Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Looking at the next leg of the Western Transitway Extension, I think Staff have only planned for an interim solution.

Based on this one can see that the transitway going west takes it north of the stormwater ponds, right behind people's properties and sort of cuts off the stormwater ponds from being accessible if the usual fence-the-Transitway-in mentality dominates.

For reference, the envisioned 'ultimate' (and I use this term advisedly, as you shall see below) route of the West Transitway is to proceed eastward essentially on a straight line corresponding to the drawn section that's coming from the west. If you look at the interchange you'll see a gap between the N-to-W loop ramp and the westbound off-ramp. The transitway is to slot through this gap after going under March Rd (which I guess has to be raised) before going under the off-ramp itself and into the space between the Queensway and Corkstown Rd. So, unlike at Moodie, the plan does avoid crossing a superfluous number of ramps, but the underpass of the off-ramp will still be at a significant skew.

A second consideration is that the MTO will be building a second overpass of the Queensway at this interchange to the east of the existing one:



What's depressingly notable about this is that this configuration, just like back between Moodie and Holly Acres, makes no allowance for the MoE-approved West Transitway to the north of the Queensway and south of Corkstown. And we know that the MTO EA is later than the West Transitway EA because the latter is what authorized the Eagleson P&R which we can clearly see in this image.

Besides the usual lack of co-ordination, the northbound carriageway of March takes it well into the current (re)alignment of Corkstown Rd and it clearly pushes the westbound off-ramp+March Rd intersection north of the current intersection (while leaving the Campeau Dr+March Rd intersection in place) and of course pushes poor old Corkstown Rd yet further into the Greenbelt and its intersection with March presumably further north still. I would expect that there is now enough room between the March southbound and northbound carriageways to fit in a transitway (likely on the alignment of the former northbound carriageway), but whether that is by accident or design I have no idea since the co-ordination seems to be quite lacking.

It's basically insanity and yet the MoE (and one would suppose the NCC) approved it, which goes to show how pointless environmental assessments are.

I thought that I'd get the ball rolling on a more future-minded plan.



In this concept drawing, I have moved the 417 ramps into a diamond configuration (similar to what I suggested for Moodie), and I have re-aligned Campeau (requires an expropriation) and Corkstown to meet March at a right angle. Again, as before, the 417 ramps are in red, the Transitway is in blue.

I would have aligned Corkstown to meet Campeau at or maybe just a little north of the current intersection (south of the creek portal, anyway), which would avoid any building expropriation. It's kind of hard to trade off a building for a larger parking lot...

This time, however, I have added a huge Park & Ride facility (yellow) with its own ramps to and from [March] and the 417 (shown in green). I have tried to keep these as free-flow ramps. I expect that most of the vehicles arriving at the Park & Ride will come from the west via the 417 (crossing the 417 on the March Bridge), however, there might be a bunch from the 416 via the west-bound 417. There are also secondary accesses onto Campeau and Corkstown. Notice that the Park & Ride has a bi-directional car tunnel passing under [March] beside the Transitway.

The car tunnel is a neat touch.

What I am unhappy with is getting cars from the Park & Ride to head south on [March]. I can add another ramp from the west lot between the two shown, but there will still be weaving with the cars heading for the west-bound 417 (the vertical red line).

Any suggestions?

Given the MTO's plans, presumably to deal with intersection failure, something else probably has to be considered. I just don't know when the MTO is going to start building and the fact that the diagram you supplied doesn't show the MTO's plans is not at all encouraging.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Dado

Based on this one can see that the transitway going west takes it north of the stormwater ponds, right behind people's properties and sort of cuts off the stormwater ponds from being accessible if the usual fence-the-Transitway-in mentality dominates

For reference, the envisioned 'ultimate' (and I use this term advisedly, as you shall see below) route of the West Transitway is to proceed eastward essentially on a straight line corresponding to the drawn section that's coming from the west. If you look at the interchange you'll see a gap between the N-to-W loop ramp and the westbound off-ramp. The transitway is to slot through this gap after going under March Rd (which I guess has to be raised) before going under the off-ramp itself and into the space between the Queensway and Corkstown Rd. So, unlike at Moodie, the plan does avoid crossing a superfluous number of ramps, but the underpass of the off-ramp will still be at a significant skew.

