Jump to content

Station Design / Architecture


Recommended Posts

Thought it would be appreciated to have a topic specifically destined to discuss the functional and aesthetic of the network!

Tonight, got tired of seeing comments about "look how narrow it is", so I "might" have spent too much time doing the math and photoshop for a rough estimate. Long thread, but probably my best estimate so far. Can't wait to bring a tape measure to confirm my estimate.

From a functional perspective, stations are generally designed to accommodate a full vehicle of passengers, and even more, in a safe manner. For crowd safety, the rule of thumb is less than 4 individuals per sq.m (standing or walking). Anything over this is considered over-crowded and relatively unsafe by European standards. My rough estimate for the underground platforms is anywhere between 1.3 - 1.6m to the yellow line at the narrowest spot. We know platforms are 120m underground to accommodate potential extensions, so this gives us a minimum area of 156 sq.m, or a "safe" capacity of 656 - 768 passengers, excluding yellow buffer and any additional width in other spots.

While this might sound like a tight fit, here's a few considerations:

  • Trains have an "official" capacity of 600 passengers, calculated at 3.5 passenger per sq.m
  • To reach "unsafe" levels, it would require a station to have more than 650 passengers arrive in less than 4 minutes during peak (which is the equivalent of 7.5 double decker, each direction, every 4 minutes)
  • This assumes no added capacity by the additional alcoves, concourse levels and the natural flow of people (not everyone reaches the platform at the same time)
  • Heavy rail platforms in many countries are actually narrower and see even more traffic than is expected to reach each station. Union Station on the TTC functioned for decades with even narrower platforms, and so does the London Underground in many places.
  • All this is assuming that one train enters the station, completely empty, and that the station is full. Even with people entering and exciting, the number of doors on the vehicles makes it less of a limiting factor than the actual intelligence of people.

As is often forgotten when talking about the Confederation Line, it is functionally designed to serve 10,000 - 24,000 passengers per hour, per direction on its alignment, which is far more than the Transitway is currently able to accommodate. Stations, vehicles and the systems are designed for future growth, and while the stations "can look small", it doesn't make them unsafe or inadequate. With the use of waiting screens in the concourses, proper signage and audio announcements, the entire space of each station can be maximized!

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The rail layer on geoOttawa shows where the extensions will be for each station. St. Laurent - Will be extended eastwards uOttawa - Entirely southwards Bayview - geoOttawa says eas

Based on GeoOttawa, they have reduced station extensions to 100 meters (currently at 90 meters). As you've suggested David, the cabs will spill over the platforms. One thing of interest however, they

Another topic I wanted to discuss: platform extensions. We all know the underground stations were built at 120m already to support the maximum vehicle length, and ground stations are built at 100

Posted Images

Another topic I wanted to discuss: platform extensions.

We all know the underground stations were built at 120m already to support the maximum vehicle length, and ground stations are built at 100m for now. When going around the stations, the layout of some make it obvious which way they will be extended.

  • Blair - East towards buffers, as West seems limited by switch arrangement and position of OCS (though it can always be relocated)
  • Cyrville - East towards Blair, as West end is occupied by elevator
  • St. Laurent - Since it is considered underground, I presume it is already built at 120m?
  • Tremblay - West towards Hurdman: structure in the way at the East with the overpass for Via Rail
  • Hurdman - East towards Tremblay: West is locked by staircase structure, and would require additional support to be built, compared to grass on east end.
  • Lees - North towards uOttawa, as elevator shafts are south facing. However, underpass width would not allow for 20m extensions without blocking the MUP?
  • uOttawa - Likely 10m each way? Not enough clearance towards Lees, but 20m the other way would block access to FSS? Looks limited by track geometry towards portal.
  • Pimisi - West towards Bayview: spacing was obviously built-in, as East would require track realignment towards the portal + elevator shaft removal.
  • Bayview - East towards Pimisi (?): West would require extension to platform overhang, but East still requires reconfiguration of entrance?...
  • Tunney's Pasture - East towards Bayview (?): East is covered by overpass, but enough clearance is there. Also, West is limited by emergency exit configuration (10m each direction possible?)

