Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I hope they will, too.

Eventually.

But this business of budgeting public art in with capital works is bunk, and should stop. Spend money on the functional part. Pretty can wait, as long as ugly isn't built into the design.

I agree. The art work can be added in the following years. It is a waste of money to be paying for all of it upfront.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by Dado

Honestly, I don't know what numbers to trust when it comes to the City/OC Transpo/RMOC and pphpd.

The "10,000 pphpd" number has been kicking around since the early 1990s as an achieved capacity of the BRT system (ultimate source seems to be our eternal friend, John Bonsall), yet the background info for the 2003 TMP pegged the 2002 number at about 7000* at Campus.

Then just four years later it has risen to 10,200? That's almost a 50% increase!

"What gives?" is quite right. Maybe we should sick the auditor on them.


If the 2002 number of 7000 was correct, then we're probably good to go with 10,700 for some time. But if the 2006 number is correct, then we've got a problem from day one.


*Even this number is debatable: the same data showed that there were 5300 peak period riders inbound to Hurdman from the East Transitway and 2200 from the Southeast Transitway, meaning that at Hurdman some 500 of those 7500 combined didn't head downtown but elsewhere. Possible, yes. Plausible? Meh.

That 500 is likely people heading to Cyrville or towards the Riverside/Heron area.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by McC

I certainly hope that the "Planned Scott Street Widening" under Keeping Ottawa Moving is a typo, and that they mean Albert St (there is no planned widening of Scott St that I've ever heard of).

In the wondrous world of transportation capital budgeting in Ottawa:

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycou...013%20Transp%20Draft%20Budget%20Book.pdf

We have the following under "Integrated Roads, Water & Wastewater" - "Renewal of City Assets":

906052 O-OTM ORAP-Booth Primrose-Albert) (p. 127)

with a budget of $2.46M;

906056 O-OTM ORAP-Albert St / Scott St (p. 128)

with a budget of $15.21M; and let's not forget:

905597 O-OTM ORAP-Empress / Perkins / Lorne (p. 127)

with a budget of $5.72M.

I'm pretty sure that "O-OTM" means "Ottawa - On The Move" but "ORAP" I can't yet figure out - there are quite a few entries for it for projects all over the city.

So there you go.

[McC]

Thanks Dado, there's a bit more detail here:
http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/planning-a...lbert-and-scott-sewer-watermain-and-road
(h/t to Lana Stewart via the twitter)

Albert and Scott Sewer, Watermain and Road Rehabilitation
Project description

This project includes new storm and sanitary sewers to replace the existing combine sewer and the replacement of watermains on Albert Street between City Centre and Brickhill Avenue, as well as providing a storm outlet between Albert Street and Tailrace connection point. The sewer separation is being done as a part of the Ottawa River Action Plan to reduce combined sewage overflows to the River. This project will also see road widening of Albert Street by one lane in each direction between City Centre and the Transitway to accommodate the Transitway buses that will be displaced during LRT construction. There will also be an integrated road rehabilitation on Booth St. and road widening of Scott Street to accommodate additional buses between the Tunney’s Pasture Transitway Station and Bayview. Multi-use pathway elements will be added at Bayview Station to help cyclists connect to the future North-South pathway along the O-Train line.
Timelines

Start of construction – TBD – in coordination with LRT project
Budget

$23.82 Million

Anyway, there's specific mention of widening Albert by a lane (which I was aware of), but the widening of Scott is not specified, maybe because it's only a wider 4-lane alignment that they have in mind?

PS, while you were musing about capacity, did you see my question above?
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=5926184&postcount=4882

[Kitchissippi]

I think Scott is to be widened between Holland and the O-Train bridge, and if I read correctly, the space will be converted to bike lanes once LRT construction is finished as part of the east-west bikeway.

