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

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Agreed that the relative lack of new projects for the eastern part of the Confederation Line has been disappointing especially since the City did pre-planning work to support TOD. The Western extension has a lot more potential with new stations (not just conversions), more desirable locations, and fewer issues with previous industrial uses.

Maybe, but the nice areas of the West End are NIMBY central, and the areas that don’t have NIMBYs look very much like the East side (retail/light industrial districts beside a highway).

[Kitchissippi]

The Cleary Station entrance looks aligned with Sherbourne and should probably be renamed since Sherbourne Rd is more recognizable as an extension of Maitland Ave.

Similarly, New Orchard Station is more like on Woodland. The choice of New Orchard as a name is leftover from a time when there was a proposal to put a transitway stop on the parkway only because there is a pedestrian underpass there. Never happened because that spot by the river is prone to flooding and the pathway is unusable for a few weeks every spring.

[J.OT13]

Reading through the station descriptions, I wanted to critic the location and lay-out of each. I won't go into the design aesthetics; though I was initially disappointed that they value-engineered the design language of Stage 1, I understand that some sacrifices need to be made in order to expand the system. That might be how the winning consortium was able to get a price, not within budget, but within "affordability".

This is based off the document describing each station. In parentheses, I've indicated my preferred name for the station, should it be different from the presentation.

https://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/cache/2/03f5y2hirvcglz23htbtbodt/56880702232019112752335.PDF

Westboro: Wish they would have removed the busway on the north side and had the two bridges as pedestrian/cycling only. Any buses serving the station can do it via Scott.

Dominion (Kitchissippi): Shifting it west was a good move to make it more visible and accessible. Rendering shows the transformer station (or whatever it's called); wish they could be hidden from view by placing them within the trench wall.

Cleary (McKellar or Sherbourne): The station description provides an explanation for the shift to the Byron Strip. It was done to reduce "risks in relation to the tunnel alignment and construction adjacent to the West Nepean Collector Sewer". It was also done to save money by removing the ventilation requirements of an underground station and simplify the track alignment. I personally preferred the previous underground location. It would have provided an opportunity for a great shallow underground station design (see Westbrook in Calgary) and the possibility for integration with a new adjacent development. This could also be viewed as a betrayal by nearby residents who were consulted to death before they agreed with the previous design.

New Orchard (Ambleside or Woodland): Functional as a local neighborhood station. Again, don't understand the glass wall in front of the entrance (as per my comments on the East Stage 2 thread for Montreal Station).

Lincoln Fields:I would have preferred a station design that provided access on both sides of Carling. This would also have provided more coverage at the platform level. I understand how this placement avoids the flood plains and provides better access to the bus loop.

Queenview: Hoping for some serious TOD between the Queensway and Queensview along with the south side of the Queensway.

Pinecrest (Dumaurier): As with New Orchard, this seems to be the best that could be provided the adjacent community. A pedestrian bridge to Redwood across the Queensway could have been useful.

Bayshore: I'm glad the consortium decided to use as much of the existing structure as possible in order to minimize costs and waste. The City's proposal to shift it east to better connect with the mall would have been detrimental to the local residents and push the price tag up significantly. This design is much more community oriented. Love the atrium at the north end.

Moodie: Nice to see the fare-paid area. The description talks about a DND HQ bus shuttle, which was very important in my view.

Iris: They were able to design the station without elevators, which is probably best for such a low-usage station. They have better keep the pathways and ramps clear in winter though.

Baseline (Algonquin): When they built the station box just a few years ago, they provided shafts for future vertical circulation. I know the City requested it be shifted south, but the proponent ignored many of the City's preliminary designs to save money. Why not this one? The main entrance should have been where it was supposed to be originally based on the aerial photograph below. The pedestrian bridge from Algonquin could have connected there instead, providing a direct line from the main campus, through the trades building into the station instead of the detour to the proposed main entrance.


https://www.westsideaction.ca/wlrt-part-iv-baseline-station-queensview-pinecrest-bayshore/
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/trc/2008/11-19/ACS2008-ICS-DCM-0007.htm

[J.OT13]

Forgot to mention for Algonquin Station, in addition to moving the main entrance to its originally intended location, providing a direct pathway from the main campus, through the trades building, into the station, the other shafts provided could be re-purposed as skylight to provide natural light down to platform level.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Forgot to mention for Algonquin Station, in addition to moving the main entrance to its originally intended location, providing a direct pathway from the main campus, through the trades building, into the station, the other shafts provided could be re-purposed as skylight to provide natural light down to platform level.

The Algonquin one is really odd. I agree with your comment that the ACCE building would be better connected to the northern entrance to the station, leaving the southern one for bus connections.

