Ottawa LRT Public Inquiry

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Stacmon

What I wonder/worry about is what impact that this inquiry paired with post-pandemic hybrid work will have on Stage 3 expansion to Kanata/Stittsville and Barrhaven.

We already could see that changing travel patterns and fewer days spent in downtown offices would weaken the arguments for expanding the O-Train deep into the two other major suburbs at great cost. Now with all the bad press and legitimate issues/concerns, I could imagine that a government at the federal or especially provincially level could use the results of the inquiry (and well known problems that we all saw before the inquiry report) as a reason to pause/delay/rethink support for Stage 3. Something like: "Do we want to throw more money at this before we figure out what all the problems are and fix them?" I still think Stage 3 is more likely than not to happen in a reasonable/mostly expected time frame but am far less confident about that now. I also find further expansion beyond that extremely unlikely, and no infill stations in the foreseeable future.

This is one of the reasons you can't absolutely bank on plans and expansions becoming a reality when making decisions for your future. Orleans is guaranteed to be well served by the train upon completion of Stage 2 and that process is so far along and "locked in place" through commitments and contracts that I can't see that changing. Kanata and Barrhaven on the other hand may be delayed by a few years due to a combination of delays to Stage 2 West, delays due to the fallout from concerns raised by the inquiry report (plus possibly delays from lower post-pandemic ridership) and likely delays even once a contract is in place and work is under way (like we have seen with Stage 2 West and South). Access to rail transit was one of several factors that made me choose Orleans, and now more than ever I am happy I put the (near) sure thing of Stage 2 East over the possible when thinking about future station locations (e.g., I considered Stage 3 stations while looking at possible neighbourhoods in those other two suburbs outside the Greenbelt).

Ultimately we will have to wait and see, but what do the rest of you think? Will this report materially affect Stage 3 or will the unease subside by the time Stage 2 West is wrapping up given the delays in construction?

If the end result of this inquiry is stop building rail in this city, it will be a tragedy.

I look at this more hopefully, that we learn from this and the implementation of Phase 2 will be less problematic. If Phase 2 ends up more successful as result of the inquiry, then the future will be more positive.

Regarding Phase 3 itself, it is designed to knit the overall city together better. There is no hope of commuter rail as result of all the downtown rail lines being removed, so this is our next best opportunity. While downtown may change forever as a result of WFH, we should not make it impossible to truly make downtown Ottawa, the city's meeting place.

Also, if the end result of the inquiry has long-term negative consequences, the hope of better rail connections in more urban parts of Ottawa (which are going to be getting more urban) will be dashed.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Except they all drive to their nice underground (reserved?) parking spots.


Funny to see every political agenda come in. It's PPP or Made in Canada or ...

It reminds me of Brexit a little bit as it starts with O'Brien election and respecting the democratic will. Notice he himself now says ripping up the previous project was a mistake. I don't think voting for him was a mandate on LRT only and interpreting as such was the first principles mistake.

Yes, I noticed that as well. And his 20/20 view of the past is correct. His very first and deciding vote was to scrap the original plan. This was his inexperience in not understanding the full implications.

I know what most think here, but it was explained way back then, that the less ambitious original plan was going to teach us how to operate rail with less risk and we were choosing well known rolling stock. Traffic on the original route was better suited to LRT. Of course, re-imagining the original plan resulted in the mistake of transferring LRT technology to a completely different and more heavily used route. Our choice to get rid of as many buses as possible out of downtown all at once turned out to be very risky. The original thinking has been vindicated as our inexperience in building and operating rail has proven that a very ambitious Phase 1 rail plan was more than this city could manage properly.

I know that many are happy that the city leadership is now gone, but it is sad how this overly ambitious project ended up eating and spitting out our more experienced staff and politicians.

[Truenorth00]

Given the issues with a fully grade separated LRT, I don't know how anybody can say the old streetcar corridor plan was a good idea.

I voted for O'Brien. And it was because I wanted that plan canned. No regrets.

Also, anybody who says getting rid of buses through the core was a bad idea seems to forget the real capacity issues of the era. The city had already grown beyond BRT. Let it go already.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Given that city staff were a huge part of the fiasco, I don't see how running the project in house would have made a difference.

