Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

So, back to the topic at hand, 28 trains ready now

https://www.ligneconfederationline.ca/news/construction-update-218/

I predict they'll start the 12 day service test immediately after they have 30 certified, and a handover date of on or before May 15 for realz this time.

Here's to hoping it goes faster. Would love to see them handover by the end of April.

[swimmer_spe]

The Greenbelt is a great thing and a horrible thing all mixed in one.

Currently the Ottawa - Gatineau area already has one fare zone - the Ottawa River. Using the Greenbelt as a second one makes sense. Tolling does not make sense. If it did, highway 407 would have reduced congestion and would not be getting congested. That is not happening

It might be time to look at developing parts of the green belt that are not significant ecologically important. This would help fill in the distance between and could stem the growth outward.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

It just doesn't work like that though. Development charges across the city are put into a big pot and then fund a number of things. So development downtown is paying for suburban projects and vice versa.

If you look at the Transportation budget page 56, you will see that the "Integrated Road, Sewer & Water Program" (which is what funds full reconstructions like Elgin and Montreal Rd) shows a $0 contribution from development charges. It's about 50/50 between taxes and water/sewer rates.

I think it's a big myth that Nepean and Gloucester were somehow miraculously debt free. Most of their major infrastructure was being paid for by RMOC. So while the cities themselves may have not incurred any debt, the region did in order to develop them.

I did some recent research on development charges. Gloucester and Nepean introduced these charges to fund extension of services to new neighbourhoods. Gloucester first brought them in to extend water and sewer services to Beacon Hill. The Regional Municipality also introduced development charges (on the same houses being built in Gloucester and Nepean) to fund regional road improvements. So, your comment on debt is not really valid.

Ottawa, on the other hand, put them in a pot, something that was extended to all the former municipalities with amalgamation. This was a source of resentment at that time. Placing the charges in a pot made sense for Ottawa because most of the area within the city limits was already developed before amalgamation. Maybe certain projects are funded in different ways but nevertheless, putting the money in a pot, was not the original purpose of development charges.

We seem to be getting further and further away from funding civic projects from general property taxes as a way to make things look better than they are. Instead, we are funding these things with even more regressive fees that are increasing at a pace well above inflation.

We talk about placing more restrictions on suburban development, when very high development charges are already doing this in theory. As I said, adding fees on new development just pushes housing prices higher everywhere. That may be necessary to fund projects, but it does affect general affordability of housing for everybody. So disincentives don't work. Despite the tens of thousands of development charges on new housing in the suburbs, housing will always be more expensive in more central neighbourhoods unless they are in undesirable areas.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Here's to hoping it goes faster. Would love to see them handover by the end of April.

Good chance RTG will have a new handover date by the next FEDCO meeting April 2. For sure by the May meeting if all goes well.

[CityTech]

With 28 trains and double train testing ramping up, I wouldn't be surprised if the 12 day test begins in the next two weeks. We might get handover by late April.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by CityTech

With 28 trains and double train testing ramping up, I wouldn't be surprised if the 12 day test begins in the next two weeks. We might get handover by late April.

I think they'll give themselves all of April and a bit of May as a buffer in case something goes wrong during that 12 day test. They would want to allow enough time to restart another testing cycle

So I say mid may, but they'll say "on or before". If testing goes well, they'd handover early so they can get the final payment and stop
financing their debt.

The real barometer will be Manconi's demeanor. He's always been non commital or outright skeptical when the previous dates were announced. If he sounds confident this time we'll have a winner.

[lrt's friend]

We still don't know about the remaining 6 trains and what challenges they face before they can be licensed. It is not the operational 28 trains that will dictate when service will commence, but those remaining 6. As it stands, I can't see service beginning until late May at the earliest. I still stand by my earlier prediction of post Canada Day July.

[PHrenetic]

Good Day.

Yep.... taking bets on getting the keys on - one year late - of either:

May 7 - the very old first original contract handover day from a long loooonnnng time ago.

May 24 - the 'original' announced handover day.

Either way, it's far closer to the original projected end date by the consortium before Jimmy 'pushed'.

<< we shall see >> EnJoy!

[J.OT13]

Anyone remember if they had discussed any other potential sites for the Stage 1 MSF Yard or was Belfast deemed the best right off the bat for its proximity to OC Transpo's St-Laurent garage and headquarters? Wonder if they plan on expropriating Pepsi at any time in the future in order to consolidate the entire site.

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Anyone remember if they had discussed any other potential sites for the Stage 1 MSF Yard or was Belfast deemed the best right off the bat for its proximity to OC Transpo's St-Laurent garage and headquarters? Wonder if they plan on expropriating Pepsi at any time in the future in order to consolidate the entire site.

Good Day.

Yes, there were several alternatives examined - whether the 'fix' was already in for Belfast was an open question that never got answered.
As for the Pepsi plant - at one point is was under consideration for expropriation along with the rest of Belfast Rd northwest, but :
- design shoehorning got the necessary facilities into the space allowed without the Pepsi plant, with a modicum of expansion capability (since used, as we know !). Opinion was that any furthur size was not necessary, as facilities elsewhere on the RoW would eventually be necessary to avoid excessive deadheading (ie: Woodroffe at VIA, then Moodie).
- opinion at the time was that they were too big and powerful to give up their plant easily (ie: very costly).
Furthur expropriation there is highly unlikely - the belief is that Pepsi likes their plant.

