HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2014, 4:05 PM
MoreTrains MoreTrains is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 858
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm1 View Post
i don't get why people want to preserve byron linear park west of rochester field. You could run lrt down it (or under it) at very little cost. The trams are not rickety squeaky old things and they will be running on straight track along byron. They will also be far quieter than buses. If they were running around a curve, that might be different, but they won't be. The trains should be quiet and they will be sleek looking enough that they won't be too much of a visual intrusion.
but how will the children walk their puppies! Surely you dont suggest using a sidewalk along byron or richmond! Wont somebody please think of the children!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2014, 4:48 PM
silvergate's Avatar
silvergate silvergate is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 629
Isn't the underground mostly clay in the richmond road area, compared with bedrock downtown?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2014, 4:50 PM
TransitZilla TransitZilla is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by JM1 View Post
I don't get why people want to preserve Byron linear park west of Rochester field. You could run LRT down it (or under it) at very little cost. The trams are not rickety squeaky old things and they will be running on straight track along Byron. They will also be far quieter than buses. If they were running around a curve, that might be different, but they won't be. The trains should be quiet and they will be sleek looking enough that they won't be too much of a visual intrusion.
The trains may be sleek looking, but they will be running very frequently and very fast. If it was running at grade, the whole corridor would need to be fenced off, which would prevent any vehicle or pedestrian crossing for a significant distance. It would be a pretty significant change in character from what is there today.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2014, 5:28 PM
YOWetal YOWetal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradnixon View Post
The trains may be sleek looking, but they will be running very frequently and very fast. If it was running at grade, the whole corridor would need to be fenced off, which would prevent any vehicle or pedestrian crossing for a significant distance. It would be a pretty significant change in character from what is there today.
Agree and while NIMBY like those opposing don't entirely deserve the label. I don't blame them for working to bury the line. It will be less than ideal. As a city if we pay hundreds of millions to avoid the impact on a few hundred residents then it is us who we should blame for giving in to them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2014, 5:31 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradnixon View Post
The trains may be sleek looking, but they will be running very frequently and very fast. If it was running at grade, the whole corridor would need to be fenced off, which would prevent any vehicle or pedestrian crossing for a significant distance. It would be a pretty significant change in character from what is there today.
There would be no crossings, except for perhaps one or two pedestrian overpasses, between Fraser and Woodroffe.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2014, 5:55 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 12,335
If west loses LRT, south should gain: Desroches

By Jon Willing, Ottawa Sun
First posted: Monday, November 24, 2014 11:56 PM EST | Updated: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:02 AM EST


An outgoing city councillor says the stalemate with the NCC over the western LRT line should prompt City Hall to reconsider the rail corridor to Barrhaven.

"It looks as though we're at a very serious impasse and we have a limited funding envelope going forward to extend rail to all parts of the city," Glouester-South Nepean Coun. Steve Desroches told the Sun Monday.

"We have a community in Barrhaven that will grow to well over 100,000 people and the key to success is to have a reliable rapid transit system."

But Desroches doesn't want to paint the idea as a resurgence of the old north-south LRT route that was cancelled by the previous council in favour of the east-west line currently under construction.

"This is not about revisiting that decision," Desroches said.

"This is about coming up with another opportunity to serve a community of over 100,000."

The previous north-south blueprint had trains follow the O-Train line through Riverside South, over the new Strandherd-Armstrong bridge to a terminus at the Barrhaven town centre.

Earlier this month the city opened new bus-only lanes in the median of Chapman Mills Dr. in Barrhaven. That's where trains were supposed to run under the north-south LRT plan.

Desroches said the corridor through Riverside South and Barrhaven "is not contentious," although the city would need to do plenty of homework to review the studies.

The city already wants to extend the diesel O-Train to Riverside South and the train line will soon launch a service expansion.

Desroches said the north-south route should be plugged into the next transportation master plan if the western LRT project is frozen.

"The growth is not waiting for that solution. The growth is happening," he said.

Twitter: @JonathanWilling

http://www.ottawasun.com/2014/11/24/...gain-desroches
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2014, 6:32 PM
eemy's Avatar
eemy eemy is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,456
Honestly, a route through Rochester Field with rejigged station locations (primarily getting rid of Dominion), would actually be my preferred routing. The NCC irritates me nonetheless.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2014, 7:21 PM
MoreTrains MoreTrains is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 858
Quote:
Originally Posted by silvergate View Post
Isn't the underground mostly clay in the richmond road area, compared with bedrock downtown?
If it is that makes it more difficult to go underground as clay needs much more bracing and reinforcing than bedrock. So that would explain the 1.7 billion price tag as opposed to 900 million.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2014, 9:03 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by silvergate View Post
Isn't the underground mostly clay in the richmond road area, compared with bedrock downtown?
No, it's bedrock around here. There's 8-12" of clay on top of maybe a few feet of fragmentary shale (sort of like clay that hadn't finished becoming true rock due to lack of pressure) on top of limestone. You can see the limestone in the West Transitway trench along Scott, with the concrete retaining walls holding back the top layers of shale and soil.