I wonder if transferring responsibility for transit projects to Metrolinx is the answer. The provincial bureaucracy seems to be the most competent of the three bureaucracies.

Metrolinx, represented by Infrastructure Ontario, is struggling with Eglinton just like Ottawa did. It's not a shock that the same three companies (plus Aecon) form the consortium building that line. Only the later projects that IO has put together like Finch and Hurontario have had a better track record, and Ottawa seems to have learned a bit with regard to Stage 2 east-west.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Given the issues with a fully grade separated LRT, I don't know how anybody can say the old streetcar corridor plan was a good idea.

I voted for O'Brien. And it was because I wanted that plan canned. No regrets.

Also, anybody who says getting rid of buses through the core was a bad idea seems to forget the real capacity issues of the era. The city had already grown beyond BRT. Let it go already.

Of course, you got an LRT station at your door. Meanwhile, we get a rail line that is closed almost as often as it is opened (and will be closed for a protracted time period at some point in the future again) and delivers infrequent, and inconvenient service that goes no where near downtown and does not provide reliable transfers with local buses.

I am happy we got the tunnel but you have never accepted the degree of loss that the 2006 cancellation gave south enders. But it is the gift that keeps on giving. We will soon see the biggest white elephant of all, the airport spur, which will have very limited usability and will be a operating cost anchor for the entire transit system. We will be operating trains with fewer passengers than my local neighbourhood bus route.

This is all part of the problem when there was too much political interference in the transit planning process, and in this case, naive political interference as Larry O'Brien now admits.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The previous project would have been an even bigger fiasco. Trying to run streetcars along with hundreds of busses an hour down downtown streets would have been a recipe for disaster. It was the same staff that implemented it, so it would have had the same problems as the Confederation Line. At least the Confederation Line will eventually work, the Barrhaven streetcar never would have worked.

It was a much less complicated project. Was using the Trams for their designed task. Sure capacity would have needed to expand but it also wasn't going to be the backbone of the whole transit system. We would have had an extensive surface system by now given the same funding and no tunnel. Certainly less efficient through the downtown core and longterm we would have needed a tunnel or other solution. Closing Wellington means we could have closed off a lot of the north south routes increasing capacity east west on the surface.

[rocketphish]

LRT inquiry commissioner still concerned about wheel and track problems
Report calls for permanent fix to wheel-rail misalignment, including ripping up tracks

Joanne Chianello · CBC
Posted: Dec 02, 2022 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: 9 hours ago

The misalignment of the train wheels to the Confederation Line track that likely caused the first of two derailments last year needs a long-term fix, even if it means ripping up the track, says the Ottawa LRT public inquiry report.

"It is a critical safety issue affecting the [LRT] system if left unaddressed," wrote commissioner Justice William Hourigan in his much-anticipated 664-page report on what went wrong with the Confederation Line.

He called wheel-rail interface — the area where the train wheel meets the top of the track — "the most significant area that must be improved."

A light rail train derailed at Tunney's Pasture in August 2021 after a wheel broke off the axle due to a bearing issue.

There were no passengers on the train — unlike the second derailment on the main line that happened the following month —and no injuries. The derailments were a key reason the province called the public inquiry a year ago.

But while we learned that the second derailment that September was due to human error, there is no "root cause" known for the first derailment, 16 months after the fact.

Still, the commission found that "evidence suggests that the August 2021 derailment was related to the ongoing issues with the wheel/rail interface," a known problem before the Confederation Line was launched.

In a preliminary report from last May, train-maker Alstom blamed the design of the track for causing excess stress to the train parts.

In particular, the sharp curves on the track in the eastern side of the system — which where laid too flat, the company testified during the inquiry public hearings — cause friction underneath the bearing of the axle, leading to premature failure.

It's a finding with which the designer and builder of the system disagrees. In fact, Rideau Transit Group (RTG) has hired the National Research Council to perform a root cause analysis. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada is also conducting its own investigation.

In his report, Hourigan noted the disagreement between the two groups, but found that all parties agree the train wheels and the rail are misaligned, which causes more wear and tear on train components.

The fact the wheel and rail didn't match up were known before the Confederation Line went into service, and the commissioner admonishes the parties for not fixing the problem earlier. 

