Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

I think people are over complicating this. Calgary doesn't use those ultra long lengths for rails - it would make maintenance a nightmare. Just because the O-train was relaided with cwr doesn't mean it is even close to the optimal solution for the LRT network,

Calgary uses cwr as well. Granted, they're not delivered in quarter mile lengths, but once the rails are welded together it doesn't matter what lengths they had previously been for maintenance purposes because the rails are now continuous. Besides, welded rails are easier to maintain anyway since they don't chip out and dent at the joints.

Here's one of srperry's shots of the NW line extension in 2008 showing the welded rail as it is being brought onto the ties.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/lrtinca...7619711497372/

[MalcolmTucker]

yeah - you don't need a heavy rail delivery point is all I was trying to get at - logistics aren't something for armchair generals. You don't need the crazy TGV rails. As you can see, the rails are much more reasonable before being welded together.

[DarkArconio]

Originally Posted by agl

Anybody know what parcels of federally-owned land are required for the LRT route?

Probably at Tunney's, parts of lebreton flats, the hurdman landfill. The latter two are part of NCC future redevelopment plans, and I'm pretty sure they own both. Likely land next to the canal for the uOttawa station is parks canada or similar.

[kevinbottawa]

Originally Posted by Cre47

Mark Talor (well like most of the Ward 7 candidates) is against LRT on the Ottawa River Parkwa.

Isn't electric LRT better for the environment than the cars that are already on the parkway? More people may decide to leave their cars at home or park at a station and take the LRT into downtown.

[kevinbottawa]

Originally Posted by agl

Anybody know what parcels of federally-owned land are required for the LRT route?

Maybe the Government Conference Centre, aka Union Station.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

yeah - you don't need a heavy rail delivery point is all I was trying to get at - logistics aren't something for armchair generals. You don't need the crazy TGV rails. As you can see, the rails are much more reasonable before being welded together.

We're going in circles.

Sure - you don't *need* a heavy rail delivery point. And where you don't have ready access to one, you have no choice but to do without. Rails have to be delivered in relatively short lengths by truck, unloaded individually and labour-intensively welded onsite rather than in the steel mill. The ties have to be delivered in small loads. You can't bring in a tracklaying machine so the ties have to be set down and placed with other equipment. Ballast has to be trucked in, possibly on hi-rail equipped dump trucks, rather than brought in by hopper car.

But where you do have a heavy rail access point, it can be used to greatly reduce the time and cost of carrying out the work because traditional railway construction methods can be used rather than adapting roadway construction methods. The way most light rail lines are built is sub-optimal since there is little choice but to use adapted roadway methods - it might even seem "standard" but it's still sub-optimal.

The other thing to note is that most light rail lines are fresh builds in a new corridor so there is plenty of time to bring in the rail materials while the right of way itself is being built - delivery of rail materials is seldom the constraint on getting the project completed in a timely fashion. But in Ottawa we're going to be converting a busway, not building a whole right of way from scratch. Delivery of materials very much would be the constraint. We need to get it done in a hurry if disruption is to be minimized and for that we need to employ railway construction methods. And fortunately we have the access points to allow that to happen.

As for the "crazy TGV rails", who said anything about that? I was merely talking about a method of construction, not the material to be used (a parallel example is that the truss launcher used to build the Canada Line in Vancouver is being used in Calgary for the West LRT, but that doesn't mean a Skytrain track is being built in Calgary). But, funny you should mention it anyway. The TGV uses 60 kg/m rail (121 lbs/yd), while the C-Train (and the O-Train) uses 100 lbs/yd rail. That's pretty standard stuff, used on most branch lines and a lot of mainlines. 115 lbs/yd tends to be used on the more heavily-used mainlines while 80 lbs/yd rail is still used on minor branch lines, industrial spurs and sidings (i.e. it's been around for years and hasn't needed to be replaced). In contrast, the cancelled N-S LRT was to use 130 lbs/yd rail - the sort of stuff used on very heavily-used freight lines.

