LRT Stage 3 - Page 11

OTownandDown · #**201** Posted **Nov 5, 2019, 7:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

A bunch of alternatives were considered for Stage 3 Kanata, but this was not one of them... I would have to assume that they reasoned they did not want to split frequency again for two Kanata branches.

Still, I think this would have been a decent alternative if combined with good BRT links between the two Kanata branches.

Having the train run directly to where people live would make the most sense for commuters, rather than running the train line down the one major highway bounded by commercial real estate and large distances to population centres. However building just one line, cheaply, down the highway could work, as long as there are large park-n-rides for Debbie to park the minivan on her way to work.

AR-OTT · #**202** Posted **Nov 5, 2019, 8:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Someone remind me again why we don't use existing city ROW ownership for Stage 3? I do understand the rationale behind the current plan for Kanata LRT, but it seems like this alternative would also be feasible.

The southern branch you charted out would replace the Trans Canada Trail which I'm sure would receive a lot of community push-back. It would also run adjacent to more residential neighborhoods than the current alignment which would mean even more push-back due to noise concerns. However, I do think the actual station locations you have are better serving to commuters than the stations in the current alignment.

zzptichka · #**203** Posted **Nov 5, 2019, 8:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Someone remind me again why we don't use existing city ROW ownership for Stage 3? I do understand the rationale behind the current plan for Kanata LRT, but it seems like this alternative would also be feasible.

They studied 13 corridors including these and went with the one that scored better according to their criteria: https://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/documents/files/kanata_lrt_poh1_boards_en.pdf

danishh · #**204** Posted **Nov 5, 2019, 8:30 PM**

i'd rather rail-bank the city-owned ROWs for long-term commuter rail.

this discussion has reminded me that the city recently posted that they will begin the negotiations to buy the beachburg and walkley subdivisons from CN.

http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=391119
http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/cache/2/v1slwddgr3m4rxtacsfsee0v/6105111105201903291436.PDF

roger1818 · #**205** Posted **Nov 5, 2019, 8:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Someone remind me again why we don't use existing city ROW ownership for Stage 3? I do understand the rationale behind the current plan for Kanata LRT, but it seems like this alternative would also be feasible.

Splitting the route would double the cost and half the frequency of service. Also, neither route would serve any of the major Park & Rides (they might be able to loop the track around to serve the Innovation Park & Ride, but it isn't in all that convenient a location ), which would further increase the cost, as new ones would need to be built.

One of the other issues was that a requirement of the study was that the route serve the CTC and it was awkward for either of those routes to do that. Now I am not sure that I agree with that requirement, but it was a factor in the study.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

A bunch of alternatives were considered for Stage 3 Kanata, but this was not one of them... I would have to assume that they reasoned they did not want to split frequency again for two Kanata branches.

Still, I think this would have been a decent alternative if combined with good BRT links between the two Kanata branches.

They did look at both of those routes individually, just not at building both. My guess is the combined cost would have been well over $2.5 billion, even if only one branch served the CTC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

Having the train run directly to where people live would make the most sense for commuters, rather than running the train line down the one major highway bounded by commercial real estate and large distances to population centres. However building just one line, cheaply, down the highway could work, as long as there are large park-n-rides for Debbie to park the minivan on her way to work.

While most of the single family homes are near the two branches, most of the high density housing is near the highway (it isn't just commercial).

roger1818 · #**206** Posted **Nov 5, 2019, 8:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by danishh

i'd rather rail-bank the city-owned ROWs for long-term commuter rail.

I have said this before, but the Beachburg sub would make for a long, roundabout route to downtown and would thus likely take as long for most as taking the Confederation Line. If by long-term you mean over 50 years from now, then maybe capacity might eventually become an issue, but it will be a while before Ottawa is large enough to make commuter rail viable.

Quote:

this discussion has reminded me that the city recently posted that they will begin the negotiations to buy the beachburg and walkley subdivisons from CN.

http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=391119
http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/cache/2/v1slwddgr3m4rxtacsfsee0v/6105111105201903291436.PDF

Interesting. It is unfortunate that the referenced attachments weren't included with the memo. I would assume that VIA Rail is buying the section of the Beachburg sub that they use (including the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Federal Bridge).

It does say they intend to acquire "the Beachburg (8.5 km) and Walkley (5.8 km) corridors." Looking at the CN Three-Year Rail Network Plan, that makes me think that they intend to acquire:

Alexandria / Walkley Line Spur mile 0.00 to 4.09,
Alexandria / Walkley Line Spur mile 4.11 to 5.83, and
Beachburg mile 6.00 to 14.50

Which makes sense as VIA would likely want:

Beachburg mile 0.30 to 6.00

I expect Ottawa already partially owns:

Alexandria / Walkley Line Spur mile 4.09 4.11

for the O-Train.

