O-Train Line 1/3 [Stage 2 | West Extension | Tunney's to Baseline/Moodie] | U/C

[Kitchissippi]

How much use is that large Bayshore bus terminal going to get post-Stage 2? I imagine there will only be the 11 and 85 plus a handful of local routes left. Too bad the station couldn't be built under Richmond Road instead with a link to the middle of the mall where Homesense/Winners are. A smaller bus terminal in the northeast parclo triangle (or the remaining mall surface lot) could even be made if really needed, but a stop on either side of the road would probably suffice.

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

How much use is that large Bayshore bus terminal going to get post-Stage 2? I imagine there will only be the 11 and 85 plus a handful of local routes left. Too bad the station couldn't be built under Richmond Road instead with a link to the middle of the mall where Homesense/Winners are. A smaller bus terminal in the northeast parclo triangle (or the remaining mall surface lot) could even be made if really needed, but a stop on either side of the road would probably suffice.

Good Day.

Remember two things....
roger1818 's diagram is pre-Moodie Stage 2 extension, when the interim (before stage 3) terminus was to be Bayshore.
This concept was altered when Stage 2 was extended to Moodie. Thus the concept of the huge bus layby was also altered, as in very reduced.
I also believe that the positioning of the station (bus and LRT) was thus also yet again altered and modified (as in LRT moved some back westward again),
and we have yet to see any real new conceptual diagrams or renderings.

Summary.... everything is <up in the air> !

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

How much use is that large Bayshore bus terminal going to get post-Stage 2? I imagine there will only be the 11 and 85 plus a handful of local routes left. Too bad the station couldn't be built under Richmond Road instead with a link to the middle of the mall where Homesense/Winners are. A smaller bus terminal in the northeast parclo triangle (or the remaining mall surface lot) could even be made if really needed, but a stop on either side of the road would probably suffice.

If we look at TTC subway stations, it's actually quite surprising to see how many have a significant bus facility attached. Many of the rapid transit systems are built to serve the far flung suburbs while the urban commuters are shuttled by bus to the nearest station that happens to be in the city (with trains already packed). From my observations, the Montréal Metro is the only system in Canada that does not follow this model, with its service focused in the inner core instead.

In the Ottawa context, the following stations will probably continue to serve as major bus-rail transfers far beyond the scope of Stage 1 and 2:

- Place d'Orléans, a major destination on its own and the most central in the eastern suburb.
- Blair, serving routes that go to La Cité Collégiale, the only major post-secondary institution not served by rail, along with the residential areas in between. It will also serve as the transfer station for the future Cumberland Transitway.
- St-Laurent, the major destination and transfer station for the relatively dense old suburban east end.
- Hurdman, the main transfer hub for the SE Transitway. Poste Stage 2, it might become the busiest bus-rail transfer point on the system.
- Lincoln Fields, the off-peak transfer point between the Moodie and Algonquin branches of the Confederation Line.
- Bayshore, serving as the bus transfer point for large parts of Nepean, including Bells Corners.
- Algonquin, the transfer point for the Baseline BRT, though a bit of a detour.

I imagine that post Stage 2, the west end bus routes will likely be split between Bayshore and Moodie. Moodie could remain a hub for DND shuttles post Stage 2, but I don't believe it would be worth keeping as a transfer station for much else.

[SidetrackedSue]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day.

If we might ask what your question was / is ? we might be able to help.
This forum is good at expanding on what City considers 'reasonable'.

My current focus is on the transitway detour along Scott between Tunneys and Dominion. It will be a mess. That's a given.

But I thought the temp bridge across the trench was to be at Churchill and the detour run along Workman to Dominion.

Instead the bridge is now at Roosevelt and the temp transitway running through the parking on Scott West of Churchill, and through the turning circle for Taiga Non-Profit Housing.

Yes, this is technically city land but they are planning on running 160 buses per hour at peak hours, past the entrance to the parking lots of this building. As well, the MUP will be rerouted across the entrances to the parking lots.

This current plan mixes buses, bikes, vehicles and pedestrians into the small area alongside the Newport Restaurant. Add in Paratranspo for regular pickups from that building and emergency vehicles (which make regular calls to the building) and it feels like a recipe for disaster.

So I'd like to know why having the bridge start at Churchill, rather than Roosevelt, was rejected as a possibility.

I've been told the NCC nixed the idea of the transitway rerouting up Churchill to the SJAM. Or from going onto the SJAM at Tunneys to Dominion (bypasses Westboro.) But no-one remembers the reason the temporary bridge was shifted over to Roosevelt.

[RationalPhi]

Originally Posted by SidetrackedSue

But no-one remembers the reason the temporary bridge was shifted over to Roosevelt.

