HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2921  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2008, 2:59 PM
Richard Eade Richard Eade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nepean
Posts: 2,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cre47 View Post
...If they get rid of part of that parking lot, there is pretty much the same space then near Abbey, Cluny Acton and Braydon Streets (if the trees don't get chopped)....
There is no problem with the width of the corridor. It is a full width easement, according to the City's maps. I just happens that the parking lots are build on the easement.


Think that there is lots of potential to re-landscape to find new parking room if such a large lot is needed after rapid transit has been added to the area. (Maybe reducing the parking would encourage more transit ridership.)

Hume actually boasts that he fought this corridor being added to the 2003 TMP. His argument is that it is much too narrow a corridor to build a two lane, 70 Km/h road through. http://www.peterhume.com/browning_avenue.html

The big expense might be the complete re-building of the hydro substation. The lower portion of the transit corridor would pass through the built up portion. Although there is lots of room on the property, it will be expensive to move everything. (Upper-middle right of figure above)

Does anyone know if the Fire Education Facility at the corner of Industrial and St. Laurent is only a teaching facility or if it a working station? If it is a station, then I would suggest that the corridor be opened anyway for emergency access to the hospital complex. There would need to be a ramp from Industrial into the corridor, as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2922  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2008, 3:40 PM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Eade View Post
There is no problem with the width of the corridor. It is a full width easement, according to the City's maps. I just happens that the parking lots are build on the easement.


Think that there is lots of potential to re-landscape to find new parking room if such a large lot is needed after rapid transit has been added to the area. (Maybe reducing the parking would encourage more transit ridership.)

Hume actually boasts that he fought this corridor being added to the 2003 TMP. His argument is that it is much too narrow a corridor to build a two lane, 70 Km/h road through. http://www.peterhume.com/browning_avenue.html

The big expense might be the complete re-building of the hydro substation. The lower portion of the transit corridor would pass through the built up portion. Although there is lots of room on the property, it will be expensive to move everything. (Upper-middle right of figure above)

Does anyone know if the Fire Education Facility at the corner of Industrial and St. Laurent is only a teaching facility or if it a working station? If it is a station, then I would suggest that the corridor be opened anyway for emergency access to the hospital complex. There would need to be a ramp from Industrial into the corridor, as well.
The fire-station is a working one. I don't think there is room for a ramp at Industrial, it would have to be another light. There would have to be a light (or an underpass at Russel Rd. There would have to be an underpass at the new AVTC (if built). The original plans called for an underpass at Alta-Vista but sewers there will prevent it. It will be VERY expensive or slow.

The "potential parking" east of Russel rd. is being rezoned for development so it is likely unusable for that purpose.

Please see my previous post for a better route.
__________________
Francois
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2923  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2008, 4:41 PM
adam-machiavelli adam-machiavelli is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,246
Your better route is a worse route. You're just giving in to the NIMBYs in that neighbourhood. I think it's more important to link a massive hospital complex than a strip mall to rapid transit. Unlike your suggested route, the hospital link transit route goes through residential areas and other areas people actually need to go. Your new route is the equivalent of running light rail along the Ottawa River Parkway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2924  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2008, 4:53 PM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli View Post
Your better route is a worse route. You're just giving in to the NIMBYs in that neighbourhood. I think it's more important to link a massive hospital complex than a strip mall to rapid transit. Unlike your suggested route, the hospital link transit route goes through residential areas and other areas people actually need to go. Your new route is the equivalent of running light rail along the Ottawa River Parkway.
Those areas are already well served by the 86 and 85. The Train Yards development (which isn't finished yet) and Bus Depot (to be constructed) would have better use of a transit link and it would be much cheaper to build and faster.
__________________
Francois
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2925  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2008, 6:00 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,255
a glorified power centre is a better use of a transit link than a hospital??

