Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

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.

I think you are quibbling about details far too early. For the most part these drawings are sketches to get an idea across, and try to identify the critical issues of how LRT might pass though the area and how it is accessed by people and buses. Design costs money, and these are just "design intent" wish lists that in the end get passed on to engineers and architects so they can all equally bid on a defined project. The final product may not look like these drawings at all, but will most likely fulfill its important points.

Notice even that the old stone bridges are not on the aqueduct — surely they are not proposing to remove these!

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

I think you are quibbling about details far too early. For the most part these drawings are sketches to get an idea across, and try to identify the critical issues of how LRT might pass though the area and how it is accessed by people and buses. Design costs money, and these are just "design intent" wish lists that in the end get passed on to engineers and architects so they can all equally bid on a defined project. The final product may not look like these drawings at all, but will most likely fulfill its important points.

Notice even that the old stone bridges are not on the aqueduct — surely they are not proposing to remove these!

I'll remind you that you said this when Staff start throwing around the oft used phrase "following the Council Approved Plan". In the past, there has been a clear disconnect between functional concepts and the ability to change things in the future.

[Kitchissippi]

Well, take the Rideau Station concept for example. I think it is absolute minimal in its description and in the end if this thing goes through, it will probably have huge changes:

- I doubt the Rideau Centre would give up it its highly successful food court area for a subway entrance. Most likely, there would be pressure to dig up Rideau Street farther so that the access is at least at the Freiman entrance or even all the way to William Street, incorporated into the mall's expansion plans

- I could see the NCC splurging for a passageway all the way to Sparks at Elgin since it is almost there. Hopefully they'll charge it 100% on federal bucks as part of War Memorial improvements.

- there will be pressure for a concourse level through the entire length of the station so there is an accessible link between both sides of the canal

All this could be accounted for as peripheral expenditure "by others", as they have described the NAC link. This could end up being the most expensive station when it is all added up. but still worth it in my opinion.

• Video Link

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

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.

You make a good point about frequencies, but in some situations it probably doesn't apply. If Bayview has trains departing in 4 directions then transfers will happen. My initial view is that it would be nice to have a station with some substance. A couple of stores (dry cleaner and convenience stores perhaps). Maybe even a sandwich shop. It's too bad they don't have a detailed plan for what they want to do in that area because I'd prefer if the station was the bottom few levels of a larger building that could take advantage of the high volume of people at a transit crossroads like that.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by RTWAP

You make a good point about frequencies, but in some situations it probably doesn't apply. If Bayview has trains departing in 4 directions then transfers will happen. My initial view is that it would be nice to have a station with some substance. A couple of stores (dry cleaner and convenience stores perhaps). Maybe even a sandwich shop. It's too bad they don't have a detailed plan for what they want to do in that area because I'd prefer if the station was the bottom few levels of a larger building that could take advantage of the high volume of people at a transit crossroads like that.

Bayview may need to be a grand transfer station in 20 years, but I don't think the O-Train is going to see a surge in traffic once the LRT opens. Stores are nice to be sure, but even at Calgary's busiest stations, retail outlets couldn't make a go of it while paying a rent that provided the city with a return. Retail in most stations in Toronto is decidedly subpar - mostly because of awful opening hour requirements (both rush hours) and the fact people don't go their for shopping.

Bayview is not a place. It is a station in a field. It would likely be cheaper to just bring the O-Train & an eventual service to Quebec (sharing a double track) to Lebreton Flats and eliminate Bayview Station.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Well, take the Rideau Station concept for example. I think it is absolute minimal in its description and in the end if this thing goes through, it will probably have huge changes:

- I doubt the Rideau Centre would give up it its highly successful food court area for a subway entrance. Most likely, there would be pressure to dig up Rideau Street farther so that the access is at least at the Freiman entrance or even all the way to William Street, incorporated into the mall's expansion plans

- I could see the NCC splurging for a passageway all the way to Sparks at Elgin since it is almost there. Hopefully they'll charge it 100% on federal bucks as part of War Memorial improvements.

- there will be pressure for a concourse level through the entire length of the station so there is an accessible link between both sides of the canal

All this could be accounted for as peripheral expenditure "by others", as they have described the NAC link. This could end up being the most expensive station when it is all added up. but still worth it in my opinion.

• Video Link

It is funny even the video designers for the project think the station is too big and don't show how long the station is.

