Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[Beedok]

There's apartments over top and just beside Tornto's subways, which being made with older trains must surely cause more vibration. Is it the burial amount that's a problem?

[Kitchissippi]

Since the trains don't need as much clearance, it would be cool to cap the trenches 10 feet below the existing bridges and create a bike freeway on top Inspired by this article. If anything, it would save on snow removal along the line.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Since the trains don't need as much clearance, it would be cool to cap the trenches 10 feet below the existing bridges and create a bike freeway on top Inspired by this article. If anything, it would save on snow removal along the line.

A bit over the top, but I would support a bike path as part of a linear park over the tracks (as mentioned by someone else before). It could connect the O-Train MUP with the ORP network. This would also get all bikes off of Scott. As for the idea of building over the tracks, I'm sure we could at least sell the air rights over stations provided their is space for the bike paths to continue through the development. At least extend Tunney's Pasture redevelopment over the tracks.

[rocketphish]

On not doing the absolutely most cautious thing around the LRT

January 22, 2014. 4:39 pm • Section: City Hall

As a matter of policy, the city has preferred to keep new buildings well away from critical new infrastructure. This makes sense inasmuch as you don’t want to let someone build a new skyscraper next to a huge new sewer and crush it with all the additional weight. Keep things at just a bit of a distance to be on the safe side, you know?

But it’s a problem when you’re, say, spending $2.1 billion on a new light-rail line, which creates maximum value when new buildings are really close to it. Literally right on top of it, ideally, with indoor connections to stations. The very safest thing to do is to keep a wide buffer between the line and adjacent buildings, but that’s not a good idea for any other purpose.

So the city’s planning to take some thoroughly calculated risks. City council on Wednesday approved a scheme for protecting the new LRT without creating a dead zone around it, establishing a set of standards for extra studies it’ll demand when a builder wants to construct something next to or atop the line. The “proximity zone,” as it’s called, covers a fairly wide swath of downtown, about a block on either side of Queen Street, where the tunnel is constructed underground but relatively close to the surface. If you’re planning a 30-storey tower with a deep parking garage, it could have non-trivial effects on a tunnel or station a few metres away on the other side of some rock. It extends, though in a narrower band near the surface portions, the full length of the line from Tunney’s Pasture to Blair station.

On the planning committee’s agenda for a meeting next Tuesday there’s a broadly similar plan for working with the NCC at LeBreton Flats to co-ordinate and monitor new construction atop huge sewers and lateral tanks the city is building or plans to build underneath, along with a new policy for handling such things in the future. As the staff report explains:

In recent years, improvements in infrastructure materials, construction techniques, and monitoring and maintenance practices along with the best-practice City-building smart growth goals of creating more compact, dense neighbourhoods close to major transit services has prompted a second look at policies related to building over top of municipal infrastructure. This is especially the case in situations where there are other benefits to promoting development in an area. As outlined in the background section of this report, these situations exist in the City of Ottawa.

It goes on to explain how they’ll assess the risks of building things next to or atop major infrastructure they want to keep safe.

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/01/2...tely-most-cautious-thing-around-the-lrt/

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by McC

I don't think it would ever make sense:

It made sense for Carleton to build a parking garage over the tracks, but I would think building garages on top of public transit in most other situations would be counter-productive.

[McC]

But it seems that the only way that it was practical/affordable for Carleton to do so was to shut down the system nearly 30% of the time for months and months on end. That won't (I really really hope!) be an option for the Subway. Nor would doing the work after hours (expensive on labour and just metres from people's homes). The cost involved of doing the construction without disrupting the line, given land prices in Ottawa and the decades-worth of surplus development land along the line, I just don't see it making a positive business case within our lifetimes. Why go to the all that trouble, just to build 4-6 storeys along Scott Street? Sure you could go much taller at Tunney's, and maybe a couple of spots around Westboro station, but Tunney's ain't filling up anytime soon!

[J.OT13]

I don't get it; every other city in Canada, even the world are constantly building super tall buildings in direct proximity, even directly on top of highways, rapid transit lines and stations. Why would it be a problem in Ottawa?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Catenary

It made sense for Carleton to build a parking garage over the tracks, but I would think building garages on top of public transit in most other situations would be counter-productive.

It is amazing that they even did that. With the O-Train scheduled for double tracking at some unknown date in the future, we can't tightly integrate anything with the O-Train.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It is amazing that they even did that. With the O-Train scheduled for double tracking at some unknown date in the future, we can't tightly integrate anything with the O-Train.

The report from the city regarding Carleton's garage was very interesting. The rationale was that it was a very low risk structure for the city to get experience with building in air rights over the tracks. Although the garage had been in Carleton's Master Plan since at least 2010, the idea to build in summer 2013 was only conceived in early 2013 when the city announced the summer closure and Carleton jumped on the opportunity. Of course this short timeline in advance of construction and the limited window to do the train safety-critical installation of the crossbeams lead to the weekend closures last fall, but it was a relatively low-risk way for the city to get this experience. And I suppose a parking garage isn't that bad in this location, since it allows buildings to be constructed on surface parking lot and Carleton has a fairly robust plan for this to take place. I would rather have the residences on solid ground than over a rail line, with associated noise and vibration. The garage was also build to be compatible with future double tracking, there is quite a bit of room under it in both directions.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I don't get it; every other city in Canada, even the world are constantly building super tall buildings in direct proximity, even directly on top of highways, rapid transit lines and stations. Why would it be a problem in Ottawa?

Why do you hate the children?

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I don't get it; every other city in Canada, even the world are constantly building super tall buildings in direct proximity, even directly on top of highways, rapid transit lines and stations. Why would it be a problem in Ottawa?

Because we're new at it, excessively cautious, and love bureaucracy.

