Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[JM1]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

cost, cost, cost. Less mining, less cost. Also, moving from cross-country to under street operations. With cross-country and the deep tunnel, you could make the tunnel big. By following the Queen Street alignment, you have be more concerned about neighbouring buildings and especially underground garages. You basically are restricted to the width of the street corridor. I wonder how this will all work with a Canada Day crush crowd with almost all the passengers ending up at the Downtown East and Rideau stations.

Queen street has a 4 lane row. Two for a centre platform and two for trains.
But I understand your cost point.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Harley613

i think a bank street subway line is inevitable...but probably not for 30 years. it's one of a few logical and increasingly necessary extensions to our fledgling LRT system.

good spots for stations in my opinion would be Queen(interchange), Somerset, Catherine, Glebe/Lansdowne, Old Ottawa South, Billings, Heron, Walkley, Greenboro, Hunt Club

That would be the elimination of the Southeast Transitway, since it would be redundant from Billings Bridge to South Keys. It would create walking transfers at several locations as well from the existing O-Train to the Bank Street line.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Well, they did change the construction method of the tunnel. Maybe that has something to do with it (?) I do find, however, that the side platforms seem to be very small, at least on the picture they show. It's all nice when you have people casually chatting, but when rush hour comes, I'd imagine it would be rather restricted.

Also - where do people sit? Again, I don't know if these are really the final final plans, so I don't know if it's supposed to contain these little details, but it's an uncomfortable omission. I really hope they look in to the little things - they really make all the difference.

Originally Posted by Dado

True, the construction method has changed, but look at the diagram again: there's nothing in that cylinder thing which would change due to a change in construction methods.

And much of the rest of the text should remain true, such as the bits about sharing elevators etc. and the safer platform environment.


Now maybe it is the case that the TBM method and centre platforms work better, while mining works better with side platforms. It has an air of plausibility to it. But all that tells us in the end is that the method of construction is driving the choice of platform layout, and further that all the other so-called selection criteria was a bunch of hooey used to justify a choice arrived at for other reasons.

Cost! Centre platforms work when you are using TBMs and you need spacing between the tracks and it makes little difference to add some curve, but other methods side platforms means much less material excavated.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

Bank is basically a 2 lane road with on street parking along most of its lenght in the core. Spadina & St-Clair are much wider roads where the street cars run. As a cyclist I understand the anti-car sentiment but I'm also a realist. How is a slow moving tram stuck in traffic going to be better than a bus stuck in traffic?

If nothing else, a smoother ride. Anyone else besides me notice how BAD OC Transpo drivers are getting at operating the velocitators and the deceleratrices?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

deceleratrices

I challenge everybody to say that five times quickly.

[KHOOLE]

A Bank line could also extend north across the Ottawa River (under/over) and under Place du Portage and maybe as far as the Casino.
__________________
What's wrong with using the Prince of Wales bridge that the city of Ottawa owns at two minutes' walk from the Bayview Transitway station and is just rusting away doing nothing ?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by KHOOLE

A Bank line could also extend north across the Ottawa River (under/over) and under Place du Portage and maybe as far as the Casino.

With the change in relief, the line would have to start descending so far south, in order to bore under the river, as to make it uselessly deep for much of downtown.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

With the change in relief, the line would have to start descending so far south, in order to bore under the river, as to make it uselessly deep for much of downtown.

Unless it goes from a tunnel to a bridge. It'd be possible with the escarpment.

[eemy]

Would it be deeper then 200ft? Because that is how deep the deepest station on the London Underground is.

[Kitchissippi]

The Ottawa River is not deep in that section, 5 metres on average, which is why it seems turbulent even when there is not much of a current. From downtown to water level is roughly a 30 metre difference.

The Downtown East platforms are to be 19.5 metres below surface, so if you were to put another set of tracks crossing below, say 5.5 metres, you're about 5 metres from water level. Queen Street is about 300 metres from the river so with a constant 3% grade it's conceivable that you could tunnel under to the Quebec side.

Bank Street would have to be highly intensified to justify a subway, as the rest of the route south of downtown is actually not conducive for transfers to crosstown traffic. Beyond Lansdowne there really aren't other major destinations on this line. A subway axis tends to get built up with 30+ storey buildings, you might want to hide that fact from Centretown, Glebe and Ottawa South residents

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Dado

A Bank line could also extend north across the Ottawa River (under/over) and under Place du Portage and maybe as far as the Casino.

Originally Posted by KHOOLE

A Bank line could also extend north across the Ottawa River (under/over) and under Place du Portage and maybe as far as the Casino.
__________________
What's wrong with using the Prince of Wales bridge that the city of Ottawa owns at two minutes' walk from the Bayview Transitway station and is just rusting away doing nothing ?

Blimey... could you please try to quote properly?


Anyway, nothing wrong with using the Prince of Wales Bridge per se, though using it alone for all STO riders would tend to create a load balancing issue downtown. Using it would pretty much solve OC Transpo's cross-river problem though, a point I have argued for years now. So using the PoW Bridge would solve OC Transpo's cross-river problem and partly solve the STO's. But because it's not a complete solution, "it can't be done" and "we have a process to follow".

Anyway, I was just suggesting that if we're going to indulge ourselves in fantasy Bank Street subway lines, we might as well go full out on it.

[JM1]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

Would it be deeper then 200ft? Because that is how deep the deepest station on the London Underground is.

No need to worry about these issues if you use my gondola plan. See the aerial tram thread.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

The Ottawa River is not deep in that section, 5 metres on average, which is why it seems turbulent even when there is not much of a current. From downtown to water level is roughly a 30 metre difference.

The Downtown East platforms are to be 19.5 metres below surface, so if you were to put another set of tracks crossing below, say 5.5 metres, you're about 5 metres from water level. Queen Street is about 300 metres from the river so with a constant 3% grade it's conceivable that you could tunnel under to the Quebec side.

That being the case, I'd argue for a low level bridge (like the Prince of Wales Bridge) instead of a tunnel that makes use of that island and then which continues on under Courcelette and Maisonneuve. It's not like a lot of clearance is required in the area - enough to get large houseboats under would be more than sufficient.

Slap a couple of paths on either side of it to mollify the "it'll destroy the view" crowd (since the path would likely fill up with walkers looking for the best place to take photos from) and we should be good to go.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Unless it goes from a tunnel to a bridge. It'd be possible with the escarpment.

NCC would never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever allow a bridge there, and I wouldn't blame them. (For once.)

[Dado]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Cost! Centre platforms work when you are using TBMs and you need spacing between the tracks and it makes little difference to add some curve, but other methods side platforms means much less material excavated.

So where were "cost" or "compatibility with method of tunnel construction" in the criteria for selecting one type of layout or the other?

If they were included in that stupid cylinder thing and centre platforms scored higher than side platforms given the assumed use of TBMs, one could make a case that once the method of tunnel construction changed to mining so too would the rankings. But that's not the case because there were no such criteria.

Centre platforms were justified on the basis of criteria that appear to have nothing really to do with the actual drivers of the decisions.

In other words, the entire exercise was intellectually dishonest.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

NCC would never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever allow a bridge there, and I wouldn't blame them. (For once.)

I agree that there would be a lot of ruffling of feathers, but there's no reason why it couldn't be nice. It could be slim, modern, tasteful... we're not talking about the MacDonald Cartier bridge, here!

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I agree that there would be a lot of ruffling of feathers, but there's no reason why it couldn't be nice. It could be slim, modern, tasteful... we're not talking about the MacDonald Cartier bridge, here!

It doesn't matter how architecturally pleasing the bridge looks, trying to build anything that goes through NCC waterfront is likely to be next to impossible.

[Dr.Z]

Originally Posted by Harley613

i think a bank street subway line is inevitable...but probably not for 30 years. it's one of a few logical and increasingly necessary extensions to our fledgling LRT system.

good spots for stations in my opinion would be Queen(interchange), Somerset, Catherine, Glebe/Lansdowne, Old Ottawa South, Billings, Heron, Walkley, Greenboro, Hunt Club

Linking the 3 satellite communities makes far more sense $ investment per capita-wise. O-Train will be the Barrhaven link, will connect the airport and even has the option of serving Leitrim. Then run feeders from O-Train to Bank and Landsdowne is served.

Better modal split distribution will be far more efficient in serving the core rather than a single link down Bank that serves exactly what in the south? You want to spend $2 billion dollars to tunnel and move how many people up and down Bank?

Whereas O-Train exists parallel and is much less costly to complete to Barrhaven.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Dado

So where were "cost" or "compatibility with method of tunnel construction" in the criteria for selecting one type of layout or the other?

If they were included in that stupid cylinder thing and centre platforms scored higher than side platforms given the assumed use of TBMs, one could make a case that once the method of tunnel construction changed to mining so too would the rankings. But that's not the case because there were no such criteria.

Centre platforms were justified on the basis of criteria that appear to have nothing really to do with the actual drivers of the decisions.

In other words, the entire exercise was intellectually dishonest.

Well, to be honest it was likely innovation from one of the bidders and good on them. I don't think the process had even considered that type of construction, but the tender was open enough to allow for the innovation.

But yeah, there were no such criteria as far as we saw. But I don't think anyone should really expect there to be criteria besides capacity, cost, and upkeep costs (which is easier to react to reliably due to the P3 nature). Everything else is really just rough guidelines, sort of like the Canada Line.

[agl]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Bank Street would have to be highly intensified to justify a subway, as the rest of the route south of downtown is actually not conducive for transfers to crosstown traffic. Beyond Lansdowne there really aren't other major destinations on this line. A subway axis tends to get built up with 30+ storey buildings, you might want to hide that fact from Centretown, Glebe and Ottawa South residents

I think this is the most important point when discussing a potential Bank street line; there is just not enough density to justify such a monumental cost of tunneling under Bank Street when current and future planning for the area seems to indicate the required density in the Glebe would never be realized (ie. it is not, nor will it ever be, Yonge Street). Also, there are two rapid transit lines on either side of Bank Street, one of which, the O-Train line, is getting some of the required intensification along its corridor to justify further upgrades to the line in the future.

Certainly some type of link to Lansdowne would be desirable, but as Kitchissippi points out, Lansdowne is really the only destination point on Bank Street, other than downtown. What is needed is to ensure is a smooth transfer from O-Train to Confederation Line west of downtown, and BRT along the Southeast Transitway to Confederation Line at Hurdman east of downtown.

LRT conversion of the Southeast Transitway would be ideal, with northbound trains from Riverside South/airport splitting after South keys via Hurdman or O-Train line at a ratio that meets each line's demand and balances the entry into the downtown tunnel from either end.