Wateridge Village development [Hemlock Rd, Codd's Rd] | U/C

[McC]

Like the ones we took out in 58'. They wouldn't *have* to be, modern tramways can be designed to be far more effective and useful, but it's hard to tell from comments like:
“I’d like to think trams or streetcars could be part of the equation,” Schultz said. He imagines trams on Blair Road as well as on Hemlock Road, Beechwood Avenue and St. Patrick Street where there are “significant traffic concerns.”
Update:"ought" may imply "can," but "can" doesn't imply "will," especially in a town with a track record like ours...

[eternallyme]

The location bites without a strong rapid transit plan. There is no arterial road in the area (or easy connection) and no easy transit access otherwise. I'd say this is dependant on the transit plan that is something similar to what I proposed earlier.

[JM1]

I agree with those who recognize that the area's roads can't handle any more traffic. If you are going to build this thing, it has to be serviced by LRT. How you get the LRT there is a big question.

It can't just run along Montreal road, because that is too far a walk (or requires a bus transfer) for the new community. And it can't run along Hemlock because that is a residential road and the experience of Seattle, Boston and Los Angeles is that the wheel squeal and sound of LRT so close to homes will cause problems.

So how does one run it? Is there a way to run it under Montreal road from Rideau to the cemetery, then have it cut under the cemetery to Hemlock and St Laurent before making its way at grade through the new community and then back to Montreal road and then continuing at grade to the Montreal road/174 interchange where it could connect with the other LRT?

[lrt's friend]

The sensible thing to do is to run LRT along Montreal Road with a spur line running into the new Rockcliffe development. Montreal Road is the main commercial street running east and deserves continuous service. It is not unusual to branch tram lines as you move away from the city centre.

But we have a problem with the 2008 TMP which eliminated Montreal Road from consideration for LRT. We are destined for a busway that will likely run only through the Rockcliffe developement and offer only minor transit benefits. But even that could be killed. Remember the Greenboro busway that was eliminated by a few residents who didn't want buses running by their back yard.

[Uhuniau]

The sensible thing to do is to run LRT along Montreal Road with a spur line running into the new Rockcliffe development. Montreal Road is the main commercial street running east and deserves continuous service.

The Powers That Be don't think Montreal Road even deserves decent bus service any more.

But we have a problem with the 2008 TMP which eliminated Montreal Road from consideration for LRT. We are destined for a busway that will likely run only through the Rockcliffe developement and offer only minor transit benefits. But even that could be killed. Remember the Greenboro busway that was eliminated by a few residents who didn't want buses running by their back yard.

What became of that wierd little road anyway?

[KHOOLE]

The sensible thing to do is to run LRT along Montreal Road with a spur line running into the new Rockcliffe development. Montreal Road is the main commercial street running east and deserves continuous service. It is not unusual to branch tram lines as you move away from the city centre.

But we have a problem with the 2008 TMP which eliminated Montreal Road from consideration for LRT. We are destined for a busway that will likely run only through the Rockcliffe developement and offer only minor transit benefits. But even that could be killed. Remember the Greenboro busway that was eliminated by a few residents who didn't want buses running by their back yard.

How about re-instating a streetcar line from the Rideau Centre down Dalhousie-St.Patrick-Beechwood-Hemlock-Rockliffe Base-Blair Rd-Montreal Rd-Rideau -Rideau Centre?

The idea is to provide comfortable-reliable-reasonable public transport close to where people live to take them to where they need to go or transfer for work, school, health, shop etc. Ottawa developed into a great number of streetcar neighbourhoods 100 years ago.

Public transit does not have to be rapid LRT transit. I would use rapid LRT transit for suburbs beyond the Green Belt, such as Orléans, Blackburn Hamlet, Barrhaven, Kanata, Stittsville etc.

A streetcar circuit covering downtown Ottawa and downtown Gatineau, as in the old days, would do much to reduce vehicles on all four downtown bridges and even compensate for the lack of a bridge in the east end.

Maybe we don't need a bridge over there after all, if area people could be convinced to leave their cars at home and leave them in Park & Rides because adequate non-bus non-polluting comfortable and dependable public transportation was available.

[JM1]

How about re-instating a streetcar line from the Rideau Centre down Dalhousie-St.Patrick-Beechwood-Hemlock-Rockliffe Base-Blair Rd-Montreal Rd-Rideau -Rideau Centre?

The idea is to provide comfortable-reliable-reasonable public transport close to where people live to take them to where they need to go or transfer for work, school, health, shop etc. Ottawa developed into a great number of streetcar neighbourhoods 100 years ago.

Public transit does not have to be rapid LRT transit. I would use rapid LRT transit for suburbs beyond the Green Belt, such as Orléans, Blackburn Hamlet, Barrhaven, Kanata, Stittsville etc.

A streetcar circuit covering downtown Ottawa and downtown Gatineau, as in the old days, would do much to reduce vehicles on all four downtown bridges and even compensate for the lack of a bridge in the east end.

Maybe we don't need a bridge over there after all, if area people could be convinced to leave their cars at home and leave them in Park & Rides because adequate non-bus non-polluting comfortable and dependable public transportation was available.
The problem with Beechwood/Hemlock is the noise for homes that are adjacent to the route. If you could do it really silently with no vibrations, it might be possible.

But I am not sure the density would justify it.

[c_speed3108]

Didn't I say this just recently?

When you look at the location and Blair Station, this is a very round about way into the city, but it is typical of how we plan everything. Make people want to use their car.

Feeding into Blair is about the stupidest idea I have ever heard. If the bus must feed into the transitway (rather than say straight down Hemlock/Beechwood where there is businesses and DOWNTOWN!), it should at least go to St Laurent. It is a much bigger commercial center and better transit station. Possibly some modification on route 5 could make that happen.

[eternallyme]

The sensible thing to do is to run LRT along Montreal Road with a spur line running into the new Rockcliffe development. Montreal Road is the main commercial street running east and deserves continuous service. It is not unusual to branch tram lines as you move away from the city centre.

But we have a problem with the 2008 TMP which eliminated Montreal Road from consideration for LRT. We are destined for a busway that will likely run only through the Rockcliffe developement and offer only minor transit benefits. But even that could be killed. Remember the Greenboro busway that was eliminated by a few residents who didn't want buses running by their back yard.

On page 4 I have a design that doesn't even require a spur.

Any busway or surface rail would be difficult due to the fact the area is well-established outside of Montreal Road, and traffic issues would be a huge problem. Either you would have operational problems or expropriation problems. Most likely it would have to be underground for nearly its entire length.

[J.OT13]

If I lived in the Vanier/Rockliff area and I had the option of driving or taking the tram, I would just drive, I'll likely get there at about the same time. Remember that Hemlock is only two lanes, Beechwood has on street parking and Montreal road has a bunch of traffic and turning lanes (same with Rideau).

We should have kept the Streetcars, but now they are gone so let's move forward and build urban rapid transit like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.

[eternallyme]

If I lived in the Vanier/Rockliff area and I had the option of driving or taking the tram, I would just drive, I'll likely get there at about the same time. Remember that Hemlock is only two lanes, Beechwood has on street parking and Montreal road has a bunch of traffic and turning lanes (same with Rideau).

We should have kept the Streetcars, but now they are gone so let's move forward and build urban rapid transit like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.

An on-street tram would still cost hundreds of millions of dollars and have little in the way of benefits - it would be no better than maintaining bus lanes.

[J.OT13]

An on-street tram would still cost hundreds of millions of dollars and have little in the way of benefits - it would be no better than maintaining bus lanes.

My point exacly.

[Capital Shaun]

Didn't I say this just recently?

When you look at the location and Blair Station, this is a very round about way into the city, but it is typical of how we plan everything. Make people want to use their car.

Agree. Anyone living there and working downtown will just drive down Hemlock/Beechwood.

[Aylmer]

An on-street tram would still cost hundreds of millions of dollars and have little in the way of benefits - it would be no better than maintaining bus lanes.

Well, it depends how you go about it - you can have a street-running tram which would indeed provide little more than attractiveness, but a RoW tram would be a cost-saving alternative to full LRT and would relieve much of the future traffic if well designed. Think Vauban in Freiburg.

[JM1]

Well, it depends how you go about it - you can have a street-running tram which would indeed provide little more than attractiveness, but a RoW tram would be a cost-saving alternative to full LRT and would relieve much of the future traffic if well designed. Think Vauban in Freiburg.