"It appears that, given the rush to open the system, the parties did not take all the necessary steps to address the issue at that time," writes Hourigan.

"It is inexcusable that it took so long to marshal the necessary level of attention and response to this issue."

He said the commission has ongoing concerns about the wheel-rail issue and that "it is critical that the risk of future derailments be mitigated."

As a permanent solution, Hourigan recommends using a different type of wheel, replacing part or all of the track, improving the axle design or even "modifying the track alignment to address the issue of sharp curves."

In the meantime, the commission has recommended short-term measures that the city and Rideau Transit Maintenance are already implementing, including reduced train speeds on the curves, more frequent inspections and maintenance of the trains.

Even so, another axle bearing failed on a train in July. Alstom said the issue was similar to what led to the August 2021 derailment.

The commissioner promised answers on the question of why the Confederation Line went so wrong.

He found that both the city and RTG rushed the LRT into service before it was ready, consortium executives "inexplicably" lied about when the LRT would be finished, and that city leaders lied to council members about changes to the contract and final testing.

While the comprehensive report did deliver on many answers, it cannot definitively address the one thing many transit riders want to know most: When will the Confederation Line be fixed?

To be fair, the LRT is not broken. But the report shows there are still many ongoing problems. After all, one can hardly call a train that has to dramatically slow down when it goes around curves "fixed."

The report does offer some cause for optimism, though.

The reliability has improved.

The Confederation Line isn't experiencing the kinds of problems that plagued it in the early days — door and brake failures, switch and communications breakdowns — that brought the line to a halt.

Many glitches that should have been worked out during various phases of testing, which the commission found were shortened, were fixed while the public was using the system.

The commission found the Confederation Line "provided largely reliable service" between December 2021 and March 2022. Since then, according to the city, the LRT has had a 98-per-cent average reliability rate.

That means the system covered 98 per cent of its scheduled kilometres, except in spots such as the days after the May derecho and the July lightning strike.

The city also says it now has 16 double-car train sets available for service — one more than the contract calls for — although it only uses 13 at a time due to ridership levels. 

But while Hourigan found that the city and RTG have been working better together since the derailments, the commission is still concerned that "more needs to be done to ensure the continued safe operation of the system."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...rail-1.6671150

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Of course, you got an LRT station at your door.

I lived in New Edinburgh at the time. Nowhere close to the future LRT. Still thought it was a dumb idea. And was even more convinced after attending public consultations and talking to the city engineers who presented.

My first criteria was simple. Does this solve the capacity issues the engineers were saying Ottawa had? It didn't. That made my decision to oppose very easy. You can whine about the Southend getting the shaft all you want. But the ridership jamming up the downtown core with the bus conga line was not from the Southend. So why would I want to pay taxes to a plan that doesn't solve the biggest issue the city had at the time?

And I don't see how any of the current Confederation Line issues have anything to do with the old plan. Nor did the inquiry. But you keep grasping at straws.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I lived in New Edinburgh at the time. Nowhere close to the future LRT. Still thought it was a dumb idea. And was even more convinced after attending public consultations and talking to the city engineers who presented.

My first criteria was even simpler. Does this solve the capacity issues the engineers were saying Ottawa had? It didn't. That made my decision to oppose very easy. You can whine about the Southend getting the shaft all you want. But the ridership jamming up the downtown core with the bus conga line was not from the Southend. So why would I want to pay taxes to a plan that doesn't solve the biggest issue the city had at the time?

And I don't see how any of the current Confederation Line issues have anything to do with the old plan. Nor did the inquiry. But you keep grasping at straws.

I can maybe agree the original plan wasn't the best but it was what we could afford and cancelling it was an insane act of self harm. Even if we ripped up the downtown tracks (or sold them to STO) we would be better off.

I think where the old plan and our problems now are we stuck with LRT but expanded to fully grade separated and then didn't have the money for such an ambitious project so cut lots of corners. I know many here say we should have just spent more but even with what we have now given rise in interest rates we are in serious trouble barring a rescue from another level of government (granted post pandemic a few hundred million seems reasonable for a bailout now).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

It was a much less complicated project. Was using the Trams for their designed task. Sure capacity would have needed to expand but it also wasn't going to be the backbone of the whole transit system. We would have had an extensive surface system by now given the same funding and no tunnel. Certainly less efficient through the downtown core and longterm we would have needed a tunnel or other solution. Closing Wellington means we could have closed off a lot of the north south routes increasing capacity east west on the surface.

