Trillium Line Upgrades & Extension (Stage 2) [Greenboro to Airport/Limebank] | U/C

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

No matter what, the spur line has to be connected to the main line for access to the maintenance facility at Walkley Yards. You would hope that some day they would be able to run both train routes directly to Bayview. But I have no confidence in an upgrade path for the Trillium Line. Basically, whatever will happen beyond 2048 is not their problem.

Now that is definitely true! The vast majority of those involved will be retired by then.

[Ottawaresident]

Those political peepers ... Hate 'em Hate 'em forever!

[Mikeed]

I'm more concerned we're not spending the money to redo Mooney's Bay station with a proper Confederation Heights master plan to accommodate a better designed TOD-orriented government employment node here.

Moving the station to under Heron Road and double tracking this section would be a better use of the money. This alone would be a very expensive proposition, but it would allow the entire section from Rideau River Bridge to Walkley Rd to be double tracked.

If the Feds were to pay for this in injunction with a Confederation Heights master plan then this would be value for money.

They should open up the area for private employment development making the 3 core employment nodes the Core, Tunnys and Confederation Heights.

[Ottawaresident]

The gov has never and will never have insight ... I like that too but it will never happen.

[OTSkyline]

I agree that the best solution would have been to have the line split up past south keys and have the airport and Riverside South as the terminal stations of the splits. That way people from both stations can get a one-ride to Bayview at least. The 2 transfers to downtown from the airport is pushing it, but better than nothing I guess.

The current 97 but takes about 35 minutes from the airport to downtown (Albert/Metcalfe). If they're saying it will be 32 to get to Bayview (including transfers) that seems pretty reasonable.

Some of the issues with the current 97 include no luggage racks or space to store luggage, the unreliable schedule and especially the bus stop at the far end of the drop-off area, meaning you can't wait comfortably inside the airport for your bus. Travelers are forced to walk to the unheated glass bus shelter at the end in the -30 weather shivering waiting for the next bus to show up.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The whole premise of the article is worrisome. The suggestion that some runs of the Trillium Line could be redirected to the airport makes no sense. We are maxing out the capacity of the main line. We cannot insert extra trains. There is no space for them. And if we redirect a train to the airport, how does this impact schedules on the main line going to Riverside South?

The original thinking was to have direct trains going to Riverside South in peak hours and to the airport in off-peak hours. The reason this was done away with is the confusion it would create for both destinations. People will end up on trains going to the wrong destination even if announcements are made, which will have to be made on every trip. Also consider that the airport spur will be designed for LINT trains only. A direct train to the airport means that we will operate half length trains on the main line. That could potentially create capacity problems on the main line. In other words, the suggestion that some airport trains might run to Bayview sounds like nonsense.


I am not that thrilled with the suggestion that travel time will be 35 minutes to the airport. Note that this is not from downtown, but from Bayview. With transfer time, this will be 50 minutes to downtown if we define that as being Rideau Station. Considering that it used to take just 12 minutes from Greenboro to Bayview, and it should take no more than 10 minutes from South Keys to the airport, we have been adding a lot of inefficiency.

For those who think that transferring twice is great because buses are not ideal, think again. At least today, the person boards the bus at the terminal station. There will be seats and places to put luggage. With two transfers, trains get progressively get more crowded as you get closer to downtown. If it is a peak period, the airport passenger may face a crush loaded train at Bayview. That is not a good experience for someone carrying luggage. My experiences with rail service from the airport in other cities have been good, because I can get a seat easily and a place for my luggage and I get taken directly downtown. Airport service typically is set up so there is not overcrowding but that will not be the case with our rail plans.

Having the spur to the airport served by a "shuttle" service is a garbage solution. Having the line terminate at Bayview is kind of a garbage solution (at least in the mid- to long-term). If the Bayview to Leitrim section can handle 8 minute frequencies, then they should split the service so that trains alternate between the Airport and the south end. This gives each 16 minute frequencies, which isn't great, but not the worst given the plan.

