Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

The problem is that the tunnel and mined stations is 'only' about 1/3 of the project cost; the conversion to rail is the biggest part of the expense. If a cheaper tunnel option were built, then the savings would likely be in the range of a couple of hundred million dollars; mostly from less expesive (shallower) stations. Even going to a surface rail system would likely only save a few hundred million. (The increase in disruption to the downtown core would be significant with both of these options and the added mitigation costs could eat up a lot of the capital savings; not to mention the economic loses due to that disruption.) I will grant you that hundreds of millions of dollars are nothing to scoff at, but in the scale of this project, $300M is inside the contingence amount.

As Haydon said, building the tunnel and using it for buses as a first stage could be an option. Planning for a proper conversion plan and the lengthening of the line could be the next step. For example, money could gradually be spent over the next few years (while the tunnel is being dug, maybe) to straighten the 'kinks' in the Transitway so that conversion could be done without shutting down the buses, but by simply moving them to the shoulders while the rails are laid.

That's not the point. People are not quibbling about the conversion costs if they are mulling surface rail. It's the tunnel that they are using as a target.

[McC]

Originally Posted by DarkArconio

I found this just now, though apparently it's been posted since June:

http://www.interprovincial-transit-strategy.ca/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=nngg7HBOKW8%3d&tabid=38

All 6 major options outlined in the report recommend LRT expansion along the Rapibus corridor and varying degrees of connectivity with Ottawa's planned tunnel/light rail, using any number of the following options to cross the river: Prince of Wales bridge, Alexandria bridge, or eastern tunnel.

Personally, I hope they come out recommending maximum inter-connectivity with both a west and east downtown connection and full train transfer. Ideally, OC transpo would merge with the STO allowing for superior route planning, or at least a joint commission would run core LRT operations.

is it just me, does it read like they're saying that Gatineau should be building LRT instead of BRT? (or are they saying Gatineau should rip up a rail line for a bus line, build a new rail line nest to that bus line, then extend LRT along that corridor?)

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

That's not the point. People are not quibbling about the conversion costs if they are mulling surface rail. It's the tunnel that they are using as a target.

And how many times have you heard people refer to the $735M cost of the tunnel and stations? I find that most media reports talk of the $2.1B plan. People are convinced that the 'tunnel' is going to cost $2.1B PLUS.

What I am trying to point out is that moving to a 'cheaper' tunnel or surface rail is not going to change that big cost figure by as much as people hope it will.

I bring up Haydon's idea because it breakes the plan down into smaller, maybe managable, steps. Even if people think that he never had an intention of changing from buses to LRT, the City Staff and Politicians should be able to see some benefit in the concept of Haydon's plan (except the part about sticking with buses - which I have not heard him say).

Having a long range plan and working toward it in bite-size pieces is not a bad idea; as long as we don't get into the trouble Johnny did. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4pAwosnIQE

[MalcolmTucker]

Except for buses the tunnel needs to be bigger, have better ventilation and other such things that cost money. Conversion to LRT isn't a fast process even if your alignment is all right. Still going to have at least a year of shut down.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

And how many times have you heard people refer to the $735M cost of the tunnel and stations? I find that most media reports talk of the $2.1B plan. People are convinced that the 'tunnel' is going to cost $2.1B PLUS.

What I am trying to point out is that moving to a 'cheaper' tunnel or surface rail is not going to change that big cost figure by as much as people hope it will.

I bring up Haydon's idea because it breakes the plan down into smaller, maybe managable, steps. Even if people think that he never had an intention of changing from buses to LRT, the City Staff and Politicians should be able to see some benefit in the concept of Haydon's plan (except the part about sticking with buses - which I have not heard him say).

That still is not the point. A clear majority of the new council including the new mayor are all in favour of LRT (and were probably elected because it was their position). The ones that are lukewarm (including possibly the mayor) express their reservation only with the cost of the tunnel. Which means the public is OK with the 2/3 of the budget for electric LRT conversion but some consider the tunnel a frivolity. Numerous surveys have shown this.

The fact that Andrew Haydon fared so poorly should be an indication of how much people hate the idea of a bus tunnel

Also, there is the $300-million shortfall in the 1/3-1/3-1/3 funding formula that the city has to make up for entirely, so if suddenly trimming costs with a cheaper tunnel could bring the total project cost $1.8 billion, then the project would be an easier sell.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

And how many times have you heard people refer to the $735M cost of the tunnel and stations? I find that most media reports talk of the $2.1B plan. People are convinced that the 'tunnel' is going to cost $2.1B PLUS.