I believe the clay is somewhat deeper once you get to the Cleary area (that's from my recollection of the Continental's excavation), but bedrock is still close to the surface.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2014, 9:13 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,244
You can see the geotech study for the nearby UpperWest condos here. Bedrock and groundwater both fairly close to the surface.
http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/...appId=__80VOR1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2014, 11:00 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Now that the city site is back up, my opinion now on how to handle all the alternatives:

C-1 (Carling via O-Train, as one news columnist recommended): TERRIBLE
* Splits the O-Train corridor, with significant service disruption
* Bypasses Tunney's Pasture (3rd largest business area in the region) and Westboro (high transit use there)
* Either still requires buses on the SJAM Parkway or more Route 2 service
* Very high cost
* Cannot extend any service to Gatineau

C-2 (Carling via Kirkwood): FAIR
* Services key business areas, gaps can be filled with extra Route 2 and 85 service, removes buses from SJAM Parkway
* Requires long section of tunnels and an elevated corridor
* Allows for intensification along Carling
* Reconnection to Transitway is difficult and disruptive
* Very high cost
* Preferred option if cost can be mitigated and Richmond Road area community too defensive

C-3 (Carling via Churchill): FAIR
* Same issues as C-2, except slightly fewer destinations serviced
* High cost

C-4 (Carling at-grade): TERRIBLE
* Same issues as C-1, except with more impact on Carling
* Very high cost

R-1 (Richmond via Churchill): POOR
* Reconnection to Transitway is difficult and disruptive
* Best service to Westboro
* No impact to NCC property
* Extreme impact to linear park
* Moderately high cost

R-2 (Richmond via Churchill - underground): POOR
* Same issues as R-1, except no impact to linear park
* Very high cost

R-3 (Richmond via Churchill, Carlingwood): FAIR
* Same issues as R-1, except slightly less impact to linear park
* Serves Carlingwood, hence higher ridership
* High cost

R-4 (Richmond via Churchill, Carlingwood - underground): POOR
* Same issues as R-3, except no impact to linear park
* Extremely high cost

R-5 (Richmond via Rochester Field): EXCELLENT
* Easier connection between Transitway and Richmond
* Route approved by NCC
* High impact to linear park
* Moderate cost
* Preferred option

R-6 (Richmond via Rochester Field - underground): GOOD
* Same issues as R-5, except no impact to linear park
* High cost

R-7 (Richmond via Rochester Field, Carlingwood): GOOD
* Same issues as R-5, except:
** Slightly less impact to linear park
** Serves Carlingwood, increased ridership
** Moderately high cost

R-8 (Richmond via Rochester Field, Carlingwood - underground): FAIR
* Same issues as R-7, except no impact to linear park
* Very high cost

R-9 (Richmond via former CPR corridor): POOR
* Impact of NCC non-negotiable
* Moderate impact to linear park
* Moderate cost

R-10 (Richmond via former CPR corridor - underground): POOR
* Impact of NCC non-negotiable
* No impact to linear park
* Moderately high cost

R-11 (CPR to Woodroffe, Carlingwood): POOR
* Impact of NCC non-negotiable
* No impact to linear park
* High cost

O-1 (Parkway lanes): TERRIBLE
* Would likely lead to court cases from the NCC and local residents
* Least ridership potential
* Lowest cost
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2014, 11:50 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,872
Despite the comments being made, I predict that no matter which route is chosen, it will be underground going west. Sure, it may be a surface route crossing Rochester field, but trains will not be on the surface or hidden by a berm along Byron. The community is not going to accept it, and if I lived there, I would be joining any community group fighting against a surface or semi-surface route. We are not talking about slow urban streetcars but fast moving and frequent electric commuter trains. You just have to look at the O-Train where noise barriers have been constructed wherever it runs next to residences. A surface west line running through residential areas will need the same thing. A don't buy any argument that we can get away with surface rail in residential areas.

