PDA

View Full Version : Wateridge (Former CFB Rockcliffe Redevelopment) | U/C


Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6

JM1
Jun 4, 2015, 4:20 PM
I would agree. While Rapid Transit from this development to downtown would be complex (e.g. LRT under Montreal Road or along Hemlock (shared lane) and under the Market), there is another possibility.

Why not an LRT that runs from the development, down Aviation Parkway, to Cyrville or to St Laurent?

Or as an alternative... How about an LRT line that runs from the Rapidbus line, across kettle island, through the new community and NRC campus and then along the side of Blair (on CSIS lands) to the Blair station? This line would be relatively inexpensive to build (apart from the bridge). I think it would provide a valuable interprovincial connection. I also think that it would be accepted by the community because it would not generate more traffic in the area (unlike the Kettle Island bridge which the community successfully terminated).



There should be no development here until we can make major transit routes of either BRT or LRT to move people. And this should be developed as a high density area that includes affordable houses, rentals, condos and townhomes. Double the number of residents could easily be accomodated here; and the developers should try to increase that even.

Overall, poor show CLC.

Uhuniau
Jun 4, 2015, 5:24 PM
Intensely dislike the un-gridded low-density yellow area. Blergh.

McC
Jun 4, 2015, 6:14 PM
"Major Collector?"

http://www.obstacleracemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Major-Series-Logo1.jpg

YOWetal
Jun 4, 2015, 6:32 PM
Intensely dislike the un-gridded low-density yellow area. Blergh.

I bet that will be the first part to sell though.

Personally, I don't really consider this to be an urban location it is surrounded by leafy suburbs and is not walking distance to anything. I can't imagine living here in an apartment condo.

1overcosc
Jun 4, 2015, 6:37 PM
I bet that will be the first part to sell though.

Personally, I don't really consider this to be an urban location it is surrounded by leafy suburbs and is not walking distance to anything. I can't imagine living here in an apartment condo.

The traditional neighbourhoods are very popular as evidenced by their ridiculously high prices. Even though many of them are not near much... I mean, much of Westboro isn't within walking distance of much, for example.

Based on that, I'd say the low-mid density mixed use area will probably sell first.

Arcologist
Jun 4, 2015, 7:10 PM
I find CLC's plan very uninspiring... so much so that it might as well have been designed by the NCC! :yuck:

Two thumbs down on this one! I was hoping for more...

Ottawa never ceases to amaze me with its ability to underwhelm. Sigh...

silvergate
Jun 4, 2015, 9:15 PM
I bet that will be the first part to sell though.

Personally, I don't really consider this to be an urban location it is surrounded by leafy suburbs and is not walking distance to anything. I can't imagine living here in an apartment condo.

I mean, if they built some things in it you could walk to them. This would be a great opportunity for serious redevelopment along Montreal Rd first.
On another note, what's the point of opening up this area to compete (probably badly) with Lebreton and Zibi and Bayview. We're just going to end up with 5 ongoing projects that never end because demand never grows to meet them..

Uhuniau
Jun 5, 2015, 1:02 PM
"Major Collector?"


That street simply must remain named "Major Collector", not just on the provisional map.

Anything less would be an insult to the cherished memory of the Major.

McC
Jun 5, 2015, 1:03 PM
#MilitaryHeritage


(PS Apologies that the image is so large, it was unexpected and kinda messes up the thread)

Arcologist
Jun 5, 2015, 2:04 PM
That street simply must remain named "Major Collector", not just on the provisional map.

Anything less would be an insult to the cherished memory of the Major.

Agreed!!! :tup:

YOWetal
Jun 5, 2015, 2:21 PM
The traditional neighbourhoods are very popular as evidenced by their ridiculously high prices. Even though many of them are not near much... I mean, much of Westboro isn't within walking distance of much, for example.

Based on that, I'd say the low-mid density mixed use area will probably sell first.

Westboro is near ...well Westboro. Probably the third most interesting neighborhood in Ottawa after the Market and the Glebe. I imagine this development will end up more like Alta Vista (where houses remain "cheap").

McC
Jun 5, 2015, 3:52 PM
I wouldn't say "much of Westboro," but there is a appreciable chunk, say south of Dovercourt, that is a relatively long walk from much of anything: 1km straight line just to get to Richmond, and then plus for wherever you want to go specifically in either direction. Such that you can live Westboro and still be about a 20 minute walk from one of the many Bridgeheads and equivalents. Carling is slowly getting more interesting, but it's a long game.

rocketphish
Jun 10, 2015, 11:00 PM
City of Ottawa Public Meeting

After three years of planning and consultation, the City of Ottawa is now commencing the formal approval process for the development of a new mixed-use community at the Former CFB Rockcliffe.

The public consultation process for the Former CFB Rockcliffe Community Design Plan (CDP), which Canada Lands Company started in Fall 2012, resulted in broad consensus on a draft preferred plan for the CDP in June 2014. The basic framework, design, and principles guiding the CDP have not changed since that time. Canada Lands Company has continued to collaborate directly with City departments and other agencies over the past year to address the technical requirements for the necessary development approvals. In February 2015, the City’s Technical Advisory Committee began its full review of the draft CDP and more than 30 supporting studies. The CDP is now ready for City’s official public review and approval process.

In addition to the CDP revisions, Canada Lands Company submitted draft plan of subdivision and zoning applications to the City of Ottawa on March 31, 2015. As part of the subdivision approval process, the City of Ottawa will host a public meeting to be held from:

6:30 to 9:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 25,
at East Gate Alliance Church, 550 Codd’s Road, Ottawa

At this meeting, Canada Lands Company will be prepared to present information and answer questions about the CDP, subdivision, and the other applications we have submitted. City of Ottawa staff will also present information on the subdivision approval process, including future opportunities for the public to provide comments directly to the City of Ottawa.

The agenda for the June 25 meeting will be:

6:30 p.m. – Doors Open
7:00 p.m. – Presentation
7:30 – 8:30 – Question and Answer period to be moderated by Ward 13 Councillor Tobi Nussbaum
8:30 – Public Meeting continues with informal discussion

- See more at: http://www.clcrockcliffe.ca/en/news/city-ottawa-public-meeting

Uhuniau
Jun 15, 2015, 7:59 PM
I wouldn't say "much of Westboro," but there is a appreciable chunk, say south of Dovercourt, that is a relatively long walk from much of anything: 1km straight line just to get to Richmond, and then plus for wherever you want to go specifically in either direction. Such that you can live Westboro and still be about a 20 minute walk from one of the many Bridgeheads and equivalents. Carling is slowly getting more interesting, but it's a long game.

At its furthest, Dovercourt is BARELY 1 km from Richmond; that distance gets less the further west you go.

1 km for me is a 10-minute walk.

silvergate
Jun 15, 2015, 8:39 PM
I wouldn't say "much of Westboro," but there is a appreciable chunk, say south of Dovercourt, that is a relatively long walk from much of anything: 1km straight line just to get to Richmond, and then plus for wherever you want to go specifically in either direction. Such that you can live Westboro and still be about a 20 minute walk from one of the many Bridgeheads and equivalents. Carling is slowly getting more interesting, but it's a long game.

There's always Carlingwood :D

LeBonhommeDeBathgate
Jun 21, 2015, 7:14 AM
I'm confused as to why some people are proposing an LRT corridor along Montreal rd. considering how much of the development along that artery is low density rubbish.

Instead of focusing on some sort of overkill solution why not start by simply making an express variant of the 12 and 7 (there are too many bloody stops on those lines) and start upgrading some of the stops with those fancy new bus shelters and even possibly some LED headway indicators? Seriously, the corridors themselves aren't terrible since it is possible to get from the Bathgate-Montreal intersection all the way to the downtown in a fairly reasonable amount of time but the bus is unbearably slow whenever it has stops at every tiny flag stop and waiting for the bus in those tiny bus shelters is a terrible experience. A line that would that loop through the new community and feed into more punctual and frequent variants of 12, 129 and/or 7 could be hugely beneficial to the area.

JM1
Jun 21, 2015, 11:13 AM
What about pools and athletic facilities? 15,000 new residents and mo facilities doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Uhuniau
Jun 21, 2015, 5:23 PM
I'm confused as to why some people are proposing an LRT corridor along Montreal rd. considering how much of the development along that artery is low density rubbish.

Instead of focusing on some sort of overkill solution why not start by simply making an express variant of the 12 and 7 (there are too many bloody stops on those lines)

No, there aren't.

The real problem with these routes, at least inbound, is that they get overcrowded earlier in their runs, and by the time they get to Vanier or the Beechwood strip, they are crush-loaded.

Solution - which OC Transpo refuses to implement - is to add some runs that start "short" - only going into service say at Montreal/St-Laurent or in Manor Park. Relieve the crushing.

But that's too much to ask. Safe, comfortable transit service is for the suburbs, not for central areas.

And LRT on the Rideau-Montreal corridor wouldn't be for the east end as it exists. It would be to re-shape it entirely, a city-building exercise just as the Confederation LIne is supposed to be.

But, silly people, city-building is for the suburbs (where the LRT will not be allowed to induce changes in built form) or for the Westboro gentry (who'll NIMBY it all away.)

waiting for the bus in those tiny bus shelters is a terrible experience. A line that would that loop through the new community and feed into more punctual and frequent variants of 12, 129 and/or 7 could be hugely beneficial to the area.

Shelters? BA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

1overcosc
Jun 21, 2015, 6:45 PM
No, there aren't.