What I am trying to point out is that moving to a 'cheaper' tunnel or surface rail is not going to change that big cost figure by as much as people hope it will.

Let's not forget that there is also a fair chance that the transitway conversion costs have been heavily padded. They're running at $20M/km for just running way conversion and heaven-knows-what for station conversion. That's up from less than $9M/km (before contingencies - ~$13M/km with) in 2008 when all they're contemplating is basically to lay ballast and new track right on top of the existing asphalt surface. There's precious little real work to do and if it weren't for electrification your average rail laying machine could have the job done in a few days.

• Video Link

The fact that we can tie into the regular railway network at Hurdman would greatly facilitate tracklaying as the material can be delivered continuously with ease - although hoping for such a pragmatic approach is probably asking for too much.

Frankly, I could well see the tunnel go over budget but the conversion come well under budget.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Dado

Let's not forget that there is also a fair chance that the transitway conversion costs have been heavily padded. They're running at $20M/km for just running way conversion and heaven-knows-what for station conversion. That's up from less than $9M/km (before contingencies - ~$13M/km with) in 2008 when all they're contemplating is basically to lay ballast and new track right on top of the existing asphalt surface. There's precious little real work to do and if it weren't for electrification your average rail laying machine could have the job done in a few days.

I'm not an engineer or rail expert, but there is the added complication of welding the rails, since a continuously welded rail is necessary. It's a bit more complex than freight train tracks.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

I'm not an engineer or rail expert, but there is the added complication of welding the rails, since a continuously welded rail is necessary. It's a bit more complex than freight train tracks.

The only thing more complicated than a regular railway is the electrical power supply. Welded rail has been done for years in both railway and transit situations.

[lrt's friend]

I am getting terribly confused. If building surface rail downtown will only save a couple of hundred million, what is driving the cost of the current project so high? After all, the North-South project included surface rail downtown, two new Rideau River bridges and a Dow's Lake tunnel, more than twice the length of track and cost less than half the cost and did not include a supposedly LRT convertible Transitway. Is Transitway conversion really as cheap as everybody assumes?

Everybody quotes the $735 million cost estimate for the tunnel, but does that actually include track, power supply, signalling, etc.? Are we really comparing apples with apples when we compare the cost of a tunnel with the cost of surface rail?

[DarkArconio]

You've gotta remember, the federal and provincial money is committed for the whole project, including in particular the tunnel. Should any significant changes be made to the scope/scale of the project, the funding will disappear. I doubt that in this time of large public deficits, an uncertain timeline for the next federal election, and a provincial election fast approaching, either higher levels of government will be too flexible on funding. Change the plan too much, and we'll be stuck without anything for another 10 years...

Originally Posted by McC

is it just me, does it read like they're saying that Gatineau should be building LRT instead of BRT? (or are they saying Gatineau should rip up a rail line for a bus line, build a new rail line nest to that bus line, then extend LRT along that corridor?)

I don't think they're being quite that specific, seems to me they're trying to determine the ideal final solution in a decade or two. Unfortunately there are very many missing vital details. I guess the next report will contain more specifics?

[Ottawan]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am getting terribly confused. If building surface rail downtown will only save a couple of hundred million, what is driving the cost of the current project so high? After all, the North-South project included surface rail downtown, two new Rideau River bridges and a Dow's Lake tunnel, more than twice the length of track and cost less than half the cost and did not include a supposedly LRT convertible Transitway. Is Transitway conversion really as cheap as everybody assumes?

Everybody quotes the $735 million cost estimate for the tunnel, but does that actually include track, power supply, signalling, etc.? Are we really comparing apples with apples when we compare the cost of a tunnel with the cost of surface rail?

It is true that cancelling the tunnel in favour of a surface route would not result in (considering the size of the project) significant savings, and at a severe long-term cost (since amassing the political will to dig seems so difficult in Ottawa, so it could be putting off a grade-separated downtown route indefinitely).

The real reasons why this project is going to cost so much are:

1) The extremely expensive rail yard. This is not a wasted expense, however, if one takes the long view - it will make future expansions less expensive and seemingly more economical, as it is a one-time cost

2) Certain non-tunnel stations are going to be extremely expensive. For example, at the VIA rail station, where the trench needs to be completely realigned in order to match the required specifications for trains, including two new bridges. over this realigned trench. The major redesign of Hurdman, and the ridiculous expense of what is being done at Tunney's for a temporary bus-rail transfer station are other major expenditures.

3) There are multiple layers of contingencies built into the estimated cost of the project, including an additional $100 million contingency slapped on top of the whole project, despite additional contingency funds already allocated in the project. In short, if bids come in above the estimated price, we are being royally ripped off.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am getting terribly confused. If building surface rail downtown will only save a couple of hundred million, what is driving the cost of the current project so high? After all, the North-South project included surface rail downtown, two new Rideau River bridges and a Dow's Lake tunnel, more than twice the length of track and cost less than half the cost and did not include a supposedly LRT convertible Transitway. Is Transitway conversion really as cheap as everybody assumes?

Everybody quotes the $735 million cost estimate for the tunnel, but does that actually include track, power supply, signalling, etc.? Are we really comparing apples with apples when we compare the cost of a tunnel with the cost of surface rail?

I think that is why there was so much distrust about the old N-S LRT pricing – extra cost items kept being revealed.

I don’t believe the $735M tunnel and stations cost figure includes any of the rail or electrical components, it is just the tubes and stations, and assorted equipment to run those (ventilation, pumps, lighting, escalators, etc). I would imagine that the stations would also include ticketing machines, turnstiles, and the like, but I’m not sure on this point. It might be like the articulated bus garage where the building is under one department and the tools under another and therefore under a different budget item. (But the budget for the tools always gets approved since the building is completed but empty. Staff has become pretty good at getting a bare minimum cost item approved and then adding in all the other costs to actually make the original item useful. Oh, that didn’t include wheels, but since we have the rest of the truck, Staff recommends that the City approve the expense of $10,000 to buy wheels for the $32,000 truck that the City just bought for a bargain $30,000. Oh, did you want tires for those new wheels?)

It would be roughly the same cost to build the tunnel for buses first: There would be some extra cost for more mining of passing lanes at the stations and perhaps a small increase for more ventilation; although the ventilation needed to satisfy the fire regulations for the train is probably pretty close to what would be needed for buses. The upgraded ventilation would likely be only a few million dollars more; not a significant increase.

Speaking of ventilation, I really don’t think it is fair to compare the St. Laurent tunnel to what the full DOTT tunnel would be like. The St. Laurent tunnel is very short and thus relies on ceiling mounted fans to keep a minimum air-flow through the tunnel. The fact that the St. Laurent tunnel is so short is its draw-back. In a longer tunnel, there would be a proper positive pressure ventilation system for each of the stations and negative pressure within the tunnel. The fumes should not be flowing to the passengers. Even after the conversion to rail the ventilation system would still be used for the comfort of the passengers in the stations.

As I mentioned above, there would be extra lanes mined out in the station areas but the running lanes between stations would be single lane so a larger diameter bore is not needed. In the future, after conversion, these extra lanes could be used by passing trains or for car storage.

Another change in the tunnel for buses would be a cross-over at each end of the tunnel so that the buses could make use of central platform stations, since that is what will eventually be used for the trains. The cross-overs would be removed during the final conversion to rail.

I am not saying that a bus tunnel would cost the same as the train tunnel, and neither is Haydon. (I think I heard his figure was $810M, but I don’t remember where I heard that and it might not have been from Haydon but some other source.) Nor would it be a process without disruption. There will no doubt need to be a period of Transitway shut-down during final rail implementation and testing, but hopefully that could be done during the summer months. There would be isolated disruptions to sections of the bus Transitway during ‘straightening’ operations, but hopefully these could also be planned for minimum system disruption. This incremental plan will cost more than shutting down the bus Transitway for three years and converting it to rail all at once, but, like the Rapid Bridge Replacement operations that the Province has used to reduce disruption during 417 widening, sometimes the added cost can be justified. In fact, the tunnel boring that Ottawa is planning is being done to minimize surface disruption, and is costing more than a shallow Cut & Cover tunnel.

As for the cost break-down, the last I heard was that Staff was estimating $90M for each of the mined stations and (I think) $70M for the Cut & Cover Campus Station, for a total of ($90M x 3 + $70M =) $340M. That leaves about $400M for the tunnel boring, or about $115M per Kilometre. There is also a $250M cost for the maintenance facility. The remainder of the $2.1B (roughly $1.1B) is to provide the 12.5 Kilometres of rail, electrical supply, re-worked stations, alignment straightening (except around Hurdman where it will actually be worse), public art, disruption mitigation, and LRT vehicles. This, undoubtedly seems high to most people (and it might be, as dado points out), but it is what we have been given and it is based on Staff’s best ‘guess’. Personally, when I see numbers like $15M for a re-facing of the Lees Station, I am amazed, but how many projects have come in significantly under the cost Staff has estimated? And how many have come in over what was forecast?

In the case of a shallow tunnel, with the moving of utilities and additional land which would need to be acquired, it is likely to cost in the neighbourhood of $400M-$500M for the tunnel and stations. If I recall correctly (and I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I am wrong), the Friends of the O-Train suggested a surface option which ran about $350M (but Staff said that it would have cost much more). Of course that option did include rail from LeBreton to Hurdman so you are quite right that the saving would be more like $500M for a surface rail option; thank-you, I stand corrected.

[Richard Eade]

With respect to the Train Station; does anyone else feel that the station is being designed for the VIA Station to the exclusion of where most of the riders are going to come from?

The Train-Coventry Multi-purpose Bridge is likely to go ahead since it has predictions of hundreds of people crossing it per day. Most of these people are supposed to be headed for the new LRT station, so why not de-couple the LRT station from the VIA Station and make it more convenient for the majority of people using it?



The various colours indicate the land owner, and I have superimposed the planned Train Station alignment. The proposed future 417 overpass is shown in gray (with my addition of the dashed portion). Instead of what is planned, I suggest that the new LRT station be brought out of the driveway loop by re-instating the original driveway to the VIA Station. My suggested position for the station and corridor is shown in red.

By moving the LRT station, it can be better integrated with the new bridge. Also, by re-instating the two arms of the driveway, the bridge lands directly at an intersection. There would still be one driveway structure and one structure for Tremblay road to be built. However, if the driveway is re-built first, then the 'U' of the driveway's arms might be useful as a detour during the Tremblay Road construction.

If I could dream, I would suggest this layout, but with different layering: I would put the LRT on the surface with Tremblay and the driveway arms under it. This would lessen the grade that the LRT needs to drop after passing over Riverside Drive and make this a more visible 'TRAIN' area. The LRT would ramp down into the trench east of the station. Entrance to the VIA Station would be (similar to the M-C International Airport) by passing under a train (taxi-way at the airport). The 'bowl' would remain relatively hollow allowing a massive display area on the slope of the flat side. (Maybe for a floral picture of a vintage engine?) The loop of the driveway would be ramps up to and down from grade.

[c_speed3108]

To me, if they want to decrease the cost of the project the place to look is the stations.

They are spending way too much in that area. There is a roof all the way across Lees, They are rebuilding huge amounts of Hurdman and Blair. It seems we could build the stations for less than 70 and 90 million a pieces. We need to think a bit more basic I think. That is as much as some of U of O's recent buildings cost. (Desmarais for instance)

[DarkArconio]

What I would like best for this council to do to reduce cost is the following:

Shorten the initial route to end at bayview, with a much cheaper transfer station located next to the current otrain station.
Cancel the western planned expansion, leaving the transitway as is and begin work on expanding the otrain to the airport with 2 rails.
Set up light rail operation along the southern rail corridor in the city through nepean, bellscorners and southern kanata, ending in stittsville east.

The benefits of this plan include far lower disruption during initial conversion to light rail (tunnel) as western commuters will have the old transitway fully operational to the lebreton flats, where a temporary alignment can be taken onto albert/slater. In the east, the new more southern transitway would be complete for an alternative path, with entry into the city along nicolas over a new rideau bridge (future alta vista parkway), using the existing transitway ROW next to nicolas as the new rail tunnel leaves that alone.

In next phases, we have fully grade separated light rail operation into the west of the city without any added disruption during construction (with the except of the otrain, where hopefully 1 rail can be maintained during most of construction). Once we have full rail in the southern corridor, we can consider upgrading the northern transitway to light rail, with perhaps surface operation in the byron corridor. The southern corridor would be a long distance train with stops only at major arterials like merivale and greenbank, with a park and rides at every stop possible. The northern former transitway could then be a more local service for a much more dense part of the city.

The whole idea is to set up regular upgrades to the system with minimal disruption, maintaining maximum operations during conversion so as to keep public transit user levels high as capacity is increased.

A carling streetcar can be added at any point, my main concern is getting all the long distance commuters who take the queensway onto public transit. I focus more on the western section because I think the eastern section is less challenging to upgrade overall.

[lrt's friend]

I can't wait to see all those Orleans buses moved on to the unwidened Queensway or Ogilvie Road and almost every bus from the east and south merging on to the Queensway at Hurdman's Bridge. Traffic will be backed up for miles.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

I'm not an engineer or rail expert, but there is the added complication of welding the rails, since a continuously welded rail is necessary. It's a bit more complex than freight train tracks.

