Category Archives: LRT

How intrusive will WLRT wiring be along the parkway?

IMG_1662

On a recent visit to Toronto, I made a point of noticing overhead electric wiring for streetcars. My general memory of streetcar wiring was situations like the one pictured above, a spagetti heap of wiring over an intersection.

Of course, such situations occur when different streetcar lines meet. And for the Ottawa case, the LRT is a single line with no branches or loops or turnoffs, so wiring situations like the above just won’t be here [yes, there will be a spur line off to the maintenance yard, and in a few cases parallel tracks to store trains, but these will be no where as a common as streetcar intersections are].

IMG_1661

In Toronto, the overhead wiring running up the centre of the street above the track is supported by cross wires, running from one side of the street to the other. It quickly became apparent to me that the really visible part of the wiring was that running parallel to the street, from post to post, above the sidewalk. This was a tangle of thicker cables, messy connections, utility boxes, etc, whereas the single strand up the centre line I had to search for.

During the first WLRT public meeting last month, angry Westboroites claimed the City had fixed the pictures to hide the overhead wiring, to make it invisible, whereas it was sure to be a visual nightmare. After a few times pointing out that the pictures did have the wiring on them, to jeers from the audience, the consultant gave up and just let the audience wallow in their anger.

Fact was, one had to squint really closely to actually see the wire, which may be a factor of enlarging the photo, or maybe, just maybe, the wiring isn’t all this visible. Ergo, my inspection of the scene overhead Toronto streets.

IMG_1663

The above pic is a view along the Spadina streetcar line. The Spadina line is modern, running down the centre boulevard, with some landscaping and curbing elements. The overhead wiring was again visible mainly by looking for it, and accentuated here by using a zoom picture. Some of the overhead signs on the wires related to the LRT line and others to traffic movements on the road lanes. If those signs weren’t hanging on the wires, they would have been put up on freestanding posts.

IMG_1665

In front of the AGO, the wiring was actually hung on the frame of the new building. It made for a wonderfully clear sidewalk, and I think it quite bold that the planners / architects or whomever actually allowed the wires to be attached to a significant public building we are all supposed to be admiring. I can’t see Ottawan’s welcoming wiring anchored to our new convention centre, or the NCC ever agreeing to such a practical solution if other, hugely expensive alternatives are around. Here is a closer picture:

IMG_1664

It is very noticeable that the wiring is underground only on one side of the street. On the north side, the old posts continue, including some real monsters:

IMG_1666

The question of what the posts along Ottawa’s new LRT will look like may have been discussed with the NCC but I am not priveleged to that conversation. I do recall how nicely redesigned the red light camera posts are in front of the War Museum compared to elsewhere in the city. So I expect the NCC  will be very keen to approve the posts holding up the wires if the Western LRT skims the edge of the Ottawa River Commuter Expressway.

Maybe someone will even be concerned about how they will look going through condoville on LeBreton Flats. Claridge and the NCC’s third building is now going up on the Flats, and has a direct view of the wiring between the LeBreton Station and the tunnel portal under the cliff at Queen Street.

Interestingly, the NCC has shown (thus far) no interest in what the trackbed will look like when viewed from all those condos they hope to develop on the Flats, but I suspect their level of interest will be much higher when it comes to the sacred green blades viewed by motorists on the Parkway.

Sir John just might be rolling in his grave — for various reasons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Preston “extension” bike path going, going … gone

april 2013 009

 

The Preston Extension (shown above),  the leftover bit of pavement that runs north from the Preston-Albert intersection, that takes cyclists out to the Aqueduct bike path (now remediated into a pit) and eventually the  Sir John A Mcdonald (JAM?)  Path, is due to be closed this spring.

It won’t reopen in a hurry. The surrounding brownfields will be remediated. For a clue as to what that will look like, examine the Damascas-like terrain out by the War Museum. Then the Confederation Line LRT track will replace the transitway. It will be bordered on both sides with six-foot chain link fences. No overpasses.

There might be a two year respite in the middle, though, if the LRT contractor decides to use the Preston Extension as a detour route around the Booth-LeBreton construction site. But that detour won’t include an overpass, and is “throw away” infrastructure to be removed once Booth reopens.

This week, the NCC closed the section of the bike path running north from the transitway:

april 2013 004

 

Here’s the sign:

april 2013 005

 

And bizarrely, there is a City sign advising people to use the OTrain multi-user path that runs between Bayview Station and the Parkway near the Prince of Wales railway bridge. Unfortunately, that path isn’t yet open. And the sign faces the wrong way, and is located at the Preston-transitway closure point rather than well before cyclists and peds get halfway across the Flats:

feb-march 2013 041I think that wavey thingy below the Ottawa wordmark is supposed to be transportation infrastructure, but it always makes me wonder what obscure third-world country’s flag it might be.