What I find interesting is many stations are designed with an obvious side for such expansion, while the other platform end is entirely off the table.

 

Few random observations that I found noteworthy:

  • All stations are straight and relatively flat (no curved platform and "mind the gap")
    • Stations are required to be fully accessible by the AODA, but doesn't stipulate the entirety of a platform has to be accessible.
  • While generally "more efficient", only 3 stations have island platforms (Pimisi, Cyrville and Blair).
    • Surprising to me, Tunney's was not designed as an island platform, even though it will serve as terminal for at least 5 years. This makes the "next train departure" game quite difficult to guess.
  • Lyon and Parliament will have a "continuous" concourse, meaning one user could cross the fare gate at one end, and exit through the other entrance, without ever going on the platform level, something not possible at Rideau.
    • This will make "technically" the Parliament concourse the most expensive underground access between two buildings in the city (Sun Life Centre and Heritage Place).
  • uOttawa and Bayview are the only two stations which a fare gate does not give access to both platforms directly. While it is not a "functional deficiency" IMO, it can lead to confusion and potentially complicate the access for reduced mobility users.
    • EB platform entrance at Bayview requires one to go down the escalator, across the concourse, up the escalator to the WB platform.
    • "Main entrance" at uOttawa gives direct access to the WB platform, and requires one to go down to the concourse (where the other fare gate is located) to access the EB platform.
  • While Rideau Station is the deepest platform on the alignment, Hurdman is likely the highest relative to the ground.
    • Based on the number of steps at Bayview (around 20-25), Hurdman is most certainly higher. Relative to sea level, the distinction goes to Bayview (most likely).
  • Out of 13 stations, 4 don't have escalators to platform level.
    • uOttawa, Lees, Tremblay and Cyrville
    • 3 stations have escalators that go up to platform level: Hurdman, Blair and Bayview.
  • While most stations won't change with Stage 2, Bayview will become even more distinct than the rest of the network.
    • Second entrance towards Albert, giving it three fare gates.
    • Second Trilium platform, and potentially the extension towards POW, resulting in reconfiguration of the MUP around the station.
    • Two "visual identities" given the two lines and construction groups.
  • Like 2
Link to post
13 hours ago, DavidBellerive said:

From a functional perspective, stations are generally designed to accommodate a full vehicle of passengers, and even more, in a safe manner. For crowd safety, the rule of thumb is less than 4 individuals per sq.m (standing or walking). Anything over this is considered over-crowded and relatively unsafe by European standards. My rough estimate for the underground platforms is anywhere between 1.3 - 1.6m to the yellow line at the narrowest spot. We know platforms are 120m underground to accommodate potential extensions, so this gives us a minimum area of 156 sq.m, or a "safe" capacity of 656 - 768 passengers, excluding yellow buffer and any additional width in other spots.

....snip

While I am sure you are right about the overall capacity and space being enough to accommodate expected crowds during normal operations what about when there are events going on and a station is likely to see very large numbers of people in a short span of time when an event ends? There are three stations quite close for Canada Day celebrations on Parliament hill so maybe it won't be an issue.  Pimisi might be more problematic for Bluesfest, though being an island platform it can handle quite large crowds I would think. I can however see there might be a need to have staff stationed in the concourse level to control traffic and prevent too many people from going down to platform levels in those high traffic event situations. 

Also the sections that are narrow in the underground stations could still cause bottle necks, you get people standing in those narrower areas by the stairs and other people wanting to get past them (getting off the train or trying to get on etc) only time will tell how well the traffic will flow in the stations.

Hopefully we really do get to find out in September, if they really are able to get the system up and running by then.

