Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Kitchissippi]

These councillors acting like shrieking banshees expose the fact that they really don't have any conviction on the decisions they made, nor the maturity to leave arguments behind once they are settled

[Richard Eade]

Given the City’s (OC Transpo’s) penchant for safety (think about the over-sized, black, curved, chain-link fences on the O-Train and Transitway overpasses), I expect that the subway stations will have a second set of gates/doors holding people back from the tunnel area unless a train is there. This is a concept I have heard Staff talk about. (This is kind of like an elevator having two doors, one on the car, and one to stop people from falling down the shaft when the car is not there.)

OK, if I go with the assumption of platform gates/doors, then parts of the 180m platforms can be safely not used. That is, a two-car train (60m) can arrive and only the platform gates/doors corresponding doors on the short train would open. The rest of the gates/doors would remain closed, preventing people from falling/jumping onto the tracks.

The problem with short trains is that they take up one of the ‘headway’ spaces. If there is 2-minute headway between trains, then it doesn’t matter if the trains are short or long. This leads to a short train every two minutes through the core, but it might not be the train that you are waiting for. For example, there might be a 4-car train arriving from Blair and continuing to Baseline, but if you are waiting to go south on the O-Train alignment, then you would skip the Blair-Baseline train and continue waiting. Consider the future, when we have trains going to Bayshore, Baseline, or South Keys to the west and Blair to the east. Potentially, a person could pass up two trains before his South Keys train came. This scenario also means that the frequency of trains at the extremities will be lower than through the core.

Now let’s make use of full automation, including coupling/decoupling: A 2-car train leaves Baseline as a similar 2-car train leaves Bayshore. The two couple at Lincoln Fields and get to Bayview at the same time the 2-car train arrives from South Keys. These two trains couple and go through the tunnel as a 6-car train. However the South Keys train (the last two cars of the 6-car train) only go as far as Hurdman and because of that, the platform is marked into two sections – HURDMAN for the last two cars, and BLAIR for the first four cars. At Hurdman, the last two cars are decoupled and the front four continue to Blair while the other two cars autonomously switch tracks and wait to become the head of the next train from Blair. Traveling west through the core, the platforms would be marked SOUTH KEYS, BAYSHORE, and BASELINE so people could get into the correct cars. At the appropriate stations, cars would be dropped, forming shorter trains for those lines. In this way, the headways at the ends of the lines would be the same as those through the core, and the trains at the distant stations would be shorter than the trains through the tunnel. Also, with 180m platforms downtown, having sections for each ‘sub-train’ would distribute the crowds.

Another benefit of such a setup is that the outer stations will always service shorted trains than the core trains. This means that those stations can be constructed with shorter, less expensive platforms.

If such an automated coupling/decoupling scheme is possible with automation, then I think it is a good point in favour of the extra money. What do you think?

[eemy]

Does a system exist which operates like that? I'm pretty certain that coupling/decoupling trains is generally a more time consuming process which isn't practical in the middle of a run, and also, such a scheme would greatly interfere with the flexibility of a system and make route and schedule changes costly and difficult to implement.

[Franky]

Richard Eade: I like the scheme you describe. Automation is a good idea - better frequencies are possible off-peak and less trains are required. Also, third rail power can be used instead of overhead wires. Problem is it is too expensive. Solution: smaller, nimbler, lighter cars that can be easily run through the existing transitway or elevated to maintain exclusive/segregated ROW.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

Does a system exist which operates like that? I'm pretty certain that coupling/decoupling trains is generally a more time consuming process which isn't practical in the middle of a run, and also, such a scheme would greatly interfere with the flexibility of a system and make route and schedule changes costly and difficult to implement.

A way to simplify routing is to have LED signs, not permanently marked stops. The signs will change long before the train gets there so people can organize.

Fully automatic couplings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Couplin...atic_couplings

Platform screen doors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_screen_doors

[Dado]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

So are they studying light metro or heavy rail... or both? Or are they saying that light metro is a type of heavy rail? I'm confused.

Here's my understanding:

Heavy rail metros are what we got when we put mainline rail equipment into tunnels beneath urban areas, like was done in London and Paris in the 19th century. Over time these evolved into the metros we have today. Makes sense, everyone?

Light rail evolved from streetcars and tram systems when we brought them out of mixed traffic and put them into their own private rights of way and gave them signalling systems and the rest, rather like regular railways. They were grade separated in some places but not in all. The vehicles themselves evolved from the basic uni-directional streetcars to bi-directional LRVs capable of being joined up to form longer trains.