As far as rail service to the south end, it can't come soon enough. Roads are now beyond capacity every day, yet we offer no alternatives. Any transit being offered is being caught up in the same bad traffic conditions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2014, 12:11 AM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 12,335
The NCC finally has a vision for the waterfront

Peter Raaymakers, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: November 25, 2014, Last Updated: November 25, 2014 4:04 PM EST


When Dr. Mark Kristmanson called a snap press conference last week to unveil the National Capital Commission’s position on western light rail, it caught a lot of people off-guard. And when he “invited” the city to consider two NCC-approved options for getting rail from Dominion to Lincoln Fields — a deep tunnel under the Sir John A. Macdonald Parkway lands or a short route across Rochester Field towards Richmond Road — most scoffed.

Mayor Jim Watson called it “meddlesome” on the NCC’s part. Many others, including the Citizen’s Joanne Chianello, rightfully questioned their insistence on “unimpeded public access to the shoreline” when the NCC itself maintains the four-lane Sir John A. Macdonald Parkway impeding that access far more than a 1.2-kilometre, partially buried rail line.

Recent comments by Kristmanson, however, reveal that the NCC may finally be doing the type of grand planning for which they were established.

In an opinion article in the Citizen explaining the NCC’s position, Kristmanson mentioned — almost in passing — the possibility of establishing a waterfront linear park where the Parkway currently runs. The “Sir John A. Macdonald waterfront park,” as Kristmanson called it, would run from the War Museum on Lebreton Flats to Britannia Beach, incorporating the many existing beaches, rapids, and lookouts along the way.

In order to make it a waterfront park in any meaningful way, the parkway itself would have to be removed. Jacquelin Holzman, the former mayor of Ottawa and current member of the NCC Board of Directors, told me that the park “is front and centre in the vision of the NCC and the Board” and said that the NCC has engaged stakeholders and neighbours on the subject.

The fact that the NCC didn’t explicitly outline these plans while explaining their position to the city is a massive failure of communications on their part. Refusing to allow public transit parallel to their existing freeway is a nonsensical decision, but if they are actively considering the removal of, or major changes to, that freeway then it makes more sense. A waterfront parkway is no place for a light-rail line — even if it’s a segment of only 1.2 kilometres, and even if it’s partially buried.

Establishing the Sir John A. Macdonald Park could be the most ambitious conservation project of the National Capital Commission since Gatineau Park was created in 1938. The NCC’s mandate is to take part in projects like this one, conserving key lands for uses that couldn’t otherwise be envisioned in order to improve quality of life in the National Capital Region. They’ve wasted these waterfront lands for over 50 years by turning them into a commuter corridor, but at least they are finally making larger plans for them.

Understandably, Mayor Jim Watson and the city are perturbed by this curve ball. Their alignment for the western corridor of light-rail expansion already made concessions due to NCC concerns, and the city has been proceeding with that alignment under the belief that the NCC would eventually come around to it. But the decision also presents an opportunity for the city, as they now have to find a new route for the Confederation Line’s western extension. That may be just as well, because although the Richmond Underground alignment was an easy option, it wasn’t the best.

The NCC’s decision doesn’t stem from burdensome meddling, but rather from the good intentions they have to undertake a major improvement project in the region. Now it’s up to the NCC to better communicate their plans for a linear park, make contingencies to ensure traffic can still flow in the city, coordinate sights within the park, and — most challengingly — get funding to make it a reality.

Peter Raaymakers lives in Ottawa. He is the founder and executive director of TransitOttawa.ca.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...the-waterfront
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2014, 12:28 AM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 11,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Despite the comments being made, I predict that no matter which route is chosen, it will be underground going west. Sure, it may be a surface route crossing Rochester field, but trains will not be on the surface or hidden by a berm along Byron. The community is not going to accept it, and if I lived there, I would be joining any community group fighting against a surface or semi-surface route. We are not talking about slow urban streetcars but fast moving and frequent electric commuter trains. You just have to look at the O-Train where noise barriers have been constructed wherever it runs next to residences. A surface west line running through residential areas will need the same thing. A don't buy any argument that we can get away with surface rail in residential areas.

As far as rail service to the south end, it can't come soon enough. Roads are now beyond capacity every day, yet we offer no alternatives. Any transit being offered is being caught up in the same bad traffic conditions.
LRT will be much quieter than the current O-Train. Diesel vehicles are much noisier and give off way more vibrations than electric ones. You even see this in cars too, all-electric cars like the Tesla are way smoother and quieter.