It wasn't using trams for their designated task (urban routes) it was using them for long distance commuting (where other cities would use commuter rail) with a 3 km urban section at the very end of the route. An extensive surface system would be useless without a tunnel, it would still take forever to get in an out of central Ottawa.

Surface trams are useful in the Southern US where they are basically novelty amusement rides, or when used on a relatively short urban route (as they are in Europe). They are not effective for long distance commuting.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I lived in New Edinburgh at the time. Nowhere close to the future LRT. Still thought it was a dumb idea. And was even more convinced after attending public consultations and talking to the city engineers who presented.

My first criteria was simple. Does this solve the capacity issues the engineers were saying Ottawa had? It didn't. That made my decision to oppose very easy. You can whine about the Southend getting the shaft all you want. But the ridership jamming up the downtown core with the bus conga line was not from the Southend. So why would I want to pay taxes to a plan that doesn't solve the biggest issue the city had at the time?

And I don't see how any of the current Confederation Line issues have anything to do with the old plan. Nor did the inquiry. But you keep grasping at straws.

The old plan was never designed to solve the downtown issue. It was designed to move Ottawa into LRT so we could learn how to operate a railway with a limited budget before embarking on a more ambitious project. It was also designed to provide a new test model for suburban development to make a step away from absolute car culture. We have given up on this latter point. Now, we expect people to drive to suburban stations because we will wait forever for a bus transfer.

What we ended up with in the south end is a pretty useless train unless you are going to Carleton or a few other places, which has 'temporary' stamped all over it, because it is not designed for the long-term.

I am not grasping at straws as every day passes and the Trillium Line is still not operating. What is it? More than 2 1/2 years? This is not the way to set up a transit system.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It wasn't using trams for their designated task (urban routes) it was using them for long distance commuting (where other cities would use commuter rail) with a 3 km urban section at the very end of the route. An extensive surface system would be useless without a tunnel, it would still take forever to get in an out of central Ottawa.

Surface trams are useful in the Southern US where they are basically novelty amusement rides, or when used on a relatively short urban route (as they are in Europe). They are not effective for long distance commuting.

You can't compare what many US cities are doing with trams. Those are indeed amusement rides as you suggest because they only circulate through very short distances. They don't really serve the city. In Europe, trams are very effective and they often run some distance. Commuter trains were never going to be an option in Ottawa as a result of the actions following the Greber Plan. Huge commuter trains on the Trillium Line are going to cause problems at Bayview Station, sooner or later, guaranteed.

There was no doubt, a tunnel was needed and it is now built, but the inquiry pointed out the lack of expertise and labour in the city as a contributing factor. The less ambitious old plan gave us an opportunity to gradually build up that expertise and labour pool.

And then we flushed close to $100M in penalty fees and design costs down the toilet.

[Stacmon]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If the end result of this inquiry is stop building rail in this city, it will be a tragedy.

I look at this more hopefully, that we learn from this and the implementation of Phase 2 will be less problematic. If Phase 2 ends up more successful as result of the inquiry, then the future will be more positive.

Regarding Phase 3 itself, it is designed to knit the overall city together better. There is no hope of commuter rail as result of all the downtown rail lines being removed, so this is our next best opportunity. While downtown may change forever as a result of WFH, we should not make it impossible to truly make downtown Ottawa, the city's meeting place.

Also, if the end result of the inquiry has long-term negative consequences, the hope of better rail connections in more urban parts of Ottawa (which are going to be getting more urban) will be dashed.

Like you, I hope the lessons learned make this a positive and valuable exercise, which is also far better than ignoring it or sweeping it under the rug in order to avoid losing transit dollars. I just hope certain politicians don't use it as a rationale for ignoring Ottawa's transit needs ("because the city is incompetent/untrustworthy when it comes to such projects"), or to delay Stage 3 to some uncertain time in the distant future.

