Barrhaven LRT | Proposed

[J.OT13]

They seem to have put in a lot of thought on minimizing turns and curves in order to reduce long-term maintenance and maximize speed. They did not put in the same time in effort for Stage 1 and 2. The center platforms commonly used on Stage 2 requires trains to slow down and accelerate more gradually, increasing overall travel time. The sharp curve at Blair, re-using exiting infrastructure as a cost-cutting measure, could increase wear and tear and will slow down trains going through the stretch.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...tawa-1.3506075

Hurdman's 90 degree turns are brutal for trains and riders.

The theme seemed to be "build the thing as cheaply as possible" as opposed to focusing on long-term maintenance considerations, speed and ridership experience. Now, the City is finally ready to blow Provincial and Federal dollars for the Cadillac suburban rail extensions.

[rocketphish]

Transportation committee endorses Barrhaven LRT route, despite opposition from renters

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Publishing date: Nov 02, 2020 • Last Updated 18 hours ago • 4 minute read

Residents whose rental homes could be demolished by the proposed $3-billion Barrhaven LRT route accused the city on Monday of caring more about traffic than the wellbeing of families in the tight-knit Nepean community.

City council’s transportation committee approved the recommended blueprint for the LRT extension between Algonquin College and Barrhaven town centre.

Construction would be several years away since there’s no money to make the extension happen, but the city wants to have the study completed in case the upper governments launch a major infrastructure program.

The extension would be 10 kilometres long with seven stations, three of which would be new, with four others developed from existing Transitway bus stations.

The controversial pinch point impacting Manor Village and Cheryl Gardens is along Woodroffe Avenue and north of Hunt Club Road.

A 20-metre-wide strip of land is required for the LRT infrastructure, and as a result, 120 rental units, which currently have more than 300 tenants, would need to be removed, possibly through expropriation. The three properties where the rental units sit are owned by two companies — one of which has informed the city that it opposes the plan, the committee heard.

Supported by advocacy group Ottawa ACORN, Manor Village tenants have rallied against the city’s plan to remove rental homes occupied by low-income families in favour of the LRT extension, which would require an elevated guideway along Woodroffe Avenue between the college and Nepean Sportsplex.

Alison Trowbridge, a single mother a seven-year-old boy, has lived in Manor Village for seven years and she told the committee about the importance of her community and neighbours.

“They have acted as safety nets when my hands weren’t enough,” Trowbridge said, calling Manor Village a “family of families.”

Some residents said they’re paying in the range of $1,200 in monthly rent for a two-bedroom townhouse, a price that’s hard to find anywhere else in Ottawa.

“Many will have to leave Ottawa and some may end up on the streets because they can’t afford new homes,” Manor Village resident Clark Hill said.

Consultants who worked on the Barrhaven LRT route considered a rail tunnel between Algonquin College and the Sportsplex but concluded it was too risky considering the ground conditions, sewer locations and the high financial cost. The elevated option is easier to build and optimal for station locations, they decided.

Consultants also looked at the option of building the LRT line on Woodroffe Avenue. However, that option would require road reconstruction, reduce capacity for all transportation modes and introduce curves in the rail line, which could produce noise and lengthen travel times.

Coun. Keith Egli, who represents that area, won full support from the committee to strike a working group of city and community reps to make recommendations by the end of 2021 on the issue of losing rental homes because of the LRT alignment.

“I fully appreciate that this is sitting over your head,” Egli said to residents, but he believes senior city staff are willing to come up with solutions.

Coun. Shawn Menard asked the committee to hold off on making a decision on part of the LRT alignment due to the impact on low-income residents. He received support from councillors Mathieu Fleury and Jeff Leiper, but seven councillors voted against his motion.

Barrhaven BIA chair Jason MacDonald, Algonquin College president Claude Brulé and Ottawa film commissioner Bruce Harvey all gave deputations in support of Barrhaven LRT.

One aspect of the study that received little attention from the committee involves a potential solution to safety issues with roads crossing Via Rail tracks. The plan calls for overpasses for both car traffic and the LRT line.

Alex Cullen, president of the Federation of Citizens’ Associations of Ottawa, urged the city to prioritize three planned bridges over the Via Rail after the tragic 2013 crash between a bus and train. Six people on an OC Transpo double-decker bus died when it collided with a Via train at a Transitway crossing.

Under the plan, there would be two bridges for car traffic at Woodroffe Avenue and Fallowfield Road and one for the future LRT line where the Transitway currently runs.

Building the bridges over the Via Rail tracks alone would cost $400 million and the study has determined the job could be done separately from LRT, if there was money to do it.

Transportation general manager John Manconi said the advantage of the Barrhaven LRT study is that it gives city council the option to prioritize the crossings as a separate project.

