[Cre47]

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-droit/actualites/gatineau-outaouais/201103/23/01-4382524-la-sto-consulte-la-population-de-hull-et-aylmer.php

The article is in French, but in this article the STO president is not ruling out a tramway or train in a future rapid transit corridor from Aylmer. I would wage more on a Rapibus extension instead than a train even though it would great having an LRT corridor, although the big obstacle would be east of St-Raymond.

[waterloowarrior]

RFQ - Baseline Road Transit Intensive Corridor Planning and Environmental Assessment Study
http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=215493&src=osr&FED_ONLY=0&ACTION=NEXT&rowcount=2000&lastpage=200&MoreResults=&PUBSORT=0&CLOSESORT=0&IS_SME=Y&hcode=IUJmUfrZzZ%2fL3OSyAra9PQ%3d%3d
Addendum #1 has been issued.

Requirement:
The City of Ottawa, hereinafter referred to as the City, is seeking qualification submissions to provide professional engineering services to conduct a Planning and Environmental Assessment Study for the Baseline Road Transit Intensive Corridor (Bayshore Station to Prince of Wales Drive).

Period of Proposed Contract:
The proposed period of contract will be eighteen (18) months from the date of award.

[Uhuniau]

Never mind Bloess's comparison to the Rideau Canal. Let's find a more contemporary example.

The Channel Tunnel received approval in the UK and France in 1987.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Tunnel

Yes. And just like a real transit system for Ottawa, a Channel tunnel had been talked about for hundreds of years. Ottawa's LRT will be shovel-ready in about the year 2664. Of course, by then, there will be no semblance of the current Ottawa remaining, the national capital having been moved to Moose Jaw. But by God, there'll be a lot of Shoppers Drug Marts.

[McC]

minor news from CTV and the Sun today:

NCC cool to having light rail on Ottawa River Parkway

One of three plans to extend light rail transit to the west include putting trains on the Ottawa River Parkway.

National Capital Commission CEO Marie Lemay (right) says running light rail transit along the Ottawa River Parkway is not guaranteed, Wednesday, April 6, 2011.

Updated: Wed Apr. 06 2011 5:26:32 PM

ctvottawa.ca

The National Capital Commission is reminding the city that building light rail transit on the Ottawa River Parkway is not a done deal.

"(City officials) have been told numerous times, don't assume it's the cheapest way and don't assume it's the easiest way," NCC CEO Marie Lemay said Wednesday.

The western portion of the Ottawa River Parkway is one of three options for extending the city's light rail transit plan to the west.

The other options would involve light rail on either Byron Avenue or Carling Avenue.

An ongoing environmental assessment will explore all three options. The NCC says even after that's complete, nothing is guaranteed.

"Before you can do anything on federal land, it has to be a last resort. It has to be a very compelling and powerful reason," said Lemay.

While the NCC is cool to the idea of having light rail on the parkway, the board approved plans Wednesday that would allow light rail transit between Blair Road and Tunney's Pasture.


With a report from CTV Ottawa's John Hua




NCC approves land realignment for LRT
By SUSAN SHERRING, City Hall Columnist

Last Updated: April 6, 2011 5:31pm

StoryCommentsEmail Story Print Size A A A Report Typo Ottawa’s light rail project got a little encouragment from the NCC on Wednesday, when the commission gave its approval to a part of the LRT route.

Despite voicing several concerns about the project, including feeling rushed by the process, the NCC board of directors unanimously accepted the staff recommendation to approve the LRT alignment from Tunney’s Pasture to Blair Rd.

The present route for the LRT uses or abutts on federal land, hence the need for the NCC’s approval.

While an important step, the NCC’s CEO Marie Lemay made it clear the decision has nothing to do the city’s request to use the Ottawa River Parkway.

“We’ve been saying that all along and it’s just a fact that we want to make sure isn’t forgotten by anyone,” Lemay told reporters.

“But approving the alignment is very important. We’ve been working very closely with the city and we want to make sure we integrate our steps together.”

The NCC has consistently said approval for using the parkway shouldn’t be considered a given and that being federal lands, the city should consider it as a last resort and not its first option.

susan.sherring@sunmedia.ca

[lrt's friend]

In a radio interview this morning, an NCC official urged that the terminus be moved from Tunney's Pasture to Bayview. The thinking of course that the Tunney's Pasture terminus biases the assessment of the three western extension options.

Also, comments were made suggesting that a parkway route would not be the cheapest. Reading between the lines perhaps, this suggests that the only way a parkway route would be approved would be if it were underground.

[eternallyme]

I still strongly prefer the Richmond/Byron alignment as it has the most catchment potential and is much more cost-effective than along Carling.

[Uhuniau]

Come on and abolish the NC bloody C already.

[Dado]

Come on and abolish the NC bloody C already.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=5234952

[Cre47]

Ottawa Transit blog has extra images from the Longfields Station

http://www.transitottawa.ca/2011/04/longfields-station-all-shiny-and-new.html

[MountainView]

I was at Fallowfield Station today around 1pm and it seemed like no one had any idea that OC Transpo had modified a large chunk of the Barrhaven local routes. People were asking other people how to get from Fallowfield to certain parts of Barrhaven, and it seemed like most people who normally take the 176 from Fallowfield to the Crestway part of Barrhaven had no clue that the 176 no longer ran to Fallowfield Station. I personally pointed out to a handful of people that the 94 would take them to Woodroffe and Strandherd where they could transfer to the 176, or they would have to take the 95 to Barrhaven Centre to catch the 176 there.

Judging by what I saw today, I'm thinking OC Transpo didn't do the best job making sure riders knew the changes were taking place April 17/18 and what exactly those changes were. About 66% of the people seemed very puzzled as to what bus to take ... especially the 176 and the 170 that now only covers western Barrhaven.

Also ... does anyone have any idea when a Woodroffe Park and Ride will be built? (Woodroffe at Strandherd in the SE corner) or are they waiting for the Strandherd-Armstrong bridge to be completed first?

[Cre47]

I was at Fallowfield Station today around 1pm and it seemed like no one had any idea that OC Transpo had modified a large chunk of the Barrhaven local routes. People were asking other people how to get from Fallowfield to certain parts of Barrhaven, and it seemed like most people who normally take the 176 from Fallowfield to the Crestway part of Barrhaven had no clue that the 176 no longer ran to Fallowfield Station. I personally pointed out to a handful of people that the 94 would take them to Woodroffe and Strandherd where they could transfer to the 176, or they would have to take the 95 to Barrhaven Centre to catch the 176 there.

Judging by what I saw today, I'm thinking OC Transpo didn't do the best job making sure riders knew the changes were taking place April 17/18 and what exactly those changes were. About 66% of the people seemed very puzzled as to what bus to take ... especially the 176 and the 170 that now only covers western Barrhaven.

Also ... does anyone have any idea when a Woodroffe Park and Ride will be built? (Woodroffe at Strandherd in the SE corner) or are they waiting for the Strandherd-Armstrong bridge to be completed first?

A lot of the media didn't do that either. If I remember only CTV seem to have done that. However, they haven't mentionned the changes to the 176, nor the cuts to local service and other routes. The article has dropped fast on the headlines.

CFRA did had an article, but they have rapidly dropped from the headlines.

I didn't remember seeing anything on CBC and the Citizen.

It's not even in the EMC Barrhaven page right now.

While the Ottawa Sun, well they are more busy with their new look page (very ugly BTW), the launch of Fox News North, throwing flowers at Conservatives and the upcoming royal wedding.

[MountainView]

I don't recall which local paper had it, it very well could have been the Barrhaven EMC or the Nepean this Week (if the latter still exists) and it had a full page colour map of the new Barrhaven service map... but I'm sure no one bothered to look at it based on the confusion I saw earlier today.

On a positive note ... I do enjoy the 94 service to Barrhaven because the 95 is still packed and the 94 is empty because people don't know where it goes yet lol

[lrt's friend]

Just magnify this many fold come September. It is inevitable that there will be mass confusion when the optimization is implemented. Just watch. Only those who made themselves informed know what is happening. The average bus rider will be in for a shock and some will be literally left at the bus stop wondering why no bus is coming. Of course, OC Transpo will make mistakes too and some routes will likely not have adequate capacity. It has happened before. It will happen this time.

[eternallyme]

I don't recall which local paper had it, it very well could have been the Barrhaven EMC or the Nepean this Week (if the latter still exists) and it had a full page colour map of the new Barrhaven service map... but I'm sure no one bothered to look at it based on the confusion I saw earlier today.

On a positive note ... I do enjoy the 94 service to Barrhaven because the 95 is still packed and the 94 is empty because people don't know where it goes yet lol

I'm not really a fan of the 94 extension, unless they were to extend the 94 more to Barrhaven Centre. During long periods of the day, there is no connection between a large part of Barrhaven and the central area of the community without a transfer to the 95 at Fallowfield. I would have extended the 170 instead, even though it would require a transfer to leave Barrhaven. Such would also make the service hours reduction on the 171 more reasonable as well.

The same issue is going to come up - at ALL times of day - soon with the 160/93 in Kanata North. I'd have eliminated the 169, made the 160 a limited-service route to the area to keep some service at least to Kanata Centrum and still had the 93 do most of the work.

