Lansdowne 2.0 (Northside Stands/Arena Redevelopment) | U/C

[roger1818]

All good points, and I think we seem to be coming closer to agreeing.
The big difference is you seem to think this project is urgent and I am not quite sure what the rush is. I feel like Lansdowne 1.0 was rushed and we ended up with an incomplete development, hence the need for a Lansdowne 2.0. I don't want to see a Lansdowne 3.0 in a decade to fix the problems with Lansdowne 2.0.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by roger1818

All good points, and I think we seem to be coming closer to agreeing.
The big difference is you seem to think this project is urgent and I am not quite sure what the rush is. I feel like Lansdowne 1.0 was rushed and we ended up with an incomplete development, hence the need for a Lansdowne 2.0. I don't want to see a Lansdowne 3.0 in a decade to fix the problems with Lansdowne 2.0.

Yeah, not sure we are far off on the bigger items. Urgent is definitely an overstatement, but it is something that can't wait a decade given the condition of the buildings. There's also definitely some cynicism on my part, given the extensive consultations on Lansdowne 1.0 that arguably resulted in a worse final product. I'd rather see them develop a detailed concept, and then consult the public on specific aspects where the input is productive and doesn't just provide a forum for obstructionism.

I think that the issues with the initial project were more related to cheapness of this city, and which resulted in a decision not to replace the 50-year old stands and arena at the same time as the rest of the work was being done. I don't see it as having been rushed, as it was initially proposed in 2006 or 2007 and didn't see the light of day until 2014. I was at 4-5 consultations personally, before I became disenchanted.

[lrt's friend]

As far as traffic impacts, we cannot look at this project in isolation. There are other high rise proposals along the Bank Street corridor, so the cumulative impact is more important.

The same applies to rapid transit on QED. That mainly serves the Lansdowne proposal only. Most other Bank Street projects would be poorly served. All developments along Preston are more directly served by the Trillium Line.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

As far as traffic impacts, we cannot look at this project in isolation. There are other high rise proposals along the Bank Street corridor, so the cumulative impact is more important.

The same applies to rapid transit on QED. That mainly serves the Lansdowne proposal only. Most other Bank Street projects would be poorly served. All developments along Preston are more directly served by the Trillium Line.

I agree. Much better to do comprehensive transportation planning than to try to plan in the context of one project.

As for the Preston projects, the QED line would get you downtown without a transfer.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by phil235

I agree. Much better to do comprehensive transportation planning than to try to plan in the context of one project.

As for the Preston projects, the QED line would get you downtown without a transfer.

True, but unless the line is run underground, there will be speed restrictions along the QED. In other words, it would truly operate as a --- slow --- tram.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

True, but unless the line is run underground, there will be speed restrictions along the QED. In other words, it would truly operate as a --- slow --- tram.

Realistically what would the speeds around the Lansdowne section be? There aren’t many cross-streets to slow it down, but I assume you mean restrictions due to the surrounding houses and park?

[RuralCitizen]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

As far as traffic impacts, we cannot look at this project in isolation. There are other high rise proposals along the Bank Street corridor, so the cumulative impact is more important.

The same applies to rapid transit on QED. That mainly serves the Lansdowne proposal only. Most other Bank Street projects would be poorly served. All developments along Preston are more directly served by the Trillium Line.

Wrong, The QED alignment would be part of a line along Carling which would serve the Civic, the Royal, Westgate, the big development planned behind the Canadian Tire, Carlingwood, Lincoln heights,... It would also serve all of Elgin St.

I wouldn't say this is looked in isolation especially considering the "high rise proposals along the" Carling corridor. In my opinion there might be more potential for high rise and density along Carling than Bank St.

Bank St. is 500m away from Elgin, it is close enough to be properly served through a Elgin tram.

As it was mentioned earlier, Lansdowne actually is missing a East-West connection with the rest of the city. To leave the site you either have to go South to reach Riverside or Bronson, and North to reach the Highway. If we maintain buses along Bank St. and add tram on QED we would have dual means of transportation for the site. Making buses less packed, and allowing Immediate East-West displacements.

That would leave public transit in very close proximity to commerce's front door. People underestimate the time and distance it takes to go up and down a subway station, especially for people with reduced mobility who have to wait for elevators. A bus and tram is immediately on the surface. A tram on QED might be slower, but it would still be faster than a bus on Bank with all the red lights. So why not have both?

I just think the business case for a underground subway under Bank st is dead because you can do way more to serve the city, with the same amount of money.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

True, but unless the line is run underground, there will be speed restrictions along the QED. In other words, it would truly operate as a --- slow --- tram.

If there are no at-grade intersections, why would the hypothetical QED portion need to run at slow tram speeds?

