O-Train Line 2 [Stage 1 | Bayview to Greenboro] | In Service - Page 38

Uhuniau · #**741** Posted **Jan 18, 2015, 4:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Yes, to reintroduce a modernized version of streetcar suburbs where people don't need two cars to live there.

We can start building suburbs that have that physical form tomorrow, even without LRTs running to them right away.

But we choose not to. We keep approving auto-centred suburban curlicue crap and "power centres". And then being surprised at the result.

citydwlr · #**742** Posted **Jan 19, 2015, 2:18 PM**

New Alstom Coradia LINT 41's spotted on tracks for testing (@ 1:30 am):

Quote:

Only 2 trains came out at 1:30am. New radio scanner helped, here's C8 about to pass under Bank street:

[Source]

Quote:

New Alstom Coradia LINT 41 #C8 undergoing SAT speeds north on Capital Railway Ellwood Sub past Walkley Rd #octranspo

[Source]

lrt's friend · #**743** Posted **Jan 19, 2015, 6:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dado

With respect to the SE Transitway south of Confederation, converting it for the N-S LRT was proposed by Councillor Gord Hunter.

He actually had two options in mind and I came up with one more.

The first was outright conversion, which he figured was the cheapest but also, as you point out, left anyone who wanted to go up Riverside requiring an additional transfer or a routing via the street network.

His second and preferred option was track-in-road. He would do exactly what was being proposed for downtown and for parts of Riverside South and Barrhaven in the same project.

The option I came up with was to widen it to four lanes, which it pretty much is anyway with the shoulders. This would make it easier to maintain traffic during conversion and avoid the expense of track-in-road, though the rail underpasses near Greenboro would still have to be track-in-road. Given the layout of Walkley, Greenboro and South Keys Stations, it would work easiest with buses in the centre and tracks on the outside but it could work the other way around as well with some "—" at the stations.

All of these options would have seen one new railway underpass built at Confederation Heights in place of a railway overpass there and another at Walkley Yard as well as a widened underpass at Walkley Rd. It would likely have lopped $100M off the project cost - enough to pay for an extension to Hurdman. And that may well be why it elicited no interest on the part of our transit planners.

Thank you for sharing those concepts.

I had some dealings with Gord Hunter at the time and it seemed to me that he was opposed to the expansion of the O-Train and he wanted to extend the Transitway southward instead. I was also under the impression that he was a fiscal conservative so he was always looking for low cost options.

lrt's friend · #**744** Posted **Jan 19, 2015, 6:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

We can start building suburbs that have that physical form tomorrow, even without LRTs running to them right away.

But we choose not to. We keep approving auto-centred suburban curlicue — and "power centres". And then being surprised at the result.

If you want to build suburbs in a more urban fashion, you need to offer a high quality transit alternative. As long as we offer poor transit, we have to design our suburbs in an autocentric fashion. And a promise to build high quality transit in 20 or 30 years is not going to cut it. Families are not going to wait that long before deciding to buy that second or third car.

waterloowarrior · #**745** Posted **Jan 19, 2015, 8:51 PM**

Display boards are up
http://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/documents.ottawa.ca/files/documents/otrain_poh_boards_en.pdf

acottawa · #**746** Posted **Jan 19, 2015, 11:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

We can start building suburbs that have that physical form tomorrow, even without LRTs running to them right away.

But we choose not to. We keep approving auto-centred suburban curlicue — and "power centres". And then being surprised at the result.

The problem is that suburban curlicue — is exactly what a huge number of homebuyers want. They like the backyards, the large, detached houses, the ample greenspace, the schools with large lots, the large stores with free parking and cheap goods and (for some cultures) the ability for extended families to live in the same dwelling.

Which is why neo-streetcar suburbs are probably not possible, because suburban homebuyers aren't willing to accept the kind of density that would be required. Westboro has 3500 people per km, Riverside South has 700. If people were willing to live 5x more densely transit might be better.

eternallyme · #**747** Posted **Jan 20, 2015, 12:00 AM**

My recommendation:

* Remove from this stage the section south of Leitrim to Bowesville, protect the ROW pending further consideration (with the Limebank-Airport tunnel option also on the table). Use that money to extend to Gatineau where higher ridership can be expected in the short term.

* Make the airport connection the PRIMARY route. That should be the primary focal point of the service.

* On weekdays only, extend to Leitrim Park and Ride using a short rail connection and a relatively basic station where half of trains would terminate. This requires 500 m of new track and an at-grade crossing at Leitrim Road. After 10 pm on weekdays, and all day on weekends, all trains would go to the airport.

* Move the junction farther south and approach the airport south of the Airport Parkway, with all trains serving a station at Lester Road, then a trenched routing on the north side of Thad Johnson Way, and then trenched on the south side of the airport approach road, with an initial station north of the parking lot (with a covered access).

* Any plan should not preclude a tunnel under the airport and runways with an underground station before rejoining at Limebank Road if that option is chosen.