More stops = slower speed & less reliability.

In Kingston, the city's main corridors all have both limited-stop express buses that stop every 1km or so, and regular local buses that stop every 200-300m. The limited-stop expresses are way faster and a lot more consistent in travel time too.

Some urban corridors from Kingston comparable to streets like Montreal, Rideau, and Beechwood:
-Princess Street from Bath to Downtown (most comparable to Montreal in Vanier): 14 minutes local, 10 minutes express
-Union/King from Downtown to St. Lawrence College: 15 minutes local, 9 minutes express
-Division from Downtown to Kings Crossing (most comparable to Beechwood): 21 minutes local, 14 minutes express

Many of those local trips are also very erractic in travel time time. The first example I gave (Princess), the local bus can be almost as fast the express on a good run, other runs can be as long as 20 minutes. Whereas the express is 10 minutes almost always.

LeBonhommeDeBathgate
Jun 22, 2015, 4:50 AM
No, there aren't.

The real problem with these routes, at least inbound, is that they get overcrowded earlier in their runs, and by the time they get to Vanier or the Beechwood strip, they are crush-loaded.

Solution - which OC Transpo refuses to implement - is to add some runs that start "short" - only going into service say at Montreal/St-Laurent or in Manor Park. Relieve the crushing.

But that's too much to ask. Safe, comfortable transit service is for the suburbs, not for central areas.

And LRT on the Rideau-Montreal corridor wouldn't be for the east end as it exists. It would be to re-shape it entirely, a city-building exercise just as the Confederation LIne is supposed to be.


Have you ever ridden the 12? Saturation starts past Manor Park. The bus only starts slightly being populated at Monfort and Farmboy/Independant. The LRT plan still sounds nuts to me. Why would the city waste time and resources building up an isolated suburban part of the east end when there's still plenty of potential for development close to the downtown?

More stops = slower speed & less reliability.

In Kingston, the city's main corridors all have both limited-stop express buses that stop every 1km or so, and regular local buses that stop every 200-300m. The limited-stop expresses are way faster and a lot more consistent in travel time too.

Some urban corridors from Kingston comparable to streets like Montreal, Rideau, and Beechwood:
-Princess Street from Bath to Downtown (most comparable to Montreal in Vanier): 14 minutes local, 10 minutes express
-Union/King from Downtown to St. Lawrence College: 15 minutes local, 9 minutes express
-Division from Downtown to Kings Crossing (most comparable to Beechwood): 21 minutes local, 14 minutes express

Many of those local trips are also very erractic in travel time time. The first example I gave (Princess), the local bus can be almost as fast the express on a good run, other runs can be as long as 20 minutes. Whereas the express is 10 minutes almost always.

I've read a few articles on the express and BRT lines Kingston Transit has put in place and it sounds like the perfect solution for 'fixing' the 12. The main problem I have with the 12 is how variable the travel time can be. It flies like a red rocket when off-peak but good God is it slow whenever it starts stopping every 200 meters (can't be good on gas either). An express skip-stop variant would at least permit travel times to be more constant and I imagine that would make the bus infinitely more attractive to commuters.

Uhuniau
Jun 22, 2015, 4:51 AM
More stops = slower speed & less reliability.

There still are not "too many" stops along the 12 or 7. What is even the objective unit for measuring "too many"?

The main thing impacting the reliability of the 12 and 7 is OCTranspo's stubborn refusal to put artics on more runs, and to simply boost capacity esp. in the morning rush. The dwell times are overly long, by design, because OC Transpo, by design, puts not enough buses, by design, or not enough rear-loading buses, by design, on these routes.

This is a simple, stupid design choice OCTranspo has made. It will never do anything about it, because these customers don't matter to OCTranspo. The only customers OCTranspo cares about are those in the outer suburbs who commute downtown and back. Everyone else can go to hell.

LeBonhommeDeBathgate
Jun 22, 2015, 5:04 AM
There still are not "too many" stops along the 12 or 7. What is even the objective unit for measuring "too many"?

When there's a stop a stone throw away from another one the line has been crossed.

The main thing impacting the reliability of the 12 and 7 is OCTranspo's stubborn refusal to put artics on more runs, and to simply boost capacity esp. in the morning rush. The dwell times are overly long, by design, because OC Transpo, by design, puts not enough buses, by design, or not enough rear-loading buses, by design, on these routes.


More artics? Wat? Have you ever ridden the damn 12? They run artics on the line 90% of the time.

Capital Shaun
Jun 22, 2015, 4:45 PM
When there's a stop a stone throw away from another one the line has been crossed.

No argument. There's way too many stops along the route.

More artics? Wat? Have you ever ridden the damn 12? They run artics on the line 90% of the time.

It should be 100% of the time & operate more frequently. It only takes a couple buses to get delayed to have bunching. And route 12 often suffers from bunching in peak hours.

1overcosc
Jun 22, 2015, 8:20 PM
Most bus routes in Ottawa stop too frequently. Especially the inner city routes. Generally, I'd say any closer than 300m between stops barring special circumstances (ie. extremely poor pedestrian conditions), is too close.

Stop consolidation is difficult to do as it tends to provoke rider revolts (many get very attached to their specific local stops even if another one is very nearby) but in the end it improves travel times and reliability.

In addition to its express buses, Kingston has also consolidated stops on many local routes as well. I once had a conversation with a transit planner there at an open house. He told me that he's been adopting a strategy of 'quietly' closing stops through things like only re-opening some stops when a street reopens after a long term construction closure. Another example is the use of shelters to sneak through stop closures. In the Calvin Park neighbourhood, all the stops used to be unsheltered. They put a shelter up at every other stop, and as ridership dropped on the unsheltered stops as a result, they've been slowly removed.

Many routes have had their on-time performance improve significantly as a result of these stop consolidation measures--and ridership has actually increased, contrary to some who might think that stop removal would drive away riders.

Similarly, with the expansion of the long distance express bus network many local routes in Kingston have been truncated requiring transfers to the express in place of what used to be one seat ride.. and again, it's increased ridership.

Uhuniau
Jun 22, 2015, 9:44 PM
When there's a stop a stone throw away from another one the line has been crossed.

Concrete example, please.

More artics? Wat? Have you ever ridden the damn 12? They run artics on the line 90% of the time.

Yes. I ride the damn 12 all the damn time. 90% is not damn nearly enough. The old damn no. 2, when it damn ran on damn Montreal-Rideau, was damn near all-artic, all the time.

There is simply not enough damn capacity on this damn route. After the 2008 split, 16% of the daily weekday runs were cut. Recent restorations have almost - but not quite - brought service on the 12 back to pre-"optimization" levels.

Uhuniau
Jun 22, 2015, 9:45 PM
In addition to its express buses, Kingston has also consolidated stops on many local routes as well. I once had a conversation with a transit planner there at an open house. He told me that he's been adopting a strategy of 'quietly' closing stops through things like only re-opening some stops when a street reopens after a long term construction closure. Another example is the use of shelters to sneak through stop closures. In the Calvin Park neighbourhood, all the stops used to be unsheltered. They put a shelter up at every other stop, and as ridership dropped on the unsheltered stops as a result, they've been slowly removed.


Shel Ter?

What is this Shel Ter?

JM1
Jun 23, 2015, 1:13 AM
I have a concrete example. Number 7 and 1 stop on colour at St Patrick and the. St Patrick and colours -- no more than 25 yards between them -- on the East bound direction.

Concrete example, please.



Yes. I ride the damn 12 all the damn time. 90% is not damn nearly enough. The old damn no. 2, when it damn ran on damn Montreal-Rideau, was damn near all-artic, all the time.

There is simply not enough damn capacity on this damn route. After the 2008 split, 16% of the daily weekday runs were cut. Recent restorations have almost - but not quite - brought service on the 12 back to pre-"optimization" levels.

Davis137
Jun 23, 2015, 2:20 AM
I agree that the number of stops for the number 7 are too many, or more correctly, too close together. This is especially apparent on the portion of Elgin Street that this route follows. Now with Kingston, the overall travel time is pretty long, at least it is on evenings and weekends outside of commuter hours. At least they have more than one transfer location, and they have increased service to the Base and to the neighborhoods to the the North of it.

JM1
Jun 23, 2015, 2:22 AM
I have a concrete example. Number 7 and 1 stop on colour at St Patrick and the. St Patrick and colours -- no more than 25 yards between them -- on the East bound direction.

Colour should have been Cobourg. Autocorrect gone berserk!

lrt's friend
Jun 23, 2015, 2:48 AM
I believe that Kingston has invested more money in transit in order to implement the Express network.

Ottawa has shown no desire to invest in improvements to local transit service. Almost everything is going to the Confederation Line. To implement an express 7 or 12 necessarily requires a loss in overall service frequency or reliability. Yes, certain buses will run faster but how frequent will the express runs be? We now have 15 minute frequency in mid day hours. So if go to an Express, Local, Express scenario, both the express and the local would 30 minute frequency and with different running times, shared stops will have a very irregular schedule. This only works in situations where service is very frequent already or you are actually willing to spend money to have more runs.

MoreTrains
Jun 23, 2015, 2:45 PM
Uhuniau I think you missed a damn or two...


I believe that Kingston has invested more money in transit in order to implement the Express network.