Asked if the necessity of the crossings gives Barrhaven LRT a leg up over the Kanata LRT plan, transportation chair Coun. Tim Tierney said council isn’t yet at the point of deciding that.

Council will be asked to vote on the Barrhaven LRT study on Nov. 25.

jwilling@postmedia.com
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...n-from-renters

[Blackburnian]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Hurdman's 90 degree turns are brutal for trains and riders.

I feel they should've banked the turns more (though I'm unsure about the limitations of the alstoms in terms of banking), or maybe just laying the rails with easier turns.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

They seem to have put in a lot of thought on minimizing turns and curves in order to reduce long-term maintenance and maximize speed. They did not put in the same time in effort for Stage 1 and 2. The center platforms commonly used on Stage 2 requires trains to slow down and accelerate more gradually, increasing overall travel time. The sharp curve at Blair, re-using exiting infrastructure as a cost-cutting measure, could increase wear and tear and will slow down trains going through the stretch.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...tawa-1.3506075

Hurdman's 90 degree turns are brutal for trains and riders.

The theme seemed to be "build the thing as cheaply as possible" as opposed to focusing on long-term maintenance considerations, speed and ridership experience. Now, the City is finally ready to blow Provincial and Federal dollars for the Cadillac suburban rail extensions.

I feel like its probably less that they making it more expensive now that they are "blowing" Provincial and Federal dollars, but that they learned their lessons after Stage 1 experienced issues at Hurdman/Tremblay and have time to actually integrate lessons learned into Stage 3.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

I feel like its probably less that they making it more expensive now that they are "blowing" Provincial and Federal dollars, but that they learned their lessons after Stage 1 experienced issues at Hurdman/Tremblay and have time to actually integrate lessons learned into Stage 3.

Does the City really need to "learn" something that's common knowledge around the world? This is railroading 101.

[Kitchissippi]

In hindsight, Blair should have been built on the median, crossing before Gloucester Centre had they made the decision on the extension’s route earlier. More room for TOD on both sides.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Does the City really need to "learn" something that's common knowledge around the world? This is railroading 101.

I think they do, yes.

*Edit - the thing is, not everyone who is making the decisions surrounding these projects is/was familiar with railroading 101. I'm sure some experts recommended less curves, but it takes project experience for upper management to properly weight those concerns.

[J.OT13]

One thing they did not learn is optimal station location. All stations are on one side of the intersection instead of over in order to allow for entrances on both sides (not necessary as part of Stage 3, but could be a station improvement in the future).

As others have mentioned, the bus loop at Fallowfield is again offside like Hurdman instead of around or adjacent to the O-Train facility.

Strandheard station is a few hundred meters away from its namesake in order to serve a park-and-ride. Having it under Standheard, again with entrances on both sides, would facilitate bus transfers and bring the station closer to potential TOD.

Similarly with BTC, the station location complicates transfers to the Chapman Mills BRT, or any walk-up ridership from potential future area residents.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

One thing they did not learn is optimal station location. All stations are on one side of the intersection instead of over in order to allow for entrances on both sides (not necessary as part of Stage 3, but could be a station improvement in the future).

As others have mentioned, the bus loop at Fallowfield is again offside like Hurdman instead of around or adjacent to the O-Train facility.

Strandheard station is a few hundred meters away from its namesake in order to serve a park-and-ride. Having it under Standheard, again with entrances on both sides, would facilitate bus transfers and bring the station closer to potential TOD.

Similarly with BTC, the station location complicates transfers to the Chapman Mills BRT, or any walk-up ridership from potential future area residents.

Yes - I have also complained about the station locations and bus loop set-ups. I won't name-names, but the planners (City and consultant) who were introduced and presented the project to Transportation Committee are often tied to big City EAs. Several of them are notable car-people, and never take transit. I don't think they would understand why the proposed station set-up at Fallowfield isn't good, because many of them have never (or very rarely) used new-Hurdman. After seeing who was attached to the EA, I understood why details like the station designs are they way they are.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

Yes - I have also complained about the station locations and bus loop set-ups. I won't name-names, but the planners (City and consultant) who were introduced and presented the project to Transportation Committee are often tied to big City EAs. Several of them are notable car-people, and never take transit. I don't think they would understand why the proposed station set-up at Fallowfield isn't good, because many of them have never (or very rarely) used new-Hurdman. After seeing who was attached to the EA, I understood why details like the station designs are they way they are.

[J.OT13]

Loved listening to Bruce Harvey, Film Commissioner speaking of how elevated rapid transit stations like the one proposed at their front door (Nepean Sportsplex station) and subway stations (Algonquin station) are good assets to promote Ottawa as a filming destination.