[MountainView]

I'm not really a fan of the 94 extension, unless they were to extend the 94 more to Barrhaven Centre.

Hmm.. I never thought of that idea... 94 Barrhaven Centre via Woodroffe and Champan Mills Drive (when completely built). But OC's eventual plan is to extend the 94 to Riverside South and I assume a Park and Ride will be built at Woodroffe and Strandherd.

During long periods of the day, there is no connection between a large part of Barrhaven and the central area of the community without a transfer to the 95 at Fallowfield. I would have extended the 170 instead, even though it would require a transfer to leave Barrhaven. Such would also make the service hours reduction on the 171 more reasonable as well.

Although if you live in Eastern Barrhaven (East of Greenbank and South of the Railway tracks... you have routes 171 and 176 to bring you to Barrhaven Centre, which I assume is what you mean by 'central area of the community'

In my opinion, it seems like the Stonebridge area (Barrhaven South of Jock River) has a lot of service for such a low population, with routes 175 and 177. I don't see why those routes just couldn't be combined.

[McC]

Darwin has a post on last week's LRT briefings, would like to hear the perspective of any forumers who might have been there!
http://westsideaction.wordpress.com/2011/05/03/western-lrt-part-i/
(he posts some slides from the City's presentation)

Western LRT (part i)
Posted on May 3, 2011 by westsideaction

Last week, city staff offered some briefings on the western LRT options. Recall that the current downtown Ottawa transit tunnel study, now renamed Ottawa Light Rail Transit/Tunnel (OLRT), covers that portion from Blair Road in the east to Tunney’s Pasture in the west. However, the first components of the LRT system includes a service from Tunney’s to Lincoln Fields, but under a different Environmental Approval process. The western portion might be completed at the same time as the downtown portion, or shortly thereafter.

City council directed that staff consider various options running west from Bayview Station (Council selected Bayview in order to include the O-Train corridor and full Carling Avenue options; a leg would still be required to Tunney’s, as it is the second largest employment node in the city).

Obviously, the WLRT has to connect with the downtown portion, and somehow with the O-Train, and possibly a connection to Gatineau (either rail or bus) via the Prince of Wales Bridge. And at its western end, Lincoln Fields, there will be a major bus transfer point for buses to Kanata. All trains that run through the downtown will run to Lincoln Fields. The rail line would eventually extend further south to College Square, where underground station facilities are already being built as part of the new Algonquin trades building. From there,Nepean south and Barrhaven customers would transfer to buses.

Note that the bus transitway’s current connection to the Queensway will be closing when MOT widens the Queensway, in part to carry all the buses being moved off the transitway during conversion to LRT tracks. Eventually, the LRT could be extended west from Lincoln Fields to Bayshore and then to Kanata.

As shown in the following slide, the downtown commuter drives the system. They require a high level of service from Lincoln Fields east to the downtown. The reverse flow, ie, people commuting out of the downtown, is only 25% of the downtown-oriented flow, but that is enough to provide good revenue (the lack of backhaul on current express buses to the far suburbs is a financial killer for BRT).

The LRT system will be as grade-separated as possible. However, in a significant clarification from previous descriptions, the track is not being described as fully-fenced off. Just as buses can travel along a road at 80kmh and not be separated from pedestrians by a fence, the LRT line need not be fenced. Crossings can still be controlled by careful landscaping and berming, and a discrete chain or similar “crossable” barrier will permit people to cross the tracks much like they cross the street or the Ottawa River Commuter Expressway lanes now. Underpasses and overpasses will also be provided and crossing traffic will be gently steered towards those. The exclusive right of way, therefore, is exclusive of cars, but not of pedestrians. Similar permitted crossings occur now across the transitway at the Preston extension, across the O-train south of Confederation Hts, and along the ORP.

Here are the corridors for the Western LRT. Over the next few posts, I’ll run through each set of the major options.

[reidjr]

Hmm.. I never thought of that idea... 94 Barrhaven Centre via Woodroffe and Champan Mills Drive (when completely built). But OC's eventual plan is to extend the 94 to Riverside South and I assume a Park and Ride will be built at Woodroffe and Strandherd.



Although if you live in Eastern Barrhaven (East of Greenbank and South of the Railway tracks... you have routes 171 and 176 to bring you to Barrhaven Centre, which I assume is what you mean by 'central area of the community'

In my opinion, it seems like the Stonebridge area (Barrhaven South of Jock River) has a lot of service for such a low population, with routes 175 and 177. I don't see why those routes just couldn't be combined.

I would not say its lot of service for a low population and with it growing etc that population will only grow.

[McC]

Part II on the Carling route options:
http://westsideaction.wordpress.com/2011/05/03/western-lrt-part-ii/

[McC]

Part III on Richmond-Byron route options
http://westsideaction.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/western-lrt-part-iii-richmond-byron-options/

[McC]

Part III on Richmond-Byron route options
http://westsideaction.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/western-lrt-part-iii-richmond-byron-options/

[McC]

and finally, Part IV on the ORP:
http://westsideaction.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/western-lrt-part-iv-the-river-parkway/

[McC]

in the Citizen:

City of Ottawa has plan to hurry light-rail project for Canada’s 150th
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
By Joanne Chianello, The Ottawa Citizen

OTTAWA — The city plans to fast-track its light-rail project in hopes that it could be ready for at least a “ceremonial” event on Canada’s 150th birthday in 2017 and carrying paying passengers by spring 2018.

A report expected to be released Thursday, to be considered at a special meeting of city council’s finance committee next week, will lay out how city staff will advance the “pre-construction” stage of the $2.1-billion project and reduce the time to gather bids on the project from 12 months to nine.

These and other measures promise to have the light-rail project completed about a year ahead of its original schedule.

“There was a pretty clear indication that the public and the council are expecting us to move at a faster pace,” said Mayor Jim Watson. “I certainly heard on the campaign trail that people were frustrated that we’ve had this never-ending debate on light rail. They wanted us to move on it.”

But if light rail is being sped up, then the widening of Highway 417 must also be accelerated.

A key element of how public transit will operate during the light-rail construction involves running OC Transpo buses in dedicated lanes on a widened highway. That major construction project, which has already begun in the west end, will be sped up as well.

“That has helped us move at a faster pace,” said Watson. “We had to wait for confirmation from the province that they had the funding for the expansion of the 417. That was one of the other factors that was helpful to us.”

The Ontario government identified money for upgrading the 417 in its recent budget, in addition to the $600 million both the provincial and federal governments have each pledged to contribute to the project.

Although the city has always said the project would cost $2.1 billion, the actual price won’t really be known until the tendering process is complete. Still, said Watson, an accelerated schedule helps keep down costs it two ways: the sooner the new transit system is running, the sooner the city takes in revenues from it; and costs generally increase over time due to inflation (the $2.1-billion price tag is in 2009 dollars).

It’s unclear why the light-rail project wasn’t planned with an earlier deadline in the first place.

In early March, members of council’s finance and economic harangued senior city staff over what they characterized as the slow progress of the light-rail plan.

“Four years and three months ago, we kissed off the north-south rail plan and since that time all we have to show for it is two bore holes,” said Barrhaven Councillor Jan Harder at the time, referring to the previous light-rail plan cancelled under former mayor Larry O’Brien — a move that left taxpayers on the hook for more than $36 million in a settlement with Siemens Canada, the company that was signed to build the previous rail line.

It’s now looking like the light rail project will be officially commissioned by 2018, which means it needs to be ready for testing by late 2017.

While members of the public won’t actually be able to ride the rails on Canada’s sesquicentennial, it may be possible for visitors to see what the tunnel or some completed stations look like.

More important, the most disruptive of the construction will be minimized in the downtown core during the nation’s birthday celebrations, when thousands of tourists are expected to descend on the capital.

[McC]

and finally, Part IV on the ORP:
http://westsideaction.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/western-lrt-part-iv-the-river-parkway/

and finally-er Part V on how the western route will be chosen
http://westsideaction.wordpress.com/2011/05/06/western-lrt-part-v-choosing-the-best-route/

[waterloowarrior]

http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=218772&src=osr&FED_ONLY=0&ACTION=NEXT&rowcount=2000&lastpage=200&MoreResults=&PUBSORT=0&CLOSESORT=0&IS_SME=Y&hcode=u2xALFK3sYTUe%2bacbwUdbg%3d%3d
RFP - Ottawa Light Rail Transit Transportation Demand Management Strategy

Description:
Request for Proposal # 19611-91896-P04 Ottawa Light Rail Transit Transportation Demand Management Strategy

GSINS:
C219A Other Engineering Studies
B109A Other Environmental Studies
B302A Feasibility Studies/Needs Analysis

Requirement:
The Rail Implementation Office of the City of Ottawa, hereinafter referred to as the City is seeking proposals to provide professional services for a Transportation Demand Management Strategy for the Ottawa Light Rail Transit.

The development of a Transportation Demand Management Strategy (TDMS) for Ottawa’s Light Rail Transit Project is essential to ensure sustainable mobility during and after construction of the system. The goal of this Request for Proposals (RFP) is to choose a proponent capable of developing a comprehensive TDMS for the Ottawa Light Rail Transit project.