[JM1]

Originally Posted by Deez

Regardless of the platform lengths, I'm a little concerned about capacity. Here are some of the city's numbers from the 2008 TMP update:



This shows 2006 transit demand into the downtown. The opening-day capacity per direction (10,700) only slightly more than peak demand 6 years ago? What gives?

You could easily supplement this capacity (and deal with Gatineau traffic) with my proposed urban gondola line:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=5922853&postcount=24

[eemy]

Speculating here, but my guess is that the capacity of the train is not the crush load. It's hard to be certain though until more details about the particular set planned for Ottawa are released. Based on numbers from Melbourne, each train-set could have a crush load of 430 or so. If that is the case, it should be able to handle initial passenger volumes, just at very heavy loads.

It might even be a smart approach; start the system off so that demand is very high from the get go. It therefore seems a success from the outset and justifies greater expansion. I'm probably reading far too much into this though.

[McC]

Originally Posted by JM1

with my proposed urban gondola line:

Save it for the "Futures" or the "Fantasies" threads, please. This one is for the existing plan (with wiggle room). I know I'm being a scold, but it's too easy to go down the rabbit hole after a non sequitor post.

[c_speed3108]

Originally Posted by McC

am I missing something here?

and

wouldn't they need 50 additional vehicles, not 25, almost all running, to meet the projected capacity requirement?

Not necessarily. First 18000 is not twice 10700 so you would need slightly less there. The other thing being that the number of spare vehicles does not grow linearly with the number of running vehicles.

Extreme example:
Consider the O-train. 1/3 of the vehicles are spare. whereas, with the bus system they do not require 300 spare buses for a fleet of 900 or so.

[McC]

Originally Posted by c_speed3108

Not necessarily. First 18000 is not twice 10700 so you would need slightly less there. The other thing being that the number of spare vehicles does not grow linearly with the number of running vehicles.

Extreme example:
Consider the O-train. 1/3 of the vehicles are spare. whereas, with the bus system they do not require 300 spare buses for a fleet of 900 or so.

okay, but that still doesn't answer the primary question: they say at the front of the deck that the requirement is a system with "capacity to grow to 24,000 riders per hour in each direction." and then on the slide where they boast about the Citadis' capacity to grow, they only say that "the system could move over 18,000 passengers per hour in each direction." what am I missing?

[Dado]

Originally Posted by McC

Thanks Dado, there's a bit more detail here:
http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/planning-a...lbert-and-scott-sewer-watermain-and-road
(h/t to Lana Stewart via the twitter)

Well now I know what "ORAP" means:

"Ottawa River Action Plan"

Anyway, there's specific mention of widening Albert by a lane (which I was aware of), but the widening of Scott is not specified, maybe because it's only a wider 4-lane alignment that they have in mind?

I think Kitchissippi is right - the section of Scott east of Holland is "tight" for four lanes right now. If they widen it to add, say, a fifth lane for peak direction buses, that space could later be reconfigured for bikes.

PS, while you were musing about capacity, did you see my question above?
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=5926184&postcount=4882

I did, but I'm not quite sure what you're asking.

The vehicle requirements of a transit system are related to:
(1) passenger demand
(2) vehicle capacity
(3) system length
(4) vehicle average speed
(5) provision for spares

The O-Train line for instance runs with just two trainsets but since you see each train twice an hour the hourly capacity of the system (pphpd) is twice the combined capacity of the two trains running, or four times that of an individual train.

Originally Posted by McC

okay, but that still doesn't answer the primary question: they say at the front of the deck that the requirement is a system with "capacity to grow to 24,000 riders per hour in each direction." and then on the slide where they boast about the Citadis' capacity to grow, they only say that "the system could move over 18,000 passengers per hour in each direction." what am I missing?

That might be related to the discussion earlier about 100 m vs 150 m trains; i.e. the system as designed can support 18,000 pphpd but since trains and platforms could be lengthened by 50% they can get up to 24,000 pphpd (though mathematically that comes out to 27,000, which might mean fewer trains running when the platforms are longer).

