Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 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.

Groan! Are these additional costs all included in the current estimates? How do these costs compare to the original Bowesville Maintenance Yard costs?

[Richard Eade]

From what I heard at the Transit Committee meeting last week, yes these additional costs are now included. I think the new estimates are fairly comprehensive. Even the cost of the additional lanes for Albert (near Booth – you know, where they just finished re-building the north-side curb and sidewalk) and the Preston extension were said to be included. That said, these are still 'Class D' estimates which can vary by ±25%.

Road work like the extension of Industrial Ave. into Hurdman North (Fort Hurdman, as I like to call it since it will have a 3 to 4 metre high rampart protecting it with limited portals. An excellent location for DND or CSIS.) is not included, but the overpass structure of the embankment is. I assume that this road would be paid for with Development Charges assessed on Fort Hurdman. On the subject of Fort Hurdman, if the ground is so contaminated that we wouldn’t even consider digging an underground station, who in their right mind would ever want to buy land there to develop? Oh, wait, they will buy the land from the NCC, and then apply the City’s Brown-field money to cleaning it up. I’m betting that the City will be paying to clean up this area in the long-run. But that’s just my mini-rant for the day.

Just a quick exercise: The tunnel portion was estimated at $550M for three 30 metre deep stations and twin six metre bores of about 2700 metres in length (the short option, to Laurier). Each station was estimated at $70M, so the boring and outfitting of the tunnel was about $340M, or about $125M/Km.

The new estimate is $735M for four underground stations, and about 3800 metres of twin-bore tunnel. The deep stations are now estimated at about $90M each, and I estimate about $60M for the Cut & Cover Campus Station. This leaves $405M for the tunnels, or about $107 M/Km. It appears that the tunneling costs have been estimated lower than before; and this is two years later and includes any increases to the rail and power supplies. So the big difference is that the deep stations have increased in cost from what the Peer Review Board thought was, at best, a bare bones cost; the tunnel is now the long option (previously they had estimated for the shortest option); and the Campus Station is now included in the Tunnel estimate instead of the ‘Conversion from Blair to Tunneys’ cost. It appears that the tunnel’s cost has not ‘sky-rocketed’ as some media reports like to claim, but instead, items have been moved from other estimates into the tunnel costs.

Which brings up the point; why has the estimated cost of the rest of Transitway conversion increased by so much? With 1000 metres less length, and one less station, the $272M estimated conversion cost should have dropped by about $40M. Instead, it has increased to $540M. Isn’t it amazing; change from thinking ‘BRT’ with its simplicity to thinking ‘LRT’ with its need for tail-tracks, sidings, pocket-tracks, power, etc. and the cost jumps significantly. I suppose this could be one of the reasons that the Province wouldn’t take our estimates seriously; they knew our ‘planners’ were out of their league. (I guess I've now used up tomorrow's mini-rant, as well.)

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

From what I heard at the Transit Committee meeting last week, yes these additional costs are now included. I think the new estimates are fairly comprehensive. Even the cost of the additional lanes for Albert (near Booth – you know, where they just finished re-building the north-side curb and sidewalk) and the Preston extension were said to be included. That said, these are still 'Class D' estimates which can vary by ±25%.

Road work like the extension of Industrial Ave. into Hurdman North (Fort Hurdman, as I like to call it since it will have a 3 to 4 metre high rampart protecting it with limited portals. An excellent location for DND or CSIS.) is not included, but the overpass structure of the embankment is. I assume that this road would be paid for with Development Charges assessed on Fort Hurdman. On the subject of Fort Hurdman, if the ground is so contaminated that we wouldn’t even consider digging an underground station, who in their right mind would ever want to buy land there to develop? Oh, wait, they will buy the land from the NCC, and then apply the City’s Brown-field money to cleaning it up. I’m betting that the City will be paying to clean up this area in the long-run. But that’s just my mini-rant for the day.

Just a quick exercise: The tunnel portion was estimated at $550M for three 30 metre deep stations and twin six metre bores of about 2700 metres in length (the short option, to Laurier). Each station was estimated at $70M, so the boring and outfitting of the tunnel was about $340M, or about $125M/Km.

