Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[eternallyme]

What is the next step, engineering and land acquisition?

[waterloowarrior]

scroll down to the bottom of this report for the timeline
http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/tc/2009/12-16/ACS2009-ICS-PGM-0214.htm

[c_speed3108]

BREAKING NEWS

PROVINCIAL GOV JUST TRIPLED IT'S FUNDING PROMISE!!!!!!!!!!

ctv

Premier commits $600M for Ottawa's transit plan

Updated: Fri Dec. 18 2009 11:36:31

ctvottawa.ca

Premier Dalton McGuinty is tripling the province's contribution to fund Ottawa's $2.1-billion transit plan, which will see light rail and a downtown tunnel built in the capital.

McGuinty is pledging $600 million specifically for transit over the next eight to 10 years. He is also urging the federal government match the contribution.

McGuinty described the plan on Wednesday as a "city-building project of our generation."

Phase one includes 12.5 kilometres of light rail extending from Blair Road to Tunney's Pasture, as well as building a downtown tunnel 10 storeys underground.

The plan was originally pegged at $1.4 billion; then it climbed to $1.8 billion. Now, the total cost for phase one is estimated at $2.1 billion.

The province had previously committed $200 million for the project. McGuinty announced the additional $400 million in funding on Wednesday.

The provincial funding is the largest single investment Ontario has made in Ottawa's history.

So far, the federal government has committed $200 million in funding for Ottawa's transit plan.

A city transit committee approved phase one of the project on Wednesday. City council is expected to make a final decision on the project on Jan. 13.

More to come . . .

citizen

Province kicks in $600M for Ottawa's light rail project


The Ottawa CitizenDecember 18, 2009 11:27 AM

OTTAWA — The provincial government is contributing $600 million toward the city's $2.1-billion transit expansion project, Premier Dalton McGuinty announced in a news conference Friday morning.

"This is the single largest transit infrastructure investment Ontario has made in Ottawa's history," McGuinty said "It will help get people out of their cars and into clean, efficient public transit. I am confident that the city will be prudent as they decide what is best for Ottawa."

The province had been seen as the biggest stumbling block in a plan to build a rail line from Tunney's Pasture to Blair Road, including a 3.2-kilometre tunnel under downtown, and extend Transitway bus service into more suburbs, but now the city's focus will turn to the federal government to try to get the provincial funding matched.

The $2.1-billion plan is part of a much larger, $6.6-billion transit plan meant to serve the city's transit needs into the 2030s, including much more rail running in all directions out of downtown.

More to come.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Sun

City gets $600 million for transit

Province makes surprise announcement toward $2.1B plan

It's an early Christmas for Ottawa residents.

Premier Dalton McGuinty is in the capital today to announce that the province will provide $600 million to the city to fund its light rail transit system.

The announcement was made this morning at the RA Centre.

Earlier, this week, the city's transit committee green-lighted a key phase of the light rail system, a tunnel through the downtown. The full project is estimated to cost $2.1 billion. No one was expecting the city to see any dollars from the provincial and federal levels of government before Christmas, making today's announcement a surprise.

The transit plan goes to city council as a whole Jan. 13. Council will be asked to approve the functional design of a 12.5-km rail route, including a 3.2-km tunnel below the downtown core. A vote to move forward with the plan would prompt an environmental assessment, which the city anticipates would be complete by May.

There are also budget implications for 2010 since $74.3 million has been earmarked for the project next year. City staff would use the money to begin property acquisitions along the route, in addition to engineering studies and other planning initiatives.

Deputy city manager Nancy Schepers said staff developed the project in anticipation that there would be funding commitments from the upper-tier governments by the end of January 2010.

The city is asking the two senior governments to each pay one-third of the cost.

[Richard Eade]

So, assuming a matching announcement from the Feds, $1.2B is accounted for. That leaves the City on the hook for $900M, or about $50M per year for 20 years. This should be do-able. I tend to think that there will be a little bit of 'topping up' of the needed funds once the Provincial and Federal Governments actually get official requests, including engineering drawings. It will give those levels of government additional opportunitys to make funding announcements.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

So, assuming a matching announcement from the Feds, $1.2B is accounted for. That leaves the City on the hook for $900M, or about $50M per year for 20 years. This should be do-able. I tend to think that there will be a little bit of 'topping up' of the needed funds once the Provincial and Federal Governments actually get official requests, including engineering drawings. It will give those levels of government additional opportunitys to make funding announcements.

$50 million a year for 20 years? That would be easy and could be accomodated by minor efficiencies elsewhere, without having to raise taxes or make major cuts elsewhere...