It's discussed in the Scott Detour Presentation from April 2017 (reuploaded as it vanished along with the stage2lrt website). As per page 13, the Scott-Churchill-Workman route was screened early out due to "High bus volumes and noise levels on a local road (Workman Ave)". The recommended route was always to extend Scott, cross at Roosevelt, then build a dedicated road to the SJAM with noise barriers.

Basically there was much handwringing over the residents of Churchill North (Jeff Leiper notably called the potential routing of buses from Scott to Churchill North to SJAM as a "nightmare scenario") and those of Workman Ave (they get a full noise barrier between them and the transitway detour), but not a peep for the Taiga residents.

[SidetrackedSue]

<duplicate deleted>

[SidetrackedSue]

Originally Posted by RationalPhi

It's discussed in the Scott Detour Presentation from April 2017

Basically there was much handwringing over the residents of Churchill North (Jeff Leiper notably called the potential routing of buses from Scott to Churchill North to SJAM as a "nightmare scenario") and those of Workman Ave (they get a full noise barrier between them and the transitway detour), but not a peep for the Taiga residents.

Thanks for the link. I've downloaded the presentation. Now I have to decide how much to print off (I work better with paper.)

Yeah, I'm sure there wasn't a peep out of the Taiga residents, they aren't really the sort to have the time to go to presentations. Daily living doesn't afford that luxury for a lot of them. Not to mention ability to comprehend what will be happening.

The new manager there understands the impact and is speaking up now.

Page 21 of the presentation shows the MUP and transitway going through the turning circle of the dead-end, taking up half the space. Having walked through Westboro station at peak hour and choking on the exhaust from the stand-by buses, I can't imagine what it will be like for residents there as dozens of buses idle outside their windows while stopped at the new traffic light at Churchill.

Interesting, I haven't heard from Moe's yet, either. Parking for his patrons will be gone and the patio will lose its appeal.

https://imgur.com/1smlvYH

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

How much use is that large Bayshore bus terminal going to get post-Stage 2? I imagine there will only be the 11 and 85 plus a handful of local routes left. Too bad the station couldn't be built under Richmond Road instead with a link to the middle of the mall where Homesense/Winners are. A smaller bus terminal in the northeast parclo triangle (or the remaining mall surface lot) could even be made if really needed, but a stop on either side of the road would probably suffice.

You are forgetting rapid Route 57 and Connexion route 251 (which may be merged together into one frequent route). Given that the the station is the terminous for several routes, having a line of buses stopped on the side of Richmond road near the 417 on and off ramps would not be a good idea, so some sort of loop is needed. Turning the buses around on Richmond would also be a challenge without a loop.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

In the Ottawa context, the following stations will probably continue to serve as major bus-rail transfers far beyond the scope of Stage 1 and 2:

- Place d'Orléans, a major destination on its own and the most central in the eastern suburb.
- Blair, serving routes that go to La Cité Collégiale, the only major post-secondary institution not served by rail, along with the residential areas in between. It will also serve as the transfer station for the future Cumberland Transitway.
- St-Laurent, the major destination and transfer station for the relatively dense old suburban east end.
- Hurdman, the main transfer hub for the SE Transitway. Poste Stage 2, it might become the busiest bus-rail transfer point on the system.

I tend to agree.

- Lincoln Fields, the off-peak transfer point between the Moodie and Algonquin branches of the Confederation Line.

Off peak as in late night and early morning when service drops to every 15 minutes. Demand then will be very low and will hopefully not require you to change platforms.

- Bayshore, serving as the bus transfer point for large parts of Nepean, including Bells Corners.

I guess it depends how you define Nepean (properly it includes Bells Corners and Barrhaven). Other then Bells Corners and those near Pinecrest, most will likely transfer at Algonquin. It will still be busy.

- Algonquin, the transfer point for the Baseline BRT, though a bit of a detour.

I imagine that post Stage 2, the west end bus routes will likely be split between Bayshore and Moodie. Moodie could remain a hub for DND shuttles post Stage 2, but I don't believe it would be worth keeping as a transfer station for much else.

Until Stage 3 is built, Algonquin and Moodie will be major transfer points for Barrhaven and Kanata. After Stage 3, I do tend to agree with you, though I think Moodie will have some of the transfers from Bells Corners and may have some transfers from Bridalwood. Algonquin will also have transfers from parts of Nepean and nearby parts of the former "West Ottawa."

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I guess it depends how you define Nepean (properly it includes Bells Corners and Barrhaven). Other then Bells Corners and those near Pinecrest, most will likely transfer at Algonquin. It will still be busy.

