Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[eternallyme]

Would an elevated guideway through Rochester Field, and perhaps in the linear park, be acceptable? It would preserve most of the parkland, just with concrete pillars in them.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by Haussmanniste

The NCC declared at least last year (?), maybe earlier, that having the LRT along the Parkway will not fly. Period. But the City chooses this corridor. Do they not understand that no means no? We had posters all over the University campus reminding us of this. Maybe they should have them at City Hall.

To me, the NCC was quite clear on that point. No way on the parkway. But seems the city keeps trying to push the point in order to appease a few NIMBYs and (maybe) save a few bucks. This city is cheap so it wants to avoid having the tunnel the whole line in that corridor.
Since we're building a fully grade seperated LRT anyways tunneling night be simpler then building a series of short tunnels, bridges and overpasses.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Would an elevated guideway through Rochester Field, and perhaps in the linear park, be acceptable? It would preserve most of the parkland, just with concrete pillars in them.

Technically it could possibly work but I doubt the NIMBYs would go for it. They'll probably complain about the noise and their reduced sightlines.

[McC]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

Since we're building a fully grade seperated LRT anyways

From my reading of the description of the preferred option, Iris would still be an at-grade crossing. FTR, I think it's ridiculous to build a 98% grade-separated system, leaving one at-grade crossing (when elevating would be an easy, relatively-inexpensive solution), but it seems to me like that's where we stand.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Would an elevated guideway through Rochester Field, and perhaps in the linear park, be acceptable? It would preserve most of the parkland, just with concrete pillars in them.

No, it wouldn't be acceptable. Aesthetically it would kind of ruin the backdrop of the Maplelawn, but even if you ignored that there's the fact that the City itself is claiming that Rochester Field is supposed to be parkland, in contrast to the NCC which claims it should be developed. Go figure.

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

To me, the NCC was quite clear on that point. No way on the parkway. But seems the city keeps trying to push the point in order to appease a few NIMBYs and (maybe) save a few bucks. This city is cheap so it wants to avoid having the tunnel the whole line in that corridor.
Since we're building a fully grade seperated LRT anyways tunneling night be simpler then building a series of short tunnels, bridges and overpasses.

Hang on here, you're setting up for a very bad precedent that not only must LRT be grade separated but that it must be tunnelled as well?

Why should transit users, and apparently especially rail transit users, be shoved into tunnels while car drivers get the open skies and river views?

As it is, the City has already "compromised" more than enough by agreeing to put the Richmond section not only below grade but in a tunnel, and now the rest should be tunnelled as well?

That's just setting ourselves up for ever higher costs for future extensions.

We need to remind ourselves that it is LRT that is more compatible with existing development, not BRT. If people can live in their condo-townhouses overlooking a de facto busway and not complain about that, then they can put up with LRT in the same corridor.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by McC

From my reading of the description of the preferred option, Iris would still be an at-grade crossing. FTR, I think it's ridiculous to build a 98% grade-separated system, leaving one at-grade crossing (when elevating would be an easy, relatively-inexpensive solution), but it seems to me like that's where we stand.

All they've said is that it will "need to be reconfigured for LRT" so I would expect it won't stay at-grade.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Would an elevated guideway through Rochester Field, and perhaps in the linear park, be acceptable? It would preserve most of the parkland, just with concrete pillars in them.

In a word? No.

[Kitchissippi]

Blame the old RMOC for this mess, where did they think the Transitway was going to continue? Most likely their intention was to eradicate the Byron linear park completely and trench it just like along Scott, after all that used to be a "linear park". Not a lot of holistic planning back then. Rinse and repeat.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by Dado

Hang on here, you're setting up for a very bad precedent that not only must LRT be grade separated but that it must be tunnelled as well?

Why should transit users, and apparently especially rail transit users, be shoved into tunnels while car drivers get the open skies and river views?

As it is, the City has already "compromised" more than enough by agreeing to put the Richmond section not only below grade but in a tunnel, and now the rest should be tunnelled as well?

That's just setting ourselves up for ever higher costs for future extensions.

We need to remind ourselves that it is LRT that is more compatible with existing development, not BRT. If people can live in their condo-townhouses overlooking a de facto busway and not complain about that, then they can put up with LRT in the same corridor.

Woah there. I didn't say we should tunnel the whole thing. This section of LRT along Richmond/Byron is the only leg which wasn't previously part of the pre-existing Transitway (outside of downtown). Of course I'd prefer it be above ground but if the city isn't going to ignore the NIMBYs then they'll have to bury it. I don't think the NCC is going to budge on their position.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by McC

From my reading of the description of the preferred option, Iris would still be an at-grade crossing. FTR, I think it's ridiculous to build a 98% grade-separated system, leaving one at-grade crossing (when elevating would be an easy, relatively-inexpensive solution), but it seems to me like that's where we stand.

I'd be shocked if that remains at grade but I could always be surprised.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Blame the old RMOC for this mess, where did they think the Transitway was going to continue? Most likely their intention was to eradicate the Byron linear park completely and trench it just like along Scott, after all that used to be a "linear park". Not a lot of holistic planning back then. Rinse and repeat.

I could say similar about the NCC. Wasn't the Transitway designed so that it could later be converted to rail? Did the NCC not know this when they allowed OCT to use the parkway as part of the Transitway?

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

I could say similar about the NCC. Wasn't the Transitway designed so that it could later be converted to rail? Did the NCC not know this when they allowed OCT to use the parkway as part of the Transitway?