Period of Proposed Contract:
The proposed period of contract is from Date of Award to 31 March 2012

Inquiries:
All inquiries regarding this Request for Proposal (RFP) are to be directed to the Contracting Authority specified herein. Inquiries must be received in writing (e-mail) no later than Monday, 16 May 2011. All inquiries received, and the answers as provided by the Project Authority will be provided to all Proponents by way of written addendum, no later than Thursday, 19 May 2011 without naming the source of the inquiry.

This Request for proposals document is only available from Merx.

The bid document MUST be received NO LATER than 3:00 p.m. local time, Tuesday, 07 June 2011.
at the following location:

[eternallyme]

I find the proposals through Carlingwood quite interesting (increases ridership as it serves a key destination) but how to connect there will be an issue.

[McC]

proposed station design vocabulary and concept for Hurdman (rest of the stations to come):
http://westsideaction.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/lrt-stations-revealled-part-i/

[Richard Eade]

I find the proposals through Carlingwood quite interesting (increases ridership as it serves a key destination) but how to connect there will be an issue.
Yes, I like that idea also - except I would make some slight adjustments to the proposed alignment.

http://REade.fileave.com/Richmond-Byron/Carlingwood-Station.jpg

Notice that I have come up along Lochart instead of Woodroffe. This avoids disruption of Woodroffe during construction and means that the tracks might be able to be along the surface. Also, coming under the parking lot offers a better angle for turning under Carling.

I suggest that the train would head underground just south of Saville and stay there until after it had turned the corner onto Carling and gone west of Woodroffe (the western Woodroffe).

I have forced the removal of the auto-service wing of the mall, but I don't think that would be a major concern; and it could be re-built over the station if it was really needed.

The draw-back of going to Carlingwood is that the train will no longer pass the towers in the Ambleside area. There will need to be some study to figure out which provides the most passengers, the all-day service to the Mall (including a re-developed Fairlawn Plaza), or the commuter service for the towers.

[OttawaSteve]

The draw-back of going to Carlingwood is that the train will no longer pass the towers in the Ambleside area. There will need to be some study to figure out which provides the most passengers, the all-day service to the Mall (including a re-developed Fairlawn Plaza), or the commuter service for the towers.

No contest there, I should think. Barring a major shift in the travel patterns of Ambleside residents with the arrival of LRT, that is. I get the sense that this is currently a very auto-oriented community (although with a fair number of commuters walking to/from Lincoln Fields station at peak times, I imagine).

On the other hand, Carlingwood is a fairly significant trip generator, not to mention a major transit hub.

[Cre47]

Not sure if it is Randall Denley who wrote but anyways if it was Randall , we don't care about his crap anymore since now he is running for the PC in the next provincial election against Bob Chiarelli.



Be careful with light rail


Ottawa Citizen May 14, 2011



Mayor Jim Watson did the right thing by moving expropriations for light rail back to July when the city treasurer will issue an affordability report on the plan.

Watson needs to be extremely careful with this project because its $2.1-billion cost, with the city responsible for overruns, could, if things go wrong, put a huge strain on municipal property taxpayers and the local government's ability to pay for other important municipal projects.

Residents have correctly spoken out loudly about the need for light rail. However, council must be absolutely sure that this is the right model of light rail for the community. At this cost, this project must be near perfect. It's an enormous amount of money. The plan must stay within budget and it must be the correct project for the needs of riders. To go forward with a plan that is badly flawed at this price is foolhardy.

On a city council that appears reluctant to debate anything, there needs to be a thorough discussion on this issue. That's because there are very good reasons to have reservations. Here are some of them:

Is the line too short? Certainly ? ? it covers downtown, but does it go where people live?

Could the line be extended ? ? by scrapping the tunnel and using the money saved to drive rail eastward toward Orléans, where it could help alleviate some of the congestion at the Highway 417-174 split?

How good is the planning ? ? for the line? When the tunnel is shortened by one-third but the cost remains the same, the plan looks somewhat like guess work;

Will the transfer points be-? ? tween buses and trains at Tunney's Pasture and Blair Road be efficient or have massive tieups?

Is city staff being open and ? ? transparent? Stonewalling on a bore hole testing report that contained embarrassing information was unnecessary;

What are the chances of over-? ? runs on the project and on the tunnel in particular? Tunnels are notorious for surprise costs;

Could money be saved by ? ? running light rail on a surface transit corridor, perhaps banning cars along Albert or Slater streets? Would ridership improve if trains were accessible at street level rather than 10 storeys down?

These are just some of the questions the mayor and council should be pondering before going forward on this expensive and risky project.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[gjhall]

Not sure if it is Randall Denley who wrote but anyways if it was Randall , we don't care about his crap anymore since now he is running for the PC in the next provincial election against Bob Chiarelli.

Sounds like Ken Gray to me.

[Richard Eade]

Yup, it definitely has that certain shade of 'Gray' about it. I think Denley is in the clear on that editorial.

[McC]

Yup, it definitely has that certain shade of 'Gray' about it. I think Denley is in the clear on that editorial.


Sounds like Ken Gray to me.
agreed

in other news, Westside action has moved west to Tunney's http://westsideaction.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/lrt-stations-revealled-part-ii-tunneys-pasture/#comment-2468

[Kitchissippi]

Here's what I would love to see in each of the LRT stations:

vK9C9VtCypE

[Ottawan]

:previous:

I'm sure it costs far too much for Council to consider building some, but I love it!

[MountainView]

Great idea! Too bad we live 100 years behind Japan...

[waterloowarrior]

ottawa LRT update (large pdf) to advisory committees
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/ptac/2011/05-19/OLRT%20May%20Ped%20Cycl%20&%20Transit%20advis%20cttee.pdf

[MalcolmTucker]

ottawa LRT update (large pdf) to advisory committees
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/ptac/2011/05-19/OLRT%20May%20Ped%20Cycl%20&%20Transit%20advis%20cttee.pdf

They've made the stations shorter, maxing out at 150m now, not 180m. A small victory for cost control.

[McC]

OC Transpo wants to buy new O-Trains, nearly double service
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
By Joanne Chianello, The Ottawa Citizen
People come and go on the O-Train and the O-C Transpo Transitway. OTTAWA — OC Transpo wants to spend $59 million to buy six new diesel trains and build some new passing tracks in order to double O-Train capacity and increase service to every eight minutes from the current 15, the city’s transit commission heard Wednesday.

And in something of a surprise move, the transit commission approved a $200,000 study for OC Transpo to figure out what it would take to extend the O-Train as far south as the Leitrim Park and Ride station, as well as to Riverside South.

Alain Mercier, the general manager of the transit system, was supposed to present the business case for increasing capacity on the O-Train at Wednesday’s transit commission meeting. But the report wasn’t ready, so Mercier gave a verbal outline of the plan, which did not include details on exactly how the project will be paid for. However, Mercier indicated that fewer buses would have to be purchased in the near future if the O-Train capacity is increased by 2014. That’s the year Hurdman Station will have to shut down for the light-rail project and Mercier argued that increased O-Train service could help alleviate the transit issues that will arise from that closure.

The O-Train system, which runs from the Bayview Transitway station in the north to Greenboro station in the south, was started as a pilot project in 2001. The initial ridership target for the three existing trains was 6,400 customer trips per day, but has reached 12,000. Mercier said that at the Carleton University station, for example, the traffic level is almost at capacity.

When the O-Train system was first built, OC Transpo purchased three used Bombardier-built diesel trains, originally meant for a German client. However, said Mercier, there are no used trains on the market right now, so OC Transpo would have to purchase six brand-new trains to offer more frequent service. The three existing trains would be rehabilitated and kept on hand for whenever extra capacity is needed.

The official report will not be made public until June 14, and presented to the transit commission a week later on June 21, which is when commissioners will debate and vote on the recommendations for the extra trains. The issue is scheduled to go to full council the very next day, on June 22.

However, the transit commission did vote Wednesday in favour of a motion moved by Councillor Diane Deans, who chairs the commission, to direct OC Transpo to study the feasibility of extending the O-Train from Greenboro to Leitrim, and to Riverside South, using the corridor from the proposed north-south light-rail project that was cancelled by the previous council.

Deans, who represents the Gloucester-Southgate ward, said that purchasing more diesel trains “presents a golden opportunity to provide a lot more service to the south that will be without that kind of (rapid) service for at least 15 years, probably much longer.

“It’s not saying we’re going to do it, it’s saying ‘Let’s look at it, let’s find out if it’s financially feasible, if it makes sense.’”

But not everyone was happy to spend money on the report, which is due back at the transit commission within six months.

Cumberland Councillor Stephen Blais lost a motion to defer the study to the 2012 budget process, saying it was “hogwash” to spend money on a feasibility review when council recently ordered transit to cut $22 million out of its operating budget. That directive led to network-wide changes in routes that will come into effect in September.

“We just went through a very difficult process to cut a bunch of bus routes,” said Blais. “The $200,000 cost of this study is one-third of a bus route.”

Blais said the study was “fiscally irresponsible” because it was not budgeted for and has nothing to do with alleviating the “pressure” that will be caused by the closing of Hurdman Station.