Plus - why the NCC entrance? - the building is an island in the middle of traffic, and while it would be nice it isn't worth the extra expense.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by RTWAP

You make a good point about frequencies, but in some situations it probably doesn't apply. If Bayview has trains departing in 4 directions then transfers will happen. My initial view is that it would be nice to have a station with some substance. A couple of stores (dry cleaner and convenience stores perhaps). Maybe even a sandwich shop. It's too bad they don't have a detailed plan for what they want to do in that area because I'd prefer if the station was the bottom few levels of a larger building that could take advantage of the high volume of people at a transit crossroads like that.

Unfortunately, RTWAP, that would actually take 'BIG PICTURE' planning; something we don't seem to do a lot of in Ottawa. We prefer to design individual trees and assume that just planting a pattern of these trees will create a forest. Or better still, that someone else will come and plant more trees around ours; even though we didn't leave room for other trees.

What would be wrong with opening up the Bayview (and all other) development to private developers? Simply say that we would like to develop the area and that the development must include the train station with the desired functions. Offer the rights above and around the station. Yes, it will take longer now because we wasted a couple of years doing this study before involving outside help, but it should result in a much more integrated, full function development. At Baseline Station, we gave away the land east and west of the new Transitway corridor, but insisted that we needed to keep the corridor. Why? If we had just said "Here is the land, but you are responsible for building a Transitway/rail line and station which will do the following..." we could have had a much more imaginative solution. The Algonquin Building is a showcase LEEDS PLATINUM building highlighting future building practices, don't you think that they would have found a great way to integrate a transit station? We still could have paid for some of the station. I'll bet that if we had offered to give $50M to help with the station/transitway they would have been thrilled.

We NEED big picture development with these train lines. The Lees Station does absolutely nothing for the area that it is in. There is no better access than what there is now; it doesn't offer any better pedestrian connections across the transit cut; it doesn't encourage development of the Nicholas-Mann Gateway. And what does the Hurdman design do? It builds a huge earth-works barricade cutting the area into two. We will have Fort Hurdman to the north of the train. How inviting will that be when the NCC tries to get it developed? Also, we will still have a single purpose, seldom used stop at the VIA Station but in order to try to artificially raise use, they are trying to resurrect an old $15M plan to cross the 417 to a stadium which is no longer operating. That overpass isn't even in the new Pedestrian Plan.

[Richard Eade]

Downtown-West:

Staff’s comments:

Recommended Design
©2009 Microsoft Corporation
The recommended design for the Downtown West Station follows the approved “Centre Platform” design alternative, and
incorporates the following major elements:
• 180 m long LRT platforms, in a centre platform configuration, to accommodate 4-car trains initially and 6-car trains in
the future
• 2 access points from ground level:
• On the south side of Albert between Bay and Lyon (Central Public Library site)
• On the north side of Albert between Lyon and Kent (Place de Ville)
• Elevators, escalators and stairs will be provided at each access point
• An underground connection to the Constitution Square office complex could be constructed in the future, by others
• Underground connections to other adjacent development sites could also be provided by others
• Depth of platform is approximately 30 m below ground due to foundation depths of adjacent buildings

My comments:

I expect that it is just an error in the rendering, but there are no elevators shown for the Place de Ville (or Constitution Square) station access. While I’m talking about the elevator, I am wondering if there will be any elevator stops at escalator landings?

Turning to the subject of the station accesses; I am not a fan of mid-block access points. People get to a mid-block access point only from a dedicated connection to a particular building, or by walking along the street. On the other hand, if the access point was at an intersection, there is potential access to four buildings and people could walk to it from four directions on the surface. This makes for a much more convenient access to the station. Having the accesses at mid-block also encourages people to run across the street at any location, while corner accesses would draw people to the block corners.

In the diagram, the crossing from the Place de Ville to the Constitution Square appears to be about three stories down; this is unlikely to line up with any retail level. On that note, I think it is actually very low potential fro an underground retail environment to grow under the Constitution Square building. If the access is to that building, then it will probably not spawn any additional growth. Also, it appears that it would mean a loss of parking space under Constitution Square.

[Richard Eade]

Downtown-East:

Recommended Design
The recommended design for the Downtown East Station follows the approved “Centre Platform” design alternative, and incorporates the following major elements:
• 180 m long LRT platforms, in a centre platform configuration, to accommodate 4-car trains initially and 6-car trains in the future
• 2 access points from ground level:
• On the north side of Albert Street, east of Bank Street
• On the south side of Queen Street at O'Connor Street
• Elevators, escalators and stairs will be provided at each access point
• An underground connection to the World Exchange office complex could be constructed in the future, by others
• An underground connection to Sparks Street could be constructed in the future, by others
• Underground connections to other adjacent development sites could also be provided

Again, I’ll point out that the station accesses are pulled back from the intersections to closer to mid-block locations. And, again, I think this only encourages pedestrians crossing the street away from the corners and it means that everyone must walk along a single street to get to the access.

