Roads/Bridges projects/issues

[harls]

Originally Posted by Cre47

Does the City of Gatineau and/or Chelsea and/or the NCC really looking everywhere to see if there are unsafe sections of roads created by the massive rainstorm of about ten days ago.

Why I bring this up? Well look at the image taken from Le Droit where it shows a section of Pink Road in Aylmer where side portions of the road have collapsed due to the rainstorm and nothing has been placed to prevent cars and cyclists of hitting or falling into the hole. It's been like this for over a week.

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-droit/a...protection.php

Similarly one of my friends hit a similar pothole/crack/bump on Notch Road on a treacherous section where sides of the road were also damaged by the rain and presumably nothing was done to prevent motorists or cyclists of hitting the damaged portions. Result, she ended the rest of her trip to work (about 5 km or so) with pipes from the car scraping the roadway. That's the second time in just over a week, that her car suffered due to this same rainstorm.

If I'm able to bike this weekend I might check the area to see how bad the roads are around the Pink/Vanier/Cook/Notch/Mine/La Montagne/Klock Road area

I know this may be kind of late, but on Notch Rd at least they've fixed things up and put appropriate signage telling you that there's bumps ahead.

[Cre47]

Okay enough is enough. I'm thinking about a separate thread on this issue of Bank Street South

http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/08/15/...-bank-st-crash

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Cre47

Okay enough is enough. I'm thinking about a separate thread on this issue of Bank Street South

http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/08/15/...-bank-st-crash

1) Needs a third lane, which should be a central turning lane

2) Reduce speed limit from 80 km/h to 70 km/h through Greely and past Mitch Owens Road

3) Rumble strips should be installed at the shoulders, along with paved shoulders

4) Continuous street lighting should be provided along the road corridor

[lrt's friend]

Traffic on Bank Street south is growing exponentially. The traffic flow is continuous during peak periods just south of Leitrim where the road narrows. It is very difficult to pull out of businesses at that time. I know coworkers who live in the rural south now bypass Bank Street to avoid traffic issues. However, it will be very difficult to avoid accidents such as the one described without building a divided highway and that will be horrendously expensive. And thanks to Mike Harris who decommissioned Highway 31, there will be no provincial assistance. Also, this accident took place south of Greely and therefore beyond where the traffic is the worst.

The problem we are also facing is the lack of funds to take any sort of action. There is no bus service in Greely despite the fact that there are now hundreds of homes. The bus service in Findlay Creek is poor and with current austerity, the city seems to have no interest in building transit ridership there. All they have is a half hourly local bus even during peak hours and with the upcoming service cuts, the buses in that general area will be more crowded than ever. There are now several hundred homes in Findlay Creek with more under construction there and on neighbouring land.

The city has now reached the point where it cannot finance transportation improvements and is acting in crises mode. The growing southern suburbs have long been treated as second class citizens. Since the cancellation of LRT, the city is approaching transportation solutions for the south end in a very haphazard way, always thinking that LRT will be built 'some day'. Really, there is a need to spend several $100 million in road expansions. With little liklihood of LRT expansion beyond the Greenbelt for decades, these expenditures will have to be made. Isn't this a sad statement? We will spend several $100 million on roads without thinking but never spend the same money on transit expansion. This goes back to the bitter north-south versus east-west debate and we will pay dearly for that through our taxes when we build roads instead. Yet, we can point the blame at ourselves when we give thousands of people no alternative but to drive.

Incidentally, as soon as the Strandherd/Armstrong Bridge opens, you will see a flood of traffic moving from Barrhaven to the east side of the Rideau River. This is going to affect traffic on River Road, Limebank Road, Leitrim Road, Albion Road, Bank Street and ultimately the Airport Parkway and Bronson Avenue. This is an important and necessary link but like all new roads, there are secondary impacts on traffic elsewhere. Traffic does go somewhere. So, expect traffic to be much worse east of the river after the bridge opens.

[Dado]

Besides operator responsibility, this is at least as much a design issue as anything else.

