing express bus service and underused LRT will not exactly convince the senior levels of government to invest further.

The best argument for more LRT is a busy transfer station.

EDIT: And that $6.6B figure bothers me. It's not that it's inaccurate, and this isn't directed at you Franky. But one of the knocks against the first LRT plan was that it seemed overly focused on the first phase, without a well thought-out approach to the entire system and the challenges of the city as a whole. So the city goes back to the drawing board and comes up with a pretty decent plan that covers a long time frame and shows how everything fits together, so people will have confidence that the first phase is not some leap into the unknown, rife with mistakes that will be expensive to fix when an overall plan is put into place.

And the response to the long-term plan is "Wow, that's a lot of money." Of course it's a lot of money. It's a long term plan for a very significant piece of city infrastructure. How much will the city spend on roads over the next few decades?

Bringing electrified transport to Orleans, Kanata and Barrhaven is the right thing to do from both from an GHG perspective and from an economic perspective. I think more people would take a train from satellite cities and that would actually increase transit use. The operating cost to provide that service would be lower because of electrification and fewer drivers needed. If anything, this is where the province will see extra ridership and value in the system. Adding a transfer at Blair for example will reduce ridership and so more people will drive into the city.

Why is a busy transfer station a good thing? Isn't the point of transport to get from origin to destination, not to mill about a transfer station?

$6.6B doesn't even bring rail to our satellite cities. We will still be running buses across the greenbelt past 2031! I mentioned the $6.6B because McGuinty seemed to balk at the number. "Ottawa’s 20-year, $6.6-billion transit plan was dealt a heavy blow Wednesday when Premier Dalton McGuinty suggested city officials need to come up with a more affordable alternative."

The plan is to spend $6.6B by 2031 and we will have detours and temporary transfer station until it is complete (since they are starting with the transitways out at the ends first).

[Richard Eade]

Bayview:

What Staff says:

Recommended Design

The recommended design for Bayview Station follows the approved “Direct to Downtown” design
alternative, and incorporates the following major elements:
• A new station structure located immediately north of the existing Transitway station to allow continued
BRT operation through most of the construction period
• Upper and lower transit levels, with a central mezzanine level providing pedestrian access from Scott
Street
• 2 vertical transfer points with elevators, stairs and escalators to provide connections between levels
• Upper level 180 m long LRT platforms in a side-platform configuration
• Lower level bus platforms in a centre-island platform configuration, with allowance for future conversion
to 90 m long LRT platforms in a centre-platform configuration to accommodate future North-South LRT
service and/or interprovincial LRT service
• Relocation of the existing O-Train track and platform to the west to provide a direct connection at the
western vertical transfer point
• Replacement of the existing Transitway bridge over the O-Train corridor

What I see:



So we have the same unheated, wind-tunnel shelter design. The 60m walkway from Scott to the station’s mezzanine is not even covered. And, for some reason, the mezzanine is segmented to make it even more difficult to get where you need to go. There doesn’t seem to have been much added to make transfers as easy and comfortable as Staff claim they will be.

I see that the O-Train platform is quite short at 90 metres, but I guess they are not expecting to ever need more than three cars traveling north-south. This tells me that there are limited plans to use feeder buses to this route. I expect that this is because of the S-E Transitway will still be running large numbers of direct (Express?) buses.

The temporary O-Train platform will make a dandy platform for the STO Rapibus once the O-Train is moved, don’t you think? And all of the infrastructure will conveniently already be there. Unfortunately, that means half of the station accesses will be dedicated to Rapibus while everyone else crowds onto the eastern elevator and escalator.

By adding the mezzanine level, the top platform is pushed up about three metres over the current bridge height. If I assume that the current bridge over Bayview Rd. will stay, then this will add about 2% more grade to the ramp up to the station. I’m not sure what the current grade is.

An interesting thing to note is that the lower platform is at roughly the same elevation as the LeBreton platform will be. Thus, I expect that the O-Train depression will continue to LeBreton. The long tail ramp down from the Bayview Station to LeBreton will similarly divide the area into two. Remember, this is four tracks wide since the tracks have not merged yet.



Speaking of LeBreton; in order to construct it, Booth St. must be closed. In order to handle the traffic, the Consultants say that Preston will be extended to The Ottawa River Parkway (ORP). I would expect that the easiest place to form the intersection would be at the existing intersection of the ORP/Vimy Ridge. However, this involves crossing the aqueduct so a bridge structure would be involved. In fact, since the rail will be crossing Preston, I expect that most of the Preston extension will be a bridge – a four-lane bridge if it is to handle the same traffic as Booth currently does. This is one of the problems that I have noticed with the designing of this system; it is segmented. That is, small parts seem to be designed in isolation, disregarding what is between that piece and the next. I don’t think the new Preston Bridge has been included in the cost estimate since the Consultant clearly stated that peripheral roadway modifications were not included.

[MalcolmTucker]

So they spend extra money raising the 180m long station instead of moving it to either side so it can be built at grade? All to save a minute on transfers.