FWIW there is also already has excellent bus service to the trainyards on the other side of the tracks, not sure if it's passable yet. also the proposed office buildings are about 750 m from hurdman....

for cost, do you know who owns all this land??

most of your new transitway is 500-750 metres away from the current transitway... hardly seems efficient, especially since buses really want to can just go up st laurent from the bus depot and use the existing bus only loop to the transitway 1 km away at st laurent and 417. or they can take belfast and trainyards to the transitway, which aren't busy by any means.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2926  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2008, 6:22 PM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
a glorified power centre is a better use of a transit link than a hospital??
Bringing some transit oriented development to that area would be a good idea, yes. The hospital already has the 85 serving it and with a simple access road to Alta-Vista, another (shorter) route to Hurdman will be available.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
FWIW there is also already has excellent bus service to the trainyards on the other side of the tracks, not sure if it's passable yet. also the proposed office buildings are about 750 m from hurdman....
Not accessible because of the Rail line/Railway station.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post

for cost, do you know who owns all this land??
It used to be a rail line to trainyards. There is an existing (unused) underpass at St.Laurent and and (unused) bridge over Industrial/Innes just waiting. All the infrastructure is there!
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post

most of your new transitway is 500-750 metres away from the current transitway... hardly seems efficient, especially since buses really want to can just go up st laurent from the bus depot and use the existing bus only loop to the transitway 1 km away at st laurent and 417. or they can take belfast and trainyards to the transitway, which aren't busy by any means.
[/quote]
Again, it's separated by the Train Station/railway tracks.
Do you realize how much traffic there is on Industrial and St. Laurent at peak times? The transitway would avoid Industrial completely. You want the bus depot on a Transitway link if possible - just seems to make sense. This way the depot won't be snarled by traffic.
__________________
Francois
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2927  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2008, 7:11 PM
Cre47's Avatar
Cre47 Cre47 is offline
Awesome!
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Orleans, ON
Posts: 1,971
However, the 86 is quite a long walk away from the Hospital though, same for the 8.

It would be nice if the 94 or an eventual off-peak extension of the 118 would serve the Complex or the new corridor or another 90-series route. This is the most important hospital of all the city and it should have more then just one frequent cross-town route that will become more of a local route this fall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2928  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2008, 4:12 PM
adam-machiavelli adam-machiavelli is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,246
Regarding priority of what areas should get rapid transit stations:

1. Tertiary sector employment centres
2. Publicly-oriented facilities (hospitals, plazas, parks, etc)
3. Post-secondary educational institutions
4. Retail centres *with public space* (i.e. indoor or outdoor corridors & common areas)
5. Intermodal hubs (intercity rail/bus, commuter rail, airport, ferry terminal etc)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2929  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2008, 9:51 PM
p_xavier p_xavier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli View Post
Regarding priority of what areas should get rapid transit stations:

1. Tertiary sector employment centres
2. Publicly-oriented facilities (hospitals, plazas, parks, etc)
3. Post-secondary educational institutions
4. Retail centres *with public space* (i.e. indoor or outdoor corridors & common areas)
5. Intermodal hubs (intercity rail/bus, commuter rail, airport, ferry terminal etc)
Euh?!!! You have your list reversed!!!! Intermodal hubs, because you have people coming in and out all day long, plus they can leave their car at home.... Retail centres because they are most popular at every time of day and week.


Sector employment centres, basically as flow in the morning and evening, that is it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2930  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2008, 12:42 AM
adam-machiavelli adam-machiavelli is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,246
I meant in Ottawa. Our intermodal hubs aren't too significant ridership generators...yet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2931  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2008, 2:36 AM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,810
I don't think we need to prioritize these things one over the other because a good transit system should serve them all. With gas prices continuing to rise, I would also include entertainment centres (NAC, movie theatres, casinos etc.) and tourist attractions (museums) and this will become more important in the future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2932  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2008, 5:22 PM
c_speed3108 c_speed3108 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,858
This article mostly states the obvious, except for one point it makes about suburban commuters: Don't worry too much about feeder routes. Build park and ride lots...big ones...where there is space available. Suburban people don't mind driving short distances - it is the long commutes that become problematic. The short car trips are cheap and sustainable...long commutes - not so much so.