[MalcolmTucker]

But in Ottawa we're going to be converting a busway, not building a whole right of way from scratch. Delivery of materials very much would be the constraint

Stations are going to cut off the busway far earlier than corridor construction will - unless you are going to build diversion busways around each station, it doesn't really matter how long it will take to build the converted sections. It is going to be at least 18 months of busway shutdowns, likely more like 2 and a half years no matter what due to station construction. The scale and scope of the stations don't lead to quick builds. Bayview can likely be worked around, but not Tunney's. East end the Transitway is not going to usable either, for the same reason - and jumping in and out is likely worse than just running along the 417.

It is going to be hell for sure, but it will just make the end goal that much sweeter. There isn't some magic infrastructure fairy that can build the rest of the system over the course of a summer once the tunnel is done. It isn't going to happen.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

As Haydon said, building the tunnel and using it for buses as a first stage could be an option.

Anyone who is concerned about the costs of a rail tunnel has no business promoting a bunnel! You might save on conversion costs outside the bunnel, but the added bunnel costs would eat those savings and then some.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Anyone who is concerned about the costs of a rail tunnel has no business promoting a bunnel! You might save on conversion costs outside the bunnel, but the added bunnel costs would eat those savings and then some.

I’m interested in you sharing the cost estimates you have for constructing a bus tunnel. I would like to know what is going to “eat those savings and then some.”

The idea that I was getting from Haydon was that the cost of the tunnel would be slightly more than a train tunnel; but without the immediate expense of converting the Transitway to rail, the City could easily afford the tunnel cost. In his estimates for the entire system (after tunneling, but before ultimate conversion to rail), the costs would include only the cost of the tunneling and stations, the upgraded ventilation (if needed), and making the tunnel suitable for buses (paving, cross-overs, etc). There would be other expenses for more specialized hybrid buses, but I think he might have ignored that, figuring it was similar to the cost of replacing old buses, which we already do regularly.

What was not included in the Haydon cost estimate was the conversion of the Transitway to rail and the required re-building of the affected stations – because that is not needed for a bus system. I think you will realize that the tunnel stations are common to both plans, but the other stations are also affected by the conversion. The obvious two are the end points, Tunney’s Pasture and Blair Stations which would need to be re-configured as bus/LRT transfer stations. But even the others, such as Lees Station need to be changed because of the switch to rails. Currently, plows and station maintenance equipment can easily get to the stations to do the needed work. However, once there is no easy way to drive a ‘glass’ truck or a sidewalk plow/sander down to the station, then there needs to be another way to maintain it. The Consultants and City Staff have chosen to totally roof over the stations so that there will not be a need to plow them. This need to re-build the stations is a direct result of the conversion to rail and would not be necessary if the Transitway remained for buses. Literally, a bus could run from Orleans to Barrhaven, as it does now, the day after the tunnel was paved without any other changes to the rest of the Transitway.

Another factor in favour of a bus tunnel is based on the above – that buses could be running through it sooner. The actual tunnel boring should take about a year, based on 20m/day (which is very conservative), and most of that should be under ground with little disruption to the surface. After the TBM is finished one bore, then the mining machines can be brought in to work on enlarging the station areas in that bore. After the stations are roughed out, then the shafts would be driven to the surface, and then the stations built. While the stations are being built, the running surface of the tunnel can be paved to provide a faster way to supply the stations construction. It should take two to two and a half years to build a bus tunnel (plus two years of planning). Of course, as mentioned above, a bus could drive through it the next day so there could be (bus) rapid transit ready before the 150th anniversary of Canada in 2017.

Remember, that during the majority of the tunnel’s construction there will be no serious disruption to the Transitway from the west. Unfortunately, from the east is a different matter since Staff has chosen to have the tunnel’s east portal directly on the Transitway, and chosen to use Cut & Cover from north of the Campus Station to that east portal. However, the City could pull the buses off the Transitway just north of the 417 and run them up and down King Edward in exclusive bus lanes (removing the parking).