My question is: how will the Baseline BRT access the station?

[YOWetal]

Even the projected $700 million new borrowing which seems optimistic would require substantial tax increases or cuts elsewhere.

Any thoughts on the best cuts to get back under budget? I would think the Iris-Baseline spur and the Airport Spur, but politically Watson was smart to reach into both western ridings. Actually it seems like politically and also logistically the easiest thing would be to cancel the whole southern extension and leave the rest of the project as is. Assuming the Feds and Province agree we could stick to the very important 1/3 principle.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Even the projected $700 million new borrowing which seems optimistic would require substantial tax increases or cuts elsewhere.

Any thoughts on the best cuts to get back under budget? I would think the Iris-Baseline spur and the Airport Spur, but politically Watson was smart to reach into both western ridings. Actually it seems like politically and also logistically the easiest thing would be to cancel the whole southern extension and leave the rest of the project as is. Assuming the Feds and Province agree we could stick to the very important 1/3 principle.

Airport spur is being paid by the feds so thats out of the question. Anyway, reactions like yours is probably why the city hid the true cost of stage 2. Stage 2 should go ahead as planned even though the cost estimate has balloned.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Airport spur is being paid by the feds so thats out of the question. Anyway, reactions like yours is probably why the city hid the true cost of stage 2. Stage 2 should go ahead as planned even though the cost estimate has balloned.

It's all negotiable and I believe it is being paid by Feds, Province and the Airport is building the station. The Federal government isn't going to insist on an airport spur if the other options for cuts impact voters more directly.

To some extent I see your point but we do live in a democracy and people should get to decide if they want to pay for all this. Many wards will barely benefit from this expansion yet will see their tax bill increased dramatically. To do otherwise will only spark a backlash.

[waterloowarrior]

The City did a 16 page report updating the long range financial plan as part of all the LRT reports. We can still afford the project based on the analysis completed.
https://ottawa.primegov.com/portal/#/agenda/7718

[kmcamp]

We have way too small city mentality here and don't realize the value for money we're getting. We just see big numbers, which we aren't used to, but comes with the territory of graduating into big city territory

In total stage 1 and 2 will cost us 7 billion for 57 km of new rail and 35 stations

Vancouver will spend 2.83 billion for 5.7 km of rail and 6 stations for the broadway subway, and spent 1.4 billion for 10k and 6 stations on the evergreen line.

Toronto will spend 3.5 billion+ now for 5km of rail and somewhere between 1 and 3 stations for the Scarborough subway, the recent spadina extension was 3 billion for 8km of rail and 5 stations

The REM is comparable to us at 6.3 billion for 64km but only 26 stations

[J.OT13]

We need to remember that about a third of our expansion is a mostly a single track diesel train.

Toronto is getting royally screwed, no doubt about it. Vancouver's projects prices are on par considering the scope and quality of the stations. The Broadway subway will be just that, a subway. They are getting significantly more for their money compared to Toronto's Scarborough Subway.

With REM, Montreal (or should I say the Caisse) is getting a steal. Those are some large, mostly enclosed stations with platform screen doors, a few very complicated deep level subway stations connecting to the existing Metro and a direct airport to downtown line. We're getting decent value for money, but not REM good.

I'm puzzled as to why the REM offers so much more for the money, but still think we should go through with our project. If we have to save money, a few stations could be removed based on their projected ridership and how easily they could be wedged in at a later date:

Trim would be on my eliminate list, mostly to prevent that mess of a re-alignment for Trim Road and the lack of pedestrian bridge to the north end. If we can't afford the Trim grade separation and that extra ped bridge, maybe we can wait on the station. That said, it might not be possible considering that Trim and the Airport spur are part of that extra $130 million split between the Province and Feds that money could be at risk if the station is eliminated.

Orleans Boulevard and Iris would likely have the lowest ridership of the system, so those are easy cuts. I'm also questioning the need for Queensview.

I don't think it's necessary to have both Leitrim and Bowesville. One of them could easily be eliminated.

All together, it could save us a few hundred million of the total $700 million overrun.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by Catenary

My question is: how will the Baseline BRT access the station?

The answer was in the baseline brt functional design. It's pretty bad. Westbound buses will be travelling on Navaho, then left on woodroffe, right on college, left onto the southern bus loop, around the loop, left onto an extension of college, right into a new north-south road where the city's parking lot is now (to the west of the existing station) then left on Navaho.

The city should move baseline station more north, reuse the existing bus infrastructure, keep baseline brt buses on navaho, and nix the southern bus loop. This would save a bunch of money and be better for the baseline brt in the long term.

