Trillium Line Upgrades & Extension (Stage 2) [Greenboro to Airport/Limebank] | U/C

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by McDonald's Racoon

I may be a little ignorant here but what's the point of the Limebank extention? How often would that actually get used as opposed to the airport line? Shouldn't these resources be used somewhere where ridership would be high?

The Limebank branch will be the busiest branch. It serves the 2 fast-growing southern suburbs: Riverside South (population 20,000 and growing at 10%/yr) and Leitrim (population 13,000 and growing at 17%/yr).

Limebank may look like it's remote from the pictures, but there is lots of development close by, and the area is growing rapidly.

Source: 2020 Annual Development Report: https://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/do...vreport_en.pdf

[GeoNerd]

I think this image from Twitter sums it up pretty well. (Although the dates have obviously changed) Our soon to be weasel ex-mayor has prioritized vacant greenfields outside the greenbelt owned by his developer friends over underserved existing inner-city areas like Vanier and Centretown. The same reason why the Phase 3 Kanata extension goes south into vacant greenfield development areas owned by his developer friends instead of north into the second largest employment centre in eastern Ontario/Western Quebec. The same reason why the urban boundary was expanded to include all his friends lands without any analysis of cost to the city.

Sure they may say the “ Limebank branch will be the busiest branch”. That’s once the inner-city funded sprawl consumes all the farm fields with tract housing, and the mayor has made his developer friends $100’s of millions of dollars. There are existing communities that need mass transit now. But the mayor and his friends are making too much money to worry about existing neighbourhoods. Can not wait for a change at city hall.

[McDonald's Racoon]

Ah thanks for all the clarification! I though it was weird to put $100M worth of transport in the middle of no-where. I though the point of our masterplan was to fight urban sprawl not promote it... guess not.

[Admiral Nelson]

The hope with introducing LRT to areas like Riverside South is to encourage the development of transit-oriented communities with somewhat reduced car dependency. It's also far cheaper to introduce LRT before these communities are built than retrofitting a line in afterward.

Originally Posted by McDonald's Racoon

I though the point of our masterplan was to fight urban sprawl not promote it... guess not.

The city's going to grow. We can pick road investments leading to car-oriented communities or transit investments leading to transit-oriented communities. I know which I'm prepared to fight against, and it sure isn't the LRT.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by McDonald's Racoon

Ah thanks for all the clarification! I though it was weird to put $100M worth of transport in the middle of no-where. I though the point of our masterplan was to fight urban sprawl not promote it... guess not.

There needs to be a balance between allowing room for new housing to be built while also encouraging intensification.

If we don't allow for growth and offer transit to growth areas, the following will be the result:

1 Housing where transit is offered will be too expensive for average households
2 Housing in growth areas will be totally car oriented with lots of land wasted for highways, boulevards and parking lots.
3 Housing will move beyond the controlled area, ie beyond the city boundaries. This is already happening and is far worse sprawl.

Because of lack of long-term planning, trying to squeeze in rail transit into existing urban areas is unaffordable. Just think of what happens whenever a Bank Street subway is brought up.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

I think this image from Twitter sums it up pretty well. (Although the dates have obviously changed) Our soon to be weasel ex-mayor has prioritized vacant greenfields outside the greenbelt owned by his developer friends over underserved existing inner-city areas like Vanier and Centretown. The same reason why the Phase 3 Kanata extension goes south into vacant greenfield development areas owned by his developer friends instead of north into the second largest employment centre in eastern Ontario/Western Quebec. The same reason why the urban boundary was expanded to include all his friends lands without any analysis of cost to the city.

Sure they may say the “ Limebank branch will be the busiest branch”. That’s once the inner-city funded sprawl consumes all the farm fields with tract housing, and the mayor has made his developer friends $100’s of millions of dollars. There are existing communities that need mass transit now. But the mayor and his friends are making too much money to worry about existing neighbourhoods. Can not wait for a change at city hall.

In all fairness, if the picture was taken in the opposite direction, you would see an area with 100,000+ population and growing. The bigger issue is that we cut the route short instead of bringing it into the existing population area as the 2006 plan called for.

[GeoNerd]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

In all fairness, if the picture was taken in the opposite direction, you would see an area with 100,000+ population and growing. The bigger issue is that we cut the route short instead of bringing it into the existing population area as the 2006 plan called for.

Well that is just flat not true. If you look in the opposite direction (east) it’s more fields, forest, greenbelt, golf course, and Findlay Creek 2-3km in the distance. (Population: 14k) Unless you’re speaking about Barrhaven 6km away to the west, which Line 2 will never go.

The system is not supposed to be a development gimmick to spur sprawl developments of poor quality, overpriced, suburban homes. We should be building urban mass transit lines to underserved areas, not multi-billion dollar lines out to farm fields owned by the mayor’s friends.

[Admiral Nelson]

I think we can agree that (1) extending LRT to fast-growing communities to influence the development pattern in a transit-friendly way, and doing so at considerable value for money, and (2) improving transit access in underserved areas, are both good things.

