Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[MoreTrains]

Just something I read on Unpublished Ottawa mentioned bathrooms not being at the stations, is that true? I cant find a yay or nay anywhere. And what are peoples opinions of bathrooms at stations?

[ACmodels]

Originally Posted by MoreTrains

Just something I read on Unpublished Ottawa mentioned bathrooms not being at the stations, is that true? I cant find a yay or nay anywhere. And what are peoples opinions of bathrooms at stations?

Ok this is what the city is going to have according to the Confederation Line webpage:

ONLY Tunney's Pasture and Blair will have passenger washrooms

But this is what I think should happen with passenger washrooms at stations
YES= YES there should be washrooms
NO= No there should not be washrooms

Tunneys-YES as major connection between Buses and Trains
Bayview-YES as major connection point between Confederation Line and Trillium Line
Pimisi- NO as nothing really around the area except for houses which have washrooms in them
Lyon- NO as it's a tunnel station and if we put a washroom there it just takes up space
Parliament-No same reason as Lyon
Rideau-NO its close to the rideau center washrooms
uOttawa- NO as close to the university
Lees-NO close to retail and store washrooms
Hurdman-YES- as major transfer point from bused to trains
Tremblay- No as its close to the train station washrooms
St. Laurent- No as close to the washrooms in the mall
Cyrville-NO
Blair- Yes as major transfer point between buses and trains


Phase 2 stations that should have or should not have washrooms

Starting with the east side (Orleans)
All of the stations will not have washrooms are there is no room put washrooms in a middle of a highway, and if we did that would just be stupid and embarrassing

South side (South Keys and bellow

Well if the city is planning Bus shelter like stations I bet there might be no washrooms for the Trillium Line. And if you do need to go there is lots of grass and tree's available.

But what do I think???? Maybe Bowesville Station may have porta potty's available for use!!!!!

Westside:


Lincoln Fields
Baseline
Bayshore

[DEWLine]

Public-access washrooms would be a good thing at all Transitway stations.

[MoreTrains]

Originally Posted by DEWLine

Public-access washrooms would be a good thing at all Transitway stations.

I question this as currently none of the stations I know of have washrooms in them. That would require that the stations also have heating installed in them to prevent pipes freezing. So that would probably be pretty expensive, and considering the hope of intensification around the stations there would be eventually washrooms built by the private sector.

[eltodesukane]

"there would be eventually washrooms built ..."
-- that's not very useful when you need a bathroom now.

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by MoreTrains

I question this as currently none of the stations I know of have washrooms in them. That would require that the stations also have heating installed in them to prevent pipes freezing. So that would probably be pretty expensive, and considering the hope of intensification around the stations there would be eventually washrooms built by the private sector.

We could always build public washrooms around town, like they have in Europe. Could even put one right outside a station...

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Both Polievre and Galipeau are both brown nosing yes men.

Pierre Poilievre is now in charge of the NCC. Huzzah.

[Aylmer]

[1overcosc]

Many Transitway stations (like Iris & Cyrville for example) have very low ridership which would make the cost of installing & maintaining bathrooms not really worth it. This is also why the Confederation Line's ticket systems will be unmanned, they figured it would be a waste to put humans in every station.

[rocketphish]

500+ Ottawa residents sign petition to move WLRT route

Joanne Chianello, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: February 9, 2015, Last Updated: February 9, 2015 11:13 AM EST

While city of Ottawa and National Capital Commission officials continue to work towards some sort of compromise acceptable to both parties with regards to the western LRT extension route — we’re supposed to get some sort of news next month after the “100-day truce” proposed by Mayor Jim Watson and MP John Baird — a group of Ottawa residents have signed a petition in favour of the train running under Rochester Field.

City officials are still working on more detailed estimates of how much it would cost to run the train under the NCC-controlled field, but preliminary estimates released in 2013 showed that the under-Rochester Field option would cost hundreds of millions more than the current estimate of $980 million.

Here’s the letter sent by resident Doug Cousins to various Ottawa officials:

Mayor Jim Watson City of Ottawa 110 Laurier Ave.
Councillor Jeff Leiper City of Ottawa 110 Laurier Ave.
Dr. Mark Kristmanson National Capital Commisson 202 – 40 Elgin Street

February 6th, 2015

Dear Gentlemen

Attached to this short letter, is a 22 page Petition (original to Mayor Jim Watson and copies to Jeff Leiper and Dr. Mark Kristmanson) signed by 573 Ottawa residents who believe that the currently proposed Western LRT route requires reexamination.

This request is based upon several factors:

The availability of Rochester Field offers an alternative to the Macdonald Parkway route – that is far less destructive to Ottawa’s urban greenspace.
A buried route under the Byron Linear Park offers greater accessibility to west end residents, with significantly better connections to current and proposed bus routes.
A buried route under the Byron Linear Park will incur dramatically lower construction and long term maintenance costs (one less station, no threat of water infiltration, no issues with reclaimed sandy soil).



I believe that all of you have seen the work of Chuck Davies who has done an in depth study of both these routes. If not, I would be happy to send you the electronic version.

I along with all of those who made the effort to sign this Petition, believe it is incumbent upon the City to take a second, serious look at the very real benefits of an alternative route.

