O-Train Line 2/4 [Stage 2 | Greenboro to Limebank/Airport] | In Service

[OtrainUser]

There are people in this forum that need to calm down about stage 2. Yes the city misled everyone about the price but after all the reaction here I dont blame them. Stage 2 needs to go ahead as is regardless how we feel about it. No part of stage 2 should be canceled, that will only drive up costs later. The only thing I don't like is that the mayor really hasn't learned anything from all the stage 1 debacles.

[OCCheetos]

The trench is actually wider than I had remembered (it's been a while since I've taken the train north of Carleton with daylight. Here are some pictures out of the window at Carling station (looking away from the platform):




According to geoOttawa, it's roughly 9-10m


If it weren't for the placement of the signal masts and the fact that Carling's platform juts into the trench, you might be able to fit two tracks in there...

For comparison, the wider section of the trench (where double track is/did exists) is 14m with space for signal masts and the such.



I guess I still have a little hope that some extra work can be done in the trench to avoid another severe closure down the line to widen it in the future... but I'll email them just to see.

[rocketphish]

Anti-corruption laws and the LRT: an awkward balance

James Bagnall, Ottawa Citizen
Updated: March 6, 2019

On the face of it, this doesn’t look good.

We’re not talking about the 35-per-cent jump in estimated costs for completing the first two phases of Ottawa’s (now) $4.7-billion light rail transit project, though that’s bad enough.

What some are just as quick to question is the composition of the team responsible for building out the Trillium line and supplying the 72 passenger vehicles. Here, we’re talking about SNC-Lavalin, the Montreal engineering giant, and Alstom, the Paris specialist in high-speed rail.

The problem is optics. Both firms have featured prominently in cases involving bribery. SNC-Lavalin and two subsidiaries were charged in 2015 under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act. This followed a three-year investigation by the RCMP into whether certain SNC-Lavalin employees had bribed Libyan officials between 2001 and 2011 to obtain engineering and construction contracts.

SNC-Lavalin’s subsequent lobbying for a negotiated settlement was the catalyst that eventually prompted the resignation last month of former justice minister and attorney-general Jody Wilson-Raybould.

The case involving Alstom was less prominent in Canada but equally serious. An Alstom executive in Britain was convicted three months ago of taking part in a conspiracy to bribe Lithuanian officials. Two other Alstom employees and the company itself pleaded guilty to conspiracy-to-corrupt in connection with the same contract.

Does it matter that these firms continue to play key roles in one of the largest civil engineering projects in the history of the capital region?

As a matter of law, probably not.

Consider that as far as we can tell none of the SNC-Lavalin or Alstom employees involved in Ottawa’s LRT project had anything to do with the activities that resulted in charges or convictions abroad (or elsewhere in Canada). The idea that the law should not penalize the innocent while prosecuting the few is firmly embedded in the 2018 amendments to the Criminal Code that allow for the possibility of negotiated settlements.

This is how lawmakers framed a purpose of the amendments: “To reduce the negative consequences of the wrongdoing for persons — employees, customers, pensioners and others — who did not engage in the wrongdoing, while holding responsible those individuals who did engage in that wrongdoing.”

In these instances, the many far outweigh the few. SNC-Lavalin and Altsom respectively employ 34,000 plus and 52,000 plus worldwide.

When federal director of public prosecutions Kathleen Roussel notified SNC-Lavalin last autumn that she would not invite the firm to negotiate a settlement — a decision supported by Wilson-Raybould — she set the stage for a criminal trial that could significantly crimp the firm’s revenues in Canada. That’s because a guilty verdict would put into play the federal Integrity Regime, which can bar suppliers from federal government contracts for up to 10 years. And that’s why SNC-Lavalin pushed Wilson-Raybould to overrule Roussel, as the former attorney-general had the authority to do.

Since Roussel did not offer the public reasons for her decision, it’s not clear why she believed SNC-Lavalin and its two subsidiaries SNC-Lavalin International Inc. and SNC-Lavalin Construction Inc. should be left in legal limbo. It’s possible she meant to make an example of a parent firm that has seen a number of its employees in Quebec and abroad recently plead guilty to fraud.

But, again, these don’t involve SNC-Lavalin employees in the light rail project. SNC-Lavalin has a 40-per-cent stake in Rideau Transit Group, the entity responsible for building out Phase 1 of LRT — which with any luck will wrap up this year. The engineering firm is also managing the expansion of the Trillium line south to the Ottawa airport in Stage 2.