As for the alternatives examined, ref: Section 8 of the 2010 EPR (12 Feb-11 Jun).

8.4 Alternative Maintenance and Storage Facility Candidate Sites ............................................................................... 8-23
8.4.1 Bayview (North and South) ............................... 8-23
8.4.2 Hurdman (North) ............................................. 8-24
8.4.3 Hurdman (South) ............................................. 8-24
8.4.4 Tremblay .......................................................... 8-24
8.4.5 St. Laurent Bus Depot ...................................... 8-24
8.4.6 Industrial/St. Laurent – Innes/St. Laurent .......... 8-25
8.4.7 Algoma ............................................................ 8-25
8.4.8 Aviation Parkway ............................................. 8-25
8.4.9 Pineview ........................................................... 8-25
8.4.10 Eastern Parkway ............................................... 8-25

8.4.1 Bayview (North and South)
This 21.5 hectare site is composed of a 16.5 hectare north parcel and a 5 hectare south parcel. Bayview North is zoned ‘Open Space and Leisure’ and ‘Industrial’, and has commercial properties to the west, open space to the north and east, and the Transitway to the south. Bayview South is a smaller parcel of land and can only be suitably used in association with Bayview North, and is zoned ‘Open Space and Leisure’ and ‘Mixed-Use/Commercial’. Use of the site may require the demolition of the Tom Brown Arena. Parts of the site are owned by the City, and other parts by the NCC.

8.4.2 Hurdman (North)
The 20.3 hectare site is zoned ‘Open Space and Leisure’, with a portion of the site along the river also zoned in the ‘Flood-plain’ overlay zone. Use of this site would require extensive development into this zone and as a consequence would require re-zoning. The proximity of the site to the Rideau River is considered a prime and highly visible location.

8.4.3 Hurdman (South)
This site is approximately 13.4 hectares, depending on the final alignment of the Alta Vista Transportation Corridor, and is zoned ‘Environmental Protection’ and ‘Open Space and Leisure’ zones, with a portion of the site along the river also zoned in the ‘Flood Plain’ overlay zone. The site is considered highly visible and a prime location.

8.4.4 Tremblay
This mainly flat, 12.1 hectare site was recently purchased by PWGSC, and is zoned ‘Light Industrial’. The land’s prestigious location near the St. Laurent Shopping Centre and its proximity to the Queensway/St. Laurent Interchange would mean that joint use would have to be considered.

8.4.5 St. Laurent Bus Depot
The area is zoned ‘Industrial’ and, due to its already preestablished function, the combination of the M&S facility and the bus depot would have some operational benefits if both the LRT operations and bus operations were run by OC Transpo. The site provides 16 hectares of available area, but would include the partial redevelopment of the existing St. Laurent Depot. Further expansion would require the purchase of more lands to the west.

8.4.6 Industrial/St. Laurent – Innes/St. Laurent This site is composed of two parcels totalling 16 hectares, but would require the purchase of other privately owned, adjacent lands. The parcels of land are zoned ‘Industrial’, ‘Mixed-Use/Commercial’ and ‘Open Space and Leisure’ zones and are connected by an abandoned right-of-way and structure under the St. Laurent Boulevard overpass.
The site is at one of the most remote locations and is nearly 2.0km from the proposed alignment, which would increase the non-productive “dead-head” km’s that are needed to connect to the mainline. The connection would involve “cut and cover” tunneling and disruption to roads and the VIA Rail track.

8.4.7 Algoma
The 11 hectare site is owned by the City and is currently used as a municipal snow dump. The land is zoned as ‘Industrial’; however, it is in ‘Light Industrial Subzone’ and may need to be re-zoned to permit the M&S facility to be constructed. The site represents a slightly smaller, 11 hectare, area of land than is currently desirable and, as such, further expansion would require additional facilities to be constructed.

8.4.8 Aviation Parkway
This 18 hectare site within, and adjacent to Highway 174 and Aviation Parkway, is relatively undeveloped and has a number of storm water outlets feeding into a watercourse. The land is zoned as ‘Open Space and Leisure’ and is owned by the City, MTO and the NCC. The proposed LRT alignment would pass through the site, alleviating the complexity of a connecting track.

8.4.9 Pineview
The 12.5 hectare site is relatively flat, and is zoned as ‘Open Space and Leisure’. It is owned by the NCC and is within the Greenbelt and, as such, it would likely be an environmentally sensitive choice as it is bordered by natural habitat to the south and east. The site offers limited scope for expansion unless more of the Pineview golf course is acquired at a later stage.

