Confederation Line West LRT Extension (Stage 2) [Tunney's to Baseline/Moodie] | U/C

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by c_speed3108

The above station in New York was closed when newer trains no longer had the ability to selectively open just certain doors. It is at the end of the route. My understanding is you can ride the train past the end of the route to look out the window at the showpiece station from the launch of the subway. The station is on the turn-around loop

All the above is true... heres more details than you ever want to know...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Ha...Avenue_Line%29

[eternallyme]

Agreed that Iris is acceptable as a bare-bones station. Ridership is fairly low there and there is little development potential as the area is built-out. The only bus connection would be a straight-route on Iris which would have to replace parts of Routes 150 and 152 (some reconfiguration will be necessary in that area).

[rocketphish]

Open house reveals new details of western LRT extension between Westboro and Bayshore

Blair Crawford, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: April 29, 2015, Last Updated: April 29, 2015 10:20 PM EDT



A pedestrian bridge over Highway 417 at Baxter Road, a realignment of the Lincoln Fields Transit Station, and a complex interchange where the western extension of Ottawa’s Light Rail Transit line splits into its Bayshore and Baseline tracks were among proposals revealed at an open house at city hall on Wednesday night.

The meeting, which drew about 100 people, gave the first detailed look at plans for the LRT between Westboro and Bayshore and Baseline stations. Consultant David Hopper, who is overseeing the city’s 100-Day Workgroup on the western extension made the presentation.

The extension will add 13 kilometres of line and 10 stations to the LRT system. The Lincoln Fields Transit Station will get a major makeover, orienting it north-south along the transitway beneath Carling Avenue, for easier access. The existing station is north of Carling and requires long overhead walkways to access from street level.

Just south of Lincoln Fields, the track splits, one route following the existing transitway south to Baseline Station. The Bayshore line will cross over the Baseline tracks on a bridge that will also carry it over Pinecrest Creek and the NCC recreational pathway. It will then dip into a short tunnel under Connaught Avenue before emerging at a new Queensview Transit Station, which will replace the existing Queensway Station which is to close. Queensview Station will be linked to the south side of Highway 417 by a new pedestrian/bicycle overpass adjacent to the Ottawa Citizen building.

The Bayshore line continues west through the Pinecrest Transit Station to a revamped terminus at Bayshore Mall.

The Baseline tracks continue south from Lincoln Fields along the transitway, under the 417 to Iris Street, which is currently the only spot on the transitway that crosses a regular road at grade, controlled by a traffic light. The new interchange has the LRT in a three-metre-deep trench; traffic on Iris will cross the tracks on a new bridge. The plan also calls for Pinecrest Creek to be rerouted in places to reduce the risk of flooding.

The Baseline LRT station will be housed in a cavern already constructed beneath the Algonquin College Centre for Construction Excellence.

Details of the western extension will be available soon on the City of Ottawa website.

[email protected]
twitter.com/getBAC

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...o-and-bayshore

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Details of the western extension will be available soon on the City of Ottawa website.

Dear City Planning Staff Who Read This Forum:

Why don't you post the documentation for these open houses ahead of time?

[JCL]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Dear City Planning Staff Who Read This Forum:

Why don't you post the documentation for these open houses ahead of time?

Because they want people to actually attend the open houses!

[MoreTrains]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Dear City Planning Staff Who Read This Forum:

Why don't you post the documentation for these open houses ahead of time?

Because if they did there would be more people snoring during their presentations?

But I do agree, the ability to study the proposal before the open house would allow much better feedback.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by JCL

Because they want people to actually attend the open houses!

The people who attend the open houses will still attend the open houses.

[Harley613]

I just looked at google maps and realized the transitway is already separated from Greenbank to Bayshore, so the only complicated part is from Lincoln Fields to Greenbank, as posted above. I'm going to have to ride a bus one day so I can figure out how all this is going to work!

[Dado]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

That's a HUGE improvement for LF. Replaces the nasty sprawly bus terminal with a clean and efficient one with buses stopping on Carling. And that's a really convenient train->bus transfer setup with access to both sides of Carling directly atop an island platform.

Yes, fixing a three decade old mistake. If the NCC had any sense, which they likely don't, they'd allow the old station site to be redeveloped and reduce the extent of isolation of the replacement station.

Iris is kinda meh.. not a big fan of the sloping path setup, I absolutely hate it at Bayview, but given the low volumes at Iris and the low volume of bus transfers (this is likely to just be a walk-in station for the most part) I can forgive it.

Personally, I'd like to know on what grounds Iris needs to be grade-separated, at all.

When the City chose to build LRT rather than light metro, it was argued that LRT would be easier and less costly to integrate into suburban environments, i.e. it wouldn't need as much grade separation. I really am not getting why we're getting low floor LRT vehicles when we're getting a completely grade-separated system anyway. They should just go with mid- or high-floor light metro vehicles (e.g. Vancouver's SkyTrain) if they're going to grade separate the system even at a place like Iris.

