Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Was there ever talk of running it under parliament hill? Can't information that being a good route terrorists aside.

Mayor Jimbo, when he was against the Confederation (before he was for it) went on for a while about threats to the Langevin building (as it was known). It was still nowhere near the proposed route (either vertically or horizontally).

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Was there ever talk of running it under parliament hill? Can't imagine that being a good route, terrorists aside.

There was not, no. But that didn't stop the fear-mongerers.

Other than the fact that there's a lot of underground infrastructure below Parliament Hill and its environs that would make a tunnel in that area technically difficult, why would it be a bad idea? There are underground transit tunnels very close to, or even under, the Palace of Westminster in London, the National Assembly in Paris, and the Diet in Tokyo.

[PHrenetic]

Good Day....

IIRC, the 'security' concerns arose from two factors.... that the early days of discussion on routing did not yet know where they were going <snort>, and that there are multiple underground pedestrian corridors throughout the entire Hill precinct north of Queen St. to securely move the high-and-mighty around and about. They are often referred to as the steam tunnels in any public discussions or explanations as to why things cannot go there. Thereafter the security BS continued as an everpresent background hum to assure input from the Feds would be 'noted' (remember the timeline here - the Harper era). This is also the reasoning behind the mention of the possibility of ! closing ! the line in times of heightened security movements - more BS, as buses were far more liable to concern and delay than the LRT tunnel would be. This remains as a threat to close one or both of Parl and Lyon from time to time - for NO d### good reason IMHO. Even MY paranoia has limits.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Other than the fact that there's a lot of underground infrastructure below Parliament Hill and its environs that would make a tunnel in that area technically difficult, why would it be a bad idea?

Not as many people commute to Parliament hill as other parts of downtown, so it would make the station further from the destination of most commuters.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Not as many people commute to Parliament hill as other parts of downtown, so it would make the station further from the destination of most commuters.

I don't think the thought was regarding a station at/under Parliament, but more that, depending on the exact routing, a "cross-country" route might have had to curve underground in the general vicinity of Wellington Street.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

It's weird because wheelchair advocates generally want center platforms, but blind people want side. You can't please everyone. But yes we have side platforms, as does Montreal because we have a single tunnel rather than twin tubes. With twin tubes then center platform is the cheapest option. I do kind of wish they did the open thing with Parliament and lyon too but at least Rideau has it

There is a way to do both, it is called the Spanish Solution. Basically has both types, but, one is for entering and one is for leaving.

[Truenorth00]

Why would you even want it near Parliament Hill? The line is already far too north in my opinion. It would have been much better off on Albert or Slater. And it's unfortunate that they decided on Queen largely because they didn't want to disrupt the existing Transitway on Albert and/or Slater. As a rough guide, Queen to Wellington 160m (2 mins walk) and Queen to Gloucester is 350m (5 mins walk). With most of the density in the downtown core south of Queen, this means the vast majority of users in the downtown core face 5-10 min walk (my measurements were only North-South, need to consider walking along Queen to get to station). In winter, that would —.

Albert is actually the perfect midpoint between Wellington and Gloucester, with both of those about a 3-4 min walk from Albert. And Slater or Laurier would have offered even more support for intensification in the core.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Why would you even want it near Parliament Hill? The line is already far too north in my opinion.

Mine, too. I'd have run it under Slater.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Mine, too. I'd have run it under Slater.

The city chose the cheaper option putting it under queen then Wellington and rideau because if they had put it under Albert or slater they would have to dig deeper to avoid sewer and gas lines which would have made the tunnel more expensive.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

The city chose the cheaper option putting it under queen then Wellington and rideau because if they had put it under Albert or slater they would have to dig deeper to avoid sewer and gas lines which would have made the tunnel more expensive.

Exactly. The original plan was to put it under Albert but they discovered that moving it to Queen would save $400 million.

See http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-lrt-tunnel-to-go-under-queen-street-1.1004851

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Exactly. The original plan was to put it under Albert but they discovered that moving it to Queen would save $400 million.

See http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-lrt-tunnel-to-go-under-queen-street-1.1004851

What''s $400 million between friends?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Exactly. The original plan was to put it under Albert but they discovered that moving it to Queen would save $400 million.

See http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-lrt-tunnel-to-go-under-queen-street-1.1004851

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

What''s $400 million between friends?

If that's the case, Sparks would have been even cheaper. Why didn't they do that?

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

If that's the case, Sparks would have been even cheaper. Why didn't they do that?