Link to post
11 hours ago, DavidBellerive said:

Another topic I wanted to discuss: platform extensions.

We all know the underground stations were built at 120m already to support the maximum vehicle length, and ground stations are built at 100m for now. When going around the stations, the layout of some make it obvious which way they will be extended.

  • Blair - East towards buffers, as West seems limited by switch arrangement and position of OCS (though it can always be relocated)
  • Cyrville - East towards Blair, as West end is occupied by elevator
  • St. Laurent - Since it is considered underground, I presume it is already built at 120m?
  • Tremblay - West towards Hurdman: structure in the way at the East with the overpass for Via Rail
  • Hurdman - East towards Tremblay: West is locked by staircase structure, and would require additional support to be built, compared to grass on east end.
  • Lees - North towards uOttawa, as elevator shafts are south facing. However, underpass width would not allow for 20m extensions without blocking the MUP?
  • uOttawa - Likely 10m each way? Not enough clearance towards Lees, but 20m the other way would block access to FSS? Looks limited by track geometry towards portal.
  • Pimisi - West towards Bayview: spacing was obviously built-in, as East would require track realignment towards the portal + elevator shaft removal.
  • Bayview - East towards Pimisi (?): West would require extension to platform overhang, but East still requires reconfiguration of entrance?...
  • Tunney's Pasture - East towards Bayview (?): East is covered by overpass, but enough clearance is there. Also, West is limited by emergency exit configuration (10m each direction possible?)

What I find interesting is many stations are designed with an obvious side for such expansion, while the other platform end is entirely off the table.

The rail layer on geoOttawa shows where the extensions will be for each station.

  • St. Laurent - Will be extended eastwards
  • uOttawa - Entirely southwards
  • Bayview - geoOttawa says east, despite entrance config
  • Tunney's Pasture - Entirely westward

Extensions for Stage 2 are also covered on geoOttawa.

I've added this to my to-do list for the System Map.

  • Like 3
Link to post
42 minutes ago, Jim Henry said:

While I am sure you are right about the overall capacity and space being enough to accommodate expected crowds during normal operations what about when there are events going on and a station is likely to see very large numbers of people in a short span of time when an event ends? There are three stations quite close for Canada Day celebrations on Parliament hill so maybe it won't be an issue.  Pimisi might be more problematic for Bluesfest, though being an island platform it can handle quite large crowds I would think. I can however see there might be a need to have staff stationed in the concourse level to control traffic and prevent too many people from going down to platform levels in those high traffic event situations. 

Also the sections that are narrow in the underground stations could still cause bottle necks, you get people standing in those narrower areas by the stairs and other people wanting to get past them (getting off the train or trying to get on etc) only time will tell how well the traffic will flow in the stations.

Hopefully we really do get to find out in September, if they really are able to get the system up and running by then.

I would use Montreal and the Formula 1 Grand Prix as the best example. The race is served by Jean Drapeau station on the Yellow line and the main connection is to Berri-UQAM, one station away downtown (so the line is essentially a shuttle back and forth). On the three day race weekend, the station is crammed to capacity, however staff are on hand to manage and direct crowds to fill the platforms. Trains operate more frequently and once people disembark at Berri-UQAM, they have two other metro lines, with each going in two different directions, so the crowds do even out once at Berri. Also in Montreal, they have Metro staff controlling flow and people boarding the trains to make sure station dwell time is as low as possible. The Metro trains can hold over 900 people, so picture a train nearly (if not empty) arriving at Jean Drapeau station, along a small and short line, and then boarding 900+ people in 30-60 seconds. Very impressive.

In Ottawa, the same will happen except people will stay on the train longer without transferring off (as the Yellow line in Montreal is only a three station line). The end result is  pretty much the same.

Bottom line, platforms will be filled, and the upper level of the stations will help contain the passenger flow as well but all this assumes everyone arrives at the same moment or just about. The passengers will flow through as trains arrive, no worries there.

