Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

I don't know, actually, although the HTA would likely apply at least in part due to the portions along King and other streets.

I imagine the MTO could claim jurisdiction since it is crossing a public roadway; however, I wouldn't be surprised if there are no relevant regulations since this scenario hasn't really arisen yet in Ontario.

No relevant regulations, HA, there are always regulations!

Actually though, I know of no rapid transit in Canada that has a level crossing that isn't already street running (and therefore under the HTA or local equivalent). Calgary and Edmonton might though, I'm not terribly familiar with their systems.

What we are dealing with though are Railways, and in that sense our laws and governing is very similar to the United States, since we have a very intertwined rail system and history. In the US, I know of rapid transit systems that do all sorts of crazy things, but for a basic example the St. Louis Metro has multiple grade crossings (which it handles at very high speeds for what you'd expect).

In the US, the FRA, part of the DOT handles rail lines. In Canada, Transport Canada regulates all inter provincial and inter country railways, along with railways that are "owned, controlled, leased or operated by a person who operates a railway that is within the jurisdiction of parliament". They make it clear on their website that "Urban Transit Infrastructure" is a Provincial and Municipal affair. Here in Ottawa, the Capital Railway (legal name for the O-Train) is a federally regulated system, because it runs on tracks shared with other, inter provincial railways. It does however operate under a waiver, since the European trains are not crash rated (which is ridiculous, but I won't get into it) and have only one operator. They also have signalling backups (the Indusi system) and can't share the line when the trains are running.

The issue of compliance and jurisdiction came up recently in the US, involving SMART, the commuter rail system being built north of San Francisco, the one that GO is piggybacking off of for it's UPX DMU's. Those DMU's are FRA compliant, meaning they run (or can be run) in mixed traffic with freight within the existing rules and regulations. This came up recently because the FRA rules state that the train's horn must be sounded in advance of a level crossing, something the locals wouldn't like very much with frequent, peak hour trains. The discussion brought up by the noise debate is why SMART chose to be FRA compliant in the first place, instead of running under a waiver like the CR. This would allow them to buy cheaper trains as well, since there is minimal freight on the line.

Other commenters on the SMART system were discussing what would happen if they decided to drop their FRA operations and run completely separately, like most metro/light rail systems. This then puts them under other jurisdictions, I believe the Surface Transport Board and other local bodies in California, potentially creating an entirely different set of ridiculous rules to follow. In Ontario, I'm not sure what provincial regulations cover non TC regulated railways, but I don't think it's under the purview of the MTO.

In terms of a grade crossing, I don't see it being a big deal either way. Under the HTA, a railway would be a railway, regardless of if it is TC regulated or not. I do not believe that regular rail crossings are the jurisdiction of the MTO, since railways occupy a space above cars in the law. What would make the difference is insurance, since I'm sure the city's premiums would climb if there is a grade crossing on a busy stretch like crossing Iris.

Where crossings become more interesting in the future would be along Strandherd and Chapman Mills Dr. in Barrhaven. There would be quite a few crossings there, and it may be that in that case the trains fall under the HTA and are considered to be in mixed traffic with separate signals, like the segregated streetcar ROWs in Toronto. That is quite a way into the future, but one of the reasons the city went with low floor "trams" that can be used in mixed traffic.

As for the parking lot crossing near Marketplace, it's outside of the HTA, and blowing the stop sign (like any private stop sign) carries no penalties under the law. Where it does hurt is if you are in an accident, you can still be found at fault, as a different set of rules exists for that. The city could also have a By-Law that covers all or just their own private stop signs, but it could only carry a fine, no demerit points or other consequences. I checked that exact thing a few weeks ago, and to the best of my knowledge no such law exists in Ottawa covering private property, although the Transitway may be different. The stop signs thing can also be enforced in other ways, for instance the Carleton University Act (1942) allows them special privileges, and they have a $35 fine for not stopping under their parking regulations. However, the only way they have to enforce that is by threatening to ban either you or your vehicle from campus in the future. Considering buses regularly blow though the stop signs on campus, I'd like to see the students revolt if OC Transpo is ever fined and banned from campus

[J.OT13]

Brookfield properties are being huge sports in this. Obviously having a station entrance integrated into the Podium/Tower D (I would think that it would be built in tandem with the subway; opening a entrance in a building to be torn down is kind of counterproductive, let alone disruptive when building over the entrance later on) and the underground concourse is a huge advantage for PdV. b

But what are they getting in return for handing over their parking lot (hence losing years of parking revenue) too the city for a staging area and access shaft? Does the city have the power to allow a building taller than the height restrictions (400 feet is all I ask)?