In my mind then, a light metro is what we get when we take light rail equipment and put it into a fully grade-separated environment (like the Transitway, were it "complete"). Now where things get complicated is the very fact of putting it into a fully grade-separated environment opens up possibilities of automation, longer trains, high-floor vehicles, etc. By the time we've done all that, there may not be much left to distinguish it from heavy rail metros - maybe just better tolerance of shorter radii and steeper grades, and possibly lighter weight vehicles.

Reminds me of the media calling the NS line a commuter rail line, an LRT and a streetcar.

Not really helped by the fact that for part of it it was a commuter line (across the empty lands of the Greenbelt and basically all the way up to Confederation), partly an LRT (through the new subdivisions) and partly a streetcar (downtown, in short trains in mixed traffic with cars and buses with no signal priority) all at once.

[acottawa]

Seems to me one of the problems this city keeps having is that city bureaucrats don't seriously consider options before presenting plans to council, meaning they don't have good answers when people start asking questions and can't say "we considered that and ruled it out because..." so the proponents of these projects are always competing with every idea anyone wants to throw out. This was one of the reasons for the failure of the Barrhaven Streetcar and the lack of proper consideration of options/alternaties may well kill the current Lansdowne proposal. In this case it would appear the city is doing the right thing by considering a number of technologies.

[Deez]

Some insights into the latest fracas (which you'll have to take my word for):

- The push for grade separation (as opposed to "heavy rail"...which is essentially meaningless) came from the highest levels of OC Transpo. Operating trains in a non-grade separated environment at the frequencies that were forecast was never a good idea, and making the EW line a mode that could be automated over its full length just makes sense from the perspective of the operator.

- There is a good chance that the extension of the EW line to Baseline could run along Carling.................

- The NS line will remain LRT/non grade separated and there would therefore be a transfer at Bayview. If/when we ever get a regional transportation planning authority or if Gatineau comes to it senses, this line will extend north across the river to the old City of Gatineau. Rapibus sucks.

[Kitchissippi]

The points you mention seem to somehow contradict each other...
- grade separation/light metro and Carling the route seems incompatible unless there is an expensive cut-and-cover through most of it
- if the Carling route is chosen, wouldn't the EW route use the Bayview to Carling ROW? If the O-Train were to remain LRT, wouldn't the transfer then happen at Carling?

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

- grade separation/light metro and Carling the route seems incompatible unless there is an expensive cut-and-cover through most of it
?

Could be elevated as well.

[Kitchissippi]

Can't imagine it going elevated as it manages the Carling/Queensway interchange. It would have to be super high! At any rate, going elevated on that route would cost way more than a >3 km cut and cover tunnel under Byron/Richmond.

[lrt's friend]

The NS line will remain LRT/non grade separated and there would therefore be a transfer at Bayview.

So, we are proposing to replace direct to downtown bus service by a double transfer system for the south end. That just sounds wonderful. Why would most south end residents use this kind of setup? Most would take a bus to Hurdman so there is only one transfer. This is a really stupid idea. Of course, returning to surface rail downtown for the North-South route (and a tunnel for the east-west route) is politically unsellable.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Deez

- The NS line will remain LRT/non grade separated and there would therefore be a transfer at Bayview. If/when we ever get a regional transportation planning authority or if Gatineau comes to it senses, this line will extend north across the river to the old City of Gatineau. Rapibus sucks.

Well, you've got at least one (darkhorse) candidate in the Gatineau mayoral race on your side: http://www.rogerfleury.com/index.htm

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Can't imagine it going elevated as it manages the Carling/Queensway interchange. It would have to be super high! At any rate, going elevated on that route would cost way more than a >3 km cut and cover tunnel under Byron/Richmond.

Even with a crazy fly over, going up is almost always less expensive than going down.

[waterloowarrior]

If NS LRT isn't going to go downtown or through Barrhaven, why not just double track and extend the line (and build the necessary structures), and continue to use DMUs or electrify and use regular EMUs? Wouldn't that be faster than LRT/trams, or would it be too expensive/over capacity/not able to reach the same frequencies?

[Franky]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

So, we are proposing to replace direct to downtown bus service by a double transfer system for the south end. That just sounds wonderful. Why would most south end residents use this kind of setup? Most would take a bus to Hurdman so there is only one transfer. This is a really stupid idea. Of course, returning to surface rail downtown for the North-South route (and a tunnel for the east-west route) is politically unsellable.

The south-east transitway could be converted to rail leaving an a.m. peak of 500/hour using the NS LRT. ALRT could be used to greenboro without as much need for tunnelling or elevating.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Deez

Some insights into the latest fracas (which you'll have to take my word for):

- The push for grade separation (as opposed to "heavy rail"...which is essentially meaningless) came from the highest levels of OC Transpo. Operating trains in a non-grade separated environment at the frequencies that were forecast was never a good idea, and making the EW line a mode that could be automated over its full length just makes sense from the perspective of the operator.