The new estimate is $735M for four underground stations, and about 3800 metres of twin-bore tunnel. The deep stations are now estimated at about $90M each, and I estimate about $60M for the Cut & Cover Campus Station. This leaves $405M for the tunnels, or about $107 M/Km. It appears that the tunneling costs have been estimated lower than before; and this is two years later and includes any increases to the rail and power supplies. So the big difference is that the deep stations have increased in cost from what the Peer Review Board thought was, at best, a bare bones cost; the tunnel is now the long option (previously they had estimated for the shortest option); and the Campus Station is now included in the Tunnel estimate instead of the ‘Conversion from Blair to Tunneys’ cost. It appears that the tunnel’s cost has not ‘sky-rocketed’ as some media reports like to claim, but instead, items have been moved from other estimates into the tunnel costs.

Which brings up the point; why has the estimated cost of the rest of Transitway conversion increased by so much? With 1000 metres less length, and one less station, the $272M estimated conversion cost should have dropped by about $40M. Instead, it has increased to $540M. Isn’t it amazing; change from thinking ‘BRT’ with its simplicity to thinking ‘LRT’ with its need for tail-tracks, sidings, pocket-tracks, power, etc. and the cost jumps significantly. I suppose this could be one of the reasons that the Province wouldn’t take our estimates seriously; they knew our ‘planners’ were out of their league. (I guess I've now used up tomorrow's mini-rant, as well.)

I have an email from a councilor last year that said they would be able to keep the transitway open during construction, with temporary closures of short segments and then reopening them for buses once the rail was in place. Kind of a streetcar in the trench configuration.

They seem to have chucked that idea. I wonder exactly what impractical aspect led them to conclude that they needed to reroute the buses permanently.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

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).

They would need to raise stations or drop the railbed if they went with high-floor trains, right? Either of those could be costly.

They're also looking ahead to the future when the system will have less metro-like segments. A low floor design is easier to integrate into an at-grade rail corridor.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

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.

Well here is where things get confusing, because a lot of that might actually be counted in the station costs (i.e. Bayview, Hurdman, Train). The section across to LeBreton is "new" but it's right beside the existing transitway (which is kind of odd, really).

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Which brings up the point; why has the estimated cost of the rest of Transitway conversion increased by so much? With 1000 metres less length, and one less station, the $272M estimated conversion cost should have dropped by about $40M. Instead, it has increased to $540M. Isn’t it amazing; change from thinking ‘BRT’ with its simplicity to thinking ‘LRT’ with its need for tail-tracks, sidings, pocket-tracks, power, etc. and the cost jumps significantly. I suppose this could be one of the reasons that the Province wouldn’t take our estimates seriously; they knew our ‘planners’ were out of their league. (I guess I've now used up tomorrow's mini-rant, as well.)

The problem is that none of this explains the increase in expense. Calgary is currently building a simple 3 km extension in the northeast in a reserved corridor with two new stations at a cost of around $29M/km (for comparison, our similar length Southwest Transitway extension in a similar corridor is costing us about $26M/km). That means they have to clear and truck away existing soil, build new grade crossings, sound walls, deal with any utility crossings, landscaping, build whatever switches and tail tracks are required, etc., AND BUILD STATIONS whereas for us much of this has already been done. It doesn't make too much sense that just converting a kilometre of existing roadbed costs $20M when a kilometre of completely new LRT corridor with stations et al. in Calgary can be built from scratch for $29M/km. When we were looking at costs of $8-12M/km, these could be reconciled, but not now.

Originally Posted by RTWAP

I have an email from a councilor last year that said they would be able to keep the transitway open during construction, with temporary closures of short segments and then reopening them for buses once the rail was in place. Kind of a streetcar in the trench configuration.

They seem to have chucked that idea. I wonder exactly what impractical aspect led them to conclude that they needed to reroute the buses permanently.

They were going to lay down temporary asphalt post-rail installation to run the buses, but they also envisioned at the time removing the existing asphalt to lay tracks instead of just laying the tracks on top of the asphalt.

