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

[Richard Eade]

What about a routing that moves the Moodie Station into easy walking distance of DND (< 1 km) and Wesley Clover; moves the station away from Crystal Beach; provides closer transit to Kanata North business area (and service to an area that can be intensified); provides a transit route through the middle-ish of the residential part of Kanata North; still makes use of the pre-built underpass at Kanata Blvd; provides a stop at the pedestrian overpass of the 417; and provides an alternate location (albeit probably a confrontational one) for the LMSF (or a P&R)?



Cons (compared to the preferred route along the north side of the 417): That it would remove about 50 million-dollar houses along the east side of the golf course; the routing is longer (so, slower); it misses going CLOSE to the existing Eagleson P&R (which could be returned to the NCC as a trade for the old rail line).

Taking the 50 houses might sound drastic, but if the City had to pay $1.5M each, then that is a $75M cost to acquire a lot of the land for a $1B project. It is similar to the logic used by the City when it proposed removing 26 houses along Roman (for about $35M) to avoid building a $50M tunnel. The big difference is that the routing I suggest puts the train in the center of Kanata, where it might actually be useful for residents.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Why we need fare paid zones for buses at this location in the long-term is beyond me.

Long term I agree we could get away without it. Short term, it will probably be the station with the most transfers once complete (though Baseline will be close).

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

What about a routing that moves the Moodie Station into easy walking distance of DND (< 1 km) and Wesley Clover; moves the station away from Crystal Beach; provides closer transit to Kanata North business area (and service to an area that can be intensified); provides a transit route through the middle-ish of the residential part of Kanata North; still makes use of the pre-built underpass at Kanata Blvd; provides a stop at the pedestrian overpass of the 417; and provides an alternate location (albeit probably a confrontational one) for the LMSF (or a P&R)?



Cons (compared to the preferred route along the north side of the 417): That it would remove about 50 million-dollar houses along the east side of the golf course; the routing is longer (so, slower); it misses going CLOSE to the existing Eagleson P&R (which could be returned to the NCC as a trade for the old rail line).

Taking the 50 houses might sound drastic, but if the City had to pay $1.5M each, then that is a $75M cost to acquire a lot of the land for a $1B project. It is similar to the logic used by the City when it proposed removing 26 houses along Roman (for about $35M) to avoid building a $50M tunnel. The big difference is that the routing I suggest puts the train in the center of Kanata, where it might actually be useful for residents.

I just don't get the fetish of getting the station closer to Wesley Clover? How many people would use the LRT to go there? Maybe I am wrong but I have troubles seeing it top 100 people per year. I guess combining it with DND makes sense, but your proposal looks like the station would be much closer the Wesley Clover than DND.

Let me see if I understand your routing:

• Cross Moodie at Corkstown and run south of the Watts Creek Pathway,
• Tunnel under the now abandoned leg of the Beachburg Subdivision and run parallel to(above?) the Renfrew Subdivision,
• Cross Bayview Ave, Hertzberg Rd, Terron Rd, Tim Hortons driveway and March Rd,
• At South March Station, cut south along the recreational pathway between Kimmins ct and Lismer cres. (or is it down the middle of Kimmins ct.),
• Continue south over the eastern edge of the Kanata Golf & Country Club,
• At Robert Gray park, turn to run parallel to the 417.

Certainly imaginative. Would the train become a hazard on the golf course or would the golf course be a hazard to the train?

One other con I thought of is until the Kanata extension is built, the relocated Moodie station adds an extra 1km of backtracking for buses from Kanata (or Bells Corners). Considering probably about 90% of the transfers at Moodie will be from Kanata, that is a big problem. Also, if you think the residents of Cristal Beach will be upset at being over 300m from an LRT station, how do you think the hundreds residents of Kanata who are currently baking onto a park or golf course will feel about having the LRT line less than 50m from their back door.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Also, if you think the residents of Cristal Beach will be upset at being over 300m from an LRT station, how do you think the hundreds residents of Kanata who are currently baking onto a park or golf course will feel about having the LRT line less than 50m from their back door.

If such NIMBYs don't want LRT, let's spend their LRT money in communities that are crying out for it, especially in the dense and transit-supportive core that has been condemned to ride buses for eternity.

[Lakeofthewood]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

If such NIMBYs don't want LRT, let's spend their LRT money in communities that are crying out for it, especially in the dense and transit-supportive core that has been condemned to ride buses for eternity.

Hear, hear!

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

If such NIMBYs don't want LRT, let's spend their LRT money in communities that are crying out for it, especially in the dense and transit-supportive core that has been condemned to ride buses for eternity.

If you expect a subway to Vanier, don't hold your breathe. All our money is going to the Confederation Line and they don't want a competing line 2 km to the north.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If you expect a subway to Vanier, don't hold your breathe. All our money is going to the Confederation Line and they don't want a competing line 2 km to the north.

Confederation is a commuer line for the burbs. Rideau-Montreal line would serve the core. No competition whatsoever.

[Hybrid247]

The thing about putting LRT down Montreal road is that a surface line wouldn't really do much in terms of service improvement and a grade-separated line would be far too expensive.