Ottawa has shown no desire to invest in improvements to local transit service. Almost everything is going to the Confederation Line. To implement an express 7 or 12 necessarily requires a loss in overall service frequency or reliability. Yes, certain buses will run faster but how frequent will the express runs be? We now have 15 minute frequency in mid day hours. So if go to an Express, Local, Express scenario, both the express and the local would 30 minute frequency and with different running times, shared stops will have a very irregular schedule. This only works in situations where service is very frequent already or you are actually willing to spend money to have more runs.

Yes, it is very true. Kingston had super low ridership, and over consecutive governments little had been done until Mark Gerresten was elected Mayor and he was really the turning point for Kingston Transit. So investment in infrastructure and bus optimization has sky rocketed compared to previous years. But, the reality was, Kingston really needed the investment.

acottawa
Jun 24, 2015, 12:35 AM
Concrete example, please.





9 through new Edinburgh - pretty much every small block
9 - 4 stops in 2 blocks on Breyere
1 - every other block through centretown
2 - pretty much along the whole route
SW transit way between billings and Hurdman

lrt's friend
Jun 24, 2015, 2:27 AM
9 through new Edinburgh - pretty much every small block
9 - 4 stops in 2 blocks on Breyere
1 - every other block through centretown
2 - pretty much along the whole route
SW transit way between billings and Hurdman

I think in older parts of the city where intensification is being encouraged, there is an expectation that there be stops every 2 or 3 blocks. There is nothing more infuriating to be caught between stops and miss your bus. Again, we are talking about drawing distance circles on maps rather than the realities of delivering service that people expect. We should be considering the needs of those who want to use transit for short distances (and cost the least to serve) rather than pander to those trying to use a local bus route to travel half way across the city. For those travelling long distances, they should be directed to rapid transit. But that is another story.

Uhuniau
Jun 24, 2015, 2:32 AM
Uhuniau I think you missed a damn or two...


Here are some extras you can sprinkle around: damn damn damny damny damn damn

Uhuniau
Jun 24, 2015, 2:38 AM
9 through new Edinburgh - pretty much every small block
9 - 4 stops in 2 blocks on Breyere
1 - every other block through centretown
2 - pretty much along the whole route

Those routes have good stop densities for the customers they serve, and for the routes they intersect with. Those are features, not bugs.

It is not the frequency of the stops that cause delays on these routes in peak periods: it is the lack of capacity, leading to overcrowding, blocked doors, and the lack of rear-door boarding that would improve dwell times. Articulated 9s, 5s, 1, s12s and 7s - when there is such a thing as an articulated 7, which is very rare - board/disembark and go noticeable faster than 40-footers.

But no matter what you tell OC Transpo, how often drivers or passengers report problems with overcrowding and lack of capacity, OC Transpo will not believe you. That privilege - being believed - is reserved for suburbanites.


SW transit way between billings and Hurdman

umwut?

Uhuniau
Jun 24, 2015, 2:42 AM
I think in older parts of the city where intensification is being encouraged, there is an expectation that there be stops every 2 or 3 blocks. There is nothing more infuriating to be caught between stops and miss your bus.

Especially when the schedules, and often even the "real time" data, are so often fictitious. I used to live in New Edinburgh between two stops. So many missed buses.

Again, we are talking about drawing distance circles on maps rather than the realities of delivering service that people expect. We should be considering the needs of those who want to use transit for short distances (and cost the least to serve) rather than pander to those trying to use a local bus route to travel half way across the city. For those travelling long distances, they should be directed to rapid transit. But that is another story.

Well, where rapid transit exists... and for most of the residential older parts of the city, apart from Hintonborough, where the residents do nothing but whinge about the awful BRT and LRT that has been/is being "inflicted" on them, there is no such thing as rapid transit.

Just transit.

And, in the peak periods, really bad transit.

Uhuniau
Jun 24, 2015, 2:50 AM
Funny enough, right now there ARE two stops on the 7 that even I agree are "too close" together: the construction on the Kavanaugh on Beechwood has resulted in the temporary eastbound stop on that block being replaced by a *temporary temporary* stop east of Jolliet, which is - literally - within two (40-foot, naturally) bus lengths of the existing permanent stop further east of Jolliet, next to the vet clinic.

LeBonhommeDeBathgate
Jun 24, 2015, 5:52 AM
Concrete example, please.

The best example I can think of is the stop spacing between the stop near the Montreal-St Laurent intersection and the stop in front of the Farmboy and Indepedant. The stops are completely redundant since both stops serve the same area (the big strip malls and supermarkets) and are spaced less than 200 meters apart. Another example would be the stop placement between the stop at the Montreal-Église intersection and the one in front of what used to be the Bélisle car dealer lot. Both stops are once again spaced about 200 meters apart and serve the same locations (the nearby church and facilities). These stops only slow down the 12.

The stop placement on the chunk of the route situated between Aviation parkway and Blair station seems to be the most optimal since the stops are nearly all placed 500 to 700 meters apart.

1overcosc
Jun 24, 2015, 10:48 AM
I think in older parts of the city where intensification is being encouraged, there is an expectation that there be stops every 2 or 3 blocks. There is nothing more infuriating to be caught between stops and miss your bus. Again, we are talking about drawing distance circles on maps rather than the realities of delivering service that people expect. We should be considering the needs of those who want to use transit for short distances (and cost the least to serve) rather than pander to those trying to use a local bus route to travel half way across the city. For those travelling long distances, they should be directed to rapid transit. But that is another story.

The problem is that in large areas of the city, there are lots of long distance trips where these local routes are the only option and the large number of stops slows people down.

Such close stop spacing is only good for routes where a true long distance rapid transit/limited stop alternative exists (such as the 2 east of City Centre, for example). Otherwise, 200-300m spacing is a necessary compromise to avoid unreasonably long travel times.

JM1
Jun 24, 2015, 2:37 PM
15000 people is a lot of people. It requires real rapid transit or it requires a lot of wasteful roadway. Codd's Road, Burma Road, and Hemlock simply cannot absorb the traffic from this site as they are all two lane roads. A connected community like this needs at least five four-lane arterials to work based on automobile traffic alone. Build an LRT or other rapid transit and this could work.

Roads and buses will not be sufficient to have a model urban community. The city needs to think ahead.

An LRT along Hemlock or along Montreal Road or down St Laurent could serve this site well. You could also run an LRT down Aviation Parkway to Cyrville, although I think St Laurent would be better for TOD.

If they develop this site, they have to do something meaningful in terms of transit. Otherwise, they will just snarl up traffic in the East end.



"Bus free" is not a permanent state.

Uhuniau
Jun 25, 2015, 2:57 AM
The best example I can think of is the stop spacing between the stop near the Montreal-St Laurent intersection and the stop in front of the Farmboy and Indepedant. The stops are completely redundant since both stops serve the same area (the big strip malls and supermarkets) and are spaced less than 200 meters apart. Another example would be the stop placement between the stop at the Montreal-Église intersection and the one in front of what used to be the Bélisle car dealer lot. Both stops are once again spaced about 200 meters apart and serve the same locations (the nearby church and facilities). These stops only slow down the 12.

The stop placement on the chunk of the route situated between Aviation parkway and Blair station seems to be the most optimal since the stops are nearly all placed 500 to 700 meters apart.

A 5-7 minute walk is FAR from "optimal" on a trunk urban route.

LeBonhommeDeBathgate
Jun 25, 2015, 5:14 AM
A 5-7 minute walk is FAR from "optimal" on a trunk urban route.

Firstly, thanks for brushing off my examples and deflecting with the last remark. It's a nice way to avoid discussing the elimination of redundant stops which you seem reluctant to talk about for reasons I don't understand (do you fast travel or a bus stop in front of your house?).

Anyway, you're basing your statement off of what exactly? 400 to 600 meters tends to be the most commonly cited 'optimal' distance for bus stops.

Schattenjager
Jun 25, 2015, 1:23 PM
Once the Confederation Line's first phase will be done, what will be the transit design strategy used for local buses at each individual station? Is there any chance they'll re-visit the transit strategy for Montreal Rd / Rideau St at that point?

YOWetal
Jun 25, 2015, 2:22 PM
Firstly, thanks for brushing off my examples and deflecting with the last remark. It's a nice way to avoid discussing the elimination of redundant stops which you seem reluctant to talk about for reasons I don't understand (do you fast travel or a bus stop in front of your house?).

Anyway, you're basing your statement off of what exactly? 400 to 600 meters tends to be the most commonly cited 'optimal' distance for bus stops.

I agree with your point that bus stops are far too frequent in Ottawa. That said, 4-600 meters seems a bit excessive for a non express bus. I would put the sweet spot around 2-300 meters.

1overcosc
Jun 25, 2015, 2:32 PM
I agree with your point that bus stops are far too frequent in Ottawa. That said, 4-600 meters seems a bit excessive for a non express bus. I would put the sweet spot around 2-300 meters.

Agreed. Metrolinx in Toronto has done lots of research into things like this, and generally found that ~300m is right for a local route. Furthermore, they've found that when rapid transit has 500m-700m station spacing, paralleling local services are not needed. This factors into transit planning down there; for example the new LRTs in the GTA (Eglinton, Finch West, Hurontario-Main, etc.) are planned with station spacing around that 500m-700m space to allow for them to completely replace the local bus service on these corridors. Our own Baseline BRT is planned to have ~500m station spacing, with local service removed.

Toronto is currently undergoing an aggressive stop consolidation program on their streetcar network which has seen dozens (I think possibly hundreds) of stops removed to ensure 200m-300m spacing and placement of stops at signalized street crossings.

