Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Aylmer]

That is true. Surface LRT could take current demand, but we might pull a Calgary and end up starting to build one in 30 years.

[lrt's friend]

Here is Clive Doucet in a radio interview on transit and largely consistent with my point of view, that LRT should complement and not replace the Transitways.

http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/Ae.Go...l.10.09.07.mp3

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

That is true. Surface LRT could take current demand, but we might pull a Calgary and end up starting to build one in 30 years.

No it could not. The transitway in the core reaches pretty close to 10,000 ppdph, which is the upper limit for surface running in an exclusive corridor. Unless you are going to put it on a street with no cars, it isn't going to work even on the first day.

While the tunnel is overbuilt, surface running for the main transitway route would be a rather awful idea.

[Aylmer]

I was assuming that they would be making a transit corridor, or at least ROW lanes.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Franky

The way I see it, if you spend the money on a tunnel, you want to use an automated, grade separated technology. ALRT is too expensive to grade separate all the way to Orleans and Kanata. So, buses (or urbanaut) with a tunnel. Otherwise, running LRT at grade takes advantage of running trains with at-grade crossings and saves the expense of a tunnel until really necessary. Plus, LRT in 4 years instead of 20+ years into the future.

I don't know why Laurier was specified, maybe to keep popular express buses and to handle Gatineau volume? It seems like more of a detail compared to the "no tunnel" stance.


No delay between lightning and thunder - doesn't get much closer.

The current proposed plan IS automated LRT. Even at the beginning, I had told there is no way the project can achieve the planned ridership without being automated. What the project is not, is using light metro, which would have larger trains and shorter stations.

With the planned system, a driver wouldn't be needed from Blair to Tunney's.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

The current proposed plan IS automated LRT. Even at the beginning, I had told there is no way the project can achieve the planned ridership without being automated. What the project is not, is using light metro, which would have larger trains and shorter stations.

With the planned system, a driver wouldn't be needed from Blair to Tunney's.

The trains will be automated for the the downtown section only which means that drivers are needed because of the outlying area which would not be grade-separated. It is very expensive to grade-separate a rail line which is REQUIRED for automation. The current plan adds the expense of an automated train system without the benefit of not needing drivers! This on top of the expense of a tunnel. The current LRT plan is a boondoggle.

Surface LRT (without automation) at least takes advantage of having drivers and maximizes the LRT advantage over buses which is the ability to move a large number of people in a single train, minimizing the number of crossings needed at a particular level crossing point.

BRT (preferably electric along the transitway) would have the advantage of direct to city centre travel eliminating a transfer. Grade separating is cheaper because busways can be designed with tighter curves and steeper grades than is commonly done with LRT.

Urbanaut would be inexpensive to grade separate because it is light weight and the guideways are designed to be cheaply elevated. It costs about the same to build elevated urbanaut guideways as it does to lay LRT tracks. A cheaper (perhaps even cheaper with stacked guideways) cut and cover tunnel would be needed in the city core. This would provide electric, automated service at a lower capital and operating cost.

Surprisingly, the Paris metro closes at 1 pm. You would think in a tourist heavy city of 10 million(?) it would run all night. They use buses for the rest of the night. Perhaps a BRT + LRT for "overflow" peak time service makes the most sense for an old-style transit solution.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Franky

The trains will be automated for the the downtown section only which means that drivers are needed because of the outlying area which would not be grade-separated. It is very expensive to grade-separate a rail line which is REQUIRED for automation. The current plan adds the expense of an automated train system without the benefit of not needing drivers! This on top of the expense of a tunnel. The current LRT plan is a boondoggle.

Surface LRT (without automation) at least takes advantage of having drivers and maximizes the LRT advantage over buses which is the ability to move a large number of people in a single train, minimizing the number of crossings needed at a particular level crossing point.

BRT (preferably electric along the transitway) would have the advantage of direct to city centre travel eliminating a transfer. Grade separating is cheaper because busways can be designed with tighter curves and steeper grades than is commonly done with LRT.

