O-Train Line 1/3 [ Stage 2 | East Extension | Blair to Trim] | U/C

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Fear that by having the track closer to the buildings on Jasmine will result in noise complaints? Having the tracks elevated will only make the noise worse and harder to mitigate. A vocal minority will drown out a supportive majority.

Maybe... but a station is the least of there worries:
1. The curves in the flyover are more likely to produce noise than a station, and
2. There isn't even a noise wall there currently to protect against noise from the highway, which is absolutely louder than an LRT.

You should never underestimate the capacity of people to campaign against their own interests, but I haven't seen any evidence of whether Jasmine Crescent is for or against a station. They haven't been engaged at all as far as I can tell.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Fear that by having the track closer to the buildings on Jasmine will result in noise complaints? Having the tracks elevated will only make the noise worse and harder to mitigate. A vocal minority will drown out a supportive majority.

"Noise".

The people who complain about theoretical noise should go spend some time near an actual LRT line.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

You should never underestimate the capacity of people to campaign against their own interests, but I haven't seen any evidence of whether Jasmine Crescent is for or against a station. They haven't been engaged at all as far as I can tell.

"Engagement" is for the suburbs, or for "nice" communities like New Edinburgh. (The city has bent over so far backwards on the sewage tunnel construction issue in New Edinburgh, I'm sure by now they are giving themselves a colonoscopy.)

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by roger1818

That makes sense but it sure seems like a huge expense to allow people to stay in a fare paid zone.

They are also building a pedestrian bridge at Trim just for the luxury of a fair paid zone (they could easily just build a very wide sidewalk on the east side of Trim Road itself). The Trim ped bridge is at least slightly less redundant than the new bridge at Place d'Orleans.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

Maybe... but a station is the least of there worries:
1. The curves in the flyover are more likely to produce noise than a station, and

Moving the flyover 400m east would make it even closer to the residences.

2. There isn't even a noise wall there currently to protect against noise from the highway, which is absolutely louder than an LRT.

Agreed, but if you look at the Moodie transitway extension as an example, they wanted a sound barrier installed because the buses would be at most 20 m closer than the 417, and in that case the residences are hundreds of meters away, behind a forest. Then when there was a proposal to convert it to LRT, they got really upset.

I haven't seen any evidence of whether Jasmine Crescent is for or against a station. They haven't been engaged at all as far as I can tell.

Maybe true, but politicians are a cautious lot.

[PHrenetic]

Good Day....

The station-on-a-curve discussion is moot at this point, since it is only an approximate indication of the protection placeholder. And remember that all of the median east of where-ever the flyover ends up to be, was / is to be widened in many locations to accommodate the rails and stations.

And as for pedestrian bridges at any and sundry of the stations, and as for the exact placement of the flyover, and, and, and, - remember - this is all the EA preliminaries designs. Undoubtedly much will change when the contract is awarded to one of the 3 finalist bidders, each of whom will undoubtedly have different takes on different design aspects in order to consolidate expenses, and save costs, and meet last last-minute detail changes, and, and, and, etc. IE: much is yet to change and be hidden to us, the unwashed proletariat who are best served in blissful ignorance <snarl><snort>. This was / is the case with Phase 1 ! Phooo !

[Multi-modal]

Sorry about the long post, just wanted to get this all written down. This flyover business has obviously been bugging me, and I was asking a lot of questions that I have at least partially answered with some further reading...

Part 1 of the East Extension EA talks about the reasoning for the LRT alignment to be either north of the highway, in the median, or south of the highway. Here is what they have to say about the segment between Blair and Montreal Stations (this is before the alignment was "improved"):

The following discussion summarizes the rationale for why the Hybrid Alignment, including locating the LRT on the north side from Blair to Montreal and then transitioning the LRT into the highway median from Green’s Creek easterly to Trim Road, is preferred from the perspective of each of the criteria groups used in the evaluation.

Social: The Hybrid Alignment places Montreal Station and a potential future station in the vicinity of Gloucester High School closer to residential homes between Blair Station and Montreal Road, providing a higher level of service to these communities by allowing for shorter, more efficient connections to the LRT than if the station were in the median along this stretch, as no residential development exists to the south....

So at this point they are discussing why the original alignment was north of the highway. As is obvious, the northern alignment improves access to where the users would be located. On the next page (not quoted) they talk about how the transition to the median at Montreal Road was abandoned due to high costs and poor soil conditions. They explored three alternative transition locations:

Three alternatives were evaluated, including a cut and cover (tunnel) option under HWY174 westbound lanes just west of Montreal Road, a flyover (bridge) option just west of Montreal Road and a flyover option in the vicinity of the existing eastbound Transitway structure over HWY 174 near Gloucester High School.

I was previously questioning why didn't they go with the alternative that locates a flyover just west of Montreal Road (i.e. a flyover further east than the current alignment shows). Here is why they say they chose the flyover further west:

The second flyover option evaluated was located near the existing Transitway structure. This location takes advantage of better foundation (soil) conditions and makes use of the existing embankment that carries the East Transitway up to the eastbound structure over HWY 174.