The ROW is not wide enough for a separate tram line... On either Montreal road or on Beechwood/Hemlock it would need to run on the street. While Montreal does have separate bus lanes, a ROW tram would not do any better than buses thanks to frequent intersections and lights.

[Aylmer]

The ROW is not wide enough for a separate tram line... On either Montreal road or on Beechwood/Hemlock it would need to run on the street. While Montreal does have separate bus lanes, a ROW tram would not do any better than buses thanks to frequent intersections and lights.

Again, it depends on how it's done - you can have proximity-activated lights so that trams don't have to stop, for narrower sections, you can have a bidirectional rush-hour RoW track in addition to two shared-traffic tracks.

I'm not saying it's the right solution, but I just don't think it should just be dismissed.

[c_speed3108]

The ROW is not wide enough for a separate tram line... On either Montreal road or on Beechwood/Hemlock it would need to run on the street. While Montreal does have separate bus lanes, a ROW tram would not do any better than buses thanks to frequent intersections and lights.

Montreal does not really have separate bus lanes. There is lane use (bus and taxi only) restrictions for a short two-hour periods during rush hour in the rush hour direction only at some points.

[Dado]

I agree with those who recognize that the area's roads can't handle any more traffic. If you are going to build this thing, it has to be serviced by LRT. How you get the LRT there is a big question.

It can't just run along Montreal road, because that is too far a walk (or requires a bus transfer) for the new community. And it can't run along Hemlock because that is a residential road and the experience of Seattle, Boston and Los Angeles is that the wheel squeal and sound of LRT so close to homes will cause problems.

Most of the houses on Hemlock west of Birch where Hemlock is on a curve (a nice large radius curve) are behind fences and east of Birch where the houses aren't behind fences the road is straight so there shouldn't be any wheel squeal... just run the tram along the south side of Hemlock against the cemetery (yes, yes, cue the black jokes about "waking up the dead") and offer to buy anyone out who wishes to sell. The traffic on Hemlock can also serve as a sound barrier - and there will be more traffic on Hemlock once the base is developed, regardless of how it is developed.

Along Beechwood, keep running it on the south side of the street. A combination of lane and parking reductions and limited expropriation (generally of parts of vacant lots, parking lots and gas stations) would do it. The worst segment would probably be between Charlevoix and the Vanier Parkway and the intersection there. The line would continue on the south side of St. Patrick all the way to King Edward.

So long as it runs in a dedicated RoW, it would be reasonably rapid - certainly faster than heading south to Blair Station without the huge expense of digging lengthy tunnels.

[JM1]

Most of the houses on Hemlock west of Birch where Hemlock is on a curve (a nice large radius curve) are behind fences and east of Birch where the houses aren't behind fences the road is straight so there shouldn't be any wheel squeal... just run the tram along the south side of Hemlock against the cemetery (yes, yes, cue the black jokes about "waking up the dead") and offer to buy anyone out who wishes to sell. The traffic on Hemlock can also serve as a sound barrier - and there will be more traffic on Hemlock once the base is developed, regardless of how it is developed.

Along Beechwood, keep running it on the south side of the street. A combination of lane and parking reductions and limited expropriation (generally of parts of vacant lots, parking lots and gas stations) would do it. The worst segment would probably be between Charlevoix and the Vanier Parkway and the intersection there. The line would continue on the south side of St. Patrick all the way to King Edward.

So long as it runs in a dedicated RoW, it would be reasonably rapid - certainly faster than heading south to Blair Station without the huge expense of digging lengthy tunnels.

Wheel squeal and vibrations are not only generated at curves but anywhere on the track. In the cities I mentioned, much of the problem was on straight track.

What do you mean you could run the track on the south side? Would you take land from the cemetery? Also, would propose a new rock cut (there is part of Hemlock that is bounded by a rock cut)?

If you plan to run on the south side of Hemlock, how do people in those neighbourhoods (Manor Park and Rockcliffe) access the tram (across two lanes of traffic?).

While I would like to see some kind of tram/LRT along Beechwood, I think it is just impractical (lack of density, noise, vibrations, complaints, etc.).

[Uhuniau]

An on-street tram would still cost hundreds of millions of dollars and have little in the way of benefits - it would be no better than maintaining bus lanes.

At least the drivers wouldn't be able to drive trams in the sickening jolty jerky stompy way that shittily trained OC Transpo drivers drive buses.

[Uhuniau]

If there's to be east-end street rail transit, it should be on Rideau-Montreal. Period. Sacrifice parking and turning lanes, if need be.

But this being regressive Ottawa it'll never happen. Dense inner-city neighbourhoods transit needs will always - ALWAYS - take a back seat to the suburbs.

[J.OT13]

If there's to be east-end street rail transit, it should be on Rideau-Montreal. Period. Sacrifice parking and turning lanes, if need be.



Yes, but underground; spending hundreds of millions, if not billions on streetcars that only have about 1.5 times the capacity of bus lanes is not worth it. Build it underground and we'll be good for 100+ years.

[JM1]

Yes, but underground; spending hundreds of millions, if not billions on streetcars that only have about 1.5 times the capacity of bus lanes is not worth it. Build it underground and we'll be good for 100+ years.

A tunnel from Rideau to St Laurent along Montreal road is about the same length as the downtown transit tunnel. So the costs should be about the same (although the tunnel would be straighter and probably through softer rock). I want it to happen, but I fear the costs will prohibit it.

Also, I don't think that a spur line to the Rockcliffe CFB would be sufficient. I think that something would have to be done to loop through that community if you truly want it to be transit-oriented (and have therefore capable of the densities that are needed for a non-car, viable community).

[eternallyme]

A tunnel from Rideau to St Laurent along Montreal road is about the same length as the downtown transit tunnel. So the costs should be about the same (although the tunnel would be straighter and probably through softer rock). I want it to happen, but I fear the costs will prohibit it.

Also, I don't think that a spur line to the Rockcliffe CFB would be sufficient. I think that something would have to be done to loop through that community if you truly want it to be transit-oriented (and have therefore capable of the densities that are needed for a non-car, viable community).

A linear pattern curving away from Montreal Road at St. Laurent, directly under the back of Montfort Hospital and into CFB Rockcliffe is my preferred option. From there, it would curve back along Bathgate Drive, serving Montreal/Bathgate, La Cite Collegiale and Carson Grove en route to Blair.

Station locations on the entire route: Rideau Centre, just east of King Edward, near Charlotte Street, at the Vanier Parkway, near Alfred/Granville, between St. Laurent and Brittany, behind the Montfort Hospital, at Codd's/Via Venus (also serving National Research Council), at Bathgate/Via Venus, at Bathgate/Montreal, at the eastern edge of La Cite Collegiale and just south of Matheson.

[Kitchissippi]

Duplicating another east-west rapid transit line here would be an expensive redundancy. Instead, it would be more practical to have a completely new purpose, for example making use of the proposed Kettle Island bridge for a north-south line linking the LRT with the Rapibus line. It could be mostly surface and elevated like Vancouver's SkyTrain. The could still be a street car or BRT on Montreal Road.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8198/8229340913_6344edb7d7_b.jpg

[eternallyme]

Duplicating another east-west rapid transit line here would be an expensive redundancy. Instead, it would be more practical to have a completely new purpose, for example making use of the proposed Kettle Island bridge for a north-south line linking the LRT with the Rapibus line. It could be mostly surface and elevated like Vancouver's SkyTrain. The could still be a street car or BRT on Montreal Road.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8198/8229340913_6344edb7d7_b.jpg

Even with the Transitway though, Route 12 is one of the highest-ridership bus routes (and the most heavily used non-Transitway route), and would only increase as further urbanization takes place. That is especially true with CFB Rockcliffe being developed if it becomes a high-density area as we recommend, since there are no other convenient road or transit connections at all. The main transit node for the inner city areas is always downtown, and connections to there - whatever the mode - are crucial, as are maintaining transfer connections. My idea maintains all the transfer connections - to Route 9 (and a short walk to Routes 14 and 18) at the Vanier Parkway, Route 5 in central Vanier and Route 7 at St. Laurent/Brittany.

It is unlikely any of the ridership currently using Route 12 would switch to the east-west LRT as well.