The minimum 8 - 10 year target of the Trillium Line should be double track from Bayview to Leitrim, and then the two branches beyond that can be single track (which would still allow for up to 8 minute frequencies) until capacity warrants them being upgraded. (even then I think converting the line to the same automated system as the Confederation Line, and interlining it so that trips go directly downtown is the proper solution, and with the automated service, there will be capacity through downtown and beyond to do that). And the minimum target of this round of upgrades to the line should be to make sure that when single track sections are upgraded down the road, when new bridges and tunnels are built, that long term shutdowns will not be needed.

There is nothing wrong with upgrading the Trillium Line in phases, but the current plan has so many compromises that it genuinely compromises the ability of the line to be properly modernized.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

There is no easy path to double tracking that doesn't require yet another lengthy shutdown. Preparing for later double tracking to avoid a further shutdown is beyond the scope of Phase 2 with the possible exception of the Ellwood grade separation.

And that is exactly what my problem with the plan is. Of course it is possible to draft a plan that includes the kind of prep work needed to make sure that double tracking can be done easily. There is nothing technically challenging about that. It seems the only reason they aren't doing that is because they are trying to sneak in Trillium Line upgrades as quietly as possible given the vocal nature of the satellite suburbs. But it is so unbelievably short sighted when it could mean saving another shut down 5 years down the road.

I am not sure how in one city they can come up with a plan as wonderful as the Confederation Line, and one as rubbish as what the Trillium Line expansion path has turned into.

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I think it's 50/50 for each with the Airport authority chipping in a bit for the airport link.

Good Day.

Spot on - my bad. Thx.

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

And that is exactly what my problem with the plan is. Of course it is possible to draft a plan that includes the kind of prep work needed to make sure that double tracking can be done easily. There is nothing technically challenging about that. It seems the only reason they aren't doing that is because they are trying to sneak in Trillium Line upgrades as quietly as possible given the vocal nature of the satellite suburbs. But it is so unbelievably short sighted when it could mean saving another shut down 5 years down the road.

.......

Good Day.

Yep - that's where I am way too hopeful that SNC is sneaking in a full trench widening (no track) Bayview to Dow's, and a proper co-ordination of the 417-trench overpass replacement. But that would be too sensible.

[OTSkyline]

Two thoughts:

1) Do we know exactly what will or will not be double tracked after phase 2? I get that the Dow's Lake tunnel is the main issue but what/why could they not double track everything else north of South Keys (except the tunnel)?

2) I'm no engineer so maybe this can't be done for safety reasons but would there not be a way to sort of split the line at Carleton to "split the shutdown"? For 1 year shut down the line from Carleton to Bayview to do construction there but still have the line running from Greenboro to Carleton. Then the next do the opposite. Close down Carleton to Greenboro but run Carleton to Bayview? AT least it would be a shorter shut down and half of the users would still be able to use part of it?

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

Two thoughts:

1) Do we know exactly what will or will not be double tracked after phase 2? I get that the Dow's Lake tunnel is the main issue but what/why could they not double track everything else north of South Keys (except the tunnel)?

Yes, that's all on geoOttawa. (Except for Limebank, but that will be double track)

2) I'm no engineer so maybe this can't be done for safety reasons but would there not be a way to sort of split the line at Carleton to "split the shutdown"? For 1 year shut down the line from Carleton to Bayview to do construction there but still have the line running from Greenboro to Carleton. Then the next do the opposite. Close down Carleton to Greenboro but run Carleton to Bayview? AT least it would be a shorter shut down and half of the users would still be able to use part of it?

$$$$

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

Two thoughts:

1) Do we know exactly what will or will not be double tracked after phase 2? I get that the Dow's Lake tunnel is the main issue but what/why could they not double track everything else north of South Keys (except the tunnel)?

