Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Richard Eade]

My recommendations for the design of this section are as follows:

- Investigate future Transitway connections into Bayshore Station and account for those possibilities in the design.
- Lower Holly Acres Road to reduce the grade to the overpass structure carrying the Transitway west, as this will minimize the noise from buses climbing the ramps. Any 'Interim' layout should also lower Holly Acres Road and re-position the 417 ramps to their final location to minimize disruption later. This road/ramp lowering will also provide some noise attenuation.
- Extend the ramp on the west side of the Holly Acres Overpass to reduce the grade and therefore minimize the noise of buses heading east.
- Use Holly Acres as the area's only access to the west-bound 417 by removing the free-flow ramp from south-bound Richmond Road, and its associated 'Jersey Barriers' along the 417. The removal of this ramp and barrier would add two general traffic lanes to the west-bound 417 along this section.
- Minimizing the encroachment north of the 417 by building the two new lanes in the median of the 417 and shifting the highway traffic south will also benefit the Crystal Beach residents by moving the 417 traffic farther from the homes.
- Since a signalized right turn is a distinctive demarcation point for drivers to reduce their speed, lobby the MTO to reconfigure the north-side 417 ramps at Moodie to a diamond intersecting at the north end of the existing Moodie Drive structure. This need not shorten any ramps but opens the area north of this new intersection for better transit design and future land development. A benefit to the MTO is the extra lane reclaimed from the ramp for general west-bound traffic on the 417.

Supporting diagrams to these suggestions follow:

Council Approved Plan (applicable section):




Holly Acres Road Section:



This is a wider view than what the Consultants appear to have looked at. It also includes the approved secondary BRT from the south. In order not to block off a good Transitway route, I have not gone the MTO's route to have the east-bound ramp to the 417 start at the off-bound ramp's intersection with Holly Acres. (They are effectively trying to make a diamond with Holly Acres, removing 417 access from Richmond, but they appear willing to leave the free-flow ramp from south-bound Richmond to west-bound 417. Does anyone else think that the person responsible for keeping that ramp and re-building it as it is now should be fired?) In my mind, there would be six lanes passing under the 417 and its ramps; three on each side of the central supports.



In this suggestion, the traffic flows pretty much freely, with the only stops (at the white bars) acting asynchronously when opposing traffic arrives. For example, the only time the through north-bound lane of Holly Acres is interupted is when a bus needs to turn into the Bayshore Station. Similarly, the folks turning left onto the 417 ramp only need to be stopped when there is a south-bound vehicle that needs to go straight through.

Main-Line Section:



Yes, I know there are two lanes coming off the 416 (fuchsia), but I only drew one so you will have to use your imagination.

Moodie Drive Section:



See how moving to a diamond configuration opens up lots of possibilities? And it really isn't any different from what the City is planning - except that I have moved the ramp intersection to just north of the Moodie structure. The City is planning to move the start of the circular ramp to the current intersection with the off-ramps. They also need to re-locate Corkstown Road (cutting the corner off the sports field) because they have no room for their Transfer Station there.

[eternallyme]

I don't think a bus loop is needed at Moodie; the only route that intersects is Route 166. A single bus every half hour in each direction (most of the time) can definitely continue to be accessed on Moodie Drive.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Ciemny

City, province, working on Transitway deal
By JON WILLING, Ottawa Sun

Last Updated: February 28, 2010 2:41pm
The city is hammering out a deal with the province to use land along Hwy. 417 to build a Transitway extension in the west end.

The 12-acre parcel of land between Pinecrest Rd. and Holly Acres Rd. is in provincial hands and the city needs it for the preferred path of the extension. The two sides have been at odds over how much the land is worth, with the province asking about $4 million. The city thinks it’s only worth $2.6 million.
...


Isin't that part of the transitway already finished? Between Pinecrest and Acres road? Seems to be it is the Acres to Moodie section they are talking about not the previously completed section.

The journalist is no doubt confused by the fact that the City and the MTO haven't come to an agreement on the price the City should pay the MTO to use some MTO land which the MTO has already allowed the City to build on.