I still remember when an opponent of the Confederation Line wrote an article stating that half a system (Stage 1) was worse than no system (pre-Confederation line), in effect arguing we needed to do Stage 2 because we already invested so heavily (this was before the line debuted I think but when we already had a clear sense of the plan for Stage 2). I wouldn't argue that Stage 3 is nearly as critical as Stage 2, but once we get to that stage, so many of the major parts of the city's "urban" area will be covered by the rail system and we could conceivably halt expansion without feeling like it is incomplete (setting aside the reasonable points of coverage of core areas and integration with Gatineau or course).

Like you, I see this as an alternative to a commuter rail dream that likely seems like an impossibility now and feel it will guide Ottawa's development for generations (drive further densification close to stations versus other areas in the core neighbourhoods and create transit oriented development and more density in suburban locations near Stations, like we are already seeing at places like Blair and Trim).

Fingers crossed...!

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You can't compare what many US cities are doing with trams. Those are indeed amusement rides as you suggest because they only circulate through very short distances. They don't really serve the city. In Europe, trams are very effective and they often run some distance. Commuter trains were never going to be an option in Ottawa as a result of the actions following the Greber Plan. Huge commuter trains on the Trillium Line are going to cause problems at Bayview Station, sooner or later, guaranteed.

There was no doubt, a tunnel was needed and it is now built, but the inquiry pointed out the lack of expertise and labour in the city as a contributing factor. The less ambitious old plan gave us an opportunity to gradually build up that expertise and labour pool.

And then we flushed close to $100M in penalty fees and design costs down the toilet.

European tram lines tend to be in the 5-10 km range. There are a few very long ones, but most serve some sort of a tourist purpose (like the coastal line in Belgium). The entire five-line tram network in Geneva is 36 km, for example, while the Barrhaven line was 31 km.

It was the same city staff (who we now know have serious competency issues) that negotiated and would have overseen the contract. Yeah it is a smaller amount, but do you think there would have been any appetite for future transit if that turned out to be a similar fiasco?

The penalties were unfortunate, but that was gross negligence by the previous city council to sign a contract without a cancellation clause knowing the issue was being decided by municipal election.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

European tram lines tend to be in the 5-10 km range. There are a few very long ones, but most serve some sort of a tourist purpose (like the coastal line in Belgium). The entire five-line tram network in Geneva is 36 km, for example, while the Barrhaven line was 31 km.

It was the same city staff (who we now know have serious competency issues) that negotiated and would have overseen the contract. Yeah it is a smaller amount, but do you think there would have been any appetite for future transit if that turned out to be a similar fiasco?

The penalties were unfortunate, but that was gross negligence by the previous city council to sign a contract without a cancellation clause knowing the issue was being decided by municipal election.

City Council had voted to sign the contract several months before the election, which was perfectly within their power. It was not supposed to be election issue (it was a settled matter), until John Baird meddled when he leaked a standard clause giving flexibility if grant money was delayed. This was really a grudge match between Conservative John Baird and Liberal Bob Chiarelli, which was dirty politics. Larry O'Brien then cast the deciding vote to cancel the already signed contract. The city solicitor told him the risks but O'Brien didn't believe that those risks were real. Ha!

When would there be a cancellation clause for a construction contract unless it outlined penalties? Otherwise the contract wouldn't be worth the paper that it is printed on. Why would any company sign a contract including a cancellation clause? As we saw, a substantial penalty was the outcome, which is exactly what I was expecting.

Now back to the topic of this thread. The inquiry demonstrated a repeated history of the city mishandling rail projects. We better hope for a better outcome with Phase 2. I can be hopeful but I am not counting on it.

[rocketphish]

'This is part of healing': Councillors reckon with LRT inquiry report, accountability and the path forward

Taylor Blewett, Ottawa Citizen
Dec 02, 2022 • 9 hours ago • 4 minute read

Ottawa has a new city council, but lessons, letdowns and some bad blood from the last term’s LRT saga have been carried forward into this one with the delivery of a 664-page public inquiry report.

It’s also an opportunity to move forward differently, current councillors say, and build a transit system that better serves residents.