[J.OT13]

For Baseline/Algonquin, I would maintain the current configuration for the Barrhaven Transitway service and add a bus loop north of the station to serve the Baseline Transitway. Entrances to the underground station would be in the middle as I proposed earlier on this page (and was the original intention when built), providing the direct link to the College on the second level and an entrance for the Barrhaven transfers, and another one on the north end to serve the Baseline Transitway.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

The City did a 16 page report updating the long range financial plan as part of all the LRT reports. We can still afford the project based on the analysis completed.
https://ottawa.primegov.com/portal/#/agenda/7718

Yeah but with some expensive and dubious assumptions. [1. How soon before people whine about fare increases? 2. A 3% increase seems small but compounded over time will be a burden on those who actually pay property taxes. It may also encourage flight to the parts of the city that don't have transit service. 3.Interest rates are rising and debt has a habit of spiraling so if we get in a little trouble and our credit rating falls we will need to pay even higher rates.]:

"The transit systems will continue to be affordable as long as the following assumptions built into the affordability model are maintained going forward:

• Transit taxes will increase at the same rate as transit’s operating and
capital cost increase.

• Transit fares will increase at the same rate as transit’s operating cost
increase.

• Contributions of two-thirds funding from other levels of government for
BRT projects and 100 per cent funding for future LRT and.

• Interest rates remain at or below 4.75%

Any deviation from these assumptions will require a reassessment of the operating and
capital cost plans going forward."

[PHrenetic]

Good Day.

What I 'love' about the funding formulas for the past five to ten plus years, is that we are still sticking with the 33-33-33 model (at start of project design, worse once it gets into contract), when virtually eveybody else is getting 40-40-20 or better, from the municipal pov. Sheesh!

[lrt's friend]

We better hope the project is not scaled back. This may require re-tendering and re-design work that will inevitably delay completion to beyond 2024-2025.

Regarding value for money, building subways in already built-up areas is going to cost more per km. REM is cheaper because they are using the existing Mount Royal tunnel, an existing rail right of way and the new Champlain Bridge, which is ready made for REM.

We are building on existing right of ways and along an expressway, instead through dense existing neighbourhoods. This will always be cheaper but serves commuters better than urban residents.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

For Baseline/Algonquin, I would maintain the current configuration for the Barrhaven Transitway service and add a bus loop north of the station to serve the Baseline Transitway. Entrances to the underground station would be in the middle as I proposed earlier on this page (and was the original intention when built), providing the direct link to the College on the second level and an entrance for the Barrhaven transfers, and another one on the north end to serve the Baseline Transitway.

I agree!!! Why would we build a new station when there is one already roughed in? The plans as provided by the consortium should not have even been allowed. This is just a way to make more money for the contractors. Stick to the game plan Kiewit !!! Does anyone know if all the other bidders submitted similar proposals for the Baseline station??

[OTownandDown]

Originally Posted by Catenary

The Algonquin one is really odd. I agree with your comment that the ACCE building would be better connected to the northern entrance to the station, leaving the southern one for bus connections.

My question is: how will the Baseline BRT access the station?

I don't think it's a huge change. Perhaps there is a below grade entrance through the basement of the ACCE?

Personally, simplifying the northern intersection at Navaho drive will be a boon to cars travelling down Woodroffe! It seems the BRT will terminate with a simple loop around the northern train entrance.

At the moment, buses enter and exit at both Navaho and College drive. Deleting one will be awesome.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

The plans as provided by the consortium should not have even been allowed. This is just a way to make more money for the contractors. Stick to the game plan Kiewit !!! Does anyone know if all the other bidders submitted similar proposals for the Baseline station??

I wouldn't blame Kiewit. This is the way the City always wanted the design (for some reason, I have no idea what they are thinking on this one). See the last page of this pdf from a May 2017 meeting:

https://www.stage2lrt.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/CON_BaselineWoodroffeSWMPEA_CW.pdf

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Does anyone know if all the other bidders submitted similar proposals for the Baseline station??

The public is never informed on the details of other submissions. For Stage 1, a few renderings came out through the years, but those were part of unbuilt projects page of architects who participated in other bids.

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

I don't think it's a huge change. Perhaps there is a below grade entrance through the basement of the ACCE?

With the centre platform, I'm not sure that would be possible.

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

I wouldn't blame Kiewit. This is the way the City always wanted the design (for some reason, I have no idea what they are thinking on this one). See the last page of this pdf from a May 2017 meeting:

https://www.stage2lrt.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/CON_BaselineWoodroffeSWMPEA_CW.pdf

Has the City ever explained why they moved it?