Essentially, soil conditions and cost was the reason the flyover is further west.

Here is what they have to say about protecting for the Gloucester High School Station:

Also, the Recommended Plan would result in the future potential station east of Gloucester High School being located in the median of HWY 174,resulting in additional costs associated with a pedestrian structure needed for access.

Approximately 800 m east of Blair Station, protection for a future station (beyond 2031) is proposed in the vicinity of Gloucester High School, in response to public comments regarding desirability for an additional station between Blair and Montreal Road. The station would need to be implemented in conjunction with future road realignment to provide sufficient median width to accommodate the platforms. Access to the station would need to be provided via adjacent properties to the public roadways to the north. Future transit oriented development (TOD) potential in the area, good station spacing, and convenient access to Gloucester High School, the adjacent community centre and recreational facility will support eventual construction of this station.

The second quote is the most damning. Firstly, it acknowledges that the current plan would require highway re-alignment to implement the future "protected" station. If anyone asks for the "protected" station in the future the City will inevitably point to the high cost of highway re-alignment as their reason for not building the "protected" station. Secondly, it shows the City only cares about future TOD potential. Reading between the lines, they envision TOD both on City owned lands to the west, and also TOD that redevelops that pesky low-income neighbourhood (that somehow ended up on a transit line) in to a community where nice upper middle class people can live. Only once they've re-developed the low-income people out of the area can they build a station. Who cares about the high existing transit ridership in Jasmine Crescent (sarcasm). In fact, they mention "Jasmine Park" only once in the entire document. They talk about Jasmine Creek and the Jasmine Park ravine more than they talk about the community.

In summary:
Why is the flyover so far west? Cost and soil conditions.
Did they consider Jasmine Park? Yes, as development potential.
Do they care about the people of Jasmine Park? No.

[PHrenetic]

Good Day....

and we have bingo - got it in five.

The protected for station only arose because of Jasmine Park and area residents pointing out the desire for a station here, and additional comments pointing out the distance between Blair and Montreal Road being long enough to deserve a station. They note and acknowledge the comments, and then only go on with and about TOD potential, ignoring the origination of the desirability of a station at all. They only really left it in to quiet the additional future comments and concerns, while getting on with cost comparisons as you have noted. The flyover in and about the Montreal Road area, both just east (towards Green's Creek), at, and just to the west, is eliminated due to construction costs in poor soils. The benefits of the flyover in this area keeping the alignment to the north side until here (greater and better access catchment of existing and future users) are evaluated as being of lesser importance. And so, westward ho the flyover go. (yup, i repeated you, but it bore repeating, for emphasis.) The same attitude can be seen, in a lower key, in most analysis papers. They do have to balance off conflicting requirements, but sometimes it seems to me (IMHO) that their evaluation percentages need some attitudinal adjustment more towards existing customer populations.

[Orleans123]

I can't believe the City is considering a median option for the eastern alignment. Just because other cities did it does not mean we should.

I have been a daily OC user for over 20 years from Orleans to DT/Hull.

The best alignment is on the south side. Moving Hydro lines is simple to do. Once done then construction is completely independent of OR174 and vice versa as would be the case for maintenance.

Criterias:

A construction and maintenance criteria was not used during the alignment option analysis. Can you image the disruption to O174 a median LRT will have. Then, when in operation should a break occur or maintenance is required a lane or two on OR174 will have to be closed.

Leveraging existing infrastructure:
The cross-over bridge at Blair will need to be demolished should a median alignment be used.

Park and Ride:
Are you kidding me? Look at the walk users will need to from the Trim Rd Park and Ride to the median platform.

Am I missing something here? City Councillors do not take OC/LRT.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by Orleans123

I can't believe the City is considering a median option for the eastern alignment. Just because other cities did it does not mean we should.

I have been a daily OC user for over 20 years from Orleans to DT/Hull.

The best alignment is on the south side. Moving Hydro lines is simple to do. Once done then construction is completely independent of OR174 and vice versa as would be the case for maintenance.

Criterias:

A construction and maintenance criteria was not used during the alignment option analysis. Can you image the disruption to O174 a median LRT will have. Then, when in operation should a break occur or maintenance is required a lane or two on OR174 will have to be closed.

Leveraging existing infrastructure:
The cross-over bridge at Blair will need to be demolished should a median alignment be used.

Park and Ride:
Are you kidding me? Look at the walk users will need to from the Trim Rd Park and Ride to the median platform.

Am I missing something here? City Councillors do not take OC/LRT.

Welcome to the forum!

[PHrenetic]

Good Day, and welcome.

A south-side alignment might be cheaper to build (but do not underestimate the cost of moving those towers !!!), but it is totally inadequate in terms of serving the customer - you and me; as per your P&R comment, it would be a complete loony-tunes. Median is somewhat better; north-side would have been best (see my post above, #328 of this thread) at least until Montreal Rd. / 174 / St. Joseph Blvd. .