What is REALLY galling about this is that the MTO has still got all the land it needs for the full "ultimate" freeway configuration through here (there's *5* westbound lanes west of Pinecrest, although between the City and the MTO they've managed to screw things up by having one lane just come to an end beneath Richmond while another lane to enter the 416 starts up at the same spot... can't have forced left turn-offs to another freeway if you're the MTO I guess...); the land the City used is surplus to their needs. It's little more than profiteering on the MTO's part.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Dado

The journalist is no doubt confused by the fact that the City and the MTO haven't come to an agreement on the price the City should pay the MTO to use some MTO land which the MTO has already allowed the City to build on.

What is REALLY galling about this is that the MTO has still got all the land it needs for the full "ultimate" freeway configuration through here (there's *5* westbound lanes west of Pinecrest, although between the City and the MTO they've managed to screw things up by having one lane just come to an end beneath Richmond while another lane to enter the 416 starts up at the same spot... can't have forced left turn-offs to another freeway if you're the MTO I guess...); the land the City used is surplus to their needs. It's little more than profiteering on the MTO's part.

The lane configuration there will always be complex due to the fact that four ramps come in and out in a short time, and left exits are seriously discouraged these days as the lane that would have the fastest traffic flow (and truck restrictions) would be exiting.

I definitely agree that reconfiguring into a diamond on the north side is necessary unless the alignment is shifted well south or into the 417 median. Any alignment must be convertable to LRT as well.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

The lane configuration there will always be complex due to the fact that four ramps come in and out in a short time, and left exits are seriously discouraged these days as the lane that would have the fastest traffic flow (and truck restrictions) would be exiting.

Well so what?

Currently, you can only get to Hwy 416 from the leftmost lane anyway. It's just that they open up a new lane around Richmond that one can use, or one can stay in what was the leftmost lane to go either on Hwy 416 or Hwy 417. Meanwhile, they open up a new lane from the north-to-west parclo at Pinecrest (which everyone seems to immediately change out of) and another still to its right from the south-to-west onramp at Pinecrest. This latter is a forced exit at Richmond while its friend to the left allows one to either exit at Richmond or apparently carry on westwards, except one had to merge out just under Richmond. That means that someone who came on at Pinecrest from the south-to-west onramp has to make two lane changes from there to Richmond.

If they made that lane continuous and made the leftmost lane a forced exit at Hwy 416 and let people know about it way back before Pinecrest, then people would have the option to exit to Hwy 416 from either of the two leftmost lanes while not forcing the people who get on at Pinecrest to make two lane changes (and people who want to get on at Pinecrest to go to Hwy 416 have a real task - four lane changes against three). The MTO has basically created a needless bottleneck through their choice of lane lines because anyone who wants to go off at Hwy 416 has to cram into the left lane and only the left lane while the lane that starts from the parclo is of no use to anyone.

I definitely agree that reconfiguring into a diamond on the north side is necessary unless the alignment is shifted well south or into the 417 median. Any alignment must be convertable to LRT as well.

I don't know who you're replying to or even what... the Pinecrest interchange? Or the Moodie interchange? Probably the Moodie interchange? IMHO both could do with getting the diamond treatment on the north side when the transitway goes through. I have a hard time believing that westbound traffic at either of them is enough to justify having two ramps at each; the savings for transitway construction by heavily cutting down on the number of underpasses (and especially the savings on the skewness of the underpasses of the off-ramps that would be required currently) would be substantial at both locations.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

My recommendations for the design of this section are as follows:

- Investigate future Transitway connections into Bayshore Station and account for those possibilities in the design.
- Lower Holly Acres Road to reduce the grade to the overpass structure carrying the Transitway west, as this will minimize the noise from buses climbing the ramps. Any 'Interim' layout should also lower Holly Acres Road and re-position the 417 ramps to their final location to minimize disruption later. This road/ramp lowering will also provide some noise attenuation.

I don't really think this is necessary... Any grading for the transitway can be done all the way back to Bayshore.

- Extend the ramp on the west side of the Holly Acres Overpass to reduce the grade and therefore minimize the noise of buses heading east.
- Use Holly Acres as the area's only access to the west-bound 417 by removing the free-flow ramp from south-bound Richmond Road, and its associated 'Jersey Barriers' along the 417. The removal of this ramp and barrier would add two general traffic lanes to the west-bound 417 along this section.

