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

[c_speed3108]

The NCC has rather suddenly called a press conference for 11 AM regarding the western LRT route options....

[eternallyme]

I know Ken Gray is still pushing the Carling Avenue option, but that has so many serious flaws:

1) How to get it back to the main corridor? Would require a long bored tunnel somewhere between Holland and Churchill.

2) Much of the route along Carling would need to be elevated or underground, again increasing costs.

3) Some of the curves would be very sharp, and the geotechnical part at the north end of the line would be very disruptive.

I know he wants a route that runs the length of Carling or at least starts at the O-Train station, but using that corridor is not an option, due to two main failing factors: it skips Tunney's Pasture (a major ridership magnet) and its alignment going in and out of the O-Train trench would be very expensive and disruptive.

[J.OT13]

Best compromise would be a fill 1,200 km shallow tunnel. This would eliminate any sort of "visual obstructions" and include a few added access points between Westboro and the River.

The NCC's ridiculous demand of a deep tunnel under the ORP or Rochester Field (and deal with the Richmond issue yourselves cause' it ain't our problem) is nothing but a jackassery. I'm sure anyone with half a head can agree that even a full 1.2 km trench along the ORP (which is not what the City is suggesting) would be less of a visual or physical obstruction than a at grade train on Richmond. And we can't forget the whole point of the O-Train expansion; a full fledged, fully grade separated rapid transit system that stretches as far as financially possible. It's not fair to jeopardize the chances of other communities getting LRT.

[lrt's friend]

First of all, there is absolutely no possibility of a surface rail line on the old Britannia tramway right of way. What we are proposing is not anything like the old Britannia streetcar. The trains will be bigger, much more frequent and running faster. The line has to be grade separated with no level crossings. We just have to look at the issue of the level crossing in Barrhaven and there is something like 7 trains a day in each direction. It is a safety issue but it is also traffic issue. Just go over to the Edmonton board and read about the traffic chaos being caused by ETS trains at level crossings. They created a bad design to save money and it is going to be very difficult to fix it.

So we might as well look at all options based on the assumption that grade separation is needed. Is that we have done when we studied the issue? It seems to me that we going to be tunneling the entire distance beyond the Transitway trench to almost Lincoln Fields. What is this going to do to the cost?

I have been a supporter of the Carling route in the past. I also predicted that the Tunney's Pasture terminus in Phase 1 was going to prejudice the routing for Phase 2. I was right. My preference for the Carling route was about being more central to the west end of the city. However, it is also now clear that a Carling route would also have to be 100% grade separated, whether buried or elevated. The costs are increasing no matter which route is chosen and one has to wonder how this will ever be funded within the desired time schedule.

It will be very unfortunate if the cost of this project puts it beyond the city's ability to pay or the other levels of government political will to support it.

[Norman Bates]

Stop making sense.

[Kitchissippi]

The difference between the proposed "Richmond Underground" route and one that goes through Rochester Field is a 500 metre cut and cover tunnel under Richmond instead or a partially buried/bermed line close to the Parkway.

Considering the fact that the NCC is OK with having the line partially on surface through Rochester Field and that Cleary Station would no longer require the expropriation of private property on the north side (as it could be similar to the design of New Orchard and use up just a little bit of linear park space but still keep it continuous), the cost difference should be negligible. The city just needs to be willing to sharpen their pencils.

[Harley613]

I think these are the two routes we are comparing:
Byron is 3.15kms:

The Parkway Route is 3.41kms:


The Byron route hits a lot of high density housing and opens up a lot of opportunites for more. The parkway route is like a bypass..I think it would be a huge mistake.

[Kitchissippi]

No, the city's proposed route is this;
http://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/doc...nderground.pdf

[Trans Canada]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

No, the city's proposed route is this;
http://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/doc...nderground.pdf

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

The option the NCC wants to revisit is this, which the city curiously priced at 1.7 billion, $800 million more (more that the cost of the $681 million downtown tunnel), and was rejected at the first round.

http://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/doc...chmondug_0.pdf


surely there is a middle ground here, as the costing was clearly a mistake, and a hybrid of what is proposed for the Richmond Underground route and this is definitely possible.

furthermore, the option the city advanced was one that had the train running completely on surface along the linear park which the residents were really against, just to make the Richmond Underground route look good.
http://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/doc..._rochester.pdf


The city has been utterly devious here, and should hardly pretend to be the victim of the NCC's manipulations

Fixed your images for you; pdfs don't show in [img] tags (for me at least). Click images for full size.

[Kitchissippi]

The option the NCC wants to revisit is this, which the city curiously priced at 1.7 billion, $800 million more (more that the cost of the $681 million downtown tunnel), and was rejected at the first round.

http://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/doc...chmondug_0.pdf


surely there is a middle ground here, as the costing was clearly a mistake, and a hybrid of what is proposed for the Richmond Underground route and this is definitely possible.

furthermore, the option the city advanced was one that had the train running completely on surface along the linear park which the residents were really against, just to make the Richmond Underground route look good.
http://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/doc..._rochester.pdf


The city has been utterly devious here, and should hardly pretend to be the victim of the NCC's manipulations

[1overcosc]

At first I was very angry about this announcement, but as more info becomes available and I digest it all, I think I'm coming around to this. The NCC didn't give us what we wanted but they did give us free use of Rochester Field. That's a plus. And they did lay out clear and specific conditions of what they will accept and what they won't, four years in advance of when construction has to begin, which gives us lots of time to work it out. It's the next best thing to just letting the city do it.

It may still be possible to fit the $980M budget with Rochester Field AND go underneath all of Byron Park, by applying the cheap 'covered berm' solution we originally wanted to use for Skead Street to the whole of Byron Park. The extra cost of adding a shallow covered trench between Cleary and Rochester Field could be offset by the savings of replacing the originally planned bored tunnel between Cleary & New Orchard with a shallow covered trench as well. Heck, by avoiding the water table issues originally associated with Skead Street it might even be cheaper. Plus it could allow us to rejig the stations to better serve the community--I like Dado's idea of moving Dominion down to Richmond Road @ Rochester Field, then moving Westboro over to Churchill and then adding an infill station at Island Park.

[RTWAP]

I think the NCC will stick to their guns and the city will end up compromising with the local community. Close two lanes of Richmond, put the LRT between the Park and Richmond, and go with a mix of surface, lowered, burm-covered, and sub-surface. I did a quick MSPaint and it looks like they could get about 20% surface, 30% partially below grade bermed or glass canopy, and 50% cut and cover (including stations), while providing 7 crossing for traffic. It will come down to the details, like a more stringent noise standard (better welds?) or fancy ornate overhead supports, or glass canopies to reduce noise.

But at the end of the day, the NCC isn't going to let them do it cheap by the river, and that was the only reason to go there. If they can save a lot of money by going on Richmond then go on Richmond.

[JM1]

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.

[MoreTrains]

Originally Posted by jm1

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!

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by JM1

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.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

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.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

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.

[rocketphish]

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

[silvergate]

Isn't the underground mostly clay in the richmond road area, compared with bedrock downtown?

[MoreTrains]

Originally Posted by silvergate

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.