Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I shake my head when I see housing being built right next to Walkley Yards. Is anybody using their heads at City Hall, converting part of Johnston Road into a residential street in the first place?

Unfortunately it was approved by the old City of Ottawa over 10 years ago.

[Richard Eade]

Yes, the former MTO land along Tremblay was being considered, but the Federal Government bought the land too quickly (or, we are taking way too long to study and decide things) so it was removed from further consideration.

As far as land along Belfast goes, OC Transpo owns 899 (37,342 sq.ft, built:1950) and 875 (23,365 sq.ft, built:1960, roof replaced 2008/9) which are wedged between their St. Laurent propert (1500 St. Laurent) and the Pepsi bottling and distribution building at 869 Belfast. (For some reason, Euro Ceramics has a small corner of land stuck in here too.) These are both east of Pepsi and it is only the property west of Pepsi which will be converted to the maintenance yard. Fortunately, the property immediately beside Pepsi is 805 Belfast (45,776 sq.ft, built:1950 or 1960 - RPAM uses both in the 2006 Transit Asset Management Plan http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2006/05-10/trc/Document%203%20.pdf) which OC Transpo already owns as well. It currently houses Plant and Transitway Service operations. These functions will need to find a new home when they are displaced by the trains; so look forward to another property request from Staff.

Continuing west, we will be expropriating Boyd Moving and Storage which uses 767 and 747. Cartier Supply and Rental is also part of the Boyd Group and is housed here. Next comes Arlington Furniture in 731, followed by Ashley Furniture which seems to cover 725 and 707 belfast. The AEFO has a small building at 651 and then there is the new Belfast Business Court at 645. The Belfast Business Court is new and was therefore left out of the original land requirement list, but the new LRT service tunnel placement made it necessary to have that land also.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

In my opinion, a big box mall is anti-transit oriented development. I went there once, walked through what I thought was a very gloomy Wal-Mart, what was I thinking? How do I get out of there?

True, the wal-mart isn't particularly transit-friendly, but there are office towers to go in west of it and more stores to the east. It is a fairly long walk from terminal ave to the shops/stores I suppose. If the city committed to running the transitway through the site, there might be some investment in line with that aspect. It's a shame that maintenance yard is going in across from the Tim Hortons, there would be some potential to make the area more human sized with more development to tie into development at trainyards and across the queensway to (currently big-box) stores on coventry. Yes, it would probably end up being another big-box store, but they tend to attract smaller stores around them which isn't all bad. Some office towers would work too I guess. I think residents of alphabet streets would prefer a store to a repair facility and rail yard with the screeching wheels going around the tight curves early in the morning - who needs that?

Maybe Hurdman makes sense. It has lots of space and if the south-east transitway is converted to rail, as it should be, all rail lines could be serviced efficiently. The buildings could have green roofs to fit in to the area and the railyard could use that grass-crete stuff so the area would stay green. The site is contaminated so isn't that attractive for other purposes.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Unfortunately [the housing along Johnston Rd beside Walkley Yard] was approved by the old City of Ottawa over 10 years ago.

... which should be a lesson to anyone who thinks that all was well with things before amalgamation.

CN bears some responsibility for this idiocy too, having sold it not long before they pulled out of Ottawa. I know that people at Ottawa Central were mighty ticked off about this development but there wasn't anything they could do about it.

At any rate, the Provincial Policy Statement has seen off any further attempts to put housing in around Walkley Yard, but the City is still trying to downzone the bordering properties from heavy to light industrial, including the former CPR yard. Yes, let's put our heads in the sand and not secure the only site that makes sense for an intermodal yard, which we'll need in a high-cost-energy future!

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Dado

... which should be a lesson to anyone who thinks that all was well with things before amalgamation.

I've been wondering about that too lately - things seem to go sour no matter who's in council. I figure developers have their tentacles anywhere they can - city workers, OMB, councillors, consultants (which will soon be hired by both the city and the developer on the same projects - ARGGG)...

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ottawa...trictions+consultants/2633332/story.html

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Yes, the former MTO land along Tremblay was being considered, but the Federal Government bought the land too quickly (or, we are taking way too long to study and decide things) so it was removed from further consideration.

Way to go, Ottawa.

As far as land along Belfast goes, OC Transpo owns 899 (37,342 sq.ft, built:1950) and 875 (23,365 sq.ft, built:1960, roof replaced 2008/9) which are wedged between their St. Laurent propert (1500 St. Laurent) and the Pepsi bottling and distribution building at 869 Belfast. (For some reason, Euro Ceramics has a small corner of land stuck in here too.) These are both east of Pepsi and it is only the property west of Pepsi which will be converted to the maintenance yard.

Interesting, but not exactly relevant...