All these seemingly little changes start to add major costs. And the Lebreton Placement? to save that extra bridge why not build a trenched station there. Likely would be cheaper than that extra bridge. Why are required road changes not included in the budget? Is there any chance the city would not build the replacement bridge?

The design of this system confounds me. Little consideration for cost, which ends up making the system much worse as it is truncated, and will likely remain truncated if ever built.

[eternallyme]

Here is how I think the Bayview/LeBreton area should be designed:

Dark red - Trenched
Medium red - At grade
Light red - Elevated
Orange - Bored tunnel
Yellow - Cut and cover tunnel



1 - Any extension to Gatineau should be using LRT along a twinned/reconstructed Prince of Wales Bridge.

2 - The Gatineau extension should remain at-grade into Bayview Station's lower level. A non-revenue track should extend the O-Train into Bayview to allow for the movement of trains.

3 - The existing O-Train is unchanged, including its platform. A walkway will connect that platform to the main station. (A transfer would be required, as it is assumed the Southeast Transitway will be the main LRT access to the south)

4 - The existing Transitway grade is generally maintained, although filling may be required east of Tunney's Pasture if the grade needs to be reduced. The Bayview Road overpass is maintained.

5 - Bayview Station is two levels in the ultimate stage. The upper level is built immediately to accomodate the east-west LRT at the current Transitway grade. The lower level is built at the time of a Gatineau extension at the O-Train level. Basically, the current design is necessary to accomodate both, however, the lower level is not built immediately. Unlike in the current plans, it is NOT a major bus connection, so no bus terminal is necessary. The station is open-air at the top level.

6 - Just east of Bayview, both the Gatineau line and the east-west line will merge at the O-Train level. Due to the elevation change, the line enters a trench.

7 - An open-air trench carries the LRT through LeBreton Flats. Any Preston Street bridge will be much easier by shifting the elevation change to the west.

8 - LeBreton Station will be shifted just east of Booth Street. It should be a centre-loading station, with a single pedestrian access connecting onto the Booth Street overpass where a small station-head on the overpass should be built for tickets (access on the east side would be for emergencies only). The station - and the approach to the west portal - are covered.

9 - Between LeBreton and Bronson, a bored tunnel will be necessary on the escarpment.

10 - Through downtown beyond Bronson, a cut-and-cover tunnel under Slater Street should be built (with 3 stations, not 2, along Slater).

All stations should be 125m in length, enough to accomodate 4-car trains.

[Richard Eade]

LeBreton:

They say:

Recommended Design

The recommended design for LeBreton Station follows the approved “Buses on Booth/Albert” design alternative, and
incorporates the following major elements:
• A reconstructed Booth Street bridge spanning the existing aqueduct and the new LRT corridor
• 120 m long LRT platforms in a centre-platform configuration, expandable to 180 m long to accommodate 6-car
trains in the future
• One station access point on each side of the new Booth Street bridge structure, with escalators, elevators and
stairs down to platform
• Local bus platforms on Booth Street for northbound and southbound buses
• Widening of the Albert/Booth intersection to accommodate double left-turn lanes in the eastbound direction, and a
transit-priority left-turn lane in the southbound direction

I say:



In November 2008, Council approved the Ottawa Escarpment District Design Plan, but Staff’s design doesn’t look as if it took the Design Plan very seriously.



If we look at the approved Design Plan, there were two options for the LRT route; one going from the LeBreton Station along under Wellington to Albert, and one which went straight to Slater under buildings. It looks like Staff have chosen the Albert alignment, but they have moved Wellington south so it is not above the LRT. This reduces the available development land. Also, at least two extra lanes have been added to the north side of Albert, further removing developable land. While Staff has matched the extensions of Lorne and Empress, Empress can no longer extend across the aqueduct due to the LRT cut. (Just for fun, you'll notice that the Design Plan also has the station between Bay and Lyon.)

Returning to Staff’s diagram; I realize that it is a simplified rendering, but I would have liked to see some indication that there was going to be an improvement in the areas pathway system. This would include paths on both sides of the aqueduct which have access to Booth. The LRT cut east of the station also limits pedestrian traffic.

Also with the rendering, it is not clear as to whether Fleet is supposes to intersect with Booth, or whether Booth is still above Fleet. If it is above, then Booth is a long bridge as well as wide. The width comes into play for buses coming back from Gatineau and heading to downtown. After stopping at the platform, the bus must move over to the left lane to turn left onto Albert. This could prove tricky in the busy morning traffic.

Considering that the cut is curved to follow the aqueduct, it is clear that the extra 60m platform expansion area is to the west of the 120m platform.

Another oddity of the station placement is that any buses which remain on Albert, not crossing into Gatineau, do not have direct access to the station. I suppose it is assumed that people will transfer at another station. For example, a person taking the #3 up Preston and wanting to transfer to a west-bound train could either walk the 120m from Albert at Booth to the station or stay on the bus and transfer at Downtown-east or Rideau. Of course, it is possible the #3 will be re-routed to travel further along Preston to the Ottawa River Parkway and then back to Albert via Booth. This way the #3 would stop directly above the LeBreton Station.

