Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

This is a good point. The savings made by removing one station from the CBD gave such stations' location, which carried a heftier price tag. Proper planning could have given an extra station for less money overall, since the tunnel whould have been shallower. These things were not studied. Actually, for the nearly 4 years of studies, there wasn't much new information gotten from them.

What? Years of studies in Ottawa and almost no new information to show for it? Didn't see that coming.

[waterloowarrior]

2 june 2010 - west transitway connections public open house #2
http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/transitway_connections/oh_2/index_en.html

[jcollins]

From the Dalhousie Community Association - http://dalhousiecommunityassociation.blogspot.com/2010/06/dca-comments-on-lrt-station-design.html

DCA Comments on LRT Station design guidelines
Thursday, June 3, 2010

The DCA is keenly interested in how the LRT project will affect or neighborhood and indeed all of Ottawa. We recently reviewed the proposed station design guidelines and provided extensive verbal commentary to the City at a recent PAC meeting. Here are our written comments:

Ottawa Light Rail Design Guidelines for LRT Stations

2 June 2010

The Dalhousie Community Association represents the area from Bay Street to Bayview, from the Ottawa River to Carling Avenue. As such, our area of interest includes two major LRT stations: LeBreton and Bayview. We have a number of comments on the draft guidelines for station design.

On the report as a whole: we are unclear as to a couple of key issues. The report calls for stations to be unique (3.2), and to have common elements. It is unclear if the idea is to have stations unique from each other or a signature design common to all stations. We prefer the each-one-unique approach. There needs to be greater clarity as to what elements could or should be common: for example, how unique will stations be if they have to used standard lighting and furniture from the city’s catalogue of approved street furniture?

Section 2.11 and 2.12 call for green design and crime prevention through design. Too often green design means heavily tinted glass. We favour all glass at public areas to be fully transparent and not tinted. Overhead glass can be tinted. Screens and overhangs can be used to shade windows to prevent glare and heat gain, but never at the price of reduced transparency.

Concessions and washrooms: the policy is overly pessimistic on both these issues. Every station should have washroom facilities inside the fare-paid area. At a minimum, there need to be keyed facilities for staff. At stations like LeBreton and Bayview, special events crowds require additional staffing, w/c facilities will be used by the staff. To reduce cost, consider using Clivis or composting toilets that do not require sewer connections. Better, would be to provide public toilets at all stations. Users will include an ageing population and children, both groups subject to short time horizons. The LRT system and stations should be user friendly, convenient … and this means w/c facilities. Recall too that many journey times will include multiple transfers and might easily last ninety minutes or longer.

From a narrow economic perspective, it may be viable to rent concession space only in the largest stations. But every station benefits from on-site staff or concessionaires, especially the smaller stations or in the evenings or other times of infrequent service. To get concessions at all stations, the city could rent concession space for all stations as a group; or to a social agency operating on a non-profit basis; or charge zero rent at some stations on the basis that the concession presence is a social benefit rather than a revenue source. Concessions sell tickets, provide change, provide direction, provide subjective security ….

The ten year time horizon for planning seems rather short. Stations should be designed for more than the opening volume and first decade of use. The system is designed to last for at least a hundred years, the stations should not require extensive expansion and refitting after just the first decade.

Station lighting: interior lighting should be designed to shut off when sufficient light comes in through the windows.

Sec 3.6 and other sections state that the BRT portions will have a different identity to the LRT sections. Yet for users, it is all one trip on one system; different identities and graphics may not make the trip easier.

Sec 3.9 calls for no cigarette receptacles outside the stations. While it is noble to refuse to enable smoking habits, people will smoke, they will smoke outside the station entrances, and they will throw butts on the ground/floor in the absence of ash receptacles. Non-provision of receptacles will cause the unintended consequence of making smoking more evident. At the same time, receptacles must be located to encourage smokers to move away from doors and busy walkways.