The City’s procurement officials were certainly aware the various charges, pleas and investigations. During the evaluation phase, the City required contenders to disclose all such activity, along with any remediation that had taken place. There’s been plenty of time for the latter. The recent court cases involving SNC-Lavalin and Alstom stem from investigations launched in 2012 and 2009 respectively.

And now? SNC-Lavalin’s board of directors began cleaning house in 2012 with an independent investigation that examined the circumstances surrounding each instance of fraud. New policies mandate compliance with the law. Alstom, for its part, proudly proclaims in its annual financial filing that it has been awarded a certificate by an independent entity for its “anti-bribery management system”.

It’s beyond obvious it should never have been necessary to mandate these kinds of remedial actions. Nevertheless, here we are.

SNC-Lavalin is maybe one year away from contesting its corruption charges at trial. Even if it loses, the company’s LRT subsidiaries don’t seem likely to be affected.

“The City’s procurement rules do not mimic the federal government’s procurement rules and so there is no automatic bar to bidding on future projects,” Chris Swail, director of O-Train planning, told this newspaper. “Any future finding of guilt will have no automatic impact on the Trillium Line extension project.”

Purists might insist on some action, some penalty. But that would merely punish the innocent. We should resist the temptation to go there.

https://ottawacitizen.com/business/local...tion-laws-and-the-lrt-an-awkward-balance

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

but I'll email them just to see.

Who do you email? I've emailed before but never received a response, maybe I'm emailing the wrong people?

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

There are people in this forum that need to calm down about stage 2. Yes the city misled everyone about the price but after all the reaction here I dont blame them. Stage 2 needs to go ahead as is regardless how we feel about it. No part of stage 2 should be canceled, that will only drive up costs later. The only thing I don't like is that the mayor really hasn't learned anything from all the stage 1 debacles.

Actually it's the misleading that probably caused so much reaction. They city kept adding and adding to Stage 2, and yet kept saying it's all within the envelope, leading to a shock for people who fell for magical faeries building rail for free. I never believed it, so wasn't surprised in the least. They should have been a bit more honest upfront: "Sure we can extend it to TrIm/Moodie/Limebank, but it's going to add cost to the project, but the city will be able to afford it"

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

Who do you email? I've emailed before but never received a response, maybe I'm emailing the wrong people?

I've been emailing [email protected]. They've been very helpful in answering a variety of questions in the past.

[JohnnyRenton]

So here is a question that I think is worth asking. Does the SE Transitway actually provide a cheaper way to bring LRT to the airport and Riverside?

Here is what we know. Whether the N-S LRT line uses the T-Line or SE Transitway, it will, near as makes no difference, be the same track and engineering works for everything south of South Keys stations. And lets assume that there is an end goal in mind, so that in 15 years roughly, the line is double tracked, electrified and modernized from the Riverside/Airport branch north to wherever its terminus/interlining point.

So lets look at the construction costs of the two options. The SET (SE Transitway) option is roughly 9.3km from South Keys to Hurdman. The T-Line option is roughly 8.8km from South Keys to Bayview. So distance wise, they are pretty similar. For the SET option, it would mean an LRT conversion of the Transitway. As we have seen on the C-Line, the conversion in some sections is not entirely straightforward. But in this case, the SET might actually be a pretty straightforward conversion. Without looking at it in detail (ie going out on site) there might be some sections that need work to create a more suitable grade, or perhaps a bridge replacement. But it was actually designed pretty well. Most of the cost for SET conversion would be new stations and platforms (most of which could be made modest based on ridership at the stops), and of course the rail line itself. If you wanted to look for even more cost savings, you could even investigate using the SET from Hurdman to just after Heron, and maybe switching over to the T-Line corridor from there to South Keys. I question whether that would result in any savings, but it is possible.

The T-Line option is one people here know well, so I don't need to go into too much detail of what needs to be done from Bayview to South Keys (widening many of the sections of the corridor to be suitable for double tracking, all new stations and platforms, tunnel under Dow's Lake, new/expanded bridge over the Rideau River, overpass reconstruction, etc, etc). In short, upgrading the line is not just the cost of labor and materials of a new track. There are a lot of engineering works that need to be done.

Before I get to conclusions lets look at a few more things. First is interlining. As discussed lots here, for the T-Line to be able to achieve its full potential, it would have to be interlined (so that people could have a one transfer trip, versus two transfers if the line ends at Bayview, which is quite a degradation of service quality after the south end, like many, used to have no transfer trips). But interlining could be problematic at Bayview in that it would be a third line on the western side of the DT Tunnel and would be limited in terms of exactly how many trains an hour could use the tunnel. An SET LRT line doesn't have that issue. It becomes a second branch on the east side, to balance out the two on the west. It would use capacity on the part of the network where there is the most to spare.