All is not lost, though, as the OTrain MUP opens May 8th . Cyclists are a tough lot, and many are using the OTrain MUP pathway now.  Never let a few concrete barricades or high fences get in the way of cyclists, pedestrians, or dog walkers. Others are getting around the NCC closure of the Preston extension by deking around the west side of the fence:

april 2013 007

Maybe, if we are lucky, the city will move their sign to a more useful location for the opening of the pathway.

 

Where loading docks and walkways conflict

One of the exciting things about being in an urban environment is the variety of people doing different things, of different vehicles, and the shear jumble of activities. Sometimes it is wise to separate these activities, sometimes not.

One area I am very undecided about is delivery docks for downtown buildings. Consider the south side of Constitution Square:

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

There are several indoor loading docks, behind the garage doors. Beyond that is a busy entrance and exit to the underground parking garage. Beyond that, is the pedestrian entrance, conveniently located mid-block, opposite the mid-block transit station.

The concrete surface is all broken up and tackily patched with asphalt. Skimping on rebar in walkways is one of our City’s favourite false-economies. The walk in the foreground shouldn’t be bearing trucks, but of course it is a convenient spot for trucks and delivery vehicles to stop “just for a moment” when the loading docks are busy or closed. To a driver, the whole area looks like a driveway. To a pedestrian, the whole area looks a bit dicey, a sort of walkway with a built-in hazard component. Dodgeball with trucks.

I am sure some people will consider this a wide pedestrian environment. Albeit one with grates and a curbed safety island designed to push pedestrians out from the garage entrance. And on weekends or evenings I find this stretch quite OK. But it is bleak; the building developers opted for a nice front on Albert and a definite backside on Slater.

I wonder how this space would work if pedestrians were chanellized more, onto the curbside first 6-10′ of walk. That curbed peninsula could become a low planter, as could the flush grates. Most greenery would come at the transition spaces at each end of the service area where through-pedestrian traffic would be steered away from the building edge to the curbside channel. This would also visually separate the loading dock driveways from the pedestrian walks, and maybe, just maybe, discourage some of the drivers from parking there.

What I would hate to see is the dreadful auto-first “solution” on the south side of Minto Place, where the walk is interrupted by a curb all along the lane to the garage, elevating the lane to status of a road being crossed trespassed by pedestrians.

Do you think the city regulates loading docks / garage entrances and their relationships to the pedestrian walks  fine now, or do you think a greater degree of separation is better? What are the worst loading docks / garage entrances and what can we do about them?

My candidates for worst include the new Export Development Building and Place de Ville*, where loading docks and garage entrances are all ganged up together creating a lengthy conflict zone along the walk.

 

_________________

* isn’t it ironic that the lengthy series of loading dock and driveway entrances between the Marriott and Podium Buildings along Queen is directly adjacent to the new Confederation Line main downtown entrance that will replace St Joseph printing on the ground floor of the podium building …

Confederation Line (iii) – Baby it’s cold inside

citalis in snow

 

Dashing thru the snow ….

The RTG literature for the new Confederation Line assures us repeatedly that their equipment runs in cold and snowy climates. Given those frequent winter stories in the mass media that we live in the coldest (capital) city in the world, I’d feel much better knowing that our model of trains were running flawlessly in Edmonton, or Winnipeg or Moscow.

Instead we are assured they run in “northern cities”. Copenhagen may well be north of us, but it has a maritime climate. The 100% low floor trains currently run in AdelaideLyonBordeauxParis T2ValenciennesRotterdamBuenos Aires,MadridMelbourneNiceMurciaBarcelonaJerusalemLe Havre and Grenoble. With the exception of Grenoble, none of these strike me as having a severe continental climate. Is it too much to have the supplier provide a chart showing the winter conditions in a couple of cities running the same equipment for the same run lengths proposed for Ottawa? And could staff then phone those cities to see if the equipment runs in mid-winter?

The last time we had street-cars in Ottawa, they were notorious for breaking down in the snow, which packed underneath them and lifted the vehicle off the tracks, paralyzing the system.

Deep Frozen Storage

We also propose storing our train-sets outdoors. After they have been washed and cleaned, we’ll roll them outside into the minus 40 and leave them for several hours, before sending them out at 6am to collect passengers. I’d be a lot more confident that they would be warm and unfrozen if they were stored indoors, even if the storage yard was just minimally heated to above freezing.