Sec 3.10 and others re advertising: the guidelines call for severely restricted advertising opportunities. The Assoc. recognizes that many people will want severely restricted or no advertising at all.

Others opt for advertising, as it provides a changeable message graphic that enlivens the station environment. It informs users of political events and advocacy, charitable events and causes, and products. A careful advertising policy is needed so that the LRT stations do not continue Ottawa’s general impression of staidness and bureaucratic over-rule.

Sec 3.13 bike facilities: twenty parking spaces for cycles at each station is unlikely to be sufficient. Provision should be made for many more, at least 100 for non-downtown stations, or expandable bike parking zones. Cycle parking must be located in close proximity to the entrance, or else cycles will appear chained to every post near the entrances. Also, allow for bixibike-type racks.

Sec 3.14 passenger drop off zones by car: there needs to be a clear hierarchy of drop off priority: bus, ped/ bike, car. Car stopping bays must not cause longer ped walks to the stations or be intrusive. We think they are unnecessary at LeBreton and downtown stations.

Sec 3.15 can read that developer-provided connections must look like the LRT station right up to the developer’s main building when it should read that the connections can be of a design of the developer’s choice right from the connection point with the LRT station.

Sec 4.2: Natural light sources should be used to replace (not supplement) station lighting requirements during daylight hours.

Sec 4.5, wayfinding: the current suggestion that direction be indicated by identifying the next station on the route is too limiting. It is better to identify end points of the route or general directions (east, west) in addition to secondary messages identifying the next stations. Please do not use the “inbound/outbound” designation.

Sec 4.10 advertising: consider having our sign displays of the same size as Toronto, to permit spillover advertising buys.

Sec 4.13 ramps: a six foot height change using a ramp requires a ramp length of at least 180 feet (20:1 ratio). Please avoid lengthy ramps and especially switchbacks.

Sec 4.14 para 2 reads only for centre platform designs.

Specific sites: the guidelines specify covered stations at Tunney’s, downtown, Lees, Blair, Cyrville, etc but not specify covered platforms at Bayview or LeBreton. Anything less than full stations will be unacceptable. Do not even consider “temporary” stations of bus shelters in a field pending “redevelopment” of the surrounding areas. Please specify that full stations, with covered platforms, are expected at Bayview and LeBreton from the opening day of the LRT system.

Sec 5.3.4 should include the role of the Bayview Station as a catalyst, a signature element, as having a leadership role in high quality urban redevelopment. The current criteria emphasize the empty area, the history. They also under-play the elevation of this station, the highest point for several kilometers around, which can make it a beacon, a glowing advertisement for the rapid transit system.

Sec 5.3.5 please note that the Bayview station fronts onto Albert Street, not Scott. Multiuse pathway connections are required on both the north (NCC) and south (city) side. Bike paths are not just recreational facilities, they must be considered valued parts of the commuter and daily use transportation infrastructure.

Sec 5.4.2 Please delete references to west centretown as a geographic moniker. The area is the former Dalhousie Ward, and has been known as Dalhousie on city maps since the nineteenth century. The surrounding neighborhoods are Dalhousie, or LeBreton Flats.

This section does not emphasize the opportunity to integrate the LeBreton station into the building development immediately to the south of the station on the east and west sides of Booth. The design suggestions of a historical theme need to be weighed against the overwhelmingly modern buildings that will surround it. Please also provide for east-west cycling facilities both on the north side of the aqueduct and the south side of the LRT corridor.

The section 5.8 guidelines for Campus station are too narrow regarding the Corktown footbridge and the opportunity to greatly improve the crossing of Colonel By Drive and integration of the ped network, possibly giving it higher priority than commuter traffic on Colonel By. As part of the station design, serious concern needs to be given to improving the east-west cycling and ped connections. Do not limit the design and network to the existing indirect paths and road crossings/tunnel. This is a once in a century opportunity to totally redesign this key transportation hub to reflect new priorities and to fix previous compromises at Colonel By and Lees that favour cars.

