LRT Stage 3

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The ongoing Montreal Road project narrows the street to three lanes. Urban streetcars wouldn't work along that corridor because it is too narrow, too slow and too many traffic lights.

Urban streetcars could work well on the very wide Carling corridor. A tunnel could be built under the Glebe to terminate at Lansdowne (or Hurdman). Anything that serves Montreal-Rideau-Bank would need to be underground. We could use technology akin to Expo/Millenium lines or the Montreal REM with short 90-100 meter stations. It dosen't need to be a heavy subway like Toronto or even the Montreal Metro.



I agree with all of this. Better to serve commercial corridors. Q.E. would do little to promote transit usage and it runs parallel to the existing Confederation Line for part of the route.

I too think that Orleans South (Cumberland Transitway) is next in line as Stage 4 Confederation based on the City's current planning policies.

I would argue that, if we hadn't narrowed Montreal, a surface ROW would have been possible for most of the route. The only section where it would really require underground routing would be in the core of Vanier (from Cyr to de l'Eglise).

[Nowhere]

Originally Posted by JHikka

I doubt it. For every new condo on Bank there's two new subdivisions in Kanata and Orleans. Of course, Ottawa's downtown is densifying, but I don't think the proportion is shifting any meaningful amount towards urban residents.

Considering the actual economic crisis that should last for quite a while, I assume that a lot of people will run out of money to buy mcmansions, which should force the construction of more rentals and density.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by CityTech

I would argue that, if we hadn't narrowed Montreal, a surface ROW would have been possible for most of the route. The only section where it would really require underground routing would be in the core of Vanier (from Cyr to de l'Eglise).

Had they maintained four lanes and instead established proper, enforced, bus lanes all along Montreal to Blair Road and eliminated a few intersections (create cul-de-sacs like downtown along small streets), they could have increased reliability and ridership significantly, building a case for a future subway.

Instead, the City opted for making Montreal even more of a mess for both cars and buses.

From St-Laurent, you could bring a future subway line back to the surface. You could have streetcars with signal priority, but even then you are limiting speed and capacity. Elevated rail past St-Laurent would by my first choice.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Nowhere

Considering the actual economic crisis that should last for quite a while, I assume that a lot of people will run out of money to buy mcmansions, which should force the construction of more rentals and density.

While the mcmansions get all the attention, they compose a very small percentage of the suburbs. Most new developments are townhouses, duplexes and modest single family homes.

Besides, it takes years to plan, develop and build new rental properties, and by the time they come to market, the economic situation will likely have improved. A more likely scenario is that if people can't afford to buy, the cost of renting will jump and the cost to buy will drop until it balances out again.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by CityTech

A nice urban tram-style LRT route across the central city could be:

*Starting at Blair station
*Travel north on Blair in a new ROW built on the west side of Blair (using the federal property)
*Cut across the NRC property (lots of empty fields and forests that can be used) to the intersection of Bathgate & Den Haag
*Proceed on Den Haag (serving La Cite) to Montreal Road at Montfort - if necessary, some widening could be done to create a tram ROW as Den Haag has no driveways and a pretty wide buffer zone separating the road from the sidewalks and property lines
*Follow Montreal/Rideau down to Rideau station - there's bus lanes already, so enough room for both 2 car lanes and 2 tran lanes
*From Rideau, head down Elgin - have segregated tram and car lanes down to about Nepean (where the road narrows). From Nepean down to Argyle, have Elgin be a European-style tramway and pedestrian roadway, with no cars
*From Elgin, head down the QED, which would be turned into a tramway and closed to traffic, to reach Lansdowne and Carling station
*Proceed down Carling to Lincoln Fields

Much of this could have been done in conjunction with the ongoing/soon-to-be-started rebuilds of Elgin and Montreal.

Going north from Blair Station to Montreal Road is about 1 km of "dead zone" where there will be very few potential riders. Greenspace on one side and a handful of low-density bungalows on the other.

I'd suggest keeping it on Montreal Road all the way to Montreal Road Station.

That way you at least have some higher density residential along the route (potential for densification too) and some business which are destinations too.

It would also bring higher order transit closer to Beacon Hill North whereas Beacon Hill South is already served by Blair Station (and maybe Jasmine Station eventually).