Any way, I am going on about something which you seem to have more information about than I do, so please share your cost estimates for a bus tunnel and show me how it will cost over a billion dollars more to construct a bus tunnel than a train tunnel.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I’m interested in you sharing the cost estimates you have for constructing a bus tunnel. I would like to know what is going to “eat those savings and then some.”

The idea that I was getting from Haydon was that the cost of the tunnel would be slightly more than a train tunnel; but without the immediate expense of converting the Transitway to rail, the City could easily afford the tunnel cost. In his estimates for the entire system (after tunneling, but before ultimate conversion to rail), the costs would include only the cost of the tunneling and stations, the upgraded ventilation (if needed), and making the tunnel suitable for buses (paving, cross-overs, etc). There would be other expenses for more specialized hybrid buses, but I think he might have ignored that, figuring it was similar to the cost of replacing old buses, which we already do regularly.

What was not included in the Haydon cost estimate was the conversion of the Transitway to rail and the required re-building of the affected stations – because that is not needed for a bus system. I think you will realize that the tunnel stations are common to both plans, but the other stations are also affected by the conversion. The obvious two are the end points, Tunney’s Pasture and Blair Stations which would need to be re-configured as bus/LRT transfer stations. But even the others, such as Lees Station need to be changed because of the switch to rails. Currently, plows and station maintenance equipment can easily get to the stations to do the needed work. However, once there is no easy way to drive a ‘glass’ truck or a sidewalk plow/sander down to the station, then there needs to be another way to maintain it. The Consultants and City Staff have chosen to totally roof over the stations so that there will not be a need to plow them. This need to re-build the stations is a direct result of the conversion to rail and would not be necessary if the Transitway remained for buses. Literally, a bus could run from Orleans to Barrhaven, as it does now, the day after the tunnel was paved without any other changes to the rest of the Transitway.

Another factor in favour of a bus tunnel is based on the above – that buses could be running through it sooner. The actual tunnel boring should take about a year, based on 20m/day (which is very conservative), and most of that should be under ground with little disruption to the surface. After the TBM is finished one bore, then the mining machines can be brought in to work on enlarging the station areas in that bore. After the stations are roughed out, then the shafts would be driven to the surface, and then the stations built. While the stations are being built, the running surface of the tunnel can be paved to provide a faster way to supply the stations construction. It should take two to two and a half years to build a bus tunnel (plus two years of planning). Of course, as mentioned above, a bus could drive through it the next day so there could be (bus) rapid transit ready before the 150th anniversary of Canada in 2017.

Remember, that during the majority of the tunnel’s construction there will be no serious disruption to the Transitway from the west. Unfortunately, from the east is a different matter since Staff has chosen to have the tunnel’s east portal directly on the Transitway, and chosen to use Cut & Cover from north of the Campus Station to that east portal. However, the City could pull the buses off the Transitway just north of the 417 and run them up and down King Edward in exclusive bus lanes (removing the parking).

Any way, I am going on about something which you seem to have more information about than I do, so please share your cost estimates for a bus tunnel and show me how it will cost over a billion dollars more to construct a bus tunnel than a train tunnel.

I am sure many will not want to hear this. It appears to provide a more affordable option if the LRT tunnel goes overbudget.

I do have a question. One of the criticisms of a bus tunnel is its inability meet demand by 2031. Would it be possible to have the tunnel and a surface route as well?

It also seems to me that a bus tunnel will also address the downtown concerns with the original N-S LRT plan, although seemingly politically impossible now. Many people do want to have a surface rail line in downtown like what exists in Calgary and is being planned in Edmonton and Vancouver.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am sure many will not want to hear this. It appears to provide a more affordable option if the LRT tunnel goes overbudget.

