Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Ah, of course. I should have gotten that from the map. What about BR?

Bayview Road. There is another Bayview (Drive) elsewhere in Ottawa. That's gotta be the reason, although if you look it up it is unlikely it will ever be a major transit stop.

[waterloowarrior]

edit: n/m

[DubberDom]

Bayview railyards

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

It's not always about accessibility but being near downtown as well.

The Via Rail station seems like it is a long way from downtown but in the long term it will become part of downtown. Accessibility helps limit the impact of distance on its location. Having a combined rail, bus and transit station increases ridership for each of the modes because of the convenience that arise from the ease of interconnections between each type of transport. Unfortunately as previous posts have said there is no suitable land downtown for a bus station other than Le Breton Flats and it suffers from its inaccessabilty from the Queensway.

Bingo, they did that in Quebec City, and it's really great to have many transit options. While the existing Via station is far from downtown, I hope it gets better access, I don't understand while there's no bridge or underpass to the stadium.

[waterloowarrior]

hey, welcome back d_jeffrey

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

hey, welcome back d_jeffrey

Thanks, I needed some time to find myself a good job, so if everything goes well, I'm starting a 6 figures job in two weeks!

(and no, not $300 and three smiley faces)

[eemy]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Thanks, I needed some time to find myself a good job, so if everything goes well, I'm starting a 6 figures job in two weeks!

(and no, not $300 and three smiley faces)

Only two smiley faces?

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

Only two smiley faces?

Shhhhh, don't tell, everybody will think that I'm a big shot now.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Shhhhh, don't tell, everybody will think that I'm a big shot now.

Good news. We were missing a Brayon* perspective on this forum!


*Look it up, people!

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Good news. We were missing a Brayon* perspective on this forum!


*Look it up, people!

Don't laugh at that, you have no idea on how frequently I'm served in English since I'm in Montréal, due to my accent. Even when I was in France last fall, I had to argue with them not to say my last name with an English accent.

* For those who say that it doesn't relate to rapid transit, just pretend that I'm living on the fast lane, and that covers it.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

^ The former suburb collectors that go downtown right now will no longer, so less buses will be able to provide higher frequency. The buses will be less delayed by congestion since they aren't going downtown.

The main cost of any system is still the drivers. 1 driver for 4 LRT cars = a lot less than 1 for 1 articulated bus for same capacity.

Savings will be earned not only from the pure transitway buses, but community buses that travel further than the current planned ends of the LRT.

There might be a bit of a lag until savings builds up, due to union agreements, but usually if there is 'lack of work' the union can't do squat to stop it. Plus, since if OC Transpo went on strike over the new work plan since the LRT is a new facility you could hire people to run it without breaking labour laws. I think they would much rather have their senior drivers promoted to LRT drivers, with enclosed cabs, a section of automated running, than left out driving the buses.

Has anyone nailed down that jell-o yet? The Delcan report probably got the numbers wrong, with operating expenses very close for LRT and BRT, but I haven't seen an official correction of those numbers. How can the city spend $2.1B without accurate numbers? How can the province and federal gov't allow our money to be spent without the info?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Don't laugh at that, you have no idea on how frequently I'm served in English since I'm in Montréal, due to my accent. Even when I was in France last fall, I had to argue with them not to say my last name with an English accent.

Maybe you hung out too much in the bars of Madawaska, Maine in your youth!

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Franky

Has anyone nailed down that jell-o yet? The Delcan report probably got the numbers wrong, with operating expenses very close for LRT and BRT, but I haven't seen an official correction of those numbers. How can the city spend $2.1B without accurate numbers? How can the province and federal gov't allow our money to be spent without the info?

I started revising the documents. You have some jewel quotes such as:

"The average speed along a line will be a product, including many factors, including:
The length of the platform and the length of the train. A longer train will take a longer time
to run-in to the station and stop, thereby adding to the travel time."

The train has NO obligation to start decelerating at the start of the station platform if there are platform screen doors. Even the RER in Paris, the trains only stops starting mid-platform.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Maybe you hung out too much in the bars of Madawaska, Maine in your youth!

Nah, I moved out when I was 16. I still remember the Madawaska folks coming down to our restaurants after bar closed. They were ordering buns, only buns, at 0.35$ each. How cheap can you be! Once even left 0.40$ for the "meal" and said to the waitress: "Keep the change!".

[waterloowarrior]

History of the Ottawa Subway @ Spacing

[Dado]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

I started revising the documents. You have some jewel quotes such as:

"The average speed along a line will be a product, including many factors, including:
The length of the platform and the length of the train. A longer train will take a longer time to run-in to the station and stop, thereby adding to the travel time."