Finally it might give Montreal Road Station a bit more of a raison-d'être as a transfer point for people going from Orleans to La Cité collégiale, Montfort, NRC, CMHC and other points in the Vanier area.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

A Queen Elizabeth routing bypasses both the Elgin and Bank commercial strips, which I would argue that we would want to support in our planning towards the future and further densify. If we are going to the expense of building a tramway or even more so, a subway, it better support our commercial destinations to a max. After the Confederation Line is completed, which is mainly a commuter route, future urban routes need to go through destinations and not around destinations..

Well, sure in most cities the main north-south street like Bank would be a shoo-in for a subway route but I am going with the age-old Ottawa ethos that favours low-hanging fruit.

Queen Elizabeth isn’t really that remote from the main commercial street zones as for much of its routing it’s only two blocks away from Elgin and Bank. I’ve walked from the canal to Bank and Elgin many many times even on cold winter days and it’s really not that far at all.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I would even argue that the South Orleans Transitway is next to useless for our future, when an Innes corridor would be much more worthwhile, as current bus routes already suggest.

I have actually been thinking about this as well.
The way that thing in South Orléans is planned now it runs through residential areas, generally low to medium density. Clearly the goal is to get people to and from their downtown government jobs as quickly a possible. With a nice number of them being able to walk to stations from their suburban homes.
If Ottawa wants to truly make transit a driver for a vibrant, more urban-style city (including in the burbs) then you’d run that line right down Innes where all of the shops and services are.
With the South Orleans line running where it’s planned, no one in Orleans or anywhere in Ottawa for that matters is going to take transit to go somewhere on Innes 20 years from now, any more than they will today. They are all going to drive. Unless they have absolutely no choice. It will change nothing to travel patterns in the area.
But run it down Innes and maybe teens from Blackburn Hamlet will ride it to go to the movies in Orleans, or go have dinner after shopping with friends.
Local residents who work downtown and take the train might stop off at businesses on Innes to run some errands on their way home from work, and time everything for a local bus from a station along Innes that will drop them at the corner of their street.
But with the routing to the south, everyone (who has any choice at all) still takes the car to do anything on Innes. Which is where all the stuff is – for better or for worse.

[TransitZilla]

^ Maybe what's needed is a "hybrid" solution that follows the South Orleans corridor between Blair and Mer Bleue Rd (to serve the Chapel Hill P&R, surrounding development, the Health Hub and the future Mer Bleue MUC), then turns north up Mer Bleue and east on Innes.

The transit corridor through Avalon is flanked by townhouses and singles. There is no chance that would ever become a high ridership transit line. It's better off left as a cycling path.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by CityTech

I would argue that, if we hadn't narrowed Montreal, a surface ROW would have been possible for most of the route. The only section where it would really require underground routing would be in the core of Vanier (from Cyr to de l'Eglise).

The section being narrowed to 3 lanes (Vanier Pkwy to St Laurent) is only slightly longer than the section you're suggesting would need to be tunneled anyway.

[Truenorth00]

I'll go back to my original point. I feel like Stage 3 it's not happening before 2030. The provincial and federal governments are so loaded up with debt and demands for all kinds of shovel ready projects that selling Stage 3 is going to be challenging. Especially while Stage 2 is still under construction and we take years to recover to ridership highs from both the recession and LRT reliability issues.

I'm wondering if more small extensions would be more sellable. For example, have the Barrhaven extension be a phase by itself. That could probably be supported by 2030. Twin tracking and electrification of Trillium could be another project by itself. And of course the westward extension into Kanata another phase by itself.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'll go back to my original point. I feel like Stage 3 it's not happening before 2030. The provincial and federal governments are so loaded up with debt and demands for all kinds of shovel ready projects that selling Stage 3 is going to be challenging. Especially while Stage 2 is still under construction and we take years to recover to ridership highs from both the recession and LRT reliability issues.

I'm wondering if more small extensions would be more sellable. For example, have the Barrhaven extension be a phase by itself. That could probably be supported by 2030. Twin tracking and electrification of Trillium could be another project by itself. And of course the westward extension into Kanata another phase by itself.