Hence:

"The fact that we can tie into the regular railway network at Hurdman would greatly facilitate tracklaying as the material can be delivered continuously with ease - although hoping for such a pragmatic approach is probably asking for too much."

Welded rail comes in quarter mile lengths (~400 m). There are various ways to do it, but for the first track generally the lengths of rail are pulled off the CWR train, which is behind the tracklaying machine and its supply of ties. The rails are pulled past the tracklaying machine using a bulldozer or other heavy equipment through or over rollers on the sides of the tracklaying machine and then out ahead of it on mini rollers and to the sides of where the track will go.

• Video Link

Then the ties are dropped into place and the rails are pulled onto the ties.

• Video Link

After 400 m, they join the next rail up and repeat the process.

• Video Link

It will later be flash butt welded.

• Video Link

For the second track, it's even easier: the CWR train goes out on the first track and drops the rails on the side of the future second track. The ties can be dropped into place from the first track or laid by a tracklaying machine, with the rails then being shifted onto the ties. This is essentially how the O-Train line was given CWR: a CWR train dropped the welded rails along the existing jointed track and then other machines lifted the jointed rails up off the ties and replaced them with the welded rail. They got it done pretty quickly.


An alternative process is to lay a temporary jointed rail track in prefab segments and use it to deliver the materials for at least the first final track by rail, then take up the temporary track and lay the second track.

• Video Link

As you can see, the French do this for the TGV. I suspect the reason is that the heavy rail construction equipment could damage the tracks too much, so they use temporary tracks for that.


The key is to tie into the existing rail network at Hurdman (and Bayview, and possibly south of Baseline) so that rail construction equipment and supplies can be brought in directly.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am getting terribly confused. If building surface rail downtown will only save a couple of hundred million, what is driving the cost of the current project so high? After all, the North-South project included surface rail downtown, two new Rideau River bridges and a Dow's Lake tunnel, more than twice the length of track and cost less than half the cost and did not include a supposedly LRT convertible Transitway. Is Transitway conversion really as cheap as everybody assumes?

Well the question I have on conversion is why should it be expensive? As the videos in the post above show, tracklaying on a ready surface is simple. There's just not a lot of cost to it.

Everybody quotes the $735 million cost estimate for the tunnel, but does that actually include track, power supply, signalling, etc.? Are we really comparing apples with apples when we compare the cost of a tunnel with the cost of surface rail?

My understanding is that yes, everything is included in the tunnel cost.

Surface should save a few hundred million against a tunnel. The N-S LRT surface cost was supposedly $185M, but a solution sufficient to replace a tunnel would cost more than that, although there would be savings from only going on one street rather than two.

Originally Posted by DarkArconio

You've gotta remember, the federal and provincial money is committed for the whole project, including in particular the tunnel. Should any significant changes be made to the scope/scale of the project, the funding will disappear.

The letter from Chiarelli at least is actually quite cagey on this. It mentions rail, Tunney's Pasture and Blair, but not a tunnel. Baird and Strahl have been similarly cagey. It's pretty clear that a bus tunnel would be out, but not necessarily surface LRT.

[MalcolmTucker]

I think people are over complicating this. Calgary doesn't use those ultra long lengths for rails - it would make maintenance a nightmare. Just because the O-train was relaided with cwr doesn't mean it is even close to the optimal solution for the LRT network,

[agl]

Feds may give Ottawa $1 deal on LRT land


The federal government says it will consider selling to the City of Ottawa the land it needs for proposed light-rail transit routes for just $1.

That information comes in an email sent by Transport Minister Chuck Strahl to Coun. Diane Deans (Gloucester-Southgate). Deans made the request independently this summer after city council voted against formally asking the government to sell the land at a discounted rate.

"It pays to ask," Deans told CBC News on Wednesday.

"I couldn't understand why (city council) wouldn't want to ask," she said. "And now it seems clear that the federal government is willing to move forward with that request and look favourably upon it."

In the email, Strahl writes that his government will explore opportunities to hand over the land for $1. But the minister also cautioned that some legal limitations may require the city to buy some of the land at market value.

Deans said the federal government would benefit from the light-rail plan, as it will increase property values near the rail lines, including Ottawa's west end where a major new station is planned for Tunney's Pasture.

Deans has been an outspoken critic of the plan's ballooning costs, which jumped to an estimated $2.1 billion in 2009.

"I really think the expectation of the public, who have already paid for that land once, is not to pay full market value the second time because it's being transferred between levels of government," Dean said.


Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2010/10/27/ottawa-lrt-land-107.html#ixzz13erP0SMy

Anybody know what parcels of federally-owned land are required for the LRT route?