That would really annoy people coming out of Bayshore and it's not like extra lanes are needed through here... and if they make the change I suggested earlier by making the leftmost lane a forced exit to Hwy 416 (since that lane is dominated by Hwy 416-bound traffic anyway) and making the right lane that terminates under Richmond continuous they'd get an extra lane pretty much for the cost of a line repainting.

- Minimizing the encroachment north of the 417 by building the two new lanes in the median of the 417 and shifting the highway traffic south will also benefit the Crystal Beach residents by moving the 417 traffic farther from the homes.

This is something the City should have insisted upon when the MTO did their EA for the 417 widening... after all, the MTO had to "consult" with the City, did they not? The City knew they would be having to put in a transitway at some point (since it was already in the TMP) and so did the MTO. The City should have just requested that routing of the transitway be made part of the MTO's 417 EA process, and having seen the MTO's Class EA I know that there is provision in that very document for studying transitways. The fact we're even doing this EA now is an inexcusable example of costly non-cooperation by both the City and the MTO.

- Since a signalized right turn is a distinctive demarcation point for drivers to reduce their speed, lobby the MTO to reconfigure the north-side 417 ramps at Moodie to a diamond intersecting at the north end of the existing Moodie Drive structure. This need not shorten any ramps but opens the area north of this new intersection for better transit design and future land development. A benefit to the MTO is the extra lane reclaimed from the ramp for general west-bound traffic on the 417.

I like it.

Moodie Drive Section:



See how moving to a diamond configuration opens up lots of possibilities? And it really isn't any different from what the City is planning - except that I have moved the ramp intersection to just north of the Moodie structure. The City is planning to move the start of the circular ramp to the current intersection with the off-ramps. They also need to re-locate Corkstown Road (cutting the corner off the sports field) because they have no room for their Transfer Station there.

I like the "normalizing" of Corkstown Rd.

How do you deal with the *ahem* interim *ahem* configuration at Moodie where the transitway doesn't go beneath Moodie? In particular, how do eastbound buses get onto the transitway and how do westbound buses get off it and onto the westbound bus lane without wasting a lot of time? Via the realigned Corkstown Rd? Since we know that any "interim" configuration is actually going to last for a good long while, quite possibly until conversion to LRT, this needs to be addressed and I'm not sure what you've presented here deals with this.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Dado

How do you deal with the *ahem* interim *ahem* configuration at Moodie where the transitway doesn't go beneath Moodie? In particular, how do eastbound buses get onto the transitway and how do westbound buses get off it and onto the westbound bus lane without wasting a lot of time? Via the realigned Corkstown Rd? Since we know that any "interim" configuration is actually going to last for a good long while, quite possibly until conversion to LRT, this needs to be addressed and I'm not sure what you've presented here deals with this.

I'm trying to figure out what the "official" proposal for this is... I can't seem to find anything.

Will eastbound buses be expected to exit at Moodie, turn left and then get on the transitway? Or will there be a structure west of Moodie that allows direct access from the eastbound bus lanes to the transitway on the north side of the highway?

I'm thinking something like the bus lane/transitway connector east of Blair Rd.
(http://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.435744,-75.596581&spn=0.00652,0.012553&t=h&z=16)

[Dado]

If by "this" you mean the proposal to build the West Transitway from Holly Acres to Moodie... it was listed in the 2008 TMP as a priority project due to delays then experienced by eastbound buses.

The thing is, with the MTO's 417 widening, I can't actually see that there's much likelihood of this delay occurring any more (I freely admit that I've never had the inclination to go out to Kanata early in the morning for the sole purpose of taking a bus back in to actually see how things work, so I'm just making educated guesses - if anyone has had this inclination, or, God forbid, actually lives in Kanata, feel free to correct me). There are a few reasons I think the current situation ought to work all right.