With that money, the next stage could easily begin (planning for Baseline to Tunney's Pasture), which shouldn't be as expensive since there isn't the costly tunnel.

[Ottawan]

This is excellent news. What I want to see next:

1) Federal Commitment that matches this level of funding
2) Infrastructure Ontario to agree to perform procurement
3) NCC agreement over use of the Parkway during construction

Hopefully these announcements happen soon so that the plan is a done deal before next summer, when the next Municipal election will begin to heat up. We cannot have a repeat of 2006.

[lrt's friend]

Hmmmm. There is another perspective being presented over at the Citizen. It is interesting that this announcement is not being made with much fanfare on location. This is a very lukewarm endorsement as it is not specifically for the proposed project, and the amount clearly underfunds the tunnel. We all know that $2.1 billion is not the final figure. We will have to wait for actual bids for the final sticker shock.

As I have said for a long time, we are following the Edmonton example and we will blow our wad with no hope of expansion within the 20 year time frame.

$50 million a year for 20 years? That would be easy and could be accomodated by minor efficiencies elsewhere, without having to raise taxes or make major cuts elsewhere...

This comment alone suggests that there is no hope of the city funding anything but Phase 1. If that is all we want to accomplish, then fine, but fully expect tax increases or transit service cuts to your's and my neighbourhoods to help fund even this part of the project.

This announcement is good news only if the money is spent wisely.

[RTWAP]

So the inevitable question is, what can be cut?

Do we need a station at Cyrville?

Can we build smaller stations underground and expand them later? Maybe just do a little bit of preparatory excavation beyond the 4-car tunnel size, and then plan on doing the remaining excavation in the decades ahead as needed, with equipment and debris moving in and out via rail during the night.

Any other targets?

[MalcolmTucker]

Changing the vehicle type to allow shorter trains to carry the same numbers projected is a good way to shave some points off with shorter stations, pocket track, turnaround, etc. Will save money on vehicles too, low floor is just more expensive. Signalling system likely will get downgraded to at least moving block, more likely fixed block. When an upgrade is needed in 20 years, do it then.

I could see campus station being turned back into an above ground station, and platform screen doors being removed from all of it. Probably removal of any station heating and A/C if it was planned.

On top of that, count everything needed to make the bus transfer stations at the ends work as another project, to move it off the LRT project books and you have filled the hole.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Changing the vehicle type to allow shorter trains to carry the same numbers projected is a good way to shave some points off with shorter stations, pocket track, turnaround, etc. Will save money on vehicles too, low floor is just more expensive. Signalling system likely will get downgraded to at least moving block, more likely fixed block. When an upgrade is needed in 20 years, do it then.

I could see campus station being turned back into an above ground station, and platform screen doors being removed from all of it. Probably removal of any station heating and A/C if it was planned.

On top of that, count everything needed to make the bus transfer stations at the ends work as another project, to move it off the LRT project books and you have filled the hole.

Should they switch to high floor trains? Since it is unlikely there will be any street-running sections...

I'd keep Campus underground though (IMO, Lees should also be underground and a new bridge should be constructed to keep the Transitway from Hurdman to downtown available, at least in the short term, and allow for a commuter rail corridor to downtown in the longer term).

[Ottawan]

Originally Posted by RTWAP

So the inevitable question is, what can be cut?

Do we need a station at Cyrville?

Can we build smaller stations underground and expand them later? Maybe just do a little bit of preparatory excavation beyond the 4-car tunnel size, and then plan on doing the remaining excavation in the decades ahead as needed, with equipment and debris moving in and out via rail during the night.

Any other targets?

Maybe there's some money to be saved by doing the excavation for the full stations(the most invasive part of construction, and difficult to do later), and then walling off the excess area and simply defer construction of platforms to the length required to accomodate future trains.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Ottawan

Maybe there's some money to be saved by doing the excavation for the full stations(the most invasive part of construction, and difficult to do later), and then walling off the excess area and simply defer construction of platforms to the length required to accomodate future trains.

The money saved there wouldn't be that great, since the initial construction is the main reason for the cost. It would be extremely difficult to do later.

As for chopping Cyrville, I don't see why, since it is a pretty cheap station. I would not tunnel Blair (instad, put it in a shallow trench) though.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

On top of that, count everything needed to make the bus transfer stations at the ends work as another project, to move it off the LRT project books and you have filled the hole.

That doesn't exactly solve anything since the Province announced that the money was for "rapid transit" and not specifically for LRT, so we're not getting any more from the Province for anything.