Ottawa storage yard is outdoors, covered from the snow but not heated

Ottawa storage yard is outdoors, covered from the snow but not heated

 

Maintenance facility in Catalonia

Maintenance facility in Catalonia

The characteristic Ottawa foot-stomp

The trains aren’t the only things we are leaving out in the cold. The passengers will be, too.

Unlike the current Transitway system, which has several heated stations (eg, Lincoln Fields,  the former Baseline Station, Hurdman, Place D’Orleans) the new surface stations apparently will not have any heated passenger waiting areas.

Earlier in the planning process, I asked city engineers why not. The wait, I was told, was only 3 1/2 minutes for a train. But that’s at rush hour, what about 9.30 Sunday night, there might be a train at Baseline every fifteen minutes? So, the answer went, you get dropped off and might have a ten minute wait, that’s really not long. Dropped off? what if I just walked through the snow for 20 minutes with an 8 year old to get there, and now we have ten or fifteen minutes standing in the cold?

Really, I thought the planning staff had a hard time seeing beyond rush hour commuters and lacked understanding for those who use the system as their primary form of medium and long haul transit, who are thus on the system at all hours of the day and night, when service is not nearly as frequent.

These new surface stations will probably function great at rush hour, when train service really is every 3 or 5 minutes. But outside of rush hour, when trains are less frequent, waits will be longer. And thus far OC Transpo hasn’t guaranteed that all the connecting bus services will run at 5 minute headways, which means there will be lots of passengers waiting for longer periods. The lucky ones will be in unheated stations.

Some of the current transitway stations are little more than a collection of bus shelters. Despite all the pictures of grand glass-enclosed stations trotted out to sell the RTG Confederation scheme, a closer look shows that the stations have miraculously shrunk to a fraction of the size they were proposed as just a few months ago.

Look at Tunney’s, for example. Previous stations enclosed the bus passenger waiting areas on the Holland Avenue side. Then the NCC axed these, as the roof lines violated their precious view lines toward the Claxton Building. Instead, transit users freezing their butts off waiting for the bus will be warmed by their inspirational views of a 60′s office tower.Iconic modernism warms the heart and and feet. Other people waiting for the bus will have modest glass wind and rain shelters, but no heat.

Ironically, the train users which are likely to have the shortest waits get the grand stations, while the bus users with the longer waits get shoved outdoors. I’d love to see our Councillors asking a few questions about why there are no heated waiting areas, the success or failure of the current transitway heated shelters, and maybe even hear from some transit users as how they rate unheated stations. As it is now, I feel Council is sleepwalking into a design choice that is not well understood.

Stairway to Heaven

A number of those unheated stations will have escalators in them. For reasons of economy of space and funds, there will not be two way escalators (one up, one down). Instead, the single escalator will run in the preferred rush hour direction, sometimes up, sometimes down. People won’t be confused by this reversing flow because the stations are so well designed users will just intuitively know whether they should head for the escalator or the manual staircase, which may be in different locations in our new stations.

Our stations will be closed during the wee hours. So those escalators will carry people with snowy boots and collect moisture and salt and grit all day, then shut down at midnight for a six hour nap in the minus 30. At six am someone out on Belfast road will push a button and the escalators will silently begin rolling again. I have repeatedly asked the city engineers planning this system to identify some locations with outdoor escalators in a continental climate, but never got an answer. RTG was no better, simply assuring me that the contract calls for heavy duty escalators and there are penalty clauses of they don’t work. Yeah, fine, but where are there escalators running unheated in a winter like ours? It’s not like we can tear them out later if they don’t work, since we are depending on the volume of passengers they carry (more, apparently, than a manual staircase can) for the stations to work.

I get the feeling that Council is rushing too much on the Confederation Line. It takes time to absorb just what is being offered. Thus far, staff are giving a good sales pitch, pointing out the nifty neat stuff. The glamour. The sizzle.

But I haven’t seen an itemization of what compromises where made to get here. Councillors and the public may still have memories of earlier PR extolling planned features that have in fact disappeared.

It was a bit of a challenge to get citizen and user input at the earlier planning stages, when there were so many options being considered. But now that there is a plan, is it too much to  set up various users groups to run through the details? When our Community Association asked to meet with staff to run through the station designs in our neighborhood, we were told that might occur in February, after the contract is signed. You know, when it’s too late.

 

 

 

Confederation matters (i)

The new Confederation LRT line stations for downtown Ottawa — as proposed by the winning consortium — are very different from the previous designs worked out by the City.