There's basically not much need to shut down the Transitway at all if this is what they're going to do. The electrics should be installed on side-mounted poles (or fixed into trench walls) to avoid digging up the transitway (disruption being limited to driving around localized work, as at present) and once the electrics are ready the tracks can be assembled (rail on ties) on the shoulders. At the appointed hour the tracks would be moved across into position, then ballasted. They could do this last step in a week, and maybe even a weekend, if they had the gumption for it. Control might initially have to be by train order until signalling is ready (which in practice means that the people who can't keep buses running on time will have a fit because they'll have to try the same thing with trains).

Originally Posted by RTWAP

They would need to raise stations or drop the railbed if they went with high-floor trains, right? Either of those could be costly.

The stations are going to have to be raised anyway.

[the capital urbanite]

The stations are going to have to be raised anyway.

...Actually they will be raZed! ...We'll finally be rid of those horrible red greenhouses! Or are they going to keep them?!

...but seriously...raising the station height isn't a big deal since the standard Transitway station (Tunney's, Lees, Cyrville, Blair) was designed for low-floor LRT conversion. There is an additional concrete footing at the base of the glazed elements to allow the height of the floor to be raised to accomodate LRT. Just need to pour new concrete floors and it's done.

[Dado]

The existing structures are to go/be razed.

While I agree that the concrete supports are high enough to allow a higher platform to be built, I don't believe this was the intent, not the least because low-floor LRT was less common at the time of original Transitway construction and there was always the possibility of creating a high-floor metro system. The elevators will also need to be reset.

Moreover, the placement of the tracks in the current passing lanes means that new platforms will need to be constructed in the current stopping lanes. We're going to end up with super-wide platforms because of this.


What's becoming quite clear is that while the transitway between stations is fairly easily converted, the Transitway stations are not.

[Kitchissippi]

A lot of the transitway stations are so counter-intuitive, I don't know where their mind was when they were designing them. Take Westboro station for example, you would think if you got off the westbound platforms and wanted to continue a connecting local bus, the upper platforms for the westbound 2 would be on the same side but they are not. If you are in a wheelchair, you'd b doubly inconvenienced, since the elevators take you to exterior, meaning you have to enter a set of doors, cross the bridge and exit another set of doors.

[waterloowarrior]

Rail plan likely to face $300M cut

Three levels of government won't fork over hoped-for $2.1B
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Rail+plan+likely+face+300M/2373003/story.html
BY NECO COCKBURN, THE OTTAWA CITIZENDECEMBER 23, 2009COMMENTS (1)


The Ontario government's promise to provide $600 million for Ottawa's new light-rail transit system will likely force the city to take a "sharpened pencil" approach to its plans for the major project, some city councillors say.

The city could be dealing with a $300-million shortfall in its $2.1-billion light-rail project, assuming the federal government matches the funding from the province and the city sticks to the typical funding arrangement in which each level of government chips in one third of the cost.

Councillors said Tuesday that the city will need to look into "value engineering" and reconsider the amount of money set aside for the unexpected as the city tries to figure out how the shortfall will affect the project.

"You work through all of those issues to come down to answer that key question: Can you deliver this project at $1.8 billion? I think that that's going to be a good exercise for the city to go through, it's one we have to go through," said Alta Vista Councillor Peter Hume, chairman of the planning and environment committee.

"There are certainly a lot of options for the city to consider. I think we owe it in the first instance to see if we can deliver the program that we've all been talking about, through a sharpened-pencil process."

On Friday, the provincial government pledged $600 million to the light-rail project, which includes a 12.5-kilometre, 13-station route between Tunney's Pasture and Blair stations. A 3.2-kilometre tunnel under the downtown core makes up part of the route. The project is the first phase of a major transit plan that's supposed to last Ottawa until the 2030s.

The city had hoped the federal and provincial government would each provide $700 million for the project. With the federal government possibly matching the province's contribution of $600 million, the city could be forced to trim the project or make up the shortfall itself.

Hume called the provincial funding a "significant achievement" for council and a "friendly challenge" from Premier Dalton McGuinty.

