Barrhaven LRT | Proposed

[SL123]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Public consultation slides from this moth:

https://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/do...an_2023_en.pdf

Complete with the re-alignment to save homes being reconvicted anyway.

When NIMBYism and Politics wins over basic common sense a case study

[waterloowarrior]

#4 LOL

[Uhuniau]

I really don't like how tolerant we have all become of major transit stations set so far back from the cross-streets they are notionally named after. It makes for terrible train-to-bus connections.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I really don't like how tolerant we have all become of major transit stations set so far back from the cross-streets they are notionally named after. It makes for terrible train-to-bus connections.

Or name the station that has little or no relation to the adjacent geography.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I really don't like how tolerant we have all become of major transit stations set so far back from the cross-streets they are notionally named after. It makes for terrible train-to-bus connections.

I don't really mind in this case, because the more northern placement of Knoxdale Station leaves a door open for good integration with regional rail if the old CN rail line is ever activated for a cross-town transit service.

[Kitchissippi]

A bunch of crappy townhouses nearing the end of their lifespan dictating the alignment of the LRT is just mind-boggling. After this extension is built a developer will probably just snap them up, demolish everything and put up high rises. We’re talking about spending more money avoiding the site than the property is currently worth.

[GeoNerd]

Funny how nobody made a fuss when we spent countless millions extra to bury the line along the parkway so it wouldn’t partially obstruct the view of the river for a handful of Westboro residents. Yet all of a sudden avoiding demolition of some lower income homes during a housing emergency is outrageous. Very telling.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

Funny how nobody made a fuss when we spent countless millions extra to bury the line along the parkway so it wouldn’t partially obstruct the view of the river for a handful of Westboro residents. Yet all of a sudden avoiding demolition of some lower income homes during a housing emergency is outrageous. Very telling.

I think you'll find that everyone on this forum was putting up a fuss when the decision was made to bury the line along the parkway.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

Funny how nobody made a fuss when we spent countless millions extra to bury the line along the parkway so it wouldn’t partially obstruct the view of the river for a handful of Westboro residents. Yet all of a sudden avoiding demolition of some lower income homes during a housing emergency is outrageous. Very telling.

The developer has already started renoviction, so the City's decision to spend tens of millions to avoid expropriation and add a couple other problematic curves is inconsequential to the affordable housing supply.

It would be more beneficial for these people if the City did expropriate now and had a few years to move them to new affordable housing units instead of being kicked to the curb by the developer.

If this was actual affordable housing, OCH or another non-for profit, it might be different, but this is a greedy developer who's has $$ in his eyes.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

I think you'll find that everyone on this forum was putting up a fuss when the decision was made to bury the line along the parkway.

I remember, they were applauding, just as costs were escalating at a tremendous pace. Meanwhile, we value engineer on things that are important to the user, such as badly designed transfer stations.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I remember, they were applauding, just as costs were escalating at a tremendous pace. Meanwhile, we value engineer on things that are important to the user, such as badly designed transfer stations.

Hmm, different memories, but I'm too lazy to look back through the Confederation Line West thread to check

[J.OT13]

I think many of us were happy with the route chosen, i.e. Richmond over the Parkway (which would have added a bunch of curves and put the train further from the ridership base, option was straight up rejected by the NCC anyway) or Carling (which would have again added two significant curves, more stops and left Tunney's as a weird spur).

I was personally always in agreement with burying the line under Richmond/Byron section as surface would have cut the neighborhood in half and slowed down the train. On the Parkway end, I preferred the City's proposal of a shallow tunnel with open ventilation windows to the river. The NCC went a step too far by asking it be built deeper.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I think many of us were happy with the route chosen, i.e. Richmond over the Parkway (which would have added a bunch of curves and put the train further from the ridership base, option was straight up rejected by the NCC anyway) or Carling (which would have again added two significant curves, more stops and left Tunney's as a weird spur).

I was personally always in agreement with burying the line under Richmond/Byron section as surface would have cut the neighborhood in half and slowed down the train. On the Parkway end, I preferred the City's proposal of a shallow tunnel with open ventilation windows to the river. The NCC went a step too far by asking it be built deeper.

Shallow tunnel was a good compromise. In my oppinion, Elevated viaduct would have made the most sense for both the Parkway and for Byron.

To bring it around full-circle - I think it is telling that elevated viaduct was not even considered for Byron, but it is the preferred option for Woodroffe. I understand that geotechnically tunneling under Woodroffe is much more difficult/risky than Byron, but I also think the prevalence of high-income NIMBYs around Byron made planners dismiss an elevated viaduct option before it was evaluated. Lower income around Woodroffe means less NIMBY opposition to the perceived visual negative of elevated rail.

[GeoNerd]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The developer has already started renoviction, so the City's decision to spend tens of millions to avoid expropriation and add a couple other problematic curves is inconsequential to the affordable housing supply.

It would be more beneficial for these people if the City did expropriate now and had a few years to move them to new affordable housing units instead of being kicked to the curb by the developer.

If this was actual affordable housing, OCH or another non-for profit, it might be different, but this is a greedy developer who's has $$ in his eyes.

The difference is the city would evict low income tenants just to save money while over spending to save rich peoples views of the river. Versus a land owner upgrading their property over time (which they have the right to do). The greedy developer narrative is a ridiculous notion.

[OTownandDown]

Plan seems feasible enough. How much would it be to NOT do this, carve out 50 acres of the Woodroffe/Hunt Club corner of the experimental farm (across the street from Nepean Sports Plex (or better yet, AT the sportsplex parking lot?) and re-build these people's houses to a better, modern standard, and just run the trains at grade?

A 4 year construction timeline and a few hundred milly should be valid for either option, right?

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Public consultation slides from this moth:

https://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/do...an_2023_en.pdf

Complete with the re-alignment to save homes being reconvicted anyway.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

The difference is the city would evict low income tenants just to save money

What part of "the residents are being evicted anyway" don't you understand?

[GeoNerd]

Originally Posted by roger1818

What part of "the residents are being evited anyway" don't you understand?

Probably the “evited” part.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

Probably the “evited” part.

LOL. Fixed it.

[GeoNerd]

One plan involves evicting 35 units that will be renovated. The rent will almost certainly go up when completed likely putting them out of reach financially for current residents. The remaining units will eventually all be renovated over time as well, which does suck for current residents.

The other plan called for the eviction and permanent destruction of 120 units. Big difference.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

One plan involves evicting 35 units that will be renovated. The rent will almost certainly go up when completed likely putting them out of reach financially for current residents. The remaining units will eventually all be renovated over time as well, which does suck for current residents.

The other plan called for the eviction and permanent destruction of 120 units. Big difference.

One plan called for the eviction & permanent "destruction" of 120 units of "affordable" housing likely within the next decade and that is the path the city just took and the one your defending.

The other path, involved the expropriation (into the cities control) and eventual demolition of the units. A demolition which at this rate could be a decade away. During that time the tenants would have a home under city control that will NOT have any rent increase and would not evict them. Which should have give the city enough to to rehome anyone who wants to be into other OCH units.

It would also allow in the end for the city to have a very large site (almost the same size as 555 March Rd) to redevelop into OCH housing. That is a lot of affordable housing that the city didn't even consider...