Put simply, the classic two-lane highway design isn't all that good.

Most of the accidents I hear about in rural areas fall into one of these categories: crossing the centre line (especially at night or in poor conditions), high-speed intersection crashes, crashes involving turning traffic (either onto or off the highway), hitting deer.

When there is only a centre line separating the two directions of travel, there is not much opportunity to correct mistakes. Simply widening the road by all of a metre and/or repainting lane lines to create a paved median strip just one metre wide and putting rumble strips along each yellow line would likely help enormously. It would also provide some space into which cars could enter to pass cyclists. In effect, you get many of the benefits of raised median without losing the flexibility and ease of maintenance of a single surface.

A third centre turning lane could have similar benefits, though one has to be careful that it wouldn't be abused and turned into a de facto passing lane. Nevertheless, it would potentially get left-turning cars out of the way and provide a place for straight-through traffic to pass right-turning cars.

Intersections should probably be gradually converted to roundabouts instead of wasting money on making signalized intersections in rural areas. Drivers need to be slowed down at rural intersections, and, if anything, traffic lights have the opposite effect by encouraging drivers to "step on it" to get through a long-lived green or a stale yellow.

And for deer, not a lot to be done other than more hunting and slower, more careful driving.

[S-Man]

All the more reason to extend the O-Train line to Riverside South/Leitrim ASAP.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by S-Man

All the more reason to extend the O-Train line to Riverside South/Leitrim ASAP.

Absolutely not. Do it right or don't do it at all. I spoke to a friend who works at Canada Post headquarters and he pointed out that a train broke down at Confederation station last week which shut down the O-Train completely. A single track line is very vulnerable to complete shutdown and the more trains we have operating on it, the higher the liklihood of a train breakdown.

I have spoken before that the line will need double tracking at some point and further extensions will make the upgrade later much more problematic. In making the decision to buy new trains and improve service in 2014, one of the requirements is that it not create further roadblocks or increase costs down the road for conversion. Extension of the O-Train will guarantee extra costs down the road. For example the need to build and rebuild stations. Continuing transit service in a timely and cost efficient manner during conversion will be problematic. Just remember the Friends of the O-Train and their protests because of the service interruptions proposed during conversion. Of course, as we have seen, there have been a number of lengthy shutdowns during the O-Train's history (illustrating its weakness) and at least one more is planned in the next couple of years. We have managed because of the seasonal needs of Carleton students but as we encourage more general commuters with year round needs, this will become less and less acceptable.

We need to get away from building rapid transit with the need of major conversions down the road. The end result is more costs to taxpayers.

[S-Man]

Given the choice of having an O-Train soon (which already exists), or waiting 10-plus years until something better comes along (depending on funding and planning), I'd probably take the short term solution.
What is the cost of the 10 year delay and the overtaxed roads which will be the result?
That said, it would be great if something useful and visionary was built right at the get-go, but this is the city who put its future in the hands of a bus transitway system and greenbelt.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by S-Man

Given the choice of having an O-Train soon (which already exists), or waiting 10-plus years until something better comes along (depending on funding and planning), I'd probably take the short term solution.
What is the cost of the 10 year delay and the overtaxed roads which will be the result?
That said, it would be great if something useful and visionary was built right at the get-go, but this is the city who put its future in the hands of a bus transitway system and greenbelt.

The problem with short term solutions is that there is less incentive to implement the correct long-term solution as a result. Those short term solutions become permanent and everybody grumbles about it because the service is lacking in some way. Periodic service interruptions will be a permanent feature of this line. I think it would be a travesty to extend the O-Train and make it permanent and not be able to run the trains into a downtown tunnel after we all have spent hundreds of millions on it. That would simply be poor planning and decision making.

A perfect example of this issue is the Scarborough RT in Toronto. This was built as a 'demonstration' line to show off Ontario technology. People who live in east end Toronto gripe about this train because of the lack of through service on the connecting Bloor-Danforth subway and the lack of capacity. This has been going on since the 1970s and only now are they thinking of replacing it with an extension of the Eglinton crosstown LRT subway. Even that, will take many years to accomplish.

