Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[eternallyme]

I am starting to add my proposals for the western LRT. Here is the first one: Westboro/Dominion area.

Dark red = Trenched
Medium red = At grade
Light red = Elevated
Orange = Bored tunnel
Yellow = Cut and cover tunnel
Blue = Stations



1 - As the next map will show, a short trench will be necessary to maintain several local accesses. Westminster may need to be closed to keep gradients and clearances.

2 - The LRT will rise up towards a crossing of Fraser and Richmond.

3 - An elevated structure, 5.2 metres (17 feet) above the surface at Richmond (at least 4.3 metres/14 feet above Fraser), would carry the LRT over Rochester Field.

4 - Dominion Station would be relocated to the west over Rochester Field, elevated to preserve most of the park. In order to maintain a park setting, all the pillars and the overpass would be painted in shades of green to resemble trees and grass. The platforms would be side-loading, crossing over by dropping to the surface at the two ends (there would be separate fare-paid areas with a tiny open-air mezzanine). The entire station would be open-air except for small shelters and would have full access for pedestrians and cycle paths in the area. The public art at the station would be clearly designed with a park in mind.

5 - The LRT would slowly descend towards the surface north of the new station. It would be elevated as long as possible to preserve the park.

6 - A short at-grade section would exist approaching the existing Dominion Station (which is demolished but would be cheap to remove).

7 - The LRT enters the existing Transitway trench at its opening with the Ottawa River Parkway and remains there. The traffic signals at the Parkway and the bus crossover would be removed.

8 - OPTION: Westboro Station could be relocated to Churchill Avenue to better connect with the community. A new infill station between Westboro and Tunney's Pasture may be necessary, but that would be expensive to construct.

9 - In the absence of a relocation, the existing Westboro bus station is converted to LRT use, including its side platforms.

10 - The LRT would continue in the trench to Tunney's Pasture.

[MalcolmTucker]

Moving the LRT to one side of the road corridor (Richmond, Byron) instead of down the middle makes for lower capacity bridges where you keep access, and lower impact where you close crossings. LRT on the north side means Westminster coudl still connect to both Richmond and Byron for example. It also eliminates one bridge (trench and Richmond) while making the Fraser bridge much less taxed traffic wise.

[gjhall]

I would think it would be best along this corridor: http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl...879073822195211048.0004a5249f7cfdf213b3e

It would ideally be underground the whole way from Westboro Station until Lincoln Fields, but more reasonably:
-Underground from Westboro Station to Richmond/Golden
-Above ground from Richmond/Golden along the Northern edge of the Byron Linear Park to reduce the amount of greenspace lost until Woodroffe
- Underground under Woodroffe until it reached Carlingwood
-Above ground from there until it goes underneath Carling at Lincoln Fields Station

The two key benefits that lead me to this plan are:
1) A station in the heart of Westboro, built behind Lululemon on Churchill, using underutilized land along Danforth and Byron for a station/or preferably integrated into a redevelopment; and
2) Service to Carlingwood Mall, which is an extremely important destination for seniors in the West End, and would provide impetus to redvelop the mall's parking lagoons

Thoughts? This is an interesting thing for us play around with as there are lots of relatively small differences to make decisions about that would really change how this part of the project would feel and be used. Keep them coming!

[eternallyme]

Colours are the same throughout all the proposals.



1 - The alignment is at-grade throughout the redevelopment area. Air rights would be available though.

2 - Woodroffe Avenue School, Woodroffe United Church and the YMCA building would all be expropriated and demolished. Woodroffe Park would be seriously affected as well.

3 - The three houses and one apartment block on Woodroffe would all remain.

4 - Knightsbridge would be closed off in the area to allow for the LRT to descend. Access would be via Byron/Lockhart or Saville Row (next proposal). Our Lady of Fatima School would also be expropriated and demolished. Since public schools are significantly declining these days, new facilities may not be necessary due to those two school closures. Significant redevelopment opportunities would exist north of Carlingwood though.