[c_speed3108]

Duplicating another east-west rapid transit line here would be an expensive redundancy. Instead, it would be more practical to have a completely new purpose, for example making use of the proposed Kettle Island bridge for a north-south line linking the LRT with the Rapibus line. It could be mostly surface and elevated like Vancouver's SkyTrain. The could still be a street car or BRT on Montreal Road.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8198/8229340913_6344edb7d7_b.jpg

Though it is something of a minor detail that could be fixed fairly easily, that route runs right through the CSIS/CSE complex. I suspect that would be a non starter.

[Kitchissippi]

It is unlikely any of the ridership currently using Route 12 would switch to the east-west LRT as well.

Public Transit is a matter of perception. When the O-Train was being planned, there was doubt the riders from Carleton University would go out to Bayview to transfer when direct bus connections to downtown. That was proven mostly wrong. If the transfer points are weather protected and the frequencies are rapid or timed, riders' perceptions of what is convenient can be drastically changed.

[Capital Shaun]

Public Transit is a matter of perception. When the O-Train was being planned, there was doubt the riders from Carleton University would go out to Bayview to transfer when direct bus connections to downtown. That was proven mostly wrong. If the transfer points are weather protected and the frequencies are rapid or timed, riders' perceptions of what is convenient can be drastically changed.

Montreal rd is about 2km away from the LRT line. The O-Train station is in the middle of the Carleton campus. You can't really compare the two.

I can see users of the #12 along Olgilvie to head towards Blair to take the LRT. I do so myself on occasion to take a 9x route downtown from Blair during rush hour. It's slightly faster than taking the 12 all the way down Montreal road.

eternallyme is partially right though, riders along Montreal road are likely to continue to take the #12. When I lived in Vanier (near Montreal/St-Laurent) I'd take the 5 or 12 to downtown. Why would I take the 5 or 7 to St-Laurent to transfer to go downtown if it would take twice as long?

If we really want east end riders to take the LRT they'll have to provide frequent service on the connector routes (7, 5, 129, 123, 124...) to the stations.

[Aylmer]

Kitchissippi, what software did you use to make those maps? They look great!

[JM1]

Montreal rd is about 2km away from the LRT line. The O-Train station is in the middle of the Carleton campus. You can't really compare the two.

I can see users of the #12 along Olgilvie to head towards Blair to take the LRT. I do so myself on occasion to take a 9x route downtown from Blair during rush hour. It's slightly faster than taking the 12 all the way down Montreal road.

eternallyme is partially right though, riders along Montreal road are likely to continue to take the #12. When I lived in Vanier (near Montreal/St-Laurent) I'd take the 5 or 12 to downtown. Why would I take the 5 or 7 to St-Laurent to transfer to go downtown if it would take twice as long?

If we really want east end riders to take the LRT they'll have to provide frequent service on the connector routes (7, 5, 129, 123, 124...) to the stations.

People who live in proximity to Montreal Road will not go south to the transitway only to have to come back up north to get downtown. It just doesn't make sense. Even if the connectors are frequent, they will not be fast.

[Capital Shaun]

People who live in proximity to Montreal Road will not go south to the transitway only to have to come back up north to get downtown. It just doesn't make sense. Even if the connectors are frequent, they will not be fast.

I agree it doesn't make much sense. That's why I'm a big supporter of a Montreal rd subway.

[lrt's friend]

Any choices of rapid or rail transit to the east end on the Montreal Road corridor including the new Rockcliffe development will have to consider local service. We cannot be building this like a rapid transit line to the suburbs with stops every 1 to 2 km.

As far as building a tramway to the Rockcliffe development, what about the old streetcar corridor that ran through Rockcliffe? Much of the right of way is still in tact. But I guess, we would then have to deal with the NCC and ultra-rich NIMBYs. On the other hand, it would be for local service and would be one or two car trains every 10 minutes, not 4 car trains every 3 minutes like the east-west line.

The old Rockcliffe tramway originally went as far east as the north end of St. Laurent Boulevard.

[JM1]

Any choices of rapid or rail transit to the east end on the Montreal Road corridor including the new Rockcliffe development will have to consider local service. We cannot be building this like a rapid transit line to the suburbs with stops every 1 to 2 km.

As far as building a tramway to the Rockcliffe development, what about the old streetcar corridor that ran through Rockcliffe? Much of the right of way is still in tact. But I guess, we would then have to deal with the NCC and ultra-rich NIMBYs. On the other hand, it would be for local service and would be one or two car trains every 10 minutes, not 4 car trains every 3 minutes like the east-west line.

The old Rockcliffe tramway originally went as far east as the north end of St. Laurent Boulevard.

That tram route ran along Sussex, past the PM and Governor General's house, then along what is not the bike path next to the parkway in Rockcliffe Park, then down Lisgar(?), along the Rockcliffe escarpment, and down through what is now the rockeries garden to Cloverdale, along Hillside, across the ravine and then along sandridge, almost to St Laurent as you say.

That track ran through a very low density area and was intended largely to take people to Rockcliffe Park and to the boathouse and sports club that is now the Ottawa New Edinburgh Club (where the rockeries garden path now meets the end of cloverdale).

Apart from having to run over the roundabouts that were built, it would also take away the bike path on the parkway, the rockeries garden, and would require some work along the rockcliffe escarpment (where there may not be room for the modern road and a tram line).

While I like the idea of having such a route and have imagined where that tram ran many times, the reality is that the density in this area (like the density along Beechwood/Hemlock) is just too low to support it.

[lrt's friend]

low density is exactly why the tram line was pulled up in the first place. It's original purpose was to serve the Rifle Rangle that predated the RCMP facility and the airport.

How times have changed when public transit to a rifle range, the experimental farm and cemeteries (one of the purposes when the OER tried to extend streetcar service through Eastview to Notre Dame Cemetery) was considered important.

[Kitchissippi]

Kitchissippi, what software did you use to make those maps? They look great!

I do a screen capture from Google maps and then open it up in Adobe Illustrator to do the overlay graphics, then export it as a JPG. It's really quick and easy after you know your way around the program, that map probaby took me all of 10 minutes.

[Kitchissippi]

People who live in proximity to Montreal Road will not go south to the transitway only to have to come back up north to get downtown. It just doesn't make sense. Even if the connectors are frequent, they will not be fast.

It's no different than when I'm driving from downtown to get to that part of the city, it's quicker to hop on the Queensway, get off Blair and head north. To me driving all the way down Rideau and Montreal Road would take longer even though it's a shorter way.

A Montreal Road surface streetcar would be a huge cost without much improvement over a bus route.

[JM1]

It's no different than when I'm driving from downtown to get to that part of the city, it's quicker to hop on the Queensway, get off Blair and head north. To me driving all the way down Rideau and Montreal Road would take longer even though it's a shorter way.

A Montreal Road surface streetcar would be a huge cost without much improvement over a bus route.

I agree. I think after the East-West LRT is built, the city should focus on one of two underground lines (under Bank Street from Billings Bridge to Gatineau, or under montreal Road to St Laurent). We need to start serving existing communities and stop building transit where ROWs are available but will only serve small populations for the foreseeable future.

[eternallyme]

I agree. I think after the East-West LRT is built, the city should focus on one of two underground lines (under Bank Street from Billings Bridge to Gatineau, or under montreal Road to St Laurent). We need to start serving existing communities and stop building transit where ROWs are available but will only serve small populations for the foreseeable future.

Those could easily be connected into a single line.

The main line LRT could easily be extended to the suburbs, but not likely branching out once there.

[Dado]

Wheel squeal and vibrations are not only generated at curves but anywhere on the track. In the cities I mentioned, much of the problem was on straight track.

What do you mean you could run the track on the south side? Would you take land from the cemetery? Also, would propose a new rock cut (there is part of Hemlock that is bounded by a rock cut)?

I mean pretty much right up against Hemlock on the south side - like maybe no more than a wide sidewalk separating them. But yes, in the vicinity of Lansdowne Rd some rock cutting may be required, though I would first look at shifting Hemlock as far to the north as possible and narrowing its lanes as much as possible first in that section.


If you plan to run on the south side of Hemlock, how do people in those neighbourhoods (Manor Park and Rockcliffe) access the tram (across two lanes of traffic?).

The same way they cross Hemlock or Beechwood today - there'd be a sidewalk between the tramway and the street, as well as one on the south side of the tramway. Once you're across the street crossing the tramway itself is trivial.


