O-Train Line 1/3 [Stage 2 | West Extension | Tunney's to Baseline/Moodie] | U/C

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

I think the reason for using the Queensway routing is purely cost. Richmond/Carling would need to be tunneled, so much more expensive.

Maybe Richmond but not Carling. Most of Carling has a centre median so it could be elevated. My proposal does have a section that would need to be tunneled near Bayshore, but The Queensway route also needs a tunnel under Connaught Ave (and the houses on it).

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Maybe Richmond but not Carling. Most of Carling has a centre median so it could be elevated. My proposal does have a section that would need to be tunneled near Bayshore, but The Queensway route also needs a tunnel under Connaught Ave (and the houses on it).

Elevated is almost as expensive as tunnelling.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Elevated is almost as expensive as tunnelling.

Carling could easily be at grade for much of its route, but as a metro-type system, it would limit the operations of Carling to right-in, right-out with short underpasses required at major intersections.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Isn't the Queensview station to serve the Ikea store and the Pinecrest Shopping Centre by Pedestrian bridge?

I wondered that, but to make it close enough to actually serve them, it would have to be only about 500 m from the Pinecrest station, so I assumed it would be further east.

An alternative route would better follow Richmond Road, which is more direct to Bayshore and I believe there is a number of highrises in the area.

I also considered that. The problem is Richmond is much narrower, so you would likey have to tunnel the whole way. Carling is much wider and it could be in (above) the median. Also, on the eastern end of Richmond the split would have to be before Lincoln Fields, so you would want an extra station, which would be very close to the existing station. On the western end, the housing density drops past Grenon (which is walking distance from my proposed Olde Forge station) so another station would be under utilized (though maybe one isn't necessary). Certainly another option worth considering though.

The other advantage of the Carling route, is it could connect to the at grade Carling LRT line if and when it ever gets built.

But again, we need to serve the business interests over residences. Remember those election donations from the big developers. That keeps the city going.

Would hate for the Councillors to miss out on those donations.

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The more I think about it, the more I don't like the route the Phase 2, Bayshore extension is using. The proposed 2 intermediary stations on that leg (Queensview and Pinecrest) are almost completely useless. They don't (and likely won't ever) serve any major bus routes, high density housing, or major retailers (unless you consider Leon's and Giant Tiger major retailers).

IMHO, a much better option would be to have it run along Carling (possibly in the median) from Lincoln Fields to just before Bayshore Dr. and then swing south to Bayshore (I have a map here, on the same map as my alternate Kanata routes). It would be more expensive, but I think the benefits outweigh the extra cost.

There would still be two intermediary stations: Olde Forge (in the triangle between Richmond, Carling and Pinecrest) and Britannia West (near the Colosseum theater). The former is at a major 3-way intersection where 2 major crosstown routes intersect. It also has several large apartment buildings within easy walking distance. The beyond the obvious theater and retail presence of the later stop, it is also close to a few large apartment buildings.

There's low income housing on the NW corner of Pinecrest Station, and also several high rises about 10 mins South of it (NE corner of Greenbank + Baseline, condos being built NW corner of Greenbank + Baseline, etc)

[PHrenetic]

Good day... FYI... the Queensview station, per the initial preliminary plans, serves the Leons and Queensview Drive on the north side via ramps and walkways, and a ped-bridge over the 417 to in front of the Citizen bldg on Baxter road, with a loooong ramp to the west curving with Baxter to spit you out at the east end of the Ikea. The Queensview station spans 62-900 to 62-800, and then the guideway runs 650 meters to 62-150 thru 62-050 Pinecrest station. EnJoy!

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good day... FYI... the Queensview station, per the initial preliminary plans, serves the Leons and Queensview Drive on the north side via ramps and walkways, and a ped-bridge over the 417 to in front of the Citizen bldg on Baxter road, with a loooong ramp to the west curving with Baxter to spit you out at the east end of the Ikea. The Queensview station spans 62-900 to 62-800, and then the guideway runs 650 meters to 62-150 thru 62-050 Pinecrest station. EnJoy!

Hmm. Interesting. Not quite as bad as I thought, but I still think having it along Carling would be better.