LeBonhommeDeBathgate
Jun 25, 2015, 3:20 PM
I agree with your point that bus stops are far too frequent in Ottawa. That said, 4-600 meters seems a bit excessive for a non express bus. I would put the sweet spot around 2-300 meters.

Fair enough. Still, there should be some serious thought put into figuring out what stops could be removed on the 12.

Agreed. Metrolinx in Toronto has done lots of research into things like this, and generally found that ~300m is right for a local route. Furthermore, they've found that when rapid transit has 500m-700m station spacing, paralleling local services are not needed.



Did the STM ever do any similar research?

1overcosc
Jun 25, 2015, 3:57 PM
Fair enough. Still, there should be some serious thought put into figuring out what stops could be removed on the 12.

Yes, a comprehensive stop review is a good idea.


Did the STM ever do any similar research?

Not that I'm aware of. Metrolinx has whole boatloads of research done on transit operations that I'm only familiar with bits and pieces of.

Boxster
Jun 25, 2015, 4:26 PM
I agree with your point that bus stops are far too frequent in Ottawa. That said, 4-600 meters seems a bit excessive for a non express bus. I would put the sweet spot around 2-300 meters.

I believe there should be 2 types of stops:

1 - Year round stops
2 - Winter stops

The idea wold be to alternate between the 2 type of stops (i.e. Year Round - Winter - Year Round - Winter.....etc).

1overcosc
Jun 25, 2015, 5:25 PM
^ Interesting idea, I don't think any city in the world has done this. Winter weather conditions definitely do making walking longer distances more unpleasant.

Would like to see a pilot project run for a year or two on a couple routes to see how it goes.

Uhuniau
Jun 25, 2015, 5:48 PM
Firstly, thanks for brushing off my examples and deflecting with the last remark. It's a nice way to avoid discussing the elimination of redundant stops which you seem reluctant to talk about for reasons I don't understand (do you fast travel or a bus stop in front of your house?).

Ad hominem much? I am under no obligation to respond to every single sub-point in a post, as much as it is my stupid instinct to do so.

Anyway, you're basing your statement off of what exactly?

Off being a human being with legs who takes public transit on pretty well a daily basis and has no other means of locomotion.

400 to 600 meters tends to be the most commonly cited 'optimal' distance for bus stops.

Passive verb alert.

Uhuniau
Jun 25, 2015, 5:49 PM
Once the Confederation Line's first phase will be done, what will be the transit design strategy used for local buses at each individual station? Is there any chance they'll re-visit the transit strategy for Montreal Rd / Rideau St at that point?

Nope. That's a central city route. OC Transpo doesn't care about the people who live or work in such areas. Never has. Never will.

If any changes are made, it'll be like 2008 - creative ways to downgrade the service, followed by mass ignoring of the consequences and complaints about the consequences.

Uhuniau
Jun 25, 2015, 6:02 PM
Agreed. Metrolinx in Toronto has done lots of research into things like this, and generally found that ~300m is right for a local route. Furthermore, they've found that when rapid transit has 500m-700m station spacing, paralleling local services are not needed.

Where in Ottawa does crappid transit parallel local service, other than in the very loose geometrical sense?

The western transitway and the local 2 serve very different functions and populations. Maybe if the westerners hadn't NIMBYed a station or two out of the original transitway plan, it might serve local needs better.

The eastern transitway doesn't serve any truly local population at all, other than a handful of apartments at Hurdman and the small cluster of condos at Cyrville.

McC
Jun 25, 2015, 6:21 PM
Where in Ottawa does crappid transit parallel local service, other than in the very loose geometrical sense?.
The 16 and 18 used to for a good long stretch from Tunney's to east of the Rideau Centre, when they still ran on Rideau and Queen through the core. But as you know, the 18 was severed, and the 16 is now doing that "flexibility of BRT"-thing for a chunk of that distance by running on what passes as the Transitway through the core. But it does still parallel with extra stops for a good 2.5 km from Tunney's to Lebreton.

1overcosc
Jun 25, 2015, 6:36 PM
Where in Ottawa does crappid transit parallel local service, other than in the very loose geometrical sense?

The western transitway and the local 2 serve very different functions and populations. Maybe if the westerners hadn't NIMBYed a station or two out of the original transitway plan, it might serve local needs better.

The eastern transitway doesn't serve any truly local population at all, other than a handful of apartments at Hurdman and the small cluster of condos at Cyrville.

Because of the way the Transitway works in Ottawa, not being tied to any street grid, the issue of paralleling local transit is mostly irrelevant, except the 16/Transitway dynamic in the near west that McC just mentioned. It is also sort of true for the 1 & the SE Transitway between Billings Bridge & South Keys.

But if say, we add BRT to Baseline or (if only!) LRT to Montreal Road, then that's a discussion that has to be had.

LeBonhommeDeBathgate
Jun 25, 2015, 8:01 PM
Not that I'm aware of. Metrolinx has whole boatloads of research done on transit operations that I'm only familiar with bits and pieces of.

Alright then. Could you link the actual study? I would like to take a peak at their data just for the sake of it.

Nope. That's a central city route. OC Transpo doesn't care about the people who live or work in such areas. Never has. Never will.

If any changes are made, it'll be like 2008 - creative ways to downgrade the service, followed by mass ignoring of the consequences and complaints about the consequences.

They already have the schedules for the new routes apperently (at least that's what one of the planners said back in 2013 at a town hall meeting). You could probably just ask OC Transpo for the new schedules instead of assuming they'll cut everything again. If anything some routes will probably become more frequent with all the buses that will become available once the LRT eliminates the downtown black hole.

Quick question concerning your other comment: why are you being so hostile? I'm just trying to have a discussion about making east end trunk routes better and others have brought up interesting points but you've just been consistently hostile in your replies. Seriously, what gives?

acottawa
Jun 25, 2015, 10:27 PM
I think in older parts of the city where intensification is being encouraged, there is an expectation that there be stops every 2 or 3 blocks. There is nothing more infuriating to be caught between stops and miss your bus. Again, we are talking about drawing distance circles on maps rather than the realities of delivering service that people expect. We should be considering the needs of those who want to use transit for short distances (and cost the least to serve) rather than pander to those trying to use a local bus route to travel half way across the city. For those travelling long distances, they should be directed to rapid transit. But that is another story.

I tend to think the ultra slow speeds of inner city bus routes (say with numbers below 20) is more infuriating. Distances that take a few minutes to drive take more than 30 minutes by bus. If people are willing to walk from the milk to the bread at the supermarket they can walk more than 2 blocks to a stop.

Uhuniau
Jun 25, 2015, 11:59 PM
The 16 and 18 used to for a good long stretch from Tunney's to east of the Rideau Centre, when they still ran on Rideau and Queen through the core. But as you know, the 18 was severed, and the 16 is now doing that "flexibility of BRT"-thing for a chunk of that distance by running on what passes as the Transitway through the core. But it does still parallel with extra stops for a good 2.5 km from Tunney's to Lebreton.

The old 18, maybe, on the western segment, but it still served a very different public.

East of the Rideau Centre? Um, no. Not in competition/conflict with bus crappid transit, at all.

Uhuniau
Jun 26, 2015, 12:05 AM
Quick question concerning your other comment: why are you being so hostile? I'm just trying to have a discussion about making east end trunk routes better and others have brought up interesting points but you've just been consistently hostile in your replies. Seriously, what gives?

I am "hostile" to the utterly ridiculous idea that the density of stops in central areas is too much, or the problem affecting service quality.

There are a small handful of stops that are too close together - two on Pères-Blancs I can think of; the second of which should be relocated from Longpré to Tabor being a good example - but otherwise, the notion is ludicrous from the point of view of anyone who actually uses transit.

The problem is with physical capacity: too many runs of too many downtown routes are being run on front-loading 40-footers. OC Transpo REFUSES to put artics on these routes. Flat out refuses - even in the evening hours after artics are available having completed bus crappid transit or suburban routes. It is infuriating. City-central residents are paying more and more for worse and worse service, service that could be improved at a shot by assigning the right bus to the right route.

Given that LRT will only serve downtown-suburb commuters for this century and well into next, actual human who live in actual downtown areas deserve better. But aren't getting it. Our councillors don't care. OC Transpo doesn't care. And the blame gets put on the USEFUL features of the system - the density of routes and stops.

If I want good, fast, reliable transit in this city, I have to move to the suburbs.

I am sick of it.

Uhuniau
Jun 26, 2015, 12:13 AM
I tend to think the ultra slow speeds of inner city bus routes (say with numbers below 20) is more infuriating. Distances that take a few minutes to drive take more than 30 minutes by bus. If people are willing to walk from the milk to the bread at the supermarket they can walk more than 2 blocks to a stop.

The vast majority DO have to walk more than literally two blocks to a stop.

The ultra-slow speed could be mitigated (A) by putting rear-loading buses on more runs of more routes, and (B), eventually, in this technophobic "tech" capital, of implementing tech-based bus-priority intersections... the same technology that has existed in other countries for 20 years.

The problem is NOT the density of the network or stops: if I have to walk another 10 minutes to a stop, my commute gets longer. The problem is the assignment of the wrong vehicles to the routes, which could have been mitigated years ago if OC Transpo cared about anyone other than suburban commuters, which it clearly does not. The problem could be further mitigated by technology that has existed since the 1990s, which would allow buses and traffic signals to communicate and give buses priority, even if a few single-passenger-auto motorists are inconvenienced along the way. But technophobic, cheapskate Ottawa has avoided tech.solutions like the plague - just look at the fight it took to unlock GPS data.