ACmodels · #**748** Posted **Jan 20, 2015, 12:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Display boards are up
http://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/documents.ottawa.ca/files/documents/otrain_poh_boards_en.pdf

You can see at page 12 there is a Spratt Station but it says "Not recommended" I wonder why the city even put that station on the board then.

eternallyme · #**749** Posted **Jan 20, 2015, 12:22 AM**

Gladstone Station: should be on north side. It is then on a straightaway and does not require replacing the overpass.

Confederation Station: should be maintained in current location. Yes it is isolated, but also beneficial for redevelopment. In the future, the ramps in the area could be redesigned and new land available for development. Also should be renamed as Confederation Heights Station or Brookfield Station to minimize confusion with the Confederation Line.

Walkley Station: Should be located just south of Walkley with all the pros mentioned. The only negative - must reach Walkley to transfer to Transitway via elevator - is a minor inconvenience, since few transfers are made at Walkley anyway.

South Keys Station: Should be located south of the new pedestrian access. It has the least environmental impacts and lowest cost, with minimal difference for transit access.

At Lester Road: Since I recommend all trains go past Lester Road and the NRC facility with the airport junction farther south, an at-grade solution with full closures is not recommended. However, the whole setup is challenging - Lester Road needs about 4.9m (16 feet) of clearance, the rail line needs 7.0m (23 feet) of clearance due to NRC freights. Given that Lester requires less clearance, and nothing can be depressed, Lester Road should get the underpass. In addition, a station should be built directly over Lester Road.

At Leitrim Road: Since trains would be moving slowly and there would be fewer trains in my scenario (none late in the evenings or on weekends), an at-grade crossing might be warranted. If an overpass is needed (and that would help for the MUP), then the road should go over the rail line. Like at Lester, depressing is not possible.

Bowesville Station: Remove from this phase due to low ridership and isolated location.

Airport connection: If a north side option is best, then it should be located on the former rail siding, which has the lowest cost. However, it might be worth looking south? The water table is questionable though.

J.OT13 · #**750** Posted **Jan 20, 2015, 12:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Display boards are up
http://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/documents.ottawa.ca/files/documents/otrain_poh_boards_en.pdf

In parallel to our discussion on the East ORT extension, check out page 3's "Ultimate Network" diagram. The long haul through the inner city has 22 stations on the 30 or so kilometers from Bayshore to Montreal/174 while Kanata proper between Eagleson and Huntmar 7 stations on 4.5 kilometers.

Barrhaven gets 5 stations on 4 kilometres, Riverside South has about 6 stations on roughly 4 kilometers. Of course Orleans has 7 stations on 6 kilometers.

Calculate stations per kilometer (stations/kilometers):

Inner Greenbelt: 1/1.36
Kanata: 1/0.642
Barrhaven: 1/0.9
Riverside South: 1/0.66
Orleans: 1/0.857

Can anyone spot the problem?

lrt's friend · #**751** Posted **Jan 20, 2015, 3:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACmodels

You can see at page 12 there is a Spratt Station but it says "Not recommended" I wonder why the city even put that station on the board then.

It was there because they considered extending the O-Train right into Riverside South in this phase. The proposed station hasn't been eliminated. It will have to wait until electrification of the line, which means next to never.

lrt's friend · #**752** Posted **Jan 20, 2015, 3:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by acottawa

The problem is that suburban curlicue — is exactly what a huge number of homebuyers want. They like the backyards, the large, detached houses, the ample greenspace, the schools with large lots, the large stores with free parking and cheap goods and (for some cultures) the ability for extended families to live in the same dwelling.

Which is why neo-streetcar suburbs are probably not possible, because suburban homebuyers aren't willing to accept the kind of density that would be required. Westboro has 3500 people per km, Riverside South has 700. If people were willing to live 5x more densely transit might be better.

This is not entirely true. If you go to Barrhaven, you will see a lot more density than in most areas built in the 1950s and 1960s. I am not sure where you got the density figures but does it include vacant land for Riverside South? Also, Westboro is a hot location, partly because of the views of the river and Gatineau Hills. As you get away from a narrow 'hot' zone near Richmond Road, the density is probably no higher than in the suburbs.

lrt's friend · #**753** Posted **Jan 20, 2015, 3:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.OT13

In parallel to our discussion on the East ORT extension, check out page 3's "Ultimate Network" diagram. The long haul through the inner city has 22 stations on the 30 or so kilometers from Bayshore to Montreal/174 while Kanata proper between Eagleson and Huntmar 7 stations on 4.5 kilometers.

Barrhaven gets 5 stations on 4 kilometres, Riverside South has about 6 stations on roughly 4 kilometers. Of course Orleans has 7 stations on 6 kilometers.

Calculate stations per kilometer (stations/kilometers):

Inner Greenbelt: 1/1.36
Kanata: 1/0.642
Barrhaven: 1/0.9
Riverside South: 1/0.66
Orleans: 1/0.857

Can anyone spot the problem?