[McC]

I'm sure Brookfield is being duly compensated for the use of their property.

[eemy]

I received a response to my e-mail inquiring about platform lengths:

Please note that the trains used on the Confederation Line will be comprised of two vehicles, each 49 metres long with 7 double doors. Each train, totalling 98 metres, will fit comfortably within the 90 metre length of the platforms.

In regards to future expansions, an additional 10m long intermediate module will be added between the 2 vehicles to increase the capacity of the train, thereby making the total length of the train 118 metres. This length of train requires a 100m platform.

Surface station platforms will be expanded by 10m to meet the new train requirements during system expansion. Underground stations will, however, initially be built to 120m to handle both the future expanded platform length required of 100m plus additional space to handle the future capacity for waiting passengers on the platform. It should be noted that only 90m of the underground platforms will be utilized, until system expansion is required.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

I received a response to my e-mail inquiring about platform lengths:

Their response raises a few questions.

How do our platform and train lengths compare to similar systems in other cities?

Wasn't the city contemplating 150m platforms initially?

Is the city planning far enough ahead or will we be complaining about packed trains 30 years from now?

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Catenary

No relevant regulations, HA, there are always regulations!

Actually though, I know of no rapid transit in Canada that has a level crossing that isn't already street running (and therefore under the HTA or local equivalent). Calgary and Edmonton might though, I'm not terribly familiar with their systems.

Calgary and Edmonton have numerous level crossings where they aren't street-running. In fact, street-running is really the exception, being limited to basically Calgary in its downtown 7th Ave transit mall. Edmonton has a few short segments along its under-construction North line "on paper", but this turns out to be a complete closure of a street to general traffic and its replacement with light rail. Both systems also have a number of level crossings that are shared with CN or CP (i.e. co-located within the rail RoW) and those crossings fall under federal jurisdiction since the protected area of the crossing has to encompass both the LRT tracks and any mainline tracks.

In the US, the FRA, part of the DOT handles rail lines. In Canada, Transport Canada regulates all inter provincial and inter country railways, along with railways that are "owned, controlled, leased or operated by a person who operates a railway that is within the jurisdiction of parliament". They make it clear on their website that "Urban Transit Infrastructure" is a Provincial and Municipal affair. Here in Ottawa, the Capital Railway (legal name for the O-Train) is a federally regulated system, because it runs on tracks shared with other, inter provincial railways.

Partly, but there are two other reasons as well:
1. OC Transpo is federally regulated due to its cross-border bus routes, which means that Capital Railway, being a division of OC Transpo, is federally regulated too. This is the reason City officials often give to Council for the O-Train being federally regulated.
2. The City of Ottawa and Capital Railway were recently forced to acknowledge complete ownership of the Prince of Wales Bridge (i.e. since 2005, as above), a rail line that had never been abandoned and which lies partly in Quebec, a fact that places it under federal jurisdiction.

In Ottawa-Gatineau, any urban rail transit infrastructure would be federally regulated due either to (1) or an actual rail crossing like (2) above, so while the claim of transit being provincial and municipal is generally true across the country, it isn't completely true here nor would it be in any other border municipality with service across that border (including Windsor).

It does however operate under a waiver, since the European trains are not crash rated (which is ridiculous, but I won't get into it) and have only one operator. They also have signalling backups (the Indusi system) and can't share the line when the trains are running.

Except they do share the line... at Greenboro. When the NRC testing facility requires the use of its rail connection, here is how it works:

-the train from Walkley Yard sets up on the connecting track over the SE Transitway just north of Greenboro.
-they wait until an O-Train leaves Greenboro in the northbound direction; this gives them a window of about 10 minutes until the next southbound O-Train arrives
-railway personnel stationed at the Greenboro platform lift the platform extenders once the O-Train departs
-meanwhile, once the O-Train clears the switch, the switch moves to the connecting track
-the train pulls through onto the O-Train tracks and then through Greenboro Station
-the railway personnel at Greenboro lower the platform extenders

When the train returns from the NRC, much the same procedure is carried out but in reverse, with the train waiting south of Greenboro beyond the Indusi system, somewhere between Greenboro and South Keys. Here is a photo of exactly that:



and a northbound locomotive pulling through Greenboro, with the platform extenders up:

In Ontario, I'm not sure what provincial regulations cover non TC regulated railways, but I don't think it's under the purview of the MTO.