Bay Councillor Alex Cullen, chairman of council's transit committee, said it's too early to tell how the city will deal with the shortfall, but the tunnel set out in current plans can't be shortened or narrowed, "and it would be counterproductive to remove stations."

The plan has a $100-million contingency component -- for cost overruns and unexpected problems -- and the city has the financial capacity to make up the shortfall itself anyway.

"But, obviously, we would want to look at what can be hived off to avoid that," Cullen said.

The city's capital budget in a typical year is between $500 million and $700 million, covering everything from road work to laying new sewers to replacing old buses to fixing community-centre roofs.

Plans need to be analyzed before any changes are considered, Cullen said.

The shortfall is "no small thing, but I don't think it's an obstacle to getting the job done," Cullen said.

Cullen considers the potential shortfall to be $200 million because the city could still pay the $700 million it looked at as its third of the funding, he said.

The project's functional plan was approved by the transit committee this month and goes before council on Jan. 13.

Cullen said he didn't expect decisions about the shortfall to be made at that meeting, but he thinks staff will likely be directed to "sharpen their pencils."

Gloucester-South Nepean Councillor Steve Desroches said he didn't want the city to stretch itself financially to make up any shortfall.

"It sends the wrong message to our federal and provincial partners that if they don't fund us, then we'd be willing to do more on our own," he said. "We are going to have other projects right across the city that we are going to need to continue to support and finance."

Desroches said he was glad the provincial government would help fund the rail project and hoped the federal government matched it, but Desroches said he had concerns that the city's plan did not have enough flexibility to adapt to the available money.

"I think we need to take heed of the premier's comments where we need to tailor the suit to fit the cloth," he said.

[email protected]

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[the capital urbanite]

Unless private partnerships are introduced to subsidize downtown station construction, the tunnel+stations cost is set in stone (pardon the pun). However, the black box in this budget is the conversion of the Transitway less the downtown core. Is there any more detailed costing of Transitway conversion in the public domain? Surely the estimated cost of the station retrofits could be significantly cut (e.g. Cyrville, and especially at Bayview and Blair where the suggested layouts seem to be overkill imo....just build a temporary station at Bayview since we son't be seeing N-S electric LRT for another decade or so).

[Dado]

The only detailed cost breakdown is from the TMP background document published in April 2008:

Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications, April 2008 (McCormick Rankin, Delcan)

You'll have to scroll down to Appendix F for detailed cost breakdowns segment-by-segment. Most instructive is the estimate for LRT from Hurdman to Blair (estimate "C4"), on PDF page 145.

For the 5300 metres of this segment, the total cost is given as $96M. The cost of converting *all* stations comes in at just $16M, whereas now we can barely convert one basic station for this amount.

The cost of Bayview is entirely due to building a whole new structure to the north of the current overpass. I have heard two reasons given for this:
1. Reduces disruption during conversion. The current structure is not level for a long enough distance to accommodate 180 m platforms, so it would have to be lengthened by further enlarging the embankment on the east side; this pretty much makes continued use during conversion impossible. I'm surprised though that they didn't think of running a temporary busway across Bayview Yard and the unused trackage to the north instead.
2. It affords a better radius for the future N-S LRT to/from the south - a most interesting admission. The lower level platforms will be protected for only 3-car trains, a fact that also limits the length of trains that can go to Gatineau.


Personally, I think they should completely reconsider the rationale for an elevated station at all. It doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to rise out of the Transitway trench, over a rail line owned by the City and back down to go under an extension of Preston and then under Booth and ultimately into a tunnel. Then further consider that this elevated structure is not going to interface at all well with redevelopment in the area. A continuation of the trench going under Bayview and the O-Train track would seem to be a lot simpler.

[Richard Eade]

It does appear as if cost was not a major factor in this system's design; I am sure that $200M can be cut if they decide to open up their closed minds and alter the plans.

The depth is one big thing that could be reduced. I see nothing on the profiles provided in that huge 142MB file Staff released that would justify the current planned depth. Of course, remarkably!, foundations are not even shown on those profiles! By reducing the depth, we can cut down the capital cost of mining up to the surface, and installing elevating devices. This will also reduce the operating and maintenance costs into the future.