There is also the question about the upgrade path these two lines would take. The T-Line is already at a disadvantage. It uses LRVs with different floor heights from the C-Line. If it is to ever have the chance to be interlined, it would need to be converted, ie, a new fleet and new platforms for all the stations. Every time the line is expanded, the harder that conversion becomes due to the ever increasing costs of a new fleet, and more station platforms to redo. The SET LRT wouldn't have that issue. It could start with the same technology as the rest of the C-Line, and be done with it.

There are many more points of discussion about the two options, but that seems like a good general overview. Ultimately you can see where this is all headed though. If you look at the goal of bringing LRT to the south end, and doing so at a standard that will, in a reasonable time, be equivalent to the C-Line, and connecting it into the C-Line for direct trips downtown (once you are actually on the LRT), then a SET conversion probably makes the most sense. The question of course is, how much would it cost? If it could be done at $40 million/km (not including the costs of a connection at Hurdman), it might still leave $100 million of the $600 million set aside for the phase 2 T-Line upgrade. And given that the SET has a two lane bridge across Hunt Club, and 2/3 of the distance from South Keys to the airport would be in an existing rail right of way, it might be able to get to the airport, or close to Riverside, as well.

Of course more detailed studies would be needed. And that also leaves the question of what to do with the T-Line. And the more I think about it, the more I realize that the best thing for it right now might be to pretty much just leave it (maybe it still gets basic stations at Gladstone and Walkley, and the line could serve a key role in moving N-S passenger during an SET shutdown, but outside of that, I don't think I would put anymore money into it). Ever since the pilot project, planners have been trying to find ways to fit it into the network, and 18 years later, that struggle still exists. It is still a valuable piece of infrastructure, but how it fits into the transit network, and the city, needs a total rethink.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

So here is a question that I think is worth asking. Does the SE Transitway actually provide a cheaper way to bring LRT to the airport and Riverside?

Here is what we know. Whether the N-S LRT line uses the T-Line or SE Transitway, it will, near as makes no difference, be the same track and engineering works for everything south of South Keys stations. And lets assume that there is an end goal in mind, so that in 15 years roughly, the line is double tracked, electrified and modernized from the Riverside/Airport branch north to wherever its terminus/interlining point.

So lets look at the construction costs of the two options. The SET (SE Transitway) option is roughly 9.3km from South Keys to Hurdman. The T-Line option is roughly 8.8km from South Keys to Bayview. So distance wise, they are pretty similar. For the SET option, it would mean an LRT conversion of the Transitway. As we have seen on the C-Line, the conversion in some sections is not entirely straightforward. But in this case, the SET might actually be a pretty straightforward conversion. Without looking at it in detail (ie going out on site) there might be some sections that need work to create a more suitable grade, or perhaps a bridge replacement. But it was actually designed pretty well. Most of the cost for SET conversion would be new stations and platforms (most of which could be made modest based on ridership at the stops), and of course the rail line itself. If you wanted to look for even more cost savings, you could even investigate using the SET from Hurdman to just after Heron, and maybe switching over to the T-Line corridor from there to South Keys. I question whether that would result in any savings, but it is possible.

The T-Line option is one people here know well, so I don't need to go into too much detail of what needs to be done from Bayview to South Keys (widening many of the sections of the corridor to be suitable for double tracking, all new stations and platforms, tunnel under Dow's Lake, new/expanded bridge over the Rideau River, overpass reconstruction, etc, etc). In short, upgrading the line is not just the cost of labor and materials of a new track. There are a lot of engineering works that need to be done.

Before I get to conclusions lets look at a few more things. First is interlining. As discussed lots here, for the T-Line to be able to achieve its full potential, it would have to be interlined (so that people could have a one transfer trip, versus two transfers if the line ends at Bayview, which is quite a degradation of service quality after the south end, like many, used to have no transfer trips). But interlining could be problematic at Bayview in that it would be a third line on the western side of the DT Tunnel and would be limited in terms of exactly how many trains an hour could use the tunnel. An SET LRT line doesn't have that issue. It becomes a second branch on the east side, to balance out the two on the west. It would use capacity on the part of the network where there is the most to spare.

There is also the question about the upgrade path these two lines would take. The T-Line is already at a disadvantage. It uses LRVs with different floor heights from the C-Line. If it is to ever have the chance to be interlined, it would need to be converted, ie, a new fleet and new platforms for all the stations. Every time the line is expanded, the harder that conversion becomes due to the ever increasing costs of a new fleet, and more station platforms to redo. The SET LRT wouldn't have that issue. It could start with the same technology as the rest of the C-Line, and be done with it.