Perfect example: the left turn from Wellington onto Bank. A, it takes way too long for a bus turning left to get a favourable signal; B, there is only enough time in the cycle for one bus to make it through at a time, no matter how many are lined up to make the turn; and C, the timing of the lights means that the left-turning bus, having finally turned, is IMMEDIATELY trapped in a red light at Sparks, with the stop on the far side of that light at Queen. I have spent up to six minutes on a bus in the morning getting the last, what, 100 metres from Bank/Wellington to Bank/Queen, because of this stupidity.

Easily fixed.

But no one cares. I'm not a motorist, and not a suburban bus-rider.

I do not matter.

I never will matter, not in this ass-backwards, suburban "city".

silvergate
Jun 26, 2015, 1:10 AM
The vast majority DO have to walk more than literally two blocks to a stop.

The ultra-slow speed could be mitigated (A) by putting rear-loading buses on more runs of more routes, and (B), eventually, in this technophobic "tech" capital, of implementing tech-based bus-priority intersections... the same technology that has existed in other countries for 20 years.

The problem is NOT the density of the network or stops: if I have to walk another 10 minutes to a stop, my commute gets longer. The problem is the assignment of the wrong vehicles to the routes, which could have been mitigated years ago if OC Transpo cared about anyone other than suburban commuters, which it clearly does not. The problem could be further mitigated by technology that has existed since the 1990s, which would allow buses and traffic signals to communicate and give buses priority, even if a few single-passenger-auto motorists are inconvenienced along the way. But technophobic, cheapskate Ottawa has avoided tech.solutions like the plague - just look at the fight it took to unlock GPS data.

Perfect example: the left turn from Wellington onto Bank. A, it takes way too long for a bus turning left to get a favourable signal; B, there is only enough time in the cycle for one bus to make it through at a time, no matter how many are lined up to make the turn; and C, the timing of the lights means that the left-turning bus, having finally turned, is IMMEDIATELY trapped in a red light at Sparks, with the stop on the far side of that light at Queen. I have spent up to six minutes on a bus in the morning getting the last, what, 100 metres from Bank/Wellington to Bank/Queen, because of this stupidity.

Easily fixed.

But no one cares. I'm not a motorist, and not a suburban bus-rider.

I do not matter.

I never will matter, not in this ass-backwards, suburban "city".


Well, at least from my experience on the 16, there is quite literally no way to improve the service without completely changing that route west of Tunneys. Richmond/Wellington is all one lane, so you are stuck with how much traffic there is. The run from Richmond to Carlingwood is covered in stop signs and stops. The shortest ride I've had from Dovercourt to Tunney's was 20 minutes.

1overcosc
Jun 26, 2015, 2:26 AM
Alright then. Could you link the actual study? I would like to take a peak at their data just for the sake of it.

Combing the Metrolinx site to find it... they bury all their stuff, it's a PITA.

On this topic, there's a study from McGill I read a couple weeks back that is mercifully still in my browser history: http://tram.mcgill.ca/Research/Publications/Transit_service_area.pdf

1overcosc
Jun 26, 2015, 2:31 AM
The fact inner city routes stop so frequently compared to others is even more confusing, as generally, in inner city areas stops can be spaced further apart due to far more favourable pedestrian conditions and more connective street grids.

Consider this famous image from Seattle, showing a 1.6km circle drawn around a point, and the streets that could actually be a 1.6km or less walk from that point coloured in blue:
http://urbanist.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83454714d69e20133ed830c2b970b-500wi

lrt's friend
Jun 26, 2015, 2:52 AM
I tend to think the ultra slow speeds of inner city bus routes (say with numbers below 20) is more infuriating. Distances that take a few minutes to drive take more than 30 minutes by bus. If people are willing to walk from the milk to the bread at the supermarket they can walk more than 2 blocks to a stop.

The real problem is the density of traffic signals and general congestion. None of that can easily be dealt with. Traffic tends to move the slowest on the streets that need transit the most. Cars will always move faster as most people will try to locate the fastest route. But you can't do that with transit. For example, moving Route 5 from Elgin to Metcalfe and Route 1 from Bank to Kent may prove faster but would also be unfriendly to transit riders. Now, can the city find the real courage to get rid of on-street parking and give transit real priority. This will truly speed up transit and give it an advantage over car travel on central routes.

Uhuniau
Jun 26, 2015, 3:36 AM
The real problem is the density of traffic signals and general congestion. None of that can easily be dealt with. Traffic tends to move the slowest on the streets that need transit the most. Cars will always move faster as most people will try to locate the fastest route. But you can't do that with transit. For example, moving Route 5 from Elgin to Metcalfe and Route 1 from Bank to Kent may prove faster but would also be unfriendly to transit riders. Now, can the city find the real courage to get rid of on-street parking and give transit real priority. This will truly speed up transit and give it an advantage over car travel on central routes.

This right here.

But the BIAs scream loudest - and their members donate the most to municipal candidates. So the sacred parking remains sacred.

LeBonhommeDeBathgate
Jun 26, 2015, 5:53 AM
Combing the Metrolinx site to find it... they bury all their stuff, it's a PITA.

On this topic, there's a study from McGill I read a couple weeks back that is mercifully still in my browser history: http://tram.mcgill.ca/Research/Publications/Transit_service_area.pdf

Metrolinx probably has one of the most confusing websites I've seen in a while so I appreciate the effort. Thanks for the link to the McGill study though!

This right here.

But the BIAs scream loudest - and their members donate the most to municipal candidates. So the sacred parking remains sacred.

Most councillors on the East end now are transit advocates which has led to a change in dialogue. Now if OC Transpo would just get the message and act on those words then maybe something could be done.

silvergate
Jun 26, 2015, 10:15 AM
The real problem is the density of traffic signals and general congestion. None of that can easily be dealt with. Traffic tends to move the slowest on the streets that need transit the most. Cars will always move faster as most people will try to locate the fastest route. But you can't do that with transit. For example, moving Route 5 from Elgin to Metcalfe and Route 1 from Bank to Kent may prove faster but would also be unfriendly to transit riders. Now, can the city find the real courage to get rid of on-street parking and give transit real priority. This will truly speed up transit and give it an advantage over car travel on central routes.

If we want to talk about anything else though, like pedestrian safety, removing parking is not the right call. Maybe if you removed about 5 spots ahead of each light it could work. Its a tight balancing act for sure.

eltodesukane
Jun 26, 2015, 12:01 PM
The fact inner city routes stop so frequently compared to others is even more confusing, as generally, in inner city areas stops can be spaced further apart due to far more favourable pedestrian conditions and more connective street grids.

Consider this famous image from Seattle, showing a 1.6km circle drawn around a point, and the streets that could actually be a 1.6km or less walk from that point coloured in blue:
http://urbanist.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83454714d69e20133ed830c2b970b-500wi

Interesting image.
http://www.humantransit.org/2010/05/culdesac-hell-and-the-radius-of-demand.html

Some Ottawa neighborhoods are well connected,
https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.372342,-75.6126417,17z?hl=en&hl=en
some not so much,
https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.3720933,-75.6372108,17z?hl=en&hl=en

Just look at how the (mostly useless) Aviation Parkway is an impenetrable barrier cutting a whole neighborhood in two.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.4355945,-75.6335844,16z?hl=en&hl=en

And this in Toronto:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.7303844,-79.4492413,17z?hl=en&hl=en
How do you walk or drive from one quadrant to another?

lrt's friend
Jun 26, 2015, 2:12 PM
The fact inner city routes stop so frequently compared to others is even more confusing, as generally, in inner city areas stops can be spaced further apart due to far more favourable pedestrian conditions and more connective street grids.

Consider this famous image from Seattle, showing a 1.6km circle drawn around a point, and the streets that could actually be a 1.6km or less walk from that point coloured in blue:
http://urbanist.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83454714d69e20133ed830c2b970b-500wi

I understand why you are presenting this (effectiveness of street patterns), but as I have said, it is drawing circles on maps is the reason why we find reasons to reduce transit convenience by either spacing stops further or cancelling routes outright. It is exactly this sort of thing that was used to justify the elimination of a Confederation Line stop at Confederation Square, although cost reduction was the major driver.

I can remember the optimized transit plan also did this sort of thing by showing locations which were more than 800 m from a bus stop. Unfortunately, they didn't consider the location of waterways in the process, as if you could swim across the Rideau River to the closest bus stop.

1overcosc
Jun 26, 2015, 2:18 PM
I understand why you are presenting this (effectiveness of street patterns), but as I have said, it is drawing circles on maps is the reason why we find reasons to reduce transit convenience by either spacing stops further or cancelling routes outright. It is exactly this sort of thing that was used to justify the elimination of a Confederation Line stop at Confederation Square, although cost reduction was the major driver.

I can remember the optimized transit plan also did this sort of thing by showing locations which were more than 800 m from a bus stop. Unfortunately, they didn't consider the location of waterways in the process, as if you could swim across the Rideau River to the closest bus stop.

The circles are ridiculous, but the blue lines shown in the graphic are a good idea. They show real walking distance. Would solve that idiocy with the waterways.

1overcosc
Jun 26, 2015, 2:21 PM
On streets like Elgin and Bank, all you have to do is remove a handful of parking spaces very near intersections and then you end up with wiggle room for a queue jump lane.

I believe the city's TMP actually has this approved on many inner city streets.