The applicable law is the Shortline Railways Act - but it explicitly excludes "urban rail transit systems". The Municipal Act and related acts like the City of Ottawa Act seem to cover such systems, though even there it is to "establish, operate and maintain" so who exactly regulates is still not clear (i.e. who gets to decide what the rules are at level crossings between an urban rail transit line and a 'highway', be it municipal or provincial?). It's one thing to have the power to establish and operate a completely grade-separated system, quite another to have the power to regulate the interaction of a system with level crossings. As for provincial shortlines, the Province has an agreement that TC will do its regulating for it, which is just as well since all of these shortlines interact with federal railways at some point anyway.

In terms of a grade crossing, I don't see it being a big deal either way. Under the HTA, a railway would be a railway, regardless of if it is TC regulated or not.

The duties of a driver at a crossing would seem to apply, yes, but we get back to who has the power to create such a crossing in the first place and what other infrastructure is required at them.

I can't just build a railway crossing across my street from my property, install crossing gates and operate a rail vehicle over it indefinitely expecting everyone to stop for me. Or at least I don't think I can.

I do not believe that regular rail crossings are the jurisdiction of the MTO, since railways occupy a space above cars in the law.

But which law? That's the entire point of this discussion. I've read through the HTA, the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, the Public Vehicles Act, the Shortline Railways Act, the Municipal Act, and the City of Ottawa Act and have yet to categorically identify a provision in one of those laws governing the interaction of a non-streetcar urban rail transit system at level crossings. For federal railways, the power to create road crossings is explicitly included in the provisions of the Canada Transportation Act. For Ontario shortlines, they just daisy-chain off the federal rules. But urban rail transit systems in Ontario? Who knows?

For Ottawa it's not an issue since we're covered by federal regulation and TC has decided to let the City of Ottawa regulate its own urban rail transit system. But for the rest of the Province? Beats me, but Kitchener-Waterloo is the first place where it will have arisen, which is why I asked about it.

What would make the difference is insurance, since i'm sure the city's premiums would climb if there is a grade crossing on a busy stretch like crossing Iris.

They've been operating a far riskier busway-street crossing at Iris for a quarter century now... and the City self-insures anyway.

Where crossings become more interesting in the future would be along Strandherd and Chapman Mills Dr. in Barrhaven. There would be quite a few crossings there, and it may be that in that case the trains fall under the HTA and are considered to be in mixed traffic with separate signals, like the segregated streetcar ROWs in Toronto. That is quite a way into the future, but one of the reasons the city went with low floor "trams" that can be used in mixed traffic.

The segregated streetcar ROWs in Toronto all lie within the RoW of a 'highway' (but with access restrictions, like bus and bike lanes) under the HTA, so yes the HTA applies. The same circumstances would exist along Chapman Mills Drive in Barrhaven, but a fair bit of the RoW in Riverside South and Barrhaven near the Rideau River is entirely self-contained, like in parts of Calgary or like much of our busway network.

As for the parking lot crossing near Marketplace, it's outside of the HTA, and blowing the stop sing (like any private stop sign) carries no penalties under the law. Where it does hurt is if you are in an accident, you can still be found at fault, as a different set of rules exists for that. The city could also have a By-Law that covers all or just their own private stop signs, but it could only carry a fine, no demerit points or other consequences. I checked that exact thing a few weeks ago, and to the best of my knowledge no such law exists in Ottawa covering private property, although the Transitway may be different.

That matches my interpretation of it too. Essentially, the stop signs have no force in law but if you choose to ignore them and get into an accident, (1) your insurance company might have something to say about it; and (2) you might still be found guilty of something like negligence causing bodily harm, just as you might if you were waving around a knife somewhere and hurt someone.

[MalcolmTucker]

with automatic train control and bespoke trains, should be able to push the capacity even more if needed, if not as much as with high floor trains. Longer stations are much much more expensive, hence wanting to shrink them from 150m

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

Their response raises a few questions.

a.How do our platform and train lengths compare to similar systems in other cities?

b.Wasn't the city contemplating 150m platforms initially?

c.Is the city planning far enough ahead or will we be complaining about packed trains 30 years from now?

To answer your questions;

a.
Toronto - 450 feet
Montreal - 500 feet
Edmonton - 125 meters
Calgary -75 meters (3 25 meter cars, limited by lack of grade seperation)
Vancouver;
Expo/Millenium - 70 meters
Canada - 50 meters for above grade stations, 60 meters for underground stations

Keep in mind that capacity per train meter is highest in TO due to full sized Heavy Rail subway trains, followed by Montreal which has slighty smaller trains (something about keeping the cut and cover narrower back n the 60s) and then Vancouver where they have intemediate Light Metro.