Because as far as I'm concerned, beyond Lincoln Fields we're into the suburbs. Whatever frequency of service we get from Lincoln Fields to downtown, it will be half that on the legs going to both Bayshore and Baseline. Moreover, somehow we've managed with the Iris crossing being at grade for decades, but now when we replace it with trains with much lower headways (4-5 min per direction vs 30 seconds or so right now) we suddenly need grade separation.

Ottawa's rail transit planning boffins must have missed the days their instructors covered CPTED issues because a sunken Iris station sure is a doozy of an example of what not to do from that perspective: a low traffic station out of sight of anyone on Iris or any of the houses either side of the Pinecrest Creek corridor that also separates people waiting at the Iris bus stops from the Iris train stops.

I also wonder what they'll do with the massive Queensway Station: they've got 6 lanes' worth of width down there and only a need for 2. I know: the NCC could extend the Parkway to there and make it easy for all the car commuters to access the Parkway and enjoy the views of the river beyond Carling unencumbered by the visual distraction of light rail!

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Dado

Yes, fixing a three decade old mistake. If the NCC had any sense, which they likely don't, they'd allow the old station site to be redeveloped and reduce the extent of isolation of the replacement station.



Personally, I'd like to know on what grounds Iris needs to be grade-separated, at all.

When the City chose to build LRT rather than light metro, it was argued that LRT would be easier and less costly to integrate into suburban environments, i.e. it wouldn't need as much grade separation. I really am not getting why we're getting low floor LRT vehicles when we're getting a completely grade-separated system anyway. They should just go with mid- or high-floor light metro vehicles (e.g. Vancouver's SkyTrain) if they're going to grade separate the system even at a place like Iris.

Because as far as I'm concerned, beyond Lincoln Fields we're into the suburbs. Whatever frequency of service we get from Lincoln Fields to downtown, it will be half that on the legs going to both Bayshore and Baseline. Moreover, somehow we've managed with the Iris crossing being at grade for decades, but now when we replace it with trains with much lower headways (4-5 min per direction vs 30 seconds or so right now) we suddenly need grade separation.

Ottawa's rail transit planning boffins must have missed the days their instructors covered CPTED issues because a sunken Iris station sure is a doozy of an example of what not to do from that perspective: a low traffic station out of sight of anyone on Iris or any of the houses either side of the Pinecrest Creek corridor that also separates people waiting at the Iris bus stops from the Iris train stops.

There are other advantages with LRT such as the capability to take tighter curves and climb steeper hills.

Another advantage the City took advantage of is not having to fence off the tracks completely; the trains run on the surface in certain areas without any sort of fences. With light metro, the system would have to be 100% separated (underground, trench, elevated or fenced off with a 10 foot barb wired fence type deal) like the Skytrain.

[Dado]

From everything I've heard, these lines will be entirely fenced-in as well.

For instance, when the City first proposed running the WLRT at grade along the old CPR corridor next to the Parkway, not once did they include the possibility of pedestrian grade crossings to address the access-to-the-river issue. The City is way too neurotic about this kind of thing to even conceive of doing it any differently.


I'm also pretty sure the performance characteristics regarding turns and climbing are broadly similar between light rail and light metro. It's between these two on the one hand and heavy metro on the other that we see real differences. Basically as I've long understood it, light metro is what you get when you take light rail and design it for the possibility of automation.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Dado

From everything I've heard, these lines will be entirely fenced-in as well.

For instance, when the City first proposed running the WLRT at grade along the old CPR corridor next to the Parkway, not once did they include the possibility of pedestrian grade crossings to address the access-to-the-river issue. The City is way too neurotic about this kind of thing to even conceive of doing it any differently.


I'm also pretty sure the performance characteristics regarding turns and climbing are broadly similar between light rail and light metro. It's between these two on the one hand and heavy metro on the other that we see real differences. Basically as I've long understood it, light metro is what you get when you take light rail and design it for the possibility of automation.

Don't get me wrong; I would have preferred light metro. Go big or go home. I am glad the current LRT based metro is fully grade separated to allow more speed and capacity.

Based on the renderings it looks like we will have a dew surface, unfenced areas, but I could be wrong; they might omit the fences to make it look better.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Dado

From everything I've heard, these lines will be entirely fenced-in as well.

For instance, when the City first proposed running the WLRT at grade along the old CPR corridor next to the Parkway, not once did they include the possibility of pedestrian grade crossings to address the access-to-the-river issue. The City is way too neurotic about this kind of thing to even conceive of doing it any differently.

I'm also pretty sure the performance characteristics regarding turns and climbing are broadly similar between light rail and light metro. It's between these two on the one hand and heavy metro on the other that we see real differences. Basically as I've long understood it, light metro is what you get when you take light rail and design it for the possibility of automation.

The Confederation Line is being designed for possible future automation.

The rail system we're building is quite fascinating in the way it blurs technological distinction. We're basically building a light metro system, but with LRT vehicles running on it.

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The Confederation Line is being designed for possible future automation.

The rail system we're building is quite fascinating in the way it blurs technological distinction. We're basically building a light metro system, but with LRT vehicles running on it.