Fortunately, the property immediately beside Pepsi is 805 Belfast (45,776 sq.ft, built:1950 or 1960 - RPAM uses both in the 2006 Transit Asset Management Plan http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2006/05-10/trc/Document%203%20.pdf) which OC Transpo already owns as well. It currently houses Plant and Transitway Service operations. These functions will need to find a new home when they are displaced by the trains; so look forward to another property request from Staff.

Continuing west, we will be expropriating Boyd Moving and Storage which uses 767 and 747. Cartier Supply and Rental is also part of the Boyd Group and is housed here. Next comes Arlington Furniture in 731, followed by Ashley Furniture which seems to cover 725 and 707 belfast. The AEFO has a small building at 651 and then there is the new Belfast Business Court at 645.

So OC Transpo will end up owning everything along Belfast save the Pepsi plant... the way they're going, why not just turn Belfast into a transitway?

The Belfast Business Court is new and was therefore left out of the original land requirement list, but the new LRT service tunnel placement made it necessary to have that land also.

They would only need an easement along Belfast for that... the land requirement is so they can replace the Business Court with a giant berm, because, apparently, berms make better screening than just leaving existing buildings standing

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Dado

...
Interesting, but not exactly relevant...
...

Context, context, context. Wasn't it you who was yelling that there wasn't enough surrounding context at the West Transitway Extension - Bayshore to Moodie Open House? And, in fact, you used the information to point out that OC Transpo would own just about the entire north side of that section of Belfast. I think that having OC Transpo own the two blocks on either side of the Pepsi plant (and Euro Ceramics) is relative since it was a factor in choosing the rail yard location. Now, if we all started drinking Coke, the Pepsi plant would leave and....

[lrt's friend]

why not just turn Belfast into a transitway?

Perfect! A Transitway to the transit offices. Just where every transit rider wants to go. It does seem to be the type of location that the experts would choose for the route. If its the cheapest route, that is where it should go. It doesn't matter whether it serves the public well or not. Come to think of it, isn't the real transitway going to run very close by as we demolish many of the buildings along the route. Oh the beauty of it all. We build two rapid transit routes close together, and instead of having high density development in between, we build a rail yard.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by Franky

Just before going to the DOTT open house, I came across the image below (by Fosters and partners I think) - what a letdown when I saw what is being planned for Ottawa. True, Masdar starts with a clean slate but the Ottawa design is clearly uninspired.

The current renders are conceptual.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

The current renders are conceptual.

Yes, I realize that, but there is no evidence of creativity or thought. It's as vanilla as it can be - trains running in a tunnel 10 storeys below ground. Nothing in their design says - clever solution to the problem or wow or wish I thought of that - unlike the Masdar project. It should be clear that a system that runs 10 storeys below grade is simply unacceptable and better solutions need to be devised. Reading the 1988 plan, much concern was given to concourse or mezzanine levels where ticketing must occur. Current designs have stairs at both ends of the platforms which means a long trip to the ticketing/gates or whatever. Simply uninspired.

[waterloowarrior]

Transitway construction has begun in the Barrhaven Marketplace power centre
http://www.yourottawaregion.com/news/local/article/627245--transitway-s-next-stop-marketplace-mall

[Richard Eade]

Does anyone have any idea why so much throw-away work is needed for the new Transitway connection to Moodie?

One of the Interim Alternatives is B:


Notice that the interim configuration doubles the width of the 417 off-ramp, re-aligns Corkstown, and adds extra lanes to both sides of Moodie. Yes, the bus-only lane is broken by the S-W Ramp weaving across it in this option.

Followed by one of the Final solutions B1:


It turns out that the future option B1 (shown above) is the only one which makes any mention of an extra north-bound lane on Moodie (and I'm not sure where 'straight through' will take you); the others only have two lanes on that side and the free-flow ramp. Also, although both interim options move Corkstown, only the A final alternatives need it moved. But what gets me the most, is that the 417 off ramp gets re-instated to its current configuration.

Am I crazy, or is this?

[eternallyme]

I think the under Moodie/under ramps option is the most sensible. Also any bus bays planned should be removed, it is unnecessary since no routes terminate there and only one route even runs along Moodie.

[Richard Eade]

I agree; the routing around (Alt. A1/2) is a bit intrusive into surrounding land.

Alternative A2:


Since Moodie is already elevated over the 417, and there are no driveways off it in this area, the elevation can be maintained farther north to allow the Transitway to pass under it. Personally I would like to see the new Moodie structure built sooner rather than after the buildings around there get filled with new workers. Also, with all the interim work that needs to be done and then un-done, it might be less expensive just to do the final configuration from the start.

Personally, I still prefer my plan to move the 417 ramps permanently.



If the bus loop wasn't needed, I would suggest that there would be local bus stops on Moodie, above the Transitway Station below, and a temporary loop be added west of the Moodie structure.

To build this is easy: The south-bound lanes of Moodie from the current 417 ramp intersection to the current bridge are closed and the traffic shares the north-bound lanes (one lane per direction). The slope from the intersection south is increased, the extra bus-lane is added, and the walls of the west half of the new structure are bored/dug and pored (without digging out the muck between them). Then that half of the new structure's deck is cast in place, using the undisturbed ground between the walls for support. Once that side of Moodie is at the correct elevation, the new west-bound ramp to the 417 is built. Both south-bound and north-bound traffic is moved over to share the newly raised south-bound lanes. There will be one through-lane per direction and a center turn-lane for north-bound vehicles to get to the new west-bound 417 ramp. The north-bound lanes are then raised and the same technique (cast support walls and then cast deck in place) is used for the east half of the new Moodie structure. Those lanes are then opened. Since the circular S-W Ramp is no longer in use, it can be removed, the SWM pond can be modified, and the new west-bound off-ramps can be built. At this point the roadway is configured and working as planned so the Transitway underpass can now be excavated under the new structure.

[RTWAP]

It's ideas like Richard's that make me wonder whether we need a new rule at city hall. I propose the following:

If a citizen can gather X signatures (50? 100?) for an alternative proposal then the city staff are required to include it for assessment. Failure to assess it fairly would be subject to appeal to the OMB.

[Dado]

In this case though it's also the MTO. Indeed, indirectly, this is largely the fault of the MTO.

The consultants doing this study (and most any other consultant doing city transportation studies) also do work for the MTO designing highways and freeways. The MTO has an obsessive-compulsive design standard for interchanges that pretty much requires them to be 'A'-type parclos, generally A4 (like Moodie) but sometimes A2 or A3. Elsewhere in the world, including the rest of the country, highway authorities design interchanges to fit their surroundings, but here in Ontario the MTO enforces a parclo A design under all but the most inconvenient of circumstances. The consultants know this and because the MTO also provides a lot of their bread and butter, they design things for the city as if they were designing them for the MTO. So MTO parclo ramps are sacrosanct. They're so deep into this paradigm that they'll even try to take land from the NCC ahead of thinking about changing an MTO interchange to another design.


As to the proposed rule, I don't think the outcomes of transportation or other environmental assessments can be appealed to the OMB... only land use decisions. When the OMB is confronted with citizens appealing a transportation plan, one of their recourses seems to be to order the municipality to carry out an environmental assessment.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Dado

In this case though it's also the MTO. Indeed, indirectly, this is largely the fault of the MTO.

The consultants doing this study (and most any other consultant doing city transportation studies) also do work for the MTO designing highways and freeways. The MTO has an obsessive-compulsive design standard for interchanges that pretty much requires them to be 'A'-type parclos, generally A4 (like Moodie) but sometimes A2 or A3. Elsewhere in the world, including the rest of the country, highway authorities design interchanges to fit their surroundings, but here in Ontario the MTO enforces a parclo A design under all but the most inconvenient of circumstances. The consultants know this and because the MTO also provides a lot of their bread and butter, they design things for the city as if they were designing them for the MTO. So MTO parclo ramps are sacrosanct. They're so deep into this paradigm that they'll even try to take land from the NCC ahead of thinking about changing an MTO interchange to another design.


As to the proposed rule, I don't think the outcomes of transportation or other environmental assessments can be appealed to the OMB... only land use decisions. When the OMB is confronted with citizens appealing a transportation plan, one of their recourses seems to be to order the municipality to carry out an environmental assessment.

Given the traffic patterns at that interchange, a 2-lane ramp from 417WB onto Moodie is necessary, and 2 lanes need to be maintained during the week (even using temporary structures). Full closures on weekends should be implemented though for the three relevant ramps (Moodie Drive itself shouldn't be impacted).

The problem is that an initial configuration at Moodie is required for westbound traffic to access the Transitway, unless a throw-away overpass is built from EB 417 across the lanes to the new Transitway or if you wanted to build it all the way to Kanata at once. That is only a reasonable option if the future Transitway were to be built on the south side of 417, which I don't see happening.

Overall, the best option I think is Interim B (unless a Kanata extension is built immediately in which B1 should be built right away) without the unnecessary local platform, followed by B1.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by RTWAP

It's ideas like Richard's that make me wonder whether we need a new rule at city hall. I propose the following:

If a citizen can gather X signatures (50? 100?) for an alternative proposal then the city staff are required to include it for assessment. Failure to assess it fairly would be subject to appeal to the OMB.

Since it's not that hard to get signatures for a cause, I have a feeling we would be forced to consider PAT & Urbanaut for every project!

[Ottawan]

[Franky]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Since it's not that hard to get signatures for a cause, I have a feeling we would be forced to consider PAT & Urbanaut for every project!

Yeah, imagine that... A transportation system that could run from Orleans to Kanata, Barrhaven to Gatineau with enough money left over for a new stadium and library and then some compared to LRT.


http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/Incheon01.html