“We’re buying the trains to expand the frequency of service,” he told his fellow commissioners, “not to extend it down to Leitrim 10 years ahead of schedule.”

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/mobile/iphone/news/ottawa-area/Transpo+wants+Trains+nearly+double+service/4804504/story.html

[Ottawan]

:previous:

While this is very good news (a low cost way of making transit more attractive in the short term), I wish that a Gladstone station were added as part of this move. This would be an excellent way of encouraging TOD.

[McC]

they mention new passing tracks, but nothing about new stations. To Gladstone-Marconi and a Leitrim Park-and-ride, I'd add Walkley and South Keys too, at the very least to provide options for mitigating the Transitway Conversion Hell (TM) to come. Would there be any utility in a stop at Lester? (besides the fun in having a Lester Station?)

[lrt's friend]

This illustrates the hodge podge way we are planning transit. We are considering this because we effectively blowing up Hurdman Station for 5 years and we really didn't have an adequate plan to replace one of the most important transfer stations in the system. Well, this does not really resolve this. In any event, this is contrary to our Transportation Master Plan only approved a couple of years ago. That plan called for integrated electric LRT running to Riverside South. In any event, where is the money going to come from not only buy the $60 million trains but much more to extend rail and build stations as far south as Riverside South. We are talking about another $100 million for a very bare bones system at least, and likely much much more.

Now tell me, can the Armstrong-Strandherd Bridge accomodate O-Trains? I scream that we have put in bus lanes and there will be but a bus every half hour crossing there for the forseeable future, and even then, it does not follow the planned rapid transit route to Barrhaven Town Centre.

[Dado]

:previous:

In what way does this contradict the TMP?

Does increasing the capacity of the O-Train line by adding more trains and passing tracks contradict it? No, not unless we regard adding more buses to the Transitway as also contradicting the TMP.

As for going south, I have my doubts it'll happen. To do so would demonstrate what a farce the entire N-S LRT plan was. I don't see it as contradicting the TMP since any such line could always be twinned and electrified in the future. It's certainly no more contradictory than building more busways in places where we eventually envisage future LRT.

On the cost, I find the amount of $60M exceedingly pricey. We have to be looking at upwards of $8M/train. Just a few years ago they were already bandying about the already then-high price of $6M/train.

One of the trains being mentioned is the Alstom LINT 41, built in Germany. It's a model that's been around for quite awhile, possibly as long as the Talents we're using right now. In other words, they shouldn't be that expensive.

Here's some news about it from April 2010:

http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/world-rolling-stock-market-april-2010.html

Germany: After being selected by Rhein-Main transport authority to operate regional services between Limburg, Gießen, Fulda and Gersfeld for 12 years from December 2011, Hessische Landesbahn has ordered a further 23 two-car Alstom Coradia Lint 41 DMUs worth €65m through Hannover Mobilien Leasing.


Depending on whether this is a purchase or a 12-year lease, these things could be had for a little under €3M each. I found another mention of a DB order in late 2009 for 16 of them for €40M, so again about €2.5M each. Granted, we're on the other side of the Atlantic, but to go from less than $3M to more than $8M is the kind of feat only the City of Ottawa can manage.

[O-Town Hockey]

How can we possibly justify spending this much on the NS O-Train without putting some serious plans in place for an inter-provicial link? It would be amazing to have 8-10 minute frequencies accross the river to meet up with the existing transitway at Bayview and, eventually, LRT. Why is no one talking about POW Bridge anymore? Did they ever determine if it is structurally sound enough to serve such a purpsoe?

[McC]

Did they ever determine if it is structurally sound enough to serve such a purpsoe?
they determined that it's only structurally sound enough to serve the purposes of being converted from rail to road to serve the Rapibus at several times the price ;-)

[Dado]

:previous:

Ya, we went from being able to take a 20-something car ballast train a decade ago to no more than buses today. :rolleyes:

http://www.railways.incanada.net/circle/POWbridge01.jpg

http://www.railways.incanada.net/circle/POWbridge02.jpg

http://www.railways.incanada.net/circle/Findings_Bridges.htm#PrinceofWalesBridge

[eternallyme]

they determined that it's only structurally sound enough to serve the purposes of being converted from rail to road to serve the Rapibus at several times the price ;-)

Couldn't they strengthen the structure below? Or replace it since it would have to be twinned anyway?

[McC]

Couldn't they strengthen the structure below? yeah, but who's gonna do it? you? do you know how cold the Ottawa River is?

[eternallyme]

yeah, but who's gonna do it? you? do you know how cold the Ottawa River is?

How did they build the bridge to begin with? Also they do that in many seismic areas as well...

[Kitchissippi]

This is sad — instead of the possibility of integrating the old train station hall as public space, they would think of putting a loading ramp and dock as a barrier between the Rideau Centre and the potential of access to the Rideau Canal. I hope the federal government completely reconsiders its plans for this building!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3484/5739862400_8a5b6c9ec1_b.jpg

I hear the NCC will be closing the infocentre in front of Parliament Hill later this year (Public Works wants the building back). The old train station hall would be amazing as the main tourist/visitor centre, especially if they punched windows and doors out on to the canal. With LRT access and being at the hub between Parliament Hill, Sparks Street, the Rideau Centre and the ByWard Market, it is definitely a logical location.

[O-Town Hockey]

This is sad — instead of the possibility of integrating the old train station hall as public space, they would think of putting a loading ramp and dock as a barrier between the Rideau Centre and the potential of access to the Rideau Canal. I hope the federal government completely reconsiders its plans for this building!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3484/5739862400_8a5b6c9ec1_b.jpg

I hear the NCC will be closing the infocentre in front of Parliament Hill later this year (Public Works wants the building back). The old train station hall would be amazing as the main tourist/visitor centre, especially if they punched windows and doors out on to the canal. With LRT access and being at the hub between Parliament Hill, Sparks Street, the Rideau Centre and the ByWard Market, it is definitely a logical location.

What a piece of crap. Give us our public space back!

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

So we're connected to the old train station, but not integrated with it? God, our bureaucracies in this city are functionally retarded.

[rakerman]

ottawa LRT update (large pdf) to advisory committees
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/ptac/2011/05-19/OLRT%20May%20Ped%20Cycl%20&%20Transit%20advis%20cttee.pdf

65MB and 164 slides - quite an update!

Titled "City of Ottawa Light Rail Transit System - May 2011".

[rakerman]

This is sad — instead of the possibility of integrating the old train station hall as public space, they would think of putting a loading ramp and dock as a barrier between the Rideau Centre and the potential of access to the Rideau Canal. I hope the federal government completely reconsiders its plans for this building!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3484/5739862400_8a5b6c9ec1_b.jpg

I have to hope that the city has a plan to acquire Union Station from the NCC. Having an LRT station under it that doesn't use Union Station as the access point is ridiculous.

[Dado]

So we're connected to the old train station, but not integrated with it? God, our bureaucracies in this city are functionally retarded.

In Ottawa, that is "integrated". Another example: the Baseline tunnel station will be functionally separate from the adjoining Building Trades building - but that's integration, Ottawa-style.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

In Ottawa, that is "integrated". Another example: the Baseline tunnel station will be functionally separate from the adjoining Building Trades building - but that's integration, Ottawa-style.

So I was right, our bureaucracies are functionally retarded.

[MalcolmTucker]

I have to hope that the city has a plan to acquire Union Station from the NCC. Having an LRT station under it that doesn't use Union Station as the access point is ridiculous.

There is no need for access to Union Station for LRT purposes. As you can see where the red arrow is, there will be indoor access between the Union Station, the LRT station, potentially the Chateau Laurier, and the mall. (the connection to the Chateau Laurier is only open when whoever is renting the conference centre is willing to fork out for an extra security guard, so only for certain things is it open today)

Using the old Union Station would be problematic. Huge amount of stairs, the main hall is far away from and not level with the street, and there is the little problem of getting down to a station, which I don't think Heritage people would be very happy with punching holes in the floor of Ottawa's faux Roman bath. It would provide much worse access than the proposed entrance while denying use of the current building.

The building is great, I personally love going to conferences there, and using it for meeting space is one of the reasons there is no way the NCC will ever give it up. Especially with Parliament under continuous renovations for the next couple of decades, a building with a whole suite of meeting rooms equipped with simultaneous translation facilities is very valuable. Just because rail fans can't get in besides on doors-open day, doesn't mean the building is underused, or that it should be returned to a public use, especially one it is ill suited for. Perhaps one day it will be a museum, or almost considered an annex to Parliament Hill, but beyond those two options and the current use, I don't think the NCC would explore significant changes.

The building could use a big upgrade to make it easier to service, fix up some of the hodge podge renovations, and it looks like the NCC is moving in that direction at least a bit.

[jeremy_haak]

As much as it would be cool to have train service in the old station, I agree with Malcolm. I think it would be more effectively used for any number of other uses which have already been suggested on this site. Overall, I think the design decisions look pretty good. I'm interested to see how well the Hurdman design will work, I'm not a huge fan of the proposed build-out for Bayview (two platforms for downtown trains), and I think it would have been cool if the enclosure for the Lebreton Station crossed over Booth (obviously a little pie in the skyish, but it would have really made a large impact I think).