My worry about this is the size of the tram carriages. They are SO narrow, claustrophobic even for long journeys.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Harley613

My worry about this is the size of the tram carriages. They are SO narrow, claustrophobic even for long journeys.

The maximum capacity of the line is 3 times higher than the projected day 1 ridership.

With the way we've designed this thing, we could easily convert it to SkyTrain or some such as a future replacement for the Spirits.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The maximum capacity of the line is 3 times higher than the projected day 1 ridership.

With the way we've designed this thing, we could easily convert it to SkyTrain or some such as a future replacement for the Spirits.

Except we couldn't "easily" convert it: all the station platforms will be at the wrong heights, so we'd either need to reconstruct them all or get a custom light metro vehicle. No one designs automated rail vehicles with low floors because there's no point in doing so given that such systems are not designed to integrate with urban street environments. We've been down this, ahem, road of not properly designing our rapid transit system for conversion to another rolling stock technology already. We don't need to do it a second time. As it happens, it would actually be *easier* to convert the Trillium line to automated light metro given that the station platforms are already mid-floor.

What the City is doing right now just makes no sense. Automation has design compromises - full and often costly separation - while low floor vehicles (intended for street-oriented uses) also have design compromises.

If it is designing to "protect" for future automation, then it should have chosen high-floor LRVs like those found in Calgary and Edmonton and designed its station platforms accordingly.

If it intends to run LRT all the way out and through distant suburbs using lower cost stations, then why is it not doing so at Iris?

I have yet to see anyone offer a credible explanation for why we are building a completely grade-separated low-floor light rail system. We're getting the design compromises of both types of system (light metro and low-floor light rail) but are not exploiting the advantages of either.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Dado

Except we couldn't "easily" convert it: all the station platforms will be at the wrong heights, so we'd either need to reconstruct them all or get a custom light metro vehicle. No one designs automated rail vehicles with low floors because there's no point in doing so given that such systems are not designed to integrate with urban street environments. We've been down this, ahem, road of not properly designing our rapid transit system for conversion to another rolling stock technology already. We don't need to do it a second time. As it happens, it would actually be *easier* to convert the Trillium line to automated light metro given that the station platforms are already mid-floor.

What the City is doing right now just makes no sense. Automation has design compromises - full and often costly separation - while low floor vehicles (intended for street-oriented uses) also have design compromises.

If it is designing to "protect" for future automation, then it should have chosen high-floor LRVs like those found in Calgary and Edmonton and designed its station platforms accordingly.

If it intends to run LRT all the way out and through distant suburbs using lower cost stations, then why is it not doing so at Iris?

I have yet to see anyone offer a credible explanation for why we are building a completely grade-separated low-floor light rail system. We're getting the design compromises of both types of system (light metro and low-floor light rail) but are not exploiting the advantages of either.

I have no idea, other than typical Ottawa bizzareness.

As for protecting for automation, I know in two ways:
1) RTG is installing the wiring necessary for ATC in the tunnel as part of the electrical work (found this out from a subcontractor)
2) The city consistently mentions reducing headways down to 90s-100s as a capacity increasing measure that's possible. I'm pretty sure it's not possible to get that many TPH without ATC. In Toronto, they're installing ATC specifically to allow headways to drop to 90s.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Dado

Except we couldn't "easily" convert it: all the station platforms will be at the wrong heights, so we'd either need to reconstruct them all or get a custom light metro vehicle.

I'm curious - is raising the platform heights a big deal? It seems like it would be relatively easy to do by itself, but does that mean raising the ceilings as well and replacing escalators etc.?

[c_speed3108]

I really see no reason why, by the time automation would likely come, that an automated low-floor train would not be available. We are talking decades away. There may well be self driving cars by then.

In the worse case they would need something custom, but many subways already get custom equipment. I don't see this being a big deal.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Dado

Except we couldn't "easily" convert it: all the station platforms will be at the wrong heights, so we'd either need to reconstruct them all or get a custom light metro vehicle. No one designs automated rail vehicles with low floors because there's no point in doing so given that such systems are not designed to integrate with urban street environments. We've been down this, ahem, road of not properly designing our rapid transit system for conversion to another rolling stock technology already. We don't need to do it a second time. As it happens, it would actually be *easier* to convert the Trillium line to automated light metro given that the station platforms are already mid-floor.

What the City is doing right now just makes no sense. Automation has design compromises - full and often costly separation - while low floor vehicles (intended for street-oriented uses) also have design compromises.

If it is designing to "protect" for future automation, then it should have chosen high-floor LRVs like those found in Calgary and Edmonton and designed its station platforms accordingly.

If it intends to run LRT all the way out and through distant suburbs using lower cost stations, then why is it not doing so at Iris?

I have yet to see anyone offer a credible explanation for why we are building a completely grade-separated low-floor light rail system. We're getting the design compromises of both types of system (light metro and low-floor light rail) but are not exploiting the advantages of either.

Maybe the choosing of the low floor LRVs has to do with the minimal amount of sound they give off. I'm pretty sure the Alstom Citadis is one of the quietest rail vehicles out there.

Edit: Perhaps it also has to do with compatibility for future LRT corridors like Carling and Montreal road?