Railing against the Riverside South LRT extension is making perfect the enemy of the good. How about instead pushing council to take a portion of the giant road expansion budget, which has appeared for years to be above public debate, and moving it into the transit column instead?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Admiral Nelson

I think we can agree that (1) extending LRT to fast-growing communities to influence the development pattern in a transit-friendly way, and doing so at considerable value for money, and (2) improving transit access in underserved areas, are both good things.

Railing against the Riverside South LRT extension is making perfect the enemy of the good. How about instead pushing council to take a portion of the giant road expansion budget, which has appeared for years to be above public debate, and moving it into the transit column instead?

Aren't we trying to change things in how we build new communities by bringing transit earlier? The alternative is to spend all our money on more roads.

We have fallen way behind the game already in Orleans, Kanata and Barrhaven.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Aren't we trying to change things in how we build new communities by bringing transit earlier? The alternative is to spend all our money on more roads.

We have fallen way behind the game already in Orleans, Kanata and Barrhaven.

Problem is the City spends on both roads and transit at the same time. I thank the Province for saying "no" to widening the 174, though it will technically be widened anyway by removing bus lanes.

I must give credit to the old N/S plan for providing a transit line through the community with multiple stops, which would have provided a local service, thus encouraging short trips through the communities. Seems that's sort of the plan for Kanata and Orleans (with the addition of Tenth Line and Orleans Town Centre), but that's not going to work since it's more of a commuter service anyway.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

Well that is just flat not true. If you look in the opposite direction (east) it’s more fields, forest, greenbelt, golf course, and Findlay Creek 2-3km in the distance. (Population: 14k) Unless you’re speaking about Barrhaven 6km away to the west, which Line 2 will never go.

The system is not supposed to be a development gimmick to spur sprawl developments of poor quality, overpriced, suburban homes. We should be building urban mass transit lines to underserved areas, not multi-billion dollar lines out to farm fields owned by the mayor’s friends.

Where are people supposed to live in a fast growing city?

Are you suggesting that people be given no choice but to live in a high rise building?

This will never work. The end result is that we will end up with far worse sprawl cities of 100,000 in Rockland, Embrun, Kemptville, Carleton Place and Arnprior. How do we provide transportation that far out?

The question of development and development restrictions and transportation is far more complex than you portray.

Remember, we have never spent billions to service Riverside South and I have also argued that we should be bringing that line closer to Barrhaven as the 2006 plan called for. The Trillium Line was always going to be the cheapest route to Barrhaven.

Where we are spending the billions is trying to bring rail to Orleans and Kanata. The final bill will approach $10B compared to $600M for Riverside South. Why the differential? Because we didn't build rapid transit earlier in the development process for Orleans and Kanata.

As far as the mayor's friends, the developer community is small in Ottawa. Anywhere we build rapid transit, will generate windfall profits for what you call the mayor's friends. Riverside South is not some sort of different world. What you really want is to pay 3 or 4 times as much for transit because we waited until the community was fully built out and already fully designed for automobiles. We try to wedge in transit after the fact, likely in the worst locations, like along the Queensway. Sound familiar?

[Harry Goatleaf]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

Well that is just flat not true. If you look in the opposite direction (east) it’s more fields, forest, greenbelt, golf course, and Findlay Creek 2-3km in the distance. (Population: 14k) Unless you’re speaking about Barrhaven 6km away to the west, which Line 2 will never go.

The system is not supposed to be a development gimmick to spur sprawl developments of poor quality, overpriced, suburban homes. We should be building urban mass transit lines to underserved areas, not multi-billion dollar lines out to farm fields owned by the mayor’s friends.

That's a very misleading post.
How about looking west.
Here's what it really looks like at Limebank Station:

[GeoNerd]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Aren't we trying to change things in how we build new communities by bringing transit earlier? The alternative is to spend all our money on more roads.

We have fallen way behind the game already in Orleans, Kanata and Barrhaven.

There is a huge difference between “bringing transit to communities earlier”, and bringing transit to empty fields to spur development. This is the latter.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Where are people supposed to live in a fast growing city?

Are you suggesting that people be given no choice but to live in a high rise building?

This will never work. The end result is that we will end up with far worse sprawl cities of 100,000 in Rockland, Embrun, Kemptville, Carleton Place and Arnprior. How do we provide transportation that far out?

The question of development and development restrictions and transportation is far more complex than you portray.

Remember, we have never spent billions to service Riverside South and I have also argued that we should be bringing that line closer to Barrhaven as the 2006 plan called for. The Trillium Line was always going to be the cheapest route to Barrhaven.

Where we are spending the billions is trying to bring rail to Orleans and Kanata. The final bill will approach $10B compared to $600M for Riverside South. Why the differential? Because we didn't build rapid transit earlier in the development process for Orleans and Kanata.

As far as the mayor's friends, the developer community is small in Ottawa. Anywhere we build rapid transit, will generate windfall profits for what you call the mayor's friends. Riverside South is not some sort of different world. What you really want is to pay 3 or 4 times as much for transit because we waited until the community was fully built out and already fully designed for automobiles. We try to wedge in transit after the fact, likely in the worst locations, like along the Queensway. Sound familiar?