5 - The LRT would descend into an open trench under Byron and Lockhart before emerging back to the surface.

6 - The Richmond/Byron median would be used as the corridor for the LRT. Richmond Road would have to be reduced to 2 lanes throughout.

7 - A new station (call it McKellar Park Station) would be built at the surface in this section. Access to Sherbourne would be lost from Richmond. The station would have side-loading platforms with a pedestrian overpass connecting the two sides.

8 - The LRT returns to a trench to clear Wavell, Windermere and (possibly) Westminster, depending on available clearance.

9 - The LRT rises back towards the elevated section in Rochester Field as mentioned in the previous proposal.

[eternallyme]

My most intriguing proposal is for Carlingwood and Lincoln Fields. This will likely require private consultation, since it allows for dramatic changes.



1 - The existing Transitway would be used for the section between Iris/Queensway (the LRT junction) and Lincoln Fields. It may need to be raised to avoid any floodplain issues with Pinecrest Creek. Since the LRT would go to Bayshore as well as Baseline, no BRT corridor is necessary here.

2 - A deviation from the existing Transitway will be required in order to create more room to make the curve without requiring more new bridges.

3 - The LRT line would turn under the existing bridge to the grass area between Carling Avenue and the local platform, at the existing Transitway and local platform grade (about 4.9 metres/16 feet below Carling).

4 - The interchange with the Ottawa River Parkway would need to be replaced with a T-intersection in order to fit the LRT line under the bridge. The ramps would all be bulldozed.

5 - The existing Transitway platform would be bulldozed and the land converted to parkland.

6 - The existing local platform would remain at its current location. If necessary, changes in the grade may be required to allow the trenched LRT to cross the entrance to Carling which would be at-grade.

7 - The LRT platform would have a centre platform, accessible from two station heads - one at the current pedestrian overpass, the other at the bus entrance.

8 - A short bored tunnel would be required to cross the westbound lanes of Carling.

9 - Between Wentworth and the west Woodroffe junction, the LRT would be in an open trench in the median of Carling. The elevation change precludes a surface alignment, even though the LRT would be gradually sloping upward throughout. The median of Carling would need to be widened, and that would require the travel lines being shifted slightly closer to the sidewalks. Carling would remain 4 lanes in the area.

10 - Two cut-and-cover tunnels would be constructed, one over each of the Woodroffe intersections to accomodate all the necessary turning lanes. They would be constructed one at a time to reduce construction issues. There would be frequent turning restrictions during construction. As the gradient is slightly downhill into Carlingwood, the LRT would remain fairly level or rise slightly.

11 - The LRT would rise to the surface in the southwest parking lot of Carlingwood. Ideally, Carlingwood would be up for a major renovation or reconstruction at the same time, so this section should be done in consultation with the mall and 20Vic Management.

12 - Carlingwood Station would be at the surface where the auto centre, the parking garage and the library branch are now. They would all obviously have to be expropriated and demolished. However, the design could be combined with a redevelopment of the area and a total reconstruction/removal of the mall, so it might be possible to shift it to an angled alignment next to where Sears is now. Again, Carlingwood and 20Vic need to be consulted. A special design (one resembling a heritage train station) might be warranted too to give a unique touch in the redevelopment. The platform would be centre-loading. Perhaps Carlingwood becomes a mixed-use lifestyle/entertainment centre? It is pretty close to Bayshore after all.

13 - Saville Row would be depressed under the LRT with a new underpass (LRT remains at-grade).

14 - As mentioned previously, the schools and park are demolished, and new opportunities would open up north of Carlingwood.

[McC]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

A special design (one resembling a heritage train station) might be warranted too to give a unique touch in the redevelopment.

could take inspiration from the old Westboro station?
http://www.andrewkingstudio.com/andrew_king_studio/kitchissippi.html#10

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by McC

could take inspiration from the old Westboro station?
http://www.andrewkingstudio.com/andrew_king_studio/kitchissippi.html#10

That's what I was thinking, even though it wouldn't be in the same location (and Westboro would be a poor fit being in a trench).

