Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Trenching was definitely a factor and although the same would have been done with LRT, the trench would have been narrower, so arguably, when you combine that with a cheaper St-Laurent tunnel and station, price of LRT vs BRT would have been pretty comparable.

For a line from Westboro to Blair (and on to Orleans and even down to South Keys), yes. As I said before, the problem would have been getting from what is now Dominion to Lincoln Fields would have caused the costs to skyrocket, if the NCC at the time would have permitted them to build it at all. My guess is they would have had to find a way over to the Byron Linear Park quickly, and run along it, possibly tunneling under it. Then would the NCC have permitted trains to run down to baseline?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I'd give the white elephant award to Queensway Station. Hands down.

Not even close. Lincoln Fields is the whitest of elephants.

Queensway's lower level is a little overbuilt, but that's mostly a consequence of its environment. Lincoln Fields... there was absolutely no friggin' need.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Correct. As PHrenetic said, it will be replaced with a Queensview station on the line to Bayshore/Moodie.

That will replace the local cachement of Queensway station, and maybe even expand that local cachement, but at the cost of eliminating a valuable Queensway-to-trunk-transit connection, which is unfortunate. A crosstown route using the Queensway still has value, or at least had it.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

It's funny how people complain that the Confederation Line stations, that are much more elaborate than the Transitway stations, are under-built, while calling the Trasitway Stations over-built.

I think most of the Confederation Line stations are seriously overbuilt. Yes, they can and should be "nice", but there's no need for all those pointless soaring architectural wankeries.

Less "statments", less "art", more transit, please.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

It's funny how people complain that the Confederation Line stations, that are much more elaborate than the Transitway stations, are under-built, while calling the Trasitway Stations over-built.

As I said earlier, I think the level of building should match the expected use. Little neighbourhood stations should be pretty minimalist (whether they are LRT, BRT, commuter rail or whatever).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

As I said earlier, I think the level of building should match the expected use. Little neighbourhood stations should be pretty minimalist (whether they are LRT, BRT, commuter rail or whatever).

Your definition of minimalist would not match what most people consider appropriate. That's the difference. In a city, with our climate, you've argued for no shelter and no stairs. On a rapid transit line. That's a bit beyond minimalist in my books. Your plan would have rendered stations like Cyrville unusable after moderate winter weather occurrences.

[lrt's friend]

The quality of a rapid system is defined by its weakest points. If we started reducing grade separations and allowed passengers to walk across the rapid transit line, everybody would suffer with poorer (and less safe) service, and the cost of LRT conversion would have skyrocketed.

If grade separation was to be maintained, how would passengers reach the stations without stairs, elevators and overpass walkways? Would we build stations without shelters? Hardly! This is not your local bus stop.

Again, what purpose does this discussion serve in comparison to today's reality?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Your definition of minimalist would not match what most people consider appropriate. That's the difference. In a city, with our climate, you've argued for no shelter and no stairs. On a rapid transit line. That's a bit beyond minimalist in my books. Your plan would have rendered stations like Cyrville unusable after moderate winter weather occurrences.

I'm not arguing for no shelter. I'm saying that little neighbourhood stations don't need 100m of shelters like they have on the transitway. I would be highly surprised to see more than a dozen people waiting at Cyrville at any given time.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The quality of a rapid system is defined by its weakest points. If we started reducing grade separations and allowed passengers to walk across the rapid transit line, everybody would suffer with poorer (and less safe) service, and the cost of LRT conversion would have skyrocketed.

If grade separation was to be maintained, how would passengers reach the stations without stairs, elevators and overpass walkways? Would we build stations without shelters? Hardly! This is not your local bus stop.

Again, what purpose does this discussion serve in comparison to today's reality?

I have given several examples. Surely you have been to Bayview station?

[bikegypsy]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I think most of the Confederation Line stations are seriously overbuilt. Yes, they can and should be "nice", but there's no need for all those pointless soaring architectural wankeries.

Less "statments", less "art", more transit, please.

Errr no. Nice things get more use than ugly ones, this is a very well known fact in industrial design. That's why your car, your house (and I presume your wife) don't look like cold grey utilitarian boxes (i hope for you). Back in the 90s, Apple bet all its chips on this very principle in order to revive their dying company and they won... And forced, in the process, an entire industry to grudgingly follow suite. The Confed stations look pretty spot on to me in terms of design and size. Let's remember that they're built to last for the next 60 or 70 years, or maybe even longer.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I have given several examples. Surely you have been to Bayview station?