Your response illustrates exactly what is wrong with the current mentality around land development in our city and country as a whole. The notion that the only choices are suburban greenfield single family home neighbourhoods and urban high rises. There are many different options in between. Until 80 years ago most families lived in mixed-use and mixed-tenure communities. The idea that you can’t raise a family in anything but a single family home is ridiculous and being perpetuated by land developers to sell their product.

The exurbs are already exploding. Two of Ottawa’s exurbs are the fasting growing cities in the country. We need provincial legislation like the Places to Grow Act to curb the uncontrolled sprawl outside city limits. Your idea of “if we don’t provide the drug, they’ll go to another dealer” is not a solution. It’s adding to the problem.

No one is arguing that it is more expensive to bring mass transit to existing urban areas that need transit versus empty green fields with zero residents. That’s the entire point. We are prioritizing new vacant land communities owned by developers over existing built-up communities. That’s not how you build a city. Is it cheaper to build a subway on suburban Long Island over Manhattan? Of course. But that’s not where the people and businesses are. Your cheap route priority logic is just nonsensical. Empty right-of-ways could be provided for future expansion while existing communities that desperately need transit are serviced first.

Originally Posted by Harry Goatleaf

That's a very misleading post.
How about looking west.
Here's what it really looks like at Limebank Station:

You’re on the wrong station. The post was discussing Bowesville Station. That is Limebank Station. But since you brought up Limebank Station, you’ll notice that there are almost zero homes within the 600m of the station. A distance set out by the City’s own transit-oriented development guidelines. Barrhaven off in the distance several kilometres away doesn’t help your point, it hinders it. Riverside South is almost entirely single family homes and a fraction the population of under served urban communities that are paying for this.

[Harry Goatleaf]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

You’re on the wrong station. The post was discussing Bowesville Station. That is Limebank Station. But since you brought up Limebank Station, you’ll notice that there are almost zero homes within the 600m of the station. A distance set out by the City’s own transit-oriented development guidelines. Barrhaven off in the distance several kilometres away doesn’t help your point, it hinders it. Riverside South is almost entirely single family homes and a fraction the population of under served urban communities that are paying for this.

Well, this conversation started with a picture of the Limebank Station on Post 2619 and your response to the post about the $80M invested to extend Line 2 from Bowesville to Limebank which is mostly financed by the province and an area-specific development charge that will raise the additional funding to implement this extension.
So, I’m not sure why you went off on Bowesville Station.
Not that I disagree with your point. It makes no sense to build a Station like Bowesville just so you can build a massive parking lot for people to drive to and take the train.
It would make more sense to delete Bowesville and run the train all the way to Vimy Bridge and build a station there instead where Barrhaven East residents can also get on the train.
Unfortunately, you can’t get to Riverside South unless you go through the Bowesville area.

On your other point, Limebank Station is where the future Riverside South town center will be built and I also believe where the future Riverside South Sports/Community/Library, etc. Centre is slated to be built. Housing in that area is also not going to be mostly single-family homes just like most of the housing in the last 10 years in Riverside South as been mostly townhouses. All you have to do is take a drive down Earl Armstrong or River Road south off the bridge.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

I think this image from Twitter sums it up pretty well.

Not only no LRT for Vanier and other underserved portions of the urban area.

Bad bus service that is only getting worse, and is being made worse, in part, on purpose.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Because of lack of long-term planning, trying to squeeze in rail transit into existing urban areas is unaffordable. Just think of what happens whenever a Bank Street subway is brought up.

Or a Bank Street streetcar.

Or better Bank Street bus service.

Or maybe even one or two extra runs in the early evening so that frequency doesn't suddenly drop from four trips an hour, to two, which means, in practice, a 45-minute gap.

This city absolutely hates urban transit users who aren't suburban.

[McDonald's Racoon]

Okay so I'm not the only one who thinks its weird to put a station there based on the "potential" future developments.
I do agree that setting up the transportation infrastructure early to avoid car-centric living to be a good idea but only if the city is already served properly in that regard, it is not.
So this is basically a kick in the nuts for everyone who lives in vanier or down bank st.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by McDonald's Racoon

Okay so I'm not the only one who thinks its weird to put a station there based on the "potential" future developments.
I do agree that setting up the transportation infrastructure early to avoid car-centric living to be a good idea but only if the city is already served properly in that regard, it is not.
So this is basically a kick in the nuts for everyone who lives in vanier or down bank st.

Everybody is in favour of intensification on Bank Street and Montreal Road. Nobody is in favour of 'usable' public transit on those corridors. A tramway on those narrow streets is the recipe for worse transit.

[JCL]

I just uploaded a video while on board a double decker Route 99, filmed between South Keys Station and Leitrim Road (past Leitrim Park and Ride) containing two clips (July 2019 and August 2021). Consider this as a before-and-after footage of the Trillium Line Extension Project, as part of Stage 2 LRT. 

• Video Link

[J.OT13]

From Rail Fans Snapshot updates:

Airport




https://otrain.railfans.ca/snapshot-...-april-14-2022

South Keys






https://otrain.railfans.ca/snapshot-...n-april-5-2022

Bayview, Gladstone, Dow's Lake and Carleton from Pat on Rail Fans Discord: