Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments - Page 243

lrt's friend · #**4841** Posted **Nov 27, 2012, 8:07 PM**

There is a difference between being at a subway entrance and the subway platform. It is not as if the walking between the entrance and the platform doesn't count.

J.OT13 · #**4842** Posted **Nov 27, 2012, 8:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I think the point is that we are making 100 year decisions, so we better do it right now. But it really doesn't make any difference what we say, because the decisions have already been made.

That's it, the winning bidder will be announced next week; it would be foolish to go back to the drawing board. We would lose any speck of credibility we may have.

J.OT13 · #**4843** Posted **Nov 27, 2012, 8:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

There is a difference between being at a subway entrance and the subway platform. It is not as if the walking between the entrance and the platform doesn't count.

You have to go down 15 meters either way, and as for the Confederation entrance, it was more like 28 meters spiraling down in a confusing pattern to a diagonal (relative to the street) platform, creating a sense of confusion and disorientation.

But I figure that it's still about the extra CBD station as opposed to the Rideau station placement. We all have our opinions and that’s fine, and as you said, it doesn’t matter anymore since the final plan will be announced next week.

eternallyme · #**4844** Posted **Nov 27, 2012, 10:25 PM**

The business-core stations (i.e. Tunney's Pasture, St. Laurent, Baseline) will be just as critical in the end. Most likely some will go from downtown residences to work at them too...

waterloowarrior · #**4845** Posted **Nov 27, 2012, 11:44 PM**

Remeber that the station can go anywhere in the innovation zone... and I believe the City has the rights to use the non-winning designs in case they have a good idea the winners don't have.

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycou...20ACS2011-ICS-RIO-0003%20-%20OLRT%20.htm

Innovation Zone and Property Acquisition Strategy

In order to maximize flexibility and innovation to best achieve the goals outlined in the section above, the proponents will be given the opportunity to optimize their proposals by designing their proposed tunnel and station within the boundaries of a horizontally and vertically defined innovation zone (Figures 1 & 2 the “Innovation Zone”). Only one station entrance will be prescribed, on the south side of Rideau Street into the future Rideau Centre expansion. An underground walkway connecting entrances on the north and south sides of Rideau Street will also be required facilitate pedestrian connection to the By-ward Market. The proponents have the flexibility to choose two more entrance locations and the location of a knock out panel for a fourth station access. They will be required to demonstrate the entrances are well balanced, from a ridership perspective, and that their configuration will provide easy and efficient access to and from the LRT platform.

The feasibility of this public project is supported by retaining design flexibility within the Innovation Zone until the preferred proponent is selected in Fall 2012 and until the final detailed design of the tunnel section and stations to be constructed within the Innovation Zone is identified. As a result, the scope of the proposed expropriation, though limited by the boundaries of the Innovation Zone, is necessarily greater than the area which will ultimately be occupied by the public works themselves. The subterranean interest to be acquired and the structures themselves will be located at a depth that will not substantially interfere with existing uses irrespective of their final location within the Innovation Zone. It is therefore fair, sound and reasonably necessary to include this flexibility in the first Notice to owners whose property is located within the Innovation Zone.

When the first expropriation Notices are issued with respect to the Innovation Zone, detailed sketches will be provided to property owners illustrating the vertical and lateral limits of the Innovation Zone in relation to the affected property.

Once the preferred proponent is selected in Fall 2012, and following identification of the final detailed design of the tunnel section and stations to be constructed within the Innovation Zone, the City will refine its property requirements and proceed with expropriation of only those subterranean interests within the Innovation Zone that are specifically required to support the selected design.

eternallyme · #**4846** Posted **Nov 27, 2012, 11:48 PM**

I think the Rideau Centre station would be best placed between Nicholas and Waller, with the indoor entrance to the Rideau Centre falling in the eastern side of the mall. The fourth station should be between Metcalfe and Elgin.

Dado · #**4847** Posted **Nov 28, 2012, 1:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.OT13

And as for surface rail on Albert; we cancelled the N/S LRT mainly because of the mess that surface LRT would have caused, and now we would have lost millions in inflation costs to build the 2006 plan (surface LRT) and 7 years in planning for a tunnel, that although not perfect, is far superior than any other plan since the 1960s Hammer report.

This city has never - NEVER - seriously investigated an LRT-only surface alignment, whether on one street like 7th Ave in Calgary or across two streets like the current BRT system.

We have looked at absolutely everything else - BRT-only on the surface, BRT-only in a tunnel, LRT&BRT on the surface (the N-S LRT), LRT&BRT in a tunnel and LRT-only in a tunnel but never, not once, ever, LRT-only on the surface.

The mess of the N-S LRT plan was due entirely to mixing the LRT with BRT, but that's what you get in a city where someone thought it was a good idea to have BRT form the backbone of the rapid transit system.

J.OT13 · #**4848** Posted **Nov 28, 2012, 5:41 PM**

Remember, Calgary is seriously considering a tunnel now. Surface was fine for the first 30 odd years, now it’s time to upgrade as we are upgrading from a segmented BRT system to a fully grade separated RT.

Certainly, mixing BRT and LRT was another one of the critical flaws. But the fact is that if LRT stays on the surface, even on its own right of way, capacity is severely limited; limited by train length, limited by speed (too many trains going by to have the lights switch for the train every time) and limited by street closures during protests, parades and other events.