The median option was mostly to bundle the 174 widening project in with the LRT,
and now that the prov has put a hold on that, things are a bit up in the air at the moment (ie. 🞵🞵🞵 is going on ?!).

Re-using the east-of-Blair flyover was never really an option; it was not built with LRT in mind, and hence is too narrow and lightweight.
And, it crosses over entirely to the south side - which meets your south side comment, but is no good for the median option.

Walks to the Park-and-Ride.... councilors really do not care, and the planners must think it's healthy ! <snort> !
Your comment that they do not ride transit is a common theme throughout most boards and forums.

EnJoy!

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day, and welcome.

A south-side alignment might be cheaper to build (but do not underestimate the cost of moving those towers !!!), but it is totally inadequate in terms of serving the customer - you and me; as per your P&R comment, it would be a complete loony-tunes. Median is somewhat better; north-side would have been best (see my post above, #328 of this thread) at least until Montreal Rd. / 174 / St. Joseph Blvd. .

The median option was mostly to bundle the 174 widening project in with the LRT,
and now that the prov has put a hold on that, things are a bit up in the air at the moment (ie. 🞵🞵🞵 is going on ?!).

Re-using the east-of-Blair flyover was never really an option; it was not built with LRT in mind, and hence is too narrow and lightweight.
And, it crosses over entirely to the south side - which meets your south side comment, but is no good for the median option.

Walks to the Park-and-Ride.... councilors really do not care, and the planners must think it's healthy ! <snort> !
Your comment that they do not ride transit is a common theme throughout most boards and forums.

EnJoy!

I think from a passenger / ridership perspective north side is better from Blair to Montreal Road, then south side is better from Jeanne D'Arc to Trim. However, grade separating the LRT from the ramps at Jeanne D'Arc and Place d'Orleans would be very expensive.

[Orleans123]

I drove on the 417 on the weekend to Cabelas and noticed that the transit-way from Bayshore westward is on the north side of the highway. In the future, this will be where the tracks will go for the train. The median at this point is even wider than here in the east however they did not even put the transit-way in the median. In the east here however council is considering the median as an option....Unbelievable...this is a true disaster. They would not do this in the west but ok in the east.

[kevinbottawa]

Originally Posted by Orleans123

I drove on the 417 on the weekend to Cabelas and noticed that the transit-way from Bayshore westward is on the north side of the highway. In the future, this will be where the tracks will go for the train. The median at this point is even wider than here in the east however they did not even put the transit-way in the median. In the east here however council is considering the median as an option....Unbelievable...this is a true disaster. They would not do this in the west but ok in the east.

What's wrong with having the tracks in the median?

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Orleans123

I drove on the 417 on the weekend to Cabelas and noticed that the transit-way from Bayshore westward is on the north side of the highway. In the future, this will be where the tracks will go for the train. The median at this point is even wider than here in the east however they did not even put the transit-way in the median. In the east here however council is considering the median as an option....Unbelievable...this is a true disaster. They would not do this in the west but ok in the east.

The difference is the 417 im the west part of Ottawa is owned by the province while route 174 is owned by the city which makes it easier to put the tracks in the median heading to Orleans.

There is nothing wrong putting tracks in the median anyway, that way it can serve people living on either side of the queensway.

[c_speed3108]

The median configuration reminds me a lot of the TTC along Allen Rd in Toronto. It seems to work quite well there.

[J.OT13]

Building the line south of the 174 would have been ideal to better service areas ripe for intensification and Orleans' traditional main street St-Joseph Boulevard, but the added cost of rebuilding all of the bridges and ramps (or building viaducts/elevated stations over each roadway) would not have been worth the investment. Building the line along the median is, I think, a good call.

In the west, most of the intensification potential lies north of the Queensway, so that works out.

[kevinbottawa]

Originally Posted by c_speed3108

The median configuration reminds me a lot of the TTC along Allen Rd in Toronto. It seems to work quite well there.

That's what I was thinking. I used that line regularly.

[PHrenetic]

Good Day.

Keith Egli has put up the FEDCO LRT updates (NB: Thank You, Sir.) :

Index page : http://keithegli.ca/ottawas-light-rail-transit-updates/

a Stage 2 procurement update (cross-posted) (2 pg.):
http://keithegli.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Memo-to-Council-Stage-2-Procurement-Update.pdf

EnJoy!

[Orleans123]

Hi Kevin and c_speed,

Allen rd is only like 3 km long and not a controlled access highway. Big difference!!! Can you imagine the disruption during the construction phase? Understood that the west is MTO and east is city controlled but logic still applies during the options analysis regardless of provincial/municipal ownership.

From Blair to Montreal rd stay on north side but go on south side from Montreal rd to place d'Orleans. The RoW is there and will not interfere with morning/evening traffic as it is horrible as it is.

If the median is used the east enders will be the laughing stock.