You could run it in the middle lanes or the outside lanes too of course, but the former tends to present problems for creating stations/stops (though central island station designs are possible where space allows and gauntlet tracks plus island stations where space is not available) while the latter separates the tracks and doesn't seem to be a preferred design anywhere I've been able to look.

[JM1]

I mean pretty much right up against Hemlock on the south side - like maybe no more than a wide sidewalk separating them. But yes, in the vicinity of Lansdowne Rd some rock cutting may be required, though I would first look at shifting Hemlock as far to the north as possible and narrowing its lanes as much as possible first in that section.



The same way they cross Hemlock or Beechwood today - there'd be a sidewalk between the tramway and the street, as well as one on the south side of the tramway. Once you're across the street crossing the tramway itself is trivial.


You could run it in the middle lanes or the outside lanes too of course, but the former tends to present problems for creating stations/stops (though central island station designs are possible where space allows and gauntlet tracks plus island stations where space is not available) while the latter separates the tracks and doesn't seem to be a preferred design anywhere I've been able to look.

Those who use the transit stops on Hemlock already complain about the difficulty of crossing two lanes of steady-stream traffic at rush hour.

Regarding shifting Hemlock northward, if you were in on any of the Hemlock bike lane discussions you would realize that this is a no-go. The houses in the Manor Park area are valued at $450-$500k and those in the Rockcliffe area are valued at $1M+. These people are not going to accept vibrations and noise from traffic and trams so close to their homes (most of these homes are within 50 ft of Hemlock). If you can't do something to ensure that they will not be inconvenienced, good luck.

Also, when Hemlock was last widened to make way for the largely unused parking lane, it was widened on the North side. Given the Right of Way rules, I don't think there is any more room to push it northward.

But the thing that will kill a St Patrick/Beechwood/Hemlock tram, and I have said this before, is lack of population density.

[rocketphish]

...though I would first look at shifting Hemlock as far to the north as possible and narrowing its lanes as much as possible first in that section.

That may be in conflict with the new Ottawa East-West Bikeway that is about to be constructed along the length of Hemlock and Beechwood, which will be adding cycling lanes in both directions.

http://ottawa.ca/en/city_hall/planningprojectsreports/construction/projects/ew_bikeway/index.htm

The same way they cross Hemlock or Beechwood today - there'd be a sidewalk between the tramway and the street, as well as one on the south side of the tramway. Once you're across the street crossing the tramway itself is trivial.

I guess you haven't travelled along these streets very much. People *don't* cross Hemlock/Beechwood today (between St. Laurent and the mail entrance to the cemetery) because there is nothing on the other side but the cemetery. Hence there isn't a single pedestrian crossing along this entire stretch.

A signalized intersection is about to be installed at Hemlock/Birch, but there is still no pressing reason for pedestrians to use it.


Anyway, it will never happen... not enough ridership.

[JM1]

That may be in conflict with the new Ottawa East-West Bikeway that is about to be constructed along the length of Hemlock and Beechwood, which will be adding cycling lanes in both directions.

http://ottawa.ca/en/city_hall/planningprojectsreports/construction/projects/ew_bikeway/index.htm



I guess you haven't travelled along these streets very much. People *don't* cross Hemlock/Beechwood today (between St. Laurent and the mail entrance to the cemetery) because there is nothing on the other side but the cemetery. Hence there isn't a single pedestrian crossing along this entire stretch.

A signalized intersection is about to be installed at Hemlock/Birch, but there is still no pressing reason for pedestrians to use it.


Anyway, it will never happen... not enough ridership.

Between the cemetery and Birch there is no reason to cross, except to catch the bus!

[Kitchissippi]

A signalized intersection is about to be installed at Hemlock/Birch, but there is still no pressing reason for pedestrians to use it.

LOL. love the pun, whether you intended it or not.

that may be in conflict with the new Ottawa East-West Bikeway that is about to be constructed along the length of Hemlock and Beechwood, which will be adding cycling lanes in both directions.

I've been looking for an excuse to build one of these:

49669693

[Capital Shaun]

As others have mentioned, the city is planning to build its east-west bikeway along Beechwood-Hemlock. I believe the city is committed to this which doesn't leave much room, if any, for a tram in that corridor.

[Dado]

Those who use the transit stops on Hemlock already complain about the difficulty of crossing two lanes of steady-stream traffic at rush hour.

Regarding shifting Hemlock northward, if you were in on any of the Hemlock bike lane discussions you would realize that this is a no-go. The houses in the Manor Park area are valued at $450-$500k and those in the Rockcliffe area are valued at $1M+. These people are not going to accept vibrations and noise from traffic and trams so close to their homes (most of these homes are within 50 ft of Hemlock). If you can't do something to ensure that they will not be inconvenienced, good luck.

Also, when Hemlock was last widened to make way for the largely unused parking lane, it was widened on the North side. Given the Right of Way rules, I don't think there is any more room to push it northward.

Surely the fence line here is the property line? If so, looks like plenty of room to me.

https://maps.google.ca/?t=h&layer=c&cbll=45.445868,-75.669358&panoid=9zeGO6mdee96Sy254mnzbg&cbp=12,342.74,,0,7.21&ie=UTF8&ll=45.445959,-75.669301&spn=0.005946,0.009645&z=17&vpsrc=6

Plenty of streets are not centrally located within their right of way and I'm not aware of any rules that prevent the city from using them.

I'm getting width estimates in the 25+ m range between the two fencelines, without even considering using cemetery property. Spacewise, there's enough room here to get in two sidewalks (2x2 m), two bike lanes (2x2 m), two regular lanes (2x3.5 m) and two tram tracks (2x3.5 m) with plenty of room left over for all sorts of medians and buffering and wider sidewalks.

I'd be more worried with the Beechwood segment... at least in terms of being able to fit it in.


But the thing that will kill a St Patrick/Beechwood/Hemlock tram, and I have said this before, is lack of population density.

The main reason for building a tramway along the corridor is to serve the Rockcliffe redevelopment, which, if directly served with an internal tramway, could be built fairly densely.

Hence the lack of density along the rest of the corridor becomes a moot point. I doubt you'd even bother putting in a station anywhere between St. Laurent and where it changes to Beechwood.

It's like building an LRT line along Richmond-Byron or the SJAM Parkway or most of the Transitway for that matter - it's done to serve other areas.

[JM1]

Surely the fence line here is the property line? If so, looks like plenty of room to me.

https://maps.google.ca/?t=h&layer=c&cbll=45.445868,-75.669358&panoid=9zeGO6mdee96Sy254mnzbg&cbp=12,342.74,,0,7.21&ie=UTF8&ll=45.445959,-75.669301&spn=0.005946,0.009645&z=17&vpsrc=6

Plenty of streets are not centrally located within their right of way and I'm not aware of any rules that prevent the city from using them.

I'm getting width estimates in the 25+ m range between the two fencelines, without even considering using cemetery property. Spacewise, there's enough room here to get in two sidewalks (2x2 m), two bike lanes (2x2 m), two regular lanes (2x3.5 m) and two tram tracks (2x3.5 m) with plenty of room left over for all sorts of medians and buffering and wider sidewalks.

I'd be more worried with the Beechwood segment... at least in terms of being able to fit it in.



The main reason for building a tramway along the corridor is to serve the Rockcliffe redevelopment, which, if directly served with an internal tramway, could be built fairly densely.

Hence the lack of density along the rest of the corridor becomes a moot point. I doubt you'd even bother putting in a station anywhere between St. Laurent and where it changes to Beechwood.

It's like building an LRT line along Richmond-Byron or the SJAM Parkway or most of the Transitway for that matter - it's done to serve other areas.

You are in a different world. Have you been listening to what is going on with the west-end LRT?

[lrt's friend]

You are in a different world. Have you been listening to what is going on with the west-end LRT?

The nature of this project is substantially different. It would be a local tramway with smaller trains and less frequent service and slower speeds. It would not significantly impact existing parks. Really, the choice will be buses or trams. I think a nicely designed modern tramway could enhance a neighbourhood and there are many places in the world where that is the case.

I live on a very busy Ottawa street and I would welcome a tramway to be built by my door.

[Capital Shaun]

The nature of this project is substantially different. It would be a local tramway with smaller trains and less frequent service and slower speeds. It would not significantly impact existing parks. Really, the choice will be buses or trams. I think a nicely designed modern tramway could enhance a neighbourhood and there are many places in the world where that is the case.

I live on a very busy Ottawa street and I would welcome a tramway to be built by my door.