I think the biggest cut could be the removal of the Bayview to Tunneys link. Lookng at the current buses, only the numbers 94, 95, 15 and 102 actually go between Blair and Tunneys Pasture. Between Gatineau and Tunneys, I only see the 105. There are NO Express buses from the east or from Gatineau to Tunneys Pasture so why are we worrying about having a direct train connection in the temporary state? In the morning there should be lots of #95s heading back west after dropping off people downtown so the buses should be plentiful and comparitively empty.

I would even look into the possibility of using Cut and Cover to build a shallow tunnel along Slater to the new library site. Some of the Combined sewers along that stretch of Slater date back to the 1890s and are scheduled for rehabilitation. This is an excellent opportunity to use the same money to do two jobs. The sewers get separated, the utilities can be updated to support the impending Escarpment Area redevelopment, and the money which would have been spent on that can also help dig the tunnel. Also, since the tunnel will be complete to the Library site, then the money used to dig the foundation of the library can also help dig the new Library Station which would be diagonal from Slater/Bay to Albert/Lyon. This excavation, by the way, would make an excellent launch site for the TBM, further reducing costs by reducing the bored length and removing the need to mine one station.

The possibilities of doubling up of the work that money does has not been included in the DOTT cost estimates.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Dado

The only detailed cost breakdown is from the TMP background document published in April 2008:

Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications, April 2008 (McCormick Rankin, Delcan)

You'll have to scroll down to Appendix F for detailed cost breakdowns segment-by-segment. Most instructive is the estimate for LRT from Hurdman to Blair (estimate "C4"), on PDF page 145.

For the 5300 metres of this segment, the total cost is given as $96M. The cost of converting *all* stations comes in at just $16M, whereas now we can barely convert one basic station for this amount.

The cost of Bayview is entirely due to building a whole new structure to the north of the current overpass. I have heard two reasons given for this:
1. Reduces disruption during conversion. The current structure is not level for a long enough distance to accommodate 180 m platforms, so it would have to be lengthened by further enlarging the embankment on the east side; this pretty much makes continued use during conversion impossible. I'm surprised though that they didn't think of running a temporary busway across Bayview Yard and the unused trackage to the north instead.
2. It affords a better radius for the future N-S LRT to/from the south - a most interesting admission. The lower level platforms will be protected for only 3-car trains, a fact that also limits the length of trains that can go to Gatineau.


Personally, I think they should completely reconsider the rationale for an elevated station at all. It doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to rise out of the Transitway trench, over a rail line owned by the City and back down to go under an extension of Preston and then under Booth and ultimately into a tunnel. Then further consider that this elevated structure is not going to interface at all well with redevelopment in the area. A continuation of the trench going under Bayview and the O-Train track would seem to be a lot simpler.

Continuing the trench under Bayview would essentially require it to go into a tunnel, since the O-Train line is below grade there. Moving it at-grade is an option, but would likely require a 3rd level for pedestrian movements.

Another option would be for it to be on the existing Transitway bridge, with any future movement (whether onto a Gatineau-bound route or the north-south line) at the surface/O-Train level.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

It does appear as if cost was not a major factor in this system's design; I am sure that $200M can be cut if they decide to open up their closed minds and alter the plans.

The depth is one big thing that could be reduced. I see nothing on the profiles provided in that huge 142MB file Staff released that would justify the current planned depth. Of course, remarkably!, foundations are not even shown on those profiles! By reducing the depth, we can cut down the capital cost of mining up to the surface, and installing elevating devices. This will also reduce the operating and maintenance costs into the future.

I think the biggest cut could be the removal of the Bayview to Tunneys link. Lookng at the current buses, only the numbers 94, 95, 15 and 102 actually go between Blair and Tunneys Pasture. Between Gatineau and Tunneys, I only see the 105. There are NO Express buses from the east or from Gatineau to Tunneys Pasture so why are we worrying about having a direct train connection in the temporary state? In the morning there should be lots of #95s heading back west after dropping off people downtown so the buses should be plentiful and comparitively empty.