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by roger1818

All good points, and I think we seem to be coming closer to agreeing.
The big difference is you seem to think this project is urgent and I am not quite sure what the rush is. I feel like Lansdowne 1.0 was rushed and we ended up with an incomplete development, hence the need for a Lansdowne 2.0. I don't want to see a Lansdowne 3.0 in a decade to fix the problems with Lansdowne 2.0.

You don't like the Microsoft Method(TM) of operating system releases, but in stadium form?

It amuses me that QED is now an acronym for something else than QED.

The QED tram would be a terrible idea. QED.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

If there are no at-grade intersections, why would the hypothetical QED portion need to run at slow tram speeds?

isn't it obvious? It is a heavily used park with pedestrians and cyclists crossing everywhere. Have you not noticed that pedestrians don't cross the Confederation Line or the Trillium Line and both are fenced to keep pedestrians out?

If we are going to run trains at high speeds along the corridor, then are we not creating something worse than the current parkway?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by RuralCitizen

Wrong, The QED alignment would be part of a line along Carling which would serve the Civic, the Royal, Westgate, the big development planned behind the Canadian Tire, Carlingwood, Lincoln heights,... It would also serve all of Elgin St.

I wouldn't say this is looked in isolation especially considering the "high rise proposals along the" Carling corridor. In my opinion there might be more potential for high rise and density along Carling than Bank St.

Bank St. is 500m away from Elgin, it is close enough to be properly served through a Elgin tram.

As it was mentioned earlier, Lansdowne actually is missing a East-West connection with the rest of the city. To leave the site you either have to go South to reach Riverside or Bronson, and North to reach the Highway. If we maintain buses along Bank St. and add tram on QED we would have dual means of transportation for the site. Making buses less packed, and allowing Immediate East-West displacements.

That would leave public transit in very close proximity to commerce's front door. People underestimate the time and distance it takes to go up and down a subway station, especially for people with reduced mobility who have to wait for elevators. A bus and tram is immediately on the surface. A tram on QED might be slower, but it would still be faster than a bus on Bank with all the red lights. So why not have both?

I just think the business case for a underground subway under Bank st is dead because you can do way more to serve the city, with the same amount of money.

Wrong? There was nothing I said was wrong. What I said was entirely correct. A QED route would not serve other Bank Street projects well and the Trillium Line is a more direct route to downtown for all development along Preston. I made no statement of density possibilities on Carling. I will state that QED density possibilites are very limited.

You cannot say that a subway gives worse service because of having to go up and down an escalator while also saying that a 500m walk between Bank and Elgin is perfectly adequate.

I have not seen any business case regarding a Bank Street subway. There has been no serious examination of it.

While a Carling LRT has been included on the TMP, no extension into downtown has ever been included. Where is the business case for that?

I have to question your statement on what accomplishes more. I would argue that a grade separated rail line will accomplish more than at grade trams which will necessitate the closure of more urban streets and which will have to stop at traffic signals.

As far as cost, the QED route from Lincoln Fields to downtown is much longer than a Bank Street subway to Billings Bridge. While tunneling is more costly, will the suggested route along QED really be cheaper? I doubt it.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

While a Carling LRT has been included on the TMP, no extension into downtown has ever been included. Where is the business case for that?

Isn't the business case for this one obvious? If the Carling LRT ends at Preston, passengers coming eastbound on Carling would need to transfer twice to reach downtown. Or if it continues to Bronson, I suppose you could transfer to the #10 to go downtown, which would make Ottawa pretty unique in requiring a transfer to lower-order transit to reach the city centre. ("Take OC Transpo - we have modern trains that take you all the way to a bus stop on Bronson, where you can wait 20 minutes for a bus the rest of the way downtown!")

Carling is a no-brainer for me - a high ridership corridor with lots of room to add transit and all sorts of redevelopment potential. Connecting it through Lansdowne to create an E-W route that serves both universities while providing a direct route downtown is a pretty solid rationale as well. The real issue is that Carling hasn't been made a higher priority in the transit plan, not that it lacks a business case.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

True, but unless the line is run underground, there will be speed restrictions along the QED. In other words, it would truly operate as a --- slow --- tram.

Reminder that "slow" in this context means running at an average speed of 25kmh compared to 30kmh of Confederation line.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Reminder that "slow" in this context means running at an average speed of 25kmh compared to 30kmh of Confederation line.

An example of a tramway in a segregate right of way is the St. Clair streetcar in Toronto.