Is a tram really worth it? Is it that much more effective when compared to a bus in this case? I have nothing against trams but if the city is going to spend money on one I don't think Beechwood/Hemlock should be the first choice especially for a low frequency route.

[Dado]

You are in a different world.

Which part are you referring to, exactly?

Your density argument is a red herring if the purpose of the tramway is to serve the Rockcliffe redevelopment. The viability of a tramway lives or dies on that - but the density of the Rockcliffe redevelopment also depends on its transit service. Any benefits to New Edinburgh and environs are just gravy. As it is there are buses going along Hemlock that can't possibly be justified on the basis of the passengers they pick up along Hemlock (half the catchment is cemetery, after all) but rather on how many they pick up elsewhere along the route. Same idea, just at another level of service.

Or is it the RoW requirements? There's enough room along Hemlock. Beechwood is more problematic, but Hemlock is well in the clear space-wise.


Have you been listening to what is going on with the west-end LRT?

Yes, and I can't say I'm too happy about it. A lot of those living especially west of Westboro seem to have some kind of irrational hate-on for LRT but also seem to have no qualms about thousands of buses fouling up the riverfront every day.


Is a tram really worth it? Is it that much more effective when compared to a bus in this case? I have nothing against trams but if the city is going to spend money on one I don't think Beechwood/Hemlock should be the first choice especially for a low frequency route.

As above, this is about serving the Rockcliffe redevelopment, i.e. the subject of this thread. We're not talking about installing a tramway as a replacement solely for present-day transit use.

[Aylmer]

I also think a tram would be a good fit for the needs of the place - with a shallow track, bare-bones stations and light vehicles, you could probably get it done for $10 million per kilometer. The attractiveness of rail transport would also put a dent in the automobile traffic in the area, much more than a busway could (I believe rail attracts 35-40% of automobilists versus 5% for busways).

I think full LRT is overkill for Beechwood-Hemlock (Montreal rd. is a whole different story, though), but a bus wouldn't attract enough people for it to really take care if any future traffic problems.

I can see a Hemlock-Beechwood tram running down King-Edward, Rideau and then onto Sparks. I think the whole thing could be done for as little as 100 million.

[JM1]

I also think a tram would be a good fit for the needs of the place - with a shallow track, bare-bones stations and light vehicles, you could probably get it done for $10 million per kilometer. The attractiveness of rail transport would also put a dent in the automobile traffic in the area, much more than a busway could (I believe rail attracts 35-40% of automobilists versus 5% for busways).

I think full LRT is overkill for Beechwood-Hemlock (Montreal rd. is a whole different story, though), but a bus wouldn't attract enough people for it to really take care if any future traffic problems.

I can see a Hemlock-Beechwood tram running down King-Edward, Rideau and then onto Sparks. I think the whole thing could be done for as little as 100 million.

Maybe you should clarify what you mean by "tram". Do you mean streetcar?

I'd like to see a quiet lrt/streetcar/tram along beechwood/hemlock, but it needs to be quiet and should run on the existing roadway.

I spent time in Vienna and know that there is really little distinction between tram and let. They run 7-unit flex trams on old tram lines and it works well. With low floors, you can easily walk on and off the new flex trams (which are similar I think to what we car considering for LRT) and, because they are quick to board and discharge, they don't hold up traffic too much in those locations where they run on regular car lanes (such as Beechwood and Hemlock).

[Aylmer]

Maybe you should clarify what you mean by "tram". Do you mean streetcar?

I'd like to see a quiet lrt/streetcar/tram along beechwood/hemlock, but it needs to be quiet and should run on the existing roadway.

I spent time in Vienna and know that there is really little distinction between tram and let. They run 7-unit flex trams on old tram lines and it works well. With low floors, you can easily walk on and off the new flex trams (which are similar I think to what we car considering for LRT) and, because they are quick to board and discharge, they don't hold up traffic too much in those locations where they run on regular car lanes (such as Beechwood and Hemlock).

It's more of a personal distinction, but I think of streetcars as completely street-running transit and trams as being streetcars with RoW sections. I think that, if it was to be built, they should try to make as much of the tramway RoW as possible, but permit street-running sections where it's prohibitive. Perhaps they can also be separated from traffic if and when the need warrants it.

So a tram for me is more like what they have in many German cities (Freiburg, Mannheim, Erfurt...): Streetcars that run mostly in RoW, but aren't above mingling with traffic in central areas.

[Dado]

The differences between LRT, tram and streetcar tend to be more on the infrastructure and operational side than on the vehicle side. It's a spectrum issue but for an analogy I compare them to busways, bus lanes and buses in traffic, respectively.

Streetcars are like buses in regular traffic - no reserved right of way, frequent stops. Most - though not all - of Toronto's streetcars are still like this. Train length is usually limited to one car. Streetcar vehicles are more likely to be bus-like than for the other types.

Tramways are sort of like buses in reserved bus lanes, but instead of curb lanes they tend to be in the median (very similar to median busways - sometimes the two are coincident, i.e. shared median busway+tramway). The stops are a little further apart, speeds are higher and train length is often two cars. They're far less intrusive for a given passenger capacity than are buses, and you have the advantage of physical infrastructure signalling some sense of permanence. Most European tram systems do match this, though some still operate more like streetcars, while some of Toronto's streetcar lines have been made more like tramways (e.g. St. Clair, Spadina). Low floor vehicles with modest performance characteristics are typical.

Light rail is more like a busway in its own right-of-way. The stops are spaced about a kilometre or a mile apart, the speeds are quite high and train length can be a few cars. The RoWs are often grade separated at major cross streets but not exclusively so. The vehicles are usually capable of better performance and while many are low-floor quite a few have higher floors (e.g. Calgary and Edmonton). Technically the O-Train also falls in the light rail category (since it doesn't meet the requirements of being heavy rail), though in Europe it would be classed as a regional train.

Naturally there is overlap and some lines can have aspects matching more than one category.

Above light rail would be light metro, which is equivalent to grade-separated busways like the Transitway. It seems that much of our "light rail" system will really be more of a light metro in practice.

[JM1]

It's more of a personal distinction, but I think of streetcars as completely street-running transit and trams as being streetcars with RoW sections. I think that, if it was to be built, they should try to make as much of the tramway RoW as possible, but permit street-running sections where it's prohibitive. Perhaps they can also be separated from traffic if and when the need warrants it.

So a tram for me is more like what they have in many German cities (Freiburg, Mannheim, Erfurt...): Streetcars that run mostly in RoW, but aren't above mingling with traffic in central areas.

I think the Germans have done great things with light rail/tram/street cars and would love to see more of it in Ottawa. I loved using public transit in Vienna, France and Germany where tram/lrt/streetcars (as you say, sometimes on ROW and sometimes not) moved smoothly and (mostly) quietly through cities. They were pleasant to board and exit and had none of the jerky feel that Ottawa buses do. Also, I find that Ottawa buses often have fumes even inside (and I am not talking about the new double deckers). I find riding the bus in Ottawa an unpleasant experience, whereas riding European railed systems was always pleasant. And I lived there (meaning it wasn't just vacation euphoria).

[J.OT13]

I would start by clearing the CFB project off the list completely. There are too many unknowns like the bridge and complete lack of plan when it comes to transit. I the current suggestion by people working on the project (Citizen article a few days ago) would be disastrous; I am not a fan of a bunch of random tram or streetcar, or whatever you want to call it lines running everywhere to connect to neighbourhoods with little to no relationship (Beechwood) and long detours to connect to the ORT.

I would also drop the interprovincial transit (IPT) study as it is going nowhere fast.

In tandem with slow expansion of the ORT (phased 1. Lincoln Fields via tunnel under Richmond, 2. Orleans 3. Airport, CE Centre, 4. Kanata, 5. Riverside South/Barrhaven via 06 corridor) , I would start by building a subway line between 1. Lansdowne Park and Rideau Station, next would be an extension to the 2. Vanier Parkway, 3. St-Laurent, 4. Monfort and finally 5. Bilings Bridge.

If the Kettle Island bridge is built, this is where we pick up the pieces of the IPT and CFB projects. I would cross a Light-Rail line (Dato's definition, with 80 meter trains) similar to the one drawn up by Kitchissippi, thus serving the Aviation Museum, the CFB, connection to the Bank/Rideau/Montreal subway, La Cité Collégiale all the way down to Blair station.

Somewhere in between the above mentioned projects, I would implement cheap and simple commuter rail for the communities outside urban Ottawa (which includes the big 3 suburbs within the Ottawa city limits).

And with everything else done, we can build what I consider a lower priority, the Carling tram (Dado's definition of).

My time frame for all of this (and maybe bringing back VIA rail to Union Station) would be 50 years, which would be realistic for any other big city in the world.

I know this was more of a transit rant, but it is also about my opinion that we should postpone the CFB project to better implement the proper transit connections first.

[lrt's friend]

I know this was more of a transit rant, but it is also about my opinion that we should postpone the CFB project to better implement the proper transit connections first.

This sounds like a plan for another Lebreton Flats. In 50 years, we will still be debating the CFB project. Meanwhile, the city will be sprawling to Carleton Place and Arnprior and wondering why our plans for rail transit are floundering.

[Capital Shaun]

This sounds like a plan for another Lebreton Flats. In 50 years, we will still be debating the CFB project. Meanwhile, the city will be sprawling to Carleton Place and Arnprior and wondering why our plans for rail transit are floundering.

I agree. We don't need another Lebreton Flats.

I've re-read the past couples days of posts and I can see the appeal of a tram in that corridor but I have 2 concerns.

1) We have a limit of funds to build transit infrastructure. (It would help if the city stopped building bus transitways.) The western LRT extension certainly has to be built before we can contemplate building other lines/extentions. Even if we were to build this tram line it likely won't get done for at least a decade or two. CFB Rockcliffe could be quite developed by then. I'm being realistic. I don't expect mass transit to get built just to serve a new neighbourhood.

2) The bikeway is being built in that corridor starting next year. As a cyclist I can tell you that bicycles and train tracks don't mix well.

[Aylmer]

I hope you don't mind, Kitchissippi, but I really liked your design - they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!

This is my take on the Beechwood-Blair Tram.

http://s18.postimage.org/tqpzh7pc7/Beechwood_Blair_Tramway.png

It's pretty straightforward, with the red stations being transfer stations with the O-Train. I'd imagine it could be RoW most of the way except in the denser parts of Beechwood and it would of course share its space with pedestrians on Sparks street.

[J.OT13]

We just don't need the too develop the CFB just yet; between Le Breton Flats, Bayview, Tunney's Pasture, the O-Train corridor between Bayview and Carling (build the Gladstone Station already), Train/St-Laurent/Cyrville CDP... We still have plenty of space, on the ORT, that we can develop now at its full potential.

[Capital Shaun]

We just don't need the too develop the CFB just yet; between Le Breton Flats, Bayview, Tunney's Pasture, the O-Train corridor between Bayview and Carling (build the Gladstone Station already), Train/St-Laurent/Cyrville CDP... We still have plenty of space, on the ORT, that we can develop now at its full potential.

True. We could also slow/stop development in the suburbs too while we infill & intensify within the greenbelt.

[JM1]

We just don't need the too develop the CFB just yet; between Le Breton Flats, Bayview, Tunney's Pasture, the O-Train corridor between Bayview and Carling (build the Gladstone Station already), Train/St-Laurent/Cyrville CDP... We still have plenty of space, on the ORT, that we can develop now at its full potential.

I think those on here who have being saying we don't need to develop Rcokcliffe CFB are right. We have lots of other under- and poorly developed land in this city.

The problem is, Rockcliffe CFB is owned by a federal Crown corporation and the Feds are increasingly strapped for cash. This is a money maker for them as CLC pays out proceeds to the Gov't.

The other problem is that, despite poor transit and transportation connection, this plot of land will be attractive in being relatively green, while being centrally located. It is just a nice place.

How the declining real estate market and the likelihood of unsold condos downtown and in Little Italy feeds into all this also remains unknown.

[eemy]

Wasn't the rejection of the NS LRT a pretty clear rejection of the concept of building transit first?

[kwoldtimer]

True. We could also slow/stop development in the suburbs too while we infill & intensify within the greenbelt.

Does Ottawa now have a target for the percentage of new residential development that should be inside the Greenbelt?

[Capital Shaun]

Does Ottawa now have a target for the percentage of new residential development that should be inside the Greenbelt?

Good question. I'd hope the city has some kind of target.

[Dado]

Wasn't the rejection of the NS LRT a pretty clear rejection of the concept of building transit first?

Who knows?

If it hadn't been designed by the BRT lobby to maintain the supremacy of BRT in the rapid transit hierarchy and had instead been part of an ever-so-slightly larger project (i.e. to Hurdman) to replace the buses downtown with light rail, it would probably have gone ahead.

It was certainly a rejection of building rapid transit to a developing area before dealing with the lack of rapid transit in downtown, but a wholesale rejection of the concept of building transit first? We just don't have the evidence one way or the other on that question.

[DEWLine]

I believe they're aiming for 45 % "inside the Greenbelt" intensification, but I'd have to triple-check that number.

[J.OT13]

True. We could also slow/stop development in the suburbs too while we infill & intensify within the greenbelt.

That will never happen; people will always want their mansions on tiny plots of land in the suburbs.

[Capital Shaun]

That will never happen; people will always want their mansions on tiny plots of land in the suburbs.

I agree to a point. I know lots of people my age (30's) who don't want to buy an older house for various reasons so they go to the suburbs and buy new. (I've learned through them that "new" doesn't mean problem free.)

[Dado]

I agree to a point. I know lots of people my age (30's) who don't want to buy an older house for various reasons so they go to the suburbs and buy new. (I've learned through them that "new" doesn't mean problem free.)

Ever watched Holmes on Homes? Pretty much the most terrifying show on TV.

Most of the time it's about bad renovators, but every now and then an episode concerns a new build and do some of them ever have problems.

Then you see the shot of the street with a whole row of identical houses and you think "wait, was this house just a bad apple or are they all going to have these problems or are they all just going to have random different problems?".

[lrt's friend]

Wasn't the rejection of the NS LRT a pretty clear rejection of the concept of building transit first?

Although the downtown issue was a major concern, the build transit first concept was also under major attack during the NS LRT debate. That was all part of the NS versus EW debate at the time. Why would we build to empty fields? Remember that? Unfortunately, the idea of rail transit to any suburban area is pretty well out because of this not just the transit first idea, despite the success of the nowhere to nowhere O-Train. It is going to take a mayor with bold thinking to bring back a rail transit first agenda and I don't see that happening anytime soon. The end result will be more and more busways.

We also have to recall that at that time, a Hurdman extension and replacing most downtown buses with trains would have blown away the available funding. It would have been necessary to go to a phase 2 to accomplish this, but too many people had no interest in waiting for a phase 2.

Regarding the timing of redevelopment of the CFB property, wouldn't it be so much easier to do this redevelopment rather than dealing with all the controversy that surrounds infill housing?

[McC]

Then you see the shot of the street with a whole row of identical houses and you think "wait, was this house just a bad apple or are they all going to have these problems or are they all just going to have random different problems?".

Getting off-topic here, but we live in a little complex of towns from the mid-90s, and to give just one example of the variation you can see, even in a fairly small scale development: when we had our inspection done, the inspector was literally gushing about how nice and clean our breaker box was wired, meanwhile one of neighbours was told their box was so poorly done that it was a fire waiting for a day to happen!

[JackBauer24]

"How the declining real estate market and the likelihood of unsold condos downtown and in Little Italy feeds into all this also remains unknown."

What declining real estate market? Ottawa's market is one of the most stable in the world.
And how can you assume there will be unsold condos before they're even built? If you compare new condo buildings in Ottawa to other cities like Toronto or Vancouver, when the buildings close/people move-in, there are usually only a half dozen or so unsold suites in each project.

But getting back to the CFB development, this large piece of land has been an eye sore for some time, and it's proximity to downtown and it's access make it one of best new potential neighbourhoods. But I really hope the City doesn't "LeBreton Flats" it (yes, I'm coining that as a term now). If developed properly, this can end up being one of the marquis areas of the city. But like all obviously good ideas (aka Scotiabank place in LeBreton Flats and not Kanata), the City tends to go with the senseless option.

[eternallyme]

Although the downtown issue was a major concern, the build transit first concept was also under major attack during the NS LRT debate. That was all part of the NS versus EW debate at the time. Why would we build to empty fields? Remember that? Unfortunately, the idea of rail transit to any suburban area is pretty well out because of this not just the transit first idea, despite the success of the nowhere to nowhere O-Train. It is going to take a mayor with bold thinking to bring back a rail transit first agenda and I don't see that happening anytime soon. The end result will be more and more busways.

We also have to recall that at that time, a Hurdman extension and replacing most downtown buses with trains would have blown away the available funding. It would have been necessary to go to a phase 2 to accomplish this, but too many people had no interest in waiting for a phase 2.

Regarding the timing of redevelopment of the CFB property, wouldn't it be so much easier to do this redevelopment rather than dealing with all the controversy that surrounds infill housing?

In retrospect, it should have been built but shortened to Bayview as the downtown plan was a disaster waiting to happen.

[kwoldtimer]

this can end up being one of the marquis areas of the city[/B]. But like all obviously good ideas (aka Scotiabank place in LeBreton Flats and not Kanata), the City tends to go with the senseless option.

Would that be anything like a marquee area? ;)

[Uhuniau]

But getting back to the CFB development, this large piece of land has been an eye sore for some time, and it's proximity to downtown and it's access make it one of best new potential neighbourhoods. But I really hope the City doesn't "LeBreton Flats" it (yes, I'm coining that as a term now). If developed properly, this can end up being one of the marquis areas of the city. But like all obviously good ideas (aka Scotiabank place in LeBreton Flats and not Kanata), the City tends to go with the senseless option.

I guarantee you, between the city, the NCC, CanLands, and the forces of NIMBY massed around it, it'll get Lebretonized. And then some.

BUT AT LEAST THERE'LL BE LOTS OF FLUCKING GREEN SPACE.

[gjhall]

i guarantee you, between the city, the ncc, canlands, and the forces of nimby massed around it, it'll get lebretonized. And then some.

But at least there'll be lots of flucking green space.

vibrant!

[Skipper]

One thing working in the favor of the Rockliffe redevelopment is that the NCC is not involved and that Canada Lands has built amazing communities so far!:)

[RTWAP]

Like the ones we took out in 58'. This city is incapable of moving forward.

I must admit I have an affection and preference for modern streetcars and trams over modern buses, but what about the economics?

How much does it cost to add streetcar service? How much does it cost to operate it in comparison to a bus service with the save capacity? Are there other incidental savings (e.g. reduced road wear) from switching away from buses.

[RTWAP]

Although the downtown issue was a major concern, the build transit first concept was also under major attack during the NS LRT debate. That was all part of the NS versus EW debate at the time. Why would we build to empty fields? Remember that? [See #1 below] Unfortunately, the idea of rail transit to any suburban area is pretty well out because of this not just the transit first idea, despite the success of the nowhere to nowhere O-Train. It is going to take a mayor with bold thinking to bring back a rail transit first agenda and I don't see that happening anytime soon. The end result will be more and more busways.

We also have to recall that at that time, a Hurdman extension and replacing most downtown buses with trains would have blown away the available funding. It would have been necessary to go to a phase 2 to accomplish this, but too many people had no interest in waiting for a phase 2. [See #2 below]

Regarding the timing of redevelopment of the CFB property, wouldn't it be so much easier to do this redevelopment rather than dealing with all the controversy that surrounds infill housing?

(1) I don't recall people complaining about empty fields. But diminishing the transit service to Barrhaven, in order to provide better service to a smaller Riverside South seemed broken.

(2) This talk about phases is indicative to me of the underlying problem with the first LRT plan. It was very modest. We got some money and were trying to start building an LRT system on the cheap. But we also required that the phase be useful on its own merits. When you consider all the fixed costs like control centres and maintenance yards and such, we were seriously short-changing the actual rail network. We avoided any area that wasn't extremely cheap to service.

In contrast, one of the few things Mayor Larry did that I agreed with was to finally find a use for his business experience and ask for a plan that actually solved current problems. And then figure out the smallest feasible way to start. The fact that this exercise came up with a different problem and much different solution is a sign that the first design was probably a mistake in that while solving a problem it didn't address the main problem and might have sent us down the path to not solving that main problem in an efficient way at all.

[Aylmer]

I must admit I have an affection and preference for modern streetcars and trams over modern buses, but what about the economics?

How much does it cost to add streetcar service? How much does it cost to operate it in comparison to a bus service with the save capacity? Are there other incidental savings (e.g. reduced road wear) from switching away from buses.

Including construction costs and trains, Portland's cost $7M/km. The maintenance costs are $5M per year for the whole system and operating costs in Memphis are about $75/hr as opposed to the MTA's $135/hr. I'm assuming that these are rather average, but this is just from a quick Google search.

Trams last over 30 years whereas buses are generally used for half that time, the tracks need less maintenance than roads, many more people will take trams than buses, they bring in more property taxes for the city, etc.

[Uhuniau]

One thing working in the favor of the Rockliffe redevelopment is that the NCC is not involved

Yet.

and that Canada Lands has built amazing communities so far!:)

In places whose names don't rhyme with Schnottawa.

This is Ottawa.

It will be lame.

[Uhuniau]

vibrant!

The WeVibe will have nothing on the vibrancy of the CanLands green space! You will spontaneously climax just looking at the shrubs!

[citizen j]

Vibrating greenspace?

[lrt's friend]

And then figure out the smallest feasible way to start.

Unfortunately, this could be the long-term flaw of the current plan. While we plan this extremely short rail line, we are converting planned future extensions into more busways. Before we even start construction, we are losing momentum and continuing with the mistaken idea that we should build busways first and then convert them later with all the additional cost and inconvenience. Show me another city who routinely build busways and convert them to rail?

[lrt's friend]

I think that many here are very supportive of the upcoming subway and it has many advantages to the city. However, it is going to require as many passengers to be funneled into it to make it operate efficiently. Because of the size of the trains that will be used in the subway, it will also limit the opportunities to operate more direct services including a direct north-south link to downtown. Furthermore, it will make it impossible to operate competing lines which will potentially take passengers away from the subway. As a result, the liklihood of operating any sort of rail transit to CFB Rockcliffe will be zero.

[Uhuniau]

I think that many here are very supportive of the upcoming subway and it has many advantages to the city. However, it is going to require as many passengers to be funneled into it to make it operate efficiently. Because of the size of the trains that will be used in the subway, it will also limit the opportunities to operate more direct services including a direct north-south link to downtown. Furthermore, it will make it impossible to operate competing lines which will potentially take passengers away from the subway. As a result, the liklihood of operating any sort of rail transit to CFB Rockcliffe will be zero.

"Competing" rail lines could actually feed passengers into the Confederation line. "Competition" is a wierd thing to be talking about, esp. when proposing mass transit along a corridor that right now has shit transit, and will continue to have shit transit for centuries at the pace things are going in Shitville, Canada.

[Uhuniau]

Unfortunately, this could be the long-term flaw of the current plan. While we plan this extremely short rail line, we are converting planned future extensions into more busways. Before we even start construction, we are losing momentum and continuing with the mistaken idea that we should build busways first and then convert them later with all the additional cost and inconvenience. Show me another city who routinely build busways and convert them to rail?

North Haverbrook?

[ThaLoveDocta]

North Haverbrook?

well by gum it sure put Ogdenville and Brockway on the map!:cheers:

[waterloowarrior]

Slides from Nov meeting
http://www.clcrockcliffe.ca/en/content/resource-library

Next meeting in Spring 2013
http://www.clcrockcliffe.ca/en/content/consultation-timeline

[Capital Shaun]

Slides from Nov meeting
http://www.clcrockcliffe.ca/en/content/resource-library

Next meeting in Spring 2013
http://www.clcrockcliffe.ca/en/content/consultation-timeline

From I've seen so far there's no evidence this new neighbourhood will have public transit as a priority.

I'm willing to bet the 129 will simply be rerouted (such as along Codd's & Hemlock) instead of its current routing along Aviation where it currently picks up zero passengers.

[waterloowarrior]

consultation round 2 in may
http://www.yourottawaregion.com/news/article/1598105--next-public-consultation-for-rockcliffe-air-base-announced

[rakerman]

The consultation URL is well-buried, but I found it

http://www.clcrockcliffe.ca/en/news/community-consultation-2

Canada Lands Company will be holding its second public consultation regarding CLC Rockcliffe on May 25, 2013.

Where: Hampton Inn in Overbrook
When: 9 a.m. to 4 p.m
How: RSVP, or notify Don Schultz at 613-998-7765

RSVP by email to: syau@clc.ca
Subject: RSVP, Rockcliffe Consultation Session #2

[rakerman]

Follow-up on consultation (conveniently scheduled on race weekend).

