Confederation Line West LRT Extension (Stage 2) [Tunney's to Baseline/Moodie] | U/C

[lrt's friend]

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.

Isn't the Queensview station to serve the Ikea store and the Pinecrest Shopping Centre by Pedestrian bridge? 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. But again, we need to serve the business interests over residences. Remember those election donations from the big developers. That keeps the city going.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Isn't the Queensview station to serve the Ikea store and the Pinecrest Shopping Centre by Pedestrian bridge? 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. But again, we need to serve the business interests over residences. Remember those election donations from the big developers. That keeps the city going.

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

[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.

[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).

[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)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

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.

What are the underground utilities like under Carling?

[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.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

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.

I'm not sure if that's the case this far west. Much of Carling is an overly wide 6 lane road with a big grass median, so by narrowing it to 4 lanes it would be a piece of cake to throw an at-grade route on it. But IIRC (and correct me if I'm wrong) Carling narrows to 4 lanes in the Bayshore/Brittania area west of the Parkway and the median gets pretty narrow too.. if so it will not fit without tunnelling or elevation.

[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.

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by roger1818

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.

Ok, I see that the Dumaurier & Queensview intersections are pretty close to each other. I still don't think it would be beneficial to pedestrians to remove either one of them, because there are usually a lot of cars going N/S on Pinecrest/Greenbank.

In fact, I think we should further improve pedestrian accessibility by painting more East/West crossings at the Transitway and Iris intersections (currently they are only 3 ways each).

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Buggys

Ok, I see that the Dumaurier & Queensview intersections are pretty close to each other. I still don't think it would be beneficial to pedestrians to remove either one of them, because there are usually a lot of cars going N/S on Pinecrest/Greenbank.

If your concern is lack of pedestrian crossings on Pinecrest, I don't see why we need 5 within 160m and then none for 650m (to Richmond). A better option would be to add a pedestrian crossover (or if Pinecrest is too busy a pedestrian activated traffic light) somewhere in the middle (maybe near St. Stephen's st). That would be much more useful than the crosswalks at Dumaurier.

In fact, I think we should further improve pedestrian accessibility by painting more East/West crossings at the Transitway and Iris intersections (currently they are only 3 ways each).

Huh? According to Google maps, there are 4 crosswalks at Iris and the transitway. Regardless, it won't be necessary as the LRT will pass under Iris.

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by roger1818

If your concern is lack of pedestrian crossings on Pinecrest, I don't see why we need 5 within 160m and then none for 650m (to Richmond). A better option would be to add a pedestrian crossover (or if Pinecrest is too busy a pedestrian activated traffic light) somewhere in the middle (maybe near St. Stephen's st). That would be much more useful than the crosswalks at Dumaurier.



Huh? According to Google maps, there are 4 crosswalks at Iris and the transitway. Regardless, it won't be necessary as the LRT will pass under Iris.

Hmmm, I think that the main reason to keep the Dumaurier and Queensview traffic lights is so that vehicles coming out from those streets turning left actually have a chance. Each of those streets lead to businesses & potentially lots of people (Giant tiger, baseball diamond, multi-unit housing, bus garage, Leon's, etc). Ideally, those streets could be modified to align as 1 street & share 1 traffic light.

For the 2 intersections closest to Pinecrest station (Transitway/Pinecrest and Iris/Greenbank), the lines are drawn so that pedestrians's traffic lights only go 3 ways instead of 4. However, both these intersections are where there would likely be most pedestrian traffic (due to Pinecrest station on the Transitway, and the stores around the Ikea plaza), and vehicles just coming off the highway ramps (where they were just used to faster speeds and no pedestrians).

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Buggys

Hmmm, I think that the main reason to keep the Dumaurier and Queensview traffic lights is so that vehicles coming out from those streets turning left actually have a chance. Each of those streets lead to businesses & potentially lots of people (Giant tiger, baseball diamond, multi-unit housing, bus garage, Leon's, etc).

Please re-read my original suggestion:

Originally Posted by roger1818

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).

Dumaurier would be blocked off from Pinecrest so there would be no left turning traffic there.

Originally Posted by Buggys

Ideally, those streets could be modified to align as 1 street & share 1 traffic light.

That is what I am suggesting and you are objecting to. You can see that I even suggested removing a second traffic light and only have one instead of three:

Originally Posted by roger1818

It would be nice if they could get it down to 1 intersection, but that isn't going to happen.

Originally Posted by Buggys

For the 2 intersections closest to Pinecrest station (Transitway/Pinecrest and Iris/Greenbank), the lines are drawn so that pedestrians's traffic lights only go 3 ways instead of 4. However, both these intersections are where there would likely be most pedestrian traffic (due to Pinecrest station on the Transitway, and the stores around the Ikea plaza), and vehicles just coming off the highway ramps (where they were just used to faster speeds and no pedestrians).

Oh, I thought you said the intersection of Iris and the Transitway.

For the Queensway/Transitway and Pinecrest intersection, the LRT plan shows a pedestrian underpass, so hopefully that will help, though it looks like it will do a funny loop, so it may not be optimal.

For Iris and Pinecrest, that is a messy intersection and having pedestrians safely cross on the north side of the intersection would be difficult. This isn't really affected by my suggestion either way though.