Another factor which becomes clear in these diagrams is that station accesses can take up a significant amount of the neighbouring roadway. Notice that the sidewalk has been widened by more than one traffic lane to accommodate the access structures. This should put an end to the rumours that all of the lanes of Slater and Albert could be returned to general traffic. If the access structures are built on the sidewalks, then the roads will need to be narrowed. This will affect traffic, transit and bicycles on those roads. Also, with the structure taking up a good chunk of the sidewalk, pedestrians might also be adversely affected.

Something not shown in the pictures is the ventilation shafts and associated surface structures. According to the Consultants, there will be ventilation shafts at each corner of the station.

This is the first station which attempts to show how more distant station accesses could be incorporated. A couple of things I noticed are that the long stair/escalator ramps do not allow elevators to accompany them, forcing a separate access for handicapped users. Although this offers more accesses to the station, which is a good thing, it also means that more buildings have to be involved. The other thing is that there would be very long underground passages or tunnels which Staff has shown at the Concourse depth. This might be acceptable for ‘The Mole-Men’, but I think that most people would prefer to have much less deep passages or be on the surface.

Speaking of the depth, I notice that the foundation of the buildings seem to be only about 12 metres deep. This should give Staff the opportunity to make the tunnels and stations less deep.

[RTWAP]

Good point about access points being at street corners. For the highest volume areas they could even have two access points kitty-corner across the intersection. That way pedestrians approaching from any direction would either not cross a street, or worst case they'll cross but they'll have a choice of directions so they wouldn't have to wait for light to change.

I'm not sure what the rules are for accessibility, but if they can provide simplified access points (like the traditional Paris Metro simple stairs down) then they could broaden the number of accesses in a cost effective way, while still providing one or two full access entrances.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ You only need one accessible entrance I believe by law. As for entrances at intersections, it is great if you want to shut down intersections, but the plan seems to be to avoid it.

Plus, with offices already on most corners, with no existing lower concourse levels to tie into it is pretty hard to fit entrances at the corners.

[waterloowarrior]

edit: nevermind misread

[Franky]

Since the tunnel will be so deep, why not put the station in the middle of north-south roads - blocks are shorter N-S than E-W. 75 m vs. ~150 m.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

^ You only need one accessible entrance I believe by law. As for entrances at intersections, it is great if you want to shut down intersections, but the plan seems to be to avoid it.

Plus, with offices already on most corners, with no existing lower concourse levels to tie into it is pretty hard to fit entrances at the corners.

Well, they're not actually AT the intersection. IIRC they're about 20 meters down the street, and not very large.



Your point about the lack of concourses is the killer. While the small entrances might fit in more locations, and make it easier to access the system, there is nothing for them to connect to in many cases.

[Kitchissippi]

It's ironic to complain about long underground passages on one hand, and then suggest multiple entrances on the other. Satellite entries just increase the length of underground passages.

Personally I think commuters should have the opportunity to come up to the surface as soon as possible to interact with the street. It does not matter if the entrances are mid-block or at the corners. Put street level retail with newsstands and coffee shops. The good thing about the diagonal route through downtown is that it spreads this pedestrian potential over several streets.

Also I don't mind the spaced out stations downtown. Walking is good, and if the average commute incorporates a daily stroll, it would be doing something good. Better than express service to get them back home to that treadmill in the basement, or worse the couch with a TV in front.

[Franky]

A station in the middle of a block can increase your walk to a station by ~75 m (half the block length) if your origin is north or south of the entrance. The 300 m radius doesn't account for having to walk around rectangular blocks.

[Richard Eade]

Rideau:

Staff’s view:

Recommended Design
The recommended design for the Rideau Station follows the approved “Centre Platform” design alternative, and
incorporates the following major elements:
• 180 m long LRT platforms, in a centre platform configuration, to accommodate 4-car trains initially and 6-car
trains in the future
• Two access points from ground level
• On the east side of the Plaza Bridge (west of the canal and north of the National Arts Centre)
• East of Sussex Drive (via the Rideau Centre and The Bay)
• Elevators, escalators and stairs will be provided at each access point
• A potential access point along the east side of the Government Conference Centre (former Union Station)
building could be constructed in the future, by others

And my view:



First the good points: the station and tunnel have been moved north and west to avoid interfering with the Rideau Centre’s underpinnings and there is a third access to the platform; in the middle. Also, the platform depth of the east end of the station is only about 26m. This is due to the surface grade dropping almost 10m and not due to any imaginative engineering, but I’ll take it as a positive point any way.