“This is part of healing. As damning as the report was, we needed it to acknowledge what has happened to the people of Ottawa,” said River ward Coun. Riley Brockington. “Part of — and I’m not exaggerating — but living through trauma is you have to acknowledge and admit what has happened here.”

Brockington, a member of the previous council’s transit commission, said his desire for accountability extends to people whose conduct was criticized in the report — including city manager Steve Kanellakos, transit boss John Manconi and former mayor Jim Watson, who’ve all since departed city hall.

“You don’t get a free pass from me, and hopefully from council, if you’ve left the organization. You’ve seriously contributed to the scandal and all the ramifications that have happened. Council has to make a decision, at least I’m going to push for that, about how you can hold someone accountable who has already left the organization.”

But the stain of the LRT debacle isn’t just worn by those who’ve exited the doors of city hall, at least according to some.

“Where is Allan Hubley?” Brockington tweeted Thursday. He wants to see the current councillor and former transit commission chair comment on the report, which highlighted that Hubley had access to information about the LRT system, through a WhatsApp group with top bureaucrats and the mayor, that the commission said council ought to have had, but wasn’t given.

Capital ward Coun. Shawn Menard has gone further, arguing Thursday that Hubley should resign. The fourth-term councillor for Kanata South has not granted this newspaper’s requests for an interview or comment, stating that he wanted to fully read the report before doing so and could not say how long that would take.

Brockington also tweeted after the report’s release that he still has a council colleague “chewing (him) out” for supporting a public inquiry into the LRT (he declined to say who), and acknowledged Thursday that he thinks “there’s still hard feelings” over the file that so divided the last council.

“I won’t allow that to cloud my judgement. However, people have to be held accountable.”

Stittsville Coun. Glen Gower, one of those councillors who voted against a city-initiated judicial inquiry into the LRT system, said he had supported a probe into the system but had then wanted to see it done through the city’s auditor general for multiple reasons, from cost to expeditiousness.

“I don’t think any of us at any time did not support transparency or accountability or the need to look into the circumstances and figure out what went wrong and what could be done better.”

Gower said Thursday’s report left councillors to reckon with the “very serious” conclusion that the trust they have to have in city staff was broken on multiple occasions. Reflecting on the consequences of this, Gower said that if councillors had had a more complete picture of what happened during the system’s trial running, for instance, different decisions may have been made about its launch.

He believes the public should see a statement “and hopefully an apology” from both Kanellakos and former Mayor Jim Watson, whose conduct the commission also found had played a role in the problems with the system, while Gower, like other council colleagues interviewed, says he’s ready to get moving on the report’s recommendations.

Mayor Mark Sutcliffe has asked city staff to prepare a plan to do just that for “key recommendations,” and staff will be returning to committee and council with a response to the inquiry report. Already, though, some councillors have their own ideas about changes that ought to occur.

A review of council governance for the new term was tabled Wednesday and will be debated at council next week. Menard said he’ll be bringing forward an item that seeks to pull back to council some authority delegated to staff on the LRT file, “so we get more of this in the public light, it’s not just staff signing off on project agreement changes or changes to (testing), that needs to come back to council now for stage two.”

Rideau-Vanier Coun. Stéphanie Plante is also thinking about accountability but says she wants it to be “restorative” for transit users. Maybe this looks like free service for a period, or something else — she’s still mulling it over.

“But I think the best way to tell people that we’re very serious about what we have found out and what we know and the recommendations is that we just give the people who are reliant on public transit a way to use it that is restorative to them.”

The importance of communication between stakeholders — and what can happen when it breaks down — is one lesson that emerged from the inquiry report that Barrhaven East Coun. Wilson Lo says he’ll carry with him as council oversees the second phase of the LRT system.

When it comes to Ottawa residents, said Lo, whether good news or bad, “the public needs to know, no matter what.”

Brockington says he believes the report is ultimately going to yield significant improvements to how things are done at city hall, and that council as a whole is committed to seeing this through.

“I get the sense, just speaking with colleagues, that there is a very strong appetite to not just take the report seriously, but the very strong commitment — we owe it to the taxpayers of Ottawa, (OC Transpo) passengers … to implement the recommendations of this report and provide that much-needed stability, not just at city hall but with public transit.”