Those are details that seem hard to find or are just really vague right now. I am hoping to do some digging on the weekend to get a proper understanding of what exactly is and isn't being done in phase 2 and beyond. As far as double tracking everything, but the tunnel, don't forget there is a bridge over the Rideau that will have to be built as well, which is less complicated, but not cheap either. Even one bottleneck means that a lot of the double tracking would be "unnecessary", or perhaps underutilized is a better way to look at it. If, at the very least, the corridor is prepped for double tracking, then they can go back and do that when they can do the larger engineering works.

Edit: I know there are maps up on geoOttawa, but I want to see the most recent source material, especially given that the most recent renderings seem to give a confusing impression of how much of the line is going to be double tracked.

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

2) I'm no engineer so maybe this can't be done for safety reasons but would there not be a way to sort of split the line at Carleton to "split the shutdown"? For 1 year shut down the line from Carleton to Bayview to do construction there but still have the line running from Greenboro to Carleton. Then the next do the opposite. Close down Carleton to Greenboro but run Carleton to Bayview? AT least it would be a shorter shut down and half of the users would still be able to use part of it?

It would probably take a lot longer overall to do it that way. It is going to be a lot easier for each trade to come in, do their job across the whole project, and be done with it, rather than coming in, doing their part, and then having to repeat it 2 or 3 years down the line. Plus Carleton Station itself will have to be shutdown at some point too. The small gain in convenience for people able to use a two station line doesn't outweigh the overall time savings of doing it all at once.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

2) I'm no engineer so maybe this can't be done for safety reasons but would there not be a way to sort of split the line at Carleton to "split the shutdown"? For 1 year shut down the line from Carleton to Bayview to do construction there but still have the line running from Greenboro to Carleton. Then the next do the opposite. Close down Carleton to Greenboro but run Carleton to Bayview? AT least it would be a shorter shut down and half of the users would still be able to use part of it?

The biggest issue would be getting the trains from the Walkley MSF to Carleton when the southern "half" is shut down. They could possibly do the split at the Ellwood Diamond (have trains use VIA's track to get to Mooney's Bay Station), but there wouldn't be much point in having trains run from Greenboro to the future Walkley Station.

[rocketphish]

Trillium Line shutdown, financial risks on councillors' minds ahead of multibillion-dollar LRT decision

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Updated: February 27, 2019

City councillors raised questions about the city’s financial risks, a planned two-year shutdown of the Trillium Line and the quick turnaround of approving $4.6-billion in government spending as they scrutinized the Stage 2 rail construction package Wednesday.

The special council meeting on Stage 2 was reserved for public delegates and councillor questions. Council will vote on the Stage 2 contracts next Wednesday.

The Stage 2 project would extend the Confederation Line LRT west from Tunney’s Pasture to Algonquin College and Moodie Drive, and east from Blair Station to Trim Road. The Trillium Line would be extended to a new Limebank Station in Riverside South, with a separate rail link between South Keys Station and the Ottawa International Airport, including a stop at the EY Centre.

SNC-Lavalin, under the name TransitNEXT, is proposed to receive the Trillium Line expansion and maintenance contract, while Kiewit and Vinci, under the name East-West Connectors, are proposed to receive the Confederation Line expansion contract.

The Rideau Transit Group, which is building Stage 1 LRT, will handle the maintenance for the entire Confederation Line through 2048.

The Stage 2 package has a price tag of $4.657 billion. The city’s estimate from March 2017, before asking for bids, was $3.415 billion. The city says its decision to broaden the scope of the project, plus $591 million in increased market prices for the work, are the difference-makers in the major cost change.

The federal and provincial governments are providing grants totalling nearly $2.4 billion.

Eighteen people signed up to speak to council about Stage 2. There wasn’t a lot of criticism, but there was some apprehension.

A company expressed concerns about the city raising Limebank Road over the future rail line in Riverside South, impacting the company’s land at Earl Armstrong Road. A resident questioned the city’s recommended selection of SNC-Lavalin for the Trillium Line work, considering the controversy involving the company at the federal level. A transit user thought there was no good reason to run a train to the airport. An architect criticized the public-private partnership approach to LRT procurement.

