News   Feb 05, 2024
Announcing SkyriseCities Ottawa Forum!
 1K     0 
News   Jan 27, 2020
Diamond Schmitt-Designed Library and Archives Revealed in Ottawa
 1.9K     0 
News   Nov 14, 2019
Second Tower in Ottawa's Greystone Village Reaches Milestone
 2K     0 

Ottawa Confederation Line LRT (City of Ottawa, U/C)

Darwinkgo said:
If you're building a completely underground station there is no particular reason why it should be under the old union station. Placing it under the CBD would work far better for the riders - you might even avoid it having to go above or below the LRT tunnel. Also, for commuters going further on the LRT, right in the centre of the line would make sense for people taking the LRT for the last portion of their trip, to Tunney's for example, without trying to crowd onto a full train.
Click to expand...

The reason why I figured Union station would be a good spot to put it is:

1) It could be built under the Canal and Colonel By Drive (ie no building foundations to deal with, except for maybe the tip of the NAC)
2) The land already exists south of the 417-Nicholas interchange to have both a tunnel entrance and a bridge directly to the existing tracks.
3) It would be by far the shortest tunnelled route into downtown (nearly exactly 2km).
4) It would be a symbolic renaissance of rail-based transit in Ottawa. Using the old rail station as the new rail station.

Yes, the walk for some would be a fair distance, but build a couple underground walkways and that trek becomes less of a hastle during the winter. Also, it wouldn't cross the LRT tunnel at all. The LRT tunnel would be directly east of it, and would swoop across and come in just north of where the tunnel would end.
 
AnarchoSocialist said:
And as Darkwingo said, the only way to evaluate the true costs of the LRT line would be to include the costs of constructing the Transitway (minus stations, paving, etc). This would be really hard to do since much of the work being done to create the exclusive right of way is done bit by bit. Sections are added in 1 or 2 km lengths, grade separations are often done one at a time, stations such as the new one at Baseline are actually quite substantial projects, even though it wont see LRT for another 8 years or so once it opens. It's a fantastic strategy, and one that will allow Ottawa to expand its LRT network pretty quickly once the backbone is done, but hard to calculate the costs of.
Click to expand...

I live very close to Baseline station, and I've been watching the project with great interest. I can't wait until this summer when the new underground section is open. And I do agree with you, once the backbone is in place, the rest of the network should go rather quickly. It will be true incremental expansion, because in a lot of cases the corridor is already in place, it's just a matter of changing the pavement to rails, and modifying the stations slightly to accomodate LRT.
 
Darwinkgo said:
Unless the scope of the project changes a fair bit modifying stations slightly seems to be the last things on their minds.
Click to expand...

Which isn't a bad thing. The stations are really nice the way they are. The underground stations are spacious while at the same time not gargantuan. I would imagine that the redesigned Campus station would look relatively similar to all the other at-grade stations on the line.
 
not gargantuan
Click to expand...

180m long stations? When talking about modifying stations, I believe the talk was about the suburban transitway stations, not the to be built on the drawing board stations. Right now the scope of the project precludes not having to modify heavily most of the suburban transitway stations. All of the proposed stations in this phase including transitway conversions are total rebuilds.

Edit:
Oh, I get it. You like the huge overbuilt for Ottawa's needs stations. There is something to be said for practicality, frugality, and avoiding white elephants.
 
Last edited:
Darwinkgo said:
180m long stations? When talking about modifying stations, I believe the talk was about the suburban transitway stations, not the to be built on the drawing board stations. Right now the scope of the project precludes not having to modify heavily most of the suburban transitway stations. All of the proposed stations in this phase including transitway conversions are total rebuilds.

Edit:
Oh, I get it. You like the huge overbuilt for Ottawa's needs stations. There is something to be said for practicality, frugality, and avoiding white elephants.
Click to expand...

From what I understood, the stations on the DOTT project are being built to the length of 6-car LRT trains. I see no reason why this is 'overbuilding', as it's much less expensive to build them to that length now, then have to upgrade them later, especially for the underground stations. Suburban stations on the Transitway, yeah I can see how overbuilding them could be a problem. I was talking specifically about the DOTT project though.
 
gweed123 said:
From what I understood, the stations on the DOTT project are being built to the length of 6-car LRT trains. I see no reason why this is 'overbuilding', as it's much less expensive to build them to that length now, then have to upgrade them later, especially for the underground stations. Suburban stations on the Transitway, yeah I can see how overbuilding them could be a problem. I was talking specifically about the DOTT project though.
Click to expand...
Six 30-metre cars - that would be 180 metres long? That's longer than any subway station in Toronto, which are only 150 metres long.
 
nfitz said:
Six 30-metre cars - that would be 180 metres long? That's longer than any subway station in Toronto, which are only 150 metres long.
Click to expand...

I don't remember what the exact length number was, all I remember is that they were being built to accomodate 6-car trainsets. Whether or not that 180m is accurate I don't know.
 
It's not a white elephant. It's a very smart move. They are building below the city centre and trying to integrate the surrounding buildings. There's no sense building 4 car stations when their forecast anticipated 6 cars someday. Why would you plan to have to rip up the downtown core in two decades just to increase platform length. That's plain stupid when the marginal cost of going from 4 to 6 car platforms now is low.

It's no different than the prudence exercised when building the Sheppard subway.

As for the length.... well that's just how long a 6 car LRT is. Somebody remind me again how long a single Transit City LRV is?
 
Edmonton's underground stations also seem comically oversized when a 2 car train arrives, but they're currently in the process of lengthening all their surface stations now. With a recent purchase of new vehicles, soon they'll be running 5 car trainsets.
 
The problem isn't that they are anticipating the future - the problem is they choose the rolling stock tech type before doing their ridership demands.With low floor LRT rolling stock they need the huge stations. It doesn't help that no existing low floor LRT set (even with overlength cars) will MU to make up a 180m train. A switch to pretty much any different rolling stock tech can get the station lengths down without sacrificing potential future capacity.

It isn't like you can really integrate walk up neighborhood scale 180 m long stations in the middle of road ways - which was one of the main reasons to go with low floor LRT. The idea is just bonkers.

Markster said:
Edmonton's underground stations also seem comically oversized when a 2 car train arrives, but they're currently in the process of lengthening all their surface stations now. With a recent purchase of new vehicles, soon they'll be running 5 car trainsets.
Click to expand...

Edmonton's headway is constrained by seemingly poorly planned level crossings on the newly opened south extension which means they can only add capacity through longer trains. They are no where near the capacity limit of their tunnel.
 
Last edited:
Low floors reduce the capacity within the vehicle due to the "wheel well" space (just like how low floor buses also have a lower capacity than high-floor buses).
 
CDL.TO said:
Low floors reduce the capacity within the vehicle due to the "wheel well" space (just like how low floor buses also have a lower capacity than high-floor buses).
Click to expand...

I would direct you to Bombardier Flexity 2 website where you can download the PDF for more information. Click on this link, click on references.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top