[Uhuniau]

No contest there, I should think. Barring a major shift in the travel patterns of Ambleside residents with the arrival of LRT, that is. I get the sense that this is currently a very auto-oriented community (although with a fair number of commuters walking to/from Lincoln Fields station at peak times, I imagine).

On the other hand, Carlingwood is a fairly significant trip generator, not to mention a major transit hub.

Better yet: a prime target for being flattened altogether and re-developed more intensively. I think that's what the owners have in mind.

[Uhuniau]

I have to hope that the city has a plan to acquire Union Station from the NCC. Having an LRT station under it that doesn't use Union Station as the access point is ridiculous.

I thought Union Station was PWGSC, not NCC?

[eternallyme]

Better yet: a prime target for being flattened altogether and re-developed more intensively. I think that's what the owners have in mind.

That seems quite reasonable actually, since it has long been the "second fiddle" of shopping in the middle-west end (behind Bayshore, as it will be much smaller after that expands - about 600,000 square feet as opposed to about 1,000,000) and unlikely to expand.

[eternallyme]

I am starting to add my proposals for the western LRT. Here is the first one: Westboro/Dominion area.

Dark red = Trenched
Medium red = At grade
Light red = Elevated
Orange = Bored tunnel
Yellow = Cut and cover tunnel
Blue = Stations

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/8831/dominionr.jpg

1 - As the next map will show, a short trench will be necessary to maintain several local accesses. Westminster may need to be closed to keep gradients and clearances.

2 - The LRT will rise up towards a crossing of Fraser and Richmond.

3 - An elevated structure, 5.2 metres (17 feet) above the surface at Richmond (at least 4.3 metres/14 feet above Fraser), would carry the LRT over Rochester Field.

4 - Dominion Station would be relocated to the west over Rochester Field, elevated to preserve most of the park. In order to maintain a park setting, all the pillars and the overpass would be painted in shades of green to resemble trees and grass. The platforms would be side-loading, crossing over by dropping to the surface at the two ends (there would be separate fare-paid areas with a tiny open-air mezzanine). The entire station would be open-air except for small shelters and would have full access for pedestrians and cycle paths in the area. The public art at the station would be clearly designed with a park in mind.

5 - The LRT would slowly descend towards the surface north of the new station. It would be elevated as long as possible to preserve the park.

6 - A short at-grade section would exist approaching the existing Dominion Station (which is demolished but would be cheap to remove).

7 - The LRT enters the existing Transitway trench at its opening with the Ottawa River Parkway and remains there. The traffic signals at the Parkway and the bus crossover would be removed.

8 - OPTION: Westboro Station could be relocated to Churchill Avenue to better connect with the community. A new infill station between Westboro and Tunney's Pasture may be necessary, but that would be expensive to construct.

9 - In the absence of a relocation, the existing Westboro bus station is converted to LRT use, including its side platforms.

10 - The LRT would continue in the trench to Tunney's Pasture.

[MalcolmTucker]

Moving the LRT to one side of the road corridor (Richmond, Byron) instead of down the middle makes for lower capacity bridges where you keep access, and lower impact where you close crossings. LRT on the north side means Westminster coudl still connect to both Richmond and Byron for example. It also eliminates one bridge (trench and Richmond) while making the Fraser bridge much less taxed traffic wise.

[gjhall]

I would think it would be best along this corridor: http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=45.388746,-75.757341&spn=0.036408,0.104628&t=h&z=14&msid=210879073822195211048.0004a5249f7cfdf213b3e

It would ideally be underground the whole way from Westboro Station until Lincoln Fields, but more reasonably:
-Underground from Westboro Station to Richmond/Golden
-Above ground from Richmond/Golden along the Northern edge of the Byron Linear Park to reduce the amount of greenspace lost until Woodroffe
- Underground under Woodroffe until it reached Carlingwood
-Above ground from there until it goes underneath Carling at Lincoln Fields Station

The two key benefits that lead me to this plan are:
1) A station in the heart of Westboro, built behind Lululemon on Churchill, using underutilized land along Danforth and Byron for a station/or preferably integrated into a redevelopment; and
2) Service to Carlingwood Mall, which is an extremely important destination for seniors in the West End, and would provide impetus to redvelop the mall's parking lagoons

Thoughts? This is an interesting thing for us play around with as there are lots of relatively small differences to make decisions about that would really change how this part of the project would feel and be used. Keep them coming!

[eternallyme]

Colours are the same throughout all the proposals.

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/3461/mckellarpark.jpg

1 - The alignment is at-grade throughout the redevelopment area. Air rights would be available though.

2 - Woodroffe Avenue School, Woodroffe United Church and the YMCA building would all be expropriated and demolished. Woodroffe Park would be seriously affected as well.

3 - The three houses and one apartment block on Woodroffe would all remain.

4 - Knightsbridge would be closed off in the area to allow for the LRT to descend. Access would be via Byron/Lockhart or Saville Row (next proposal). Our Lady of Fatima School would also be expropriated and demolished. Since public schools are significantly declining these days, new facilities may not be necessary due to those two school closures. Significant redevelopment opportunities would exist north of Carlingwood though.

5 - The LRT would descend into an open trench under Byron and Lockhart before emerging back to the surface.

6 - The Richmond/Byron median would be used as the corridor for the LRT. Richmond Road would have to be reduced to 2 lanes throughout.

7 - A new station (call it McKellar Park Station) would be built at the surface in this section. Access to Sherbourne would be lost from Richmond. The station would have side-loading platforms with a pedestrian overpass connecting the two sides.

8 - The LRT returns to a trench to clear Wavell, Windermere and (possibly) Westminster, depending on available clearance.

9 - The LRT rises back towards the elevated section in Rochester Field as mentioned in the previous proposal.

[eternallyme]

My most intriguing proposal is for Carlingwood and Lincoln Fields. This will likely require private consultation, since it allows for dramatic changes.

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/4302/lincolnfields.jpg

1 - The existing Transitway would be used for the section between Iris/Queensway (the LRT junction) and Lincoln Fields. It may need to be raised to avoid any floodplain issues with Pinecrest Creek. Since the LRT would go to Bayshore as well as Baseline, no BRT corridor is necessary here.

2 - A deviation from the existing Transitway will be required in order to create more room to make the curve without requiring more new bridges.

3 - The LRT line would turn under the existing bridge to the grass area between Carling Avenue and the local platform, at the existing Transitway and local platform grade (about 4.9 metres/16 feet below Carling).

4 - The interchange with the Ottawa River Parkway would need to be replaced with a T-intersection in order to fit the LRT line under the bridge. The ramps would all be bulldozed.

5 - The existing Transitway platform would be bulldozed and the land converted to parkland.

6 - The existing local platform would remain at its current location. If necessary, changes in the grade may be required to allow the trenched LRT to cross the entrance to Carling which would be at-grade.

7 - The LRT platform would have a centre platform, accessible from two station heads - one at the current pedestrian overpass, the other at the bus entrance.

8 - A short bored tunnel would be required to cross the westbound lanes of Carling.

9 - Between Wentworth and the west Woodroffe junction, the LRT would be in an open trench in the median of Carling. The elevation change precludes a surface alignment, even though the LRT would be gradually sloping upward throughout. The median of Carling would need to be widened, and that would require the travel lines being shifted slightly closer to the sidewalks. Carling would remain 4 lanes in the area.

10 - Two cut-and-cover tunnels would be constructed, one over each of the Woodroffe intersections to accomodate all the necessary turning lanes. They would be constructed one at a time to reduce construction issues. There would be frequent turning restrictions during construction. As the gradient is slightly downhill into Carlingwood, the LRT would remain fairly level or rise slightly.

11 - The LRT would rise to the surface in the southwest parking lot of Carlingwood. Ideally, Carlingwood would be up for a major renovation or reconstruction at the same time, so this section should be done in consultation with the mall and 20Vic Management.

12 - Carlingwood Station would be at the surface where the auto centre, the parking garage and the library branch are now. They would all obviously have to be expropriated and demolished. However, the design could be combined with a redevelopment of the area and a total reconstruction/removal of the mall, so it might be possible to shift it to an angled alignment next to where Sears is now. Again, Carlingwood and 20Vic need to be consulted. A special design (one resembling a heritage train station) might be warranted too to give a unique touch in the redevelopment. The platform would be centre-loading. Perhaps Carlingwood becomes a mixed-use lifestyle/entertainment centre? It is pretty close to Bayshore after all.

13 - Saville Row would be depressed under the LRT with a new underpass (LRT remains at-grade).

14 - As mentioned previously, the schools and park are demolished, and new opportunities would open up north of Carlingwood.

[McC]

A special design (one resembling a heritage train station) might be warranted too to give a unique touch in the redevelopment.

could take inspiration from the old Westboro station?
http://www.andrewkingstudio.com/andrew_king_studio/kitchissippi.html#10

[eternallyme]

could take inspiration from the old Westboro station?
http://www.andrewkingstudio.com/andrew_king_studio/kitchissippi.html#10

That's what I was thinking, even though it wouldn't be in the same location (and Westboro would be a poor fit being in a trench).

