Quote:
Originally Posted by eternallyme
I've decided to revise the Hurdman plan, seeing my new idea (and your suggestions frowning on a road connection to King Edward). The general LRT concept is unchanged though.
Orange - Bored tunnel
Light red - Elevated
Red - At grade (existing Transitway grade)
Dark grey - Trenched/tunnel commuter rail (option exists)
Black - At grade commuter rail
Light grey - New local/collector road for redevelopment
White - Bus-only roadway
Purple - Alta Vista Transportation Corridor (optional)
R - Redevelopment areas (Top-density residential or mixed use, 15 to 40 storeys, plus the relocated Lycee Claudel school)
1 - The LRT emerges from the bored tunnel just past Lees Station (see downtown ideas) onto a structure over the Rideau River. The portal would be in the parking lot shown.
2 - The LRT remains elevated into Hurdman Station, crossing the local road and the pathways.
3 - Hurdman Station is elevated, angled and to the north of the current bus station. It is a centre-loading station with the mezzanine at the surface (with connections to buses).
4 - At the curve where the LRT will turn east, protection will exist for a future Southeast Transitway conversion (which should replace the north-south plan, leaving the existing O-Train as it is).
5 - At the existing Transitway curve east of Hurdman, the LRT will drop to the existing Transitway level.
6 - No changes are recommended to the city's recommended plan at Train Station (not shown). If the current Ottawa Station is closed (replaced by the downtown Union Station), the area would be opened for redevelopment and the station renamed Tremblay Station.
7 - Once converted to LRT, the Southeast corridor would remain elevated up to the Riverside Drive overpass then drop to the current Transitway grade, which it should remain for most of the remaining length.
8 - Lycee Claudel (Abbey) Station would be unchanged except for conversion to rail with side platforms. They would be offsetting like the current Transitway platforms are.
9 - The LRT would remain at the current Transitway grade to the AVTC and beyond. If the AVTC is constructed, it would need to go under both the LRT and the OCR/VIA/commuter rail lines.
10 - The commuter rail/VIA corridor would remain on the current Transitway until the Hurdman curve, where it would go onto its own alignment. The local road and bus-only road would both need to go under the rail corridor, and the pathway already goes under the existing Transitway.
11 - The commuter rail/VIA line remains at-grade between the main redevelopment area and the AVTC corridor. Several pedestrian and bicycle underpasses should be built.
12 - The commuter rail/VIA line would descend under Riverside Drive and the LRT, either in a short tunnel or an open trench.
|
Umm... you're going to take a railway that's already on an embankment down that embankment and then down again beneath the current Transitway/Old Riverside Drive and then down yet again beneath the still-lower Riverside Drive?
Take a look at Google Streetview:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en...12,104.51,,0,5
You can see the building in the background and the railway embankment. Now pan around to the west - there's a hill. I think you'd be much better off taking the railway high across all this rather than beneath it all.
I also don't care much for the curved alignment past Hurdman. That alignment may even be beyond standard railway curves, and the number of curves is definitely sub-optimal.
Quote:
13 - A diamond would be built where Lycee Claudel school currently is (the school would be relocated across Riverside Drive as part of the project at the rail authority's expense). The diamond would facilite access east and west for commuter and VIA trains.
|
I wouldn't use an alignment anything like this. I would build a new rail bridge a little south of the former CPR bridge just south of the Queensway. That would be accessible from both the east (LRT likely goes under it) and from the south/west, via a new alignment, by way of a track leaving the current track just north of the Transitway access road underpass. That avoids the circuitous route for eastern trains especially. Such an alignment would also be pretty decent for HSR in the future (since HSR is going to have to track share within the approaches to the stations anyway). Depending on the state of CPR bridge, it may even be possible to re-use it by moving it.
On the Lees side of the river, the parking lot would be cut in two and a new underpass or overpass of the Queensway would be required. Given the height of the VIA embankment already, I would tend to go with an overpass, gaining height over the river, but that requires doing something about the Lees Ave overpass, which I would remove and replace with an underpass of the Queensway.
Part of the reason I prefer rail to go high is that I think we should also bury or otherwise get rid of Nicholas, so that works out well once past Mann Ave since rail can just replace Nicholas on its embankment.
The tricky bit is figuring out how to redesign the 417-Nicholas interchange to allow Nicholas to come in from below rather than above.
We can even consider building the LRT alignment along the north side of the rail alignment all the way from Mann and just not have a Hurdman Station as such; the Lees Station would basically be where Lees currently crosses the Queensway and it could take on the role of hub if the SE Transitway were turned into LRT since there'd then be no need for a bus terminal at Hurdman. Such an arrangement also avoids a need for the rail line to cross the East LRT line between the Rideau River and their crossing of Riverside Drive. The Southeast LRT line would likely cross the Rideau River at a lower level than the railway and East LRT, coming up to their level at the Lees Station after crossing beneath.
That then leaves the current Transitway bridge at Hurdman available for other things, as would be the Transitway underpass of the Queensway, which is basically four lanes wide.
I think I'm going to have to draw this out...