Send them to Calgary. Keep sending them there until they get this grade-separation fetish out of their systems. If that means buying them a place to live, an annual pass and meals for an entire year it'll still be money well spent. They can spend their entire days hanging around on 7th Avenue at 3rd E and and at 9th W with their eyelids held forcibly open for all I care - whatever it takes. Calgary carries more people than we do. Calgary can still expand their system to carry more people still. Calgary will be carrying more people in the future than we will (higher population growth and lower citywide ridership give them more room for gains than us). Calgary's planners have figured they can manage 36 trains per hour (100 s headways) downtown, when the most we'll need is 25 trains per hour in 2031 (assuming Emme2's modelling is worth what we pay for it, anyway). Calgary doesn't use full grade-separation. Calgary has multiple lines converging on the downtown without grade-separation of the crossings, something we don't even have to worry about. And that's downtown, whereas we're talking about grade separation or not elsewhere. In short, we're not at the point where we need grade separation downtown, let alone needing it everywhere else.

For instance, are they going to want to grade-separate the crossing at Iris? At what cost - they've already diverted Pinecrest Creek once and put it into several culvert/sewer sections; are they going to tunnel under it now all the way from Queensway Station? How many kilometres of track are we going to give up to do that? It's the grade-separation fetish that is giving us a $200M hole in the ground at Baseline. That's several kilometres of foregone converted transitway (say, to Bayshore). Foregone trackage is foregone operational savings. It's like there are no economists around to keep this lot in check. Every grade separation = less total trackage. That's the reality of opportunity cost; it's inescapable. This is becoming increasingly a rail-containment plan, not a rail expansion plan.

As for automation, I suppose that makes sense if you've got as rotten labour relations as OC Transpo does.

- There is a good chance that the extension of the EW line to Baseline could run along Carling.................

Weren't they dooming and glooming that one not too long ago? Of course that means they can keep buses running in the West Transitway trench, which means that the NCC won't be rid of the buses (suckers!), and it means that OC Transpo can keep running express buses all the way from Kanata, made all the easier by the construction of the final legs of the West Transitway. Once they get downtown, they can keep going on Albert and Slater (now clear of those pesky 90-series buses that actually carry the bulk of the passengers) and out down the Central Transitway (since the tunnel goes below) and then across either the existing or the new "interim" bridge before landing at Hurdman, where they can head off down the SE Transitway or that bizarre Hospital Link busway that won't go to the hospitals. Yes, I do imagine that Carling has a decent chance after all.

Let's just get out that blank cheque for the funds that are going to be required on this one if it's fully grade-separated. While they're at it perhaps they should take the route down under Bronson to Carling.

- The NS line will remain LRT/non grade separated and there would therefore be a transfer at Bayview. If/when we ever get a regional transportation planning authority or if Gatineau comes to it senses, this line will extend north across the river to the old City of Gatineau. Rapibus sucks.

I wonder who wrote the report on Rapibus? I sure hope they didn't help write the new TMP.

Wasn't maintaining transfers at Bayview thoroughly disparaged by the City of Ottawa several times over the past few years? It seems really pointless to convert that when it won't even go downtown, especially if it's not going to go to Hull/Gatineau either. And I echo Kitchissippi's question - won't Carling be the main transfer point? Are we to have a 3 or 4-track cutting from Carling to Somerset (since we can't have our metro track sharing with anything else)? That's all the more reason to tunnel under Bronson.

[Franky]

surface rail makes more sense, but if you build a tunnel (and the current council decided they want a tunnel), automated vehicles make sense - shorter trains, shorter platform, less vehicles, no overhead wires.

[RTWAP]

Trying to figure out which technology to use, and all the other choices that need to be made, seems kind of like trying to find the end of a ball of yarn. We keep picking at it and picking at it, but we're just tying ourselves up in knots.

Maybe the right approach is just to first decide what route WILL be taken. Not which one we want. The difference between Ottawa and a city like Calgary is that we do not have control over our own roads. We can't weight the choices and make a decision. All we can do is weight the choices and as permission, in answer to which we get vague proclamations of willingness to help, but within undefined limitations.

So question #1 should be, can the Parkway be used for rail? I suspect the answer is no.

Next question, is there an acceptable alternate route that allows us to use all or part of the western transitway trench for rail? Options would seem to be Byron and (somewhat of a stretch) Carling. I suspect that Byron would face tremendous opposition. I also suspect that many people know that but figure if we build to Tunney's then there won't be any choice, the rest of the city will force it through if the NCC "gives us no other choice". While Byron would probably be about the best bet for a fully traffic-separated route, it also doesn't do much for ridership. It's bounded by relatively low density neighbourhoods with little opportunity for infill.

