[Paleo]

The lesson Toronto needs to learn is not to throw good money after bad. Don't build something just for the sake of building it. And don't build lines just because there's money to build it, if they don't make sense operationally. There's no use building transit lines that do nothing to reduce the operational burden.

I don't know if Ottawa made the right decision or not as I'm not familiar with that city but these exact same arguments skewer both the Vaughan Metropolitan and Mel Lastman subways quite effectively. Let's hope Ottawa is smart enough not to spend hundreds of millions to put tunnels under fields and trains down the middle of an expressway.

 

[Darwinkgo]

Certainly Ottawa is overbuilding a bit (180m long stations with automatic train control), but in all it is better than under building that the old plan was. I doubt they will never need all the capacity they are building, or at least won't during a period where it makes more sense to overbuild than to just wait and build later.

If Canada Line can make 15,000 ppdph with 50m long stations, you don't need 180m for 30,000 ppdph.

 

[Platform 27]

One thing that's particularly interesting about the Ottawa routing is they've broken from the TTC's school of thought when it comes to tunnel depth.

Whenever Toronto has gone through subway design exercises, it's always placed a premium on having stations be close to the surface, claiming that by avoiding London Underground-style super-long escalators you get improved commute speeds. Ottawa's planners seem to have decided that they're willing to trade those ostensible benefits for a deeper route that sticks to a nice, tasty layer of continuous bedrock that TBEMs will most happily chew through, with the added bonus of not having to worry about utilities or building footprints. By going deep they're also no longer wedded to the street grid, and so they get to go diagonally across the core and make a wide turn towards the U of O.

An additional consequence will be rather than getting cut-and-cover stations, as on Vancouver's Canada line and all TTC stations since 1980, the four underground stations will be mined out from between the tunnel shafts. I'd be curious to hear what sort of contractors you have to find to do that kind of work... can the usual Vanbots/Aecon/EllisDon gang do that, or do you give ValeInco and Teck a call?

 

[ShonTron]

Who's doing the Niagara Adam Beck tunnels under the City of Niagara Falls? As I understand, that's a deep-bore project.

 

[Platform 27]

If Canada Line can make 15,000 ppdph with 50m long stations, you don't need 180m for 30,000 ppdph.

Off-topic, but the Canada Line was horribly underbuilt in this respect.

One of the problems with PPP in general is that there is no incentive to future-proof the line, and in this case SNC Lavalin built the bare minimum to meet operational needs on day 1. As such, there were no Sheppard-style knockout walls included in the design that would permit train-lengths to be increased as ridership grows. As things stand, the rolling stock is barely bigger than SkyTrain Mark II cars, and with trainsets consisting of 2 x 20m cars, isn't exactly taking full advantage of the "train" concept.

The result is that in about 15-20 years from now, the Line could very well hit its capacity wall, and it won't be possible to increase it without spending exorbitant amounts re-excavating the stations.

 

[waterloowarrior]

^ The problem would lie more with the RFP than the PPP

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't know if Ottawa made the right decision or not as I'm not familiar with that city but these exact same arguments skewer both the Vaughan Metropolitan and Mel Lastman subways quite effectively. Let's hope Ottawa is smart enough not to spend hundreds of millions to put tunnels under fields and trains down the middle of an expressway.

The tunnel is through downtown Ottawa. The previous plan had the LRT running at-grade through the centre of downtown. And no the train is not going down the middle of an expressway.

Also, they are setting density targets for the suburbs as conditions to get LRT extensions.

 

[kEiThZ]

One thing that's particularly interesting about the Ottawa routing is they've broken from the TTC's school of thought when it comes to tunnel depth.

Whenever Toronto has gone through subway design exercises, it's always placed a premium on having stations be close to the surface, claiming that by avoiding London Underground-style super-long escalators you get improved commute speeds. Ottawa's planners seem to have decided that they're willing to trade those ostensible benefits for a deeper route that sticks to a nice, tasty layer of continuous bedrock that TBEMs will most happily chew through, with the added bonus of not having to worry about utilities or building footprints. By going deep they're also no longer wedded to the street grid, and so they get to go diagonally across the core and make a wide turn towards the U of O.

An additional consequence will be rather than getting cut-and-cover stations, as on Vancouver's Canada line and all TTC stations since 1980, the four underground stations will be mined out from between the tunnel shafts. I'd be curious to hear what sort of contractors you have to find to do that kind of work... can the usual Vanbots/Aecon/EllisDon gang do that, or do you give ValeInco and Teck a call?