There are many more points of discussion about the two options, but that seems like a good general overview. Ultimately you can see where this is all headed though. If you look at the goal of bringing LRT to the south end, and doing so at a standard that will, in a reasonable time, be equivalent to the C-Line, and connecting it into the C-Line for direct trips downtown (once you are actually on the LRT), then a SET conversion probably makes the most sense. The question of course is, how much would it cost? If it could be done at $40 million/km (not including the costs of a connection at Hurdman), it might still leave $100 million of the $600 million set aside for the phase 2 T-Line upgrade. And given that the SET has a two lane bridge across Hunt Club, and 2/3 of the distance from South Keys to the airport would be in an existing rail right of way, it might be able to get to the airport, or close to Riverside, as well.

Of course more detailed studies would be needed. And that also leaves the question of what to do with the T-Line. And the more I think about it, the more I realize that the best thing for it right now might be to pretty much just leave it (maybe it still gets basic stations at Gladstone and Walkley, and the line could serve a key role in moving N-S passenger during an SET shutdown, but outside of that, I don't think I would put anymore money into it). Ever since the pilot project, planners have been trying to find ways to fit it into the network, and 18 years later, that struggle still exists. It is still a valuable piece of infrastructure, but how it fits into the transit network, and the city, needs a total rethink.

I've thought similar things to you (SE Transitway should be extended to Riverside South rather than the Trillium Line). But we really are beyond that point. No Councillor is talking about cancelling Stage 2 (or part of Stage 2), and only a few are talking about delaying it. We can talk about small tweaks to the current Trillium Line plan, but if we want to talk about large changes to the transit system we should talk about them in the transit fantasies thread.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

Actually it's the misleading that probably caused so much reaction. They city kept adding and adding to Stage 2, and yet kept saying it's all within the envelope, leading to a shock for people who fell for magical faeries building rail for free. I never believed it, so wasn't surprised in the least. They should have been a bit more honest upfront: "Sure we can extend it to TrIm/Moodie/Limebank, but it's going to add cost to the project, but the city will be able to afford it"

Good for you for not believing it. Its guys like Johnny I believe is the reason they were not honest to begin with. There will always be people who will argue over cost when the numbers get too big just take a look at other people In this forum whom I'm talking about. There is nothing wrong with stage 2 trillium extension, when the ridership demands it it will be upgraded again.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

I've thought similar things to you (SE Transitway should be extended to Riverside South rather than the Trillium Line). But we really are beyond that point. No Councillor is talking about cancelling Stage 2 (or part of Stage 2), and only a few are talking about delaying it. We can talk about small tweaks to the current Trillium Line plan, but if we want to talk about large changes to the transit system we should talk about them in the transit fantasies thread.

I would point out that that nothing is set in stone until shovels are in the ground. There might not be a lot of talk of cancelling, but the plan for the T-Line isn't winning hearts either. And this might actually be getting a lot more attention if everyone wasn't preoccupied with all the challenges around Phase 1 of the C-Line. Having that project actually open is priority 1, 2 and 3 right now.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Good for you for not believing it. Its guys like Johnny I believe is the reason they were not honest to begin with. There will always be people who will argue over cost when the numbers get too big just take a look at other people In this forum whom I'm talking about. There is nothing wrong with stage 2 trillium extension, when the ridership demands it it will be upgraded again.

So it is okay for things to be slid under the radar if the ends justify the means?

My objections are not just about money. It is about value for money. It is about the plan being half-baked with no real forethought to the future. It was slap-dashed together by committee so that it could provide something to parts of the city not served by the C-Line. It is actually quite a long list if I were to go on.

Not every plan is a good plan. And yeah, maybe if they had released more information sooner the plan wouldn't even have gotten this far once people started to look into the details. $600 million is a lot of money to spend on a project that might not bring a lot of benefits in its planned form.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

So it is okay for things to be slid under the radar if the ends justify the means?

My objections are not just about money. It is about value for money. It is about the plan being half-baked with no real forethought to the future. It was slap-dashed together by committee so that it could provide something to parts of the city not served by the C-Line. It is actually quite a long list if I were to go on.

Not every plan is a good plan. And yeah, maybe if they had released more information sooner the plan wouldn't even have gotten this far once people started to look into the details. $600 million is a lot of money to spend on a project that might not bring a lot of benefits in its planned form.

The plan is good based on RIDERSHIP, that is what transit planners look at. When line 2 gets increased ridership and it will after stage 2, then further upgrades will be made when the funds are available.

