Barrhaven LRT | Proposed

[rocketphish]

Mayor Watson wants council to spend money on studying Barrhaven LRT

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Updated: June 13, 2018

It was only a matter of time before city hall addressed the elephant on the LRT blueprint: Barrhaven.

Mayor Jim Watson and Barrhaven Coun. Jan Harder announced they’ll ask council on Wednesday to earmark $600,000 to go toward an environmental assessment for an LRT extension from Algonquin College to Barrhaven.

An environmental assessment is the first necessary step to building an LRT line, but the actual construction is likely many years away. Watson has said the obvious Stage 3 LRT project is extending LRT to Kanata.

Of course, the city hasn’t even finished building Stage 1 — the 12.5-kilometre LRT line between Tunney’s Pasture and Blair station, through a downtown tunnel — or started construction of Stage 2, which will extend LRT to Moodie Drive, Trim Road and Algonquin College, plus extend the Trillium Line to the Ottawa International Airport and Riverside South.

But the Barrhaven conundrum has become glaringly obvious as the other suburbs are either on track for LRT or have been studied for a rail extension.

The municipal election is in October. Watson and Harder have both filed their nomination papers to seek re-election.

Harder called for a Barrhaven LRT feasibility study in 2017 when council approved the Stage 2 blueprint.

Bringing LRT to Barrhaven would mean converting the current rapid-bus line to rail, likely requiring underpasses or overpasses at intersections, but an environmental assessment would provide the construction options and costs.

The city would begin the environmental assessment this fall and the study would take between one and two years.

Watson hasn’t said how much the environmental assessment costs. The city money identified so far will come from development charges ($336,000) and the transit capital reserve ($234,000).

jwilling@postmedia.com
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...-barrhaven-lrt

[zzptichka]

"Transportation Master Plan? Never heard of it" - Watson and Harder, probably

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Forget finding new routes and ridership, the suburbs need their trains!

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

"Transportation Master Plan? Never heard of it" - Watson and Harder, probably

Not quite sure what your point is. Map 3 (Rapid Transit and Transit Priority Network – Ultimate Network) of the TMP clearly shows an LRT extension to Barrhaven Centre Station (and it shows BRT between Barrhaven Centre Station and just west of Limebank).

IMHO, it makes perfect sense to do this EA. I agree that Stage 3 should first extend to Terry Fox, but after that we should really look at extending to Barrhaven.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Not quite sure what your point is. Map 3 (Rapid Transit and Transit Priority Network – Ultimate Network) of the TMP clearly shows an LRT extension to Barrhaven Centre Station (and it shows BRT between Barrhaven Centre Station and just west of Limebank).

IMHO, it makes perfect sense to do this EA. I agree that Stage 3 should first extend to Terry Fox, but after that we should really look at extending to Barrhaven.

Well "Ultimate network" is something from the 22nd century. It's not in the 2031 network concept. Neither is Kanata though...
Meanwhile Carling LRT is in it but who cares... Sprawl won't sprawl by itself...

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Well "Ultimate network" is something from the 22nd century. It's not in the 2031 network concept. Neither is Kanata though...

22nd Century? So you expect no development for the 70 years from 2031 until 2101? The reality is while we are doing the EAs now, construction won't likely start until after 2031. if it does start sooner, that is great!

Meanwhile Carling LRT is in it but who cares... Sprawl won't sprawl by itself...

Yes there are some things in the plan that have been delayed, but plans can change. It's not like these plans came from God etched into stone.

I used to think the LRT shouldn't extend beyond the Greenbelt, but when I realized how many hundreds of buses drive through them each day without even stopping, I changed my mind and resized that getting LRT just beyond the Greenbelt is a good thing. I still feel it shouldn't be extended much beyond that though (Terry Fox not Hazeldean, Marketplace not Minto RC, and Place d'Orleans not Trim (though too late for that)). Basically far enough that you can build a good network of local buses around it to existing developments and not so far that it stretches urban sprawl even further.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I used to think the LRT shouldn't extend beyond the Greenbelt, but when I realized how many hundreds of buses drive through them each day without even stopping, I changed my mind and resized that getting LRT just beyond the Greenbelt is a good thing. I still feel it shouldn't be extended much beyond that though (Terry Fox not Hazeldean, Marketplace not Minto RC, and Place d'Orleans not Trim (though too late for that)). Basically far enough that you can build a good network of local buses around it to existing developments and not so far that it stretches urban sprawl even further.