What about Carling then? It would be hard to get to Carling from the western end of the trench without tunneling. Just looking at the overhead view, it might be possible to do a cut and cover by departing the trench southbound at Island Park, heading along Patricia, through a handful of houses and parking lots and then across Hampton Park before turning West to meet up with Carling just west of the Carling-417 intersections.

Carling has higher densities than Byron ever would, and passes some significant retail and more than a few high-rises. And there are probably more large lots suitable for redevelopment and intensification.

If Carling is the chosen route then what does that mean for the technology choice? It probably means that the city shouldn't go with a technology based on 100% grade separation. There are too many roads crossing Carling. But a combination of a few snipped cross-streets, a few automated signalized intersections (with barriers, etc.) and a few elevated train sections (e.g. at Broadview-Maitland where a steep hill is nearby anyway), and a few cut and cover sections might be workable.

If the Carling route is chosen, and a portion of the western trench remains bus-only then that raises the question of exactly how much to orphan from future rail use. I can see an argument for train service to Tunney's Pasture, but you could also argue that the whole thing should be orphaned and trains should turn south at Bayview. This would allow the line to service both hospitals on Carling, and the cluster of government and commercial office buildings around Rochester and Booth.

Personally, I like the idea of running a branch line or perhaps a tramway east from Hampton Park-Westgate that reaches to the edge of the Glebe, or even down Bronson. Maybe even plan for that tramway to extend south along Merivale to cover the commercial corridor there.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by RTWAP

So question #1 should be, can the Parkway be used for rail? I suspect the answer is no.

The answer might also be a limited yes. The NCC might be persuaded to allow the old CPR RoW from the end of the trench at Dominion to Cleary to be used, and nothing more until Lincoln Fields. This stretch would be dead straight and some decent speeds could be attained along it. But west of there I cannot see them allowing it nor would it be especially desirable anyway due to the curves and the lack of walk-on ridership or even bus feeder opportunities.

Next question, is there an acceptable alternate route that allows us to use all or part of the western transitway trench for rail? Options would seem to be Byron and (somewhat of a stretch) Carling. I suspect that Byron would face tremendous opposition. I also suspect that many people know that but figure if we build to Tunney's then there won't be any choice, the rest of the city will force it through if the NCC "gives us no other choice". While Byron would probably be about the best bet for a fully traffic-separated route, it also doesn't do much for ridership. It's bounded by relatively low density neighbourhoods with little opportunity for infill.

That's not quite the case. On the south side from Westboro to Cleary I'd generally agree, but not on the north of Richmond Road. From Westminster west to Cleary, there are townhouse condominiums and a short condominium near Cleary itself. At Cleary, the Continental condominium tower is being built and there is the Lord Richmond apartment tower a little further west. Just north of the Continental is a manor residence as well as a daycare to its west. The rest of the properties on the north side of Richmond between Cleary and Woodroffe are low-rise commercial and there would be plenty of intensification opportunities here, though the strip mall at Woodroffe has been renovated recently so it won't likely be going anywhere.

See the Google Street View (I'm loving this thing already!), Richmond and Cleary:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en...12,234.19,,0,7

Also, south of Byron from Redwood/Cleary all the way to Woodroffe is a combination of low-rise apartment blocks, churches and a school. The YM/WCA on Lockhart is also within walking distance, as are a number of apartment blocks north of Carlingwood Mall. A station between Cleary and Woodroffe would have a lot of walk-on ridership and there's enough underused land on the north side of Richmond for some intensification to occur.

West of Woodroffe on the north side of Richmond there is also a good number of apartment blocks (including a new proposed one right on the northwest corner), underused commercial land (including car dealerships), an office block or two, a nursing home and a rehab centre/residence. South of Byron it's mainly low-density residential but it's an older area and I would think that infill/densification could start occurring here too.

Another station along here, around about New Orchard:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en...12,220.04,,0,5


If you ask me, this is getting pretty damn close to ideal:

• A readily-available and fairly direct corridor with a minimum of subsurface obstructions requiring relocation
• Minimal requirement to acquire additional property (unlike Carling where shaving a metre or so off each side is probably required - think lots of negotiations)
• Decent residential density
• All-day trip generators (including possibility of shuttle buses to Carlingwood)
• A good quantity of underused commercial land ripe for redevelopment

I'd put in an underpass at Woodroffe to minimize the potential for problems at that intersection and possibly under Richmond to get from the north to the south side of Richmond but otherwise it can go at grade.