407 Transitway, FPS and VE

Presentation to the Annual CSVA ConferenceMontreal – November 15-16, 2010

Tom Fletcher P.Eng., CVS, Scot McClintock PE, CVS (Life)

Planned 407 Transitway

Location: Adjacent to 407 ETR - Toronto

407 ETR at Hwy 404

407 ETR at Hwy 400 (2010)

404- 2002

404- 2010

AM Peak Period Regional Flows

Source: 2001 TTS data; does not include Viva services

Source –Delcan-IBI

Background

Delcan/ IBI awarded contract to develop standards and preliminary design for the proposed 407 transitway (2007)

The Fletcher Group sub-consultant to conduct 3 Function analysis and Functional Performance Specification workshops for the runningways and the stations

Faithful+Gould to conduct 2 VE workshops with assistance from the Fletcher Group

MTO Goals

Develop transit standards for 407 transitway

Understand needs of many stakeholders Develop preliminary alignment and

conceptual design for high speed bus rapid transit option

Allow for ultimate LRT (rail) option Protect corridor for both options

Transitway Goals

The main goal is to contribute to the development of the Greater Golden horseshoe urban growth centres.

The 407 transitway is not a conventional rapid transit facility. It will have the following characteristics:• cross-regional, circumferential facility in a highway corridor that

aims to serve future major downtowns (e.g.Markham and Richmond Hill)

• Initial phase (Hwy 400 to Kennedy Road – 23 km)• Its role and function as a transit spine is to:

– Directly serve cross-regional travel between smaller nodes/Urban Growth Centres

–Indirectly serve downtown Toronto as a feeder to major north-south transit corridors (i.e. GO Rail, TTC subway, Viva)

407 Transitway Infrastructure Characteristics

Protected ROW provides for either BRT or LRT operation.

Infrastructure includes runningway and stations (accommodating both BRT & LRT standards), park and ride and transit interface facilities.

Runningway cross-section:

- Between Stations – 12 m (2 x 3.75m lanes + 2 x 2.25m shoulders)

Through Stations – 14 m (2 x 3.75m lanes + 2 x 3m stopping lanes)

23 km Transitway between Highway 400 and Kennedy requires a ROW width varying between 15 m (minimum in retained sections) and 45 m (cut or fill sections with slopes).

16 Overpasses & 14 Underpasses

Design strategy

ADVISEDCLIENT

MARKETRESEARCH

NEED

FUNCTIONANALYSIS

FUNCTIONALPERFORMANCESPECIFICATION

CONCEPTUALDESIGN

DESIGN TO COST

FMEA

DETAIL ENGINEERING

PRODUCTIONV

A

L

U

E

E

N

G

Why Functional Performance Specification

Provides comprehensive function analysis which describes what “must be done” without specifying a specific solution

Describes the criteria, level of expected performance and flexibility in the design process

States performance levels from a user and client perspective

FA/FPS Team Composition

12 members from design standards and conceptual design team

6 client representatives from MTO (Head Office and Central Region)

3 Major stakeholders (TTC, GO Transit, York Region Transit )

Transit operator (OC Transpo – Ottawa) Ist workshop Sept 2007

Function Analysis

5 strategic function levels identified 180 distinct functions identified 370 performance characteristics

identified

FPS – User perspective

Documented needs from stakeholders (TTC, GO Transit, York Region …..

Wide variety of needs and perspectives Goal to complement not compete with

local regional transit local services

FPS example

The FPS provided guidance to the project team to translate the FPS into technical specifications for the designers.

For instance, a function description of the client needs would be: Ensure comfort

The FPS would address this issue from a customer perspective and how this is measured for instance; passenger swaying while entering a curve, measured by amount of movement with a flexibility of F1- very little

This leads to the technical specification which determines the radius of curve to achieve, speed limits, which meets this criteria. This is an iterative discussion between the functional and technical requirements

FPS excerpt

No. Function

Criteria (what w ill be measured to ensure

function is well accomplished)

Level

Flex

ibili

ty

* Comments from WS 1&2 design standard reference

3 attract users3.1 design service see function 1.1.1.2.1 service plan designed

by others, Ch 1.3&1.73.1.1 address ridership market types of clients commuters, school kids, tourist,

shopping, w ith strollers, w heel chairs…

F0 need Fare agreement betw een jurisdictions (TTC, York GO)

3.1.2 serve high institutional trip generators

identify ease of movement F1 e.g. York U peak f low s, see GO Transit and York Transit

3.1.3 optimize travel time transfer time minimum F1speed of travel high F1

3.2 maintain level of service Comply w ith the pre-established eff iciency pre-establish parameters/ guidelines.

Transitw ay operation and control Ch 6

3.2-1 ensure reliability std to apply for Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)

Canadian ITS National Architecture

F2 automated collection of data related to level of service (headw ay, travel time, dw ell time, etc)

Progress

By October 2008With FA/FPS Developed preliminary transit standards Conceptual design 30% complete

Why Value Engineering

MTO conducts VE workshops on all major projects

The number and duration of the VE workshops depends on complexity of the projects

407 transitway preliminary estimates XX Billion (CDN)

Obtain “best value for money”

Value Engineering Workshop #1

October 20-24, 2008 Delcan/ IBI design team – 8 membersMTO – 8 members GO Transit – 3 members Independent multi-disciplined VE team

members – 12 Included Assistant VE Facilitator to link

back to FPS results FPS Function Diagram used for FA

Results VE #1 158 creative ideas yielded 35 VE Proposals and 65 Design,

19 Construction, and 6 Operation Suggestions Implementation meeting results:12 VE Proposals accepted &

4 VE Proposals accepted with modifications for an estimated capital cost saving of $11.7M

Base case design scenario remained although it was modified by portions of Scenarios 1 and 2 as follows: Concepts to make all transfers between modes vertical,

reduce length of spans, and use B1 alignment were implemented.

Concepts to minimize runningway length between stations and reduce skew of structures were implemented.

FPS workshop #3

Date: April 27,2010 Review of design standards document Inclusion of additional performance data

into FPS Design standards consistent with FPS

VE workshop #3 May 3-7, 2010 Conceptual Design – 70% Design Team – 8 members MTO – 7 members 12 VE team members Stakeholders – 3 Metrolinx/ GO Transit Same 2 VE Facilitators with link to FPS FPS function diagram supplemented with FAST

diagram due to greater detail

Results VE #2 110 creative ideas yielded 40 VE Proposals and 19

Design Suggestions Implementation meeting results:11 VE Proposals

accepted and 2 accepted with modifications for an estimated capital cost saving of $11.4M

Base case design scenario remained as modified by portions of Scenario 1 as follows: Bathurst Station: Move bus loop, pedestrian walkway Concord Station: Reconfigure parking, move platform

and reduce to one intersection Runningway: Reduce transition zones Structures: Reduce shoulder width on structures and

reduce structure width at Dufferin underpass

Summary

Function analysis/ FPS provided design team with a good understanding of the client, stakeholder and user needs.

Non confrontational since not dealing with solutions

Design team now aware of function analysis requirements for the conceptual design.

FA/FPS outputs provide excellent function analysis and insight for VE Workshop.

Summary (continued)

Function Diagram expanded in detail as project design proceeded

As design proceeds, FAST can be used to supplement FA for use in VE Workshop.

Proceeding to EA in December 2010