Yours truly,

Douglas Cousins

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/0209-petition

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

I drove along Rideau Street this evening, and I can unequivocally say that the Scotiabank building is gone. Zip. Ziltch. Nada.

I went by today and it's all gone.

[eternallyme]

Long tunnels just to clear parkland? Now that is a waste of money...

It might be time to go for an alternate route altogether.

[OTSkyline]

I think washrooms in transit stations could be a good thing but only at the major hubs - I mean even in NYC or Toronto you dont see washrooms at many transit stations.

For Confederation line I would add some at Blair, Hurdman, Bayview. The downtown ones are already next to offices (which presumably all have washrooms in lobby area), Rideau centre has washrooms, OttawaU has washrooms close and other stations are just too small..

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Long tunnels just to clear parkland? Now that is a waste of money...

It might be time to go for an alternate route altogether.

A cheap cut and cover tunnel under the Byron Park may actually be cheaper than the city-preferred riverfront route, provided the city was allowed to have a surface ROW through Rochester Field (which I believe the NCC said it was open to in last year's announcement), when factors like reduced drainage costs are added in. I believe the city's analysis which demonstrated a much higher cost for the Rochester->Byron route was due to that analysis assuming a tunnel underneath Rochester Field, and the use of bored tunneling rather than cut and cover for large chunks of Byron.

[MoreTrains]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Long tunnels just to clear parkland? Now that is a waste of money...

It might be time to go for an alternate route altogether.

Well, they dont have to tunnel if they go the Byron Park route. It is a RoW for future RT lines. So, no need for tunnels.

As for Poliviere I have one word... F**K

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by MoreTrains

Well, they dont have to tunnel if they go the Byron Park route. It is a RoW for future RT lines. So, no need for tunnels.

Sort of. There's still lots of roads that cross over the park. While we don't HAVE to have grade separation on every route, grade separation is an absolute must in this area as there will be two lines interlining here (Bayshore & Baseline) meaning frequencies will have to very high at peak, too high to allow for grade crossings. A surface route through the park would mean deadending all the roads that pass through it, or investing in overpasses for all of them... not to mention the community would flip if there was a surface route through here.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Sort of. There's still lots of roads that cross over the park. While we don't HAVE to have grade separation on every route, grade separation is an absolute must in this area as there will be two lines interlining here (Bayshore & Baseline) meaning frequencies will have to very high at peak, too high to allow for grade crossings. A surface route through the park would mean deadending all the roads that pass through it, or investing in overpasses for all of them... not to mention the community would flip if there was a surface route through here.

Woodroffe would need to go over the line, but the other streets could probably be dead-ended for the most part. Not sure if pedestrian at-grade crossings would be acceptable due to the high frequency...

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Woodroffe would need to go over the line, but the other streets could probably be dead-ended for the most part. Not sure if pedestrian at-grade crossings would be acceptable due to the high frequency...

I'd like to see more work at pushing cars onto Richmond actually, rather than having them sail down Byron at 50k+. Dead-ending all those streets would really force cars to stick to Byron. Plus, you may not like the linear park, but it is an important part of the community, and does see a lot of use all the time.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

... provided the city was allowed to have a surface ROW through Rochester Field (which I believe the NCC said it was open to in last year's announcement),

Except that the NCC isn't offering Rochester Field for free, are they?

The story that seems to be missed here is the NCC wanted to develop the land, the City wanted it to be parkland.

By the NCC pushing the WLRT there, it would force the City to buy the land, ending this conflict in the NCC's favour.

In fact, I think the whole NCC push against the City on this has had a lot to do with the value of their land that they want to develop or sell to the City.

Note that this land is still under appeal:

City and NCC hit stalemate over field in Westboro

http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=60c662bd-15d9-4927-9b3d-eee972198852

The city and National Capital Commission have hit a stalemate over the future of a green field in Westboro.

BY THE OTTAWA CITIZEN APRIL 7, 2008


OTAWA - The city and National Capital Commission have hit a stalemate over the future of a green field in Westboro.
The commission has long opposed the city’s designation of Rochester Field between Richmond Road and the Ottawa River Parkway at Broadview Avenue as open green space.

This severely limits what can be done with the field, and the commission took the matter to appeal at the Ontario Municipal Board where it argued that the field should be designated a general urban area. This tag would allow development on the field, which is currently treated as parkland by residents in the area, and greatly increase its value.

The board instructed the city to buy the field from the commission, but now the sides disagree on what the land is worth. The city maintains it should be priced as green space while the commission feels it should be priced as general urban land.

The difference is millions of dollars, and the matter will be before members of the city’s planning committee today.
Bay Councillor Alex Cullen said it only makes sense that if the city is going to keep the field as green space, it should be priced as green space. However, he said the city is in a tough position because if it abandons plans to buy the land, the commission could sell it to a developer, which is something residents of the area oppose.

© (c) CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc.

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by gjhall

Except that the NCC isn't offering Rochester Field for free, are they?

The story that seems to be missed here is the NCC wanted to develop the land, the City wanted it to be parkland.

By the NCC pushing the WLRT there, it would force the City to buy the land, ending this conflict in the NCC's favour.

In fact, I think the whole NCC push against the City on this has had a lot to do with the value of their land that they want to develop or sell to the City.

Note that this land is still under appeal:

Sounds like the NCC isn't really all about making the lives of Ottawa residents better...