8.4.10 Eastern Parkway
This 15 hectare site is owned by the NCC, zoned ‘Agricultural’ and is located within the Greenbelt, adjacent to Highway 174. This site would need to be re-zoned to permit the construction of the Maintenance and Storage Facility.
The site is outside the study zone, and although it is along the likely future route of an easterly expansion of the system to Orléans it is on the opposite side of the highway to the assumed Transitway corridor.

and

Within the area comprising Site 5, three potential Maintenance and Storage Facility positions were evaluated.
Location 1: Easterly Position (Using part of the existing St. Laurent Bus Depot parking lot).
Location 2: Westerly Position (Using the existing OC Transpo storage area and westerly properties).
Location 3: Central Position (Using existing OC Transpo storage area, 767 Belfast Road and Pepsi bottling plant).

8.6.1 Refinement of Preferred Site
An additional evaluation of the Easterly, Westerly and Central Positions within the overall St. Laurent Depot (Site 5) was undertaken, with each alternative ranked in terms of
“responsiveness” to the relevant criteria on a scale of 0-3; from least to most responsive, using the indicators identified. The overall most responsive alternative was then identified by summarizing the degree to which each of the criteria and associated indicators were met.
It is important to note that this was a completely separate evaluation, and that the ranking scale was meant to distinguish the three St. Laurent Depot Positions and was not related to the rankings contained in the evaluation of the ten original candidate sites.
Under both the ‘comparative evaluation’ and the ‘percentage ranking’ methodologies, the Westerly Position emerged as the preferred site for the Maintenance and Storage Facility.
Its principal advantages are that it is the least expensive in terms of capital costs and maintenance and operation costs, and that it is considered to be the least expensive and least complicated in terms of land acquisition.

EnJoy!

[Ottawaresident]

I hate long posts.

[J.OT13]

Thanks for this!

Bayview would have been a huge waste of prime land. Not only is it downtown, but the intersection of two (maybe one day three) transit lines.

Hurdman too has too much potential to waste on rail yards.

Tremblay could have worked, but again, the site is prime for TOD with the addition of a short pedestrian tunnel or bridge.

St. Laurent Depot is a bit far from the line. It would also have necessitated us to build a whole new bus garage and (maybe) new OC HQ.

Industrial/St. Laurent – Innes/St. Laurent and Algoma are way too far from the line.

Aviation's site is between Biley A. Blax Park and the 174 I assume. Way too close to residential. The waterworks in that area would have made the site hard to develop.

Pineview would have been a good spot had it not been occupied by the golf course. Don't think the NCC would have allowed it.

Is Eastern Parkway the G.E.C. Parkway? If I'm understanding this correctly, it ould be south of the Queenway. Would have made Stage 1 fairly more expensive.

The site they ended up choosing is the best IMO. Doesn't take up any green space or TOD potential, within an industrial site, adjacent to big box stores and provides plenty of room for expansion (if we eventually expropriate Pepsi (they'll likely move out on their own eventually, at which point we could snatch it up) and eat up the bus depot).

[J.OT13]

Here's another question; anyone know if/how they used the rock and soil dug out for the tunnel?

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Thanks for this!

.........

Aviation's site is between Biley A. Blax Park and the 174 I assume. Way too close to residential. The waterworks in that area would have made the site hard to develop.

Is Eastern Parkway the G.E.C. Parkway? If I'm understanding this correctly, it ould be south of the Queenway. Would have made Stage 1 fairly more expensive.

...........

Good Day.
Aviation site is indeed where you think - the parcel ( quarry or SWM pond ?) south of Palmerston Dr. and north of the RoW. the proposal would have overlaid and included the RoW, similar to the plan for Moodie.

Eastern Parkway has indeed been renamed since the report to GEC Parkway, with the proposed site to the northeast of the GEC /174 overpass.

The referenced doc had thumbnail aerial photos of the sites.

As for the berm fill (tunnel spoil), the only memory I have of it being mentioned was that it was to be removed and processed as it would otherwise have been upon removal from the tunnel. That involves it being regarded as mildly low level toxic waste fill. Where it actually ended up I know not.

EnJoy!

[pattherat]

FYI,

Every train tonight in the Pimisi-Bayview stretch are doubles. Not as frequent as 2-3 mins but seems like 7 or so...

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Here's another question; anyone know if/how they used the rock and soil dug out for the tunnel?

It seemed to me that a lot of it was piled up south of Hurdman Station.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by pattherat

FYI,

Every train tonight in the Pimisi-Bayview stretch are doubles. Not as frequent as 2-3 mins but seems like 7 or so...

Testing evening service, every 8 minutes?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Ottawaresident

I hate long posts.

Then don't read them. It explains the way you ask questions that have already been answered though. I hope this post wasn't too long for you.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

provides plenty of room for expansion (if we eventually expropriate Pepsi (they'll likely move out on their own eventually, at which point we could snatch it up) and eat up the bus depot).

I think that ship has sailed. The way the tracks curve in the yard, expansion would be difficult. Besides, as PHrenetic said, "facilities elsewhere on the RoW would eventually be necessary to avoid excessive deadheading," so more, smaller yards is better than fewer bigger ones.


Map data ©2019 Google

[RomanR27]

I noticed that the destination signs at Tunney's this morning said "1 St. Laurent" for both the departures listed.