O-Train Line 1/3 [Stage 2 | West Extension | Tunney's to Baseline/Moodie] | U/C

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

new document up on Stage2LRT website,
about Iris station and Pinecrest Creek realignment modifications to the EA and Feb Implementation plans, and some indication of detour phasings :

http://www.stage2lrt.ca/wp-content/uploa...crestCreekRelocationPresentation_CW2.pdf

Got to love the caption for the picture on pg.9: "More Graphics from Elie (use or discard)"

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by AndyMEng

What the eff is the difference between 250 and 450m, in time? 2 mins to 6 mins?

Also, just to stir some $hit, I can tell you just from looking at the building, aint nobody going to pull up to the front door, nor are they going to walk to the street at Richmond and then swagger down to the station.

Entrances for the workers is at the back/sides.

What building and what workers are you talking about?

If you are talking about the existing Canada Banknote building, and the existing workers of Canada Banknote, then that is not what I was talking about, but by all means beat that strawman to death. Set him on fire when you're done.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day....
new document up on Stage2LRT website,
about Iris station and Pinecrest Creek realignment modifications to the EA and Feb Implementation plans, and some indication of detour phasings :

http://www.stage2lrt.ca/wp-content/uploa...crestCreekRelocationPresentation_CW2.pdf

EnJoy!

The City is making the same mistake they did with Booth Street: building a bridge for Iris but not including a cycling facility, even though their own connectivity study recommended one! There are 0 cyclists in the renders, which shows how much they thought about them. The chicane for the MUP next to the west platform looks awful.

Also, they should have another set of stairs on the northwest side of the station / iris intersection. Otherwise there will be an awkward walk for people being dropped off on the north kiss and ride / bus stop. For that matter, why is the bus stop so far away from the station. And why isn't this station centre platform. The station would be better as an exact replica of Cyrville Station in my opinion.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

The City is making the same mistake they did with Booth Street: building a bridge for Iris but not including a cycling facility, even though their own connectivity study recommended one!

?

The design on slide 27 shows the bridge will have 5.5m lanes + 2 2.0m sidewalks + a 3.0m MUP.

[zzptichka]

5.5m lanes... why?
Why are they encouraging people to speed and make people walk extra 4 meters on a crosswalk?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

The design on slide 27 shows the bridge will have 5.5m lanes + 2 2.0m sidewalks + a 3.0m MUP.

That MUP is fine for those those wanting to cross from the MUP north of the tracks to the MUP south of the tracks (or vice versa), okay for those on Iris eastbound, but useless for those on Iris westbound. Westbound cyclists will have the following options:

1. Stay on the road across the bridge,
2. Hop onto the sidewalk to cross the bridge (discouraged),
3. Cross Iris to the MUP and then back again onto Iris (no clear place to do so though), or
4. Ride on the wrong side of the road on Iris for easy access to the MUP (illegal and unsafe).

Unfortunately the last option is the one most cyclists will likely choose.

[Uhuniau]

Wait wait wait - an Iris station got re-instated for Phase II plans, but not Jasmine?

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Wait wait wait - an Iris station got re-instated for Phase II plans, but not Jasmine?

It was always in those plans.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

?

The design on slide 27 shows the bridge will have 5.5m lanes + 2 2.0m sidewalks + a 3.0m MUP.

Thanks I didn't notice that, it wasn't clear in the rest of the preceding slides. In any case that is a bad design. 5.5m lanes are terrible, and probably dictated by some nonsense about emergency vehicle width required. 5.5m lanes are wide enough for someone to be dropped off AND for a car to pass (barely), but this doesn't seem to be what is intended. In addition, a bi-directional bicycle lane on the south side doesn't makes sense as already pointed out by others.

The total preliminary bridge width is 18.9m. I would reallocate like this.

(3m s/w + 2m bike lane + 1m painted buffer + 3.5m lane)x2

That way the bike lanes and painted buffer satiate the City's appetite for ultra-wide lanes, without actually giving all that space for vehicles.

Alternatively you could put the bus stops on the bridge itself:

(2m bus shelter + 2m sidewalk + 2m bike lane + 3.5m lane)x2.

Of course you would have busses stopping in the bike lane, but no big deal. And where the bus shelters are not you can switch the 2m of bus shelter space for tree plantings, like on the Somerset bridge over the O-train.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

It was always in those plans.

Agreed. I think he is confusing it with the Queensway station (which is still being removed, most likely to allow the NCC to use the old transitway to connect the Parkway to the 417 to/from the west).

[AndyMEng]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

What building and what workers are you talking about?

If you are talking about the existing Canada Banknote building, and the existing workers of Canada Banknote, then that is not what I was talking about, but by all means beat that strawman to death. Set him on fire when you're done.

1. I think you and Roger might have lost the theme of your conversation through the last THREE Pages of back and forth.

2. Regardless of whatever 'federal' building, Roger, the Canadian Bank Note Company is not ever going to move. Their equipment was just completely replaced to make final prints of fancy plastic notes. Their parking lot might go, off of Patricia, but the building will remain.

3. Westboro Station, Lanark, Island Park, they're a 6 minute walk, but Westboro Station site is the only one with space for a bus turnout. The hardcore NIMBY reaction you'd get if you tried to make bus turnouts around a new train station at Lanark or Island Park would be deafening.

4. All the new development along Scott/McRae, plus the potential to bulldoze the Graham Spry building (!!! is THIS what you're talking about?) and place new giant McCondo Towers will mean the population density will be centered on Westboro Station.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

It was always in those plans.

Nope: there was doubt for a while.

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Agreed. I think he is confusing it with the Queensway station (which is still being removed, most likely to allow the NCC to use the old transitway to connect the Parkway to the 417 to/from the west).