[McC]

NCC not inclined to let light rail onto Parkway
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
By Maria Cook, The Ottawa Citizen

OTTAWA — Unless something changes, the NCC is unlikely to approve the use of the Ottawa River Parkway as a route for the city’s light rail system, Marie Lemay told the Citizen editorial board Tuesday.

The city is currently doing an environmental assessment to determine the best option among three potential routes from Tunney’s Pasture to Baseline Road: the Ottawa River Parkway, Byron Avenue or Carling Avenue.

The city’s preferred route is along the western parkway which is owned by the NCC and has a protected shoreline. The city made a presentation a few weeks ago to the NCC board.

“We’ve recently informed them what we have seen does not meet the criteria we set for capital building,” said Lemay, the NCC’s CEO. “Our interest is in intensification, ridership and capital building. What we saw was not making the case for that.

“We asked them to do more study to prove ridership, intensification. It has to be the best option in the context of building the capital, not just the speed of getting into the city. Right now, we wouldn’t be able to recommend use of the parkway.”

The issue of the use of the parkway has been a bone of contention between the city and the commission for some time.

Last year Lemay urged the city to study all other possible corridors and prove that the parkway is the best route for the rail line. She warned then that the commission would have to be convinced the parkway route would be the best alternative for “Canadians as a whole.”


I'm really not sure how to react to this story, on the one hand, I think the ORP is a terrible route for mass transit for the exact same reasons that the NCC gives, so I applaud this as a possible outcome, on the other hand, how fatuous is it for the NCC to claim that this is the thought process that they went through to realize that outcome?

The NCC says “Our interest is in intensification, ridership and capital building. What we saw was not making the case for that. We asked them to do more study to prove ridership, intensification. It has to be the best option in the context of building the capital, not just the speed of getting into the city. Right now, we wouldn’t be able to recommend use of the parkway.”

If that's the NCC's interest, why does the NCC maintain the ORP for cars then either? why not turn it into a street and develop the south side, since the ORP is clearly countrary to the NCC's stated objectives of "intensification" and "building the capital," and all that the ORP does is provide car commuters with "speed of getting into the city"... clearly there should be no NCC commuter expressways, and yet...

what balderdash.

[lrt's friend]

I'm really not sure how to react to this story, on the one hand, I think the ORP is a terrible route for mass transit for the exact same reasons that the NCC gives, so I applaud this as a possible outcome, on the other hand, how fatuous is it for the NCC to claim that this is the thought process that they went through to realize that outcome?

The NCC says “Our interest is in intensification, ridership and capital building. What we saw was not making the case for that. We asked them to do more study to prove ridership, intensification. It has to be the best option in the context of building the capital, not just the speed of getting into the city. Right now, we wouldn’t be able to recommend use of the parkway.”

If that's the NCC's interest, why does the NCC maintain the ORP for cars then either? why not turn it into a street and develop the south side, since the ORP is clearly countrary to the NCC's stated objectives of "intensification" and "building the capital," and all that the ORP does is provide car commuters with "speed of getting into the city"... clearly there should be no NCC commuter expressways, and yet...

what balderdash.

I get upset with comments like this. One of the things that makes Ottawa beautiful is its green space. I have heard compliments time and again from visitors about our green space. It is what makes Ottawa unique. A lot of money was spent by the federal government in the 1950s assembling land on key corridors and the Greenbelt. It got rid of a lot of eyesores and gave back shorelines to the citizens of Ottawa and Canada as a whole. We forget what was there before. Rideau Falls was once encircled with industry. Railyards existed on Lebreton Flats and even at one time next to Dow's Lake. Cottages and boat houses that were often no more than shacks once lined the Rideau Canal, Rideau River and Ottawa River. A massive pulp and paper mill faced the back of Parliament Hill in my lifetime.

Sure, we built roads along those corridors but we have also built walking paths and bike trails as well. It has made these corridors accessible to as many people as possible. It has also opened up vistas towards downtown that would be destroyed if we allowed development, likely high rise to encroach on these corridors.

I am very sympathic to the NCCs view on this subject if our intent is to build a urban transit system.

Unfortunately, we are trying to do too much which is limiting our options. Unlike Toronto, which has built urban and commuter transit separately, we are determined to do both with same system. This is forcing us to make too many compromises. We cannot build light rail on certain routes because it will slow down commuters although it may prove better for intensification and serving the urban population. We cannot build light rail with stations closer together for the same reason. If we treat this as two problems and address them separately, we will come up with better long-term solutions and a better transit system.

[McC]

I get upset with comments like this. One of the things that makes Ottawa beautiful is its green space. I have heard compliments time and again from visitors about our green space. It is what makes Ottawa unique. A lot of money was spent by the federal government in the 1950s assembling land on key corridors and the Greenbelt. It got rid of a lot of eyesores and gave back shorelines to the citizens of Ottawa and Canada as a whole. We forget what was there before. Rideau Falls was once encircled with industry. Railyards existed on Lebreton Flats and even at one time next to Dow's Lake. Cottages and boat houses that were often no more than shacks once lined the Rideau Canal, Rideau River and Ottawa River. A massive pulp and paper mill faced the back of Parliament Hill in my lifetime.

Sure, we built roads along those corridors but we have also built walking paths and bike trails as well. It has made these corridors accessible to as many people as possible. It has also opened up vistas towards downtown that would be destroyed if we allowed development, likely high rise to encroach on these corridors.

I am very sympathic to the NCCs view on this subject if our intent is to build a urban transit system.

Unfortunately, we are trying to do too much which is limiting our options. Unlike Toronto, which has built urban and commuter transit separately, we are determined to do both with same system. This is forcing us to make too many compromises. We cannot build light rail on certain routes because it will slow down commuters although it may prove better for intensification and serving the urban population. We cannot build light rail with stations closer together for the same reason. If we treat this as two problems and address them separately, we will come up with better long-term solutions and a better transit system.

I don't understand why you're upset with my comment. I was noting the potential irony of the NCC citing the objective of "intensification" as a criterion for their decision, and you reply with a bunch of examples of things that the NCC has done to beautify the city, none of which have anything to do with intensification (except, in some cases, to reduce intensification). Then you quite rightly point out a BIG problem with the LRT plan, that it tries to be commuter rail, subway and urban transit all at once, whil using the lightest rail technology possible. I agree with you, this is a BIG problem, and again, it doesn't have anything to do with my comment. So please, what has you upset?

[eternallyme]

My proposal for the Queensway/Iris area.

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/1189/irissv.jpg

1 - Iris Street would need to be grade-separated over the LRT. The LRT would slowly descend to maintain a reasonable grade.

2 - The bicycle paths would be realigned while minimizing costs and also would provide the station access.

3 - Iris and Queensway would be combined into a single station. It would be located between the two and would be a split-side loading station (think Calgary's Shawnessy Station).

4 - The bicycle path would provide the connection between the central part of the two station heads and would fly over the LRT.

5 - The existing bus ramps would be eliminated and converted to parkland.

6 - Once north of Highway 417 the LRT would continue on the current Transitway grade.

7 - Slight course adjustments may be needed near Pinecrest Junction to keep the curves gentle.

8 - Notice the orange line? I recommend that the Pinecrest tunnel (and LRT to Bayshore) be constructed IN THIS STAGE. The West Transitway discussions here should be entirely focused on LRT. The reason is to serve the western communities better, and avoid a transfer from a high-density area (Bayshore) to downtown. A bored tunnel would go under Pinecrest Garage (perhaps could be converted to an LRT facility) and Connaught Avenue.

9 - The Bayshore line would return to the surface in the baseball field in the area which would be expropriated.

10 - Pinecrest Junction would be located at the first significant curve on the Transitway in the area.

[gjhall]

Good point on combining Iris and Queensway stations.

[Kitchissippi]

3 - An elevated structure, 5.2 metres (17 feet) above the surface at Richmond (at least 4.3 metres/14 feet above Fraser), would carry the LRT over Rochester Field.

4 - Dominion Station would be relocated to the west over Rochester Field, elevated to preserve most of the park. In order to maintain a park setting, all the pillars and the overpass would be painted in shades of green to resemble trees and grass. The platforms would be side-loading, crossing over by dropping to the surface at the two ends (there would be separate fare-paid areas with a tiny open-air mezzanine). The entire station would be open-air except for small shelters and would have full access for pedestrians and cycle paths in the area. The public art at the station would be clearly designed with a park in mind.


This sounds absolutely horrendous behind what is one of the most historic places in Westboro. I do not see the point behind having an elevated structure here, painted green or not, when it would probably be way better to cut and cover and have a station right underneath Richmond Road. I am actually in favour of some sort of development on Rochester Field, possibly with access to the river, but having an elevated station cutting diagonally and over Richmond road would overwhelm and ruin the future possibilities for this site

[eternallyme]

On to the Baseline area. This one was pretty easy to do.

http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/9924/baseline.jpg

1 - The plan easily accomodates a future LRT extension to Barrhaven. While it would not be included in this stage, it should definitely be protected for and planned for.