[JeffB]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Because we're new at it, excessively cautious, and love bureaucracy.

Do you have a study that proves that?

[rocketphish]

Mayor quick to defend Scott Street detour, but protest persists

By Joanne Chianello, OTTAWA CITIZEN January 24, 2014

Before the sun was up, before the coffee was brewed, before any civilized person would think about communicating with the outside world, Mayor Jim Watson is calling me out on Twitter.

“@jchianello you seem to have bought the line about ‘one sentence’ in LRT report on Scott and Albert — wrong. Referenced 6 times — check minutes!” he tweeted at 6:11 a.m. on Thursday morning.

We went back and forth for a few minutes (it’s this sort of public bickering that led His Worship to once refer to the two of us as an “old married couple”) and it ended in the mayor calling for a correction.

So here it is — far be it from me to let an inaccuracy stand, no matter how trivial. (And just for the record, I live near Scott Street, but west of the area that will be directly affected.)

In a column earlier this week where I wrote about the protest against the city plan to put all the hundreds and hundreds of buses that run in the transitway onto Scott and Albert streets between 2016 and 2018, I wrote that many folks “were stunned to learn this one-sentence direction was buried in a report that dealt with the passing of the $2.1-billion LRT contract” back in December 2012.

So the mayor is correct that the plan to widen Scott Street to include two bus-only lanes was referenced six times in the report (thrice in one paragraph). But for the mayor to say that the plan to put all 2,400 transitway buses on Scott was clearly communicated is a bit disingenuous.

Sure, that December 2012 report stated that the city would be “creating an alternate west BRT with dedicated bus lanes on widened Scott /Albert Streets and temporary stop facilities on Scott/Albert Streets at Bayview Station and Booth Street,” which would “reduce the need for additional routes as the service on Scott/Albert Streets will provide for all existing connections.”

This does indicate that the transitway buses would be moved to the Scott /Albert corridor, but the description isn’t exactly written in the most everyday language either. Plus, it’s reasonable to assume that the detour details would be worked out at a later date. It’s not that residents living on and near Scott and Albert streets didn’t expect more buses along their street during light rail construction, it’s that they didn’t expect all the buses to be moved there.

That expectation is especially true since, in January 2010, council directed staff that bus service between Tunney’s Pasture and LeBreton stations use the Sir John A. Macdonald “as much as possible” during the construction of the downtown tunnel.

That Watson criticized Coun. Diane Holmes for speaking out against the bus rerouting plan is par for the course in politics. Holmes is more than capable of defending herself against the mayor. And in an ideal world, the veteran councillor would have asked about whether the bus routing plan.

However, for Watson to suggest that residents — even if they are community activists — be on top of every single machination of city council is a tall order, bordering on a callous disregard for citizens.

Further, to insinuate that decisions can’t or shouldn’t be revisited isn’t just silly, it goes against Watson’s own actions.

Just on the light-rail file, the mayor has approved substantial changes, including shifting the entire downtown tunnel to the north, as well as moving a station planned for Confederation Square to the east side of the Rideau Canal. So when he argues that an issue like bus detouring can’t be re-visited, it sounds somewhat implausible.

This is not to to say that Watson has to side with the critics of the plan. (See our Q & A with deputy city manager Nancy Schepers, who convincingly explains the city’s thinking behind the decision.)

But the tone that the mayor is taking with residents is surprising. For Watson to blame residents for not knowing the details of the city’s plans for bus detours seems like poor politics at best, and contempt at worst.

The light-rail project is going to cause no end of commuter headaches, and multi-year pain for some. Much of that will be inevitable, but we still need to show some understanding — and, to whatever degree possible, alleviate the burden — for those most directly affected by the massive project.

And that spirit of understanding should start with the mayor.

[email protected]

twitter.com/jchianello
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Chiane...Street+detour+protest/9427948/story.html

[eltodesukane]

Instead of a bar with this message:

"This discussion thread continues
Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts"

why don't you put a link to the next page?

[BenTheGreat97]

So will all the buses that would normally be on the transitway be moved onto city streets? If so, what're they doing to the transitway? Is it because of the LRT terminus at Tunny's Pasture?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by JeffB

Do you have a study that proves that?

They should commission one, complete with three phases of hearings and seven community charettes.

[MountainView]

Originally Posted by BenTheGreat97

So will all the buses that would normally be on the transitway be moved onto city streets? If so, what're they doing to the transitway? Is it because of the LRT terminus at Tunny's Pasture?

My understanding is that during the construction of the Confederation Line, the transitway between Tunney's Pasture and downtown will be turned into rail. So the buses will exit the transitway at Tunney's Pasture (they may exit at Westboro someone can & will correct me if I'm mistaken )and use Scott Street the rest of the way downtown. I believe Scott/Albert will be made into 6 lanes where it is 4, and 4 where it is 2, with a dedicated bus lane. There will also be modifications to the traffic signals for bus priority and I heard better/more signals for pedestrians.

[BenTheGreat97]

Originally Posted by MountainView

My understanding is that during the construction of the Confederation Line, the transitway between Tunney's Pasture and downtown will be turned into rail. So the buses will exit the transitway at Tunney's Pasture (they may exit at Westboro someone can & will correct me if I'm mistaken )and use Scott Street the rest of the way downtown. I believe Scott/Albert will be made into 6 lanes where it is 4, and 4 where it is 2, with a dedicated bus lane. There will also be modifications to the traffic signals for bus priority and I heard better/more signals for pedestrians.

Thanks for the info.

[Innsertnamehere]

Will the street be downgraded again once construction is complete? or will the bus lane simply be converted to a vehicle lane?

[1overcosc]

I heard that post-Confederation Line, Scott St will be shrunk back down with the extra space used for a new MUP on the north side.