Bayview was part of the original O-Train temporary demonstration project. It is pretty crappy given the distance you have to walk to transfer. Not many locations have this much space for such lengthy ramps. I am glad that a proper transfer station is being built. Imagine if this is what the future airport connection to downtown was like. Oh my, rolling or carrying your bags up that ramp. gasp!

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

Errr no. Nice things get more use than ugly ones, this is a very well known fact in industrial design. That's why your car, your house (and I presume your wife) don't look like cold grey utilitarian boxes (i hope for you). Back in the 90s, Apple bet all its chips on this very principle in order to revive their dying company and they won... And forced, in the process, an entire industry to grudgingly follow suite. The Confed station look pretty spot on to me in terms of design and size. Let's remember that they're built to last for the next 60 or 70 years, or maybe even longer.

We should also remember that tourists are more likely to use rail transit than buses. We need Ottawa to look good for both locals and visitors. Nothing like having dingy stations to make a statement, "crime is welcome here".

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I'm not arguing for no shelter. I'm saying that little neighbourhood stations don't need 100m of shelters like they have on the transitway. I would be highly surprised to see more than a dozen people waiting at Cyrville at any given time.

Where were there 100m shelters at residential stations?

At Greenboro, they under-configured the southbound station and eventually they added extra shelters.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We should also remember that tourists are more likely to use rail transit than buses. We need Ottawa to look good for both locals and visitors. Nothing like having dingy stations to make a statement, "crime is welcome here".

As someone who has traveled and use transit while in other cities, I am drawn to a rail transit system more than buses.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

Errr no. Nice things get more use than ugly ones, this is a very well known fact in industrial design. That's why your car, your house (and I presume your wife) don't look like cold grey utilitarian boxes (i hope for you). Back in the 90s, Apple bet all its chips on this very principle in order to revive their dying company and they won... And forced, in the process, an entire industry to grudgingly follow suite. The Confed stations look pretty spot on to me in terms of design and size. Let's remember that they're built to last for the next 60 or 70 years, or maybe even longer.

Things can be "nice" without expensive soaring "statement" rooves and a 1% "art" setaside that is grounded on exactly zero public policy objective related to actual transit.

A soaring statementy "bold" roof does nothing for me, as a transit user, that a non-soaring one doesn't already do.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Where were there 100m shelters at residential stations?

At Greenboro, they under-configured the southbound station and eventually they added extra shelters.

At New Baseline they put the station into service months before the shelters were installed, and still didn't install enough.

Carleton O-Train still has a stupidly small amount of weather-resistant space for the busiest station on the line, almost two decades later.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Things can be "nice" without expensive soaring "statement" rooves and a 1% "art" setaside that is grounded on exactly zero public policy objective related to actual transit.

A soaring statementy "bold" roof does nothing for me, as a transit user, that a non-soaring one doesn't already do.

Check out youtube. There are countless videos taken by tourists of attractive transit stations. It is part of the experience of visiting a city.

Many cities are building grand new rail stations or refurbishing historic ones. These are key public buildings or facilities not much different from city halls, central public libraries, and museums. Countless people visit them, so they should be attractive.

Probably 10 years ago, we would have said the same thing about central libraries until a few cities started opening grand ones. The bar has been set higher.

We need to show some vision to make this city beautiful. Building stations just for utility is not good enough any more.

We need to get past being a 'tim-bits' city.

Why does everything have to be second rate just because it is Ottawa?

We are a G7 capital. It is time to start looking like one.

[acottawa]

Most cities in democratic countries only put grandiose stations in a few key areas. The rest of the stations are usually pretty mundane.

I can't imagine tourists in Ottawa using more than a few stations: Rideau, Parliament, Lebreton (assuming something gets built there) and maybe Tremblay and Bayview (assuming the airport extension is completed).

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Things can be "nice" without expensive soaring "statement" rooves and a 1% "art" setaside that is grounded on exactly zero public policy objective related to actual transit.

A soaring statementy "bold" roof does nothing for me, as a transit user, that a non-soaring one doesn't already do.

We don't really have any data on what the cost breakdown of the stations is. A less fancy roof might not really have resulted in significant savings. I imagine a lot of the costs are things like redundant elevators (e.g. now you need 4 for a side platform station compared to the old standard of 2) and escalators.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

We don't really have any data on what the cost breakdown of the stations is. A less fancy roof might not really have resulted in significant savings. I imagine a lot of the costs are things like redundant elevators (e.g. now you need 4 for a side platform station compared to the old standard of 2) and escalators.

Another thing is capital costs and operating costs are considered two different pots of money. Any savings from going to a cheaper station would not likely have been reinvested in transit, but used to widen a road somewhere in Orleans/Barrhaven/Kanata