On the other hand, officials from post-secondary institutions, business groups and the Ottawa International Airport lined up to say how great Stage 2 will be.

The Federation of Citizens’ Associations supports transit expansion, but warned the city not to raise fares too much, threatening the success of LRT.

Before the meeting, Mayor Jim Watson emphasized to reporters that the city isn’t blowing the budget on Stage 2, since council hasn’t set the project budget.

“Most people that I have talked to understand that when estimates come in a hot construction market, there are going to be adjustments normally upwards,” Watson said, adding that the city has also added millions of dollars to the scope of the project for the long-term efficiency of the municipal rail system.

“This is the time to do it right and to not go and start cutting corners that would only cost us a lot more in the years ahead and make it much more disruptive.”

On whether the city can afford more than $4.6 billion, considering the payment scenario hinges on more-than-expected borrowing and a promise by the former provincial Liberal government to double the gas tax transfer, Watson said he trusts the city treasurer’s analysis that the project is affordable for the City of Ottawa.

City treasurer Marian Simulik said only the revenue streams out of the city’s control should be considered a financial risk for the transit project.

As an example, she pointed to the promised gas tax increase, a key source of LRT funding for city hall. The current Progressive Conservative government hasn’t indicated it would limit the gas tax transfer, but it would be out of the city’s hands.

Still, the city doesn’t think the PCs would scrub the Liberal gas-tax pledge because it would hurt the City of Toronto, and as Simulik told Coun. Diane Deans, “what’s good for Toronto is good for the rest of the province.”

Also, the city doesn’t have total control over development growth, which creates development charge revenue for the transit project.

“You have control over most of the levers that are in the plan in terms of funding,” Simulik said.

The city’s planned borrowing, which will be $700 million more than previously projected for transit projects over 30 years, won’t impact other city projects requiring borrowed money, she said.

The city says its 30-year transit financial plan is affordable as long as interest rates don’t rise above 4.75 per cent. Stage 2 would have the city borrow $1.6 billion. (The city currently borrows money at around 3.5 per cent).

One of the big surprises for councillors has been the proposed Trillium Line shutdown.

To allow the expansion on the Trillium Line, the city will close the tracks between May 2020 and a date in the second half of 2022. A parallel bus service will be in place.

Coun. Shawn Menard said he’s receiving feedback from the public about the lengthy shutdown, and although the city’s director of rail planning said TransitNEXT is open to dialogue, the company has factored the shutdown into its final price.

Some councillors have been worried about having only 13 days to digest large reports and consider staff recommendations on what will be the largest infrastructure project by the City of Ottawa.

Delaying a Stage 2 contract decision will only increase the construction costs, Watson said.

jwilling@postmedia.com
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...r-lrt-decision

[sseguin]

The city released a Press Release regarding the consultations and council meeting today on Stage2LRT.

I have posted it to O-Train Fans.
https://www.otrainfans.ca/blogs/coun...of-the-o-train

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If we are going to buy special buses for the airport, we should provide direct to downtown service. Calgary Transit has airport express buses, as well as local service to the C-Train. People do not want to be dumped at a very busy transfer station with luggage in hand.

There is absolutely no reason whey airport buses cannot go downtown after the opening of the Confederation Line. It will have almost no impact on Confederation Line ridership and probably will be cheaper than operating a shuttle train.

If we were to do this, there should be a premium fare but still less than what Uber would charge.

It could be absolutely free and still cheaper than this plan. I take the bus to the airport a lot. I usually have no luggage and the stop is five minutes from my house. There are rarely more than a few people who don't work there on the bus. A train done well will attract attract a good chunk of people. 2 transfers not so much. With Uber the fare is not so outrageous and I doubt I would take the train combo much.