Urbanaut would be inexpensive to grade separate because it is light weight and the guideways are designed to be cheaply elevated. It costs about the same to build elevated urbanaut guideways as it does to lay LRT tracks. A cheaper (perhaps even cheaper with stacked guideways) cut and cover tunnel would be needed in the city core. This would provide electric, automated service at a lower capital and operating cost.

Surprisingly, the Paris metro closes at 1 pm. You would think in a tourist heavy city of 10 million(?) it would run all night. They use buses for the rest of the night. Perhaps a BRT + LRT for "overflow" peak time service makes the most sense for an old-style transit solution.

As for needing drivers. There is nothing preventing the mainline section to forego drivers. A driver can start his run when the train arrives at Blair to go to Orléans. You assume that a driver is needed for the entire ride, but I haven't read such statement. This is an assumption on your part.

What you can complain, is the rest of the system would be easily be grade separated, but it's where it's cheapened out. I agree that it would probably have been cheaper to have 120m station instead of 180m, with Light Metro instead of a special version of LRT.

Ottawa will be the only city in the world with such long LRT trains, and with automated-classic LRT.


The Paris Metro is closed at night for reparations, much like every other city in the world. New York can have it subway opened all night long because of extra track sets. The Paris Line 1 is currently being updated to a fully automatic rubber-tyred metro, with some trains that are manually driven, some not.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

As for needing drivers. There is nothing preventing the mainline section to forego drivers. A driver can start his run when the train arrives at Blair to go to Orléans. You assume that a driver is needed for the entire ride, but I haven't read such statement. This is an assumption on your part.

True, but is this just a theoretical like the 6% grade ability of LRT which ends up being designed with a less than 3% grade? Will OC-Transpo play ball?

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

What you can complain, is the rest of the system would be easily be grade separated, but it's where it's cheapened out. I agree that it would probably have been cheaper to have 120m station instead of 180m, with Light Metro instead of a special version of LRT.

Also a good point.

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Ottawa will be the only city in the world with such long LRT trains, and with automated-classic LRT.


The Paris Metro is closed at night for reparations, much like every other city in the world. New York can have it subway opened all night long because of extra track sets. The Paris Line 1 is currently being updated to a fully automatic rubber-tyred metro, with some trains that are manually driven, some not.

Acceleration on rubber tyred metro is amazing - knocked me off my feet (undesirable I know, but illustrates traction available which means steeper grades would be possible reducing the depth of our tunnel stations). Many of the metro trains in Europe are LOUD, but the rubber tyred ones are smooth and quiet.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Franky

Acceleration on rubber tyred metro is amazing - knocked me off my feet (undesirable I know, but illustrates traction available which means steeper grades would be possible reducing the depth of our tunnel stations). Many of the metro trains in Europe are LOUD, but the rubber tyred ones are smooth and quiet.

This is the reason why Montréal was built with rubber tires, because of the steep slopes and tight curves.

The RER trains though are extremely quiet, I was surprised. But then again, the tracks are mostly straight and flat.

[blackjagger]

I still fail to see the logic of not going with the light metro or ALRT technology. We seem to be planning for the extension out to the suburbs which are not even on the books for 20 years, instead of ensuring that the efficiency, both in cost and performance of the core of our system for the next 50 years.

If the cost for grade separation is so high outside of the green belt (which I can't truly believe as Barrhaven will have almost a completely grade separated ROW expect for 3 crossings) and the benefit of automation is not there then another cheaper technology, ie LRT, could be employed with a transfer to the Main Urban system.


Cheers,
Josh

[Franky]

Originally Posted by blackjagger

I still fail to see the logic of not going with the light metro or ALRT technology. We seem to be planning for the extension out to the suburbs which are not even on the books for 20 years, instead of ensuring that the efficiency, both in cost and performance of the core of our system for the next 50 years.