I didn't like the fact they slid it under the radar but when guys like you react the way you do then I wont hold it against them. Stage 2 is needed as is with no cuts. Just calm your emotions and accept it.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

The plan is good based on RIDERSHIP, that is what transit planners look at. When line 2 gets increased ridership and it will after stage 2, then further upgrades will be made when the funds Re available.

And I have never said that it should be double tracked and electrified and fully built today, just that whatever they are doing today should provide the simplest, and easiest conversion possible, for the future, and that this shut down is the last major one they need to do.

If you want to evaluate the effectiveness of this T-Line project, just ask yourself, if you are living in the south end, does an upgraded T-Line make your commute easier and faster? If you are living in the Little Italy neighborhood, is getting around the city going to be easier after the upgrade versus today? The problem is that after they spend $600 million on phase 2, it doesn't really result in getting around the city by transit being easier, it just makes the T-Line longer.

[Ottawaresident]

They should probably delay Stage 2 for proper communication with the public.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

I didn't like the fact they slid it under the radar but when guys like you react the way you do then I wont hold it against them. Stage 2 is needed as is with no cuts. Just calm your emotions and accept it.

I expressed my thoughts about the plan. And the more I expressed them, the more I realized that the plan for the T-Line is rubbish and not good value for money. When it comes to investing hundreds of millions, or billions, of public money on large projects like this there is absolutely every reason for people to question it to make sure it is actually worth the cost. That is why the C-Line ended up in its current form.

Your right. The T-Line will probably be built as planned. In the end the only difference this all makes to me is that I stop looking for condos along the T-Line, since it is now clear this will never be a particularly useful piece of transit infrastructure. It is a shame, it could have brought a lot to the city, but like the pilot project, it will just continue to be a solid meh.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

And I have never said that it should be double tracked and electrified and fully built today, just that whatever they are doing today should provide the simplest, and easiest conversion possible, for the future, and that this shut down is the last major one they need to do.

If you want to evaluate the effectiveness of this T-Line project, just ask yourself, if you are living in the south end, does an upgraded T-Line make your commute easier and faster? If you are living in the Little Italy neighborhood, is getting around the city going to be easier after the upgrade versus today? The problem is that after they spend $600 million on phase 2, it doesn't really result in getting around the city by transit being easier, it just makes the T-Line longer.

Then you missed the point in stage 2. The trillium extension is about either getting people to and from the airport and adding ridership from riverside south and possibly barrhaven. Even line 1 is not about urban residents so I have no idea you brought up something useless to the discussion. The whole otrain system is about the suburbs and nothing else. So what is being spent on stage 2 is still a good deal. Any delay in stage 2 will make the costs jump again and that should be avoided.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Then you missed the point in stage 2. The trillium extension is about either getting people to and from the airport and adding ridership from riverside south and possibly barrhaven. Even line 1 is not about urban residents so I have no idea you brought up something useless to the discussion. The whole otrain system is about the suburbs and nothing else. So what is being spent on stage 2 is still a good deal. Any delay in stage 2 will make the costs jump again and that should be avoided.

I can admit that it was naïve of me to think there would even be a hint of the city giving consideration to the value the T-Line would bring to the urban parts of the city. The C-Line should have made their transit vision crystal clear. And that would be fine, but it isn't even a great plan for its intended riders in the suburbs. If you converted the SE Transitway instead of doing anything to the T-Line you could provide them with direct to downtown connections (once they are on the LRT), and probably do it at a lower cost, and be able to take advantage of the automated features of the line.

It will probably get the go ahead, and it is what it is, but it is a decision that just makes me cringe.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

I've thought similar things to you (SE Transitway should be extended to Riverside South rather than the Trillium Line). But we really are beyond that point. No Councillor is talking about cancelling Stage 2 (or part of Stage 2), and only a few are talking about delaying it. We can talk about small tweaks to the current Trillium Line plan, but if we want to talk about large changes to the transit system we should talk about them in the transit fantasies thread.

Diane Deans wants the SE Transitway converted to LRT at some point down the road. This would not involve cancelling Phase 2.

Further south, it may be possible to build temporary stations during a conversion to low floor technology.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

I would point out that that nothing is set in stone until shovels are in the ground. There might not be a lot of talk of cancelling, but the plan for the T-Line isn't winning hearts either. And this might actually be getting a lot more attention if everyone wasn't preoccupied with all the challenges around Phase 1 of the C-Line. Having that project actually open is priority 1, 2 and 3 right now.

The people who are happy with the Trillium Line plan mostly don't live on that corridor.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The people who are happy with the Trillium Line plan mostly don't live on that corridor.

wrong again my family lives within a 10 min walk of one of the stations