[J.OT13]

I see 4 entrances for Downtown West; is that right?

As for capacity, the calculations were simpler when we were talking about 120-150 meter platforms and 30 meter cars (x 4-5).

Seems to me that the max capacity of this system, with 100 meter platforms (2 50 meter trains), 600 people per train running every 1m 45sec, that would total what, 20400 phpd. And then they don't say anything about the length of the subway platforms; did they make those platfoms 150 meters (3x50 meter cars) as previously planned?

[Dado]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I see 4 entrances for Downtown West; is that right?

As for capacity, the calculations were simpler when we were talking about 120-150 meter platforms and 30 meter cars (x 4-5).

Seems to me that the max capacity of this system, with 100 meter platforms (2 50 meter trains), 600 people per train running every 1m 45sec, that would total what, 20400 phpd. And then they don't say anything about the length of the subway platforms; did they make those platfoms 150 meters (3x50 meter cars) as previously planned?

When we get down to headways that small, you have to start wondering about station dwell times (the bug bear of the BRT system). "Every 1m45s" might refer to the time between one train leaving a station and the next arriving, with a 15 second dwell (i.e. if you arrive at a station just as the train is pulling out and look up at the "Next train" display it may well say "01:45" even though it is running 2 minutes behind the previous train). The numbers do seem to work better on that basis: 2 min headways for 2-car trains with 300 passengers per car works out to 18,000 pphpd.

[McC]

that makes sense.

[waterloowarrior]

staff reports galore
http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=2447&doctype=AGENDA

The vehicle is 49 metres long, with two vehicle trains operating during the day on
opening day and one vehicle in operation in off-peak periods in the late evening. The
longer vehicle provides end-to-end visibility and line of sight within the vehicle interior
which enhances passenger safety and accessibility. The vehicle has 120 seats with
capacity for another 180 standing, bringing total vehicle capacity to 300 (based on
specified passenger comfort level of 3.3 people per m
2
). Each vehicle includes four
designated wheelchair areas for accessibility.

[McC]

Capacity explanation:

4. Capacity to Grow to Meet Long Term Demand
The Confederation Line has been designed to provide an initial ridership capacity of
approximately 10,700 people per hour per direction (pphpd). Depending upon growth within the City and the expansion of the transit network, it is anticipated that ridership on the line will grow to approximately 18,000 pphpd by 2031. Ultimately, the system is designed to enable expansion to accommodate an ultimate ridership of 24,000 pphpd.

The bidding teams were required to demonstrate that they had designed their stations and vertical circulation to support ridership upon commencement of revenue service. They were also required to provide vehicle and platform design that could easily support ridership growth to 2031 and demonstrate modest and low-cost platform expansions and vehicle/system solutions to meet ultimate-system capacity.

The RTG proposal provides this capacity by providing a two-vehicle, 98-metre long train whose doors are accessible within the 90-metre long surface platforms. Once ridership rises above the 2031 level, the surface platforms can be easily lengthened at the surface stations to accommodate a variety of future operating scenarios and train lengths. The expandable platforms at surface stations can support a variety of possible approaches to adding long-term capacity including the possibility of future orders for longer vehicles combined into longer trains. All vertical circulation elements within stations have been sized for the ultimate capacity of the system. The three downtown underground stations are designed from opening day with a 120 metre platform to avoid any potential for costly excavation in the future. Public and emergency circulation elements have also been sized for these ultimate ridership volumes.

http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/cache/2/pcj1y40vxhp3d2ecoa4a2vnp/3470012052012042225903.PDF

[McC]

Originally Posted by Dado

I think Kitchissippi is right - the section of Scott east of Holland is "tight" for four lanes right now. If they widen it to add, say, a fifth lane for peak direction buses, that space could later be reconfigured for bikes.

from the report

From 2016 to 2018, two of the four general traffic lanes on Scott Street and Albert Street, from Holland Avenue to Empress Avenue will be converted to transit-only lanes.

this again makes me think that the widening of Scott will be about the City's preferred width for bus lanes, not about an additional 5th lane on Scott.

[McC]

I'm a little disappointed (but not too surprised) by the minimal number of direct connections from the stations to CBD buildings. I guess it's as Darwin always says: that PWGSC is too cheap to make it worth the landowners' while, and/or Brookfield is too jealously guarding their captive market for their sad sad sad mall under PdV.

Update from the Report:

Business Development Strategy
As part of the Downtown Ottawa Transit Tunnel (DOTT) Planning and Interim Environmental Assessment Study (Ref N°: ACS2009-ICS-PLA-0069), Council directed
staff to release a Request for Information (RFI) to property owners within, and adjacent to, the recommended corridor alignment to solicit ideas on station access, development
and design. Further, it was determined that the City should create a Business Development Strategy (BDS) to engage potential stakeholders, and that this initiative be deployed only once the EA process was approved and funding commitments received from both the provincial and federal governments. The design and architecture approach and the detailed station entrances outlined in this section are included in the fixed price contract negotiated with the preferred proponent and are in line with the functional design approved by Council. As outlined in Recommendation 4 (d) the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Infrastructure will complete and execute any agreements required for station integrations within the project’s budget authority and subject to the terms and conditions described in the Business Development Strategy as outlined in this section.

Staff is pleased to report that as a result of this engagement, several integration opportunities have been identified.

Brookfield – Downtown West:
RIO has undertaken detailed discussions with Brookfield, which have led to the establishment of a framework agreement outlining principles for further negotiations toward a final agreement in connection with the project’s requirements for an integrated Downtown West station entrance in the Podium Building. This framework also includes details related to securing the required construction staging area at the south east corner of Queen and Kent Streets.

Sun Life Financial – Downtown East:
RIO has undertaken detailed discussions with Sun Life Financial which have led to the establishment of a framework for continued negotiations in connection with the project’s requirements for a Downtown East western station entrance in the Atrium between the east and west towers. Sun Life’s contribution will include incremental costs for integrating the station’s entrance and the required lands associated with the entrance connection.

Cadillac Fairview – Rideau Station:
RIO is continuing discussions with Cadillac Fairview to establish a framework regarding an integrated entrance to Rideau Station that includes: an entrance at the corner of Rideau Street and Colonel By Drive, an access from the food court location, and elevator access from the adjacent level of the main Freiman Mall thouroughfare. The Rideau Centre’s contribution will include incremental costs for integrating the station entrances and the required lands associated with entrance connections.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by McC

I'm a little disappointed (but not too surprised) by the minimal number of direct connections from the stations to CBD buildings. I guess it's as Darwin always says: that PWGSC is too cheap to make it worth the landowners' while, and/or Brookfield is too jealously guarding their captive market for their sad sad sad mall under PdV.

I second that motion.

I am also disappointed with the 120 meter platforms. I mean, even Edmonton has longer platforms at 125 meters and their ridership is lower than ours today and they built the stations in the late 70s when they were half the size (around 500,000 people at the time).

Furthermore, I’m not sure how we could eventually attach a 20 meter car to a 2 car/98 meter train. It’s like buying a crunch that’s too short. And we can't just buy whole new train sets in 10-15 years.

Note that we did in fact buy a whole new fleet 10 years after the O-Train started running, but it's simpler to replace a 3 train fleet than a 25+ train fleet (although I don’t understand why we are totally replacing the fleet with the same technology; seems we would have been better off buying diesel electric so we can have minimal modification to the O-Train corridor, but still run the N/S trains in the tunnel). Toronto and Montreal kept their trains for nearly half a century before starting to replace the older fleet.

I'm still supporting the project because it's the best we will ever get, but I'm still disappointed.

[Beedok]

So are they still going to have buses moving through the downtown on the streets?