If the cost for grade separation is so high outside of the green belt (which I can't truly believe as Barrhaven will have almost a completely grade separated ROW expect for 3 crossings) and the benefit of automation is not there then another cheaper technology, ie LRT, could be employed with a transfer to the Main Urban system.


Cheers,
Josh

Light metro isn't cost effective for the volumes expected. That is one of the reasons I suggested Urbanaut (automated, light weight, relatively inexpensive).

Adding a transfer may be OK if you're thinking about providing the cheapest transit system for those who can't use other modes of travel. If you want a transit most would use, direct origin to destination is it (car drivers, taxi riders and cyclists enjoy this advantage). If a transit system could deliver this (even at a premium) more people would use it. Instead we get more roads, more cars with all the associated problems these entail in a city. BRT reduces transfers (to the core of the city), LRT adds transfers, PRT reduces transfers (to anywhere guideways go).

[eternallyme]

Speaking of the big storms, how would the tunnel be affected by flash flooding, considering there were a few close calls in the summer (just outside Ottawa on August 15 there was a downpour with nearly a foot of rain)? Would it shut down operations?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Speaking of the big storms, how would the tunnel be affected by flash flooding, considering there were a few close calls in the summer (just outside Ottawa on August 15 there was a downpour with nearly a foot of rain)? Would it shut down operations?

This is not a diss but I suppose Ottawa will not be the first city to deal with the issue of heavy rain. Plenty of cities in monsoon regions have metros, don't they?

[AuxTown]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Speaking of the big storms, how would the tunnel be affected by flash flooding, considering there were a few close calls in the summer (just outside Ottawa on August 15 there was a downpour with nearly a foot of rain)? Would it shut down operations?

Flooding from heavy rain storms is not a huge issue in Ottawa, especially in the central areas. Ottawa sits mainly on bedrock which is filled with cracks, allowing the water to seep into the ground. Other cities that sit on clay (like Regina where I'm originally from) do not drain and the water just pools on the surface. This would result in some serious drainage issues for a tunnel multiple storeys under the ground. Nonetheless, as mentioned previous, I'm sure there are ways to ensure tunnels and stairways don't fill with water because there are cities in Asia that get horrendous rain storms and also operate subways.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey

Flooding from heavy rain storms is not a huge issue in Ottawa, especially in the central areas. Ottawa sits mainly on bedrock which is filled with cracks, allowing the water to seep into the ground. Other cities that sit on clay (like Regina where I'm originally from) do not drain and the water just pools on the surface. This would result in some serious drainage issues for a tunnel multiple storeys under the ground. Nonetheless, as mentioned previous, I'm sure there are ways to ensure tunnels and stairways don't fill with water because there are cities in Asia that get horrendous rain storms and also operate subways.

The Montréal Metro would be flooded in two days if there's a major electricity failure. There's more water being pumped in a year than the volume of the Stade Olympique. There's 2 100 000 000 litres of water being pumped annually.

One station, Frontenac, was constructed in an underwater river. You can actually hear the water flow in the station.

For the flash flooding, it happened once this year. The Orange line was closed because of water accumulation. In that case, the elecricity is automatically cut-off for the rails and you have to wait until the water level goes down.

[Dado]

Of all the possible problems with tunnels and with DOTT in particular, I wouldn't have thought that drainage would be one of them. After all, it can't be so deep as to be below the level in the Ottawa River, right? We should just be able to build a pipe and drain it out the side of the cliff (rhetorically speaking, of course).

Well... my initial assumption was wrong.

The elevation of the Ottawa River at Hull is about 41 m (Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board Water Levels). The elevation of the tunnel bottoms out at 30 m around Metcalfe St. And the elevation of the land at that point? 74 m.

So we're going to need pumps to pump water up as much as 15 m (in the spring when water levels are higher).

Another epic win for the "let's just ignore the street grid, go cross-country and go below anything that might conceivably be in the way" philosophy that has guided our tunnel planning.

