Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Dado

Stop... you're making too much sense.

One tiny niggle though is that a way into the railyard still would be required, which in the current plan requires going to the VIA station. Of course we let the Trainyards site slip through our fingers - which was accessible from Hurdman - so instead we now have to demolish other things to create one.





I'm not sure what Westboro you have in mind, but the one I live in is seeing a steady stream of intensification. Woodroffe has got just one project planned or underway - at its northwest corner with Richmond - and that's likely it for awhile.

Most of the near-to-mid term potential for intensification in the Woodroffe area is actually closer to Cleary or New Orchard than Woodroffe. The potential around Woodroffe is really quite far removed and dependent on institutional landowners selling their lands.

That goes back to my thinking about an alignment through the institutional lands east of Woodroffe onto the western edge of Carlingwood then down Carling to Lincoln Fields.

If they can acquire the two schools and associated parks, the library and the western parking garage and auto bay at Carlingwood, then they have plenty of room to redevelop (perhaps move the library into Carlingwood temporarily). The recreational centre can probably stay but it would lose its outdoor activities and some parking, and development above is possible.

[Dado]

Am I missing something? Is Woodroffe Ave Public School at risk of running out of students any time soon? Because that sure would be odd for a school with a few portables out back.

And closing down libraries and the Carlingwood parkade? Why? For what it's worth, the YMCA is closing anyway.

I get the appeal of running the line south to Carlingwood, but why all this other activity? The City has never been too keen on directing development itself anyway - witness the Lansdowne debacle.

If I recall, Richard Eade proposed running the line along Lockhart and then through the Carlingwood property between the mall and the parkade. That's all that you really need to do to get the line south to Carling - a little bit of land trimming along the west side of Lockhart and that's about it.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Dado

Am I missing something? Is Woodroffe Ave Public School at risk of running out of students any time soon? Because that sure would be odd for a school with a few portables out back.

And closing down libraries and the Carlingwood parkade? Why? For what it's worth, the YMCA is closing anyway.

I get the appeal of running the line south to Carlingwood, but why all this other activity? The City has never been too keen on directing development itself anyway - witness the Lansdowne debacle.

If I recall, Richard Eade proposed running the line along Lockhart and then through the Carlingwood property between the mall and the parkade. That's all that you really need to do to get the line south to Carling - a little bit of land trimming along the west side of Lockhart and that's about it.

Lockhart would be doable, although the ROW would need to be wider. If the YMCA is closed, there is a bit of extra room. Running it along Woodroffe would force interference with private residences, which is not a viable solution IMO. Maybe tunnel the whole section with an underground station at Carlingwood? How much extra would that cost though compared to the New Orchard route? (Note that ridership would surely be higher.)

The library would probably be better located within Carlingwood though where traffic is much heavier, and could easily take an expanded position.

Basically, I see 4 options to carry it through Carlingwood:

1) Surface alignment, expropriate some properties between Lockhart and Woodroffe. Requires relocating the schools.

2) Surface alignment, via Lockhart. Less expropriation but closer to the residential area.

3) Tunnel beneath entire area, with underground station at Carlingwood.

4) Elevated guideway in area, presumably via Lockhart.

In options 1 to 3, a tunnel beneath Carling is required to connect to Lincoln Fields, and in option 4, the elevated guideway continues.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Dado

Stop... you're making too much sense.

One tiny niggle though is that a way into the railyard still would be required, which in the current plan requires going to the VIA station. Of course we let the Trainyards site slip through our fingers - which was accessible from Hurdman - so instead we now have to demolish other things to create one.

Actually when I did this up I was thinking that the maintenance yard could be in Queensview, with an underpass at Connaught wide enough for buses and a train. This spur will really only be used a few times a day to get the trains to service.

The other option, since Hurdman is an elevated station, would be continue over Riverside drive and lay an extra track between the VIA tracks and Terminal Avenue to the present maintenance building site. Again since this will only be used a few times a day, it could be a single track and possibly cross over the VIA tracks (which I think it will do anyway in the current plan)

[eternallyme]

I also still wonder why they are not considering a split to Bayshore at that stage. There are numerous benefits of such:

1) Eliminates transfers to a high-density, established area with high ridership

2) No need to build any Transitway between Pinecrest and Lincoln Fields as it would be built for rail immediately

3) Makes connections much easier for Kanata and Stittsville trips, which could run local routes to Bayshore for transfers (also eliminating a transfer between Bayshore and Kanata for most movements)

4) Spreads out capacity better, and ensures passengers from Kanata and Stittsville are not treated unfavorably compared to passengers from Barrhaven (they would be entering already-filled trains if they had to board at Lincoln Fields)

5) Simplifies construction staging and only requires one disruption at the Pinecrest Creek junction instead of two (one at the conversion, one at the secondary construction and connection at a later stage)

6) Allows for the conversion of Pinecrest Garage from a bus to a rail storage facility (the bus fleet would shrink considerably, resulting in surplus garage space, plus allowing for a west-end maintenance and storage facility)

There are 2 main negatives:

1) Higher up-front cost for the Bayshore to Pinecrest Junction section, which would be forwarded into this stage

2) Fewer trains running to Iris and Baseline, as half of trains would run to Pinecrest and Bayshore (but with higher ridership immediately, frequency would need to be higher, reducing the impact somewhat)

[MountainView]

As someone who lives in that cluster of buildings at New Orchard/Ambleside area, an LRT station here is not a dumb idea. The area divided by Woodroffe/Carling/Parkway/Ottawa River has 5341 people living in it (Census 2011), probably 2000 just in the cluster around my area. The station here is a much better option then having it at Woodroffe.

Also, that YMCA that Dado mention was closed and demolished prior to the winter and is now an 8 floor retirement home with the first windows going up now - I can see it perfectly from my window.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Dado

I'm not sure what Westboro you have in mind, but the one I live in is seeing a steady stream of intensification.

Westboro or Richmond Road, the areas that want to have rail rapid transit stations, but don't want anything else to ever change, and want it in writing.

The potential around Woodroffe is really quite far removed and dependent on institutional landowners selling their lands.

Given the life-cycle of the churches and schools, those things are highly likely.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by MountainView

As someone who lives in that cluster of buildings at New Orchard/Ambleside area, an LRT station here is not a dumb idea. The area divided by Woodroffe/Carling/Parkway/Ottawa River has 5341 people living in it (Census 2011), probably 2000 just in the cluster around my area. The station here is a much better option then having it at Woodroffe.

Also, that YMCA that Dado mention was closed and demolished prior to the winter and is now an 8 floor retirement home with the first windows going up now - I can see it perfectly from my window.

I don't live in that part of Ottawa so I didn't know exactly, so I was basing it on past experience and Google Earth.

[toaster]

Cannot believe there will not be an underground station along Richmond in Westboro. Surely the City could tack on development fees for all the developments in the area to pay for it.

[McC]

I hear you, but after a brief, painful, interlude with a mayor who dreamed big (but had no follow-through), we're back to the old 'think small and take the easy way' approach that has defined this City's history for decades (if not forever, look at the history of the Ottawa Public Library, decades of civic leaders asking themselves: "does this city really need a 'Library'? meh, probably not." subtext: "if someone can't afford books of their own, do we really want them reading?").

Anyway, we're following the same philosophy/approach as we did with the Transitway: Key pillars of this approach are:
- choose alignments based on the least amount of disruption/local opposition, not the maximum utility.
- build in stubs, without considering network effects, ease of connections, or maximizing coverage.
- give as little thought as possible to where to locate stations, and their entrances.
- go for Cheap and Easy when making the broad initial decisions, then over-engineer the hell out of it on the detailed design.

(there are probably more that I'm missing, looking to Dado to help fill them in!)