I could see Pinecrest station becoming more of a hub than it is now; it would the natural terminus for routes serving the neighbourhoods on either side of Greenbank Rd. south of Baseline.

The station design seems to include a small bus loop (although not a fare-paid zone).

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

I could see Pinecrest station becoming more of a hub than it is now; it would the natural terminus for routes serving the neighbourhoods on either side of Greenbank Rd. south of Baseline.

That could be true for some, though I expect routes 82 and 173 will remain similar and serve Algonquin, Pinecrest and possibly even Bayshore (to continue providing service on Dumaurier, though they may only have 1 of the 2 routes do that), so people can choose if they want to transfer at Algonquin or Pinecrest.

I also wouldn't be surprised if they have route 58 detour to Pinecrest station.

Originally Posted by bradnixon

The station design seems to include a small bus loop (although not a fare-paid zone).

According to O-Train Fans:

Off-street bus facilities will be constructed to support the transfer of customers from bus stops located adjacent to the station. There will be a bi-directional route from Pinecrest Road to the station's bus stop location and a bus turnaround after the bus stop to return buses to Pinecrest Road.

Hopefully there will also be bus access to the "loop" from Dumaurier, to allow buses to use it as a shortcut, instead of having to go back to Pinecrest and make 2 left turns.

Optimally I would like to see Ramsey Cres. extended, using the existing Transityway access, to Pinecrest so that they can then block off the intersection of Dumaurier and Pinecrest. The bus loop could then feed off of this extension.

[Multi-modal]

Apparently design of the bus loop at Lincoln Fields has been updated (and some old oak trees need to be removed).

https://twitter.com/OccTranspo/status/1217090307025723394?s=19

Hopefully the bus loop design has really improved because the old design was absolutely atrocious. It's interesting... I feel like this must be a big change because the trees circles are on the west side of the rail alignment and I don't understand how a small bus loop change would require their removal.

[sseguin]

The City of Ottawa has just released a memo on the Stage 2 Project procurement evaluations and three related appendices. You can view them here:

https://www.otrainfans.ca/news/memo-o-train-light-rail-transit-stage-2-technical-evaluations

[Multi-modal]

I found this summary of CTG's submission (one of the losing bids, but they won the technical submission by a small margin) very interesting. It seems like they really improved on the design in many ways that jive with my concerns of the project. "What if"...

[J.OT13]

EWC came in a close second, so I'm fine with their selection. I realize that, as with SNC for Trillium, they were chosen purely on price, but at least they did well on the technical side as well.

I too wonder "what-if". I think we have a lot of that with Confederation Stage 1. RTG had the highest score, but the other bidder who proposed light-metro technology might have lost points for that, while RTG went with lrt which we now know was probably a poor choice due to the wheel wells, number of doors and odd spacing.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

EWC came in a close second, so I'm fine with their selection. I realize that, as with SNC for Trillium, they were chosen purely on price, but at least they did well on the technical side as well.

I too wonder "what-if". I think we have a lot of that with Confederation Stage 1. RTG had the highest score, but the other bidder who proposed light-metro technology might have lost points for that, while RTG went with lrt which we now know was probably a poor choice due to the wheel wells, number of doors and odd spacing.

Before we say that light-metro was a better choice, let's see how REM works in Montreal. Both cities face similar challenging winter weather. Let's see how REM trains and infrastructure handle winter conditions.

[CityTech]

Light metro may not have been able to handle some of the curves and grade changes throughout the line.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Before we say that light-metro was a better choice, let's see how REM works in Montreal. Both cities face similar challenging winter weather. Let's see how REM trains and infrastructure handle winter conditions.

You're right. light-metro would have been a brand new technology for our climate, and technical issues with the system might have been worse. Door issues would likely have been much less frequent. Dwell times would have been shorter.

Originally Posted by CityTech

Light metro may not have been able to handle some of the curves and grade changes throughout the line.

That bidder's submission surely took that into account and designed their the system with gentler slopes and curves. That likely made it significantly more expensive though.

[rocketphish]

LRT 2 evaluations — the other part of the story
Examining how Kiewit won its contest for the Confederation Line extension makes SNC Lavalin's weak technical marks on the Trillium Line project all the more egregious.

James Bagnall, Ottawa Citizen
Updated: January 24, 2020

Lost amid the outrage over how SNC-Lavalin managed to secure a piece of the $4.6-billion project to expand Ottawa’s light rail transit system despite low technical marks is something more reassuring for taxpayers.

The lion’s share of LRT Stage 2 — some $2.6 billion worth of work — is being handled by a consortium led by Kiewit Construction of Omaha, Neb., and Vinci Construction of Paris.