As always, it's realistic to assume a slightly slower service due to the high volumes, versus a typical Sunday afternoon. Station dwell time will surely be higher than 15-20 seconds during massive events like Canada Day but still quicker than the current bus service where it only takes one bus that is packed with people holding a door open to stop the whole flow of buses indefinitely. Add to this people crossing the streets, getting in the way, traffic lights and so forth... The Confederation Line being underground and separated from surface traffic will definitely be a vast improvement.

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, occheetos said:

The rail layer on geoOttawa shows where the extensions will be for each station.

  • St. Laurent - Will be extended eastwards
  • uOttawa - Entirely southwards
  • Bayview - geoOttawa says east, despite entrance config
  • Tunney's Pasture - Entirely westward

Extensions for Stage 2 are also covered on geoOttawa.

Woah forgot about geoOttawa! Based my guess on the actual station configuration and my "logic". I'll try to take some measurements, but I assume the overground platforms won't be extended to a "full" 120m, letting the cab exceed the platform length. Bayview developing over the next stage will be very interesting as it will likely lead to the MUP to be relocated and some of the track alignment to be remade entirely + potential bypass for POW bridge if Moose gets their way someday.

2 hours ago, Jim Henry said:

Also the sections that are narrow in the underground stations could still cause bottle necks, you get people standing in those narrower areas by the stairs and other people wanting to get past them (getting off the train or trying to get on etc) only time will tell how well the traffic will flow in the stations.

While this could be an issue, it doesn't really matter as the narrowest sections are only around the stairs / escalator. All the rest of the platform is a lot deeper, which is where the waiting areas are designated. Given the number of doors on the trains, in addition to the dimensions of them, flow in and out shouldn't be problematic, unless you had a packed train, packed station and platform restriction (let's say a staircase closed). As Shane mentioned: active monitoring and control by agents can play an enormous role to control access and flow. However, as the discomfort level of people increase, more will choose to wait further away, ultimately balancing everything.

Link to post

Based on GeoOttawa, they have reduced station extensions to 100 meters (currently at 90 meters). As you've suggested David, the cabs will spill over the platforms. One thing of interest however, they have maintained 120 meters for Cleary and New Orchard, possibly because they will be "boxed-in" by tunnels. They might want to allow enough space should the platforms absolutely need to be extended in the future for capacities beyond what is currently projected (future 140 meter trains? A time when cabs will no longer be needed and doors can be added?) 

Platforms seem to be a little inconsistent at places, like Queensview at 90 meters with no extensions drawn or Baseline at 100 meters from the start. 

For centre platforms, or lack thereof, they'll repeat the same mistake with Moodie. In this case, I understand the tight space can make it difficult to configure a station, but that's no excuse for Bayview where they had a blank slate to work with or Tunney's in the wide Scott Street trench. 

Parliament seems to have a 2/3 concourse. I wonder if it will be possible to extend it east in order to one day connect to the World Exchange Plaza. 

I agree Bayview and uOttawa configurations are not ideal, especially for those with mobility issues. As I mentioned before, they had a blank slate with Bayview yet seem to have come up with one of the worse possible design. Should the Trillium Line ever cross to Gatineau (which makes much more sense than crossing STO to Ottawa via the PoW with two lines meeting head to head) and a full array of vertical circulation is added to the east side, it will make much more sense. For uOttawa, any centre platform configuration would likely have been much more expensive, requiring more vertical circulation and underground paths.  

The lack of double escalators at the busiest stations worries me. That's a bit of value engineering the City might come to regret. I'm glad that Rideau, thanks to its depth, was spared from this particular budget cut. 

An additional observation from my end is the Place de Ville concourse connection at Lyon. Seems to be quite a narrow maze to get to your destination; again it will be quite difficult with a mobility device I'm sure. 

  • Like 3
Link to post

Welcome to our forums J.OT13.

I agree with a lot of your points.