I do have a question. One of the criticisms of a bus tunnel is its inability meet demand by 2031. Would it be possible to have the tunnel and a surface route as well?

It also seems to me that a bus tunnel will also address the downtown concerns with the original N-S LRT plan, although seemingly politically impossible now. Many people do want to have a surface rail line in downtown like what exists in Calgary and is being planned in Edmonton and Vancouver.

I agree. This is not a popular option on this forum - and probably not at City Hall either - but it is an option.

The idea is to build a tunnel for trains (i.e., central platforms, etc.) but modify it slightly so that buses could run through it until we get more money to convert the Transitway to rail. During the waiting period, we would spend small sums of money on straightening out the 'kinks' in the Transitway so that conversion could be very fast (as dado has presented in videos).

Absolutely; adding a bus tunnel adds additional lanes across the core, but it does not remove any of the existing capacity. That is, there is no reason that there could not be a portion of the buses left on the surface to ensure a convenient surface bus system. In fact, the planned LRT system is still to leave 41% of the current volume of bus traffic crossing the Mackenzie King Bridge to help maintain pedestrian flow through the Rideau Centre. Ideally we would always have a surface public transit system to support businesses on the surface. The goal is only to get rid of the 'wall' of buses and move people more efficiently.

Let's say, for example, that the surface can handle 180 buses per hour per direction and the tunnel can handle 200 buses per hour per direction (since there are no cross streets). If we leave 33% of the buses on the surface, then we are moving 120 buses underground. That leaves 40% of the tunnel capacity unused. That is a lot of room to grow.

Another thing is that the plan calls for the tunnel to be converted to rail and this could be done before 2031 if needed. I, personally, would like to see the City save up the money to pay for the conversion, but it would be possible to borrow the money then just as easily as borrowing it now.

One of the big problems with surface LRT is due to the geography of downtown Ottawa. Because of the escarpment on the west and the canal on the east, access to the core is limited from those two directions. Really, from the west we have Wellington and Slater and from the east we have Rideau, the Mackenzie King Bridge and Laurier. If we took one of those streets for surface light rail, then we would be severely reducing road access into the core. I keep hearing about how Calgary can create a transit mall and it didn't cause a major problem, but this can't happen as easily in Ottawa unless we want to restrict other vehicles in the core. This might be an option the City could pursue, but it might cause an unintended economic hit on the core. Every city is unique, physically and politically, so to simplify an argument to "Well they are doing it fine." often doesn't work.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I’m interested in you sharing the cost estimates you have for constructing a bus tunnel. I would like to know what is going to “eat those savings and then some.”

A bunnel would have to be much wider and have more ventilation and emergency access and egress than a rail tunnel. There is no way a bunnel would cost less than an equivalent LRT tunnel.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

A bunnel would have to be much wider and have more ventilation and emergency access and egress than a rail tunnel. There is no way a bunnel would cost less than an equivalent LRT tunnel.

I will say that it is interesting reading your opinion on what a bus tunnel would require over a train tunnel; it makes me wonder where you have been getting your information.

Perhaps you can explain to me why a bus tunnel would need to be “much wider”? From my point of view, both train and bus tunnels would require a roughly four metre wide active lane between the stations. I know that Delcan once put out a report which suggested that a bus tunnel must have two lanes in each direction, but this is not a real requirement; it was added to the report so that a bus tunnel was more expensive and their costing was based on the volume of the tunnel so a bore of twice the since was four times the price. A bus tunnel can use a single lane. If a bus does stall within the tunnel, a tow truck would have it out in short order. (Because it would be a critical link, there could be a dedicated tow truck for the tunnel.) In the interim, buses would simply be re-routed to the surface – something that trains can’t do if they encounter a problem in the tunnel.