While the Kiewit group also failed to secure top grades in a technical evaluation, it cleared the minimum 70 per cent threshold by a considerable margin. This, combined with a competitive financial package, gave Kiewit and its partners the right to build the east-west component of Stage 2, the project known as the Confederation Line extension.

Kiewit’s team will add 27 kilometres of track and 16 new stations. SNC Lavalin is responsible for extending the north-south Trillium line under a $663 million fixed-price contract. It will build eight new stations. Add in nearly $1 billion for a long-term maintenance and services contract and you’ve got $1.6 billion in total.

Examining how Kiewit won its contest makes SNC Lavalin’s weak technical marks all the more egregious.

According to documents released by the city late Thursday, Kiewit won after a very competitive battle against teams led by Spanish construction giant Ferrovial and U.S. behemoth Bechtel. The Ferrovial group scored 81.5 per cent for technical merit against 80.1 per cent for Kiewit and 77.4 per cent for Bechtel. Given the subjective quality of many of the items evaluated, this was a tight spread.

Similarly, in the contest for the Trillium Line extension contract, a group led by Acciona of Spain scored just shy of 85 per cent on technical merit, while its closest rival, Colas Group of France, obtained 84 per cent. However, the bid by SNC-Lavalin garnered 63.6 per cent in the first go-round. Even after the city’s evaluators were prompted by a bid evaluation committee to revise their assessment, SNC-Lavalin scored just 67.3 per cent.

It was only because the city exercised its right to push SNC-Lavalin into the financial evaluation stage that the Montreal-based firm received a shot at winning it all. A low financial bid ensured that it did.

If there’s any competitor that deserves sympathy for how things turned out, it’s the French giant, Colas Group. It was also a key partner in the Ferrovial bid, which means it placed first and second in the two separate technical evaluations, but won nothing for its troubles. Of course, that may have been because it was reluctant to trim its prices. It’s not clear how close the bids were overall because the city did not release the associated financial packages that composed half the total marks in these contests.

What is clear is that five of the six teams that bid on the two main Stage 2 contracts were judged to be competitive on technical merit, and roughly equally so. Then there was SNC-Lavalin.

Of note is the membership of the separate evaluation teams. Three experts — Michael Morgan, Colleen Connelly and Jack D’Andrea — were common to the Confederation Line and Trillium Line extension projects, so there was a good deal of continuity in the scoring.

But there were differences in the teams. The lead evaluator in the assessment that savaged SNC-Lavalin’s capability was Peter Schwartzentruber, who 10 years ago founded Podium Projects Inc., a consulting group specializing in delivering infrastructure projects. In 2005 and 2006, he was a senior project manager for SNC-Lavalin on a project involving the Vancouver international airport. The city hired Schwartzentruber for his independence and expertise, and that was what it got.

Among the documents published this week by the city was one that revealed sharp differences between the technical evaluation team and the bid evaluation steering committee over how the bid should be scored. (The steering committee did not know the identity of the bidder, but it might have been possible to deduce it.) In the document summaries covering the four main technical aspects — general technical, design, construction and maintenance — SNC-Lavalin’s weaknesses were extensively catalogued. Its strengths were barely mentioned.

With the other two contenders, it was the other way around. In the Confederation Line evaluation, the pros and cons were more evenly spread about.

Given the huge stakes, it’s difficult to believe that SNC-Lavalin, a very experienced bidder on public infrastructure projects, could have been so lacking in diligence. The evaluation committee said SNC-Lavalin hadn’t bothered to sign up qualified people, offered a weak narrative or justification for its bid and was disturbingly vague in many of its responses.

The bid evaluation committee set up by the city pushed back on nearly all these items … and got its way.

Just why it felt the need to do so has never been explained.

But at least the puzzle doesn’t need to consume the entire Stage 2 rollout.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/bagnall-lrt-2-evaluations-the-other-part-of-the-story

[PHrenetic]

Good Day.

The City has posted C-Line extension Community Presentations Q&A and Comments "As We Heard It Report" on the Stage 2 website under Resources,
First East, then West :

https://ottawa.ca/en/planning-developmen...roject/resources#community-presentations

EnJoy!

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day.

The City has posted C-Line extension Community Presentations Q&A and Comments "As We Heard It Report" on the Stage 2 website under Resources,
First East, then West :

https://ottawa.ca/en/planning-developmen...roject/resources#community-presentations

EnJoy!

In summary—

Answer Type A: "That aspect of the project can't be changed because it has already been determined."

Answer Type B: "That aspect of the project is yet to be determined."

In the next public session, more Type B answers will be moved up to Type A until the project is finished and they all conform to that answer.