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