[kevinbottawa]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Loved listening to Bruce Harvey, Film Commissioner speaking of how elevated rapid transit stations like the one proposed at their front door (Nepean Sportsplex station) and subway stations (Algonquin station) are good assets to promote Ottawa as a filming destination.

I got appointed to the film office board a few months ago. Bruce is a really nice guy and has a real vision for Ottawa as a film city. Ottawa is lucky have him.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by kevinbottawa

I got appointed to the film office board a few months ago. Bruce is a really nice guy and has a real vision for Ottawa as a film city. Ottawa is lucky have him.

That's great! Congrats Kevin!!

I've been very impressed with the progress to our local film industry over the last few years. Bruce's work really shines through.

[J.OT13]

The public delegations and debate on the Barrhaven O-Train portion of Monday's Transportation Committee focused almost entirely on the 120 residential units that would need to be expropriated. Not a single person asked why the Barrhaven extension is nearly twice as expensive as Stage 1. I understand that the soil conditions are more challenging and that even with elevated rail, the piers have to be anchored to bedrock. I get inflation, along with supply and demand with about a dozen or so similar projects under construction or proposed in Canada, but that doesn't fully explain the massive cost difference.

Back to the expropriation, I understand why local residents are upset, but this was coming one way or another. If it wasn't for the Barrhaven rail extension, the owners would want to raise and re-build in search of higher rents at some point. Better that it's the City, providing a more predictable timeframe, a longer runway to determine your next move and the possibility of having the City help you find your next home.

[Richard Eade]

I think the problem is with the hypocrisy of the City: First declaring an Affordable Housing Crisis; and then expropriating 120 affordable homes and changing the zoning on a parcel of land designated for affordable housing so that the land can house the new LMSF.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I think the problem is with the hypocrisy of the City: First declaring an Affordable Housing Crisis; and then expropriating 120 affordable homes and changing the zoning on a parcel of land designated for affordable housing so that the land can house the new LMSF.

Those 120 homes are owned by two private companies and will be redeveloped sooner or later regardless, à la Heron Gate. Expropriation provides a slower and more predictable end. I'm hoping the City will be able to find new accommodations for those families, possibly by building new housing one block north at Knoxdale station(?)

As for the site of the LMSF, it has to be built somewhere and wherever that it, land that could potentially be used for affordable housing will be lost. Considering how much land has been identified for affordable housing and how long it will take to develop it all, the removal of this one location won't have any sort of major repercussion on the overall supply, present or future.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I'm hoping the City will be able to find new accommodations for those families, possibly by building new housing one block north at Knoxdale station(?)

That's almost assuredly what will happen. That grassy field beside the station at Knoxdale would never remain that way; it was quite amusing to see in the renders.

I suspect they would want to retain it as some sort of construction staging area for now, but fully expect to see it developed for affordable housing at some point.

(EDIT):

Speaking of affordable housing, does anyone know what the deal is with the vacant parcel at 100 Foxfield? It's 2ha within 300m of Longfields Station. It would be a perfect spot, LRT or no LRT.

[J.OT13]

It's maddening that once again the entire debate on Council was about those 120 rental units that need to be expropriated. Nothing about the value of the project or the high cost compared to Stages 1 and 2.

The idea of re-visiting the much more expensive, much less efficient routes in order to avoid expropriation makes absolutely no sense as it would put the fate of the residents entirely in the hands of the private sector owners. The City's expropriation is the best possible scenario as it gives residents a little more predictability and the possibility of support through their transition to new homes.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The idea of re-visiting the much more expensive, much less efficient routes in order to avoid expropriation makes absolutely no sense as it would put the fate of the residents entirely in the hands of the private sector owners. The City's expropriation is the best possible scenario as it gives residents a little more predictability and the possibility of support through their transition to new homes.

Yep, spending $10's of millions extra on an alternate route to save these units would make no sense. It wouldn't guarantee that these units would stay rentals at the price point they are at today. It would make more sense to take those same $10's of millions and build new affordable housing units elsewhere.

Was it ever quantified how much more expense the next cheapest alternate route would be?

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Yep, spending $10's of millions extra on an alternate route to save these units would make no sense. It wouldn't guarantee that these units would stay rentals at the price point they are at today. It would make more sense to take those same $10's of millions and build new affordable housing units elsewhere.

Was it ever quantified how much more expense the next cheapest alternate route would be?

The straight alignment is actually more expensive in upfront costs than some of the alternatives, but it wasn't the only factor in deciding on it (for once).

In the council meeting it was also stated that at least one of the owners of those buildings appeared to be planning to redevelop those units in the next few years as well.