Section 5.9.5 misses the opportunity for a new direct cycling/ped link from Lees to Campus to the east-west cycling arterial using the Corktown footbridge. Indeed, do not Provincial guidelines call for improved cycling and ped facilities along the length of new transit corridors? Thus far, the LRT design seems limited to occasions when it meets existing facilities rather than looking for opportunities to mutually advance transit, ped, and cycling opportunities.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the LRT station design guidelines.

Eric Darwin
President, Dalhousie Community Assoc.

[waterloowarrior]

Federal LRT cash only days away

[lrt's friend]

In an interview today, the mayor commits the ultimate faux pas by putting the affordability of his own transit plan into question. And then when he realizes what he has done, he asks for another interview in order to 'correct' his comments.

Larry O'Brien just confirms again and again why he is not competent as mayor.

http://ottawa.ctv.ca/#TopVideoAn

http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CT..._Transit_100604/20100604/?hub=OttawaHome

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

In an interview today, the mayor commits the ultimate faux pas by putting the affordability of his own transit plan into question. And then when he realizes what he has done, he asks for another interview in order to 'correct' his comments.

Larry O'Brien just confirms again and again why he is not competent as mayor.

http://ottawa.ctv.ca/#TopVideoAn

http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CT..._Transit_100604/20100604/?hub=OttawaHome

I'm no Larry fan, but I don't see the problem with the initial statement. They're working with estimates right now. They won't really have hard numbers until the tenders come back. If they're too high then they'll have to make a determination about how to proceed.

This is news?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by RTWAP

I'm no Larry fan, but I don't see the problem with the initial statement. They're working with estimates right now. They won't really have hard numbers until the tenders come back. If they're too high then they'll have to make a determination about how to proceed.

This is news?

I look at it differently. The mayor pressed the reset button and he has taken ownership of the current plan. A good politician does not plant doubt about the affordability of his own plan. The fact that he had to correct his statement shows that even he realized that he made a tactical error.

This is very significant, because we all know that Jim Watson has questioned the affordability of the tunnel all along, and he has made his clearest statement so far on this matter this morning in an interview on CFRA.

http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/Jim_Watson_June07.mp3

[waterloowarrior]

http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2010/06/07/14298636.html

Feds to announce $600M for LRT plan
By SUSAN SHERRING, OTTAWA SUN
Last Updated: June 7, 2010 8:29pm

The federal government will announce its $600-million contribution to Ottawa's $2.1-billion light-rail plan on Tuesday, the Sun has learned.

Transport Minister John Baird is holding a news conference at 9 a.m.

City Hall has been expecting the feds to match the $600-million provincial contribution for a new light-rail system.

The city will have to raise the remaining $900 million to complete the 12.5-km light-rail line, which would run from Tunney's Pasture in the west to Blair Rd. in the east and include twin 3.2-km tunnels under downtown.




http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/...Attention-Assignment-Editors-1272398.htm
OTTAWA, ONTARIO--(Marketwire - June 7, 2010) - This document corrects and replaces the media advisory sent today at 5:34 PM ET.
The Honourable John Baird, Canada's Transport and Infrastructure Minister and Member of Parliament for Ottawa West-Nepean, joined by Royal Galipeau, Member of Parliament for Ottawa-Orleans, will make an important infrastructure announcement.
Date: Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Location: Government Conference Centre 2 Rideau Street Ottawa, ON

[Ciemny]

Great.............now lets see that 900$ million the city will be on the hook for baloon to over 1billlion. I am all for LRT but this is going to be a joke. Wonder how Cullen will justify the increase to taxpayers. But he's in la la land already.

Makes the N-S LRT price look like Wal-Mart rollback.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by Ciemny

Great.............now lets see that 900$ million the city will be on the hook for baloon to over 1billlion. I am all for LRT but this is going to be a joke. Wonder how Cullen will justify the increase to taxpayers. But he's in la la land already.