Surely to goodness we can build a tunnel that stays above the Ottawa River.

[waterloowarrior]

http://www.ottawalightrail.ca/media/...ix%20F_1MB.pdf

3.2 Tunnel Drainage
Portals

The West and East Tunnel Portals are located below grade, as
they provide access and egress to the proposed tunnel by the
LRT vehicles. Thus existing grades will be substantially
increased in the vicinity of the portals. The general concept is
that the LRT corridor will transition from a ballasted track to a
concrete slab surface at the top of slope descending to each
portal. There are significant lengths of transit corridor that will
drain towards each portal. The drainage approaching the
portals must be managed appropriately to maintain the required
level of service and avoid negative impacts on transit operations.

A pumping station will be required at each portal to intercept
and pump drainage from the slope leading to the portal.[Note 2] The
pump station capacity is based on a 25 year storm. Excess flow
from very large storms will be routed through the tunnel in
drainage channels to the tunnel low point to be located at the
Downtown East transit station.

Tunnel

The International Tunneling Association (ITA)[Note 3] recommends a
maximum infiltration allowance of 0.082 L/m2/day (0.002
gal/ft2/day). For planning purposes, a design infiltration rate of
0.15 L/m2/day was selected. Based on a rough estimate for the
total tunnel surface area (two tunnels and four stations) of
165,000 m2, the design infiltration rate would be less than 1 L/s
for the entire tunnel.

Key parameter estimates associated with the conceptual
drainage plan for the tunnel are summarized in Table 1. The
total dynamic head (TDH) given in Table 1 is based on the
assumption that a suitable outlet sewer is available (or will be
provided) a horizontal distance of 20 m from the station for the
West Portal and Tunnel Low Point stations. Due to a number
of constraints related to flooding issues in adjacent drainage
systems (Sandy Hill), topographic constraints, and nearby
contaminated soil conditions, this is unlikely to be the case for
the East Portal. For the East Portal, a 800m forcemain is
estimated to be required to a new gravity outlet sewer east of
Lees/Chapel.


Note 2: There may be an opportunity to provide a gravity outlet for the West Portal, requiring the construction of a very deep sewer discharging to the Tailrace. This option should be given further consideration at the preliminary design stage.

Note 3: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/tunne...i09010/01a.cfm

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Dado

Surely to goodness we can build a tunnel that stays above the Ottawa River.

Well it was to add 1000 potential users. Who cares if it costs 0.2G$ more for these users no?


For water in the tunnel, it all depends on the type of rock. The Yellow line in Montréal goes under the Saint-Lawrence, but they never had any issue with water infiltrations.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Well it was to add 1000 potential users. Who cares if it costs 0.2G$ more for these users no?

$200 million is what a new stadium costs and it's $200,000 per potential user.

[DubberDom]

For immediate release:

Wednesday, September 8, 2010



Getting Light Rail to Orléans


Another step forward was taken today in the fight to get light rail to Orléans.

Cumberland ward Councillor Rob Jellett was successful in getting Council today to approve a motion that would see staff investigate the opportunities to put rail on the new Cumberland Transitway instead of buses.

The motion seconded by Innes Ward Councillor Bloess and supported by Orléans Ward Councillor Monette would see light rail extended from the Blair Road station to Trim Road if the business case shows the investment in LRT would be more beneficial than using buses.

This says Jellett "would allow Orléans / Cumberland residents to hop on the train right in their neighbourhoods and not get off until they got to work in the downtown area."

"The Cumberland Transitway which is expected to cost $340 million has been designed to accommodate light rail," says Jellett, "and if we can put rail on it right from the beginning we have better served the residents of Orléans''.

Innes Ward Councillor Rainer Bloess says "We are ensuring that that we can take advantage of any opportunity to bring light rail further east at the earliest moment"

Orléans Ward Councillor Bob Monette agrees, saying he was pleased the motion was passed as this gives another option to expedite light rail to Orléans, the community with the highest ridership in Ottawa.