Confederation Line West LRT Extension (Stage 2) [Tunney's to Baseline/Moodie] | U/C

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day all.... First Post, but I have ghosted here many years. I have not commented before,because most of what I had to say was well covered by others. BUT......This one I just had to get out here. Has anyone else examined the Western LRT Expansion TPAP documents from City of Ottawa's Transit subwebsite ? The diagrams in detail of several of the stations have an interesting dimension - platforms at 90 meters, protected future expansion 10 meters. !! !! I did not know they had furthur reduced the sizings !?! Of interest, neither of the TPAPs on City of Ottawa Transit subwebsite for the Eastern LRT Expansion nor the Trillium Line Expansion have the plans or details attached - you were only able to inspect them live in person manually - not online. (Paranoid interlude - did someone at City of Ottawa slip up by attaching the Western plans ?) Any one else, please tell me I have misspoken or misstepped - please ! And yes, I do know that these are preliminary and subject to modification - I HOPE ! But recall that the platforms went from 180 to 150 to 120 to ....... ? more cost cutting ?
Thanks... more rants to come.

I did see that Cleary Station graphic as well (90m + 10m). However p.20 of "EPR Section 11.1 - Alignment Drawings" and p.19 of "EPR - Section 11.3 to 11.5 - Drawings" both show a zone of "Protection for ultimate 120m platform".

So the extra 10m is within the planned station and then to expand a further 20m they need to lengthen the station?

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

I did see that Cleary Station graphic as well (90m + 10m). However p.20 of "EPR Section 11.1 - Alignment Drawings" and p.19 of "EPR - Section 11.3 to 11.5 - Drawings" both show a zone of "Protection for ultimate 120m platform".

So the extra 10m is within the planned station and then to expand a further 20m they need to lengthen the station?

Yup - I see your references..... 11.1 and 11.3-11.5 both have this.
My concern is at 11.2, wherein the station layouts have design features that would indicate very awkward/complex/difficult expansion to add the last 20 meters - such as at New Orchard, wherein the platform at 100 is bookended with elevators at west and stairs at east that would preclude simple expansion.
So....... curious minds wonder ?

And yes, I have seen the Alstom trains vid... short-3, long-3, 4 and 5 unit trains, progressively adding 1 11 meter units, making the final 5 unit train 59 meters, x2 gives 118 meters.

Thanks.

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Doubt we can fully fill two of these cars joined together, running every 2 minutes, any time soon.
Anyway it would be a good problem to have.

Might the 100 m be long enough to access all the doors of 3 trains, because the doors are not at the tip of the nose & tail of the trains?

[1overcosc]

^ Yep.

When the system opens, the trains will be 96 metres long (two 48 metre trains).

The downtown platforms in the tunnel will be 120 metres long, the rest will be 90 metres long, so outside of downtown, the trains will be longer than the platform, overhanging by 3 metres on each end. Because the braking will be computer-controlled, it will be possible for the train to stop at exactly the right spot to enable this (this sort of precision is almost impossible with humans controlling the brake).

In the future, they can add an extra unit to the train, increasing its length to about 60 metres (or 120 metres coupled), meaning the full platform will be used. At that point the surface platforms will have to be lengthened from 90m to 120m, which they're protecting for in the station designs.

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

^ Yep.

When the system opens, the trains will be 96 metres long (two 48 metre trains).

The downtown platforms in the tunnel will be 120 metres long, the rest will be 90 metres long, so outside of downtown, the trains will be longer than the platform, overhanging by 3 metres on each end. Because the braking will be computer-controlled, it will be possible for the train to stop at exactly the right spot to enable this (this sort of precision is almost impossible with humans controlling the brake).

In the future, they can add an extra unit to the train, increasing its length to about 60 metres (or 120 metres coupled), meaning the full platform will be used. At that point the surface platforms will have to be lengthened from 90m to 120m, which they're protecting for in the station designs.

That's great for the newly built 90 m stations.

However PHrenetic and I are worried about amount of future protection, which is only 10 m, for a total of 100 m, which seems to not be long enough for 3 trains end to end.

3 x 48 m = 144 m
144 m - 100 m = 44 m

Can doors of the train segments be moved to 22 m from the end of the train segments?

If not, then we need the stations to protect for more than 100 m.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Buggys

That's great for the newly built 90 m stations.

However PHrenetic and I are worried about amount of future protection, which is only 10 m, for a total of 100 m, which seems to not be long enough for 3 trains end to end.

3 x 48 m = 144 m
144 m - 100 m = 44 m

Can doors of the train segments be moved to 22 m from the end of the train segments?

If not, then we need the stations to protect for more than 100 m.

Stations are protected for 120m. Although this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxuIpmurXKg) states that the expanded trains are 59m, or 118m total, making 120m a little too big.

[Kitchissippi]

In the future it will be 2 trains that are 59 m long = 118m. Maybe the doored sections could fit within a 110 m platform with the nose and tail beyond

[Buggys]

Ah thanks!

[waterloowarrior]

http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/public...ctivity-public

Stage 2 Light Rail Transit (LRT) Connectivity Public Consultations
Let's get connected!
As part of the LRT Stage 2 project – which extends the O-Train Confederation Line east and west, and Trillium Line farther south – The City of Ottawa has undertaken a Stage 2 Station Connectivity Study to ensure that community connections are preserved and enhanced along the expanded O-Train system. The study outlines a series of mobility enhancements, including bicycle facilities, multi-use pathways and crosswalks.

West Stations:

Queensview, Pinecrest and Bayshore – August 9, 2016 - All Saints Lutheran Church, 1061 Pinecrest Road
Iris and Baseline – August 10, 2016 – Algonquin College ACCE Building, 1385 Woodroffe Avenue, Room CA105, 1st floor

[Uhuniau]

More amazing NIMBYism here:

https://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/do...e_heard_en.pdf

ERMAGERD WERND TERNEL.