Let's not forget we're still committed to building a bus tunnel at Baseline, as well. The spending authority for much of it is in the 2010 Capital budget. There's nothing to stop the City from taking a significant chunk of this provincial money ($100-150M) to build that and there's also the Bayshore-Moodie portion of the West Transitway (~$50M), which is high on the list of priorities.


The real savings are going to have to be found in transitway conversion, both stations and running way. Stations like Bayview, Hurdman and Blair are looking to be quite pricey affairs, with Tunney's, LeBreton and Train also racking up significant costs. Why it should cost $20M/km to erect electric and signalling infrastructure and lay down track and ballast atop the existing asphalt when these costs were pegged at just under $10M/km less than two years ago is rather curious because that difference amounts to something on the order of $90M.

Current steel rail prices, for instance, are only about $250k per kilometre for double track. Installation (and delivery) and not the material itself is clearly the major cost, but even there it's odd. The O-Train upgrade in 2003 cost less than $300k/km (the existing rail was removed in the process, so the cost is net of the salvage value of the rail and therefore reflects fairly closely the installation cost with some small component of it being the additional cost of new rail, new ballast and some tie replacement). Granted this was a few years ago on existing track and was only for single track without electrification but you can't go from a few hundred thousand for that to over ten million per kilometre without doing something pretty strange.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Dado

That doesn't exactly solve anything since the Province announced that the money was for "rapid transit" and not specifically for LRT, so we're not getting any more from the Province for anything.

Let's not forget we're still committed to building a bus tunnel at Baseline, as well. The spending authority for much of it is in the 2010 Capital budget. There's nothing to stop the City from taking a significant chunk of this provincial money ($100-150M) to build that and there's also the Bayshore-Moodie portion of the West Transitway (~$50M), which is high on the list of priorities.


The real savings are going to have to be found in transitway conversion, both stations and running way. Stations like Bayview, Hurdman and Blair are looking to be quite pricey affairs, with Tunney's, LeBreton and Train also racking up significant costs. Why it should cost $20M/km to erect electric and signalling infrastructure and lay down track and ballast atop the existing asphalt when these costs were pegged at just under $10M/km less than two years ago is rather curious because that difference amounts to something on the order of $90M.

Current steel rail prices, for instance, are only about $250k per kilometre for double track. Installation (and delivery) and not the material itself is clearly the major cost, but even there it's odd. The O-Train upgrade in 2003 cost less than $300k/km (the existing rail was removed in the process, so the cost is net of the salvage value of the rail and therefore reflects fairly closely the installation cost with some small component of it being the additional cost of new rail, new ballast and some tie replacement). Granted this was a few years ago on existing track and was only for single track without electrification but you can't go from a few hundred thousand for that to over ten million per kilometre without doing something pretty strange.

At least initially, they could just lay the tracks onto the existing pavement, then get to covering and landscaping later.

I don't see why a new structure needs to be built at Bayview either - I recommend re-using it and maintaining the current Transitway corridor there, since it has no other purpose after the project is complete.

Hurdman pretty much has to be fairly expensive as it is a major transfer station (although not the configuration that I recommended - I suggested a 35 degree angle for the platform relative to the current Transitway, in order to better set up for the tunnel portal, maintain the existing Transitway for immediate operations and to allow for the North-South LRT to use the Southeast Transitway).

[MalcolmTucker]

That doesn't exactly solve anything since the Province announced that the money was for "rapid transit" and not specifically for LRT, so we're not getting any more from the Province for anything.

It solves the political problem of saying the LRT project budget is increasing. The LRT budget is not increasing, the bus budget is increasing. While it won't solve the overall problem of not having enough money, it will solve the problem of getting shovels in the ground on the LRT project.

The real savings are going to have to be found in transitway conversion, both stations and running way

Well, does the O'Train really have any signalling other than the two controlled switches? Basic fixed block for the two parts?

The O'Train also doesn't have substations (which I assume is going in the costs above).

The $540 million dollar cost for transitway conversion also seems to include stations, new elevated, at grade and below grade alignment where they found the transitway alignment lacking.

The higher costs for the conversion could likely have been avoided by instead changing the specs for the vehicles for tighter curves and more gradient. If Toronto's streetcars can be designed for 8% grades (and hauling dead cars up out of 8% grades) and making standard street length turns then so could Ottawas rapid transit LRT be designed for whatever the original transitway was deisnged for. Reducing train length might have prevented rebuilds in a couple places too (maybe the bridges at train could have been retained) since requiring 180m of straight track plus safety approaches reserved really doesn't help much in fitting into existing geometery.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Well, does the O'Train really have any signalling other than the two controlled switches? Basic fixed block for the two parts?

It's the "O-Train", not the "O'Train". It's not Irish.

The line has interlocking at the diamonds as well.

The O'Train also doesn't have substations (which I assume is going in the costs above).

I was using it as an example of what it costs to lay rail, and, by extension, how high the cost appears to be given that what is left (electrical) can't possibly make up the difference.

The $540 million dollar cost for transitway conversion also seems to include stations, new elevated, at grade and below grade alignment where they found the transitway alignment lacking.

Correct:
http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/transit_tunnel/op_3/costs_en.html

What you'll notice from the above is that the station costs average $40M (for 9 stations). There is also, coincidentally, about 9 km of transitway being converted (i.e. one station per km), so the $540M total conveniently divides out to $20M/km excluding stations or $60M/km including stations. These costs include "engineering, management and contingency".

Just to refresh everyone's memory, the costs from the April 2008 TMP background document are as follows (M$/km):

• 2.43 Track (rail, ties, ballast)
• 1.35 Power
• 1.00 Power supply
• 1.20 Substations
• 1.50 Control/signals
• 0.75 Communications
• 8.23 Total

There were also items like temporary asphalt and asphalt removal (each on the order of $300k/km), but these seem to have been done away with in the recommended plan. On top of this was 15% engineering/design and on top of that 30% contingency, which tops out at $12.3M/km combined. We've gone from that to $20M/km in less than two years, and all this apparent inflation (50+%) in a period of negligible economy-wide inflation. Indeed, the bids for Calgary's West LRT during the same period have come in below what was estimated due to reductions in labour and material costs.

It's also rather odd to think that there should be much in the way of need for engineering or even contingency for the sections between stations: the Transitway was already engineered when it was built; it doesn't get a lot simpler than putting down track on an existing roadbed.

The higher costs for the conversion could likely have been avoided by instead changing the specs for the vehicles for tighter curves and more gradient. If Toronto's streetcars can be designed for 8% grades (and hauling dead cars up out of 8% grades) and making standard street length turns then so could Ottawas rapid transit LRT be designed for whatever the original transitway was deisnged for. Reducing train length might have prevented rebuilds in a couple places too (maybe the bridges at train could have been retained) since requiring 180m of straight track plus safety approaches reserved really doesn't help much in fitting into existing geometery.

The Transitway is designed as if it is a highway for at least 80 km/h running speeds with gradients less than 3.5%. It's supposed to be "metro-ready". It's already a "fact on the ground" whose built parameters far exceed any vehicle requirements so vehicle specs don't really enter into it. Only at Train does the requirement of 180 m of straight track have an effect and it's not even the most expensive of the station reconstructions.


There really is no easy way to explain the increase in the costs for the actual conversion; the stations are somewhat easier - a combination of initial low-balling and much more complex than originally-envisioned stations.

[MalcolmTucker]

Are 9 km actually being converted? 9.3 km is outside of the tunnel, but a lot of that isn't being converted in the simple way that it likely could be. On page 47 of the report, it looks to me that only about half the Transitway outside of the central tunnel is actually being converted, the rest being realigned, elevated, or tunneled.

Scope creep is the name of the game with this project.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

That's great news about the Provincial funding, but I have a gut feeling that John Baird will flip us the bird...

[eternallyme]

Looking at all the details, it is quite possible that the final bid could come in well below the currently estimated cost...

[Richard Eade]

It might be that costs have risen a bit, but it sounds to me as if Staff is finally realizing that there is more to a train line than just a straight set of rails. The addition of end tails, pocket tracks, switches, modified geometry, embankments, extra road-ways (i.e., Preston extension), the change to some side platforms, land acquisition, and a number of other factors really does make a difference. Who knew?

What I find interesting is the cost of the Maintenance Yard and vehicles, which is now estimated at $515M. In the Scenario 3 (modified), Phase 1 estimate, there was an $390M estimate for vehicles for the Blair to Tunneys segment, and a $100M value for the Yard; for a total of $490M. This implies either that they think that the Yard (and indoor storage, Service Yard spur line, etc.) can be had for only $125M; or that they are getting fewer vehicles for the Blair to Tunneys run. Something that should be noted is the increase in the desired property for the Yard: Originally, the property was just to Trainyard Dr., but now the entire area is being requested. And, of course, there is about a kilometre of spur line into the Maintenance Yard now, which is supposed to be a cut and cover tunnel. I'd love to know the estimated cost of this section: I'd say that it has to be about $50M-60M.