The City’s previous designs were very big on safety through environmental design. To that end, the downtown tunnel stations had a upper level mezzanine with the ticketing functions, that was then open to the track level one floor below.

In quiet hours, someone on the mezzanine could eyeball the trackside waiting areas. People waiting on the platforms could be confident that someone could see them easily from the mezzanine. All that openness promotes subjective safety, ie the safety the user feels, regardless of what the stats might say about safety.

The selected downtown station designs largely do away with soaring, multi-level openness. From what I can tell from the provided illustrations, the mezzanine level is an enclosed space. The train platforms are a separate space. They are only connected visually by staircases. The train platforms, in particular, are low-ceilinged boxes. I’ve seen condos with higher ceilings.

Downtown east, platform view. The highest ceiling is above the trains, where the wiring runs. The platforms themselves have lower ceilings.

Downtown west platform level. The ceiling appears to be about 9′ high on the backside of the platform. The sightline up to the mezannine is restricted to the width of the escalator or stairs. The escalators and stairs themselves block a view down the length of the platform. When arriving on the platform you won’t be able to foresee who is there.

Downtown east, sightlines from mezannine level up to the street or down to the train platforms is limited to the stairway locations.Are those florescent tubes in the ceiling  strong enough to light up the mezannine?.

Downtown east mezannine. Is the sightline to the platform level via the escalator on the far right of the picture, under the upper escalator and behind the utility closet?

It would be much easier to examine the Confederation Line station designs if plans had been published. Alas, the PR boffins favour pretty summertime “artist illustrations” so it is hard to figure out just where traffic flows or what the sightlines are.

I wonder if the City is going to sign a billion dollar contract without ever knowing just how this proponent is laying out the platforms? I, for one, would like to see a lot more detail before we commit to what is being offered.

For interest, here is a drawing of the original downtown west station design, with the highly rated centre platform, vaulted ceiling, and open mezannine. Compare this to the one the city is accepting from RTC, and weep:

downtown_west_orig_centreload

fig8-25-platforms

 

Side effects of the LRT construction

Assuming that the LRT project about to announced on Wednesday at City Hall won’t be saying “the bids were too high, and as your fiscally prudent mayor, I am therefore cancelling it” …I think we can assume it will be going ahead.

To construct it, the City is applying to close part of Old Wellington Street. Finding Wellington is rather like searching for a moving target when it crosses the Flats. Recall that the current Wellington runs down from Parliament, past the Archives building, intersects with Portage Bridge, and swings through the Flats to cross Booth and Vimy and then terminates a few meters west of the aqueduct when it gets renamed the Sir JAMacdonald Commuter Expressway Parkway.

One of the few old segments left still bearing the Wellington name runs from   Commissioner Street to a different intersection with Booth Street. I dunno if the one way westbound ramp from Wellington down the slope to Old Wellington  along the west side of the Garden of the Provinces & Territories is actually named Wellington. I sure know there are no street signs at the Booth intersection of Old Wellington, to avoid confusing Gatineau-bound motorists who probably couldn’t cope with a Wellington deja vu.

The City’s notice of planned closure was quick and scanty, so I wrote off to the City asking a few questions. Here are the questions and answers:

1.       Is this a permanent road closure, or for the duration of the construction?

Answer:  The closure will be permanent as this section of (old) Wellington Street will be required to accommodate the LRT’s tracks and guideway.

 

2.       If permanent, how does this tie into the city’s approved Escarpment Plan which relies on this street for local access to developments on city-owned lands (currently the surface parking lots along Albert)?

Answer:  Our understanding is that the Escarpment Area District Plan will be updated to accommodate the LRT’s alignment.  Although it was known that the LRT would run through the area when the Plan was developed, the actual alignment had not been finalized at that point.  It is anticipated that local access roads will be created as part of the relevant development plans for the area, as and when they are submitted.

 3.       if permanent, are there financial consquences for reinstating the road later, during development of the adjacent lands?It is false economy to close and not replace the street during LRT construction, to the benefit of the LRT budget, but to the detriment of the later land development budget which must restate the street

Answer:  As noted above, it is anticipated that access roads would be part of any comprehensive redevelopment proposals for the area.  Design would be concurrent with any development application.  As such, the cost would be borne by the developer.

 4.       the street is now used for parking tour buses whilst passengers are circulating in the downtown, or in hotels. What provision is being made for them, and is there community consultation planned beforehand?