Calgary and Edmonton have about the same passengers per meter as Ottawa's planned system.

b.

Started with 180 meters underground (u/g) and 150 meters above ground (a/g). By May 2011 it was down to 150 u/g and 120 a/g.

c. We will be complaining about packed trains from day one since we are not ordering enough right off the bat. The max 24,000 phpd will likely be topped out in around 30 years, as you suggested. And as I have pinted out before, the shorter platforms take out any chance (or nearly any chance) to have direct airport to downtown service.

[Dado]

Please note that the trains used on the Confederation Line will be comprised of two vehicles, each 49 metres long with 7 double doors. Each train, totalling 98 metres, will fit comfortably within the 90 metre length of the platforms.

In regards to future expansions, an additional 10m long intermediate module will be added between the 2 vehicles to increase the capacity of the train, thereby making the total length of the train 118 metres. This length of train requires a 100m platform.

What a confusing paragraph. Does no one sanity check these things?

At first it sounds like they would insert a single 10 m module between the two vehicles, but then the math works out to inserting a 10 m module into each vehicle, which makes more sense. Except lengthening the train by 20 m apparently only increases the required length of platform by 10 m. Well that would have worked if only one 10 m module were being added, i.e. to create a 108 m train.

In other words, only two of the three things in that paragraph can be true.

Surface station platforms will be expanded by 10m to meet the new train requirements during system expansion. Underground stations will, however, initially be built to 120m to handle both the future expanded platform length required of 100m plus additional space to handle the future capacity for waiting passengers on the platform. It should be noted that only 90m of the underground platforms will be utilized, until system expansion is required.

Given that we can fit 120 m trains in every single block downtown on the surface anyway, what exactly is the rationale for building a tunnel again? Adding 120 m platforms is a challenge but doable, but 90 m on the surface downtown is pretty easy.

I have serious doubts we'll be able to accommodate the volumes associated with adding STO passengers in this system over the long term.

We've gone from 180 m platforms to 150 m to now 120 m with initial operation only requiring 90 m platforms. On top of that we're still a station short west of the Canal and since we've gone from centre to side platforms we won't even be able to benefit from surplus space when only one train is in the station. It's like a recipe for passenger congestion in the stations.

[Zach6668]

Originally Posted by Dado

What a confusing paragraph. Does no one sanity check these things?

At first it sounds like they would insert a single 10 m module between the two vehicles, but then the math works out to inserting a 10 m module into each vehicle, which makes more sense. Except lengthening the train by 20 m apparently only increases the required length of platform by 10 m. Well that would have worked if only one 10 m module were being added, i.e. to create a 108 m train.

In other words, only two of the three things in that paragraph can be true.

Could it have something to do with the location of the doors?

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

To answer your questions;

a.
Toronto - 450 feet
Montreal - 500 feet
Edmonton - 125 meters
Calgary -75 meters (3 25 meter cars, limited by lack of grade seperation)
Vancouver;
Expo/Millenium - 70 meters
Canada - 50 meters for above grade stations, 60 meters for underground stations

Keep in mind that capacity per train meter is highest in TO due to full sized Heavy Rail subway trains, followed by Montreal which has slighty smaller trains (something about keeping the cut and cover narrower back n the 60s) and then Vancouver where they have intemediate Light Metro.

Calgary and Edmonton have about the same passengers per meter as Ottawa's planned system.

b.

Started with 180 meters underground (u/g) and 150 meters above ground (a/g). By May 2011 it was down to 150 u/g and 120 a/g.

c. We will be complaining about packed trains from day one since we are not ordering enough right off the bat. The max 24,000 phpd will likely be topped out in around 30 years, as you suggested. And as I have pinted out before, the shorter platforms take out any chance (or nearly any chance) to have direct airport to downtown service.

With 150m platforms we could eventually run trains with 3 of the 49m Citadis units if we wanted.

Instead we're probably going to replace entire train sets before they've even reached end of life in order to maximize the 120m platform.

Just like we're replacing the O-Train sets just because we're increasing the frequency. Doesn't the city know you can run different brands of trains on the same rail line?