[Kitchissippi]

How about:

- hurry up and implement a portion of a plan before a complete sensible plan is even thought out.
- wait until the mediocre effects of an incomplete implementation become unbearable before doing something about it.
- rinse and repeat.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by McC

Anyway, we're following the same philosophy/approach as we did with the Transitway: Key pillars of this approach are:
- choose alignments based on the least amount of disruption/local opposition, not the maximum utility.
- build in stubs, without considering network effects, ease of connections, or maximizing coverage.
- give as little thought as possible to where to locate stations, and their entrances.
- go for Cheap and Easy when making the broad initial decisions, then over-engineer the hell out of it on the detailed design.

So true!

[McC]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

How about:

- hurry up and implement a portion of a plan before a complete sensible plan is even thought out.
- wait until the mediocre effects of an incomplete implementation become unbearable before doing something about it.
- rinse and repeat.

That's the stuff!

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Westboro or Richmond Road, the areas that want to have rail rapid transit stations, but don't want anything else to ever change, and want it in writing.

So where's all the opposition to the 485 Richmond project that would be virtually on top of the Dominion Station? Right, there isn't any. How can that be?

At any rate, I was responding to your claim that Westboro would be bypassed for development by the Woodroffe area. I'm afraid that that is unlikely for quite some time: people just love to move to Westboro where they can stroll between cafés and outdoor gear stores.

Given the life-cycle of the churches and schools, those things are highly likely.

Funny, I went to schools in the Westboro area that are older than Woodroffe PS, and they're still kicking and/or were renovated. Churches (as opposed to convents or monasteries) near to rapid transit stations might actually become more viable, rather than less, so I wouldn't count them out, either.

As it stands, each of the New Orchard and Cleary station locations have far more probable redevelopment opportunities nearby than does Woodroffe, and that's before we consider the relative existing walk-on ridership potential of all those locations.


About the only change I would suggest in the area is moving the Cleary station a bit west to Sherbourne, and extending Sherbourne north to Richmond Rd and possibly on to Cleary itself. The reason for that is to facilitate bus transfers from buses travelling along Sherbourne and Maitland further south as well as to provide for an easier shuttle service to Carlingwood.

[Cre47]

Sorry to change a bit the subject, but the STO has updated the local service network offer once the Rapibus will be opened. Some local routes have been shorten and some new routes added. Also the Express and Interzones fares will be removed, even for the Hull Express routes (11/17)

The core of the Rapibus service has not changed at first glance. Also, they've already put on the modified routes in the Plateau area which will be in effect in August

http://www.libreauquotidien.sto.ca/maps.php

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Cre47

Sorry to change a bit the subject, but the STO has updated the local service network offer once the Rapibus will be opened. Some local routes have been shorten and some new routes added. Also the Express and Interzones fares will be removed, even for the Hull Express routes (11/17)

The core of the Rapibus service has not changed at first glance. Also, they've already put on the modified routes in the Plateau area which will be in effect in August

http://www.libreauquotidien.sto.ca/maps.php

Basically it is:

100 - Labrosse to Hull
200 - Labrosse to Ottawa
300 - Ottawa to Labrosse (reverse commute) via 50
400 - Labrosse to Ottawa via Hull, off-peak
800, 810 - Labrosse to Rivermead and vice versa (810 via 50)

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by McC

I hear you, but after a brief, painful, interlude with a mayor who dreamed big (but had no follow-through), we're back to the old 'think small and take the easy way' approach that has defined this City's history for decades (if not forever, look at the history of the Ottawa Public Library, decades of civic leaders asking themselves: "does this city really need a 'Library'? meh, probably not." subtext: "if someone can't afford books of their own, do we really want them reading?").

Anyway, we're following the same philosophy/approach as we did with the Transitway: Key pillars of this approach are:
- choose alignments based on the least amount of disruption/local opposition, not the maximum utility.
- build in stubs, without considering network effects, ease of connections, or maximizing coverage.
- give as little thought as possible to where to locate stations, and their entrances.
- go for Cheap and Easy when making the broad initial decisions, then over-engineer the hell out of it on the detailed design.