[McC]

NCC not inclined to let light rail onto Parkway
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
By Maria Cook, The Ottawa Citizen

OTTAWA — Unless something changes, the NCC is unlikely to approve the use of the Ottawa River Parkway as a route for the city’s light rail system, Marie Lemay told the Citizen editorial board Tuesday.

The city is currently doing an environmental assessment to determine the best option among three potential routes from Tunney’s Pasture to Baseline Road: the Ottawa River Parkway, Byron Avenue or Carling Avenue.

The city’s preferred route is along the western parkway which is owned by the NCC and has a protected shoreline. The city made a presentation a few weeks ago to the NCC board.

“We’ve recently informed them what we have seen does not meet the criteria we set for capital building,” said Lemay, the NCC’s CEO. “Our interest is in intensification, ridership and capital building. What we saw was not making the case for that.

“We asked them to do more study to prove ridership, intensification. It has to be the best option in the context of building the capital, not just the speed of getting into the city. Right now, we wouldn’t be able to recommend use of the parkway.”

The issue of the use of the parkway has been a bone of contention between the city and the commission for some time.

Last year Lemay urged the city to study all other possible corridors and prove that the parkway is the best route for the rail line. She warned then that the commission would have to be convinced the parkway route would be the best alternative for “Canadians as a whole.”

I'm really not sure how to react to this story, on the one hand, I think the ORP is a terrible route for mass transit for the exact same reasons that the NCC gives, so I applaud this as a possible outcome, on the other hand, how fatuous is it for the NCC to claim that this is the thought process that they went through to realize that outcome?

The NCC says “Our interest is in intensification, ridership and capital building. What we saw was not making the case for that. We asked them to do more study to prove ridership, intensification. It has to be the best option in the context of building the capital, not just the speed of getting into the city. Right now, we wouldn’t be able to recommend use of the parkway.”

If that's the NCC's interest, why does the NCC maintain the ORP for cars then either? why not turn it into a street and develop the south side, since the ORP is clearly countrary to the NCC's stated objectives of "intensification" and "building the capital," and all that the ORP does is provide car commuters with "speed of getting into the city"... clearly there should be no NCC commuter expressways, and yet...

what balderdash.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by McC

I'm really not sure how to react to this story, on the one hand, I think the ORP is a terrible route for mass transit for the exact same reasons that the NCC gives, so I applaud this as a possible outcome, on the other hand, how fatuous is it for the NCC to claim that this is the thought process that they went through to realize that outcome?

The NCC says “Our interest is in intensification, ridership and capital building. What we saw was not making the case for that. We asked them to do more study to prove ridership, intensification. It has to be the best option in the context of building the capital, not just the speed of getting into the city. Right now, we wouldn’t be able to recommend use of the parkway.”

If that's the NCC's interest, why does the NCC maintain the ORP for cars then either? why not turn it into a street and develop the south side, since the ORP is clearly countrary to the NCC's stated objectives of "intensification" and "building the capital," and all that the ORP does is provide car commuters with "speed of getting into the city"... clearly there should be no NCC commuter expressways, and yet...

what balderdash.

I get upset with comments like this. One of the things that makes Ottawa beautiful is its green space. I have heard compliments time and again from visitors about our green space. It is what makes Ottawa unique. A lot of money was spent by the federal government in the 1950s assembling land on key corridors and the Greenbelt. It got rid of a lot of eyesores and gave back shorelines to the citizens of Ottawa and Canada as a whole. We forget what was there before. Rideau Falls was once encircled with industry. Railyards existed on Lebreton Flats and even at one time next to Dow's Lake. Cottages and boat houses that were often no more than shacks once lined the Rideau Canal, Rideau River and Ottawa River. A massive pulp and paper mill faced the back of Parliament Hill in my lifetime.