Just look at Canada day when you have a couple hundred thousand people J-walking all over the place, even where the streets are open. You also have problems with accidents and idiots using the transit lanes.

Should we have built the N/S rail; yes. Would we have saved a lot of time, money and debate if we would have built it; yes. It would have had an adequate capacity for N/S traffic. But it's been canceled 6 years ago and we have this tunnel plan which we desperately need to get on with; winning bidder will be announced next week, all we need to do now is to sign on the dotted line.

We need this tunnel and that's final. Get on with it; time to catch up with the other big cities.

MalcolmTucker · #**4849** Posted **Nov 28, 2012, 5:48 PM**

Quote:

Remember, Calgary is seriously considering a tunnel now.

But also keeping the surface alignment as well to elmininate interlining.

J.OT13 · #**4850** Posted **Nov 28, 2012, 5:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

But also keeping the surface alignment as well to elmininate interlining.

So something similar to our scenario where we would have built the N/S surface and then added an E/W tunnel?

Cre47 · #**4851** Posted **Dec 1, 2012, 1:35 AM**

Dado · #**4852** Posted **Dec 2, 2012, 4:19 PM**

Here is where the N-S LRT would have crossed Spratt:

http://maps.google.ca/?t=h&layer=c&cbll=...87261&spn=0.005965,0.009645&z=17&vpsrc=6

And across Limebank:

http://maps.google.ca/?t=h&layer=c&cbll=...65604&spn=0.005964,0.009645&z=17&vpsrc=6

(yep, right down the tree line - we love mowing down trees - apparently leaving a line of established trees next to a new rail line rather than wiping it out is too much to ask)

Kind of interesting that we're about three years after it was slated to have been completed and there is still nothing around. This project may well have been premature had it been built on schedule anyway... which just goes to show that the downtown bus problem could have been addressed then (Bayview-Hurdman, 2007-2008) with expansion here left until a few years later (i.e. about now) once some more transitway conversion had taken place (Bayview-Lincoln Fields, Hurdman-Blair, Hurdman-Greenboro, 2009-2012).

In other words, had the 2003 TMP been done properly (including an EA for the western LRT now underway), today we could be enjoying a full LRT downtown - no mixing it up with Transitway buses downtown - and along most of the original Transitway with the first ever extension of light rail into undeveloped territory just as development was about to get underway.

waterloowarrior · #**4853** Posted **Dec 4, 2012, 3:30 AM**

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ottawa/Rideau+Transit+Group+city+choice+build/7645996/story.html

Rideau Transit Group is city’s choice to build LRT

Beleaguered SNC-Lavalin part of consortium chosen for $2.1B rail project

BY JOANNE CHIANELLO, OTTAWA CITIZEN DECEMBER 3, 2012 9:03 PM
.

OTTAWA — A consortium led by ACS Infrastructure and that includes beleaguered conglomerate SNC-Lavalin is expected to be named the city’s preferred proponent to build the first phase of Ottawa’s LRT, the largest project in the capital’s history.

McC · #**4854** Posted **Dec 4, 2012, 3:29 PM**

with an "artist's impression" of street-level LRT in the left lane on Slater, wha?!? where in the heck did that come from?

Dado · #**4855** Posted **Dec 4, 2012, 3:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by McC

with an "artist's impression" of street-level LRT in the left lane on Slater, wha?!? where in the heck did that come from?

That's nothing. The picture earlier this morning was of the Transport Action model proposal of South Keys.

But to answer your question: left lane running in Slater and Albert was one of the earlier options proposed for the N-S LRT, so the Citizen has probably had them kicking around for nearly a decade now. It probably would have worked half decently but there are a number of site-specific issues that made it problematic.

White Pine · #**4856** Posted **Dec 5, 2012, 2:27 AM**

They're saying that ACS won the bid. Can't wait to see it!

J.OT13 · #**4857** Posted **Dec 5, 2012, 2:43 AM**

And the rolling stock is to be the Alstom Citadis, which currently only comes in tram versions. I hope the trains will be continuous thru each car (via gangways) as the new rolling stock in Montreal and Toronto as opposed to individual cars as the previous mentioned cities older stock have.

eemy · #**4858** Posted **Dec 5, 2012, 3:28 AM**

I'm wondering how long they will be. It was my understanding that the platforms would initially be 120m long; however, the longest Citadis set right now is 45m in Strasbourg (7 cars). I don't know the technical limitations on these things though. Can that be stretched to, say, 60m? That would possibly allow two sets to be coupled for regular service, and three sets for future service. If coupling/decoupling is relatively simple, they could maybe run them as single 60m sets during off-peak periods to maintain higher service levels.

MalcolmTucker · #**4859** Posted **Dec 5, 2012, 4:36 AM**

The marginal cost of running extra cars is usually so low that unless your fleet is really stretched the benefits of spliting consists is really low. If they run without drivers frequency shouldn't be a cost issue - I doubt that will be the case however.

waterloowarrior · #**4860** Posted **Dec 5, 2012, 4:48 AM**

Paris has the Alstom Citadis 302 coupled trams, L=2x32.665m=65.33m, W=2.400m, 96 seats, 372 to 516 passengers.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=355728

• Video Link