(there are probably more that I'm missing, looking to Dado to help fill them in!)

I agree that this new plan still isn't perfect, it could use at least one more station and a underground station in the heart of Westboro would be useful, but compared to what I was expecting (a continued futile fight for the Parkway or slow Richmond surface rail), this is decent.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by toaster

Cannot believe there will not be an underground station along Richmond in Westboro. Surely the City could tack on development fees for all the developments in the area to pay for it.

Personally (because it would nudge the station closer to me), I would prefer Dominion Station entrance to be at Roosevelt (the street also has a crossing signal, Berkley does not). Between having the station here or closer to Richmond but farther out beyond Rochester Field, walking distance to and from the heart of the village is about the same.

Technically it seems from the concept renderings that the trains do remain "below ground level" and only the stations at Cleary and New Orchard are structurally above ground. I hope they consider having centre platforms for these locations, as I cant see it taking up more space or costing more, in fact less since only one set of elevators, escalators and stairs would be needed.

[waterloowarrior]

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/says+proposed+route+inappropriate/8290940/story.html

NCC says proposed LRT route inappropriate

City of Ottawa’s preferred route catches National Capital Commission off guard

BY ZEV SINGER, OTTAWA CITIZEN APRIL 24, 2013 10:23 PM

OTTAWA — The National Capital Commission has looked at the city’s preferred route for the western line of the LRT — and it is not impressed.

NCC chair Russell Mills said Wednesday night that the route encroaches too much on the Ottawa River and that the NCC opposes “the use of any portion of the Sir John A. Macdonald Parkway corridor ... that would impact negatively the current experience of this iconic green corridor along the Ottawa River.”

The timing of Mills’s comments — right in the middle of the NCC’s annual general meeting, in response to a question from a member of the public — was remarkable, and suddenly turned the usually tame yearly update on the commission’s activities into something much more memorable.

Mills told the audience of about 60 people, not including staff and board members, that he and the board only found out about the fact that the city had chosen a preferred route when it became public.

“The city’s down to one,” he told the crowd. “We learned about that by reading the newspaper ... which has put us in a bit of an awkward position.”

City Coun. Rainer Bloess, who attended the public meeting, said afterward that the “disconnect” needed to be fixed.

“Out of courtesy, at the least, when you’re talking about lands that they own, you have to keep them in the loop,” Bloess said.

Mills said that after reading about the city’s preferred route in the Tuesday morning paper, the board scrambled to get information.

“Yesterday the board went out on a bus tour and walked the proposed route along the river that the city now is putting forward as the preferred option,” Mills told the public meeting. “And we had a more detailed presentation from city staff this afternoon.”

Mills said the board thinks the narrowing down of the options to a single preference is premature.

“We simply felt that the process is moving a little too quickly. We were expecting this week that at the city’s open house (on Thursday) there would be four routes presented and they would receive public comments on them.

“And the fact that it’s been rushed ahead and now there’s one preferred option doesn’t really give us enough time to assess it properly, and we didn’t get enough information today to make any kind of decision.”

But although the preferred route does not make as much use of the John A. Macdonald Parkway as other proposals have, the NCC is still not comfortable with it.

“We’re reiterating our view that this isn’t an appropriate place for public transit to go,” he said at the meeting. “But we’re open to having the NCC staff continue to work with city staff to find better alternatives that would be less intrusive and would not take away green space and would not impede access to the Ottawa River.

Mills said having city buses along the parkway “was a compromise. A train seems to take it to another level.”

It wasn’t clear that this would be solvable.

“Something that would take away that precious green space or impede access to the river is something we would have great difficulty approving,” Mills said.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[Dado]

Seems that the City's consultation efforts with the NCC are as bad as they are with the public at large.

I support this route in general (though I think it has excessive tunnelling) but blimey is the City ever doing a piss poor job of it.