Really, if you think about, all it takes is the political will to push through an O-Train conversion, which simply does not exist at the present time. There is no wrangling needed concerning the route unlike the western extension and we all know that the wrangling about that extension will get far worse before a solution is arrived at.

As I said, do it right or don't do it at all. It would be far better to just build a bus lane on an adjacent road until we are ready to make the proper investment.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Traffic on Bank Street south is growing exponentially. The traffic flow is continuous during peak periods just south of Leitrim where the road narrows. It is very difficult to pull out of businesses at that time. I know coworkers who live in the rural south now bypass Bank Street to avoid traffic issues. However, it will be very difficult to avoid accidents such as the one described without building a divided highway and that will be horrendously expensive. And thanks to Mike Harris who decommissioned Highway 31, there will be no provincial assistance. Also, this accident took place south of Greely and therefore beyond where the traffic is the worst.

The problem we are also facing is the lack of funds to take any sort of action. There is no bus service in Greely despite the fact that there are now hundreds of homes. The bus service in Findlay Creek is poor and with current austerity, the city seems to have no interest in building transit ridership there. All they have is a half hourly local bus even during peak hours and with the upcoming service cuts, the buses in that general area will be more crowded than ever. There are now several hundred homes in Findlay Creek with more under construction there and on neighbouring land.

The city has now reached the point where it cannot finance transportation improvements and is acting in crises mode. The growing southern suburbs have long been treated as second class citizens. Since the cancellation of LRT, the city is approaching transportation solutions for the south end in a very haphazard way, always thinking that LRT will be built 'some day'. Really, there is a need to spend several $100 million in road expansions. With little liklihood of LRT expansion beyond the Greenbelt for decades, these expenditures will have to be made. Isn't this a sad statement? We will spend several $100 million on roads without thinking but never spend the same money on transit expansion. This goes back to the bitter north-south versus east-west debate and we will pay dearly for that through our taxes when we build roads instead. Yet, we can point the blame at ourselves when we give thousands of people no alternative but to drive.

Incidentally, as soon as the Strandherd/Armstrong Bridge opens, you will see a flood of traffic moving from Barrhaven to the east side of the Rideau River. This is going to affect traffic on River Road, Limebank Road, Leitrim Road, Albion Road, Bank Street and ultimately the Airport Parkway and Bronson Avenue. This is an important and necessary link but like all new roads, there are secondary impacts on traffic elsewhere. Traffic does go somewhere. So, expect traffic to be much worse east of the river after the bridge opens.

Greely has lots of houses, but the density there does not support regular transit, and the existing private companies seem to do a reasonably good job considering. However, I would like to see better fare agreements - in other words, they should only have to pay a rural express fare in the inner-rural area and a modified fare (i.e. $6.50 or 5 bus tickets) in the outer-rural area near the boundary) and OC Transpo should give a partial subsidy to the portions of the routes within city boundaries without putting their own buses into service there.

As far as I know, the only service cut in the Leitrim area is to Route 197, which has very little ridership. Given the number of houses at this point, a 30 minute off-peak frequency seems fairly reasonable, although peak frequency should be higher. I don't think ANY rapid transit corridor has been planned for the area, since it seems to be a mess in planning due to environmental constraints.

The road is too developed to be divided unless with a narrow raised median (suburban design). The most it could build up to is a 4/5-lane arterial with a median turning lane (I recommend 5 lanes north of Greely and 3 lanes south). In addition, Hawthorne Road should be extended south (as a 2 lane high standard road) which should function as a truck route.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Dado

Besides operator responsibility, this is at least as much a design issue as anything else.

Put simply, the classic two-lane highway design isn't all that good.

Most of the accidents I hear about in rural areas fall into one of these categories: crossing the centre line (especially at night or in poor conditions), high-speed intersection crashes, crashes involving turning traffic (either onto or off the highway), hitting deer.