Interesting that there is no mention of section of the Beachburgh Sub that CN already discontinued.

eltodesukane · #**207** Posted **Nov 5, 2019, 11:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

The greenbelt is not helping.

Norman Bates · #**208** Posted **Nov 6, 2019, 2:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Someone remind me again why we don't use existing city ROW ownership for Stage 3? I do understand the rationale behind the current plan for Kanata LRT, but it seems like this alternative would also be feasible.

Because then it would be walking distance from my home.

Uhuniau · #**209** Posted **Nov 6, 2019, 4:16 AM**

The more connections we built across the canal (and to a lesser degree Rideau River), the more and more sense it makes to consider permanent bus service, or even - gasp - trolleybus? trolley? - along the Driveway.

At very least, SnoBus type service for any large event at Lansdowne.

OCCheetos · #**210** Posted **Nov 6, 2019, 4:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by roger1818

Interesting that there is no mention of section of the Beachburgh Sub that CN already discontinued.

It is now a snowmobile trail. I'm not sure if the land was actually sold by CN though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The more connections we built across the canal (and to a lesser degree Rideau River), the more and more sense it makes to consider permanent bus service, or even - gasp - trolleybus? trolley? - along the Driveway.

At very least, SnoBus type service for any large event at Lansdowne.

I'm not sure I see the relation to Stage 3, but that's something the NCC would immediately shoot down. Buses on their parkways/driveways are a big no-no (with certain "short term" exceptions).

roger1818 · #**211** Posted **Nov 6, 2019, 2:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

It is now a snowmobile trail. I'm not sure if the land was actually sold by CN though.

True. As discussed in the Rural Commuter Rail thread, it looks like the ROW is still owned by CN but the West Carleton Snowmobile Trails Association is leasing the land during the winter for use by its member only (everyone else is considered trespassing).

Quote:

I'm not sure I see the relation to Stage 3, but that's something the NCC would immediately shoot down. Buses on their parkways/driveways are a big no-no (with certain "short term" exceptions).

It really depends how it is sold to the NCC. Running diesel buses on the roadway would most likely be viewed negatively, but some type of quaint trolley (as Uhuniau said, especially if they were battery powered to avoid the need for overhead wires) or grade separated LRT (similar to what is being done on the SJAM parkway) might be viewed more favourably. They might also be open to the idea of using clean, quiet, electric buses exclusively on the route.

danishh · #**212** Posted **Nov 6, 2019, 4:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by roger1818

I have said this before, but the Beachburg sub would make for a long, roundabout route to downtown and would thus likely take as long for most as taking the Confederation Line. If by long-term you mean over 50 years from now, then maybe capacity might eventually become an issue, but it will be a while before Ottawa is large enough to make commuter rail viable.

Yeah, really long-term. Using the Beachburg Sub for rural commuter rail doesnt make sense to me until we want stations at dunrobin and fitzroy for new greenfield development in those areas.

[/QUOTE]

OCCheetos · #**213** Posted **Nov 6, 2019, 4:46 PM**

The draft budget includes $1.7 million for rail corridor protection.

CityTech · #**214** Posted **Nov 6, 2019, 4:46 PM**

Turn the QED into a tramway, leave Colonel By for the cars.

Uhuniau · #**215** Posted **Nov 6, 2019, 7:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I'm not sure I see the relation to Stage 3, but that's something the NCC would immediately shoot down. Buses on their parkways/driveways are a big no-no (with certain "short term" exceptions).

I don't care what the NCC has to think about anything. Even they can be ground down, eventually.

No direct relation to Phase 3, just looking at the very obvious urban-area gaps remaining on our transit-vision map.

zzptichka · #**216** Posted **Nov 6, 2019, 8:06 PM**

NCC would love a tram down QED. City would have a temper tantrum though.

613Steve · #**217** Posted **Nov 6, 2019, 8:33 PM**

It'd serve as a pretty nice link between Carling Station and uOttawa/the rest of downtown. I think it's a pretty neat transit option but I don't think it'll ever happen unfortunately.

danishh · #**218** Posted **Nov 6, 2019, 8:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

The draft budget includes $1.7 million for rail corridor protection.

that has to be the beachburg/walkley subdivision purchases from CN.

roger1818 · #**219** Posted **Nov 6, 2019, 9:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by danishh

that has to be the beachburg/walkley subdivision purchases from CN.

My thought as well. CN's portion of the Walkley yard is probably a large chunk of that cost.

swimmer_spe · #**220** Posted **Jan 11, 2020, 6:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Lets say the city only converted the BRT to LRT.
Phase 1 added 12 km.
Phase 2 will add about 25 km.

Let's say they add between 10-25km each phase. How many phases till all the existing BRT will be converted, if they do that?

Would that be a sufficient network?

If that was done, where would gaps be?
Where would the choke points that more trains per hour wouldn't fix be?