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...e-path-forward

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

LRT inquiry commissioner still concerned about wheel and track problems
Report calls for permanent fix to wheel-rail misalignment, including ripping up tracks

Joanne Chianello · CBC
Posted: Dec 02, 2022 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: 9 hours ago

The misalignment of the train wheels to the Confederation Line track that likely caused the first of two derailments last year needs a long-term fix, even if it means ripping up the track, says the Ottawa LRT public inquiry report.

"It is a critical safety issue affecting the [LRT] system if left unaddressed," wrote commissioner Justice William Hourigan in his much-anticipated 664-page report on what went wrong with the Confederation Line.

He called wheel-rail interface — the area where the train wheel meets the top of the track — "the most significant area that must be improved."

A light rail train derailed at Tunney's Pasture in August 2021 after a wheel broke off the axle due to a bearing issue.

There were no passengers on the train — unlike the second derailment on the main line that happened the following month —and no injuries. The derailments were a key reason the province called the public inquiry a year ago.

But while we learned that the second derailment that September was due to human error, there is no "root cause" known for the first derailment, 16 months after the fact.

Still, the commission found that "evidence suggests that the August 2021 derailment was related to the ongoing issues with the wheel/rail interface," a known problem before the Confederation Line was launched.

In a preliminary report from last May, train-maker Alstom blamed the design of the track for causing excess stress to the train parts.

In particular, the sharp curves on the track in the eastern side of the system — which where laid too flat, the company testified during the inquiry public hearings — cause friction underneath the bearing of the axle, leading to premature failure.

It's a finding with which the designer and builder of the system disagrees. In fact, Rideau Transit Group (RTG) has hired the National Research Council to perform a root cause analysis. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada is also conducting its own investigation.

In his report, Hourigan noted the disagreement between the two groups, but found that all parties agree the train wheels and the rail are misaligned, which causes more wear and tear on train components.

The fact the wheel and rail didn't match up were known before the Confederation Line went into service, and the commissioner admonishes the parties for not fixing the problem earlier. 

"It appears that, given the rush to open the system, the parties did not take all the necessary steps to address the issue at that time," writes Hourigan.

"It is inexcusable that it took so long to marshal the necessary level of attention and response to this issue."

He said the commission has ongoing concerns about the wheel-rail issue and that "it is critical that the risk of future derailments be mitigated."

As a permanent solution, Hourigan recommends using a different type of wheel, replacing part or all of the track, improving the axle design or even "modifying the track alignment to address the issue of sharp curves."

In the meantime, the commission has recommended short-term measures that the city and Rideau Transit Maintenance are already implementing, including reduced train speeds on the curves, more frequent inspections and maintenance of the trains.

Even so, another axle bearing failed on a train in July. Alstom said the issue was similar to what led to the August 2021 derailment.

The commissioner promised answers on the question of why the Confederation Line went so wrong.

He found that both the city and RTG rushed the LRT into service before it was ready, consortium executives "inexplicably" lied about when the LRT would be finished, and that city leaders lied to council members about changes to the contract and final testing.

While the comprehensive report did deliver on many answers, it cannot definitively address the one thing many transit riders want to know most: When will the Confederation Line be fixed?

To be fair, the LRT is not broken. But the report shows there are still many ongoing problems. After all, one can hardly call a train that has to dramatically slow down when it goes around curves "fixed."

The report does offer some cause for optimism, though.

The reliability has improved.

The Confederation Line isn't experiencing the kinds of problems that plagued it in the early days — door and brake failures, switch and communications breakdowns — that brought the line to a halt.

Many glitches that should have been worked out during various phases of testing, which the commission found were shortened, were fixed while the public was using the system.

The commission found the Confederation Line "provided largely reliable service" between December 2021 and March 2022. Since then, according to the city, the LRT has had a 98-per-cent average reliability rate.

That means the system covered 98 per cent of its scheduled kilometres, except in spots such as the days after the May derecho and the July lightning strike.

The city also says it now has 16 double-car train sets available for service — one more than the contract calls for — although it only uses 13 at a time due to ridership levels. 