When there is only a centre line separating the two directions of travel, there is not much opportunity to correct mistakes. Simply widening the road by all of a metre and/or repainting lane lines to create a paved median strip just one metre wide and putting rumble strips along each yellow line would likely help enormously. It would also provide some space into which cars could enter to pass cyclists. In effect, you get many of the benefits of raised median without losing the flexibility and ease of maintenance of a single surface.

A third centre turning lane could have similar benefits, though one has to be careful that it wouldn't be abused and turned into a de facto passing lane. Nevertheless, it would potentially get left-turning cars out of the way and provide a place for straight-through traffic to pass right-turning cars.

Intersections should probably be gradually converted to roundabouts instead of wasting money on making signalized intersections in rural areas. Drivers need to be slowed down at rural intersections, and, if anything, traffic lights have the opposite effect by encouraging drivers to "step on it" to get through a long-lived green or a stale yellow.

And for deer, not a lot to be done other than more hunting and slower, more careful driving.

If trucks are diverted to another corridor (i.e. Hawthorne Road extension), roundabouts might actually work well at the major intersections along the Bank Street corridor.

[Uhuniau]

Does the proposed plan for Riverside South or Barrhaven East or Gloucester Southwest, or whatever that mess is to be called, allow for the easy (relatively speaking) extension of the O-Train into the "community"?

[Dado]

There's a designated and protected corridor for extending rapid transit into the ill-named Riverside South, so yes. It could take any of the O-Train, typical LRT or BRT. Unfortunately, the route it takes looks like it was designed by the people who spend the rest of their days designing the layout of new subdivisions, so it winds its curvy-wurvy way through Riverside South once it leaves the old railway alignment just south of Leitrim.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Absolutely not. Do it right or don't do it at all. I spoke to a friend who works at Canada Post headquarters and he pointed out that a train broke down at Confederation station last week which shut down the O-Train completely.

That's an operational management problem, nothing else. Depending on where the other O-Train was at the time, they could have coupled the two units and pushed the dead unit to one end of the line or the other... well at least they used to be able to do so. Now they can only do that in a southbound direction since they pulled apart the switch at Bayview.

This is the kind of thing that happens when you hire management types rather than practical-minded types to run things.

A single track line is very vulnerable to complete shutdown and the more trains we have operating on it, the higher the liklihood of a train breakdown.

A double track line without any crossovers is basically just as vulnerable to shutdowns as a single track line. In fact, a single track line with numerous sidings is probably less vulnerable than a double track line with few crossovers.

I have spoken before that the line will need double tracking at some point and further extensions will make the upgrade later much more problematic. In making the decision to buy new trains and improve service in 2014, one of the requirements is that it not create further roadblocks or increase costs down the road for conversion. Extension of the O-Train will guarantee extra costs down the road. For example the need to build and rebuild stations. Continuing transit service in a timely and cost efficient manner during conversion will be problematic. Just remember the Friends of the O-Train and their protests because of the service interruptions proposed during conversion. Of course, as we have seen, there have been a number of lengthy shutdowns during the O-Train's history (illustrating its weakness) and at least one more is planned in the next couple of years. We have managed because of the seasonal needs of Carleton students but as we encourage more general commuters with year round needs, this will become less and less acceptable.

We've been through these arguments before. It is quite possible to double track the line and make other upgrades with minimal disruption to service. Railways all over the world manage to do this. On just about every rail trip I've ever taken anywhere I've seen work underway trackside to expand or improve the track or add electrification. Even the quasi-government VIA Rail is capable of doing this. It's only in Ottawa where the first thought of how to double track a line is to completely remove the existing track from the right of way as a starting point and sell the rail for scrap before doing anything else. The entire N-S LRT project could have been carried out without major disruption of service with a few changes to the plan and putting someone with a railway background in charge rather than highway engineers working for a BRT consultant.

Again, it's the type of people we put in charge that is the basic problem. If you put people incapable of original or creative thought in charge, you get unoriginal thoughtless disruptive solutions.

[lrt's friend]

We've been through these arguments before. It is quite possible to double track the line and make other upgrades with minimal disruption to service. Railways all over the world manage to do this. On just about every rail trip I've ever taken anywhere I've seen work underway trackside to expand or improve the track or add electrification. Even the quasi-government VIA Rail is capable of doing this. It's only in Ottawa where the first thought of how to double track a line is to completely remove the existing track from the right of way as a starting point and sell the rail for scrap before doing anything else. The entire N-S LRT project could have been carried out without major disruption of service with a few changes to the plan and putting someone with a railway background in charge rather than highway engineers working for a BRT consultant.

The issue here is double tracking in a very constrained urban environment that requires substantial blasting, tunneling and bridge replacement. We already know that the O-Train will be closed for months in 2013 for rehabilitation of the Carleton University rail bridge. Will a bridge replacement not take significantly longer? We also have a deep narrow trench north of Dow's Lake. If this was a two lane road being widened, it would also have to be closed for a significant period of time. With rail, you have to be concerned about damage to the rail infrastructure during blasting and excavation. How do you protect it in such a tight situation?

Are you saying that railways never have to close or relocate track during construction of this nature?

We just have to look at Cyrville Road. It has been closed for months for a bridge replacement and this is a lot simpler project than double tracking the O-Train.

My point being that substantial closures are unavoidable in certain situations. I believe that double tracking the O-Train is one of those situations.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The issue here is double tracking in a very constrained urban environment that requires substantial blasting, tunneling and bridge replacement. It is a deep narrow trench north of Dow's Lake. If this was a two lane road being widened, it would also have to be closed for a significant period of time. With rail, you have to be concerned about damage to the rail infrastructure during blasting and excavation.

Are you saying that railways never have to close track during construction of this nature?

And you need to widen the trench why? What you need is a place for the second track, which is not the same thing as needing to widen the existing trench.

Why not dig a second trench for the section south of Carling? There's no rule that says the two tracks have to be in the same trench side-by-side.

When the current trench was dug the railway kept operating. The path to the east of the trench is where the trains ran while the trench was dug (I'm not sure if the path is the original railbed or just a temporary one established during the construction).

If you really need to widen the trench, you still have options. For one, you can widen by first digging a second trench and working towards the existing trench rather than away from it, thus allowing all the blasting and excavating work to be done at a safe distance with any debris falling into the second trench. Or you can drive in piles to make the kind of protection walls we see elsewhere when deep foundations are being dug for large buildings.

The tunnel itself was built without stopping the trains from continuing to use the previous bridge over the canal. If we could build a tunnel while keeping a bridge operating above, we can damn well build a second tunnel beside the existing one without shutting it down.

Even if the current bridge over the Rideau needed replacement, the solution is to build the second one beside it, then run the current service over that to allow the old bridge to be replaced.


If you're going to persist in inside-the-box thinking, you're going to get inside-the-box solutions. If you start from the premise that you need to shut down the line, then that's what you're probably going to end up doing.

[lrt's friend]

Unfortunately, the route it takes looks like it was designed by the people who spend the rest of their days designing the layout of new subdivisions, so it winds its curvy-wurvy way through Riverside South once it leaves the old railway alignment just south of Leitrim.

Ummm. In my opinion this was very sound planning. This was to bring rapid transit to the most population. What would we rather do? Build rapid transit around the periphery of a community requiring more local shuttle buses (extra cost) and more Park n Ride lots (extra cost), or have rapid transit within walking distance of the majority of the community population (the most ridership)?

To call it a 'curvy-wurvy' route is an overexageration. It is a pretty gentle curve across the community and was designed to provide maximum accessibility and to make use of the flexibility of electric LRT technology. This technology is fully able to handle this kind of routing. After all, LRT should be able to turn at a standard intersection. There are numerous examples of this around the world. We do not have to build this railway line to heavy rail standards.

[Dado]

I would have taken the line through the middle of the community. It didn't need the curves that it has been given.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Dado

And you need to widen the trench why? What you need is a place for the second track, which is not the same thing as needing to widen the existing trench.

Why not dig a second trench for the section south of Carling? There's no rule that says the two tracks have to be in the same trench side-by-side.

When the current trench was dug the railway kept operating. The path to the east of the trench is where the trains ran while the trench was dug (I'm not sure if the path is the original railbed or just a temporary one established during the construction).

If you really need to widen the trench, you still have options. For one, you can widen by first digging a second trench and working towards the existing trench rather than away from it, thus allowing all the blasting and excavating work to be done at a safe distance with any debris falling into the second trench. Or you can drive in piles to make the kind of protection walls we see elsewhere when deep foundations are being dug for large buildings.

The tunnel itself was built without stopping the trains from continuing to use the previous bridge over the canal. If we could build a tunnel while keeping a bridge operating above, we can damn well build a second tunnel beside the existing one without shutting it down.

Even if the current bridge over the Rideau needed replacement, the solution is to build the second one beside it, then run the current service over that to allow the old bridge to be replaced.


If you're going to persist in inside-the-box thinking, you're going to get inside-the-box solutions. If you start from the premise that you need to shut down the line, then that's what you're probably going to end up doing.

I do very much appreciate your very imformative posts. Your response is not only valuable to me but everybody else who may look at these posts.

I realize what happened when the Dow's Lake tunnel and the trench were under construction in the 1960s, that the surface line and canal bridge were adjacent and still in service. Is there still room to do what you are suggesting? The second question. How much extra would this cost? The third question. Would this have extended the construction period by trying to keep the O-Train open?

This all brings up the issue of closing the eastern Transitway during LRT construction. It really is the same issue. There may have also been engineering solution but at what cost?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Dado

I would have taken the line through the middle of the community. It didn't need the curves that it has been given.

The route chosen was designed to maximize the population in Riverside South that could access the train within walking distance. It does run through the centre of the community. I have seen the community plan. A straighter route using more of the old CPR right of way and running across Riverside South further south will be less effective and run through more empty undevelopable airport land. We saw that when there was an attempt to build a sports facility in that area that was turned down as being in the 'crash' zone. I guess I don't understand the issue when we are talking about what amounts to gentle curves throughout. Given the type of rail technology that was intended to be used, this should not be an issue. In any event, the community plan has been approved, the land for the rail corridor acquired long ago, and it would be difficult and expensive to have to purchase another right of way. I believe that development near the LRT right of way will soon take place. The biggest fear is that long-term delays in building LRT into Riverside South may turn the right of way into the next Byron Avenue linear park. If this happens, it will no longer be possible to run rail into Riverside South, which will mean our transit investment has been totally lost. One also has to fear about the Barrhaven portion of this transit corridor where housing development is further advanced.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Ummm. In my opinion this was very sound planning. This was to bring rapid transit to the most population. What would we rather do? Build rapid transit around the periphery of a community requiring more local shuttle buses (extra cost) and more Park n Ride lots (extra cost), or have rapid transit within walking distance of the majority of the community population (the most ridership)?

Crazy idea, here, but how about build the transit line along the most direct, shortest, path of least resistance, and then build the new "community" around it?

It's still a curvy-wurvy, which is the only thing anyone in Ottawa is capable of building. New parts of once-rectilinear Shittsville? Curvy-wurvy. Plan for Rockcliffe base? Curvy-wurvy. Kanata, Farrhaven, Orleans, dismal Gatineau? Curvy-wurvy. It's hard-wired into three generations of planners now, and I'm goddamn sick of it.

And just because an LRT train *CAN* turn, doesn't mean it *SHOULD*. Smoothness of ride is another value which has not been given high enough scoring in our transit planning; otherwise the sometimes stomach-churning turns at Lebreton, and from Hurdman through to St. Laurent, might not exist. But money and bureaucratic considerations were judged more important, and bus movement, as always, took priority over passenger considerations.