I found maps from April 2015 here, though it must be out of date as it shows the Pincrest Station as running from about 61+960 to 62+060 and Queensview Station running from 62+730 to 82+830. Your measurements would put the Pinecrest station under the road instead of just west of it.

Hopefully in the process they have moved the pedestrian overpass further west as well as the location on the map seems further east than necessary, though maybe not given the new new station location.

I wonder if once complete they will extend Ramsey cres. to Pinecrest (using the current busway entrance that will be unnecessary) so that they can block off the intersection of Dumaurier and Pinecrest (or at least remove the traffic lights there).

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Hmm. Interesting. Not quite as bad as I thought, but I still think having it along Carling would be better.

I found maps from April 2015 here, though it must be out of date as it shows the Pincrest Station as running from about 61+960 to 62+060 and Queensview Station running from 62+730 to 82+830. Your measurements would put the Pinecrest station under the road instead of just west of it.

Hopefully in the process they have moved the pedestrian overpass further west as well as the location on the map seems further east than necessary, though maybe not given the new new station location.

I wonder if once complete they will extend Ramsey cres. to Pinecrest (using the current busway entrance that will be unnecessary) so that they can block off the intersection of Dumaurier and Pinecrest (or at least remove the traffic lights there).

If they remove those traffic lights, it would suck for those coming from the South (even more so than now), especially as the intersection is currently optimized for cars not pedestrians.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Buggys

If they remove those traffic lights, it would suck for those coming from the South (even more so than now), especially as the intersection is currently optimized for cars not pedestrians.

Why? I would think removing an intersection would be better for all; pedestrians especially, since as you said the lights are optimized for cars so they wouldn't have to wait for them. I would think sidewalks are always better than crosswalks for pedestrians.

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Why? I would think removing an intersection would be better for all; pedestrians especially, since as you said the lights are optimized for cars so they wouldn't have to wait for them. I would think sidewalks are always better than crosswalks for pedestrians.

Because without those intersections, people would have a lot of difficulty crossing the highway ramps & between West/East, even if people jaywalked all the time -- it's a high traffic intersection due to the highway exit.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Buggys

Because without those intersections, people would have a lot of difficulty crossing the highway ramps & between West/East, even if people jaywalked all the time -- it's a high traffic intersection due to the highway exit.

Those intersections? You mean that one intersection. I am only suggesting the removal of the intersection at Dumaurier. The other two intersections (at both Queensview and the 417 ramp/Ramsey) would remain. It would be nice if they could get it down to 1 intersection, but that isn't going to happen.

[PHrenetic]

Good day...
I am probably looking at the same preliminaries as you, but I only roughed the numbers as I could not expand the view enough to measure exactly. That being said, all these are preliminaries, and subject to (drastic) change, as we all know all too well. Moves east/west are all too probable due to (insert excuse here).
EnJoy.

[Uhuniau]

Possibility of LRT running under Byron Linear Park gets mixed reviews

Of course it does.

Nearby resident Larry Ladell said at Wednesday's meeting that the realignment of the route would come at the long-term expense of the park.

"Our community doesn't have very much green space right now ... and that's our only major park. And putting the LRT through it is going to be a major blow for the community and I'm very, very concerned," Ladell said, adding he's particularly worried about the possible loss of some 150-year-old elm trees.

Is there ANY "community" in Ottawa whose self-appointed guardians think they have enough bloody green space?

And I think whoever came up with this as the concept for a restored Byron Linear Sacred Space was one of those kids in the 90s who dropped acid and watched Teletubbies:

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Possibility of LRT running under Byron Linear Park gets mixed reviews

Your link is broken. I believe the correct link is http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/lrt-west-ottawa-byron-proposed-change-1.3762907

I can understand why the local residents are upset at the temporary loss of the park; however, it isn't as if the park will be lost permanently.

The loss of trees is of bigger concern. From my experience, the city has and an abysmal record of keeping newly planted trees alive (on a street near me, over half of the trees the city planted died and the replanted trees seemed to die at an even higher rate). I would suggest part of the contract with the RTG (or whoever gets the contract) be to be responsible for all trees in the park for an extended period of time (like 20 years) to ensure they get TLC as saplings until they find their own source of water.

Having said that, I think this route is the best option.