But while Hourigan found that the city and RTG have been working better together since the derailments, the commission is still concerned that "more needs to be done to ensure the continued safe operation of the system."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...rail-1.6671150

Well, this is concerning if we end up having to re-lay track. Service interruptions?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I can maybe agree the original plan wasn't the best but it was what we could afford and cancelling it was an insane act of self harm. Even if we ripped up the downtown tracks (or sold them to STO) we would be better off.

Disagree. The old proposal was insanely expensive for the amount of relief it was actually providing, a result of not actually serving substantial demand. A real fear I had back then, was that they would build this useless tram and then label all rail useless when ridership didn't materialize on the trams to nowhere.

As for affordability of the current plan, we actually got it built. So I don't get why people think it's unaffordable. I think we should have made some better tradeoffs, trading a few stops for robustness. But otherwise, all things considered, this is still an accomplishment.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I think where the old plan and our problems now are we stuck with LRT but expanded to fully grade separated and then didn't have the money for such an ambitious project so cut lots of corners. I know many here say we should have just spent more but even with what we have now given rise in interest rates we are in serious trouble barring a rescue from another level of government (granted post pandemic a few hundred million seems reasonable for a bailout now).

Virtually the root of all the Confederation Line's problems are down to the insane insistence on running LRT at grade in the suburbs. That was a dumb idea to begin with. They were letting a future phase (20 yrs down the road) drive current project requirements. Then they removed that requirement and didn't actually change any other requirements.

I've said before, we could have had something like the REM. But again, things like climate controlled stations are deemed too extravagant for transit users here. Ultimately, part of the failure in Ottawa is the mindset that transit is not a service to be provided to the middle class to reduce auto usage. It's a service to be provided to public servants to avoid downtown parking costs. As such, it leads to lots of stupid value engineering decisions. Why did we want to run trams at grade in the suburbs? Because we wanted to give as many suburbanite public servants a one-seat ride as possible, just like their Express buses. Fixation on the current way of doing things led to these terrible decisions. Politics of the era made it worse.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

City Council had voted to sign the contract several months before the election, which was perfectly within their power. It was not supposed to be election issue (it was a settled matter), until John Baird meddled when he leaked a standard clause giving flexibility if grant money was delayed. This was really a grudge match between Conservative John Baird and Liberal Bob Chiarelli, which was dirty politics. Larry O'Brien then cast the deciding vote to cancel the already signed contract. The city solicitor told him the risks but O'Brien didn't believe that those risks were real. Ha!

When would there be a cancellation clause for a construction contract unless it outlined penalties? Otherwise the contract wouldn't be worth the paper that it is printed on. Why would any company sign a contract including a cancellation clause? As we saw, a substantial penalty was the outcome, which is exactly what I was expecting.

Now back to the topic of this thread. The inquiry demonstrated a repeated history of the city mishandling rail projects. We better hope for a better outcome with Phase 2. I can be hopeful but I am not counting on it.

As far as I know most construction contracts, or contracts of any kind for that matter have cancellation clauses, particularly in the public sector where governments change, etc. Run of the mill federal contracts usually have a 30 day no penalty cancellation.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

As far as I know most construction contracts, or contracts of any kind for that matter have cancellation clauses, particularly in the public sector where governments change, etc. Run of the mill federal contracts usually have a 30 day no penalty cancellation.

Even if that is the case, the election was beyond 30 days, let alone the decision to cancel the contract. City Council voted to sign the contract in early July 2006, the contract was signed by no later than August 2006, the election took place on November 13, 2006 and the city council vote to cancel the contract took place in December 2006. So, your 30 day no penalty cancellation clause would not apply anyways. Who knows if such a clause was included, but it doesn't matter.

We deserved the penalty, and we deserved the loss of all our design investment. We threw out most if not all of those plans. We also deserved the retribution from the provincial government by underfunding Phase 1 (the underfunding was matched by the feds) for unwisely cancelling a legal and democratically approved contract.

We lost close to $100M as a result of cancelling the contract as well as another $100M as result of Phase 1 underfunding, which was politically motivated.

This shows that Ottawa has a longstanding history of botching rail projects as the Public Inquiry clearly confirms relating to Phase 1. We also botched the Trillium Line upgrade in 2016. The city clearly did not have the expertise to approve and manage that upgrade either. The end result puts into question the value that we received from that upgrade.