Basically we're too damn cheap to build LRT right from the start. But we might spend extra later to fix it.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by Dado

Given that we can fit 120 m trains in every single block downtown on the surface anyway, what exactly is the rationale for building a tunnel again? Adding 120 m platforms is a challenge but doable, but 90 m on the surface downtown is pretty easy.

A tunnel avoids various forms of traffic that can be found on the surface: cars, trucks, buses, bikes, peds... With full separation downtown you can get better headways.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

Basically we're too damn cheap to build LRT right from the start. But we might spend extra later to fix it.

That statement can be generalized:

Ottawa is too damn cheap.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by Dado

Calgary and Edmonton have numerous level crossings where they aren't street-running. In fact, street-running is really the exception, being limited to basically Calgary in its downtown 7th Ave transit mall. Edmonton has a few short segments along its under-construction North line "on paper", but this turns out to be a complete closure of a street to general traffic and its replacement with light rail. Both systems also have a number of level crossings that are shared with CN or CP (i.e. co-located within the rail RoW) and those crossings fall under federal jurisdiction since the protected area of the crossing has to encompass both the LRT tracks and any mainline tracks.

Partly, but there are two other reasons as well:
1. OC Transpo is federally regulated due to its cross-border bus routes, which means that Capital Railway, being a division of OC Transpo, is federally regulated too. This is the reason City officials often give to Council for the O-Train being federally regulated.
2. The City of Ottawa and Capital Railway were recently forced to acknowledge complete ownership of the Prince of Wales Bridge (i.e. since 2005, as above), a rail line that had never been abandoned and which lies partly in Quebec, a fact that places it under federal jurisdiction.

In Ottawa-Gatineau, any urban rail transit infrastructure would be federally regulated due either to (1) or an actual rail crossing like (2) above, so while the claim of transit being provincial and municipal is generally true across the country, it isn't completely true here nor would it be in any other border municipality with service across that border (including Windsor).

Except they do share the line... at Greenboro. When the NRC testing facility requires the use of its rail connection, here is how it works:

-the train from Walkley Yard sets up on the connecting track over the SE Transitway just north of Greenboro.
-they wait until an O-Train leaves Greenboro in the northbound direction; this gives them a window of about 10 minutes until the next southbound O-Train arrives
-railway personnel stationed at the Greenboro platform lift the platform extenders once the O-Train departs
-meanwhile, once the O-Train clears the switch, the switch moves to the connecting track
-the train pulls through onto the O-Train tracks and then through Greenboro Station
-the railway personnel at Greenboro lower the platform extenders

When the train returns from the NRC, much the same procedure is carried out but in reverse, with the train waiting south of Greenboro beyond the Indusi system, somewhere between Greenboro and South Keys. Here is a photo of exactly that:



and a northbound locomotive pulling through Greenboro, with the platform extenders up:



The applicable law is the Shortline Railways Act - but it explicitly excludes "urban rail transit systems". The Municipal Act and related acts like the City of Ottawa Act seem to cover such systems, though even there it is to "establish, operate and maintain" so who exactly regulates is still not clear (i.e. who gets to decide what the rules are at level crossings between an urban rail transit line and a 'highway', be it municipal or provincial?). It's one thing to have the power to establish and operate a completely grade-separated system, quite another to have the power to regulate the interaction of a system with level crossings. As for provincial shortlines, the Province has an agreement that TC will do its regulating for it, which is just as well since all of these shortlines interact with federal railways at some point anyway.

The duties of a driver at a crossing would seem to apply, yes, but we get back to who has the power to create such a crossing in the first place and what other infrastructure is required at them.

I can't just build a railway crossing across my street from my property, install crossing gates and operate a rail vehicle over it indefinitely expecting everyone to stop for me. Or at least I don't think I can.

But which law? That's the entire point of this discussion. I've read through the HTA, the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, the Public Vehicles Act, the Shortline Railways Act, the Municipal Act, and the City of Ottawa Act and have yet to categorically identify a provision in one of those laws governing the interaction of a non-streetcar urban rail transit system at level crossings. For federal railways, the power to create road crossings is explicitly included in the provisions of the Canada Transportation Act. For Ontario shortlines, they just daisy-chain off the federal rules. But urban rail transit systems in Ontario? Who knows?

For Ottawa it's not an issue since we're covered by federal regulation and TC has decided to let the City of Ottawa regulate its own urban rail transit system. But for the rest of the Province? Beats me, but Kitchener-Waterloo is the first place where it will have arisen, which is why I asked about it.

They've been operating a far riskier busway-street crossing at Iris for a quarter century now... and the City self-insures anyway.