2 - Baseline Station doesn't change at all from the official plan. It would be beneath Algonquin College's development west of Woodroffe. The BRT platforms would become local platforms below the station once the LRT is extended.

3 - The LRT leaves the tunnel and moves onto the existing Transitway just north of the station.

4 - The Park and Ride should be closed. All other developments should be the same as they will be once the station is fully rebuilt.

5 - The LRT stays near the current Transitway north of Baseline Road - little changes are done.

6 - The bicycle/pedestrian crossing may need to be grade-separated depending on the frequency of trains (although my split-terminus may reduce it somewhat?).

[eternallyme]

This sounds absolutely horrendous behind what is one of the most historic places in Westboro. I do not see the point behind having an elevated structure here, painted green or not, when it would probably be way better to cut and cover and have a station right underneath Richmond Road. I am actually in favour of some sort of development on Rochester Field, possibly with access to the river, but having an elevated station cutting diagonally and over Richmond road would overwhelm and ruin the future possibilities for this site

I was thinking the area would be permanently left alone as parkland, not development. The elevated station would leave most of the site as a park.

[lrt's friend]

I don't understand why you're upset with my comment. I was noting the potential irony of the NCC citing the objective of "intensification" as a criterion for their decision, and you reply with a bunch of examples of things that the NCC has done to beautify the city, none of which have anything to do with intensification (except, in some cases, to reduce intensification). Then you quite rightly point out a BIG problem with the LRT plan, that it tries to be commuter rail, subway and urban transit all at once, whil using the lightest rail technology possible. I agree with you, this is a BIG problem, and again, it doesn't have anything to do with my comment. So please, what has you upset?

Maybe it was intended as irony but this is what you said.

why does the NCC maintain the ORP for cars then either? why not turn it into a street and develop the south side

There is so much talk on this board about eliminating federal green space whether the Ottawa River Parkway, the Central Experimental Farm or parts of the Greenbelt. These are valuable assets to the city. Then I look at one of the satellite views of the area of Baseline Transit Station and what do I see but acres of parking lots. This is where intensification needs to occur.

Also, while our LRT plan flounders and takes forever to get started, what do we see? $200 million for the Queensway, almost that much again for widening of Prince of Wales Drive. How much was spent to widen Limebank and Riverside? Then we build the Strandherd-Armstrong bridge without rail transit and spend a pile of money on that. And the Queensway expansion in Kanata and twinning Highway 7 to Carleton Place. This just demonstrates that no matter what is said, roads are still the first priority and transit will never be competitive in this city. We are content with building Ottawa of tomorrow based on the car as the basis of transportation. Imagine if the majority of the money being expended to widen roads was invested in rapid transit? People would be switching to transit in droves. As it stands, widened roads just makes transit less and less competitive.

[McC]

Maybe it was intended as irony but this is what you said.
It wasn't an ironic statement, and it wasn't something that I am proposing the NCC do,* it was the logical conclusion of applying the NCC's own stated rationale for their position on a transportation asset to their own transportation asset. It's the NCC that is being ironic here. The NCC says transit in the ORP corridor doesn't meet NCC goals of intensification and just serves to whisk commuters downtown quickly. So take that same framework and apply it to the ORP itself. The vast majority of the time, the ORP functions as an expressway to whisk commuters downtown, and it does nothing to serve intensification, in fact it hinders it throughout its entire length, as well as harming the urban experience on connecting routes like Parkdale and Carling-Richmond at Lincoln Fields. It doesn't necessarily follow that the NCC should get rid of the ORP, but it does mean that the NCC should consider developing a transportation policy framework that can be coherently applied to their own assets as well as those of other jurisdictions. Otherwise, they just sound like a Dutch Uncle,** offering nothing to the process but gratuitous advice of the "do as I say, not as I do" variety.


*although I do think there are some lands on the south side of the ORP in my neighbourhood, Mechanicsville, that would be great candidates for mid-rise residential development. Tese are good size lots on Forward Ave and Burnside that are currently fenced off and have no recreational uses, and would not block any sight lines to downtown because of the alignment of the road

** no offence to Netherlanders.

[Dado]

My proposal for the Queensway/Iris area.

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/1189/irissv.jpg

1 - Iris Street would need to be grade-separated over the LRT. The LRT would slowly descend to maintain a reasonable grade.

There's no "need" to grade separate LRT at Iris. In your map, you quite rightly add an LRT link to Bayshore. This would have the effect of halving train traffic on each leg south of the junction. There simply won't be the kind of train and road traffic volume at Iris to justify a need for grade separation.

A grade separation here will also be challenging due Pinecrest Creek crossing under the current intersection on the diagonal in a culvert.

If the LRT is lowered, then it has to be lowered below the creek or the creek has to be relocated (i.e. to the west side all the way from the culvert to the south where it crosses from the west to the east side of the transitway). If Iris is lowered, then it would have to go below the creek. Iris could be raised but that's going to be a pretty miserable-looking bit of work for minimal gain.


2 - The bicycle paths would be realigned while minimizing costs and also would provide the station access.

More on this below.


3 - Iris and Queensway would be combined into a single station. It would be located between the two and would be a split-side loading station (think Calgary's Shawnessy Station).

That's a good idea in abstract, but it kind of requires the expensive grade separation at Iris with LRT lowered beneath Iris.


4 - The bicycle path would provide the connection between the central part of the two station heads and would fly over the LRT.

I'm looking at your map and the above statement and I'm thinking the average cyclist is going to get pretty sweaty going through your proposal. From the north, it looks like a cyclist would have to climb out of the former Queensway Station and ascend quickly to get over the LRT, then descend on the other side, possibly go under Iris (?) and climb back up on the other side of Iris (it may be you intended the cyclists to have a grade crossing at Iris, which would eliminate some extraneous climbing and descending, but the presence of a secondary path connection to Iris and the closeness of the path to the LRT at Iris suggests that it is to go under Iris with the LRT)


5 - The existing bus ramps would be eliminated and converted to parkland.

6 - Once north of Highway 417 the LRT would continue on the current Transitway grade.

7 - Slight course adjustments may be needed near Pinecrest Junction to keep the curves gentle.

8 - Notice the orange line? I recommend that the Pinecrest tunnel (and LRT to Bayshore) be constructed IN THIS STAGE. The West Transitway discussions here should be entirely focused on LRT. The reason is to serve the western communities better, and avoid a transfer from a high-density area (Bayshore) to downtown. A bored tunnel would go under Pinecrest Garage (perhaps could be converted to an LRT facility) and Connaught Avenue.

The City should redevelop this as a transit-oriented development complete with a station and a pedestrian overpass of the Queensway (everyone seems to obsess about serving the IKEA but realistically the biggest source of transit riders on the south side is likely the West End Villa Extendicare nursing home to the east). The geometry of the site is not conducive to an LRT facility.


9 - The Bayshore line would return to the surface in the baseball field in the area which would be expropriated.

That field, I believe, is on NCC property, so it can't be expropriated. Nevertheless, the former RMOC did secure agreement to send the West Transitway through it in their EA in the 1990s.

As with Iris, there is no particular need to grade-separate at Connaught but even if such a "need" existed it would be easier to extend Roman Ave to Queensview within the garage property (as part of the TOD, above) and make Roman-Queensview the grade separation using a combination of dropping the rail line and raising the streets. Connaught would be closed off from Roman & Hanlon, but it could be connected to Queensview along the north side of the tracks.


10 - Pinecrest Junction would be located at the first significant curve on the Transitway in the area.

[Dado]

I'm really not sure how to react to this story, on the one hand, I think the ORP is a terrible route for mass transit for the exact same reasons that the NCC gives, so I applaud this as a possible outcome, on the other hand, how fatuous is it for the NCC to claim that this is the thought process that they went through to realize that outcome?

The NCC says “Our interest is in intensification, ridership and capital building. What we saw was not making the case for that. We asked them to do more study to prove ridership, intensification. It has to be the best option in the context of building the capital, not just the speed of getting into the city. Right now, we wouldn’t be able to recommend use of the parkway.”

If that's the NCC's interest, why does the NCC maintain the ORP for cars then either? why not turn it into a street and develop the south side, since the ORP is clearly countrary to the NCC's stated objectives of "intensification" and "building the capital," and all that the ORP does is provide car commuters with "speed of getting into the city"... clearly there should be no NCC commuter expressways, and yet...

what balderdash.

I agree with you on the disconnect between the NCC's stated rationale against LRT along the ORP (which I also generally* agree with) and their continued policy regarding the ORP as a de facto expressway. Several years ago they even removed the pathway crossing at Churchill, which is a major inconvenience because Churchill was a major access route for cyclists.

If we supposed for a moment that the ORP corridor really was the best LRT corridor, then the best implementation option would be to close the eastbound carriageway, convert it to LRT and turn the westbound carriageway into a two-lane parkway like the Rockliffe Parkway or the Gatineau Parkway. This would result in no net change of greenspace and 'intensify' the use of their existing infrastructure while making transit more attractive relative to cars.

*I say generally because my preferred route is along the former CPR corridor south of the ORP from Dominion Station to Cleary Ave. Unless we're going to put a station in between Dominion and Cleary, there's no discernible benefit to running the line in the Richmond-Byron corridor vs the ORP for this stretch other than the possibility of putting a station (to replace Dominion) in Rochester Field rather than closer to the river.