Quote:
U.S. cities scrambling to meet rising mass transit demands

By Manav Tanneeru
CNN

Atlanta, Georgia (CNN) -- U.S. cities are racing to cope with ever-increasing demand on public transportation as gas prices remain at record levels.
High gas prices in recent months have had a considerable impact on commuters using public transportation, statistics show.

High gas prices in recent months have had a considerable impact on commuters using public transportation, statistics show.

Even regions that have traditionally resisted giving up cars and have limited access to mass transit are reporting a surge in public transportation use.

From trains and trolleys to subways and buses, the growth encompasses all modes of travel, according to the American Public Transportation Association, a Washington D.C.-based industry group.

Cities are using a variety of measures to meet that demand, according to an informal APTA survey of some transit systems.

For example, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, which is currently operating at capacity during peak periods, ordered more subway cars, buses and coaches for its commuter rail.

In North Carolina, the Charlotte Area Transit System has increased the frequency of light rail service on the weekends, ordered new buses and is taking a look at low-performing routes to cut down on costs.

And the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, which serves Philadelphia and has seen about 20,000 new daily customers since last July, has ordered 400 new hybrid buses and 120 new rail cars.

Other measures being used or considered by transit systems include changing schedules to increase frequency of buses and trains, creating bus-only lanes and taking out seats on trains to make more room for commuters.

'The paradox of public transportation'

While the rise in ridership has been a relatively easy adjustment for some systems, others are facing difficulties in meeting operating costs, which hampers their ability to ramp up service or maintain normal levels.

Cal Marsella, the head of Denver, Colorado's transit system, calls it the "paradox of public transportation."

Denver's system, like many U.S. cities, is partly funded by revenues from sales taxes. As consumers spend less because of high fuel costs and a sour economy, the city earns less revenue. Consequently, funding for the transit system is decreasing just when their operating costs are higher than ever before.

"Just when our demand is highest, our ability to provide is being undermined by the whole crunch," Marsella said. "The last thing we want to do is curtail service but there is not a lot you can do when revenues are down and fuel prices are up."

The Denver Regional Transit District, however, saw the high prices coming and was able to lock in the price of diesel fuel earlier this year at $3.20 a gallon -- a price far cheaper than what the market is right now. That contract expires at the end of this year. See a map of gas prices across the country »

Marsella is pessimistic prices will drop much by the end of the year. "I'm budgeting next year for $4.55 a gallon," he said. "Everybody is hurting, and I have real concerns about our ability to sustain services and maintain infrastructure."

A sharp rise in ridership

Americans used public transportation in record numbers the first three months of this year, according to the APTA. They took 2.6 billion trips on public transportation during that period, an increase of 85 million more trips compared with the same period last year.

Meanwhile, the number behind the wheel dropped. Americans drove 1.4 billion fewer highway miles from April 2007 through April 2008, according to figures released by the Department of Transportation in June. The numbers represented the sixth consecutive monthly drop.

In some places, the growing embrace of public transportation has been an ongoing trend for the past few years, reflecting a steady and gradual change in commuter behavior. iReport: Show us your commute

For instance, ridership increased during a period of high fuel prices from 2005 through 2006 in Tulsa, but did not decline after fuel prices went back down, said Cynthia Stabb of Tulsa Transit.

"Once people get a chance to try public transit and they find it works for them, they stick with it," she said via e-mail. Asked about the current high levels, she responded, "We believe the demand is here to stay."

Turning point?

Some observers such as Dr. Robert Lang, an expert on urban affairs and planning at Virginia Tech University, say the gas crunch could be a turning point in perceptions of public transportation and how cities plan development.

Consumers are beginning to believe the high prices are a result of structural changes in the global economy, not the result of a single event like Hurricane Katrina, which produced a period of high fuel prices earlier this decade, Lang said.