I was always in favour of adding an airport connection. Not only for the convenience but also a good train gets a lot of people to use the train who wouldn't normally take transit so it builds support. This plan was always weak and with the current cost overuns it seems like the most sensible thing to cut along with the Baseline spur.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by Mikeed

I'm more concerned we're not spending the money to redo Mooney's Bay station with a proper Confederation Heights master plan to accommodate a better designed TOD-orriented government employment node here.

Moving the station to under Heron Road and double tracking this section would be a better use of the money. This alone would be a very expensive proposition, but it would allow the entire section from Rideau River Bridge to Walkley Rd to be double tracked.

If the Feds were to pay for this in injunction with a Confederation Heights master plan then this would be value for money.

They should open up the area for private employment development making the 3 core employment nodes the Core, Tunnys and Confederation Heights.

I couldn't agree more that the area around Mooney's Bay Station could/should be redeveloped.

That said, I don't know if the city has the real estate demand, right now, to support another urban development project. You have already have a languishing Lebreton, the area around Bayview and Carling stations, and the future Gladstone station. You have infill and redevelopment in Hintonburg and Westboro. There is Zibi (part of it is in Gatineau yes but I suspect it is drawing on people that might otherwise have chosen a place in Ottawa). Plus you have development in Centretown and along the first half of Rideau street, etc, etc.


The city and NCC are probably wise not to focus on that area just yet. The pilot project O-Train line has already helped kickstart development and interest along the Bayview to Carling section, but nothing in around Mooney's Bay. Forcing a redevelopment of the area is setting it up for failure. Though maybe in 5 or 10 years, when the line is upgraded and if private companies and developers are starting to show interest in that area, then they can start putting the effort into a proper plan. I feel like if the city and NCC tried to make something of the area, today, it would just end up being a more modern version of Tunney's Pasture.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

I couldn't agree more that the area around Mooney's Bay Station could/should be redeveloped.

That said, I don't know if the city has the real estate demand, right now, to support another urban development project. You have already have a languishing Lebreton, the area around Bayview and Carling stations, and the future Gladstone station. You have infill and redevelopment in Hintonburg and Westboro. There is Zibi (part of it is in Gatineau yes but I suspect it is drawing on people that might otherwise have chosen a place in Ottawa). Plus you have development in Centretown and along the first half of Rideau street, etc, etc.


The city and NCC are probably wise not to focus on that area just yet. The pilot project O-Train line has already helped kickstart development and interest along the Bayview to Carling section, but nothing in around Mooney's Bay. Forcing a redevelopment of the area is setting it up for failure. Though maybe in 5 or 10 years, when the line is upgraded and if private companies and developers are starting to show interest in that area, then they can start putting the effort into a proper plan. I feel like if the city and NCC tried to make something of the area, today, it would just end up being a more modern version of Tunney's Pasture.

The EA study did look at re-locating Mooney's Bay to north of Heron but I think that was dependent on whenever the Feds decide to redevelop their lands.

The old CSE buildings on the north side of Heron (Sir Leonard Tilley and the old CBC building) are mostly empty I believe. This is the area with the most potential for re-development.

South of Heron, the heating plant is directly adjacent to the current station and I don't think that heating plant is going anywhere for decades if ever.

There has been on-again/off-again talk of building student residences along Brookfield and that will drive traffic to the station. But to really support that some improvements are needed within the Canada Post Campus; for example, the roadway to the east of the parking structure doesn't have any sidewalks and it would be the fastest pedestrian route from those residences to the station.

https://www.google.ca/maps/dir/45.37...45.3768709!3e2

[Multi-modal]

Long post incoming...

Something I've been thinking about ever since the City showed renderings of the proposed station is how poorly Limebank Station is laid out given that the City is essentially working with a blank slate... but I haven't really been prompted to think about it too much (and that's the thing, because no one lives there currently I don't think a lot of residents are thinking about it). Then, at last night's special City Council Meeting a planner from Fotenn representing Richcraft / Morguard protested the current layout around Limebank Station. I found this to be the most interesting testimony of the afternoon.

