Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Three underground stations on the original line, just like Ottawa (unless we count St-Laurent). I believe they used an existing tunnel to build it though. Nevertheless, Vancouver's Sky Train and Ottawa's ORT have a very similar concept where we try to build the most affordable system while keeping it fully grade separated as opposed to Montreal where the Metro is 100% underground.

Montreal's metro is completely underground because of the technology chosen. It is also a reflection of the climate because of the amount of snow and ice falling in Montreal. Our system which will not be entirely underground will be vulnerable to extreme weather conditions particularly ice storms such as we had in 1998. That was not an isolated incident but that kind of storm is rare, perhaps happening every couple of decades.

[Harley613]

Would we call Ottawa's new system a 'Metro'? The Wikipedia page 'List of Metros' only lists Montreal's Metro, Toronto's Subway & Rt, and Vancouver's Skytrain and Ottawa is not listed in the 'Under Construction' list. Ottawa, along with Calgary's C-Train, Edmonton's LRT, and Toronto's Streetcar is listed for the O-train on the 'List of tram and light rail systems' Page. The definition of a 'Metro' is rather ambiguous on the 'List of Metros' page, but if I'm not mistaken Ottawa's new system fits the bill and should be listed as 'under construction' on the metro page.

[1overcosc]

The Confederation Line, at least the phase currently being built, definitely qualifies as a light metro. Future suburban extensions that include at-grade crossings will make it more LRT like though.

The O-Train could arguably be called a light metro, although it's a very difficult system to categorize. Technically speaking it's an urban heavy railway.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Harley613

Would we call Ottawa's new system a 'Metro'? The Wikipedia page 'List of Metros' only lists Montreal's Metro, Toronto's Subway & Rt, and Vancouver's Skytrain and Ottawa is not listed in the 'Under Construction' list. Ottawa, along with Calgary's C-Train, Edmonton's LRT, and Toronto's Streetcar is listed for the O-train on the 'List of tram and light rail systems' Page. The definition of a 'Metro' is rather ambiguous on the 'List of Metros' page, but if I'm not mistaken Ottawa's new system fits the bill and should be listed as 'under construction' on the metro page.

Edmonton's and Calgary's use to be in the Wikipedia "list of metro systems". Not sure why and when they were taken out (or why they were there in the first place). I would call Ottawa's system a metro; it is fully grade separated and has about the same max capacity as the Vancouver Sky Train. The fact that we are using "light rail technology" is a huge cause for confusion.

And yes lrt's freind, one of the main reasons why the Montreal Metro was fully built underground was because of the rubber tired metro technology. The Red Line 3, would have had above ground segments but was ultimately cancelled because it would have had to use steel wheels and because the Yellow Line 4 was more of priority because of Expo 67.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Line_(Montreal_Metro)

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The Confederation Line, at least the phase currently being built, definitely qualifies as a light metro. Future suburban extensions that include at-grade crossings will make it more LRT like though.

The O-Train could arguably be called a light metro, although it's a very difficult system to categorize. Technically speaking it's an urban heavy railway.

I would never qualify the Confederation Line light metro, it's light rail as in Edmonton or Calgary.

For the O-Train, it's just a regular light commuter train.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

I would never qualify the Confederation Line light metro, it's light rail as in Edmonton or Calgary.

For the O-Trian, it's just a regular light commuter train.

I think the confusion arises if one is defining "metro/subway" according to it's use or by its technology.

According to the technology in place, the O-Train is heavy rail and the Confederation line is light rail. But our system is segregated with capacity and distance between stations comparable to that of many metro systems.

[J.OT13]

rail rapid transit

noun
a system of rail transit within an urban area that has exclusive right of way either below, above, or on the ground and so is capable of relatively high operating speed.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rail+rapid+transit

light rail transit

system of railways usually powered by overhead electrical wires and used for medium-capacity local transportation in metropolitan areas. Light rail vehicles (LRVs) are a technological outgrowth of streetcars (trams). Light rail transit lines are more segregated from street traffic than are tramways (particularly in congested urban areas) but less so than are rapid transit (heavy rail) lines. See mass transit.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/light+rail+transit?s=t&ld=1148

I'm calling it "rapid transit", or "metro". We are using "light rail technology" and adapting it as a fully segregated metro type system. Having a "light rail system" to me is an embarrassment; it just sounds so pedestrian and small townish. It doesn't give a proper representation of what it is the system is capable of.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

[url]

I'm calling it "rapid transit", or "metro". We are using "light rail technology" and adapting it as a fully segregated metro type system. Having a "light rail system" to me is an embarrassment; it just sounds so pedestrian and small townish. It doesn't give a proper representation of what it is the system is capable of.

The thing is that LRT technology was used because of the Iris section of the Transitway, and now it will be grade separated. There is no reason now (or ever) to have used LRT technology. There was a study done for the city of Ottawa comparing light metro to light rail, and light rail won, even if operating costs by passenger were twice as high.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

The thing is that LRT technology was used because of the Iris section of the Transitway, and now it will be grade separated. There is no reason now (or ever) to have used LRT technology. There was a study done for the city of Ottawa comparing light metro to light rail, and light rail won, even if operating costs by passenger were twice as high.

Yes, but an advantage of LRT is that the trains can take steeper grades and tighter turns.