Depending how long this depression lasts, it could be done once Stage 2 opens. Some of the things you mention, are in themselves part of the ideas of stage 3.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'll go back to my original point. I feel like Stage 3 it's not happening before 2030. The provincial and federal governments are so loaded up with debt and demands for all kinds of shovel ready projects that selling Stage 3 is going to be challenging. Especially while Stage 2 is still under construction and we take years to recover to ridership highs from both the recession and LRT reliability issues.

I'm wondering if more small extensions would be more sellable. For example, have the Barrhaven extension be a phase by itself. That could probably be supported by 2030. Twin tracking and electrification of Trillium could be another project by itself. And of course the westward extension into Kanata another phase by itself.

I tend to agree. Probably the easiest small extension to sell would be the aprox. 6.6 km from Moodie to Terry Fox. Some of it is already being built anyway for the connection to the maintenance facility and other then Eagelson Station, is easy to do as much of the infrastructure is already in place. This would add 2 park and rides to the line and allow multiple local bus connections to the line.

The extension to Barrhaven will be significantly more difficult and isn't as close to being shovel ready. Having said that, there certainly some merit to combining Stage 3 with the VIA Rail grade separations at both the existing Transitway and at Fallowfield.

[J.OT13]

I agree Terry Fox and Fallowfield would be easy sells. After Stage 2 is complete, it might be better to built short extension that can be completed fast for less money than overreaching for a full build-out which could drag on for another 5-10 years beyond 2025.

[Truenorth00]

Terry Fox and Fallowfield are two different projects. And I'd argue that if HFR gets the green light, the Fallowfield extension is an easier sell. Kanata, Terry Fox and beyond, may have to be a phase by itself.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Terry Fox and Fallowfield are two different projects. And I'd argue that if HFR gets the green light, the Fallowfield extension is an easier sell. Kanata, Terry Fox and beyond, may have to be a phase by itself.

Could they all be combined? Or, why are the 2 you mention expected to be together in the first place?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Could they all be combined? Or, why are the 2 you mention expected to be together in the first place?

At the moment, Watson wants the entire Kanata and Barrhaven extensions be built at the same time, fully funded by the Feds and Province. On paper, the proposed funding formula makes sense considering the GTA's projects are always split between Feds and Prov. while Ottawa always ends up paying 40%+.

Terry Fox and Fallowfield in one shot is much more realistic than Watson's overreach.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

At the moment, Watson wants the entire Kanata and Barrhaven extensions be built at the same time, fully funded by the Feds and Province. On paper, the proposed funding formula makes sense considering the GTA's projects are always split between Feds and Prov. while Ottawa always ends up paying 40%+.

Terry Fox and Fallowfield in one shot is much more realistic than Watson's overreach.

But it is not how the GTA does it. They do each extension one at a time.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

At the moment, Watson wants the entire Kanata and Barrhaven extensions be built at the same time, fully funded by the Feds and Province. On paper, the proposed funding formula makes sense considering the GTA's projects are always split between Feds and Prov. while Ottawa always ends up paying 40%+.

Terry Fox and Fallowfield in one shot is much more realistic than Watson's overreach.

Unless there's some abnormal revolt by Ottawa voters, we can almost guarantee that neither of these projects will be so much in demand politically that candidates will be pushing their parties to deliver in 1-2 terms. Suburban voters after all rarely have transit high on the list.

This is why I'd argue selling several smaller projects is more feasible. One at a time. Makes for more ribbon cuttings over more years too.

[OTownandDown]

I'd always assumed the Trillium South extension WAS the Barfhaven connection?

I guess I'd always thought that suburban lines were just gigantic walmart-style parking lots with a train station in the middle. Didn't realize we had to snake our way through these low-density neighbourhoods so that Karen can walk to the station.

If we can't afford Stage 3/4, we should try to expand the parking lots. I know Eagleson is full to the brim daily. It should be bigger.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

I'd always assumed the Trillium South extension WAS the Barfhaven connection?

I guess I'd always thought that suburban lines were just gigantic walmart-style parking lots with a train station in the middle. Didn't realize we had to snake our way through these low-density neighbourhoods so that Karen can walk to the station.

If we can't afford Stage 3/4, we should try to expand the parking lots. I know Eagleson is full to the brim daily. It should be bigger.

The bridge is a choke point for Barrhaven residents.

Your idea for Eagleson warrants some study. Build a large GO like parking structure there. Charge $2 a day to park there. And terminate the LRT there. Would probably be sufficient to last through 2040.