All the LRT in the world is not going to stop sprawl as long as the city's tax and revenue structure, capital expenditure priorities, land-use and non-transit transportation policies, and planning approvals, keep tilting the board in favour of sprawl. Which they have, which they continue to do, and which there is no sign of abating.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

All the LRT in the world is not going to stop sprawl as long as the city's tax and revenue structure, capital expenditure priorities, land-use and non-transit transportation policies, and planning approvals, keep tilting the board in favour of sprawl. Which they have, which they continue to do, and which there is no sign of abating.

I never said LRT would stop sprawl (nor would not having LRT). I said that extending LRT to outer reaches of the suburbs would encourage more of it.

[Vixx]

This was coming. Whether it is necessary and when/if it'll happen, is another question entirely.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

All the LRT in the world is not going to stop sprawl as long as the city's tax and revenue structure, capital expenditure priorities, land-use and non-transit transportation policies, and planning approvals, keep tilting the board in favour of sprawl. Which they have, which they continue to do, and which there is no sign of abating.

The alternative of building roads guarantees not just sprawl, but low density sprawl.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The alternative of building roads guarantees not just sprawl, but low density sprawl.

Sprawl With Transit is pretty much a distinction without a difference, especially in cities like Ottawa which have a lousy track record when it comes to truly transit-oriented development, and a building industry that is completely married to a 1950s-1970s mentality of street layouts, housing types, and land-use segregation.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

...building industry that is completely married to a 1950s-1970s mentality of street layouts, housing types, and land-use segregation.

And house-purchasing public.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

And house-purchasing public.

Not everybody wants to live in a condo, and we are now seeing that condos have a major down side when condo fees go unpredictably sky high when major building repairs are needed.

[c_speed3108]

I think we are seeing a bit of political smarts popping up here.

Lisa McLoad who represents the Barrhaven and much of the area this route would likely travel through is also very likely to be very close to the centre of the axis of the new provincial government.

If it was possible to move more projects forward beyond the currently promised ones, I would think one heading to the heart of that riding would be a good one to push at this time.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

And house-purchasing public.

I'm curious, are you for people buying houses or against it? This post implies that you are against it (though maybe I am mistaken), yet in the Ottawa Housing Market thread you say:

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think you're right that there are lots of good housing options for couples with median or higher incomes, good size down-payments and little other debt. The problem is that that excludes a lot of people who would have been able to afford good houses a few years ago.

Not trying to be critical. I'm just confused.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

And house-purchasing public.

We can continue to have the house-purchasing public purchase the houses of their dreams.

There is no reason on earth that we need to keep building those houses on loops and lollipops in "communities" that have housing coarsely-grain segregated from all other land uses.

There is absolutely no reason for us to freeze land-uses in time in newly-built areas as we've been doing since the 1950s.

Those things are entirely antithetical to the supposed lofty ideals that the city holds for itself, yet we keep on permitting them.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Not trying to be critical. I'm just confused.

I think (maybe) he is saying that the house purchasing public has a preference for poor urban form, not that it is bad to want to buy a house

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I'm curious, are you for people buying houses or against it? This post implies that you are against it (though maybe I am mistaken), yet in the Ottawa Housing Market thread you say:



Not trying to be critical. I'm just confused.

I'm agreeing with Uhuniau that light rail to far-flung suburbs will not reduce sprawl. I am adding the demands of house-buyers to the list of reasons he gave.

Separately I have also noted that housing that used to be affordable to certain people is no longer affordable. I am not sure sprawl or transit has anything to do with this.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

I think (maybe) he is saying that the house purchasing public has a preference for poor urban form, not that it is bad to want to buy a house

Yes, that is probably more clear than the way I put it.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

We can continue to have the house-purchasing public purchase the houses of their dreams.

There is no reason on earth that we need to keep building those houses on loops and lollipops in "communities" that have housing coarsely-grain segregated from all other land uses.

There is absolutely no reason for us to freeze land-uses in time in newly-built areas as we've been doing since the 1950s.

Those things are entirely antithetical to the supposed lofty ideals that the city holds for itself, yet we keep on permitting them.

The house-buying public wants streets with no through traffic. In affluent central neighbourhoods this is accomplished with dead-ends, "traffic calming" and one way streets.

The house-buying (and house-owning) public wants to freeze land use. This is just as true in New Edinburgh as it is in Barrhaven.

The valuable "urban neighbourhoods" generally have a fairly suburban form (2-3 story detached or semi-detached houses, no mixed use, streets with limitations on through traffic, lots of car space, back yards, front yards, etc). Housing with a more urban form (high-rise or mid-rise buildings, apartments over stores, etc) are not particularly expensive so there is no reason to try to buy units in distant suburbs of this type.