How so? the NCC allowed temporary, not permanent use. The RMOC even had the option of using the old rail ROW but they ended up selling part of it to Minto who built single family homes on it in the 1980s.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

How so? the NCC allowed temporary, not permanent use. The RMOC even had the option of using the old rail ROW but they ended up selling part of it to Minto who built single family homes on it in the 1980s.

I stand corrected.

So the city sold off part of the rail corridor for devellopment... I guess they were hoping the "temporary" solution of using the parkway could become permanent then.

I wish politicians would think further then the next couple elections...

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Haussmanniste

I can't believe some people are always calling for the NCC's abolishing... so shortsighted. If anything, the NCC's powers should be increased. We should get rid of the City of Ottawa, if anything. They think in one way only and that is money. The NCC thinks in the interest of all Canadians.

What does it matter to someone in Nanaimo where transit lines in the city of Ottawa run?

They do their best to create a beautiful, functional city and the dimwits at City Hall do all in their power to unravel that.

They plant shrubs and grass, do a couple of crappy programmed events a year, defend auto-centric 1950s planning disasters, and obstruct progress.

Abolish the bastards.

The NCC declared at least last year (?), maybe earlier, that having the LRT along the Parkway will not fly. Period. But the City chooses this corridor. Do they not understand that no means no?

The NCC should not have the right to say no. The NCC should not exist. It should cease to exist. It should be a former NCC. An ex-NCC.

Finally, if you have to anger a bunch of NIMBYites, who cares? Our city needs more direction and that means removing Ottawans from the equation. We are too attached emotionally to certain streets, "heritage" homes

Heritage homes like the ones the NCC wanted to demolish on Sussex Drive? or like the ones it already DID demolish on Sussex Drive? The NCC's record on heritage preservation is abyssmal.

Abolish abolish abolish.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

Technically it could possibly work but I doubt the NIMBYs would go for it. They'll probably complain about the noise and their reduced sightlines.

And it kills children.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

Woah there. I didn't say we should tunnel the whole thing.

Well, umm, actually, you did:

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

To me, the NCC was quite clear on that point. No way on the parkway. But seems the city keeps trying to push the point in order to appease a few NIMBYs and (maybe) save a few bucks. This city is cheap so it wants to avoid having the tunnel the whole line in that corridor.
Since we're building a fully grade seperated LRT anyways tunneling night be simpler then building a series of short tunnels, bridges and overpasses.

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

This section of LRT along Richmond/Byron is the only leg which wasn't previously part of the pre-existing Transitway (outside of downtown). Of course I'd prefer it be above ground but if the city isn't going to ignore the NIMBYs then they'll have to bury it. I don't think the NCC is going to budge on their position.

There's two sub-issues here, based on the Cleary breaking point: what to do east of there, and what to do west of there.

For reasons that I am still having trouble comprehending, the City has proposed to tunnel under Richmond west of Cleary... not just trench but actually tunnel. They have proposed two other options for this segment, both of which involve tunnelling under parts of the former CPR corridor, including under a day care centre ("think of the children!").

East of Cleary, which is where the nicer part of the Byron linear park lies and is in proximity to the uppity NIMBY lands of McKellar Park, the City's preferred solution is the obvious one: take over the former CPR corridor at grade so as to get a nice straight run while avoiding having to do any of: (1) tearing up the linear park for surface LRT and dealing with cross streets; (2) tearing up the linear park for trenched LRT; (3) tearing up the linear park for tunnelled LRT; and (4) tunnelling under Richmond.

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

I stand corrected.

So the city sold off part of the rail corridor for devellopment...

My understanding differs slightly from Kitchissippi's on this point: I understood that the NCC sold the lands themselves and the RMOC declined to acquire the land when offered, which is what the NCC is required to do when disposing of land. The City did it again with respect to the former railway radius near Bayview Station behind the City Centre building.

I guess they were hoping the "temporary" solution of using the parkway could become permanent then.

I wish politicians would think further then the next couple elections...

It might also have been the transit planning staff, e.g. one John Bonsall, at fault too.

The current state of affairs is something of a "compromise" between the RMOC, the NCC and the locals (then represented by the old City of Ottawa). Just as few want the LRT right now, even fewer wanted the busway back then. The original RMOC plan was to eventually tear up the tramway and run a trench in it, but in the meantime the NCC agreed to keep running buses on the Parkway. This suited the old City of Ottawa, and the Environmental Assessment for the West Transitway was shut down before it got going.

[eemy]

Didn't the proposal include running the LRT in a quasi-trench along the ORP in order to minimize visual disruption of the parkway? I got the impression that was specifically to address NCC concerns. The fact that the NCC won't budge on the issue hardly seems reasonable.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by Dado

Well, umm, actually, you did:

Sorry for the confusion. I thought you were thinking I meant to burry all of the Confederation line beyond the sections being duscussed.

Since the NCC & NIMBYs don't want the line in their yard the city is low on options. (The city could always ignore the NIMBYs...) I'm being realistic in that the city should probably entertain the idea of a boared tunnel if they decide the park is to be left mostly untouched. They can't please everyone AND be cheap at the same time.

I'm not advocating a tunnel is the best option but I'm not opposed to it either in that corridor if it makes things progress even though it might cost a bit more.

[McC]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

I'd be shocked if that remains at grade but I could always be surprised.

I would be pretty surprised if it's at-grade in the end, but I'm fully expecting months or years of dancing around saying that it will or could be, and that's the "flexibility" of LRT, and blah, blah. as people imagine a viaduct like this:
http://goo.gl/maps/KNIJS
instead of this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmv/6932736798/

[Capital Shaun]

NCC chair spells out options for running LRT on parkway land - Ottawa Citizen
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/chair+...+running+parkway+land/8294428/story.html