On the other hand, it has not yet (to my knowledge, any way) been determined if the tunnel will be bored as two separate tubes or as one slightly larger tube. At first you might think that two smaller diameter tunnels might be less expensive, but if the labour costs of the tunneling process are the critical limit, it might be cheaper to finish the tunnel in half the time, using a single bore. Also, a single larger bore will allow for some extra room for the other things that need to be installed within the tunnel like ventilation and emergency walkways. It might be that two six metre tubes could be replaced by a single nine metre tube. This would require approximately the same amount of muck removal, but it is done by a single TBM pass. If a wider bore were used, then there is no argument about buses needing a wider tunnel since the tunnel would be like a two-lane road, allowing buses to move into the oncoming lane to avoid obstacles.

[Side note: Since the City has decided on central platform stations, it increases the likely that two bores will be used. If a single tunnel is bored, then there would need to be more tunnel widening before and after the stations to separate the trains. This will add to the time and cost of a single bore tunnel. With two bores, only the material between the tunnels needs to be removed for a station. The final decision about how the tunnel will be excavated will, I’m sure, be based on the tenders that come in.]

For the ventilation question, it is, to my knowledge, the fire regulations which will dictate the minimum level of ventilation required within the tunnel and stations. The stations will need to have positive pressure and the tunnel negative pressure. I think that if you looked into the matter, you would find that the minimum ventilation requirements for either tunnel type are roughly the same. If the City were to add extra capacity and features to the system to better support buses (like particulate traps before venting the tunnel gases to the atmosphere, for instance) the cost would be in the millions to tens of millions of dollars; certainly not hundreds of millions.

Emergency accesses are the same as ventilation and would be similar regardless of the vehicle running through the tunnel.

I didn’t see any number in your response so, let’s just run some made-up numbers and see where the Billions are spent: I will start with the City’s $735M cost for their tunnel and stations. Of that, there are three $90M stations and one $70M station, leaving about $400M for the actual tunneling. I will assume that the station costs are roughly the same regardless of vehicle used. Since the City keeps talking about twin tunnels, and you are concerned about the tunnel size, I’ll double the tunneling cost to $800M for a bus tunnel, just for the tunneling costs alone. Then I’ll add in another $100M for increased ventilation since you are also concerned about that. Now the total cost for a bus tunnel would be just over $1.2B. I think this is a gross exaggeration of what the cost would be, but this is an illustrative exercise so I’ll continue.

The Staff plan is for $2.1B and to get a bus tunnel running would cost, from the above, $1.2B for a saving of $900M. But this is not a real saving since it would be used over future years to align the Transitway so that rail could be quickly laid along it. The money would also be used to modify the stations, one at a time, to the new format so that when the rail arrives, the stations are ready; perhaps with the exception of Tunney’s Pasture, Hurdman, and Blair Stations.

This stepped approach WILL COST MORE in the long-run, but it is a workable solution to achieving the goal of rail through the core with less ‘Sticker Shock’ for the citizens and politicians of Ottawa.

[GoTrans]

[QUOTE=Richard Eade;5036518]I will say that it is interesting reading your opinion on what a bus tunnel would require over a train tunnel; it makes me wonder where you have been getting your information.

Perhaps you can explain to me why a bus tunnel would need to be “much wider”?

If you keep a bus tunnel as a single lane in each direction then you have not solved the problem of congestion downtown, all you have done is move the congestion from the surface to underground. The advantage of light rail is the increased capacity, faster boarding and a controlled queueing of vehicles not possible with buses with signaling systems.
The wider tunnel width is required to allow buses to leave stations when loaded or to completely bypass stations. Wider tunnels equals more cost. This is not to say that the whole tunnel has to be wider but certainly buses would require wider stations. Why can the bus lobby not admit to this?

[QUOTE=Richard Eade;5036518] Since the City has decided on central platform stations, it increases the likely that two bores will be used. If a single tunnel is bored, then there would need to be more tunnel widening before and after the stations to separate the trains.