Good Day...

to Uhuniau... yup, Iris was in doubt for a very short while, until the majority overrule of closing Queensway ruled the day/week/year/plan,especially with the Queensview station and Iris station in such proximities. It has been this way since before the Final recommended plan original EA 20160929, and prior, per Western LRT Open House 4 display board Baseline-LincolnFields, circa 20160405, and has held ever since. There was some reference to retaining the upper-level-to-MUP elevators and stairs in the earlier WLRT Recommended Plan Functional Design report circa 20150622 pages 29-30 Figure 20, but I think this disappeared in that interim.

to roger1818... nope, the Queensway station ramps transitway to/from 417 are to be removed utterly when construction is finished, and the Pinecrest Creek restored as much as possible, also in the plan since the Final recommended plan original EA 20160929, Section 7, page 7-23 and 24, and prior, per Western LRT Open House 4 display board Baseline-LincolnFields, circa 20160405, and in the earlier WLRT Recommended Plan Functional Design report circa 20150622 pages 29-30.

I have not seen/read/heard any changes to this particular section of plan, and believe it still holds. IE.... I believe the ORP (oops, the SJAMP) will end at the Carling ramps, and there will be absolutely no roadway beyond/south of that intersection, only rail.

EnJoy!

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

to roger1818... nope, the Queensway station ramps transitway to/from 417 are to be removed utterly when construction is finished, and the Pinecrest Creek restored as much as possible, also in the plan since the Final recommended plan original EA 20160929, Section 7, page 7-23 and 24, and prior, per Western LRT Open House 4 display board Baseline-LincolnFields, circa 20160405, and in the earlier WLRT Recommended Plan Functional Design report circa 20150622 pages 29-30.

I have not seen/read/heard any changes to this particular section of plan, and believe it still holds. IE.... I believe the ORP (oops, the SJAMP) will end at the Carling ramps, and there will be absolutely no roadway beyond/south of that intersection, only rail.

I agree all of the published plans say the transitway and ramps will be removed, but something just doesn't smell right to me and I can't help but wonder if there is something else going on behind closed doors. Maybe the NCC hasn't made a final decision on this yet, or maybe the city doesn't want to give the NIMBYs more to object to and have Stage 2 blocked by them. Once the line is open, the NCC could then tell the city not to remove the pavement. The city's hands will be tied (its not their land) and NCC doesn't care about NIMBYs as they aren't elected.

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I agree all of the published plans say the transitway and ramps will be removed, but something just doesn't smell right to me and I can't help but wonder if there is something else going on behind closed doors. Maybe the NCC hasn't made a final decision on this yet, or maybe the city doesn't want to give the NIMBYs more to object to and have Stage 2 blocked by them. Once the line is open, the NCC could then tell the city not to remove the pavement. The city's hands will be tied (its not their land) and NCC doesn't care about NIMBYs as they aren't elected.

Good Day.....your paranoia almost equals mine.
I could well see the southbound ORP (terminating) on up to the westbound 417 ramp remaining, but there just simply is no room under the 417 'bridge' there for anything more that the LRT RoW on order to retain the eastbound 417 ramp down to the northbound ORP (commencing) on the south side of the 417.
So.... split the paranoia between us 50-50 ?
EnJoy!

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day.....your paranoia almost equals mine.

Glad I'm not the only one.

I could well see the southbound ORP (terminating) on up to the westbound 417 ramp remaining, but there just simply is no room under the 417 'bridge' there for anything more that the LRT RoW on order to retain the eastbound 417 ramp down to the northbound ORP (commencing) on the south side of the 417.

Are you sure? The current underpass appears to be about 22m wide (it has 4 vehicle lanes plus passenger platforms). Given that there will be no stop there, the LRT should need less than half of that, so 11m should be enough for a single northbound vehicle lane to connect to the existing 417 eastbound off ramp.

As for the off ramp, it already loops about 175m south of the 417. It shouldn't be a problem to change its grade to have it cross over the LRT and then descend to go under the 417. The pathway would have to be relocated a bit and some trees removed, but it could be done.

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Are you sure? The current underpass appears to be about 22m wide (it has 4 vehicle lanes plus passenger platforms). Given that there will be no stop there, the LRT should need less than half of that, so 11m should be enough for a single northbound vehicle lane to connect to the existing 417 eastbound off ramp.

As for the off ramp, it already loops about 175m south of the 417. It shouldn't be a problem to change its grade to have it cross over the LRT and then descend to go under the 417. The pathway would have to be relocated a bit and some trees removed, but it could be done.

Good Day to ye...
I be not sure, and am willing to be out-paranoided,
but I would have to think the RoW width requirements would be very tight, unless someone is willing to squeeze a bit.
but I think there is just not enough room to meet provincial 400-series ramp configuration requirements in that space without some NIMBY from those back yards, and unless MTO is willing to 'bend' the rules.

So..... I guess we shall see in six years time !
EnJoy!

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Got to love the caption for the picture on pg.9: "More Graphics from Elie (use or discard)"

Am I crazy, or does it look like they have depicted a Bombardier LRT in that rendering and the one on page 7?

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by Catenary

Am I crazy, or does it look like they have depicted a Bombardier LRT in that rendering and the one on page 7?

They've also got the cross-section on page 7 backwards in relation to the rendering above it. Very confusing. Also, the images on page 4/11 is from the opposite direction as the image on page 6, so you have to mentally flip everything to compare and contrast them. Poor document preparation.

[Kitchissippi]

I just hope nobody in a wheelchair (or someone pushing walker) gets confused with the westbound and eastbound platforms because it looks like it would involve about 300 metres for them to switch between the two. It would also mean either their outbound or inbound journey will require a longer walk.