Formerly, in the eastbound direction there were two regular lanes and one shoulder bus lane. A third lane started up east of Moodie. Then (as now), buses had to merge out of the bus lane before the Moodie interchange (because that lane became the off-ramp) but because that point was before the new lane started up there was bottlenecking. An onramp joined beneath the Moodie overpass and merged into the two lanes (again, before that third lane started up), further adding to the bottlenecking. East of Moodie another on-ramp joined the highway and became one of the two lanes of the Hwy 416 off-ramp. The other lane was a regular through lane that split at Hwy 416 and continued on eastwards into Ottawa. It's from this lane that buses had to turn off to exit at Holly Acres (if they went to Bayshore) or - and this is the way it was for a long time - they stayed in this lane and had to merge with traffic coming from Hwy 416 and Richmond Rd before finally exiting at the Southwest Transitway.

Now there is an HOV lane, three regular lanes and the shoulder bus lane. Before Moodie, buses have to merge out of the shoulder lane. This lane is the lane that splits in two at Hwy 416. What it does next is essentially a forced exit at Holly Acres. What that means is that this lane is basically not used by most traffic, so apart from the merge left manoeuvre at Moodie, it should be pretty much clear sailing.

As for what the eastbound buses would have to do were this transitway built, yes, they would exit at Moodie, turn left, then somehow turn right onto the transitway after crossing over 417. It sure seems more convoluted and time-consuming to me than the procedure I just outlined above. There might have been some benefit to this project before the MTO did its widening, but now, I just don't see it.

[Richard Eade]

From what I was told at the Open House for the West Transitway Extension - Bayshore to Moodie, the display panels couldn't be put on the City's Web site because they were not bilingual. MRC was concidering hosting the panels themselves, on their Web site. (Not there yet.)

The plan the Consultants came up with (as near as I can recall) is this:



Blue lines represent Bus Only lanes. The light blue lines represent the possible future Transitway alignments. Red lines are the general traffic lanes. Recall that there are now three lanes per direction arcoss the Moodie structure, with narrow bike lanes, but NO sidewalks.

Notice that the north to west ramp is no longer free flowing as it is moved to a signalized intersection to make way for a north-bound Bus Only lane across the Moodie Bridge. The south to west ramp will probably branch off the straight-through lane slightly north of the intersection to avoid a signal on that ramp. However, the buses entering from across Moodie will probably have the right of way. The west-bound 417 Off-ramp will provide a double right-turn and a double left-turn at the intersection; similar to Terry Fox.

So east-bound buses leave the 417 at Moodie, where they have their own stub of a Bus-only lane at the light. Then they turn left to hear north across the bridge in a new Bus-only lane which will take them up the the northern ramp intersection. North-bound buses will have to wait for a green signal to cross this ramp intersection to enter the Transitway station. Similarly, the south-bound buses will also need a green signal to get to the station.

The bike lanes will be moved one lane in, so north-bound, it will be between the Bus-only lane and the general traffic; and south-bound it is between the ramp-lane and the two general traffic lanes.

The shifting of Corkstown is a feature of all of their options. When I asked about the proximity to the soccer fields, I was told that there were no regulations about how far a roadway must be from a sports field. Land would also need to be expropriated from the Equestrian Park if the northern alignment is chosen.

All local bus interaction with the station will be from Moodie, from what I can figure out on this plan. However, there was also another option which was not ‘talked up’ as much by the consultant. It featured pretty much the same basics, but instead of what they called ‘the donut’ station, there was a side-platform station set slightly east, directly under Corkstown. Buses went up and around the extended tail of Corkstown to access the station This still required Corkstown Road to be moved as shown.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Dado

...How do you deal with the *ahem* interim *ahem* configuration at Moodie where the transitway doesn't go beneath Moodie? In particular, how do eastbound buses get onto the transitway and how do westbound buses get off it and onto the westbound bus lane without wasting a lot of time? Via the realigned Corkstown Rd? Since we know that any "interim" configuration is actually going to last for a good long while, quite possibly until conversion to LRT, this needs to be addressed and I'm not sure what you've presented here deals with this.

Here is a picture with more detail.



I used the same colour scheme as I did for the Staff plan. That is, blue for bus-only lanes, red for general traffic lanes, fuchsia represents Corkstown, and the light blue is for the future Transitway extension.

Personally, I didn't think a full transit station was warranted for Moodie, but it is one of the requirements of the design, apparently. As with the City's alternative, a side-platform station could be positioned just to the east of the one shown, south of Corkstown Road. But, unlike the City's plan, Corkstown doesn't need to move closer to the sports fields in either case.

The lanes across the bridge are the only tricky part since there is only room for 6 lanes. In order to have the bus-only lane, the two general lanes in each direction and a left turn lane for the west-bound ramp, I shortened the east-bound ramp so that is starts near the south end of the bridge. This shouldn't be a problem since it is a free-flowing ramp so no storage space should be needed.

Specifically dealing with your question of time, this extension is likely to slow down the buses, regardless of the configuration used. That being said, it is a step toward the completed Transitway which should save a small amount of time between Terry Fox Station and Bayshore Station.

Rant: If the Province hadn't skimped on the structures over the rail line between Moodie and Eagleson, then it would have been simple to simply shift the highway south one lane and consolidate the bus-only lanes on the north side of the 417.

[Richard Eade]

So what are people's expectations that the DOTT will be finished for the massive celebrations that will be occurring in the core of this City in 2017 - You know, Canada's 150th Birthday?

My prediction is that the 'Optimistic' finishing date of late 2017 will not be met (and certainly not in time for Canada Day, July 1, 2017), but instead, the system will be in the middle of Cutting & Covering Nicholas, trying to re-route the buses from the closed Transitway, and Rideau Street will be swamped with buses.

What do you envision for our big Birthday?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

So what are people's expectations that the DOTT will be finished for the massive celebrations that will be occurring in the core of this City in 2017 - You know, Canada's 150th Birthday?

My prediction is that the 'Optimistic' finishing date of late 2017 will not be met (and certainly not in time for Canada Day, July 1, 2017), but instead, the system will be in the middle of Cutting & Covering Nicholas, trying to re-route the buses from the closed Transitway, and Rideau Street will be swamped with buses.

What do you envision for our big Birthday?

A good reason to accelerate LRT development but I will believe it when I see it.

Another good reason for the feds to move forward with one of the museum plans.

It would be great to have the new central library ready. Am I mad? Not likely. More likely Lansdowne Park will finally open after years of delay, a scaled back project.

[Kitchissippi]

With the throne speech today and the federal budget tomorrow, I'm crossing my fingers that the federal contribution finally gets revealed to nudge this project into critical momentum.

[Franky]

Just before going to the DOTT open house, I came across the image below (by Fosters and partners I think) - what a letdown when I saw what is being planned for Ottawa. True, Masdar starts with a clean slate but the Ottawa design is clearly uninspired.

I think 9-10 storeys below grade is just unacceptable. I went to the library and found the document Richard suggested "Report on the Feasibility of A Grade Separated Transitway through the Central Area of Ottawa" - bang on with the info. At first it looked like fluff - no elevated option along Daly studied, no estimates on cut&cover costs but, amazingly, figures on economic prospects of businesses in the area, no sewers or other obstructions illustrated in the diagrams... However, there was some useful information - text descriptions of where utilities lie (generally) and a profile for a proposed underground tunnel. There were some interesting text descriptions of how such a task would be accomplished (but only one method proposed). There is a clear advantage to rubber tired vehicles - better grade ability means the vehicles come to passengers instead of passengers going (down) to the vehicles. It's one of the reasons the tunnel must be so deep. Guided vehicles have an advantage over buses because their rights of way can be narrower so a staggered option would be possible along a single road (like Queen) (same as is done in Calgary on the surface I understand).

With the ballooning estimates of the cost for the proposed tunnel. It's a shame the 1988 study doesn't include cost estimates - then we could adjust the ratio they originally claimed. They probably had more experience with cut& cover and so made optimistic estimates for the bored option.

I can't get over the placement of the maintenance yard. It requires a 1/2 km tunnel (cut&cover - so it's cheap I'm told) and expropriation (unless the city owns the buildings which are to be razed) of about 24 acres of property on Belfast Rd.! The north-south LRT plan at least placed the maintenance yards on cheap undeveloped land outside the inner city. Who comes up with these boondoggles?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

With the throne speech today and the federal budget tomorrow, I'm crossing my fingers that the federal contribution finally gets revealed to nudge this project into critical momentum.

The timing of the announcement has to provide the biggest political benefit to John Baird.

[lrt's friend]

I can't get over the placement of the maintenance yard. It requires a 1/2 km tunnel (cut&cover - so it's cheap I'm told) and expropriation (unless the city owns the buildings which are to be razed) of about 24 acres of property on Belfast Rd.! The north-south LRT plan at least placed the maintenance yards on cheap undeveloped land outside the inner city. Who comes up with these boondoggles?

My question about the maintenance yard; Will this accomodate full build out of the LRT system as currently planned? Or will, we end up having to build a second facility somewhere else to handle additional trains as we move beyond this first phase? I do have concerns about using so much land for a maintenance yard when we keep talking about intensification inside the Greenbelt.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

My question about the maintenance yard; Will this accomodate full build out of the LRT system as currently planned? Or will, we end up having to build a second facility somewhere else to handle additional trains as we move beyond this first phase?

Looking at the document from December, it's a bit of both. A hedge, I know. This facility will house everything for the east-west line as well as all major servicing and heavy maintenance requirements along with the operations control centre. What it might not do is house all the vehicles for future lines, so it's quite possible that secondary yards for housing vehicles will be required in the future.

I do have concerns about using so much land for a maintenance yard when we keep talking about intensification inside the Greenbelt.

I'm more concerned with their choice of site rather than one inside the Greenbelt per se. They're going to acquire in-use properties with buildings on them rather than minimally-used storage areas. They could have acquired the Phase II lands of the TrainYards development, for example. Heck, they could even have acquired part of Phase I and just knock down a few cheapo big box stores.

Or better still the site the feds are rumoured to be buying at Tremblay and St. Laurent - this site has a shorter and easier to build access to the LRT line than the one that we're likely to buy (no lengthy tunnels that meander to dodge power mast footings) while still having rail drop-off access, there are no buildings on it, it's about the same size (and more usefully shaped) and it is also directly opposite the current main bus garage (on the other side of the tracks). Converting the St. Laurent-417 interchange to a diamond on the south side would increase the size of the site. It's also more easily buffered from the neighbourhood of lettered Avenues to the west. The main issue that I can see is that trains would go into service facing west only - they'd have to go to Train and reverse course to head to Blair. Given the weird excuses presented for not using Walkley Yard in the N-S LRT that were of a similar vein, that issue is probably what sealed the fate of this potential site.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Dado

Looking at the document from December, it's a bit of both. A hedge, I know. This facility will house everything for the east-west line as well as all major servicing and heavy maintenance requirements along with the operations control centre. What it might not do is house all the vehicles for future lines, so it's quite possible that secondary yards for housing vehicles will be required in the future.


I'm more concerned with their choice of site rather than one inside the Greenbelt per se. They're going to acquire in-use properties with buildings on them rather than minimally-used storage areas. They could have acquired the Phase II lands of the TrainYards development, for example. Heck, they could even have acquired part of Phase I and just knock down a few cheapo big box stores.

Or better still the site the feds are rumoured to be buying at Tremblay and St. Laurent - this site has a shorter and easier to build access to the LRT line than the one that we're likely to buy (no lengthy tunnels that meander to dodge power mast footings) while still having rail drop-off access, there are no buildings on it, it's about the same size (and more usefully shaped) and it is also directly opposite the current main bus garage (on the other side of the tracks). Converting the St. Laurent-417 interchange to a diamond on the south side would increase the size of the site. It's also more easily buffered from the neighbourhood of lettered Avenues to the west. The main issue that I can see is that trains would go into service facing west only - they'd have to go to Train and reverse course to head to Blair. Given the weird excuses presented for not using Walkley Yard in the N-S LRT that were of a similar vein, that issue is probably what sealed the fate of this potential site.

Trainyards has potential to become a transit oriented development. All we need is a sliver of land for a transitway.

I don't think the Tremblay site you mention was even considered. Only Bayview/Hurdman and a few other inner city sites (it was a pretty short list) were considered.

[lrt's friend]

I shake my head when I see housing being built right next to Walkley Yards. Is anybody using their heads at City Hall, converting part of Johnston Road into a residential street in the first place?

[lrt's friend]

Trainyards has potential to become a transit oriented development. All we need is a sliver of land for a transitway.

In my opinion, a big box mall is anti-transit oriented development. I went there once, walked through what I thought was a very gloomy Wal-Mart, what was I thinking? How do I get out of there?