[Richard Eade]

Downtown Stations:

So these are the images Staff used to get approval:









And here is what they came up with for the design of our stations:



We get an 18m X 200m Quanset Hut 30-35m underground. And each one will be basically the same design. In some of the images there are different coloured stripes on the ceiling: That will help a bit in identifying where you are, but is it enough? Montreal insists on a different designer/architect for each station so that each is unique.

In general, we will have central-platform stations. This minimizes the graffiti opportunities and gives a tall, open, ‘airy’ feel. The suicide prevention doors ($1M/station) are screened, or mesh, to also reduce the graffiti targets. There will be a set of up/down escalators, stairs and two elevators at each end of the platform to take people to a small mezzanine level. The mezzanines at each end are not directly connected so you need to know which direction you want to go before leaving the platform. This could mean much more pedestrian traffic on one set of escalators than the other.

[Franky]

Oh look, gold leaf and marble!

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Speaking of LeBreton; in order to construct it, Booth St. must be closed. In order to handle the traffic, the Consultants say that Preston will be extended to The Ottawa River Parkway (ORP). I would expect that the easiest place to form the intersection would be at the existing intersection of the ORP/Vimy Ridge. However, this involves crossing the aqueduct so a bridge structure would be involved. In fact, since the rail will be crossing Preston, I expect that most of the Preston extension will be a bridge – a four-lane bridge if it is to handle the same traffic as Booth currently does. This is one of the problems that I have noticed with the designing of this system; it is segmented. That is, small parts seem to be designed in isolation, disregarding what is between that piece and the next. I don’t think the new Preston Bridge has been included in the cost estimate since the Consultant clearly stated that peripheral roadway modifications were not included.

The Preston Street extension has long been in the books and is part of the LeBreton Plan. So is the Booth street bridge, which is supposed to free up the Aqueduct area for pedestrians and cyclists. In fact these roadway improvements have been held back because of the unresolved transit issues, instead of the other way that you are implying that these improvements are necessitated by the LRT project.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

So we have the same unheated, wind-tunnel shelter design. The 60m walkway from Scott to the station’s mezzanine is not even covered. And, for some reason, the mezzanine is segmented to make it even more difficult to get where you need to go.

This bothers me. The walkway should be covered, preferably enclosed.

One of the benefits of the glass doors they show in the downtown tunnels is that they can provide an air barrier. If the logic is that they're required wherever the system is segregated (the core network) then they'll have them at Bayview. So you'll have to go through a door to get into the station, and go through a door to get onto the train, so they'll have all the expensive moving pieces required to seal the station from the elements, but then they're going to expect people to stand in an almost fully enclosed station that's -30 degrees and windy.

To me, the only argument for not having heated stations in the core network would be the heat lost at the open ends, but that's not an issue if you can enclose the platform.

[alphachapmtl]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

That would be a totally separate project, but badly needed as well.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by RTWAP

This bothers me. The walkway should be covered, preferably enclosed.

One of the benefits of the glass doors they show in the downtown tunnels is that they can provide an air barrier. If the logic is that they're required wherever the system is segregated (the core network) then they'll have them at Bayview. So you'll have to go through a door to get into the station, and go through a door to get onto the train, so they'll have all the expensive moving pieces required to seal the station from the elements, but then they're going to expect people to stand in an almost fully enclosed station that's -30 degrees and windy.

To me, the only argument for not having heated stations in the core network would be the heat lost at the open ends, but that's not an issue if you can enclose the platform.

If you have two minute frequencies, you shouldn't be worrying about any weather but rain, sleet, etc. Perhaps have a small on platform waiting area that is heated at the designated waiting area for lets say 20 people for use primarily during off peak hours.

Heating that much space gets to be very expensive over time, let alone the cost to install everything in the first place. Plus, if you make your stations too inviting, you will need to spend more on security to keep them safe and acceptable for the general public.

[Franky]

Unless there is interlining at the station, perhaps if a Gatineau - POW bridge - Hurdman route is created as in the mayor's task-force plan or the N-S line actually turned and brought people downtown instead of to a transfer point then heat/a/c would be good. It would be nice to be sheltered from the wind at least.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

The Preston Street extension has long been in the books and is part of the LeBreton Plan. So is the Booth street bridge, which is supposed to free up the Aqueduct area for pedestrians and cyclists. In fact these roadway improvements have been held back because of the unresolved transit issues, instead of the other way that you are implying that these improvements are necessitated by the LRT project.

Absolutely, but you are pointing out the 'Chicken and Egg' problem. I am trying to point out the segregation problem. I don't think that the Preston Street extension plan included a huge, 5-6m high bridge over the trains. If the LRT design looked farther than the Bayview station, it might have prompted a lower design to help reduce the cost of the Preston Bridge. Already, there is about a 4% grade to drop to Preston.

I also don't buy the argument that the tracks along the aqueduct can't be very deep because the aqueduct will empty into the trackbed. The train could run directly under the aqueduct if desired.