[1overcosc]

I'm not sure if Rideau-Montreal has sufficient demand for a subway.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I'm not sure if Rideau-Montreal has sufficient demand for a subway.

A partially tunnelled LRT leg splitting off the Confederation line at Rideau would balance the trains operationally in the east and the west. Montreal Road is ripe for redevelopment and land costs are relatively cheap compared to other parts of the city. The stations on Montreal Road would probably have higher boardings then many of the stations in the west end of the city like Dominion, Cleary, Iris, Queensview and Pinecrest.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

The thing about putting LRT down Montreal road is that a surface line wouldn't really do much in terms of service improvement and a grade-separated line would be far too expensive.

Assuming you space the stations 600m apart, do traffic priority, and the much increased capacity over the 40ft buses they run during the day, it actually would be a big improvement. Not everything needs to be a subway

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If you expect a subway to Vanier, don't hold your breathe. All our money is going to the Confederation Line and they don't want a competing line 2 km to the north.

Competition is a non-issue: Route 12 (2) and others have co-existed alongside the Transitway, along the same corridor, for more than two decades.

It is the inherent suburban dominance of the amalgamated Ottawa, the cultural cheapness of the populace, and the commitment of a century's worth of borrowing room towards building LRT to every far-flung suburb, that is condemning Vanier and other parts of the inner urban area to second-class citizen status, effectively forever. The only way for most inner urban people to have close proximity to mass transit, will be to move to the suburbs.

Thanks, Jim!

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

The thing about putting LRT down Montreal road is that a surface line wouldn't really do much in terms of service improvement and a grade-separated line would be far too expensive.

So, screw you, core! Oh, and thanks for those lovely transit levies; they look great on our walls in Nepean.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

Assuming you space the stations 600m apart, do traffic priority

The city will never, ever, EVER give transit priority, other than for a limited portion of the morning, to buses or trams on Montreal and Rideau.

Never. Not happening. The commuter and truck route is considered far more important. That was clear at the Montreal Road open house.

So, no surface transit. No underground transit. No overhead transit. Nothing except buses on this busy, dense, and diverse corridor, and others in the core (most importantly Bank), forever.

Another city would be building urban transit. All Ottawa is building is suburban transit. The only people who count for anything in Jim Watson's city - and by extension the city of the next century, who will be paying for the vision - are suburbanites.

Is there any other city where urban transit is being used as an instrument of sprawl like this?

and the much increased capacity over the 40ft buses they run during the day, it actually would be a big improvement. Not everything needs to be a subway

That's just it: prior to the "service improvements" that saw the 12/2 split, the Rideau-Montreal service was run almost entirely on artics. They were reassigned to suburban routes as part of the "service improvements", and it took almost a decade to get capacity returned to maybe 95% of what it was before. It is still not back to 2008 levels: transit in the core was sacrificed to provide more single-seat rides to suburbanites.

[Acajack]

I wonder if there aren't potential vacant stretches or corridors in the Montreal Rd. vicinity that we aren't thinking of.

Will look at a map just for fun to see. All excuses to look at maps are good.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I wonder if there aren't potential vacant stretches or corridors in the Montreal Rd. vicinity that we aren't thinking of.

Will look at a map just for fun to see. All excuses to look at maps are good.

There are none.

Could have been, if the two Somersets had been linked across the canal and extended east to what's Donald now, 100 years ago.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

Assuming you space the stations 600m apart, do traffic priority, and the much increased capacity over the 40ft buses they run during the day, it actually would be a big improvement. Not everything needs to be a subway

With all the intersections and limited space for both stations and a ROW, I can't see the cost, construction logistics and level of improvement making a strong business case, as opposed to improved bus service (bus lanes + improved frequency).

I would love to see LRT in Vanier but I just can't see it happening.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

That's just it: prior to the "service improvements" that saw the 12/2 split, the Rideau-Montreal service was run almost entirely on artics. They were reassigned to suburban routes as part of the "service improvements", and it took almost a decade to get capacity returned to maybe 95% of what it was before. It is still not back to 2008 levels: transit in the core was sacrificed to provide more single-seat rides to suburbanites.

I take it you mean the express routes? There sure as hell aren't any artics doing local routes in the burbs.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

I take it you mean the express routes? There sure as hell aren't any artics doing local routes in the burbs.

Not just express, but extensions to the "transitway routes." It used to be that the 96 & 97 were 40' buses and ran only as far as Carlingwood or Kanata in the west and Airport or Hurdman in the east. Demand has increased so articulated buses are needed, fine. However, they have also split those two routes into multiple routes that have been extended to loop around the different suburbs, mostly empty until they get onto the transitway. Two of the worst offenders are the 61 and 62 as they both go to the GRC in Stittsville using different routes. If you need to extend a trasitway route to Stittsville (I'm not convinced), have only one (optimally running on the Queensway) and let the connections to it be served by local routes with a 40' buses.

[Hybrid247]

Some transitway routes like the 94 and 98 are busy enough to justify use of artics but I hadn't realized that the 96 got scrapped and replaced with 2 new routes (been out of town for about 2 years). Wasn't the 96 assigned 40' buses outside of peak hours though? I would imagine that the 61 and 62 would be as well.