Ottawa Citizen has a write-up on the three options: The Arc, The Grid, and True North. Citizen article appears to be only source for the options; I couldn't find them on the CLC site.

Citizen - Open House to showcase latest development plans for CFB Rockcliffe (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Open+House+showcase+latest+development+plans+Rockcliffe/8416402/story.html)
Citizen - Graphics: Rockcliffe … three alternatives (http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/05/22/graphics-the-arc-three-alternatives/)

Here's what CLC has posted about the consultation

Canada Lands Company will be holding its second public consultation regarding CLC Rockcliffe on May 25, 2013.

Where: Hampton Inn in Overbrook
When: 9 a.m. to 4 p.m
How: RSVP, or notify Don Schultz at 613-998-7765.

Limited space is available

http://www.clcrockcliffe.ca/en/content/registration-form-open-house-and-workshop

The Citizen says

The public may attend an open house to view the three alternatives, or attend a workshop, either full-day or half-day. It will offer a detailed discussion and presentations by the urban designer and landscape architect.

[J.OT13]

Follow-up on consultation (conveniently scheduled on race weekend).

Ottawa Citizen has a write-up on the three options: The Arc, The Grid, and True North. Citizen article appears to be only source for the options; I couldn't find them on the CLC site.

Citizen - Open House to showcase latest development plans for CFB Rockcliffe (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Open+House+showcase+latest+development+plans+Rockcliffe/8416402/story.html)
Citizen - Graphics: Rockcliffe … three alternatives (http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/05/22/graphics-the-arc-three-alternatives/)

Here's what CLC has posted about the consultation

http://www.clcrockcliffe.ca/en/content/registration-form-open-house-and-workshop

The Citizen says

I didn't go thru it in detail, but my vote is for the grid.

[Capital Shaun]

I didn't go thru it in detail, but my vote is for the grid.

Same here. I prefer 'The Grid'.
(But why that option have provisions for 3 schools while the others only have 2?)

'The Arc' isn't bad but it seems all the side roads have needless curves in them.

[rocketphish]

Open House to showcase latest development plans for CFB Rockcliffe

By Maria Cook, Ottawa Citizen May 22, 2013

OTTAWA — A public consultation this Saturday May 25 will unveil three alternative plans for the former Canadian Forces Base Rockcliffe.

The Canada Lands Company (CLC), the Crown corporation that owns the 125-hectare site, aims to create a new mixed-use district with 10,000 to 15,000 residents and 4,500 to 6,000 new houses and apartments.

“We genuinely want to engage the public and hear their concerns and be honest about our intentions,” says Don Schultz, CLC director of real estate, Rockcliffe.

“Change triggers anxiety,” he says. “We don’t have the right to treat that anxiety lightly.”

Schultz acknowledges that traffic and transportation is a big issue, heightened by the recent National Capital Commission announcement of Kettle Island as a preferred interprovincial bridge option. The solution, he says, lies in enhanced public transit and negotiations with the City of Ottawa to reduce its target of 6,000 housing units on the site.

“We believe something lower than that would work very well,” he says.

Located 5.5 kilometres east of Parliament Hill, the former military base is the largest development parcel within the Greenbelt. It sits on an escarpment overlooking the Ottawa River valley, east of St. Laurent Boulevard and north of Montreal Road. The site is ringed by mature neighbourhoods, including Rothwell Heights, Fairhaven, Thorncliffe Park, Manor Park, Rockcliffe Park and Vanier.

“We are concerned about the traffic impact on Beechwood Avenue and Hemlock Road and on the Rockcliffe Parkway of 6,000 units, or more, if the city insists on higher density, plus people going to and from the employment nodes,” says Iola Price, who represents on the Rockcliffe Park Residents’ Association on the CLC public advisory group.

“The city has the final say in the shape of the community and if it increases the density targets, the features of this site that make it so attractive may be lost,” she says.

CLC’s open house will seek feedback on three scenarios, developed by consultants. The plans show potential sites for different housing types as well as parks, roads and employment areas. They map stores, schools, open areas and storm ponds and identify woodlots and important trees to preserve.

“Public commentary and the city approval process will result in a preferred plan which will be based on a blending of the best from the three alternatives, ” says Schultz.

The first alternative is called The Arc. Its main feature is a curving road that runs from Hemlock Road to Burma Road through the centre of the site, and has shops on it. A major park sits on the ridge.

The second option, The Grid, is organized around a rectangular central park, ringed with buildings, at the Codd’s Road entrance. It has a grid street pattern and a cluster of shops around a village square.

The third, called A commemoration site is part of a $10-million land-claim negotiated between the Algonquins of Ontario and the federal government for the property.

CLC plans also to commemorate military history and possibly the francophone heritage of the area.

Preliminary plans for a new neighbourhood show detached houses, townhouses, stacked townhouses and four-storey apartment buildings, as well as residential buildings ranging between five and nine-storeys.

“We do have financial imperatives,” says Schultz. “We will not lose money. The townhouse, stacked townhouse, low-rise apartment buildings we think are the right choice for a financially viable project. It offers a good range of unit sizes.”

There’s interest from empty nesters, seniors and young families, he says, adding “the really beautiful natural areas don’t need to be the domain of the elite few. It’s that principle of having access for everyone.”

Though sites have been identified for high-rises of 18 to 20 storeys at Burma Road and Montreal Road to the east, and at Hemlock Road to the west “we don’t think there’s a strong market for tall buildings in this part of the city,” says Schultz.

However, unless the city relaxes on the 6,000-unit target (which dictates the amount of park space) it may be forced to build tall structures. It hopes to meet the city’s sustainability objectives through other initiatives.

These include on-site employment (they are in talks with the National Research Council and the Montfort Hospital about related businesses), ecological water-management, passive solar heating, and district energy.

CLC is starting from scratch, removing existing roads and having abandoned a previous plan that aspired to be a model of sustainability and contemporary urban design.

It is looking at a possible new road across NCC property to get on the Rockcliffe Parkway. This is a way to get around the loss of ramps on and off the Aviation Parkway, which will be lost if the Kettle Island bridge goes ahead, turning Aviation Parkway into a truck route.

To reduce car usage, it has introduced a “transit priority corridor” that runs from Hemlock and exits at Montreal Road or onto the adjacent National Research Council campus. The corridor would provide extra lanes at intersections for buses, priority at traffic lights and in some locations bus-only lanes. It would deliver local residents to the closest LRT station at Blair.

The CLC team hopes to make transit more pleasant and convenient by integrating stops with public buildings such as schools and community centres.

A small “jitney” bus within the community could feed into the transit priority corridor, adds Schultz. It’s not how OC Transpo works “but I think we could look at alternative ways.”

The first public consultation, an ideas fair, was held last November. CLC aims to submit a community design plan to the city for approval in spring 2014. Before offering lots to builders in 2016, it would put in streets, services and public space.

Public consultation Saturday May 25

Where: Hampton Inn, 100 Coventry Road

When: 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.

The public may attend an open house to view the three alternatives, or attend a workshop, either full-day or half-day. It will offer a detailed discussion and presentations by the urban designer and landscape architect.

Limited space is available

Register at www.clcrockcliffe.ca

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Open+House+showcase+latest+development+plans+Rockcliffe/8416402/story.html#ixzz2U8VcCUpq

http://postmediaottawacitizen.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/0522rockcliffe_web.jpg

[rocketphish]

Graphics: Rockcliffe … three alternatives

May 22, 2013. 2:15 pm

http://postmediaottawacitizen.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/0523rock_alt01_web.jpg

http://postmediaottawacitizen.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/0523rock_alt02_web.jpg

http://postmediaottawacitizen.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/0523rock_alt03_web.jpg

[McC]

So these 10-15K people require 2-3 new schools, while the same number of new residents in the Bayview-Carling corridor require 0? How does that work?

[JM1]

Highrises at Hemlock and Aviation Parkway (which won't even have access once they put the bridge in? Are they thinking straight?

If there were demand for highrises, they would be built along Montreal Rd between Codds Road and Burma. Granted, that is not part of the CLC site, but it shows what land is worth. That whole area is a disgusting strip mall mess. Perhaps we should wait until that area is cleaned up and densified before we think about mowing down the Rockcliffe Base (which has no good road connections anyway).