What you are seeing are attempts to integrate LRT right into the community. This will not happen inside the Greenbelt because the location of the LRT line is not ideal. It is following the Queensway or running through green space for long distances. The route was always designed as a commuter line inside the Greenbelt. The NIMBYs never wanted it running through their neighbourhoods. I remember the debates way back when. If we want an urban route to better serve areas inside the Greenbelt, it needs to follow our main streets.

Horus · #**754** Posted **Jan 20, 2015, 1:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Bowesville Station: Remove from this phase due to low ridership and isolated location.

Why so quick to dismiss this one? The Bowesville station includes a Park n' Ride lot for 2850 cars. It is close to or en route from Riverside South, Manotick, Greeley and other points south of the city and is accessible to Barrhaven. It can potentially remove 2850 vehicles daily from POW Drive, Bank Street, Airport Pkwy or Riverside and generate potentially 10000 or more transit riders daily. It could even have a bus bay added to bring people over from Barrhaven/Riverside South. Isn't the point of these transit projects to get people into and around the city and to leave their cars outside of the city?

Not everyone can have transit to their door. This kind of thing is going to be necessary

Aylmer · #**755** Posted **Jan 20, 2015, 3:18 PM**

That's not the way traffic works. If we remove 2800 car trips at rush hour, they'll be quickly replaced by another 2800 trips at rush hour for the same reasons that if you decide not to eat a piece of pizza at a party, it won't stay uneaten.

I agree with eliminating the southern branch - unless there's some huge effort for TOD around Leitrim and Bowesville, I don't see it as worth the trouble. If, however, it were to get extended out to RS, it'd be a different matter entirely. But half a line is like half a wheel - arguably just as good as none.

MoreTrains · #**756** Posted **Jan 20, 2015, 3:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horus

Why so quick to dismiss this one? The Bowesville station includes a Park n' Ride lot for 2850 cars. It is close to or en route from Riverside South, Manotick, Greeley and other points south of the city and is accessible to Barrhaven. It can potentially remove 2850 vehicles daily from POW Drive, Bank Street, Airport Pkwy or Riverside and generate potentially 10000 or more transit riders daily. It could even have a bus bay added to bring people over from Barrhaven/Riverside South. Isn't the point of these transit projects to get people into and around the city and to leave their cars outside of the city?

Not everyone can have transit to their door. This kind of thing is going to be necessary

What is the capacity of the LINTs? Also, Chances are this P&R will only be used for the 9-5er meaning there likely wont be enough parking spots anyways.

Horus · #**757** Posted **Jan 20, 2015, 4:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoreTrains

What is the capacity of the LINTs? Also, Chances are this P&R will only be used for the 9-5er meaning there likely wont be enough parking spots anyways.

But wouldn't having the P&R open at full user capacity validate that the station is useful/desired/necessary?

Aylmer · #**758** Posted **Jan 20, 2015, 4:15 PM**

P&Rs are a band-aids for areas which are incompatible with transit and incapable of producing competent land-use plans. They should always be seen as temporary, undesirable and a symptom of a larger problem (auto-dependency). They squander the value created by rapid transit and make it more difficult for people who actually depend on public transportation by forcing them to transfer in often isolated and unpleasant environments.

Saying that your system is well-designed because the P&Rs are full is like saying that you're in good health because of the number of band-aids on your body.

lrt's friend · #**759** Posted **Jan 20, 2015, 4:37 PM**

There is a big dilemma here that points back to the 2006 decision. That decision is going to have an impact on our city for generations.

We need to do something but we have very limited funds available. Most of our resources need to go into the Confederation Line because it is going to be very expensive to make it useful.

But we can't completely ignore what is going on in the southend. So, we have a band aid solution as proposed. This solution demonstrates that the final solution (proper double tracking etc) is not in the cards for a long, long time.

We cannot do nothing or we will be spending even more on roadway expansions that will just feed traffic into the centre of the city and continue to deteriorate the quality of life in more central neighbourhoods.

It is not the correct solution to serve anybody well but it is the only solution that we can afford for the forseeable future.

silvergate · #**760** Posted **Jan 20, 2015, 5:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

There is a big dilemma here that points back to the 2006 decision. That decision is going to have an impact on our city for generations.

We need to do something but we have very limited funds available. Most of our resources need to go into the Confederation Line because it is going to be very expensive to make it useful.

But we can't completely ignore what is going on in the southend. So, we have a band aid solution as proposed. This solution demonstrates that the final solution (proper double tracking etc) is not in the cards for a long, long time.

We cannot do nothing or we will be spending even more on roadway expansions that will just feed traffic into the centre of the city and continue to deteriorate the quality of life in more central neighbourhoods.

It is not the correct solution to serve anybody well but it is the only solution that we can afford for the forseeable future.

I mean, we could use part of the 100 million they were going to drop on it to convince developers to densify the core first. Give them benefits for dropping suburban projects and moving inward. Maybe use some of the money to try and build a strong, pedestrian community around Carling/Gladstone Stations. Expanding the transit to everybody is important, but this expansion almost feels like it defeats the purpose of a well planned transit oriented city.