Answer:  The decision to place the LRT’s alignment in this location was made in 2011, as part of the decision to utilize Queen Street for the LRT’s alignment.  A report on this matter was put before Council whereby public deputations were permitted.  Vehicles may park on City roads in accordance with local parking by-laws, as and where space is available.  There are no plans to directly accommodate any displaced tour busses that may park on this section of Wellington Street on any City-owned property or road.

 5.       will the use of the Old Wellington road for LRT stageing also include closing the parking lots, which will also preclude using them for bus parking?

Answer:  As noted, the section of Wellington Street is required for the LRT’s alignment.  The City-owned parking lots to the south are required for construction staging relating to the digging of the LRT’s tunnel which is to run under downtown.

 6.       will this include closing Commissioner street? Note that LRT construction parallels the river parklands, and ALL of the pedestrian and cyclist crossings are being impacted – Bayview, Preston Extension, Booth, Commissioner. Simply instructing cyclists to use constricted road detours through the construction sites will be insufficient. Some thought needs to be given to measures to permit continued easy access to the river front, and access to the downtown for commuter cyclists.

Answer:  Commissioner Street will not be closed as part of this process, or by the operation of the LRT.  The tunnel will run underneath Commissioner Street, so that the north-south access can be maintained.  There are extensive provisions being made to ensure that pedestrian and cycling connectivity and access are maintained through the LRT’s construction period.

 7.       Old Wellington is used by dog walkers, pedestrians, commuters  — closing off Old Wellington and adjacent areas will displace these people and functions to other spaces. Some thought needs to be given to the larger picture.

Answer:  The LRT’s constructor is required to maintain and leave open all routes currently used by pedestrians and cyclists that could be affected by the LRT’s construction.  Where temporary route or crossing closures are required, an safe alternative route will have to be provided and appropriate signage put in place.  Notwithstanding this, some disruption is inevitable as part of the LRT’s construction.  In the longer term, planning for the LeBreton Flats area will continue to be guided by the City’s Official Plan and the Escarpment Area District Plan.

And thus ends the guts of the letter.

Several notes: we still have to find a new place for the tour busses. The City is the likely developer of the city-owned parking lots, for affordable housing, and the restatement of the roads is thus a cost transfer from the OLRT project to the affordable housing provider. And lastly, I like the sentence  The LRT’s constructor is required to maintain and leave open all routes currently used by pedestrians and cyclists that could be affected by the LRT’s construction. Fortunately, the Preston street extension is open today , so …

 

Multi modal transfer station design

Ottawa will soon be getting a dozen or so LRT stations. We don’t know what the “final” design will be.  The PAC for those stations hasn’t met for months. I do hope it gets one last kick at the penultimate designs of the winning contractor. PACs can and do offer good advice, very practical, from the user perspective.

Until then, here’s a look at the Hyannis MA multi modal transfer station. Located in the downtown (such as there is in low density America) on former rail yards, it has a passenger rail terminus, the inter city bus station for buses to and from Boston, the tour bus facility, the city bus, and the local transit that runs from town to village up the coast of Cape Cod. There is lots of park and ride lot, and taxi pickup zones. It is a short and convenient walk to the ferry to Nantucket and elsewhere.

there exterior landscaping was lush and well done, but the architectural sign-age wasn’t upfront enough, so a more prominent sign was installed:

Alas, the “transportation centre” moniker is about as plain as the old attempt to rename “libraries” as “resource centres”. So, the plain term “bus station” was added.

the broad inviting walkway looked oversized for the volume of traffic, but was probably scaled to match the building and to be proportionate to the surroundings. The terminal building itself was in Cape Cod architectural style, of course.

the view from the station back towards main street and the road to the harbour. There were abundant drop off zones and bus storage zones, resulting in a facility that worked well for cars and buses but was very large for pedestrians. Architects do love back-less benches, and these granite ones look so comfy. The lack of bothersome trees would facilitate maintenance, and the trees actually installed were in the minimum-size sidewalk openings.

the large interior space was broken up into several more room-sized volumes

automatic doors. Notice the wind screen beyond the doors. The area is subject to breezes, not just when Tropical Storm Sandy blows by. There were also wind screens around the bus loading platforms.

The interior held the combined waiting areas, all indoors and heated (unlike Ottawa with its milder climate), with bus company offices upstairs, a tourist kiosk, info desks, and very nice washrooms

the station waiting area had wooden seating, in a traditional bus depot style. I did not test them for comfort. There was free WIFI.

The station was about a decade old, and was undergoing refurbishment and modernization. Crews were installing these monitors that presumably will soon have timetable info in addition to the route maps given in traditional map format and in the google view

The route map had lit up icons of buses, that blinked and moved along the route in real time, so you could always know where your bus was