Probably because the "steam tunnels" north of queen would negate the savings. The savings are due to the shallower depth of the stations, not the tunnel itself. The original tunnel alignment had lyon and Parliament at more than 13 stories underground, and Rideau would have been 16ish. The depth kind of cancels out the time savings of being father south since they said it would take 4 minutes to reach the surface

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

Probably because the "steam tunnels" north of queen would negate the savings. The savings are due to the shallower depth of the stations, not the tunnel itself. The original tunnel alignment had lyon and Parliament at more than 13 stories underground, and Rideau would have been 16ish. The depth kind of cancels out the time savings of being father south since they said it would take 4 minutes to reach the surface

Yup. Here is a diagram (from the article I linked to above) showing the depths of the Albert (grey) and Queen (green/blue) st. tunnel alignments.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Mine, too. I'd have run it under Slater.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Why would you even want it near Parliament Hill? The line is already far too north in my opinion. It would have been much better off on Albert or Slater. And it's unfortunate that they decided on Queen largely because they didn't want to disrupt the existing Transitway on Albert and/or Slater. As a rough guide, Queen to Wellington 160m (2 mins walk) and Queen to Gloucester is 350m (5 mins walk). With most of the density in the downtown core south of Queen, this means the vast majority of users in the downtown core face 5-10 min walk (my measurements were only North-South, need to consider walking along Queen to get to station). In winter, that would —.

Albert is actually the perfect midpoint between Wellington and Gloucester, with both of those about a 3-4 min walk from Albert. And Slater or Laurier would have offered even more support for intensification in the core.

The problem with that idea, is that a tunnel underneath any street other than Queen would have had to be far deeper, so those walk-time savings from being further south would be negated by a longer trip between surface and platform.

[Richard Eade]

Of course, that diagram was produced as ‘marketing hype’; the actual tunnel is likely deeper than the revised depths presented.

Take a look at the west portal of that diagram; it is on the surface, with the tunnel entering the face of the cliff. If you had walked over to the West Portal to view it while it was being dug you might have noticed that the tunnel invert, at Commissioner, is probably about 10 metres below grade. It turned out that the Federal Government would not allow the City to close Commissioner, since it is the sole access to their heating plant; but the LRT line had to be separated from road crossings – thus the need to go under Commissioner. So, the tunnel might not be as deep as once planned, but it is certainly deeper than what we were led to believe by the marketing.

Unfortunately, the City has not seen fit to publish much information about the technical aspects of the tunnel – including its profile – so the actual depths along the tunnel are speculation.

It wasn’t the public utilities that forced the original plan to be so deep; it was the building foundations (and underground parking structures). Recall that the plan was to use a “Cross-Country” routing which did not follow the street grid. The “Cross-Country” alignment was suggested by the UK tunneling firm Halcrow, when they were here as consultants for the project, in response to the City’s desire to include a stop near the By Ward Market. Since, historically, the tunnel had been placed under Albert & Slater, Halcrow reasoned that to make a detour to the Market would require an unrestrained path. By taking the tunnel deeper, it could be bored in any direction, without restriction. Also recall that the plan at that time was to bore the tunnel tubes using two TBMs; and it doesn’t make much difference to a TBM boring through rock whether it is 10 metres underground or 50 metres.

In order to save money and keep the cost within the $1.8B estimate, the project was Value Engineered. The new, current, alignment moved the tunnel north so that it could follow the street grid and avoid passing under deep building foundations. As pointed out above by kmcamp, this is the reason that the tunnel could be dug less deep; and, thus, save money on the station costs. Remember, the stations are simply underground ‘buildings’ that need to be built as high as the tunnel is deep. The pitch was that a 5-story station is less expensive to build than a 13-story one. Despite the savings found, the cost of the project was adjusted up to $2.14B; but the Federal and Provincial Governments still kept their funding caps at $600M each – which was ⅓ of the original estimate of $1.8B. (I assume that the City has learned that it should never submit a Class ‘D’ estimate when applying for funding – unless, of course, it adds a large ‘Fudge-Factor’.)

[J.OT13]

The three downtown subway stations projected depth during planning and reality (form Confederation Line website's station descriptions).

Name - cross-country alignment, Queen alignment, reality.

Lyon - 39 m, 15 m, 17.5 m
Parliament - 40 m, 16 m, 19 m
Rideau - 38 m, 29 m, 26.5 m*

*Re-alignment under Rideau Street from Confederation Square allowed for a slightly shallower station depth.

[Richard Eade]

Ah, thanks for those depths. I hadn't noticed them on the Confederation Line Website. Funny how I go there often, but I tend to be looking for new stuff - and I don't re-read the older parts of the pages.

[orleans_man]

Funny thing about the depth...

Many people I know were surprised "how deep" the station is at Lyon during the Kontinuum show.

I can only imagine people's reaction if it had ended up being 40 meters deep

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Rideau - 38 m, 29 m, 26.5 m*

*Re-alignment under Rideau Street from Confederation Square allowed for a slightly shallower station depth.

I presume much of the depth was required because of the sandy conditions. If they had cut and covered the tunnel under Rideau, could they have gone shallower?