I thought there was a plan in the past to connect it to the World Exchange Plaza, and one of the entrance kiosk buildings was to be built near the street corner (near the TD Bank pylon). Naturally it calls the station DT East, which translates casually into "Very Early Rendering". I still think there are plans to link it in the future though, although it would involve the parking garage and ramps.

DE-Exterior-Street-214x120.jpg.aab31362e3f38d1073cd4ce9e7c4be53.jpg

I am very happy to see that the three downtown stations are integrated into buildings, Rideau with the CF Rideau Centre, Parliament with the Sun Life Financial Centre and Lyon with Place de Ville. Hopefully this is just the start and more connections are made in the years to come. Surely an attractive option for buildings to increase their value without a complete renovation. While we may be a very long ways off from realizing Montreal's Underground City (RESO), its a start and will only get better from here. Starting to wonder if Place de Ville will connect to Constitution Square later on, and then to Minto Place. Still curious what's going on behind the white curtains in the Place de Ville south concourse.

The lack of double escalators is a bit disappointing. The lack of any escalators to street level from the secondary entrance of Parliament Station (corner of O'Connor and Queen) also is a bit of a sour point. I do believe there are some that reach near the surface, but the final two flights are stairs only. Luckily Rideau Station has both up and down escalators at all entrances.

In regards to a Centre platform at Tunney’s, I believe this was the original plan but storm water drainage or an existing underground sewer made them change to the current side platform layout.

And for Bayview, why the second Trillium platform wasn’t built from the start I don’t understand. Why build and open a station to within a couple years do some extensive modifications to allow access to a second platform. The Line 2 platform should have been a centre platform rather than sides, something that doesn’t seem like an option now. Based on service frequency I am a bit surprised double platforms are planned. 

IMG_3123.thumb.jpg.208d34ac967f2bed54887f795cf222fd.jpg

From this shot, the extra space between the track and the fence will no doubt be the location of the second platform. However, it would seem like due to available space, the 'plaza' area at the base of the stairs would need some re-configuring. And that's not even counting the space requirements for the stairs, elevators and escalators.

IMG_3111.thumb.jpg.afee31eb78effc445e87970667b1b105.jpg

And naturally from this angle it is clear the platform won't be a centre platform. Overall a nice station, but i would have preferred to have seen a centre platform for the Trillium Line as it will be a terminus for Line 2 for the foreseeable future, if not forever.

Link to post

So, I had some late night fun in Photoshop, and tried to draw a "what we know" of Bayview post stage 2. I built it assuming Stage 3 actually includes a link to POW bridge, therefore extending north. I used Google Maps data, and simply overlaid more of the required changes.

261421962_ScreenShot2019-06-26at00_20_49.thumb.png.b0d99861e25b0f031ba649b6a385b911.png

So, as you may see right away, I went with two side platforms, as it is very unlikely for it to be completely rebuilt as central, based on the renderings. i had to move the MUP further east, which is technically possible. It would require an almost certain definite rearrangement of the plaza currently located between the bridges. To give a sense of location, the pathway would basically sit exactly right to where it is (so would move beyond the pillars). I tried to estimate the platform length towards the south, as it seems to be the most viable option. My drawing represents approx. 100m platforms on the Trillium (though the extended dimension is going to be 80m?).

On this poor drawing, we can see already a few major issues, especially with a configuration allowing for POW