I really think we should be phasing out street parking on mainstreets anyway. Leave some bays for deliveries and cabs/kiss-and-ride, but otherwise move all parking underground or to side streets. Kingston is slowly doing this on Princess Street in its core as each block is reconstructed.

JM1
Jun 26, 2015, 4:29 PM
Did anyone go to the CFB Rockcliffe consultations last nigh? Was the issue of traffic on Codd's Road, Burma, and Hemlock discussed? Are they going to take measures to keep traffic calm in surrounding neighbourhoods? What is being done about the lack of proper transit (even once they add the new "transit spine").

Uhuniau
Jun 27, 2015, 3:06 AM
On streets like Elgin and Bank, all you have to do is remove a handful of parking spaces very near intersections and then you end up with wiggle room for a queue jump lane.

I believe the city's TMP actually has this approved on many inner city streets.

To be implemented in the latter half of the second half of this century... maybe.

Uhuniau
Jun 29, 2015, 2:01 PM
Have you ever ridden the 12?

Um, yes.

Saturation starts past Manor Park. The bus only starts slightly being populated at Monfort and Farmboy/Independant.

Which direction are you talking about?

The LRT plan still sounds nuts to me. Why would the city waste time and resources building up an isolated suburban part of the east end when there's still plenty of potential for development close to the downtown?

Isolated?

Huh?

rocketphish
Sep 16, 2015, 5:15 PM
'Dynamic' vision set for CFB Rockcliffe laid out

By Jon Willing, Ottawa Sun
First posted: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 07:17 PM EDT | Updated: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 07:35 PM EDT

A redevelopment of the former military base in east Ottawa would add about 5,300 residences over the next 15 to 20 years, a city planning report says.

It’s about transforming the old Candadian Forces Base Rockcliffe into a new village within the greenbelt.

For planners, it’s a chance to build a community from scratch — and the pressure’s on.

“Success will mean an exciting paradigm shift for building new communities in our city,” Rideau-Rockcliffe Coun. Tobi Nussbaum writes in the staff report under a section reserved for the local councillor’s comments.

“Failure, or business as usual, would mean a lost opportunity to improve the quality of life for thousands of new residents and those near the site and would also introduce serious transportation problems to the area.”

The report, which will go to council’s planning committee next Tuesday, outlines the Canada Lands Company’s (CLC) approach to drafting the blueprint for the 131-hectare site east of the Aviation Pkwy. and north of Montreal Rd.

CFB Rockcliffe was a military base until 2004. CLC has been working on a redevelopment plan since then.

The redevelopment, at its full build-out, would have 9,800 residents. There will be room for as many as 2,600 jobs, the report says.

The draft plan calls for eight neighbourhoods with different building types.

“There will also be a range of building heights and densities in order to create a vibrant and dynamic urban community,” the report says.

Planners want three elementary schools, several parks and a town square. There will be a “heavy emphasis” on pedestrians and cyclists, including segregated cycle tracks, the report says.

Twitter: @JonathanWilling

http://www.ottawasun.com/2015/09/15/dynamic-vision-set-for-cfb-rockcliffe-laid-out

rocketphish
Sep 16, 2015, 5:24 PM
City of Ottawa Planning Committee to Consider CDP Approval September 22

Canada Lands Company
Sep 16, 2015

http://i.imgur.com/SZrMZwN.png

The City of Ottawa has set Tuesday, September 22, as the date when its Planning Committee will consider the Former CFB Rockcliffe Community Design Plan (CDP), Secondary Plan, and Official Plan Amendment (OPA). The City has posted the Planning Committee agenda for the week of September 14 to 18 at:

http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=6470&doctype=agenda&itemid=334951

Canada Lands Company’s public consultation for the redevelopment of the Former CFB Rockcliffe, which started in fall 2012, has resulted in a consensus based CDP. This mixed-use community, with residential, office, and local retail development, will transform the former Rockcliffe Airbase into a new, innovative, and complete community.

Once it is fully developed, the community will provide a wide range of housing types, with all the commercial and public amenities that will be needed to sustain healthy and active lifestyles in the 21st century. A key aspect of this community will be its integrated system of pathways, parks and natural areas, which will offer access to open space for everyone living or working in the community.

The 5,200 residential units that the City has targeted for this community will be built gradually over the next 15 to 20 years. During that period, the effectiveness of the roads, public transit, and other public services will be monitored, evaluated, and enhanced as development proceeds. A leading-edge Low Impact Development stormwater system, which will use vegetation and new technologies to manage water flows on the site, will also be monitored and adapted as new techniques in sustainable development emerge.

Once the CDP, Secondary Plan, and OPA are approved, the City of Ottawa Planning Committee and City Council will meet later to consider the proposed zoning, which is consistent with the CDP. The zoning and draft plan of subdivision approvals are anticipated later this fall. In addition to the official City of Ottawa notifications, Canada Lands Company will advise the public of these dates through emails and postings at www.clcrockcliffe.ca.

To receive email updates from Canada Lands Company on developments at the Former CFB Rockcliffe, interested members of the public may provide their names and email addresses in the “Quick Contact” box.

http://i.imgur.com/AumlnO2.png

http://www.clcrockcliffe.ca/en/news/city-ottawa-planning-committee-consider-cdp-approval-september-22
https://www.facebook.com/CLCRockcliffe

rocketphish
Sep 17, 2015, 11:15 AM
Former CFB Rockcliffe redevelopment proposed

Matthew Pearson, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: September 16, 2015 | Last Updated: September 16, 2015 6:39 PM EDT

http://wpmedia.ottawacitizen.com/2015/09/canada-lands-company-canada-lands-company-launches-rockcli.jpeg?quality=55&strip=all&w=800

The City of Ottawa’s planning committee is set to consider a detailed and ambitious blueprint for redeveloping the former Rockcliffe military base to accommodate thousands of new homes over the next 20 years, making it the largest residential development inside the Greenbelt in a generation. Matthew Pearson explains.

Land transformed

CFB Rockcliffe, which was a functioning military base up until 2004, is a 131-hectare site roughly bounded by the Aviation Parkway to the west, the Sir George-Étienne Cartier Parkway to the north, the National Research Council campus to the east and Montreal Road to the south.

Most of the land is now owned by Canada Lands Company (CLC), a federal Crown corporation, but a small sliver belongs to the National Research Council.

The last remaining development site of its size in Ottawa’s inner core, the plan envisions a “contemporary mixed-use community that is walkable, cycling-supportive, transit-oriented and built at human scale.”

Expect about 5,300 new homes to accommodate nearly 10,000 residents. Another 2,600 people will work there. It will be more dense than the suburbs, but less dense than downtown, and the variety of housing types will include single-family homes, row houses and apartments.

Integral partners

This is a second attempt at devising a plan for the lands. An earlier process was halted in 2008 due to an Algonquin land claim for the site, which was eventually settled. The land was transferred in 2011 to the Canada Lands Company and the community design plan (CDP) process began again in 2012.

The Algonquins of Ontario will be an integral partner throughout the development. An area will be set aside for Algonquin commemoration at a ridge overlooking the Ottawa River and, subject to further consultation, street naming, public art and commemorative signage will be used to celebrate the association of the site and the region with the Algonquin peoples. The site’s military heritage will also be recognized through street and park naming, public art and commemorative signage.

Roadmap for redevelopment

Once adopted by the city, the plan will act as “the roadmap” for development, with some aspects entrenched in a secondary plan and zoning bylaw amendment.

Canada Lands will sell serviced blocks to multiple developers who will construct housing, mixed-use, retail and office buildings according to design requirements established by the CLC.

“Builders will have to follow architectural guidelines so that the land use and design vision is realized,” the plan says, noting Canada Lands will monitor this, as opposed to the city.

There will, however, be “some flexibility” in interpretation, provided the general intent of the policies and principles are maintained, the plan says.

Tree huggers

There are many significant trees and tree stands on the site, including a Burr Oak that is estimated to be more than 200 years old. Development will need to account for the location of these features, the plans says.

Schools, transit and other stuff

The plan calls for three elementary schools, four big parks, five small parks and one town square.

There will also be segregated cycle-tracks and new OC Transpo service. Four bus routes currently travel within a 10-minute walk of the site, but the development proposed will be sufficient to warrant the introduction of a transit route to serve new residents who move onto the site.

What Tobi thinks

Rideau-Rockcliffe Coun. Tobi Nussbaum says he’s happy with the plan — on paper.

If it is followed, success could mean an “exciting paradigm shift” for building new communities in Ottawa, with a focus on active transportation and convenient transit options.

“It’s going to be critical that implementation respects the intent and spirit of the CDP,” he said.

Council will vote on the plan Oct. 14. Groundbreaking could be as early as next year.

mpearson@ottawacitizen.com
twitter.com/mpearson78

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/former-cfb-rockcliffe-redevelopment-proposed

Arcologist
Sep 17, 2015, 3:16 PM
It's a decent plan, I suppose, but ashame that such a large development is only targeting 10,000 new residents. It's within the Greenbelt, and given its proximity to downtown, it would have been nice to see higher densities.

If CLC, the City and NCC had come together to put forth a LONG-term plan, they could have perhaps increased densities to the point where it would make sense to run an LRT line from Rideau Station, east beneath Rideau Street and Montreal Rd, all the way to CFB Rockcliffe.