The segregated streetcar ROWs in Toronto all lie within the RoW of a 'highway' (but with access restrictions, like bus and bike lanes) under the HTA, so yes the HTA applies. The same circumstances would exist along Chapman Mills Drive in Barrhaven, but a fair bit of the RoW in Riverside South and Barrhaven near the Rideau River is entirely self-contained, like in parts of Calgary or like much of our busway network.

That matches my interpretation of it too. Essentially, the stop signs have no force in law but if you choose to ignore them and get into an accident, (1) your insurance company might have something to say about it; and (2) you might still be found guilty of something like negligence causing bodily harm, just as you might if you were waving around a knife somewhere and hurt someone.

You have apparently looked into this in far more detail then I have... impressive. I might have oversimplified some points a bit, but in the end this all comes back to one thing - creating a rail crossing and the rules surrounding that. Of course, with so many questions and lack of other examples to follow, there will likely be quite a few decisions to be made by the city going forwards.

Replying to your points:

I had a feeling the bridge played into the federal regulation. It's truly a shame that that asset isn't better used, with rapid transit corridors running right up to it on both ends. I hope Bayview is rebuilt to accommodate not only double O-Train platforms, but also other options in the future.

I am aware that Greenboro is shared, and I may have oversimplified the point. In the few, limited cases where the system is shared there would of course be an exception to the exemption, I assume with other mitigating tactics (slow speeds for example).

I can only imagine that building a rail crossing would require owning the ROW. In most cases in Canada, the rail lines existed before the road crossing it, and the road would then travel over railway owned land. Since in both Ottawa and Kitchener-Waterloo the municipality owns both the tracks and the road, they could install any traffic control device they so choose, assuming the applicable rail operating rules permit it (eg. there is probably a minimum requirement of some crossbucks, maybe more depending on traffic). The question is if the Municipality builds a full rail crossing for their "not a TC railway" railway, it it still a rail crossing under the HTA? If not, the city would have to have a bylaw against crossing the tracks.

In terms of insurance risk I was considering the difference between trains at grade and grade separated, not trains and buses. Does the self-insurance change if a third party is contracted?

Determining fault in a parking lot accident does have it's own set of regulations so the insurance companies know where to put the blame.

[McC]

Originally Posted by Dado

What a confusing paragraph. Does no one sanity check these things?

At first it sounds like they would insert a single 10 m module between the two vehicles, but then the math works out to inserting a 10 m module into each vehicle, which makes more sense. Except lengthening the train by 20 m apparently only increases the required length of platform by 10 m. Well that would have worked if only one 10 m module were being added, i.e. to create a 108 m train.

In other words, only two of the three things in that paragraph can be true.

My guess when I read about inserting a 10 meter module in the middle was that it would replace the 2 cabs in the middle, so instead of having two vehicles joined in a train, you would have one longer vehicle, without the wasted space of those 2 empty cabs and the coupling. It would mean no more half-length trains off peak, but that's probably no big loss.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Zach6668

Could it have something to do with the location of the doors?

I doubt it... the doors will be a certain distance in from the cab ends of each car.

If the doors are 6 m in from the ends, then you could have a platform that is say 4 m short of the end of the cab so as to give a bit of a buffer space in the door area.

Naturally since a train has two ends you can subtract that distance twice.

But the key point is that the difference in length between the minimum platform length and the train length is constant; in the example above it is 8 m and that remains the case regardless of train length.

So a 49 m train requires a minimum platform length of 41 m, a 98 m train requires one of 90 m and a 147 m train would need a platform of 139 m. The 118 m train would therefore require a platform of 110 m.

The only way they could get around this would be to increase the distance between the cab end and the first door of each car. Going along with the idea of inserting 10 m per car, this would involve inserting a pair of 5 m modules into each car between the cab and the first door at each end of the car. The 4 m difference per end would now become 9 m, which doubled up would yield 18 m. So then a 118 m train would work with 100 m of platform as claimed.

Except we've had to insert a pair of 5 m modules, not a single 10 m module as claimed.

Originally Posted by McC

My guess when I read about inserting a 10 meter module in the middle was that it would replace the 2 cabs in the middle, so instead of having two vehicles joined in a train, you would have one longer vehicle, without the wasted space of those 2 empty cabs and the coupling. It would mean no more half-length trains off peak, but that's probably no big loss.

Interesting idea, though the net effect of inserting a single 10 m module to join the two cars together would be to lengthen the train by only 4-6 m, depending on the size of the cabs that were removed.


Whichever way you try to solve it you end up not being able to do everything claimed in that paragraph.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

A tunnel avoids various forms of traffic that can be found on the surface: cars, trucks, buses, bikes, peds... With full separation downtown you can get better headways.

Well you could takeover an entire street, probably Albert, and arrange things so that these issues would be eliminated or minimized. Calgary runs a downtown light rail transit mall without too many problems.

Originally Posted by Catenary

You have apparently looked into this in far more detail then I have... impressive. I might have oversimplified some points a bit, but in the end this all comes back to one thing - creating a rail crossing and the rules surrounding that. Of course, with so many questions and lack of other examples to follow, there will likely be quite a few decisions to be made by the city going forwards.

Replying to your points:

I had a feeling the bridge played into the federal regulation. It's truly a shame that that asset isn't better used, with rapid transit corridors running right up to it on both ends. I hope Bayview is rebuilt to accommodate not only double O-Train platforms, but also other options in the future.

The standard City reply to using the Prince of Wales Bridge runs something like this: "we're waiting for an interprovincial transit study to be completed."

The thing is, OC Transpo already runs a bus shuttle service to Terrasses de la Chaudière and Place du Portage from LeBreton Station, which constitutes most of OC Transpo's interprovincial bus service. Those two destinations just so happen to be adjacent to existing or former railway RoWs that could be put into service in relatively short order. We could completely replace the bus shuttles to Hull with O-Train service, without any real need to consider the STO's passengers at this point in time - though I'm sure some STO users might take advantage of it if they work at Tunney's Pasture, Booth or Confederation Heights. You'd think this would be appealing to the City anyway given the unreliable crossing of the Chaudière Bridge, but even more so in the near future when the area around LeBreton Station will be turned into a major construction zone.

I can only imagine that building a rail crossing would require owning the ROW. In most cases in Canada, the rail lines existed before the road crossing it, and the road would then travel over railway owned land.

That sort of depends. Any roads that have their origin from the original Crown surveys in the late 18th and early 19th centuries (i.e. the concession roads) would pre-date the railways, thus the railways crossed them. In certain cases of unopened road allowances it's possible the railways expropriated the road allowance, which they have also done in areas with railyards (i.e. since a road allowance has a common law right of passage, a railyard built over a public road allowance would be liable to being crossed by the public at that point, so the railways usually expropriated such road allowances). In the case of an original concession road that was crossed by a railway and later the road was widened beyond the standard 66', it may well be that the railway still owns that part of the land at the crossing where the road widening occurred.

I would argue that at most rural crossings (other than private farm crossings) in Canada, the crossing is owned by the municipality and not the railway. In urban areas and especially suburban areas, excepting those that are on old concession roads, crossings would tend to be owned more by the railway.

Since in both Ottawa and Kitchener-Waterloo the municipality owns both the tracks and the road, they could install any traffic control device they so choose, assuming the applicable rail operating rules permit it (eg. there is probably a minimum requirement of some crossbucks, maybe more depending on traffic). The question is if the Municipality builds a full rail crossing for their "not a TC railway" railway, it it still a rail crossing under the HTA? If not, the city would have to have a bylaw against crossing the tracks.

But as you say a municipality has the power to do something railways apparently don't: install actual traffic control devices. So they may be able to treat a light railway crossing as just another traffic light-controlled intersection and simply ban turns onto it, which is what they do with busway-roadway crossings. No flashing lights, cross-bucks or arms.

Another kind of perverse way of doing it would be to designate the light rail RoW as a 'highway' - they could even give it a street name ("Light Rail Way" ) and put pedestrian and cycling paths along it to make the point that the public has a common law right of access - and then ban all other motor vehicle traffic along it. But the HTA would then still apply.

In terms of insurance risk I was considering the difference between trains at grade and grade separated, not trains and buses. Does the self-insurance change if a third party is contracted?

Interesting question, since we don't know what arrangements will be in place for extensions of the system.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by Dado

Well you could takeover an entire street, probably Albert, and arrange things so that these issues would be eliminated or minimized. Calgary runs a downtown light rail transit mall without too many problems.

The standard City reply to using the Prince of Wales Bridge runs something like this: "we're waiting for an interprovincial transit study to be completed."