The speed of the St. Clair tramway is 13 to 16 kph.

https://stevemunro.ca/2021/03/05/the-gradual-slowing-of-512-st-clair/

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by phil235

Isn't the business case for this one obvious? If the Carling LRT ends at Preston, passengers coming eastbound on Carling would need to transfer twice to reach downtown. Or if it continues to Bronson, I suppose you could transfer to the #10 to go downtown, which would make Ottawa pretty unique in requiring a transfer to lower-order transit to reach the city centre. ("Take OC Transpo - we have modern trains that take you all the way to a bus stop on Bronson, where you can wait 20 minutes for a bus the rest of the way downtown!")

Carling is a no-brainer for me - a high ridership corridor with lots of room to add transit and all sorts of redevelopment potential. Connecting it through Lansdowne to create an E-W route that serves both universities while providing a direct route downtown is a pretty solid rationale as well. The real issue is that Carling hasn't been made a higher priority in the transit plan, not that it lacks a business case.

I said that the QED tramway does not have a business case, not the Carling portion.

I am not opposed to QED but I believe that Bank Street has more potential. As soon as Bank Street reaches Billings Bridge, it can connect to several feeder bus routes. Carling is a secondary line, with the Confederation Line designed to connect to feeder bus routes in the east and west.

But I also believe that Baseline is the most needed rapid transit, and now it is post 2031.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I said that the QED tramway does not have a business case, not the Carling portion.

I am not opposed to QED but I believe that Bank Street has more potential. As soon as Bank Street reaches Billings Bridge, it can connect to several feeder bus routes. Carling is a secondary line, with the Confederation Line designed to connect to feeder bus routes in the east and west.

But I also believe that Baseline is the most needed rapid transit, and now it is post 2031.

Sorry, I thought that you were saying that the connection to downtown doesn't have a business case. Personally, I think it is essential, and there are really only a couple of options to do that (up Bronson to Chamberlain and then north on Kent or Bank, or tie in Lansdowne to the route. Given that you can also serve the universities on a QED-Lansdowne route, it strikes me as much more likely to generate high ridership.

That's the same reason that I would prioritize it over Baseline. I think that the ridership potential is much higher based on the major trip generators along the route - the Civic, NRCan, redeveloped Booth St. Complex, Carleton, Lansdowne, U of O. It really is time to start considering existing ridership in our planning.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by thewave46

You don't like the Microsoft Method(TM) of operating system releases, but in stadium form?

Not particularly.

It amuses me that QED is now an acronym for something else than QED.

As the son of a math teacher, how did I not notice that.

The QED tram would be a terrible idea. QED.

Not sure that you actually demonstrated what you set out to demonstrate.

[RuralCitizen]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Wrong? There was nothing I said was wrong. What I said was entirely correct. A QED route would not serve other Bank Street projects well and the Trillium Line is a more direct route to downtown for all development along Preston. I made no statement of density possibilities on Carling. I will state that QED density possibilites are very limited.

I was referring to specific sentences in your comment.

"As far as traffic impacts, we cannot look at this project in isolation."
The Carling/QED alignment is not looking at Lansdowne in isolation, but in an overall city traffic impact. The QED alignment would never happen on its own, only as part of a Carling extension. So it is important to not "isolate" this section.

"The same applies to rapid transit on QED. That mainly serves the Lansdowne proposal only."
Same comment as above, this isn't isolated to the Lansdowne proposal as you describe. It would allow people from Carling to reach the CBD without transfer.

You are correct in saying this alignment wouldn't directly serve Bank St. (I'm not contradicting you on that. On the other hand it would still be close (about 500m)
This Carling/QED idea was never suggested to serve the businesses of Bank St.
It was suggested as a natural extension of a line that is already projected in the Transportation Master Plan that could solve the problem with a very big increase in population density at a single point along Bank St. (Lansdowne)
The tram line could connect with Line 1 at each ends, and with line 2 in the middle.

The QED extension services all of Elgin, and the QED proper could also have a stop near the Flora foot bridge, allowing for the Main St. community and St-Paul University to have access to a quick west-end access. A bank street alternative wouldn't have more stops along its line.

[OTSkyline]

I would agree that a Carling route with QED or Elgin up to downtown/Rideau would appear to be a much bigger opportunity than Baseline given the existing & proposed densities and the destinations along the line.

What major destinations would be on a Baseline route? Algonquin College, Merivale shopping and.. Overserved/underdeveloped Confed Heights?

[J.OT13]

Trinity's website is down this morning, but Pat from RailFans Discord took a few screen captures the other day:

Here's was the last render we had:





And new render with towers filled-in, and re-arranged:



Night time shot:



Phasing:



Some site plans. Looks like they have an unnamed tenant for an event space at #10. Goodlife will take up space #7 ad #1.





I'll post the PDF package once I see their website is back up.