Makes the N-S LRT price look like Wal-Mart rollback.

Wasn't the N-S LRT going to cost almost $1B? And the city was on the hook for almost $600M of it?

I think they should take the money, push the tunnel back to phase 2 and build more surface rail for less money. But the surface rail stations and routing should be designed from the beginning as a secondary LRT (not full capacity). And then in 10 years we go after funding for the tunnel to upgrade the system to full capacity.

[waterloowarrior]

Government of Canada Invests in Ottawa Public Transit

OTTAWA, ONTARIO--(Marketwire - June 8, 2010) - The Honourable John Baird, Canada's Transport and Infrastructure Minister and Member of Parliament for Ottawa West-Nepean, along with Members of Parliament representing Ottawa, including the Honourable Gordon O'Connor, Pierre Poilievre, and Royal Galipeau, today announced that the Government of Canada will set aside up to $600 million for the City of Ottawa's Transit Plan.

"This historic investment in Ottawa's public transit infrastructure demonstrates the Government of Canada's commitment to building sustainable and healthy communities," said Minister Baird. "With this funding, I expect that the City will work towards a practical and affordable plan to serve the needs of the residents of Ottawa."

In addition to this funding, the Government of Canada provides the City of Ottawa with approximately $50 million per year from the federal Gas Tax Fund, which the City has chosen to dedicate to public transit improvements.

"A strong transit system for the National Capital Region is vital," said Royal Galipeau, M.P. "In a growing urban environment, it's important that people are able to rely on public transit to get them where they need to go – on time and safely."

This investment in Ottawa transit will help the City of Ottawa achieve its goal to increase public transit use to 30 per cent by 2031. It will create local jobs,
reduce traffic congestion, help protect our environment, and improve the quality of life for Ottawa residents.

In this period of global economic uncertainty, the Government of Canada is focused on stimulating our economy, creating jobs, and helping Canadians have a more prosperous future by moving forward with a number of large-scale infrastructure programs to assist Ontarians when they need it most. Canada's Economic Action Plan is accelerating and expanding the existing Building Canada infrastructure plan of $33 billion with almost $12 billion in new infrastructure stimulus funding.

BACKGROUNDER

GOVERNMENT OF CANADA INVESTS IN OTTAWA PUBLIC TRANSIT
The Government of Canada's funding for transit improvements in Ottawa is conditional on both the City of Ottawa and Province of Ontario committing $600 million each towards the initiative, and further on the approval by Ottawa City Council of a final business case defining a specific project that fits within the funding envelopes announced by the Government of Canada.

Federal funding is also conditional on the signing of a project-specific contribution agreement. The source of funds for up to $400 million of the federal investment being announced today is the Major Infrastructure Component of the Building Canada Fund. The source of funds for the remaining $200 million will be the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund

[Kitchissippi]

If the 19.2 km (with a 3 km tunnel) Canada line in Vancouver was built for $2 billion, I think this 12.5 km LRT could easily be built for $1.8 billion or even less. I really think the estimates are way too padded, it will be interesting when the real bids come in.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by RTWAP

I think they should take the money, push the tunnel back to phase 2 and build more surface rail for less money. But the surface rail stations and routing should be designed from the beginning as a secondary LRT (not full capacity). And then in 10 years we go after funding for the tunnel to upgrade the system to full capacity.

It's not like running it on surface will be free. You can't simply strike off 600-700 million off the balance sheet because you're eliminating the tunnel. I bet more than $300 million would have to be spent downtown on surface track, stations, signalling, bridge reinforcements and road rebuilding. The tunnel becomes a no-brainer, for $300 million or so more, we get a system that is unimpeded by surface traffic. Someone remind me again what is being spent on Baseline station right now?