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

More amazing NIMBYism here:

Man those Appendix A comments... Where does this pathological fear of buildings higher than 4 stories come from?

Seriously.... How did these people ever end up living in a city???

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

Man those Appendix A comments... Where does this pathological fear of buildings higher than 4 stories come from?

I did some digging and according to this article the meeting was about more than just LRT and the concern regarding towers was related to a Zoning By-Law Amendment application for 809 Richmond Rd (currently Kristy's Restaurant) to develop two 16-storey residential rental towers. Given the close proximity to single family homes on Aylen Ave., I can understand the concern.

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I did some digging and according to this article the meeting was about more than just LRT and the concern regarding towers was related to a Zoning By-Law Amendment application for 809 Richmond Rd (currently Kristy's Restaurant) to develop two 16-storey residential rental towers. Given the close proximity to single family homes on Aylen Ave., I can understand the concern.

Good find... interesting that they tie up the meeting with the zoning variation issue rather than concentrate on LRT issues....

In any event... I still don't buy the complaints. There is already a 12 story building on Richmond even closer to Aylen Ave. You can see how imposing it is here:

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.3809...7i13312!8i6656

The proposed 16 story buildings would be further away, and if you Google Earth the area I doubt the 5 or 6 potentially affected houses on Aylen Ave would even see the buildings due to the dense trees in the back yards.

In fact, I doubt anywhere close to 200 people would even be able to see the buildings from their houses... much less be disturbed by them.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

Good find... interesting that they tie up the meeting with the zoning variation issue rather than concentrate on LRT issues....

The meeting was about community development, which includes LRT, but not exclusive to it.

In any event... I still don't buy the complaints. There is already a 12 story building on Richmond even closer to Aylen Ave. You can see how imposing it is here:

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.3809...7i13312!8i6656

The proposed 16 story buildings would be further away, and if you Google Earth the area I doubt the 5 or 6 potentially affected houses on Aylen Ave would even see the buildings due to the dense trees in the back yards.

In fact, I doubt anywhere close to 200 people would even be able to see the buildings from their houses... much less be disturbed by them.

That is a good point. You can see the application, including drawings here.

The things I like about the project are:

• Within a block from the future Cleary LRT station.
• All of the parking will be underground (one 3-level lot under the entire complex), meaning very effective land use.
• It will be mixed commercial/residential (they plan to re-open Kristy's Restaurant in the complex), meaning it will add to the community

The question, is what is a reasonable height limit for the location. As you say the Lord Richmond Apartments at 851 Richmond Road is 12 storeys, so limiting to between 4 and 6 storeys might be unreasonable. I just don't know if we want to use that as an excuse to allow an even taller building.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The meeting was about community development, which includes LRT, but not exclusive to it.



That is a good point. You can see the application, including drawings here.

The things I like about the project are:

• Within a block from the future Cleary LRT station.
• All of the parking will be underground (one 3-level lot under the entire complex), meaning very effective land use.
• It will be mixed commercial/residential (they plan to re-open Kristy's Restaurant in the complex), meaning it will add to the community

The question, is what is a reasonable height limit for the location. As you say the Lord Richmond Apartments at 851 Richmond Road is 12 storeys, so limiting to between 4 and 6 storeys might be unreasonable. I just don't know if we want to use that as an excuse to allow an even taller building.

If we can't build reasonable buildings within a block of LRT stations on arterial roads, why the hell are we building the system in the first place?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by gjhall

If we can't build reasonable buildings within a block of LRT stations on arterial roads, why the hell are we building the system in the first place?

Agreed. The question is what is reasonable? Obviously a 50 storey tower would be unreasonable. As would limiting it to 4 storeys. Is 12 storeys a reasonable limit as a neighboring building is that height or can we push it to 16? The Continental at 75 Cleary Ave (adjacent to the proposed station) looks to be 16 storeys, so maybe it is a reasonable height limit, though it is a bit further from single family homes. Another consideration is it being a dual tower, it won't be as imposing as a single tower taking up the same space.

[eltodesukane]

z

[HighwayStar]

Many a lawyer has become wealthy arguing the definition of the word "reasonable".

Building density around transit stations seems quite reasonable to me.

Protesting the construction of tall buildings simply because one does not like tall buildings is not reasonable (i.e. as per the comments in Appendix A of the "As we heard it" report above).

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

Many a lawyer has become wealthy arguing the definition of the word "reasonable".

Agreed, which is why it should be a political decision, not a legal one.

Building density around transit stations seems quite reasonable to me.

Agreed. The question is to what extent?

Protesting the construction of tall buildings simply because one does not like tall buildings is not reasonable (i.e. as per the comments in Appendix A of the "As we heard it" report above).

Also agreed. However you can't just let developers build whatever they want under the guise of progress is good. One needs to evaluate what fits in with the neighbourhood currently and, more importantly, what is the vision for the neighbourhood for the future. One also has to see if the infrastructure supports the development (and the overall plan). That stretch of Richmond Rd is only 2 lanes. Since not everyone will be taking LRT and there will need to be trucks and buses using the road, so consideration of how the road can be widened to 4 lanes while keeping reasonable sidewalks should be considered (and not just steal it all from the green space between Byron and Richmond). This plan assumes Richmond remains 2 lanes.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by eltodesukane

"Obviously a 50 storey tower would be unreasonable."
No.

Are you trying to say building Ottawa's largest tower (by a wide margin) on a postage stamp sized lot in the outskirts of the city, dwarfing all of the surrounding buildings would be reasonable?