[acottawa]

I continue to think the whole line should mostly use the Byron LRT ROW (maybe with a short tunnel under churchill to connect the two transit corridors). It would be a lot less isolated (and probably less costly) than the parkway route.

[Richard Eade]

So the Byron Linear Park will be torn up after all, from Cleary west anyway. It seems to me that if they are projecting a saving of $20M (due to not having to work under road decking to keep Richmond Road in service) then they should be re-evaluating the option of running out through Rochester Field and taking the LRT under the entire Byron Linear Park. This could, potentially, save the $30M that the City must pay the NCC for the privelage of the City re-aligning the SJAM Parkway for them. Also, even more money might be saved by having an 'Open to the Air' station in the Linear Park near Cleary, instead of the NCC-demanded entirely covered station.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

So the Byron Linear Park will be torn up after all, from Cleary west anyway. It seems to me that if they are projecting a saving of $20M (due to not having to work under road decking to keep Richmond Road in service) then they should be re-evaluating the option of running out through Rochester Field and taking the LRT under the entire Byron Linear Park. This could, potentially, save the $30M that the City must pay the NCC for the privelage of the City re-aligning the SJAM Parkway for them. Also, even more money might be saved by having an 'Open to the Air' station in the Linear Park near Cleary, instead of the NCC-demanded entirely covered station.

Ha! Don't you know how things work? Open air stations are only acceptable for the peasants who live in the Mechanicsville/Hintonburg area. Surely you're not proposing that Westboro/Byron people be treated the same way are you?

[rocketphish]

City tweaks western LRT tunnel route to avoid sewer, use savings for linear park

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: September 15, 2016 | Last Updated: September 15, 2016 10:18 AM EDT

The city is changing the route of the train tunnel in the second phase of LRT, hoping to save up to $20 million and use the money on improvements in the adjacent linear park.

About 100 people attended a public meeting Wednesday night at the Ukrainian Orthodox Church on Byron Avenue, where city staff unveiled a tweaked tunnel route, roughly between Woodroffe Avenue and Cleary Avenue. The tunnel is part of the $3-billion second phase of LRT to be constructed after the first phase opens in 2018.

Where the previous blueprint had the LRT tunnel travelling under Richmond Road in this 650-metre stretch, the city now wants to build the tunnel under the Byron Avenue linear park.



City LRT staff, who were joined by Bay Coun. Mark Taylor in delivering a presentation, emphasized their biggest concern with building the tunnel down the Richmond Road corridor: A major sewer buried in the same location. Damaging that sanitary and storm sewer — the “west Nepean collector,” as it’s called — could have devastating impacts to a large swath of west Ottawa.

The previous alignment would have built the tunnel less than a metre away from the sewer. The new alignment would provide a buffer of more than three metres.

However, moving the tunnel slightly south under the linear park means tearing up more of the park during construction. The plan is to cut the tunnel out and cover over it.

The city offered the selling points: a better park when the tunnel is finished, reduced traffic impacts, shorter construction period and fewer disruptions for businesses.

On the other hand, the city would have to remove more trees, including elms more than 100 years old.

Where 50 per cent of the entire linear park would have been affected under the previous design, the new design would affect the entire park.

Depending on how the city decides to install temporary road “decking” on Richmond Road, the city could save between $12 million and $20 million under the updated design. The city says it can use the savings to return the linear park to an “enhanced state” and it’s gathering suggestions from the public on new amenities.

It’s the second significant change to the tunnel route this year. The city altered the design last spring when organizations at the Unitarian campus on Cleary Avenue opposed the tunnel cutting through their property.

Staff expect to ask council in November for approval on the new route as they finalize the environmental assessment.

[email protected]
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news...-avoid-sewer-use-savings-for-linear-park

[Richard Eade]

For those who were not informed about last evening's Public Information Session dealing with that segment of the Western LRT Extension, there is a meeting this evening about the proposed new Lincoln Fields Station. It is being held at St. Martin's Anglican Church, 2120 Prince Charles Road, from 18:00 until 21:00.

http://www.stage2lrt.ca/news/stage-2-pub...-queensway-terrace-north-lincoln-fields/

[zzptichka]

Some new boards from today's open house: