Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[eternallyme]

Back to the LRT, I never did post my suggestions for downtown in graphics. Here they are. The commuter rail part is disclosed in the other thread.

In both graphics, the street network is unchanged.

Dark red - Trenched
Orange - Bored tunnel
Yellow - Cut and cover tunnel
Grey - Commuter/VIA rail tunnel
Black - Surface commuter/VIA rail



1 - LeBreton Station was covered in a previous graphic. It would be in a below-grade trench at/near the current Transitway.

2 - A bored tunnel is required to climb the grade to the downtown portion of Slater Street.

3 - The section beneath Slater Street would be cut-and-cover just below the surface. The first station would be at Bay Street, which would integrate into the new central library (funding for the integration would be in the library project). All three Slater Street stations are centre-loading platforms and all stations are 125m in length.

4 - The second station would be between Kent and Bank Streets. Building connections would be possible but not part of the project to reduce costs.

5 - The third station would be at Metcalfe Street, and it would be slightly deeper. The overall downhill grade in the downtown section is about 0.5% to adjust for elevation changes.

6 - Between Metcalfe and Elgin Streets, the tunnel would need to be bored again for the eastern part, and a gradient of about 3% is required to clear the Rideau Canal and the commuter rail corridor.



1 - The gradient would flatten out just before entering Mackenzie King Station. At that point, the LRT would be about 17-23 metres below the surface.

2 - Mackenzie King Station would be below its current location - not at Rideau Street. An underground pathway could connect to Union Station (Government Conference Centre) and direct accesses would exist to the Rideau Centre and (with restricted access) the DND HQ. However, direct accesses would not be part of the LRT project. It has a central platform with a mezzanine and connections above the station.

3 - The curve east of Mackenzie King would be similar to the current plan. An uphill grade of about 1.5% is required in parts of this section.

4 - Campus Station would be near its current location, below ground slightly to the east. It could include direct access to uOttawa buildings. It would have a centre loading platform.

5 - Between Campus and Lees Stations, the LRT remains in a bored tunnel and to the east of the Transitway alignment (going with Richard Eade's submission).

6 - Lees Station is just to the east of the current Transitway station and is the last underground station in the tunnel. Direct accesses to the uOttawa campus there as well as other redevelopment is possible. It would be with side platforms.

See the Hurdman submission for the tunnel portal.

7 to 10 are the regional rail/VIA plan.

[Kitchissippi]

I still prefer a station on Rideau street which is more accessible to the ByWard Market instead of something that favours the Rideau Centre Mall. Your suggestions are OK from a purely commuting point of view, but for servicing urban spaces like the Market and Sparks Street it is lacking. Public transportation needs to be well integrated with pedestrian spaces to be truly successful. The stress should be on "public", which means the important issue shouldn't be how easily the trains can manage the route, but how it improves the environment for people and how it complements existing public urban spaces.

If you want to tunnel all the way to Hurdman, why not cut and cover along King Edward, with a station at Mann (OttawaU stadium) and at Laurier, then start a bored tunnel that curves into Rideau with a station between Dalhousie and William, then diagonally to Queen with a station at Elgin. Cut and cover could resume on Queen to Lebreton. I think this would actually be the least disruptive plan to implement, affecting the minimum number of streets and existing transit routes.

Some people might argue that Queen is too far north, but I think the more people are encouraged to walk towards Sparks, the livelier that space will be, as well as the side streets leading up to it.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

I still prefer a station on Rideau street which is more accessible to the ByWard Market instead of something that favours the Rideau Centre Mall. Your suggestions are OK from a purely commuting point of view, but for servicing urban spaces like the Market and Sparks Street it is lacking. Public transportation needs to be well integrated with pedestrian spaces to be truly successful. The stress should be on "public", which means the important issue shouldn't be how easily the trains can manage the route, but how it improves the environment for people and how it complements existing public urban spaces.

If you want to tunnel all the way to Hurdman, why not cut and cover along King Edward, with a station at Mann (OttawaU stadium) and at Laurier, then start a bored tunnel that curves into Rideau with a station between Dalhousie and William, then diagonally to Queen with a station at Elgin. Cut and cover could resume on Queen to Lebreton. I think this would actually be the least disruptive plan to implement, affecting the minimum number of streets and existing transit routes.

Some people might argue that Queen is too far north, but I think the more people are encouraged to walk towards Sparks, the livelier that space will be, as well as the side streets leading up to it.

The King Edward cut-and-cover would definitely work too. That actually might be better as it would be less costly. My thinking of the Mackenzie King station was to improve pedestrian flow (rather than have huge congestion on Rideau Street), avoid a deep valley that exists (which increases costs) and to keep it on Slater Street through downtown (better serves a large, dense area).

The tunnel portal would be between Lees Avenue and the Rideau River crossing, since the gradient required necessitates returning it to the surface to cross the Rideau River (en route to an elevated Hurdman Station).

[eternallyme]

I've decided to revise the Hurdman plan, seeing my new idea (and your suggestions frowning on a road connection to King Edward). The general LRT concept is unchanged though.



Orange - Bored tunnel
Light red - Elevated
Red - At grade (existing Transitway grade)

Dark grey - Trenched/tunnel commuter rail (option exists)
Black - At grade commuter rail

Light grey - New local/collector road for redevelopment
White - Bus-only roadway
Purple - Alta Vista Transportation Corridor (optional)

R - Redevelopment areas (Top-density residential or mixed use, 15 to 40 storeys, plus the relocated Lycee Claudel school)

1 - The LRT emerges from the bored tunnel just past Lees Station (see downtown ideas) onto a structure over the Rideau River. The portal would be in the parking lot shown.

2 - The LRT remains elevated into Hurdman Station, crossing the local road and the pathways.

3 - Hurdman Station is elevated, angled and to the north of the current bus station. It is a centre-loading station with the mezzanine at the surface (with connections to buses).

4 - At the curve where the LRT will turn east, protection will exist for a future Southeast Transitway conversion (which should replace the north-south plan, leaving the existing O-Train as it is).

5 - At the existing Transitway curve east of Hurdman, the LRT will drop to the existing Transitway level.

6 - No changes are recommended to the city's recommended plan at Train Station (not shown). If the current Ottawa Station is closed (replaced by the downtown Union Station), the area would be opened for redevelopment and the station renamed Tremblay Station.

7 - Once converted to LRT, the Southeast corridor would remain elevated up to the Riverside Drive overpass then drop to the current Transitway grade, which it should remain for most of the remaining length.

8 - Lycee Claudel (Abbey) Station would be unchanged except for conversion to rail with side platforms. They would be offsetting like the current Transitway platforms are.

9 - The LRT would remain at the current Transitway grade to the AVTC and beyond. If the AVTC is constructed, it would need to go under both the LRT and the OCR/VIA/commuter rail lines.

10 - The commuter rail/VIA corridor would remain on the current Transitway until the Hurdman curve, where it would go onto its own alignment. The local road and bus-only road would both need to go under the rail corridor, and the pathway already goes under the existing Transitway.

11 - The commuter rail/VIA line remains at-grade between the main redevelopment area and the AVTC corridor. Several pedestrian and bicycle underpasses should be built.

12 - The commuter rail/VIA line would descend under Riverside Drive and the LRT, either in a short tunnel or an open trench.

13 - A diamond would be built where Lycee Claudel school currently is (the school would be relocated across Riverside Drive as part of the project at the rail authority's expense). The diamond would facilite access east and west for commuter and VIA trains.

14 - The existing line through Ottawa should be double-tracked at least from Bells Corners to the southeast split (location undefined) to improve reliability between VIA and commuter trains.

15 - The bus platform at Hurdman would be similar to the official plan, although a second smaller platform might be desirable.

16 - The existing bus layover facility should remain.

[Dado]

I just started a new thread for the issues relating to the configuration of transportation networks on the east bank and environs of the Rideau Canal between Hurdman and the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge because it really needs a thread of its own due to the number of issues involved:

Byward Market - Sandy Hill - Hurdman Transportation Sort-out

[waterloowarrior]

The rail system selection report will be considered at Transit Committee tomorrow

[Kitchissippi]

In a way I find it ridiculous that they are basing this choice partly on what can go on the Western Corridor when they haven't figured this part out yet. What if they found out later in that the best approach was grade separation on the Richmond/Byron corridor?

[lrt's friend]

Wow, we have made the earth shattering decision to use LRT. Seems to me, that choice was made years ago, but hey, this is Ottawa, and we need to look at the same decisions repeatedly over a period of years.

Interesting that further costing will be released in January and Alex Cullen is anticipating an increase. What do you know! Then we can submit a request to the feds and province for funding. Isn't the timing great? At the start of an election campaign for the chair of the transit committee to run for mayor. A funding announcement for Cullen's plan during the campaign will create a wave of support taking him to the mayor's office. Am I ever cynical! What are the chances of a funding announcement during a municipal campaign? Surely, there will not be political interference again like in 2006. Then again, there is increasing pressure to reign in spending to reduce deficits. Good luck! Ottawa is going to need it.

Andy Haydon had a lengthy interview on CFRA this morning and he has produced a report that will be posted on the Internet next week. Again, he is pushing for our money to be spent on BRT and not LRT for numerous reasons and he supports finally building a downtown bus tunnel. He suggests that the cost savings for LRT cannot be proven and that BRT can be enhanced beyond today's levels including bringing capacity up to LRT levels. He furthermore argues that the forced transfers that LRT will bring will put a damper on ridership. If your trip is beyond the LRT corridor, I definitely agree. Buses in Ottawa do not run frequently enough to not create a significant transfer penalty that most people do not like. Even on the busiest routes, you can wait 10 minutes or longer. This is not Toronto where many buses run every 3 minutes and 30 seconds, even at night, that takes a bit of the sting out of transferring to and from a subway. Nevertheless, a Toronto study confirms a 50% loss of potential ridership when a transfer is required.

[Richard Eade]

Train:

Recommended Design

The recommended design for Train Station follows the approved “Diagonal” design alternative, and incorporates the
following major elements:
• 120 m LRT platforms in a side-platform configuration, expandable to 180 m long LRT platforms to accommodate 6-
car trains in the future
• One access point located approximately at the mid-point of the LRT platforms
• Relocation and re-use of the existing pedestrian bridge to span the LRT tracks at the access point
• Elevators, escalators and stairs to be provided between ground level and the LRT platforms
• A future connection from the east end of the LRT platforms could be constructed, by others
• Pedestrian and cycling connections between Tremblay Road and the Ottawa Train Station
• Demolition of the existing BRT platforms

My first comment is that I am disappointed that so few structures can be re-used. There is a definite need for new structures over Tremblay Road and the east VIA Station driveway. It appears that Staff has determined that the structure in the west driveway can be used. This will be very close, and is probably the reason that the new station is to have side platforms. Keeping the tracks close together allows for a greater angle between the bridge supports. The bridge pylons will be obstructions on the platforms and may determine where the trains stop. It might turn out that this structure also needs to be replaced. The current truss-bridge over the bus station is expected to be re-used over the new train station.

Another comment is about the wasted platform length west of the western driveway. With most of the potential ridership coming from the east, I would suggest that the platforms be extended east and not west. This would also allow for a better connection to the proposed pedestrian link over the 417 to Coventry Road.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Train:





My first comment is that I am disappointed that so few structures can be re-used. There is a definite need for new structures over Tremblay Road and the east VIA Station driveway. It appears that Staff has determined that the structure in the west driveway can be used. This will be very close, and is probably the reason that the new station is to have side platforms. Keeping the tracks close together allows for a greater angle between the bridge supports. The bridge pylons will be obstructions on the platforms and may determine where the trains stop. It might turn out that this structure also needs to be replaced. The current truss-bridge over the bus station is expected to be re-used over the new train station.

Another comment is about the wasted platform length west of the western driveway. With most of the potential ridership coming from the east, I would suggest that the platforms be extended east and not west. This would also allow for a better connection to the proposed pedestrian link over the 417 to Coventry Road.

Unfortunately, a realignment is necessary at Train Station, since the current geometrics of the bus station does not support even a 4-car train length (the straight section is only 105m), so the BRT platform needs to be demolished. The Tremblay Road overpass has to be replaced as the curve would be too tight otherwise - it may have to go under the intersection of Tremblay and Pickering Place. The east and west driveway structures MIGHT be maintainable, but does their condition warrant replacement anyway?

Between the Tremblay overpass and the St. Laurent tunnel portal, a third track should be added for easier train movements from the Maintenance facility to the eastbound LRT.

As for the future expansion of the tracks, I agree it should be mostly at least to the east (maybe 40m to the east and 20m to the west to make the curve easier). Considering that area holds redevelopment potential especially if the rail station is returned downtown (although 2 tracks would continue to go through the area for eastbound trains), some of it may go on the west side as well.

Overall, I think the City proposal there is probably as good as it can get.