If the central platforms were used for buses we would either have to have doors on the opposite side of buses or run the buses on the left hand side through the tunnel which means more construction cost to switch sides.
The platform areas would be the same in either scenario. It is the roadway or railway width that would be greater in the bus scenario.

[QUOTE=Richard Eade;5036518 For the ventilation question, it is, to my knowledge, the fire regulations which will dictate the minimum level of ventilation required within the tunnel and stations. The stations will need to have positive pressure and the tunnel negative pressure. I think that if you looked into the matter, you would find that the minimum ventilation requirements for either tunnel type are roughly the same. If the City were to add extra capacity and features to the system to better support buses (like particulate traps before venting the tunnel gases to the atmosphere, for instance) the cost would be in the millions to tens of millions of dollars; certainly not hundreds of millions.

The probability of a fire in the tunnel is greater with buses as they carry fuel which electric LRT vehicles do not. Also rail signaling systems can be designed with automatic train stop features to prevent collisions which is not practical for buses. Mr. Haydon claims that the buses can run on battery power while in the tunnel. There are currently no buses on the market that operate strictly on battery power in cold climates so the buses would continue to carry diesel fuel in their tanks.
And where are you getting your information on the particulate matter traps? How do these traps prevent fires? How do these traps reduce the poisonous gases in the diesel exhaust to zero to match the zero exhaust of the LRT?

[QUOTE=Richard Eade;5036518]The Staff plan is for $2.1B and to get a bus tunnel running would cost, from the above, $1.2B for a saving of $900M. But this is not a real saving since it would be used over future years to align the Transitway so that rail could be quickly laid along it.

This is nonsense. All you are doing is deferring costs to the future just as OC Transpo has always claimed from the beginning of transit-way construction that it would be capable of being converted to rail at some point in the future. You clearly do not want to convert anything to rail but would rather stay with the status quo which would clearly not solve anything.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

This stepped approach WILL COST MORE in the long-run, but it is a workable solution to achieving the goal of rail through the core with less ‘Sticker Shock’ for the citizens and politicians of Ottawa.

The cost of borrowing money for doing rail properly all at once is probably cheaper than your stepped approach. Just like if we had coughed up maybe an extra $100 million for LRT way back in the 1980s when the Transitway was still being planned, we would not be paying a billion dollars in conversion costs now. As they say, "Penny wise, Pound foolish."

[acottawa]

re: higher costs for bus tunnels

1. A bus tunnel has to be wider than something on rails because buses require manual steering. I suspect they also have to be higher to make room for ventilation.

2. A bus tunnel for 1000 buses per direction per rush hour needs a lot of ventilation (look at St Laurent station, which is open on either side and has half the buses of the downtown section of the transitway. It would be possible to use dual power buses (as they do in Seattle) but that would require buying new buses for all of the downtown routes.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by acottawa

re: higher costs for bus tunnels

1. A bus tunnel has to be wider than something on rails because buses require manual steering. I suspect they also have to be higher to make room for ventilation.

2. A bus tunnel for 1000 buses per direction per rush hour needs a lot of ventilation (look at St Laurent station, which is open on either side and has half the buses of the downtown section of the transitway. It would be possible to use dual power buses (as they do in Seattle) but that would require buying new buses for all of the downtown routes.

Seattle doesn't have dual power buses - the downtown tunnel routes have hybrid buses which I guess were estimated to have low enough emissions to be used in their tunnel which wasn't really designed for them. But I suspect that tunnel has far fewer buses than any future theoretical Ottawa bunnel.

The width problem can be solved using cheap and simple guiding wheels like the Adelaide O-Bahn Busway.

To respond to someone else as well, the side of door problem for the centre platforms can be solved with a simple cross over at each end, and travel in the left lane in the tunnel. For the volume needed the crossovers would likely have to be grade separated, but shouldn't be too expensive as part of the entire tunnel project.