  • Right platform will need to be either connected by elevators to Line 1 platforms, requiring a massive reconfiguration of the space, or an underway to reach the left side platform (which would still require elevators or ramps).
    • This is due to the fact that, even with a track buffer, the track extend all the way to the east-west MUP making it unlikely to pass at a ground level, unless the platforms were both terminated there with no buffer track, nor extension to POW without a massive reconfiguration.
    • The second solution leads to a distance of approx 200m for anyone on the EB platform of Line 1 looking to transfer to the right platform on Line 2.
  • With tracks to POW, current MUP north-south needs to be moved east, and a crossing needs to be implemented.
    • Best solution in terms of safety would be an underpass, as it limits the slope required, but would likely result in a lot of reconfiguration of the current works
    • Other option is to use the Albert Street bridge as a connection between both sides, though it creates a less safe pathway, as well as creates a "natural fence" between both sides.
  • Unless a fare gate is installed on the right platform, access needs to occur from current fare-gates therefore making access from the East unnecessarly complicated.
    • Even with a new fare gate, isolating the platform (making it the only access point) creates other problems related to the MUP location, and interconnection between Line 1 and 2, but also transfer between the Ott-Gat link. It would require an out of fare zone transfer, making the itinerary less attractive.
  • No matter if tracks are singled or doubled to POW, the issues with the MUP and platform connection remain as it breaks the flow.
  • Given the need for a diamond crossing between the two tracks, likely on either sides of the station, the minimum spacing still results in the relocation of the MUP.

 

So, far from ideal in many regards. Let's imagine Line 2 as a island platform and see if we can get better results.

It fails to address the issues related to the MUP (still needs to be reconnected and relocated), and still requires a lot of the current works to be redone.

  • Connectivity with Line 1 would be awful, either requiring an underpass to access the current concourse, or a second access connection the MUP and then the "original" station.
  • Doesn't solve the need for additional elevators, ramps and stairs, IF built to accommodate an extension to POW.
  • While enough capacity on the platform (given the size of the vehicles), it would likely fail to create an intuitive pathway between platforms, fare gates and connections. 
  • Track geometry would be quite "innefficient" as it would require a widening of the gap as it approaches the station, or a curved platform.

 

As you can tell, neither scenario is ideal. Would have built Bayview as an island platform solved the issues? Likely not. Platform would have been considerably wider to accommodate the flow, but also the elevator shafts and staircases, likely of similar dimensions to Blair. However, it doesn't solve any connectivity issue to a second lower level platform, unless you are willing to build 4-6 elevators, 2-3 staircases + escalators and spend a lot more money on widening the Line 1 station...

  • Like 1
Link to post

It seems to me that decisions on design and layout of Bayview Stage 1 were predicated on the notion of what if Stage 2 does not go ahead.

In other words, lets not build it to Stage 2 specifications until Stage 2 is green lit.

David you hit the nail on the head with Bayview. It is getting obvious that the second Line 2 platform will require a bit of walking around to access the rest of the station. Reminds me of Berri-UQAM, in which going between Orange and Green lines (depending on direction) requires a few up and down movements through the levels.

  • Like 1
Link to post
6 hours ago, Shane said:

It seems to me that decisions on design and layout of Bayview Stage 1 were predicated on the notion of what if Stage 2 does not go ahead.

In other words, lets not build it to Stage 2 specifications until Stage 2 is green lit.

Yeah it is really how it feels when you try to “draw” a stage 2 version of it. For Stage 1 it is adequate, but had no real room for more capacity or connections. Either the city didn’t really believe the Gatineau link would happen, or likely did not see the point in double tracking up to Bayview. Wasn’t it TransitNext and the other bidders that suggested it?

 

I don’t say it too much on Twitter or anything, but my real station concern is Bayview. All the others are likely more than adequate when running at 24,000 pphpd. Especially since it is the only true transfer between east-west and north-south till the opening of Stage 2, but then faces the extension of Trillium + increased capacity.

  • Like 1
Link to post

From the Stage 2 renders, it appears Line 2 will have a secondary entrance from the MUP on the western platform near the far end. Again still not clear how the other platform will be accessed. To me, the first render below seems to over-estimate the space available between the existing track and the MUP.

Hopefully, the chosen solution isn't the current Albert Street entrance and stairs down to the MUP don't lead to a fare gate entrance and the platform. Will make for a rough experience for passengers who miss the train on one side and have to run a decent distance to get to the other one.