The ideal solution for the Byron Park is a shallow cut and cover topped with a berm, like what the city originally wanted for the corridor by the river around Skead Street. A full bored tunnel the whole way is just way too expensive. I don't care if people who live there don't like it. It would not be right to spend an extra billion dollars just for those people. What the hell makes them think they're special enough to deserve that? What gives them the right to expect such a huge subsidy from 900,000 people?

The city needs to build on Byron, ignoring the people who live there. What can they do? They can not vote for Watson but that's about it. Like he needs their votes anyway. We need a city that does what's best for the whole city, not one that constantly panders to local NIMBY bullshit.

Last edited by 1overcosc; Nov 26, 2014 at 1:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2014, 2:04 AM
silvergate's Avatar
silvergate silvergate is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1overcosc View Post

The ideal solution for the Byron Park is a shallow cut and cover topped with a berm, like what the city originally wanted for the corridor by the river around Skead Street. A full bored tunnel the whole way is just way too expensive. I don't care if people who live there don't like it. It would not be right to spend an extra billion dollars just for those people. What the hell makes them think they're special enough to deserve that? What gives them the right to expect such a huge subsidy from 900,000 people?

The city needs to build on Byron, ignoring the people who live there. What can they do? They can not vote for Watson but that's about it. Like he needs their votes anyway. We need a city that does what's best for the whole city, not one that constantly panders to local NIMBY bullshit.
This would place a train between two streets, potentially ruining a wonderful piece of landscape in the process. The linear park is always nice to walk through, sees a lot of daily activity, and is an excellent connection between Westboro and neighbourhoods further west.

Maybe the city could consider running the train along a car-less Richmond and then underground at Woodroffe to LF. Richmond as a commuter road never made sense to me, since it just runs straight into what should be a pedestrian friendly zone in Westboro Village. Perhaps the city could eliminate that traffic, improving the surrounding area and giving transit a prominent place in that transformation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2014, 2:37 AM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,872
Concerning LRT related traffic issues, here is an example of complaints about congestion caused by LRT level crossings in Edmonton. http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/11/0...-main-priority

There are many other references to this issue in Edmonton media. In fact, the opening of the current extension has been delayed by months because they are having trouble coordinating rail signals and traffic lights.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2014, 2:45 AM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1overcosc View Post
LRT will be much quieter than the current O-Train. Diesel vehicles are much noisier and give off way more vibrations than electric ones. You even see this in cars too, all-electric cars like the Tesla are way smoother and quieter.
Oh there's a whole other story here.

The sound walls originate in the time when the O-Train ran on jointed tracks. All the Transport 2000 types told the City to put in continuous rail, but no, the City's own experts decided that sound walls would suffice. But of course they didn't. So the welded rail was installed in the end and the problem went away.

And lrt's friend's claim that all residences along the O-Train have sound walls is false: those on Breezehill Ave near Bayview, which were built after the CWR was installed, don't have a sound wall. The ones on Sawmill Private near Confederation Heights also don't have a sound wall.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2014, 3:05 AM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Oh there's a whole other story here.

The sound walls originate in the time when the O-Train ran on jointed tracks. All the Transport 2000 types told the City to put in continuous rail, but no, the City's own experts decided that sound walls would suffice. But of course they didn't. So the welded rail was installed in the end and the problem went away.

And lrt's friend's claim that all residences along the O-Train have sound walls is false: those on Breezehill Ave near Bayview, which were built after the CWR was installed, don't have a sound wall. The ones on Sawmill Private near Confederation Heights also don't have a sound wall.
Haven't we been talking about more sound barriers being installed along the O-Train corridor?

Quote:
1) Noise wall installation near Junction Ave is proceeding. They have some of the panels installed but many more to go. Not all of the posts are installed. I have seen machinery with lights working at 5pm every day this week so there seems to be a push on to get this done.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2014, 3:07 AM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 11,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by silvergate View Post
This would place a train between two streets, potentially ruining a wonderful piece of landscape in the process. The linear park is always nice to walk through, sees a lot of daily activity, and is an excellent connection between Westboro and neighbourhoods further west.
That's why I think we should have a shallow cut and cover alignment through Byron Park. Protects the park while still allowing for a cheap grade separation. Would disrupt the park short-term, though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2014, 3:14 AM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 11,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Concerning LRT related traffic issues, here is an example of complaints about congestion caused by LRT level crossings in Edmonton. http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/11/0...-main-priority

There are many other references to this issue in Edmonton media. In fact, the opening of the current extension has been delayed by months because they are having trouble coordinating rail signals and traffic lights.
Did you post the wrong article by accident? That's just a bunch of non-specific complaints about design elements, not complaints about traffic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:03 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.