The thing is, OC Transpo already runs a bus shuttle service to Terrasses de la Chaudière and Place du Portage from LeBreton Station, which constitutes most of OC Transpo's interprovincial bus service. Those two destinations just so happen to be adjacent to existing or former railway RoWs that could be put into service in relatively short order. We could completely replace the bus shuttles to Hull with O-Train service, without any real need to consider the STO's passengers at this point in time - though I'm sure some STO users might take advantage of it if they work at Tunney's Pasture, Booth or Confederation Heights. You'd think this would be appealing to the City anyway given the unreliable crossing of the Chaudière Bridge, but even more so in the near future when the area around LeBreton Station will be turned into a major construction zone.

That sort of depends. Any roads that have their origin from the original Crown surveys in the late 18th and early 19th centuries (i.e. the concession roads) would pre-date the railways, thus the railways crossed them. In certain cases of unopened road allowances it's possible the railways expropriated the road allowance, which they have also done in areas with railyards (i.e. since a road allowance has a common law right of passage, a railyard built over a public road allowance would be liable to being crossed by the public at that point, so the railways usually expropriated such road allowances). In the case of an original concession road that was crossed by a railway and later the road was widened beyond the standard 66', it may well be that the railway still owns that part of the land at the crossing where the road widening occurred.

I would argue that at most rural crossings (other than private farm crossings) in Canada, the crossing is owned by the municipality and not the railway. In urban areas and especially suburban areas, excepting those that are on old concession roads, crossings would tend to be owned more by the railway.

But as you say a municipality has the power to do something railways apparently don't: install actual traffic control devices. So they may be able to treat a light railway crossing as just another traffic light-controlled intersection and simply ban turns onto it, which is what they do with busway-roadway crossings. No flashing lights, cross-bucks or arms.

Another kind of perverse way of doing it would be to designate the light rail RoW as a 'highway' - they could even give it a street name ("Light Rail Way" ) and put pedestrian and cycling paths along it to make the point that the public has a common law right of access - and then ban all other motor vehicle traffic along it. But the HTA would then still apply.

Interesting question, since we don't know what arrangements will be in place for extensions of the system.

My question at one of the public design showcases was what happens to Albert and Slater, and I was told the lanes would be removed and possibly bike lanes and wider sidewalks would be installed. This seems incredibly short sighted to me, since keeping them would allow all of the routes that traverse the downtown to be moved onto the nearly empty lanes. There are still quite a few routes into downtown from the southwest, south and east that wouldn't be replaced by the LRT, and having them on the dedicated lanes would improve them, as well as leave options open for future routes if the LRT reaches capacity.

I know the reply is the usual deflection about the study, and that to me is why Bayview needs to be designed with all future options in mind. If the O-Train can no longer get to the bridge because the through track has a building on it, that's going to be a big problem in the future.

Our family owns land with a colonization road running over it and it is only a road allowance, the government doesn't own the land the road is on. I believe the crossings are usually owned by the railway, since they have the responsibility of maintaining the road over the tracks in most cases (hence why the road is usually in horrible shape at crossings).

If the municipality had it's choice of traffic control devices, I imagine a true rail crossing would be at the top of the list. They're a lot more effective than stop lights, especially for pedestrians and cyclists. There are no real standards in Ontario for building municipal roads, only guidelines (the Ontario Traffic Manuals) in most cases.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by Dado

Well you could takeover an entire street, probably Albert, and arrange things so that these issues would be eliminated or minimized. Calgary runs a downtown light rail transit mall without too many problems.

I seriously don't see how running our LRT above ground downtown makes any sense at all even if we dedicate an entire road to it. Plus, in Calgary their trains are much shorter and they're running less frequently then we're even currently planning.

I'd much prefer the city build a system than has room to grow over the next 50 years then build something that will be at capacity in a couple decades.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by Catenary

My question at one of the public design showcases was what happens to Albert and Slater, and I was told the lanes would be removed and possibly bike lanes and wider sidewalks would be installed. This seems incredibly short sighted to me, since keeping them would allow all of the routes that traverse the downtown to be moved onto the nearly empty lanes. There are still quite a few routes into downtown from the southwest, south and east that wouldn't be replaced by the LRT, and having them on the dedicated lanes would improve them, as well as leave options open for future routes if the LRT reaches capacity.

I completely agree you on this. The lanes should stay and have all the remaining downtown routes rerouted to take Albert & Slater such as the 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16, & 85. Many routes could also use the Mackenzie King station which would then leave Wellington and the Rideau Street station mostly for STO buses. During evenings and late nights the OCT buses could be temporarily routed to use Rideau Street station to serve the Byward market crowds.