The points David makes above about the centre platform are valid based on the current reality of what we understand. However it would have been the preferable way to do it as it makes boarding a train at either track the easiest.

Not every station is as well thought out as Lionel-Groulx in Montreal... then again it doesn't appear like we will have our own version of Berri-UQAM either with Bayview.

I'm sure in the end the built solution will work well, we just don't know at this moment what it is. But it sure is fun to try to work it out based on the info we have.

bayview1.jpeg.5e9230d377071dcfef99aef92c4cd766.jpeg

bayview2.jpeg.506d30c6d9cc91f4aed10a2f5c4b18c9.jpeg

Link to post
1 hour ago, Shane said:

From the Stage 2 renders, it appears Line 2 will have a secondary entrance from the MUP on the western platform near the far end. Again still not clear how the other platform will be accessed. To me, the first render below seems to over-estimate the space available between the existing track and the MUP.

Hopefully, the chosen solution isn't the current Albert Street entrance and stairs down to the MUP don't lead to a fare gate entrance and the platform. Will make for a rough experience for passengers who miss the train on one side and have to run a decent distance to get to the other one.

The points David makes above about the centre platform are valid based on the current reality of what we understand. However it would have been the preferable way to do it as it makes boarding a train at either track the easiest.

Not every station is as well thought out as Lionel-Groulx in Montreal... then again it doesn't appear like we will have our own version of Berri-UQAM either with Bayview.

I'm sure in the end the built solution will work well, we just don't know at this moment what it is. But it sure is fun to try to work it out based on the info we have.

Good Day.

Originally the City did have only one track going into Bayview for the T-Line for Phase 2. I believe it was enlarged at TransitNext's suggestion for some future-proofing.

I do not recall the reference, but I read as a minor comment in a larger text that the T-Line east-side platform and track are not to be regular service, but only impromptu storage, and in service only if the primary west-side platform is out of service or blocked by an out of service train. IE: essentially Bayview T-Line remains a one-track one-platform station. Hence the drawings and preliminary discussions and plans that we have seen. ! <sheesh> ! Not Good.

Link to post

It sounds like it could be time for another round of questions sent to the stage2 email. 

I don't think Bayview was designed with an extension, or bypass in mind. After all, it was almost 7 years ago that this project was approved and things were quite different back then.
From the last set of question I sent in, I learned that there exists a bypass plan should they ever need to implement one, and from the Trinity Centre site plan it appears to be a bypass line on the West side of the station (basically where the MUP is now, and also what MOOSE suggested) so I think Stage 2's Bayview was designed with extensions in mind, whether they came up with a good design is... another question.

6 minutes ago, PHrenetic said:

Originally the City did have only one track going into Bayview for the T-Line for Phase 2. I believe it was enlarged at TransitNext's suggestion for some future-proofing.

As far as I know, Bayview had been double tracked long before TransitNEXT was selected. The old data that was shown on the system map page (which can be viewed here) was taken from geoOttawa in mid-february which was before the announcement of the selection.

9 minutes ago, PHrenetic said:

 I do not recall the reference, but I read as a minor comment in a larger text that the T-Line east-side platform and track are not to be regular service, but only impromptu storage, and in service only if the primary west-side platform is out of service or blocked by an out of service train. IE: essentially Bayview T-Line remains a one-track one-platform station. Hence the drawings and preliminary discussions and plans that we have seen. ! <sheesh> ! Not Good.

In the EA addendum on air quality there was a table showing the results of a computer simulated run of service following a single train. It showed that trains would wait for 12 minutes on either end of the line before continuing on their next trips. That would not work well if one platform at Bayview is essentially out of service.

 

I guess i'll start preparing another list of questions to send in. If anyone has some they'd like to be asked just post them here or send them to me and I can send them all in together.

  • Like 2
Link to post
  • Shane featured this topic
  • Shane unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...