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

If the 19.2 km (with a 3 km tunnel) Canada line in Vancouver was built for $2 billion, I think this 12.5 km LRT could easily be built for $1.8 billion or even less. I really think the estimates are way too padded, it will be interesting when the real bids come in.

And this is part of the problem, since bidders will probably overbid because of the high estimated price.

[blackjagger]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

And this is part of the problem, since bidders will probably overbid because of the high estimated price.

I wouldn't think so. If after the prequal there are 3-5 bidders there will be a tight bid. Especially if the city can reduce the risk of the bidders by providing good documents and geotechnical reports. The bidding firms will probably never look at the city’s estimate other then for bonding and insurance purposes.

Cheers,
Josh

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by RTWAP

Wasn't the N-S LRT going to cost almost $1B? And the city was on the hook for almost $600M of it?

I think they should take the money, push the tunnel back to phase 2 and build more surface rail for less money. But the surface rail stations and routing should be designed from the beginning as a secondary LRT (not full capacity). And then in 10 years we go after funding for the tunnel to upgrade the system to full capacity.

That's great and all... but then how much of the "savings" get eaten up in redesigning everything else to now run through a non-tunnel, and in designing the rest of the system that constitutes "more surface rail"?

And how much time does that buy before grade separation, whether tunnel, el, aerial tube, or magic happy carpet, is required anyway?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

It's not like running it on surface will be free. You can't simply strike off 600-700 million off the balance sheet because you're eliminating the tunnel. I bet more than $300 million would have to be spent downtown on surface track, stations, signalling, bridge reinforcements and road rebuilding. The tunnel becomes a no-brainer, for $300 million or so more, we get a system that is unimpeded by surface traffic. Someone remind me again what is being spent on Baseline station right now?

DO NOT TALK ABOUT BASELINE STATION!

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

If the 19.2 km (with a 3 km tunnel) Canada line in Vancouver was built for $2 billion, I think this 12.5 km LRT could easily be built for $1.8 billion or even less. I really think the estimates are way too padded, it will be interesting when the real bids come in.

50 m stations vs 180 m stations is a big difference in terms of cost. Plus, a fair portion of the tunnel was cut and covered not bored, all the underground stations were dug out, not mined.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

If the 19.2 km (with a 3 km tunnel) Canada line in Vancouver was built for $2 billion, I think this 12.5 km LRT could easily be built for $1.8 billion or even less. I really think the estimates are way too padded, it will be interesting when the real bids come in.

I've never seen an infrastructure project in Ottawa come in under budget. Usually, it's WAY over. If they claim it will be less, expect to shell out more tax money.

Too bad innovative solutions aren't even considered. We could have a full-blown, automated system in place with money left over to build a nice stadium (on a rapid transit line) and still have money left over for other projects.

[Richard Eade]

Scenarios:

Contractor: “How much do you have to spend on this?”
Customer 1: “About $1B.”
Contractor: “Sorry, it will be more than that. It will take about $1.5B to do the job.”

Contractor: “How much do you have to spend on this?”
Customer 2: “About $1.8B.”
Contractor: “Oh, it will cost about $2B to complete the job, but that is such a small increase, it is within your budget.”

Contractor: “How much do you have to spend on this?”
Customer 3: “About $2.2B.”
Contractor: “Oh, it will cost about $2.5B to complete the job, but that is such a small increase, it is within your budget.”


I imagine that very few contractors who know that you are willing to spend more money than it will take to complete a job would actually only ask for the cost of the job. In the above, we learn in the first scenario that the contractor would like to charge $1.5B for the job. This would include a ‘normal’ profit. In the other two scenarios, the contractor simply pads the available money by 10%-15% and takes the bigger profit.

If you were going to cut the neighbour’s lawn for him and he offered $20, would you tell him that you only wanted $10 to cover your $5 in gas + $5 in profit?

I think d_jeffrey is correct. The City didn’t do anything to save money when it announced what it expected to pay, including 50% contingencies on the tunnel components and an added $100M in Director’s Contingency.