I must say I was thinking the same thing. And it adds a tight turn. But, as you point out, the Transitway itself seems to be aiming for going under March and between the N->W loop ramp and the west-bound off-ramp. As you also point oput, there is probably room for the Transitway between the ramps, but only just. And remember these ramps will both need to be raised to meet a raised March. I suspect that there will be a lot of concrete through this section. In fact, it might be structurally just as easy to build a tunnel from the west of March to the east of the West-bound off-ramp.

I do see your point that they should be able to avoid the S->W ramp to the west of March.

A second consideration is that the MTO will be building a second overpass of the Queensway at this interchange to the east of the existing one:



What's depressingly notable about this is that this configuration, just like back between Moodie and Holly Acres, makes no allowance for the MoE-approved West Transitway to the north of the Queensway and south of Corkstown. And we know that the MTO EA is later than the West Transitway EA because the latter is what authorized the Eagleson P&R which we can clearly see in this image.

Besides the usual lack of co-ordination, the northbound carriageway of March takes it well into the current (re)alignment of Corkstown Rd and it clearly pushes the westbound off-ramp+March Rd intersection north of the current intersection (while leaving the Campeau Dr+March Rd intersection in place) and of course pushes poor old Corkstown Rd yet further into the Greenbelt and its intersection with March presumably further north still. I would expect that there is now enough room between the March southbound and northbound carriageways to fit in a transitway (likely on the alignment of the former northbound carriageway), but whether that is by accident or design I have no idea since the co-ordination seems to be quite lacking.

It's basically insanity and yet the MoE (and one would suppose the NCC) approved it, which goes to show how pointless environmental assessments are.



I would have aligned Corkstown to meet Campeau at or maybe just a little north of the current intersection (south of the creek portal, anyway), which would avoid any building expropriation. It's kind of hard to trade off a building for a larger parking lot...



The car tunnel is a neat touch.



Given the MTO's plans, presumably to deal with intersection failure, something else probably has to be considered. I just don't know when the MTO is going to start building and the fact that the diagram you supplied doesn't show the MTO's plans is not at all encouraging.

Alas, I had not seen the MTO plan. Is the re more of it?

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Alas, I had not seen the MTO plan. Is the re more of it?

That is all that I have of it, unfortunately.

[eternallyme]

I like that ramp configuration there - just need to slide a Transitway in north of the westbound lanes, and design the ramps to provide the clearance necessary. The N->E ramp should definitely be below the Park and Ride.

Since few people use Eagleson then head eastbound on the 417, losing access to that ramp from the P&R is not a major loss, which is significantly ameliorated by the fact that it eliminates a busy ramp crossing for pedestrians accessing the Transitway (they would just cross the overpass then descend to the platforms from the station head at the top of the bridge). A centre-loading platform would be most desirable there, but it requires buses to cross-over twice.

[Richard Eade]

I am confused by the designation of the ramps in the Parclo A4: Are they named according to the direction a driver would be moving? That is, the 270 degree circular ramp in the north-east quadrant of the March / 417 intercahnge would be the N->W ramp because a car is traveling north when it enters the ramp and leaves heading west? I think this is the designation that some people have been using.

However, from the MTO plan that dado provided, that circular ramp appears to be labelled as the S-W ramp; presumably because the vehicles enter from the south and exit to the west.

So which is correct - based on the compass points of the entry/exit (a la MTO), or based on the direction a vehicle would be travelling when entering/exiting?

[Dado]

I'm guilty of having mislabelled ramps compared to what the MTO uses. I only realized that once I saw some genuinely clear images of the 417 study from 416 to Anderson:

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/engineering/417ea/pic3/index.shtml#14

I've always labelled them as one would from the perspective of a vehicle operator in terms of the direction of travel before and after using the ramp (i.e. this is how one gives directions and how one thinks about travelling, so it makes layman sense). So the ramp in the northwest quadrant, which is used to go from a southbound direction of travel to a westbound direction of travel I would label "S-W". The one in the northeast quadrant I would label "N-W". But it appears that the MTO labels them on the basis of where the traffic has come from and where it is going to, so those are reversed: "N-W" and "S-W", respectively. What I would call the westbound off ramp they seem to call something like "E-NSW" since it enables one to go in all those directions whereas I would have previously termed it something like "W-NSW".