Of course, it is in fact much more expensive per passenger than heavy rail or light metro. Comparing with Vancouver, a 70m Sky Train has about the same capacity as a 100m ORT train (around 600). LRT needs longer platforms to match the capacity of heavy rail and light metro subway systems.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Yes, but an advantage of LRT is that the trains can take steeper grades and tighter turns.

Of course, it is in fact much more expensive per passenger than heavy rail or light metro. Comparing with Vancouver, a 70m Sky Train has about the same capacity as a 100m ORT train (around 600). LRT needs longer platforms to match the capacity of heavy rail and light metro subway systems.

Can easily order wider cars in any tech. The original SkyTrain stations were originally designed to convert to wider trains later - it just never happened. The big capacity changes come in headway times. The big cost difference would be in assuming you have a driver in the trains. There is no technical reason to require drivers in the first phase.

[J.OT13]

It's worth noting that LRT vehicles typically have more seats than heavier rail subway/light metro trains. If the capacity is eventually needed, taking out seats would be a cheap way to increase capacity.

[MalcolmTucker]

Calgary has done this with its most recent LRV order, but low floor LRVs like Ottawa's won't have that option.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Can easily order wider cars in any tech. The original SkyTrain stations were originally designed to convert to wider trains later - it just never happened. The big capacity changes come in headway times. The big cost difference would be in assuming you have a driver in the trains. There is no technical reason to require drivers in the first phase.

Yes, there is a very good reason for not using driver-less trains. A large portion of the Confederation Line will be running on the surface. To use driver-less trains, requires a completely secure right of way. This means high security fences with barbed wire at the top on the entire right of way on the surface. This will affect the design and cost of implementation and the visual impact that the rail line will have on all the surface portions. We have to remember that the Skytrain is almost 100% grade separated (either elevated or underground) and the small portion running along the surface near the airport has the type of fence that I mentioned.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Yes, there is a very good reason for not using driver-less trains. A large portion of the Confederation Line will be running on the surface. To use driver-less trains, requires a completely secure right of way. This means high security fences with barbed wire at the top on the entire right of way on the surface. This will affect the design and cost of implementation and the visual impact that the rail line will have on all the surface portions. We have to remember that the Skytrain is almost 100% grade separated (either elevated or underground) and the small portion running along the surface near the airport has the type of fence that I mentioned.

In other words; Le Breton Flats, uOttawa.

[1overcosc]

"To use driver-less trains, requires a completely secure right of way".

Regulators may require that, but technologically speaking it's not really necessary. I'm a student of AI programming and honestly, programming an AI to stop at traffic lights and attempt to emergency stop if there's a pedestrian on the tracks is actually quite simple.

AI technology is advancing very rapidly and many governments are loosening laws against automation in response to this. By the time we've built the entire ORT network in the 2030s it should be quite possible to make at-grade driverless LRT. Heck by then driverless buses in mixed traffic will probably be possible.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

This means high security fences with barbed wire at the top on the entire right of way on the surface.

Barbed wire? I don't think that's mandatory.

[ortelius]

is this where the O-Train comments go?

I walked by Bayview yesterday

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by ortelius

is this where the O-Train comments go?

I walked by Bayview yesterday

I believe so. Nice to see some progress.

[waterloowarrior]

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ottawa+mayor+plans+major+transportation+speech/8900486/story.html

Ottawa mayor plans major transportation speech

BY DAVID REEVELY, OTTAWA CITIZEN SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 7:01 PM

OTTAWA — Mayor Jim Watson is planning a major speech on the future of transportation in Ottawa on Sept. 23, his office announced Wednesday.

The invitation to the lunch-hour session in City Hall’s council chamber was sent to city councillors and senior city staff. It offered no details about what he’ll say except that it will be “a keynote address on the future of transportation in our city.”

The city is updating its long-term transportation master plan, which covers policies on everything from transit to sidewalks and includes big-picture plans for major new, roads, bridges and transit lines going decades into the future. And according to a timeline published when the overhaul began, it is to be presented at a special meeting of city council’s transportation committee by the end of September.

Committee agendas are ordinarily published a week before the committee meets; no special meeting of the transportation committee has been called yet, but if it’s going to be held Sept. 30, Watson’s speech can preview everything the plan is going to contain.

One key question the revised transportation plan is supposed to answer is whether the city should put off a plan to send a dedicated busway into Orléans along a corridor near Innes Road and build light rail along Hwy. 174 instead. In the city’s longest-term vision, Orléans is supposed to end up with rail lines on both routes; the idea is that by skipping ahead and building one of those lines sooner rather than later, the city will save money in the long run and bring better service to Ottawa’s heaviest users of transit.

Other suburbs are supposed to get similar treatment — first dedicated busways, then rail some time farther down the road — and might be in for similar re-examinations. Downtown, the city is hoping its first light-rail line spurs major redevelopments of underused property close to stations and helps fight sprawl, so similar thinking might apply in the suburbs.

Watson also might take up questions politicians in greater Toronto are wrestling with, trying to figure out how to pay for a multibillion-dollar transit improvements. The provincial government has floated everything from toll roads to income taxes to levies on business parking spaces, trying to deal with transportation problems that are generally much worse than Ottawa’s. It hasn’t made any decisions yet, but Watson could call for some of the ideas to be at least discussed here.

[email protected]">[email protected]

ottawacitizen.com/greaterottawa

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[waterloowarrior]

or maybe we should start a new Ottawa Rapid Transit Network thread for the new TMP? This one is five years old as of today