Wishful thinking I suppose... :rolleyes:

MoreTrains
Sep 17, 2015, 6:36 PM
It's a decent plan, I suppose, but ashame that such a large development is only targeting 10,000 new residents. It's within the Greenbelt, and given its proximity to downtown, it would have been nice to see higher densities.

If CLC, the City and NCC had come together to put forth a LONG-term plan, they could have perhaps increased densities to the point where it would make sense to run an LRT line from Rideau Station, east beneath Rideau Street and Montreal Rd, all the way to CFB Rockcliffe.

Wishful thinking I suppose... :rolleyes:

I too agree, the city and CLC should have worked together in a plan to put at least double the density to justify an LRT line. They could also have added in a number of family sized apartments (4 bed) to provide a better alternative to living in the burbs and single family homes.

I also would have gone more Euro in this design. Sustainable, green, dense and perhaps use it for experimental design and development; like the neighborhood in Paris that contains Centre Pompidou and the Grande Arche. But Im sure it will be the same old sterile, gross, grass covered area.

McC
Sep 17, 2015, 7:29 PM
\ like the neighborhood in Paris that contains Centre Pompidou and the Grande Arche.

Those two landmarks are nowhere near each other. Centre Pompidou is in Beaubourg just north of the Hotel de Ville (very central), and the Grande Arche is in La Défense, well-outside of Paris proper to the northwest. La Défense is mostly office skyscrapers that people commute vast distances to for work, I wouldn't define it as very sustainable or green (it's pretty auto/highway focused).

But if you want to check out a new Parisian neighbourhood that might be an interesting example, I recommend Clichy-Batignolles (also northwest, but intramuros), where they are extending the #14 metro (AKA le Météor) and are building some pretty nifty midrises around the gorgeous new park with all the names: Parc-Clichy-Batignolles-Martin-Luther-King-Junior.

OTSkyline
Sep 18, 2015, 6:46 PM
I think this is a good idea and a great opportunity to add more people WITHIN the greenbelt instead of just extending outwards and outwards all the time.

However, with housing starts and demand decreasing or slowing down a bit shouldn't the city focus primarily on building and adding density where transit and schools and other services already exist instead of building where we need to start from scratch? I mean, they come up with all these great "TOD" plans around the confederation line, do nothing about them, and now want to start on this base... urgh, sometimes I wonder what the hell the City is doing (or not doing) :shrug: :hell:

McC
Sep 18, 2015, 6:51 PM
What exactly are you asking the City to do? I'm not sure what you want the Community Design and Transit Oriented Development Plans to 'do' other than be frameworks for future action by property owners and developers.

lrt's friend
Sep 18, 2015, 9:26 PM
I think this is a good idea and a great opportunity to add more people WITHIN the greenbelt instead of just extending outwards and outwards all the time.

However, with housing starts and demand decreasing or slowing down a bit shouldn't the city focus primarily on building and adding density where transit and schools and other services already exist instead of building where we need to start from scratch? I mean, they come up with all these great "TOD" plans around the confederation line, do nothing about them, and now want to start on this base... urgh, sometimes I wonder what the hell the City is doing (or not doing) :shrug: :hell:

Not everybody wants to live next to the Confederation Line especially when the entire eastern route will be right next to the Queensway. This is not exactly the most desirable location for residential development in comparison with locations overlooking the Ottawa River such as in the Westboro area. And of course the new Rockcliffe site will also be a desirable location next to the parkways, river. museum and bike trails.

eltodesukane
Sep 20, 2015, 12:33 PM
"the entire eastern route will be right next to the Queensway.."
"not exactly the most desirable location"

And the western route next to the Sir John A. Macdonald Parkway..

A route along Carling or Baseline would have benefited more people than along the Sir John A. Macdonald Parkway.

lrt's friend
Sep 21, 2015, 1:42 PM
"the entire eastern route will be right next to the Queensway.."
"not exactly the most desirable location"

And the western route next to the Sir John A. Macdonald Parkway..

A route along Carling or Baseline would have benefited more people than along the Sir John A. Macdonald Parkway.

I don't think the Sir John A Macdonald Parkway is quite as bad as the Queensway but I get your point. That part of the city also has the Ottawa River and views of the Gatineau hills, something that is missing from the eastern route.

Of course, the Carling LRT has been delayed indefinitely and we will see whether the Baseline busway gets built in the next round. I just get this feeling. The latter is critical if we hope to see a ridership boost. It is the critical missing link right now.

We seem to think that the conversion of the Transitways to LRT is going to do miracles for ridership but I am not sure how. It is not going to increase service frequency and any time saving will be modest. For those whose destinations are not downtown, travelling around the city by transit will become more difficult.

As I have said before, our city is becoming more decentralized and our transit system is not preparing for this ongoing trend. The relocation of DND and RCMP headquarters are examples of this but many smaller businesses are setting up shop in the suburbs where commercial rents are more reasonable. This has been going on for decades but we have had no transit plan to deal with this since we threw out the Chiarelli plan in its entirety. We can place all the incentives in the world to intensify around the Confederation Line, however, all this does is raise commercial rents near rapid transit driving a wide class of businesses even further into the suburbs. The same thing applies to residential development. Yes, we need intensification along the Confederation Line but at the same time, the poor people who need rapid transit the most are being driven away at the same time.

Let's face it, the only solution is to have a more extensive transit grid than is planned. And that is the key to ridership growth.

This should have been more appropriately OC Transpo discussion and I will copy it there.

rocketphish
Sep 23, 2015, 12:35 AM
Committee approves 'visionary' plan for former Rockcliffe airbase

Joanne Laucius, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: September 22, 2015 | Last Updated: September 22, 2015 6:18 PM EDT

The city’s planning and development committee has approved the community development plan for the former CFB Rockcliffe.

Now the real work begins, says Rideau-Rockcliffe Coun. Tobi Nussbaum. The new development, which encompasses 131 hectares, will eventually be home to 10,000 people. It won’t be finished for another 20 years.

“This is a visionary document and a visionary opportunity. The challenge is implementation,” Nussbaum said after a meeting that saw little debate on the plan, which includes a mix of sustainable housing types, retail space, 10 parks, three elementary schools and a cutting-edge “bioswale” system engineered to remove runoff.

The former Rockcliffe airbase is the last development site of this size in the inner core and is bounded by the Aviation Parkway to the west, the Sir George-Étienne Cartier Parkway to the north, the National Research Council campus to the east and Montreal Road to the south.

The plan calls for a mixed-use community that is “walkable, cycling-supportive, transit-oriented and built at human scale.” It will be more dense than the suburbs, but less dense than downtown, essentially a village only a few minutes from the core of the city.

Once adopted, the plan will be used as a “roadmap” for development, with some aspects entrenched in a secondary plan and zoning bylaw amendment. Canada Lands Company, a Crown corporation, will sell serviced blocks of land to developers, who will build homes, retail and office buildings according to Canada Lands’ requirements.

Many more specific details will be coming in the subdivision plan. Shovels will hit the ground to build infrastructure for the first phase of residential development on the southern edge of the property in the coming weeks, says Don Schultz, director of real estate at Canada Lands. He is hoping to have a draft plan for the first subdivision approval next month, with a request for proposals coming soon after.

Schultz hopes that Canada Lands will sell the first blocks of land to builders by the end of March. If all goes according to plan, the first residents will move in in 2017.

CFB Rockcliffe was a functioning airbase until 2004. This is a second attempt at devising a plan for the land. An earlier process ended in 2008 due to an Algonquin land claim for the site. That was settled and the land was transferred to the Canada Lands Company in 2011. A second process began in 2012.

Along the way, there have been 195 meetings with residents, community organizations, neighbouring institutions such as the Montfort Hospital and the development industry to help smooth the way for the project.

“You deserve a medal for that,” planning committee chair Jan Harder told Schultz. “It’s likely that’s why there aren’t large groups of people here today.”

A handful of residents, many of them neighbours of the new development, were at the meeting to remind the planning committee to remain vigilant about concerns that have been raised, including increased traffic, building heights and the effect on the Rockcliffe Airport.

Former Rideau-Rockcliffe Coun. Jacques Legendre said he was happy with the plan.

“The site is an absolute jewel in Ottawa,” he said. But he added that it will also function as a village, which requires retail and employment opportunities, and a transit network with frequent service to Blair Station and downtown.

It is important that there be flexibility in the plan’s interpretation as the years pass, said Schultz. He points out that in the seven years since the first process ended, a lot of things that were once considered “cutting edge” are now established.

Council is to vote on the plan Oct. 14.

jlaucius@ottawacitizen.com

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/committee-approves-visionary-plan-for-former-rockcliffe-airbase

rocketphish
Sep 29, 2015, 5:23 PM
‘Visionary’ plan paves way for Rockcliffe base overhaul
Implementation key to creating sustainable, walkable village

By Emma Jackson
Ottawa East News, Sep 25, 2015

The 10,000-strong sustainable village planned for the former CFB Rockcliffe airbase is going to be unique in the urban core, but it will take commitment from all parties to make it happen, according to the area’s councillor.

Rideau-Rockcliffe Coun. Tobi Nussbaum called the community design plan for the east-end greenfield development “visionary” when it was approved at planning committee on Sept. 22 – but he warned stakeholders not to let their principles slip.

“There are going to be important planning and transportation elements that are going to be a little bit new, that will push city staff, push the developer, push council to do things a bit differently, a bit more sustainably with real regard to how this can function as an integrated community,” Nussbaum said.