Richcraft / Morguard are planning to develop a block of land at the SE corner of Earl Armstrong and Limebank into commercial and office usees - they contend that the City's decision to raise Limebank over the rail corridor will limit the ability to provide a commercial presence on Limbank Road and severely hamper their development. They strongly prefer a rail over road option. When Carol Anne Meehan asked Chris Swail about this he claimed that proponents (including SNC Lavelin) had the option of choosing rail over road but that in this case (as opposed to at the crossings of Leitrim and Earl Armstrong) they chose road over rail. What Chris Swail left out of that answer is that the Limebank crossing different that either Leitrim and Earl Armstrong, because not only does the City want to grade separate rail from Limebank, but they also want to grade separate the two "transit streets" running east-west to the north and south of the rail line.

Lets back up a bit for context... here is the draft, updated Riverside South CDP plan:


You can see that to the north and south of the LRT / BRT corridor within the Community Core (purple zone) there are two dashed blue lines - these dashed blue lines are designated "transit streets".

Here is a map shown during the announcement of a new library for Riverside South:


Again, you can see these transit streets running east-west to the north and south of the transit corridor.

Now for the TransitNEXT description and rendering of Limebank Station:

Limebank Station will be a new terminal station located west of Limebank Road, south of Earl Armstrong Road and east of Main Street. The station will have a minimum one fare paid entrance with access to Main Street, the north east-west Connector Road, and the future south east-west Connector Road. It will be designed as an urban station with direct access to the on-street bus facility located to the north of the alignment.

In this description they have renamed the "transit streets" as "east-west Connector Roads". In the rendering we can see that the transit station is on the northern east-west Connector Road, and this road extends eastward towards Limebank Road.

So, what does this all mean, and is there a problem(s)?

1. The existence of the two planned east-west connector roads and the desire to make them continous across Limebank Road makes it prohibitive to construct a (rail + 2 x connector road) over limebank option as Morguard / Richcraft are suggesting.
2. Not only will Morguard have issues with a raised Limebank Road, but the at-grade Trillium Line blocks the planned north-south collector roads east of Limebank (Collector Roads D and E), which means more expensive road over rail in the future with retaining walls that block pedestrian connectivity within the Riverside South Community Core.
3. The westbound bus platform on the "north east-west Connector Road" at Limebank Station is problematic - people will certainly J-walk across the road directly to the LRT entrance... that is until OC Transpo inevitably puts up some ugly fencing in the middle of the road.

Ok, so what can we do to fix this... RECAP, here is what I figure the current short-term plan is (Green is Trillium Line, Blue is BRT routing):


So how would I fix the above listed issues?

1. Dead-end the east-west connector roads at Limebank Station.
2. Create pedestrian / cycling connections between the dead-ended connector roads either over or under Limebank Road (or at-grade signalized).
3. Either elevate or trench the LRT throughout the Riverside South Community Core.
4. Only run BRT up to Limebank Station. The buses would travel eastbound on the north east-west connector road, turn right on to a southbound auxiliary bus lane on an at-grade Limebank Road (no signal required for this movement), and then turn right again to travel westbound on the south east-west connector road (again, no signal required for this movement). This setup puts all bus platforms adjacent to the LRT station.

Here is my plan in the short term:


And here it is in the long term:


(note I am not going to touch the issue of a possible LRT extension further west, but the City really should leave that option open, and a raised or trenched LRT would make it easier for the LRT to cross the planned Main Street in the future)

What do you all think? I Might send this to Carol Anne Meehan.

[Ottawaresident]

An airport connection should happen in every city. But not with 2 Transfers to go anywhere. The UPS in Toronto is one ride into Union Station. Montreal's Bus runs to donwtown. Vancouver's Canada Line is 1or no transfers. In the land of nothingness, Ottawa nothing will ever get done (Airport Spur)