All that being said, this project without any operational cost savings creates more burden on the taxpayers of Ottawa even if it delays significant capital costs to the future. Right now capacity holds back the amount of bus service people demand, but without that constraint Ottawa's subsidy will keep growing an an exceptional pace.

[GoTrans]

[QUOTE=Sir.Humphrey.Appleby;5036840]

For the volume needed the crossovers would likely have to be grade separated, but shouldn't be too expensive as part of the entire tunnel project.

And we conveniently left that out of the price of the bus tunnel. Who is playing the game of smoke and mirrors?

[QUOTE=Sir.Humphrey.Appleby;5036840]Right now capacity holds back the amount of bus service people demand, but without that constraint Ottawa's subsidy will keep growing an an exceptional pace.

You are right. Capacity increases and lower operating costs can only be met realistically by going with rail as opposed to buses. Buses have their place but not as the primary mover in the downtown.

[Richard Eade]

Hmmm…

If you keep a bus tunnel as a single lane in each direction then you have not solved the problem of congestion downtown, all you have done is move the congestion from the surface to underground.

GoTrans. I have to assume that you haven’t actually read (or understood) previous posts; or you are simply spewing out City provided garbage without thinking about what you are saying. I’ll choose the former and see if I can clarify things a bit.

First, if every bus which currently uses the Slater/Albert Transitway were moved underground, duplicating the transit system under ground the current bus congestion problem WOULD be solved. Currently there is a single lane of buses in each direction. There is interference of those lanes by cross-traffic and there are delays in loading buses due to on-bus payment. If every bus on Slater was moved to a single lane tunnel, there would be no cross-traffic and the stations would be pre-paid fare areas so there would be none of the fare-box delays when loading and no intersections to stop the buses. In short, the bus capacity with a tunnel would climb to over 200 buses per hour per direction – and that is by duplicating the surface system underground. Currently there is a practical limit of about 180 buses per direction on the surface; increasing that to 200 buses fixes the problem by adding the potential for at least 11% more buses.

Also, if we could move all of the Albert/Slater buses underground the problem of the ‘Bus Wall’ would be solved along those streets since it would not exist: However, it is not a good idea to get rid of all surface buses in a corridor since many people like to be able to see a transit system and it provides some life on the street. Also, since underground rapid transit stations tend to be spaced widely apart, having surface buses allows people to transfer from the main station to a bus which will take them to their surface destination between the underground stations. In reality, most of the buses could be moved underground, with some staying on the surface. Since we will be moving only some of the existing buses down into the tunnel, then the tunnel actually has even more capacity. For example, if we move 120 buses underground and leave 60 on the surface, then the tunnel has space for 40% more buses.

OK, I think it should be clear that moving a single lane of buses under ground would solve the problem (for a while anyway) but if you had read previous posts I have also mentioned the extra mining that would be needed around the stations to allow buses to pass. Passing would not be needed to have the buses run underground but it could be advantages to have passing since it could be used to make an even better bus system; but there is still no passing needed between stations.

In fact, when I think about it, the average bus platform along Albert/Slater is, I believe, about 3m in width (road to shelter) and about 60m in length. These platforms handle all of the buses which come by since there is no generally passing through this corridor. Given that the LRT platforms in the tunnel stations are planned to be 180m in length and 9m in width, it would be possible to do the following, on a temporary basis with the platform notches filled in at conversion time. (The cement trucks could actually drive in on the busway to pour the cement before the rails are laid.)



Depending on how much extra width is added during station mining, it might be required to add about a metre or so on each side. This is not as much as I had thought before when I mentioned LRT car storage but I am notching the platform for the extra bus lane instead. Since buses bring fewer people at a time, a 4m platform width should be sufficient so the BRT bays can be notched into the 9m LRT platform until conversion.

Because of the length of the LRT station, and the new passing ability for the buses, it would be possible to divide the platform into multiple bus bays per direction. Like the St. Laurent Station, it would be possible to separate the Regular routes from the Express routes, adding further efficiency.