I would even look into the possibility of using Cut and Cover to build a shallow tunnel along Slater to the new library site. Some of the Combined sewers along that stretch of Slater date back to the 1890s and are scheduled for rehabilitation. This is an excellent opportunity to use the same money to do two jobs. The sewers get separated, the utilities can be updated to support the impending Escarpment Area redevelopment, and the money which would have been spent on that can also help dig the tunnel. Also, since the tunnel will be complete to the Library site, then the money used to dig the foundation of the library can also help dig the new Library Station which would be diagonal from Slater/Bay to Albert/Lyon. This excavation, by the way, would make an excellent launch site for the TBM, further reducing costs by reducing the bored length and removing the need to mine one station.

The possibilities of doubling up of the work that money does has not been included in the DOTT cost estimates.

The 15 no longer goes to Tunney's Pasture (it now ends at the Rideau Centre). Shortening it is a possibility, although it wouldn't save a whole lot of money since a terminal station has to be built somewhere, although deferring it to the second stage could equalize costs some as the Baseline-Tunney's Pasture section shouldn't be nearly as expensive as there isn't a whole lot of earth movement required (much of it should be at-grade). I know we both suggested that the LRT be extended to Westboro immediately though due to the high density residential and catchment potential.

[MalcolmTucker]

How about make the terminal stations not be palaces - having only minimally functional terminal stations saves a tad plus keeps the political momentum going.

[Richard Eade]

I like the idea of tunneling under Bayview Road instead of going over it. I have never been thrilled with the wall that separates the Bayview Yards from Scott Street. If the Yards ever get developed, it will be another barrier for people.

Interestingly, the trench bottom is almost exactly at the same as the current O-Train track (about 55-56 metres).

That said, however, the profiles given by Staff show a few places of concern. Sorry for the big file, but I wanted enough detail.



I have circled the four trouble spots.

Spot 1 is probably easy to fix since it is just stacked storm sewers. It is probably possible to consolidate them at the lower level.

Spot 3 (I'll get to Spot 2 next) is a couple of sewers (one San and one Stm) which I have no sollution for since I don't have any more information about them. It might be possible to tunnel under these sewers, but the slopes would be above 5%. I would like to see the slopes limited to 3% to allow conversion to Heavy Rail in the future. (By the way, Staff have 5% grades in a number of places so are apparently not planning to upgrade this system without huge costs.)

Spot 2 arises from my not wanting to have steep slopes. In order to get under Bayview Road, I suggest that the road be raised by 2 metres.

Spot 4 is also constrained by under ground sewers.

Notice that I only mention the sewers although there are also watermains. Since watermains are forced, sections can be moved up or down easily. Sewers, on the other hand, must maintain their gravity driven flow. I don't know if it is possible to lower one section of a sewer and relying on water to seek its same level on the other side.

After all this, as I said above, I'd like to see the route tunnelled, but along a slightly different alignment.



This arrangement allows the O-Train to go in all directions, but no tracks are cut bu another train; all changes are merges or diverges. The O-Train would change direction when needed in the pocket tracks at either end of the station. The station has a central platform which all trains share. the station is lower than grade so a pedestrian overpass to get to the platform would be simple.

This alignment also moves the track back to increase the developable area along Scott.

In order to raise the Scott/Bayview intersection, I would suggest expropriating the house on the corner. The trench beside the arena need not be covered, but I would like to see the linear park along Scott reinstated if possible although I think the train will be at grade level for a bit of it.

[the capital urbanite]

There is always the option of taking Bayview station out of Phase I altogether. Given that the N-S phase is at least 10 years away is there really a need for a monstrous transfer station? Keep the current O-train station and add a temporary E-W LRT station.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

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

Why? He's the one who pooched the first LRT (N-S) project. I thought Baird "rusty" and Larry "zero" were buds?

[RTWAP]

(post-deleted)

I like Richard's idea. A lot.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I think the biggest cut could be the removal of the Bayview to Tunneys link.

I'm a firm believer that the fundamental reason for building to Tunney's is that it commits the city to a western alignment other than Carling (which would be too expensive). I think the planners have wanted it to go along Byron all along but don't want to inflame the neighbourhood until that alignment has been made inevitable by a combination of economics and the NCC.