[Richard Eade]

St. Laurent:

Recommended Design

The recommended design for St. Laurent Station incorporates the following major elements:
• Conversion of the existing lower level BRT platforms to 120 m LRT platforms, with allowance for future platform extension to accommodate 180 m platforms
• Rehabilitation and re-use of existing station facilities located on the upper level
• Retention of existing station access points
• A potential connection to future development lands south of the station could be provided, by others

Since there is little change to this station, I have few comments. The biggest would be the lack of improvement for pedestrian access to the station from St. Laurent Boulevard. With the extension of the platforms, and the narrowing of the required vehicle width under St. Laurent, it is too bad that an access wasn’t added at St. Laurent so pedestrians could travel under the road and busy two ramps.

[MalcolmTucker]

The use of island platforms vs. inlet platforms is annoying,

[eternallyme]

St. Laurent = Agreed with the proposal. It seems the fact that it may have been overbuilt (perhaps?) for BRT is coming back to benefit big time as it reduces costs quite a bit for the LRT. I don't see the need to really change much, if at all, there.

[RTWAP]

Surprise, surprise. It looks like the NCC really doesn't want rail lines running through their riverside parkland.

http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2009/11/19/11822041.html

A National Capital Commission source says the commission will block a key component of the city’s proposed east-west transit route.

“There is no way the NCC is going to allow light rail down the (Ottawa River Pkwy.),” said the source, who didn’t want to be identified and who will be involved in the decision.

The NCC has yet to officially decide on the route, which the city has identified as the most practical rail transit corridor for the first phase of its multibillion-dollar plan.

“I’ve never thought they would allow it,” said Gloucester-Southgate Coun. Diane Deans.

Deans said taking rail down the parkway doesn’t make sense because the city won’t pick up riders along the route and the NCC won’t want overhead wires and tracks running down one of the most scenic spots in the nation’s capital.

“The waterfront is pristine land and they won’t want trains running along it,” she said. “Fish and ducks don’t take public transit and that’s the only thing there.”

The city currently has a lease agreement with the NCC to run buses on the parkway.

As part of the environmental assessment, which begins in January and will take about a year, the city will look at several options, including the parkway, Carling Ave. and Byron Ave.

“It is incorrect to say the NCC has foreclosed on the Ottawa River Pkwy.,” said Coun. Alex Cullen, chairman of the city’s transit committee. “They are respecting the planning process.”

The parkway has also been identified as the least expensive route at $80 million.

Taking rapid rail down Byron Ave. would cost about $200 million because the track would have to be separated from the road and the city would have to build a tunnel under Richmond Rd.

Carling Ave. is the most expensive option because the route would have to turn south at Bayview Rd. until it reached Preston St., then head west along Carling before linking with Baseline Rd. That option would cost an estimated $600 million.

River Coun. Maria McRae, chairwoman of the transportation committee, doesn’t want to wait a year to hear the NCC is leaning toward a ‘no’ vote.

“If they are really not going to approve the parkway, they should let us know now,” said McRae.

Byron, anyone?

[MalcolmTucker]

Ahh, so they aren't doing a compressed EA. Thank god. Hopefully a lot of the problems are ironed out in the alternatives analysis in the EA.

[Kitchissippi]

in that entire article, the most important line to consider is

taking rail down the parkway doesn’t make sense because the (train) won’t pick up riders along the route

[adam-machiavelli]

Note to everyone: Display boards for each station are on display along the main hall at City Hall, along with an exhibit running until January 3rd about the history of rail in Ottawa (it's called Track Changes -har har!). The latter seems to have *interesting* timing, considering the former.

[eternallyme]

I think the Byron/Richmond route should be declared a done deal, and it should just be a matter of alignment issues (elevated, at-grade, trenched, tunnelled or combination thereof - although elevated likely is not a real option). Personally, I'd go trenched to past Richmond, at-grade to New Orchard except for a brief dip to clear Woodroffe, then perhaps a tunnel to return to Lincoln Fields to minimize expropriation.

Carling is too expensive, isolates a large part of the existing trench, has major safety issues with too many at-grade intersections (or a large number of tunnels) and has challenges (such as the twin Highway 417 underpasses).

[lrt's friend]

I don't think we can discard Carling too quickly since we are planning to build LRT on Carling anyways. You cannot simply compare Byron and Carling costs, because in time it becomes Byron + Carling versus Carling alone.

[MalcolmTucker]

Was the LRT on Carling that was planned with the original core network going to be a supplemental Toronto Transit City style LRT (which for point of clarity we should likely give a different name, like tram or streetcar just to make the debate less confusing), or another option in the core network (180m stations, etc?)