As pictured above, the buses ARE running on the left side, although it is not too noticeable anywhere but in the stations since the rest of the time you will be in a single tube tunnel. In previous posts I have mentioned the required temporary cross-over at each end of the tunnel. These would likely be about $2M each and they are a throw-away cost. This is a cost of doing the project in steps. There are times when money must be sacrificed in favour of other things, like less disruption or actually getting a project started.

However, anyone who has ridden a bus through Hurdman Station has experienced a surface-level cross-over and it seems to work fine. Every bus coming from Lees needs to cross over the lane of buses going to Lees. The one at the old Baseline Station also had no problems (although it had fewer buses since some continued west to Bayshore from downtown). It is possible that a surface cross-over could work if the final conversion to rail is not too far in the distance. (Surface cross-overs might be used to ensure that there is future political pressure to convert the system to rail as these become ‘pinch-points’.)

When it comes to ventilation, I believe the regulations assume a fire probability of 1; you do not have a smaller ventilation system if you have a smaller chance of having a fire – you need to have enough ventilation to handle a fire, regardless of the odds of it happening. Thus, it is not relevant that one vehicle has a greater chance of causing a fire because it carries fuel and the other doesn’t; if a ventilation system is required, then it is required – period. Both of these systems will have similar system requirements for ventilation, for the comfort of the customers if nothing else; remember, we are exchanging air at 44 metres down.

I’m sorry I confused you by mentioning extra features (like particulate traps), I was trying to find a reason to support your argument and increase the cost of the ventilation system for buses. Since there would likely be some particulate matter in the bus exhaust I was suggesting that before the tunnel’s exhaust was vented to the atmosphere, it could be scrubbed. There can be many buses in the tunnel at a time so it would be a good way to collect all of that exhaust (since the ventilation system sucks it out of the tunnel) and process it. I should not have clouded the issue by adding fanciful ideas; sorry.

And finally:

This is nonsense. All you are doing is deferring costs to the future…

Nope, that is not all I’m doing; I am also adding extra costs for throw-away components which are required to keep the interim steps running. Perhaps you had stopped reading (I know, my posts are too long) before you got to my last line in which I emphasized in CAPITALS that “This stepped approach WILL COST MORE in the long-run…”. This time I also added BOLD. The idea is to come up with a more palatable plan if the bids for the Staff plan come in much above the $2.1B estimate. We can either throw up our arms and ‘Hit the Reset’, go back to the drawing board, and come up with an alternative plan to be built starting in 2025; or we can have a plan which leads us to the final goal of rail, but allows the project to be done in affordable pieces starting with relieving the worse problem first.

I hope this has helped clarified this option.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Nope, that is not all I’m doing; I am also adding extra costs for throw-away components which are required to keep the interim steps running. Perhaps you had stopped reading (I know, my posts are too long) before you got to my last line in which I emphasized in CAPITALS that “This stepped approach WILL COST MORE in the long-run…”. This time I also added BOLD. The idea is to come up with a more palatable plan if the bids for the Staff plan come in much above the $2.1B estimate. We can either throw up our arms and ‘Hit the Reset’, go back to the drawing board, and come up with an alternative plan to be built starting in 2025; or we can have a plan which leads us to the final goal of rail, but allows the project to be done in affordable pieces starting with relieving the worse problem first.

You leave out one huge detail: The cost replacing the bus fleet so it can be operated in a tunnel. These would not be run-of-the-mill buses, and likely to cost $1 million each. That's a billion for 1000 buses, plus the high maintenance cost for that new technology. Add the salaries of drivers over a few years, and you end up with zero savings and still have to face the eventual cost of of converting to LRT when you suddenly acquire the balls for it. This all sounds tragically familiar, it's the story of the Transitway all over again. I hated the movie, there is no way I want to watch the sequel.