That change in perception is providing more momentum for some cities that were already moving away from six-lane highways and suburbs dozens of miles apart, to a series of urban centers connected by light rail and other mass transit systems.

He cited cities like Denver and Phoenix, Arizona, where residents, motivated by traffic frustrations and the promise of economic development, approved massive transportation projects during the past few years despite the costs to their pocketbooks.

Marsella said Denver's suburban and exurban commuters were as enthusiastic as its urban residents in approving the multibillion dollar project in 2004. "People want to drive their cars a mile or two to a park-and-ride, and then take the rail in on the most congested part of the trip," he said.

Other cities, like Atlanta, Georgia, for instance, are struggling make the pivot.

Often cited in discussions about urban sprawl, Atlanta has been bedeviled for years by a lack of consensus among city and regional leaders on the need to expand its transit system.

"Some of it is just the fear of change," Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin said. "People acted as if transit was a dirty word and the only thing that would be successful in Atlanta would be to build more roads, but we can see from the congestion that you need an integrated transport system." Video Watch Mayor Franklin talk about Atlanta's transit system »

"Unfortunately, there's no quick answer for the problems that we have."
advertisement

Roads, and the cars on them, will not likely disappear anytime soon, Lang said. "We're a settler nation. And people had to get moving to do that," he said. "There's something deep within the American psyche about the freedom of movement."

But the current environment may lead to a future where hybrid cars coexist with denser transit systems. "2007, for all we know, might be the peak use of gas in the United States," he said.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2933  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2008, 6:37 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,255
Short car trips are exactly the ones that planners and health officials want to substitute with walking and cycling. in the US about a quarter of all trips are less than 1 mile and 40% are less than two miles. Each Canadian makes an average of 2000 trips by car per year that are less than 3 KM. Short car trips are part of the reason why suburban roads are so wide despite the low density.

A system primarily based on park and rides just reinforces auto dependency, which is why GO/Metrolinx is moving to transform their stations into mobility hubs with lots of connections on multiple modes. Park and rides can be a good thing that improves transit use (especially in low density suburban areas), but they aren't very supportive of TOD and don't help people without cars (especially if you cut out all the feeder routes). Short trips are expensive per KM, especially in winter, because since the engine is cold the car consumes more fuel and emits more pollution/emissions.

Sources:

http://www.cdc.gov/PCD/issues/2005/oct/04_0138.htm
http://www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportation/personal/driving/autosmart-maintenance.cfm?attr=8
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/pau-uap/fitness/active_trans.htm
http://books.google.ca/books?id=a6__pNpM...n&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result

Last edited by waterloowarrior; Jul 16, 2008 at 6:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2934  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2008, 7:07 PM
c_speed3108 c_speed3108 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
Short car trips are exactly the ones that planners and health officials want to substitute with walking and cycling. in the US about a quarter of all trips are less than 1 mile and 40% are less than two miles. Each Canadian makes an average of 2000 trips by car that are less than 3 KM. Short car trips are part of the reason why suburban roads are so wide despite the low density.

A system primarily based on park and rides just reinforces auto dependency, which is why GO/Metrolinx is moving to transform their stations into mobility hubs with lots of connections on multiple modes. Park and rides can be a good thing that improves transit use (especially in low density suburban areas), but they aren't very supportive of TOD and don't help people without cars (especially if you cut out all the feeder routes). Short trips are expensive per KM, especially in winter, because since the engine is cold the car consumes more fuel and emits more pollution/emissions.

Sources:

http://www.cdc.gov/PCD/issues/2005/oct/04_0138.htm
http://www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportation/personal/driving/autosmart-maintenance.cfm?attr=8
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/pau-uap/fitness/active_trans.htm
http://books.google.ca/books?id=a6__pNpM...n&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result

The thing, transit wise, is that servicing short trips in the suburbs is that is a really tough sell. The amount of gas you burn on a short trip in total is very low. Many suburb trips such as to the grocery store are realistically a no go on transit. You have to wait too long and carry too much.

The longer trips (downtown or various events located around town) are far more important to worry about. It is not pollution or cost per km that is important, it's the grand total. It is a much better idea to get someones trip from Orleans or Kanata out of the car and onto transit than we are to worry about a trip of a couple kilometers shopping each Saturday. This goes for pollution, congestion and whatever other motivations.

I think the trick is for a different design of park and rides. There should be other services attached..child care, shopping, banking, etc. Park and rides like Trim and Fallowfield are examples of how not to build them....in the middle of a field. Ideally if you could get off the bus/train and before touching your car get various things done you now have TOD but not in a conventional way. We have saved car trips instead of someone getting off the bus and then proceeding to drive around doing this or that they can do it all before. The only car trip is the house to the lot. We also have TOD at the other end of the line (generally downtown).


As for walking, realistically most people are not going to live within walking distance of rapid transit lines, unless we build an almost absurd number. its a nice goal on paper, but not too practical when put into practice. We certainly don't getting people onto transit dependent upon getting people to take infrequent local bus service. Anyone would drive in that case.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2935  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2008, 8:22 PM
Aylmer's Avatar
Aylmer Aylmer is offline
Still optimistic
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal (C-D-N) / Ottawa (Aylmer)
Posts: 5,407
Here, in France, I can walk two small blocks and find everything from a small
grocery chain, Bakery, Butcher...

All is around the corner and there is no reason to drive!

The mentality in NoAm is bring the people to their needs,
The mentality in Europe is bring the needs to the people

__________________
I've always struggled with reality. And I'm pleased to say that I won.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2936  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2008, 12:02 AM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franky View Post
Bringing some transit oriented development to that area would be a good idea, yes. The hospital already has the 85 serving it and with a simple access road to Alta-Vista, another (shorter) route to Hurdman will be available.

Not accessible because of the Rail line/Railway station.

It used to be a rail line to trainyards. There is an existing (unused) underpass at St.Laurent and and (unused) bridge over Industrial/Innes just waiting. All the infrastructure is there!

Again, it's separated by the Train Station/railway tracks.
Do you realize how much traffic there is on Industrial and St. Laurent at peak times? The transitway would avoid Industrial completely. You want the bus depot on a Transitway link if possible - just seems to make sense. This way the depot won't be snarled by traffic.[/quote]

According to the site plan for trainyards there should be pedestrian connections in the next phase (although that's the site plan on their website, not sure how accurate it is)

There already is a bus depot on that site, are they really having traffic problems? Yes, I am from the east of Ottawa and am aware of the traffic..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2937  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2008, 1:30 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,810
Quote:
Carling alternative 'too late'
Councillor's idea for light-rail route fails to get traction

Jake Rupert and Laura Drake
The Ottawa Citizen


Thursday, July 17, 2008


An Ottawa city councillor says the city should stop plans to run a section of its light-rail rapid transit network on the Ottawa River Parkway, or any other route close to the parkway, and instead focus on running it along Carling Avenue.

But critics of the idea call it too late, too expensive, and not even on the radar.

Kitchissippi Councillor Christine Leadman made the suggestion yesterday. Her ward contains part of the parkway the line would run on, and many residents in the area are strongly opposed to the idea.

The National Capital Commission owns the route, and Ms. Leadman said the NCC shouldn't give the city permission to run a rail line along it.

Ms. Leadman said the parkway is an "environmental jewel" that should be protected. She said an alternative route on a former streetcar line from Westboro to Lincoln Fields between Byron Avenue and Richmond Road, estimated to cost an extra $750 million, is too expensive, and the land is greenspace that should be protected.

Instead, she said, Carling Avenue is the "logical route" for the most difficult stretch of the proposed transit system, which will cost an estimated $4 billion in all.

"Carling Avenue is underutilized, so here you have great opportunities to make a rail corridor where people live," she said.

Ms. Leadman said she does not have estimates for the cost of running rail along Carling, but that it shouldn't add much to the overall cost of the plan.

Bay Councillor Alex Cullen, who chairs the transit committee and whose ward contains another part of the parkway, said Ms. Leadman's idea is much too late, given that council approved the current transit plan back in May by a vote of 20-4.

Mr. Cullen pointed out that Capital Councillor Clive Doucet brought up the option of using Carling Avenue during debate on the transit plan, but the idea didn't get any traction at the time.

"She's coming to this realization way too late," Mr. Cullen said.

He added that he doesn't think the idea of using Carling Avenue is good enough to convince the necessary three-

quarters of council to approve reconsidering the issue.

Mr. Cullen said the next step in the approved transit plan is to do a study of the Ottawa River Parkway as a rail route, which he thinks should assuage some of Ms. Leadman's concerns.

"All of us want to protect the bike path, the greenspace and the beauty along the parkway," he said.

However, Ms. Leadman said she thinks that a truly objective study would reveal alternative options to using the parkway. She also said it could take a long time for the city to negotiate with the NCC over the route's use.

"I think we'll have a bit of time on our hands, and at that point they're going to have to consider the other option, and that's when they should start thinking about Carling Avenue," she said.

Nancy Schepers, deputy city manager for planning, transit and the environment, said Carling Avenue was not a main corridor her department gave "very serious consideration to" during the planning process over the last year.

She said the proposed system is a grade-separated rapid transit system, and to build it along Carling Avenue would be "far more expensive on many fronts," compared with even the former streetcar line.

Ms. Schepers said the city is currently looking at Carling Avenue and a number of other streets as secondary, surface light-rail routes that would feed the main, grade-separated light-rail spine, as the city's international peer review panel of transit experts suggested.

"Council has approved rail corridors for the main routes," she said. "The current routes were chosen as the best routes after careful review."

© The Ottawa Citizen 2008
Quote:
Everyone wins
The Ottawa Citizen


Thursday, July 17, 2008


Re: Run train on Carling for economic benefits, July 7.

I agree strongly with letter-writer Kathryn Mikoski, who argues that a route for east-west rail transit along Carling Avenue is preferable to current options that more or less hug the Ottawa River. A Carling Avenue route presents fewer technical challenges for construction. It provides more convenient access to greater numbers of potential commuters continuously along both sides of the route. And it directly connects a number of major commercial and institutional centres along the way. Win-win-win.

But why stop there? Instead of Albert as the main downtown route, I suggest Laurier Avenue, which is really our dominant commercial and institutional street in the overall core, and truly central to the entire downtown. Five short blocks to the north gets you to Wellington Street and the Parliamentary precinct, while five equally short block blocks to the south gets you to Somerset Street, our other main east-west axis. And construction along Laurier can surely be no more challenging than along Albert.

J. Phillip Nicholson, Ottawa

© The Ottawa Citizen 2008
This whole process that we have been through in the last 18 months has been one big sham. When has the public had any real input? Any public debate has always been after the fact, when the plan has already been set, so our opinions really don't matter. We are just there to rubber stamp one clear predefined viable choice. We had the mayor's task force that was held behind closed doors. The public was not asked what they thought during this process. Then staff developed Options 1 through 4 without any public input. Then the mayor told the public and council not to discuss other routes and restrict the discussion to only those 4 options, all containing the same routes. We all know that Clive Doucet and other councillors were told to shutup by the mayor at that time so alternatives presented by councillors (or the public) were never really going to be seriously considered. There was a promise of a discussion following the May vote but now it is clear that this will be restricted again, to setting priorities and we all know where this is going and how nasty this potentially will get. Further studies were requested by Council as part of the May vote but I am sure those will be pushed aside as being too expensive and that secondary routes must only be built after the primary routes are completed, that is, after 2031. This was all echoed in a discussion between Christine Leadman and Rainer Bloess this morning on CFRA.

My confidence in this process is underwhelming and I won't be surprised if nothing gets off the ground beyond Transitway improvements in the suburbs. This will likely be dictated by a large settlement to Siemens which will leave our civic coffers empty and we all know that there is absolutely no possibility of moving forward with light rail without that settlement first.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2938  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2008, 2:04 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,810
And the Ottawa Sun's perspective:

Quote:
July 17, 2008

Route gathers steam

Leadman joins councillors fighting to send LRT down Carling Ave., not parkway

By DEREK PUDDICOMBE, CITY HALL BUREAU



Another city councillor is jumping on board with the idea of sending light rail down Carling Ave.

Kitchississpi Coun. Christine Leadman is joining council colleagues Clive Doucet and Marianne Wilkinson in proposing the idea of taking light rail transit down the centre of the busy Ottawa road.

All three say the route is the best one to take commuters east and west.

The city's current plan is to take the rail line down the western portion of the Ottawa River Parkway, which Leadman argues will destroy its environmental integrity and is raising concern among area residents.

"As an environmental jewel, the route provides a beautiful way for residents, tourists and Canadians at large to enjoy the river," Leadman said in a news release yesterday. "As many cities strive to reclaim the waterfront, the NCC has ensured its protection and has the ability to stop any transit along the route."

She said taking LRT down the parkway is "too risky."

She admits the Carling Ave. route isn't a new idea, but says its the best way for the city to connect the downtown with the west end.

"It is a major road with a clean, straight route, provides linkages with the highway, the existing western Transitway and a link back downtown and to Quebec via the existing O-Train line," she said. "We're talking about rail being used for urban planning. Rail along Carling Ave. could provide a great economic stimulus for the area and strong transit service to a substantial population."

Bay Coun. Alex Cullen, chairman of the city's transit committee, doesn't agree with taking LRT down Carling Ave.

GOOD DESIGN NEEDED

Cullen said he and many of his ward residents share the values and concerns of protecting the parkway, adding an LRT line can be done properly without affecting the picturesque landscape.

"It can be done through good design," said Cullen.

After hearing his colleague is praising the Carling Ave. idea, Doucet said it's the right and only route for an east-west LRT line to travel.

"It's terrific other councillors see what good sense it makes," he said. "The conversion of the parkway is problematic."

Cullen isn't too worried about council's latest $4 billion transit decision -- which takes LRT along the parkway -- being overturned because of the overwhelming support it received.

"It's not going to happen," he said.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2939  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2008, 2:35 PM
Cre47's Avatar
Cre47 Cre47 is offline
Awesome!
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Orleans, ON
Posts: 1,971
That would still mean the need of a lot of express routes and some other crosstown routes via the Parkway considering LRT via Carling will increase travel time by at least 10 mins (maybe as much as 20-30 mins) then via the Parkway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2940  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2008, 3:51 PM
c_speed3108 c_speed3108 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,858
I will admit I was never a fan of this train on Carling idea, until I took a bus and walk down much of the street last week on a visit to Carlingwood shopping centre and to a friends place in that neighbourhood.

In the past Carling has been lumped in with Montreal for possible LRT routes. I know enough about Montreal road to know that would be slower than slow. I assumed the same for Carling.

Well my eyes opened wide....kinda like the street....WIDE!

There is tons of room for something either up the middle or down one side with the lanes shifted to where the median presently is.

There is also not a ton cross streets. There are a number of really good destinations like shopping centres (Carlingwood, Westgate) as well as a number of government and private sector employment areas. (depending on how far down you go) The trick will be how too get trains off it at the east end and back towards downtown. The O-train tracks are possible but will certainly take some creativity to make that corner.

It might cost more - that's a problem
There might be a few logistical issues - that's a problem

but the route has some really good potential if it done correctly. The key is to pay careful attention to things like station placement so that there is as few stations as will serve the area well without ending up with a bunch of really lightly used stations that make the train stop for few passengers. That is the kind of planing need to make sure it doesn't turn into a milk run.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:39 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.