Then I’ll harp on one of my peeves, the split concourse level: With the local buses and the STO buses still using Rideau Street, the sidewalks will remain, or even become more, crowded. Now we are adding a huge additional load from the trains. Just as we grade separated the actual transportation, we should be adding a second level of pedestrian traffic. This would be a complete concourse level (with shops) over the entire length of the station. This would also open up possibilities for other connections. For example, although it is not shown in the rendering, there was a tunnel between the Chateau Laurier and the Government Conference Centre; this could be connected. As could the under-bridge area used for noon-hour concerts to the west of the canal. This connection would also allow a direct connection to the War Memorial without having to cross surface streets.

Some might argue that integrating the station accesses into existing structures might make the accesses less identifiable. While there is some merit in having uniform, identifiable entry structures, they may not fit in with all surroundings. I think this is a case in point. In the cities I have been to, there is an identifiable logo on a sign which indicates the access positions. This seems to be sufficient. Separate, external access structures should only be built where absolutely necessary. In most circumstances, it would be preferable to have the accesses within convenient buildings.

And finally, a nit-pick: In the diagram, the tunnel/station appears to be quite shallow. Knowing that there are sewer pipes running over the station at about 15m deep, it might be handy to have these pipes (and the tunnel to the Chateau Laurier) included in the picture.

[c_speed3108]

Finally got around to looking through this: http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/transit_tunnel/op_3/recommended_plan/index_en.html

I think some parts of it are being way over built. This includes these covers across the tracks at Tunney's and Lees.

It makes sense to build heavily in areas like Rideau and even downtown, but it seems that there is a number of areas that can be cut back very significantly without destroying the project.

[Kitchissippi]

Here's my pimped up version of Rideau Station, going back to my thoughts regarding the Rideau/Sussex area and reuse of the old train station:

[Richard Eade]

Campus:

The recommended design for the Campus Station follows the approved “South Portal, Underground
Station” design alternative, and incorporates the following major elements:
• 180 m long LRT platforms, in a centre platform configuration, to accommodate 4-car trains initially and
6-car trains in the future
• 2 access points from ground level:
• At the north end of the station, adjacent to Vanier Hall
• At the existing pedestrian underpass of Nicholas Street
• Elevators, escalators and stairs will be provided at each access point
• A potential underground connection into the new Vanier Hall building could be constructed in the future, by others

Followed by my comments, as usual:



I’ll speculate on the real reason why the station was moved from beneath the Transitway to between Nicholas and Colonel By. I have been told that there was more room farther west, but I think it would have more to do with the ‘kink’ in the Transitway as it comes south from between the buildings to parallel Nicholas. Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs) can not maneuver like that and so would need to expand the radius of the turn. This would push the TBM out under Nicholas as it curved south. If the alignment was pulled back under the Transitway, it would introduce more back-to-back curves. Thus, I believe the station was moved to provide an alignment the TBM could follow.

Regardless as to whether I am correct in my speculation of why the station was moved, I think the difficulty with this alignment will come when it needs to cross Nicholas. Remember, the tunnel south of Campus Station is to be built using the cut & cover method. Also, with these two corridors running close to parallel, the bridge work will need to be fancy. (This seems like an excellent location for the City to try its hand at ‘Top-down’ bridge building.)

Turning now to the Staff's station design:



I expect that the depth of this station is determined by the need to go under Mann Avenue. This would put the platform about 20m below grade, or 6 stories down. The skylights are a nice idea to try to get some natural light into the station.

I notice that the existing pedestrian underpass is not being incorporated into the station. Instead, another, deeper, passage is being cut under Nicholas to come up beside the existing underpass. This does not seem to make the best use of the existing infrastructure. To me, it would be better to have the escalators/elevators come up into the underpass so people could then go either way. This would better integrate the station into what is already there and saves the space and cost needed for the new access cover structure. If an extra passage needs to be dug, then it should be between the two north end access points. This would also allow an additional route for pedestrians to cross Nicholas.

Some will have noticed that I said “two north end access points.” I think it is well worth while to have a west side access point beside the Corktown Bridge. This better ties the station to the ‘Golden Triangle’ area across the bridge and makes it less of a single function station.

At the other end of the north passage, Staff has shown an access cover structure. I don’t think this structure is needed; the station access should be integrated into the Vanier Hall building. Without this portal taking up space, there would be room if needed to expand Nicholas to three-lanes per direction, and this should be planned for.