Sure, we built roads along those corridors but we have also built walking paths and bike trails as well. It has made these corridors accessible to as many people as possible. It has also opened up vistas towards downtown that would be destroyed if we allowed development, likely high rise to encroach on these corridors.

I am very sympathic to the NCCs view on this subject if our intent is to build a urban transit system.

Unfortunately, we are trying to do too much which is limiting our options. Unlike Toronto, which has built urban and commuter transit separately, we are determined to do both with same system. This is forcing us to make too many compromises. We cannot build light rail on certain routes because it will slow down commuters although it may prove better for intensification and serving the urban population. We cannot build light rail with stations closer together for the same reason. If we treat this as two problems and address them separately, we will come up with better long-term solutions and a better transit system.

[McC]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I get upset with comments like this. One of the things that makes Ottawa beautiful is its green space. I have heard compliments time and again from visitors about our green space. It is what makes Ottawa unique. A lot of money was spent by the federal government in the 1950s assembling land on key corridors and the Greenbelt. It got rid of a lot of eyesores and gave back shorelines to the citizens of Ottawa and Canada as a whole. We forget what was there before. Rideau Falls was once encircled with industry. Railyards existed on Lebreton Flats and even at one time next to Dow's Lake. Cottages and boat houses that were often no more than shacks once lined the Rideau Canal, Rideau River and Ottawa River. A massive pulp and paper mill faced the back of Parliament Hill in my lifetime.

Sure, we built roads along those corridors but we have also built walking paths and bike trails as well. It has made these corridors accessible to as many people as possible. It has also opened up vistas towards downtown that would be destroyed if we allowed development, likely high rise to encroach on these corridors.

I am very sympathic to the NCCs view on this subject if our intent is to build a urban transit system.

Unfortunately, we are trying to do too much which is limiting our options. Unlike Toronto, which has built urban and commuter transit separately, we are determined to do both with same system. This is forcing us to make too many compromises. We cannot build light rail on certain routes because it will slow down commuters although it may prove better for intensification and serving the urban population. We cannot build light rail with stations closer together for the same reason. If we treat this as two problems and address them separately, we will come up with better long-term solutions and a better transit system.

I don't understand why you're upset with my comment. I was noting the potential irony of the NCC citing the objective of "intensification" as a criterion for their decision, and you reply with a bunch of examples of things that the NCC has done to beautify the city, none of which have anything to do with intensification (except, in some cases, to reduce intensification). Then you quite rightly point out a BIG problem with the LRT plan, that it tries to be commuter rail, subway and urban transit all at once, whil using the lightest rail technology possible. I agree with you, this is a BIG problem, and again, it doesn't have anything to do with my comment. So please, what has you upset?

[eternallyme]

My proposal for the Queensway/Iris area.



1 - Iris Street would need to be grade-separated over the LRT. The LRT would slowly descend to maintain a reasonable grade.

2 - The bicycle paths would be realigned while minimizing costs and also would provide the station access.

3 - Iris and Queensway would be combined into a single station. It would be located between the two and would be a split-side loading station (think Calgary's Shawnessy Station).

4 - The bicycle path would provide the connection between the central part of the two station heads and would fly over the LRT.

5 - The existing bus ramps would be eliminated and converted to parkland.

6 - Once north of Highway 417 the LRT would continue on the current Transitway grade.

7 - Slight course adjustments may be needed near Pinecrest Junction to keep the curves gentle.

8 - Notice the orange line? I recommend that the Pinecrest tunnel (and LRT to Bayshore) be constructed IN THIS STAGE. The West Transitway discussions here should be entirely focused on LRT. The reason is to serve the western communities better, and avoid a transfer from a high-density area (Bayshore) to downtown. A bored tunnel would go under Pinecrest Garage (perhaps could be converted to an LRT facility) and Connaught Avenue.

9 - The Bayshore line would return to the surface in the baseball field in the area which would be expropriated.

10 - Pinecrest Junction would be located at the first significant curve on the Transitway in the area.

[gjhall]

Good point on combining Iris and Queensway stations.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

3 - An elevated structure, 5.2 metres (17 feet) above the surface at Richmond (at least 4.3 metres/14 feet above Fraser), would carry the LRT over Rochester Field.

4 - Dominion Station would be relocated to the west over Rochester Field, elevated to preserve most of the park. In order to maintain a park setting, all the pillars and the overpass would be painted in shades of green to resemble trees and grass. The platforms would be side-loading, crossing over by dropping to the surface at the two ends (there would be separate fare-paid areas with a tiny open-air mezzanine). The entire station would be open-air except for small shelters and would have full access for pedestrians and cycle paths in the area. The public art at the station would be clearly designed with a park in mind.

This sounds absolutely horrendous behind what is one of the most historic places in Westboro. I do not see the point behind having an elevated structure here, painted green or not, when it would probably be way better to cut and cover and have a station right underneath Richmond Road. I am actually in favour of some sort of development on Rochester Field, possibly with access to the river, but having an elevated station cutting diagonally and over Richmond road would overwhelm and ruin the future possibilities for this site

[eternallyme]

On to the Baseline area. This one was pretty easy to do.



1 - The plan easily accomodates a future LRT extension to Barrhaven. While it would not be included in this stage, it should definitely be protected for and planned for.

2 - Baseline Station doesn't change at all from the official plan. It would be beneath Algonquin College's development west of Woodroffe. The BRT platforms would become local platforms below the station once the LRT is extended.

3 - The LRT leaves the tunnel and moves onto the existing Transitway just north of the station.

4 - The Park and Ride should be closed. All other developments should be the same as they will be once the station is fully rebuilt.

5 - The LRT stays near the current Transitway north of Baseline Road - little changes are done.

6 - The bicycle/pedestrian crossing may need to be grade-separated depending on the frequency of trains (although my split-terminus may reduce it somewhat?).

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

This sounds absolutely horrendous behind what is one of the most historic places in Westboro. I do not see the point behind having an elevated structure here, painted green or not, when it would probably be way better to cut and cover and have a station right underneath Richmond Road. I am actually in favour of some sort of development on Rochester Field, possibly with access to the river, but having an elevated station cutting diagonally and over Richmond road would overwhelm and ruin the future possibilities for this site

I was thinking the area would be permanently left alone as parkland, not development. The elevated station would leave most of the site as a park.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by McC

I don't understand why you're upset with my comment. I was noting the potential irony of the NCC citing the objective of "intensification" as a criterion for their decision, and you reply with a bunch of examples of things that the NCC has done to beautify the city, none of which have anything to do with intensification (except, in some cases, to reduce intensification). Then you quite rightly point out a BIG problem with the LRT plan, that it tries to be commuter rail, subway and urban transit all at once, whil using the lightest rail technology possible. I agree with you, this is a BIG problem, and again, it doesn't have anything to do with my comment. So please, what has you upset?

Maybe it was intended as irony but this is what you said.

why does the NCC maintain the ORP for cars then either? why not turn it into a street and develop the south side

There is so much talk on this board about eliminating federal green space whether the Ottawa River Parkway, the Central Experimental Farm or parts of the Greenbelt. These are valuable assets to the city. Then I look at one of the satellite views of the area of Baseline Transit Station and what do I see but acres of parking lots. This is where intensification needs to occur.

Also, while our LRT plan flounders and takes forever to get started, what do we see? $200 million for the Queensway, almost that much again for widening of Prince of Wales Drive. How much was spent to widen Limebank and Riverside? Then we build the Strandherd-Armstrong bridge without rail transit and spend a pile of money on that. And the Queensway expansion in Kanata and twinning Highway 7 to Carleton Place. This just demonstrates that no matter what is said, roads are still the first priority and transit will never be competitive in this city. We are content with building Ottawa of tomorrow based on the car as the basis of transportation. Imagine if the majority of the money being expended to widen roads was invested in rapid transit? People would be switching to transit in droves. As it stands, widened roads just makes transit less and less competitive.

[McC]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Maybe it was intended as irony but this is what you said.

It wasn't an ironic statement, and it wasn't something that I am proposing the NCC do,* it was the logical conclusion of applying the NCC's own stated rationale for their position on a transportation asset to their own transportation asset. It's the NCC that is being ironic here. The NCC says transit in the ORP corridor doesn't meet NCC goals of intensification and just serves to whisk commuters downtown quickly. So take that same framework and apply it to the ORP itself. The vast majority of the time, the ORP functions as an expressway to whisk commuters downtown, and it does nothing to serve intensification, in fact it hinders it throughout its entire length, as well as harming the urban experience on connecting routes like Parkdale and Carling-Richmond at Lincoln Fields. It doesn't necessarily follow that the NCC should get rid of the ORP, but it does mean that the NCC should consider developing a transportation policy framework that can be coherently applied to their own assets as well as those of other jurisdictions. Otherwise, they just sound like a Dutch Uncle,** offering nothing to the process but gratuitous advice of the "do as I say, not as I do" variety.


*although I do think there are some lands on the south side of the ORP in my neighbourhood, Mechanicsville, that would be great candidates for mid-rise residential development. Tese are good size lots on Forward Ave and Burnside that are currently fenced off and have no recreational uses, and would not block any sight lines to downtown because of the alignment of the road

** no offence to Netherlanders.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

My proposal for the Queensway/Iris area.



1 - Iris Street would need to be grade-separated over the LRT. The LRT would slowly descend to maintain a reasonable grade.

There's no "need" to grade separate LRT at Iris. In your map, you quite rightly add an LRT link to Bayshore. This would have the effect of halving train traffic on each leg south of the junction. There simply won't be the kind of train and road traffic volume at Iris to justify a need for grade separation.

A grade separation here will also be challenging due Pinecrest Creek crossing under the current intersection on the diagonal in a culvert.

If the LRT is lowered, then it has to be lowered below the creek or the creek has to be relocated (i.e. to the west side all the way from the culvert to the south where it crosses from the west to the east side of the transitway). If Iris is lowered, then it would have to go below the creek. Iris could be raised but that's going to be a pretty miserable-looking bit of work for minimal gain.

2 - The bicycle paths would be realigned while minimizing costs and also would provide the station access.

More on this below.

3 - Iris and Queensway would be combined into a single station. It would be located between the two and would be a split-side loading station (think Calgary's Shawnessy Station).

That's a good idea in abstract, but it kind of requires the expensive grade separation at Iris with LRT lowered beneath Iris.

4 - The bicycle path would provide the connection between the central part of the two station heads and would fly over the LRT.

I'm looking at your map and the above statement and I'm thinking the average cyclist is going to get pretty sweaty going through your proposal. From the north, it looks like a cyclist would have to climb out of the former Queensway Station and ascend quickly to get over the LRT, then descend on the other side, possibly go under Iris (?) and climb back up on the other side of Iris (it may be you intended the cyclists to have a grade crossing at Iris, which would eliminate some extraneous climbing and descending, but the presence of a secondary path connection to Iris and the closeness of the path to the LRT at Iris suggests that it is to go under Iris with the LRT)

5 - The existing bus ramps would be eliminated and converted to parkland.

6 - Once north of Highway 417 the LRT would continue on the current Transitway grade.

7 - Slight course adjustments may be needed near Pinecrest Junction to keep the curves gentle.

8 - Notice the orange line? I recommend that the Pinecrest tunnel (and LRT to Bayshore) be constructed IN THIS STAGE. The West Transitway discussions here should be entirely focused on LRT. The reason is to serve the western communities better, and avoid a transfer from a high-density area (Bayshore) to downtown. A bored tunnel would go under Pinecrest Garage (perhaps could be converted to an LRT facility) and Connaught Avenue.

The City should redevelop this as a transit-oriented development complete with a station and a pedestrian overpass of the Queensway (everyone seems to obsess about serving the IKEA but realistically the biggest source of transit riders on the south side is likely the West End Villa Extendicare nursing home to the east). The geometry of the site is not conducive to an LRT facility.

9 - The Bayshore line would return to the surface in the baseball field in the area which would be expropriated.

That field, I believe, is on NCC property, so it can't be expropriated. Nevertheless, the former RMOC did secure agreement to send the West Transitway through it in their EA in the 1990s.

As with Iris, there is no particular need to grade-separate at Connaught but even if such a "need" existed it would be easier to extend Roman Ave to Queensview within the garage property (as part of the TOD, above) and make Roman-Queensview the grade separation using a combination of dropping the rail line and raising the streets. Connaught would be closed off from Roman & Hanlon, but it could be connected to Queensview along the north side of the tracks.

10 - Pinecrest Junction would be located at the first significant curve on the Transitway in the area.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by McC

I'm really not sure how to react to this story, on the one hand, I think the ORP is a terrible route for mass transit for the exact same reasons that the NCC gives, so I applaud this as a possible outcome, on the other hand, how fatuous is it for the NCC to claim that this is the thought process that they went through to realize that outcome?

The NCC says “Our interest is in intensification, ridership and capital building. What we saw was not making the case for that. We asked them to do more study to prove ridership, intensification. It has to be the best option in the context of building the capital, not just the speed of getting into the city. Right now, we wouldn’t be able to recommend use of the parkway.”

If that's the NCC's interest, why does the NCC maintain the ORP for cars then either? why not turn it into a street and develop the south side, since the ORP is clearly countrary to the NCC's stated objectives of "intensification" and "building the capital," and all that the ORP does is provide car commuters with "speed of getting into the city"... clearly there should be no NCC commuter expressways, and yet...

what balderdash.

I agree with you on the disconnect between the NCC's stated rationale against LRT along the ORP (which I also generally* agree with) and their continued policy regarding the ORP as a de facto expressway. Several years ago they even removed the pathway crossing at Churchill, which is a major inconvenience because Churchill was a major access route for cyclists.

If we supposed for a moment that the ORP corridor really was the best LRT corridor, then the best implementation option would be to close the eastbound carriageway, convert it to LRT and turn the westbound carriageway into a two-lane parkway like the Rockliffe Parkway or the Gatineau Parkway. This would result in no net change of greenspace and 'intensify' the use of their existing infrastructure while making transit more attractive relative to cars.

*I say generally because my preferred route is along the former CPR corridor south of the ORP from Dominion Station to Cleary Ave. Unless we're going to put a station in between Dominion and Cleary, there's no discernible benefit to running the line in the Richmond-Byron corridor vs the ORP for this stretch other than the possibility of putting a station (to replace Dominion) in Rochester Field rather than closer to the river.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

I was thinking the area would be permanently left alone as parkland, not development. The elevated station would leave most of the site as a park.

How so? An elevated station hulking above greenspace makes for an undesirable park, and a bizzare backdrop for the old Thompson estate. You propose expropriations left and right farther down the line and go to expensive lengths for a detour to Carlingwood, yet where it crosses a park and a traditional main street, you have it strangely go overhead.

I would think a cut and cover tunnel under Richmond and Byron for the two kilometres to Lincoln Fields would be far cheaper to build and faster for the trains. Giving Carlingwood curbside service is not worth the money IMO, when a walk from Lincoln Fields is equivalent to a a couple of tours around the mall. Maybe that would even encourage pedestrian activity on Carling if the sidewalk was improved.