They were forced to go deeper because of soil conditions and because of their "cross-country" routing which cuts diagonally across downtown under buildings.

 

[kEiThZ]

Certainly Ottawa is overbuilding a bit (180m long stations with automatic train control), but in all it is better than under building that the old plan was. I doubt they will never need all the capacity they are building, or at least won't during a period where it makes more sense to overbuild than to just wait and build later.

If Canada Line can make 15,000 ppdph with 50m long stations, you don't need 180m for 30,000 ppdph.

Most of the platforms (with the exception of those in the tunnel) are already built to this standard, so it's not a lot of additional work. They are initially building platforms for 120m. They are protecting 180m.

 

[Platform 27]

Who's doing the Niagara Adam Beck tunnels under the City of Niagara Falls? As I understand, that's a deep-bore project.

Wiki says its being done by Strabag AG from Austria.

Hydroelectric tubes are a little different than underground transit, as a torrent of water doesn't particularly care for things like emergency exits or crossover tracks. You point your TBEM in at one end, it chugs along doing most of the work, and you pull it out at the other.

The tricky part for Ottawa won't be the bores, per se, it'll be all the jackhammer and blasting work that will have to be carried out whenever they need to add elements to the infrastructure that don't fit neatly in two parallel tubes: stations, ventilation shafts, emergency stairwells (if the gaps between any of the stations are too long), electrical substations, and potentially crossover tracks.

If Ottawa shows you can do this work cheaply and efficiently in this day and age, it might be worth looking at as an option for the DRL, especially if it needs to be at a different grade from the YUS anyway. Being freed from the constraints of the street grid could be quite useful.

Back to Ottawa for a sec: it seems likely that the 2010 municipal election there will be a battle royale between current McGuinty Municipal Affairs minister Jim Watson and Larry O'Brien. Considering how fleshed-out the Ottawa plan now is, it seems unlikely that the provincial government will be able to keep ragging the puck for much longer when it comes to the funding question. It's unclear, though, who would benefit more from a McGuinty funding commitment: O'Brien or Watson. The tunnel is the former's baby and provincial money would in a way vindicate him, while the latter's candidacy might be wounded if he can't demonstrate he delivered for his hometown while in cabinet. Finally, the third horse in the race is Councillor Alex Cullen, who's a provincial Liberal-turned-NDPer who's the chair of the Transit Committee; I would thus assume he has to be backing the current plan on the table, too.

 

[Platform 27]

They were forced to go deeper because of soil conditions and because of their "cross-country" routing which cuts diagonally across downtown under buildings.

Um, that's pretty much what I said.

They had the option to go shallower, which meant less-TBEM-friendly soil conditions (ie, more $$$) and being forced to stick to the street grid. The planners figured those were big enough drawbacks to outweigh the usual arguments given against depth.

 

[Darwinkgo]

Most of the platforms (with the exception of those in the tunnel) are already built to this standard, so it's not a lot of additional work. They are initially building platforms for 120m. They are protecting 180m.

It is the extra length underground downtown and at Blair (and in the elevated stations at Bayview and Hurdman if my memory is correct) that adds a fair bit of cost.

Off-topic, but the Canada Line was horribly underbuilt in this respect.

One of the problems with PPP in general is that there is no incentive to future-proof the line, and in this case SNC Lavalin built the bare minimum to meet operational needs on day 1. As such, there were no Sheppard-style knockout walls included in the design that would permit train-lengths to be increased as ridership grows. As things stand, the rolling stock is barely bigger than SkyTrain Mark II cars, and with trainsets consisting of 2 x 20m cars, isn't exactly taking full advantage of the "train" concept.

The result is that in about 15-20 years from now, the Line could very well hit its capacity wall, and it won't be possible to increase it without spending exorbitant amounts re-excavating the stations.

I am not saying Ottawa should build 50m stations, but if the requirement is 30,000 ppdph that with low floor LRT requires 6 car 180m long trainsets (note, no existing LRT train set is designed with 6 car operation), they should reexamine their train set to shorten their stations. 100m stations can meet 30,000 ppdph (longer Canada Line style trainset).

Best thing would be to put the project to tender, but only with the route, station locations, and ppdph in the RFP. Then the bidders can figure out which technology is best for the tradeoff in station size.

Um, that's pretty much what I said.

They had the option to go shallower, which meant less-TBEM-friendly soil conditions (ie, more $$$) and being forced to stick to the street grid. The planners figured those were big enough drawbacks to outweigh the usual arguments given against depth.

They also had a downtown business association that wanted stations on both Albert and Slater, not one or the other that laid pressure on council. Of course they didn't want the streets ripped up for cut and cover for either the stations or tunnel due to business impact either.

 

[waterloowarrior]

According to the functional design report, the only stations with 180 metre platforms are the four underground downtown stations (which will have platform edge doors!) . The rest are being built for 120m with protection for future extensions. Bayview will also have a 90 metre platform for the NS line.




Here's the preliminary service plans BTW

Based on current ridership forecasts, it is expected that 3
or 4-car LRT trains will be required to operate on the
line at the following headways:
• Early Morning – 10 minute service (opening day
and 2031)
• Shoulder – morning peak – 5-minute service
(opening day and 2031)
• Morning peak – 3-minute service opening day, 2-
minute service in 2031
• Midday – 5-minute service (opening day and 2031)
• Afternoon peak – 3-minute service opening day, 2-
minute service in 2031
• Early Evening – 5-minute service (opening day and
2031)
• Late Evening – 10-mimute service (opening day
and 2031)

 

[gweed123]

Yeah. Just build for the sake of building. That's the right attitude. Don't bother about wasting a decades worth of transit funding on a line that does not ease bus congestion, duplicates existing service and does nothing for the 70% of commuters who travel east-west in Ottawa.

The old plan had a third of its line running through the greenbelt. That's worse than the LRT to the Zoo in Toronto. But hey at least they would have built something right? Just the attitude that's being taken to Transit City in Toronto.

The old plan was by developers, for developers. It was a plan to appease those living in Riverside South. It was the height of stupidity. I'm happy we have what we have now, even if we had to wait a few extra years to get it. Although I still think it should go to Baseline in the west.

 

[waterloowarrior]

I have to disagree with the opinions expressed about the NS line in this thread.

-it was for $25-30 mil per KM (depending on what you include), including vehicles, park and rides, and the maintenance facility and other projects like pedestrian bridges, much cheaper than any Transit City Line. It was also fully funded from Provincial/Federal pledges, development charges, reserves, and gas tax. About $50 million of the contract was for sewer/water projects in the area and the Strandherd-Armstrong road Bridge, basically done at the same time to save money. The planned EW line would have been perfectly timed for stimulus money.

-the line would have had 42,000 shortly after opening, 72,000 by 2021 and 92,000 by 2031, more than many entire systems in the US and certainly good value for money.

-the line significantly improved service not just for the suburban communities but for the O-Train corridor and especially redeveloping areas near Preston Street, not to mention a number of development proposals cancelled because of the LRT cancellation. It would have siginifcantly improved service to Carleton University and the Confederation Heights employment areas.

-As it was greenfield, single tracked (south of Leitrim), and at-grade, Riverside South/Barrhaven was a relatively small portion of the cost (except for the Stranherd Armstrong Bridge, but that was being built anyways as a road bridge and LRT was a small part of the cost) but it made up 40% of ridership

-*Any* line to the suburbs in Ottawa has to go through the Greenbelt, so there's no point complaining about that since at this point its not likely the Greenbelt will be developed. Kanata, Orleans, and Barrhaven all already have BRT/dedicated highway lanes through the Greenbelt (with the Cumberland Transitway and upgrades to the Kanata/Orleans routes to come)

-Riverside South had been planned since the early 90s, with rapid transit as part of the plan ( you can see the basic route designated as a future rapid transit corridor in the 1997 TMP). Rapid transit was always going to go there, with the successful pilot project of the O-Train and the RTES they decided it would be LRT. It's not something dreamed up by developers, it was a key part of Ottawa growth strategy for years before anyone was living in Riverside South.

-I don't think they should have put the downtown portion on Albert/Slater in the same lane as the buses, and they should have implemented signal priority in the downtown as well

-In any case, they are still building the NS line as part of the new plan (I like the new tunnel plan too )

-WRT to the tunnel, with the previous 2003 TMP plan basically the arguement was that given the limited funding resources and cost to convert the transitway they should be building new corridors until absolutely necessary. They had said it was not needed for 2021 provided improvements were made to Albert-Slater (I don't think they've been made yet)... I'm happy we now have the political will for a tunnel and hopefully we'll get the funding too!