[waterloowarrior]

from MERX

Notice - City of Ottawa - Light Rail Transit Project

As part of the City of Ottawa’s Transportation Master Plan (TMP), the City proposes to implement a long term transportation vision beginning with building a 13 station, 12.5 km Light Rail Transit (LRT) system from Tunney’s Pasture to Blair Station. The project includes a 3.2 km twin bored tunnel spanning the downtown area with four (4) stations. A vehicle maintenance and storage facility will also be constructed to serve the light rail system.

Following City Council’s approval of the TMP in 2008, the project has advanced with the Downtown Ottawa Transit Tunnel Planning and Environmental Assessment Study, operational planning, technology reviews and an affordability assessment. In addition, the City is currently reviewing various procurement models. The results of these studies will help determine the procurement and project delivery model used to design, construct, commission, maintain and operate the new light rail system.

Other activities associated with this project include: a transit procurement analysis and options report, an investment strategy framework; a business development strategy framework; and, a project communications strategic plan. When Ottawa City Council considers the procurement analysis and options report it will choose from a range of models inclusive of Alternative Financing Procurement (AFP), traditional and Public Private Partnership (P3). This procurement will be led either by the City or Infrastructure Ontario using their AFP approach.

Details on the project are available at: http://www.ottawa.ca/tunnel

Firms with the expertise required to assist the City in undertaking this major initiative are invited to register their interest and discuss what services they can provide. Please contact,

City of Ottawa
Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability
Rail Implementation Office
City of Ottawa
110 Laurier Avenue West, 3rd Floor
Ottawa, ON K1P 1J1

Attention: Keith O’Neill, Project Coordinator
Telephone: 613-580-2424 ext. 12749
E-mail:Keith.O’[email protected]


All information submitted in response to this notice is subject to the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

[waterloowarrior]

West Transitway Extension – Southwest Transitway to Pinecrest Road Planning Study
http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/transitway_pinecrest/index_en.html

Open house 3 May 2010

[waterloowarrior]

Fallowfield Station modifications (to better align it to the future SW Transitway extension)
http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/construction/projects/fallowfield/index_en.html

(click to enlarge)

[Richard Eade]

AAAHHHGGGGG!

As I was looking at the Followfield design, all I could think of was "Shades of the Temporary Baseline Station." Then I noticed that Paul Clarke, P.Eng, was/is in change of both.

Apparently he learned nothing from the problems at Baseline.

[Dado]

Care to elaborate on these repeated problems?

Perhaps he isn't aware that there are any in the first place...


My initial take is that there is an unnecessary amount of curvature between the station and Fallowfield, which of course will likely necessitate a realignment for LRT conversion (or we just accept an extra curve).

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Dado

Care to elaborate on these repeated problems?

Perhaps he isn't aware that there are any in the first place...


My initial take is that there is an unnecessary amount of curvature between the station and Fallowfield, which of course will likely necessitate a realignment for LRT conversion (or we just accept an extra curve).

Well, I guess the biggest problem is that the station is designed for bus flow and not the convenience of passengers. I don’t have an issue with in-line stations as long as they are a reasonable length and offer good connections from side to side. The Baseline Temporary Station has platforms which are over 225 metres in length and has no central crosswalk. It forces transferring passengers to walk around the ends of the station. With the Night-Stops set in the middle of the platforms, this maximizes the walk for those transferring. Apparently there could not be a central crosswalk because that would force the buses to do four stops and slow them down.



Even the arrangement of buses at the shelters doesn’t show a lot of care for passengers. The east-bound 118, for example stops at shelter 1A. The only other buses at that shelter are the 155 AM LeBreton, and the 873 AM Nepean Centre. So generally people need to walk to other shelters. Shelter 1B offers the 57 to downtown in the morning, which is good, but the other buses there are all heading in the same general direction as the 118, such as the 117 and 111. To get to a perpendicular bus, say the 95, a passenger would have to walk to shelter 1D or cross the Transitway to 2B.

This station has a stop at each end of it due to intersections. This would have been an ideal station to plan as an island station; the same as it used to be.

Another point is that the ‘off the shelf’ shelters are anything but wind resistant. OC Transpo is currently adding Plexiglas skirts to the bottoms of the shelters to try to break some of the wind from across the parking lots. This issue does seem to have been addressed to some degree in the new Fallowfield design since it indicates a row of shrubs to baffle the wind.