The train has NO obligation to start decelerating at the start of the station platform if there are platform screen doors. Even the RER in Paris, the trains only stops starting mid-platform.

But that's not the reason why the above quote is a bunch of nonsense.

The claim is made that the longer trains and platforms will affect the average speed along the line. The fact of a longer platform (e.g. 180 m vs 120 m) does not affect this because the distance of the track along the extra length of the platform has to be covered by the train regardless; the only difference is that the track corresponding to the extra length of the platform (well, half of the difference, assuming that the centroid of the station is the same, so 30 m) gets covered before the train stops rather than after it leaves again. The extra length of the platform does, however, slightly affect the travel time of an individual passenger since they have to wait for the train to cover that extra 30 m at the station they get off at (but the extra 30 m at all the preceding stations is of no matter for the same reason it is of no matter to the train - only the extra at *their* stop matters).

Of course of far more importance to passenger travel time is the time taken to go up and down all that extra height and the fact that fewer stations downtown will much increase passenger walking times (though it might save slightly by reducing the number of stops).

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Dado

But that's not the reason why the above quote is a bunch of nonsense.

The claim is made that the longer trains and platforms will affect the average speed along the line. The fact of a longer platform (e.g. 180 m vs 120 m) does not affect this because the distance of the track along the extra length of the platform has to be covered by the train regardless; the only difference is that the track corresponding to the extra length of the platform (well, half of the difference, assuming that the centroid of the station is the same, so 30 m)

The reason they posted this was that many subways system have their system to stop decelerating the train at the start of the platform, which, with a longer platorm would be indeed take a longer time. But this for really older systems... it's not even an issue today.

[Richard Eade]

Reading through the Staff report of December 16, 2009, I see that the hole for the Campus Station will likely also be the recovery pit for the TBM. This pit will be in the space-restricted area between Nicholas and Colonel By, with a vertical retaining wall of about 23 metres beside Nicholas. This is almost an 8-story retaining wall!



I do not believe that Nicholas can not be affected. At best, it will be reduced to two lanes, at worst, closed entirely. I found a representative picture of a european station being built:



The duration that this cut will be open will be quite long as it needs to be there when the first pass of the TBM is complete and at the end of the second pass. Only then can the station begin to be built. This will affect Nicholas for probably 2-1/2 to 3 years. And don't think that you will simply use Colonel By as an alternative, since it will likely also be closed during this construction.

Of course, the closing of Nicholas would be a great time to work on the Cut & Cover tunnel that needs to cross Nicholas and Mann to get to Lees Station. Again, a representative picture from the Web:



The biggest problem is going to be when this Cut & Cover operation gets near the east portal because that is too close to the Transitway turn-off between Lees Station and Mann. Remember that the Portal cut will still be about 13 metres deep. There are only a few metres between the two so once the tunnel work gets close to the portal, buses will no longer be able to use the turn-off to get to King Edward.



Instead, buses will need to use the access which passes beside the tower next to the Station. This will mean that all buses will need to rise up to Lees Ave. to sweep over the 417 to get to King Edward. This will probably lead to the need for a traffic signal at the intersection of the Transitway access and Lees Avenue.



Traffic- and transit-wise this plann is VERY disruptive.

[GoTrans]

Let's just think about this for a second. Yes tunnel construction will be disruptive but once the TBM has started its bore it is travelling underground until the far end of the tunnel is reached. The only disprution will be at the ends of the tunnel and at the stations. If the surface option is used you will a minimum of 2 lanes of traffic on each block under construction if both east and westbound track pads are built at the same time. If only one direction is constructed at a time the period of construction on each block is doubled. All cross streets will also be subject to disruption. There is always disruption during any construction but the long term benefits should out weigh the costs. It is to gain these long term benefits that makes construction of a tunnel worthwhile.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Let's just think about this for a second. Yes tunnel construction will be disruptive but once the TBM has started its bore it is travelling underground until the far end of the tunnel is reached. The only disprution will be at the ends of the tunnel and at the stations. If the surface option is used you will a minimum of 2 lanes of traffic on each block under construction if both east and westbound track pads are built at the same time. If only one direction is constructed at a time the period of construction on each block is doubled. All cross streets will also be subject to disruption. There is always disruption during any construction but the long term benefits should out weigh the costs. It is to gain these long term benefits that makes construction of a tunnel worthwhile.

So why not do it right and do a cut&cover (or other shallow tunnelling method) which would have a better result, cost less and cause only slightly more disruption?

The promise of using a TBM is minimal disruption, but it clearly isn't the case here. We're looking at considerable disruption anyway.