The 130-hectare property operated as a Canadian Forces air base until 2004, but has been vacant since 2011. It’s largely owned by Canada Lands Corporation, with about five hectares controlled by the National Capital Commission.

The new community design plan sets out a grand vision over the next 20 years to develop a more sustainable kind of suburb in the base’s footprint: one that prioritizes bikes and pedestrians over cars, that connects to rapid transit, and that focuses on a Main Street village feel.

“We want the type of mixed-use community that allows people to do their services, to find jobs on site, to make sure that we have a village-type feel that doesn’t necessarily involve them having to get in their cars to do their errands or to do their shopping,” Nussbaum said.

Canada Lands started the CDP process in 2012, holding 195 consultations with members of the public, local businesses, Aboriginal Algonquin groups and city planners. The result is a mixed neighbourhood that will range from low-rise homes to high-rise apartments, with commercial skyscrapers to house jobs close to home. The main commercial strip will bring buildings closer to the street and hide surface parking in the rear, to create a pedestrian-friendly vibe. There’s also room for three schools and a significant amount of green space, particularly where the subdivision will butt up against the Rockcliffe Parkway to the north.

Canada Lands consultant Don Schulz said all those meetings have paid off; the most frequently asked question is, “When can I move in?”

But that didn’t stop a handful of concerned residents – including past and present politicians – from voicing concerns at committee.

Ottawa-Vanier MP Mauril Belanger pushed planners to make sure the site is as sustainable as possible – preferably with the inclusion of renewable energy such as solar power on site – and that it also honours the Algonquin people who have claims to the land.

He offered support for a planned retirement home for Aboriginal veterans, but it was later clarified that the ongoing Multi-faith Housing Initiative project is for all homeless veterans, not just those who are Aboriginal. Belanger also called for a “sculpture park” to honour First Nations history on the land.

Former Rideau-Rockcliffe councillor Jacques Legendre was more focused on transportation – arguably the biggest concern among residents since this project started. He said the city needs to work with the NCC to add a connection to the Rockcliffe Parkway to help disperse what residents fear will be a nightmarish traffic situation once 10,000 people are added to an already congested road network.

Nussbaum wasn’t ready to commit to that in light of efforts to make the new suburb an alternative transportation mecca.

“On the one hand you want to distribute the traffic as widely as you can, but on the other you really do want to make it clear to people that the best way to move around is by bike or by walking or by transit,” Nussbaum said. But at this early date, he’s not ruling anything out.

“I’m certainly open to seeing how things evolve,” he said.

Nussbaum said he’d prefer to tackle traffic issues more sustainably: with an express bus to Blair Station to connect with light rail transit, for example, and by using the upcoming site plan process to make sure pedestrian and cycling infrastructure are prioritized from the outset.

Planning committee approved the community design plan, a master servicing study, a stormwater management plan and an official plan amendment on Sept. 22. The project will head to council for final approval on Oct. 7.

http://www.ottawacommunitynews.com/news-story/5931405--visionary-plan-paves-way-for-rockcliffe-base-overhaul/

rocketphish
Oct 19, 2015, 5:23 PM
City council approves CFB Rockcliffe redevelopment
New neighbourhood will have 6,000 homes

By Alex Robinson
Ottawa East News, Oct 19, 2015

City council has approved the mammoth redevelopment of the CFB Rockcliffe lands, which will create a new neighbourhood that will eventually bring 10,000 new residents to the area.

“It will be an exciting day for many people who have been eagerly anticipating the approval of this very ambitious project,” Rideau-Rockcliffe Coun. Tobi Nussbaum said at a council meeting on Oct. 14.

“It could really give us an exciting and visionary opportunity to build new residential areas.”

City council unanimously passed the project, which will create a new subdivision with 6,000 new homes.

The site for the development is the former home of a Canadian Forces base in the east end. The large parcel of land is bounded by the Ottawa River to the north, Montreal Road to the south, Blair Road to the east and the Aviation Parkway to the west.

The mixed-use development will include a diverse array of buildings, including low-rise, mid-rise and high-rise structures. The new community will have schools, a main commercial strip and a network of paths for cyclists and pedestrians.

“We’re going to realize the ambitious vision in the Community Design Plan and work hard not to water down that vision,” Nussbaum said.

Nussbaum said the biggest challenge with the development going forward will be to ensure transit infrastructure keeps up with the needs of what will become a growing community.

Figuring out how to link the development to the Confederation Line, the east-west section of Ottawa’s Light Rail Transit project, will be very important, Nussbaum has said. The station at Blair Road will likely be the closest.

The community will be developed over the course of 15 to 20 years, meaning the 10,000 new residents will move in gradually, which Canada Lands Company hopes will lessen their impact on the area’s transit system.

The Canada Lands Company, a crown corporation that is overseeing the development, first announced the former military base was going to be developed in 2006.

Canada Lands then launched an extensive consultations process over a number of years before it submitted its application to the city this summer. It initially presented three possible designs for the new neighbourhood, but ultimately decided to use the best elements of all of them based on comments from residents, representatives for the corporation said.

City council approved the zoning amendments needed for the project to go forward at its meeting on Oct. 14.

Canada Lands expects work on the development will start in late 2015 and the first residents will start moving into the site in 2017.

For more information on the development, go to clcrockcliffe.ca.

http://www.ottawacommunitynews.com/news-story/5967121-city-council-approves-cfb-rockcliffe-redevelopment/

Arcologist
Oct 19, 2015, 5:35 PM
I still think we're missing a HUGE opportunity to build a much denser community, and running a new Rideau LRT line to it...

lrt's friend
Oct 19, 2015, 8:24 PM
I still think we're missing a HUGE opportunity to build a much denser community, and running a new Rideau LRT line to it...

You are being too visionary. Remember, this is the City of Ottawa. After all, there will be a bus connection to Blair LRT station. It may not be convenient, but it is within 5 km of LRT (as advertised), which is the best it's going to get for a long, long time.

DEWLine
Oct 25, 2015, 11:23 PM
Some days, I don't think we can afford to condemn things for being "too visionary" in this city.

rocketphish
Nov 7, 2015, 2:16 AM
Update

Introducing Wateridge Village

We are very excited to finally share with you the new name and logo of our community: Wateridge Village at Rockcliffe


"Wateridge Village at Rockcliffe" was selected among many strong names as it evokes the natural physical features of the beautiful Rockcliffe Lands site, which lies on the shore of the Ottawa River and is home to many natural ridges.

The logo is intended to serve as a visual reminder of the connections between land, water and community at Rockcliffe. These three elements are central to both the rich aboriginal and aviation history of the site.

In the coming days, weeks and months, expect to see advertising for Wateridge Village as we begin the process of seeking home builders to work with CLC on turning the proposed Wateridge plans into a reality.

As we continue to work through the development process with the City of Ottawa, we will continue keeping you updated through these e-blasts and at www.clcrockcliffe.ca.

For individuals looking to learn more about potentially living at Wateridge Village, sit tight! We will have more news to share, including a Wateridge Village website, in the very near future.

Exciting times are ahead and we'll continue to keep you posted as we reach each new milestone!

JM1
Nov 7, 2015, 3:57 AM
The name "Barrhaven on the Ridge" must have been taken!

Update

Introducing Wateridge Village

We are very excited to finally share with you the new name and logo of our community: Wateridge Village at Rockcliffe


"Wateridge Village at Rockcliffe" was selected among many strong names as it evokes the natural physical features of the beautiful Rockcliffe Lands site, which lies on the shore of the Ottawa River and is home to many natural ridges.

The logo is intended to serve as a visual reminder of the connections between land, water and community at Rockcliffe. These three elements are central to both the rich aboriginal and aviation history of the site.

In the coming days, weeks and months, expect to see advertising for Wateridge Village as we begin the process of seeking home builders to work with CLC on turning the proposed Wateridge plans into a reality.

As we continue to work through the development process with the City of Ottawa, we will continue keeping you updated through these e-blasts and at www.clcrockcliffe.ca.

For individuals looking to learn more about potentially living at Wateridge Village, sit tight! We will have more news to share, including a Wateridge Village website, in the very near future.

Exciting times are ahead and we'll continue to keep you posted as we reach each new milestone!

DEWLine
Nov 7, 2015, 4:18 AM
As names go...perhaps too generic?

rocketphish
Nov 7, 2015, 4:29 AM
This ranks up there as one of the stupidest names ever for a new subdivision in Ottawa. I would have expected much more from the CLC. What was wrong with Rockcliffe Landing?

movebyleap
Nov 7, 2015, 5:04 AM
I think the name is perfect. A generic name for what will most probably be a generic development! :)

lrt's friend
Nov 7, 2015, 5:54 AM
Wateridge Village, Ottawa's first underwater community, free submarine transfers.

Aylmer
Nov 7, 2015, 11:41 AM
Oh God, I cringe at the pretentiousness...

JM1
Nov 8, 2015, 4:44 AM
Now I know where they got the name...
http://forums.redflagdeals.com/costco-water-ridge-one-piece-toilet-1411707/

Wateridge is a make of toilet!

Cross-branding opportunity?

silvergate
Nov 8, 2015, 4:18 PM
The densest little village you ever did see...

MoreTrains
Nov 9, 2015, 5:01 PM
Why didnt they just stick with Rockliffe? I mean it was CFB Rockliffe for over 50 years, so when you say 'Im off to Wateridge' nobody is going to know what the eff your talking about! Rockliffe landing, Rockliffe point, Rockliffe Village, solid names that keep the geographical reference that people know about.