OK now onto the Fallowfield proposal:

The current configuration has the shelters on alternate sides of a central crosswalk. There is only one stop per direction. The buses run along the central lane between the two sides of the Park & Ride lot. The entrances to the Park & Ride lots are south of the bus stops minimizing the traffic that pedestrians need to contend with.





And the so-called Improvement:


(Click for enlargement)

Double the bus storage area – now on both sides of the station; bus stops moved away from where the passengers enter the area; bus stops stacked on one side of an intersection forcing people transferring to walk around the end of the station; the “Raised Pedestrian Plaza” is the vehicle entrance to the VIA Station (Check out Google if you don’t think there are many cars that will cross the Pedestrian Plaza. http://maps.google.com/maps?t=h&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=45.299064,-75.735583&spn=0.002256,0.009602&z=17 ); Park & Ride traffic is now along the central lane, giving more pedestrian / car interaction; and the added parking spaces are the farthest possible distance from the bus stops. The buses shown along the lane south of the west Park & Ride lot appear to be Express buses since they do not have any visible way to get back from the bus stops if they are local buses: So how do the local buses flow? Basically, there is nothing about this ‘Improvement’ that improves the experience for the riders; this station is being designed for bus movements along the Transitway.

Why is there no integration with the VIA Station? Couldn’t parking areas be shared so traffic doesn’t have to cross the Pedestrian Plaza? And, what’s with the Interim / Permanent shelters?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

AAAHHHGGGGG!

As I was looking at the Followfield design, all I could think of was "Shades of the Temporary Baseline Station." Then I noticed that Paul Clarke, P.Eng, was/is in change of both.

Apparently he learned nothing from the problems at Baseline.

Haven't you heard?

There are no problems at Baseline.

There are no problems at Baseline.

There Are No Problems At Baseline.

There. Are. No. Problems. At. Baseline.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

With the Night-Stops set in the middle of the platforms, this maximizes the walk for those transferring.

It also maximizes the chances of missing connections.

Honest to frig, can we not start having our transit system designed by people who actually use it? The planners and architects should, as a condition of being entitled to bid on any transit projects, have to be residents of Ottawa who surrender their drivers licenses for a period of one year before they even pick up their mouse to start planning stuff.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Honest to frig, can we not start having our transit system designed by people who actually use it? The planners and architects engineers should, as a condition of being entitled to bid on any transit projects, have to be residents of Ottawa who surrender their drivers licenses for a period of one year before they even pick up their mouse to start planning stuff.

...

[c_speed3108]

I have long felt that that a requirement on any say on transit related planing, operations or projects should be that the persons utilize the transit to get around at least a certain amount of time.

For instance we could require all councilors to take transit to all full council meetings. Rural councils could utilize the closest park and ride. Failure to do so would result in them not being permitted to vote on or speak to transit matters.

Transit committee would be required to make full-time use of the system. Same for planners, engineers and schedule makers.

--------------

I am willing to bet we would have a very different system than we do now.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

...

I have noticed that you have made the same sort of change in the past. Is it because most of the people creating these plans are Engineers, and not Planners?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I have noticed that you have made the same sort of change in the past. Is it because most of the people creating these plans are Engineers, and not Planners?

The planners etc. are no better.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The planners etc. are no better.

True... maybe the real question should be why is a major transit/intermodal station surrounded by farm fields, a gas station, parking lots and drive through restaurants?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

True... maybe the real questions is why is there a major transit/intermodal station surrounded by farm fields, a gas station, and drive through restaurants

Same reason there are major transit stations, includin junction stations, surrounded by fields (Lincoln); flats (Lebreton); parking lots (Orleans); a former garbage dump (Hurdman); nothing (Bayview); nothing that is only now turning into something (Baseline); hells of nothing (Eagleson); trees (Iris); and dereliction (Cyrville).

This city went for the cheapest and easiest right of way; has an unnatural fetish for "green" space and "open" space and "green open" space; has utterly failed in any attempt, however feeble, sporadic, and ineffectual, to bring the city to the transit; and does absolutely nothing to rein in auto-oriented, low-density, single-use, anti-urban sprawl anywhere, not even in the general vicinity of existing or future transit lines or stations.

Transit here is planned and designed and built by people who drive everywhere for everything.