[Kitchissippi]

I was thinking the area would be permanently left alone as parkland, not development. The elevated station would leave most of the site as a park.

How so? An elevated station hulking above greenspace makes for an undesirable park, and a bizzare backdrop for the old Thompson estate. You propose expropriations left and right farther down the line and go to expensive lengths for a detour to Carlingwood, yet where it crosses a park and a traditional main street, you have it strangely go overhead.

I would think a cut and cover tunnel under Richmond and Byron for the two kilometres to Lincoln Fields would be far cheaper to build and faster for the trains. Giving Carlingwood curbside service is not worth the money IMO, when a walk from Lincoln Fields is equivalent to a a couple of tours around the mall. Maybe that would even encourage pedestrian activity on Carling if the sidewalk was improved.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

I just realized something about running LRT through that seemingly empty field just west of Dominion station; that's where the Keg Manor is. How receptive would that place be to having an LRT station metres away?

[gjhall]

I just realized something about running LRT through that seemingly empty field just west of Dominion station; that's where the Keg Manor is. How receptive would that place be to having an LRT station metres away?

More importantly, it's greenspace owned by the NCC - not a likely willing vendor.

[Dado]

More importantly, it's greenspace owned by the NCC - not a likely willing vendor.

Well, actually, the NCC is going to transfer the land to the City; the background is that the City has the land designated as open space which limits its value to the NCC for sale purposes (i.e. the NCC could develop the land itself, but cannot sell it for development since any private sector owner would be subject to the zoning, thus there would be no buyers for the property) so naturally the NCC took the matter to the OMB (ya, really) who ordered the City to buy the land from the NCC. My understanding at the moment is that there is a dispute as to how the land should be valued for the transaction, as open space (the City's position) or as some kind of general urban land (the NCC's position). As I understand it, the City considers the land as open space since that's what it is today and that appears to be the purpose for which the NCC bought it while the NCC considers the land as general urban since at the time of purchase it could have been developed by its then-owner(s).

Going even further out on a limb here, I would suggest that if the City decides to put a station on these lands, it would tend to strengthen the NCC's position over that of the City.

I should further point out that I am unaware of how much of the land around the Keg is considered to be part of the transaction, as there is land behind the Rogers, Amica and former RMOC buildings that is contiguous with the land beside the Keg Manor.

[gjhall]

Well, actually, the NCC is going to transfer the land to the City; the background is that the City has the land designated as open space which limits its value to the NCC for sale purposes (i.e. the NCC could develop the land itself, but cannot sell it for development since any private sector owner would be subject to the zoning, thus there would be no buyers for the property) so naturally the NCC took the matter to the OMB (ya, really) who ordered the City to buy the land from the NCC. My understanding at the moment is that there is a dispute as to how the land should be valued for the transaction, as open space (the City's position) or as some kind of general urban land (the NCC's position). As I understand it, the City considers the land as open space since that's what it is today and that appears to be the purpose for which the NCC bought it while the NCC considers the land as general urban since at the time of purchase it could have been developed by its then-owner(s).

Going even further out on a limb here, I would suggest that if the City decides to put a station on these lands, it would tend to strengthen the NCC's position over that of the City.

I should further point out that I am unaware of how much of the land around the Keg is considered to be part of the transaction, as there is land behind the Rogers, Amica and former RMOC buildings that is contiguous with the land beside the Keg Manor.

Ah, I missed that and therefore stand corrected. I would agree putting a station there would considerably/totally weaken the city's argument.

[eternallyme]

Next map is the western leg through Pinecrest. As mentioned, I recommend that this be constructed concurrent with the Baseline-Tunney's Pasture section.

http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/5868/pinecrest.jpg

1 - The route to Bayshore would be along the existing Transitway.

2 - The LRT station would be located directly below the Pinecrest Road interchange, slightly below the elevation of Highway 417 to allow the ramps to clear the LRT. It would be a centre-loading station with station entrances on both sides of Pinecrest Road. Alternatively, a pedestrian overpass could be built if safety is an issue.

3 - Once clear of the interchange, the LRT should either rise to the freeway level or remain in a trench, in the back parking lots of four businesses.

4 - The LRT should enter a tunnel beneath Pinecrest Garage (which could be converted to an LRT maintenance facility) as well as the residential area near Connaught Avenue. No houses are expropriated (anywhere in my proposal).

[eternallyme]

How so? An elevated station hulking above greenspace makes for an undesirable park, and a bizzare backdrop for the old Thompson estate. You propose expropriations left and right farther down the line and go to expensive lengths for a detour to Carlingwood, yet where it crosses a park and a traditional main street, you have it strangely go overhead.

I would think a cut and cover tunnel under Richmond and Byron for the two kilometres to Lincoln Fields would be far cheaper to build and faster for the trains. Giving Carlingwood curbside service is not worth the money IMO, when a walk from Lincoln Fields is equivalent to a a couple of tours around the mall. Maybe that would even encourage pedestrian activity on Carling if the sidewalk was improved.

No houses are expropriated anywhere.

Two schools, a library, a portion of Carlingwood, a church and a local YMCA are, however. Public schools are losing enrolment very rapidly these days so I feel they are expendable, the students could be relocated elsewhere. The library, church and YMCA may have opportunities in the new Carlingwood development but that needs to be worked with private developers.

[eternallyme]

The final proposal takes it to Bayshore, my recommended western terminus for that branch at this stage.

http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/1942/bayshore.jpg

1 - The Transitway link to Holly Acres Road and Highway 417 is realigned to protect a ROW for a future LRT extension to Kanata.

2 - When that happens, the section over Holly Acres will need to be elevated.

3 - The area north of the station is protected for an expansion of Bayshore Shopping Centre. It is probable, however, that it could only expand above the first floor over the access road to Woodridge Crescent otherwise that link is severed.

4 - Only minor changes are made to the local platform.

5 - I chose a centre-loading platform as it would be a terminal station, but if feasible, the BRT platforms could be reused for LRT use. Either way, revisions to the pedestrian overpass will be necessary.

6 - Once clear of the station, the LRT would follow the existing Transitway in the shallow trench.

7 - Where the Transitway rises to the surface en route to Pinecrest, the LRT will do the same.

[citizen j]

So, following the NCC comments on the Ottawa River Parkway issue in this thread, it seems to come down to the following for the NCC:

1. Green space + cars = so normalized it doesn't seem to register as an issue for them, since that's the way God/Gréber intended it (Cf. ORP, QEDrive, CBDrive, Rockcliffe and Aviation parkways)
2. Green space + rail transit = unacceptable.

Clearly, if you want to enjoy those vistas from a vehicle, you'd better go out and buy one.

In the end, while I disagree with them on this point of flawed logic I'm pleased they're forcing the city to consider a more TOD-friendly route for this leg of the lrt route. Byron-Richmond makes much more sense.

[Dado]

No houses are expropriated anywhere.

Two schools, a library, a portion of Carlingwood, a church and a local YMCA are, however. Public schools are losing enrolment very rapidly these days so I feel they are expendable, the students could be relocated elsewhere. The library, church and YMCA may have opportunities in the new Carlingwood development but that needs to be worked with private developers.

I think you need to read my signature lines a few times over...

Expropriating houses is one thing - you piss off one family per house, and maybe their immediate not-to-be expropriated neighbours. Expropriate a church, or a school, or a library (the YMCA is being closed anyway) and you've just magnified the opposition not just because of the number affected but because all of them have built-in 'interest groups' that can organize and communicate. As to your contention about the schools, Woodroffe PS still has portables.

Let's just take a look at these two maps of yours with respect to the route:

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/3461/mckellarpark.jpg

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/4302/lincolnfields.jpg

I understand the rationale to go to Carlingwood, but the routing to get there seems unnecessarily adversarial and destructive.

Why not just stick to Lockhart? I count all of two houses with primary frontage on Lockhart (north of Prince Charles Rd) and two more with garage access on Lockhart but primary frontage on other streets (Knightsbridge Rd and Honeywell Ave). If the LRT were to stick to the west side of the RoW (including using the sidewalk space on the west side), it would be possible to leave a laneway along the east side to maintain access.

Going up Lockhart rather than demolishing your way through all manner of cultural institutions would also line up the LRT to use the Carlingwood internal roadway corridor (probably below grade) between the west wing of the mall and its western parkade.

And here's where I really don't understand your thinking: you've just finishing demolishing your way through territory north of Carlingwood, but when it comes to widening out the curve onto Carling you eschew the possibility of expropriating the commercial property on the northwest corner of the Woodroffe-Carling intersection (with the Kettleman's Bagels, the Carastan Carpet store, etc). That would seem to be a pretty obvious candidate for expropriation.

[bradnixon]

My most intriguing proposal is for Carlingwood and Lincoln Fields. This will likely require private consultation, since it allows for dramatic changes.

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/4302/lincolnfields.jpg

1 - The existing Transitway would be used for the section between Iris/Queensway (the LRT junction) and Lincoln Fields. It may need to be raised to avoid any floodplain issues with Pinecrest Creek. Since the LRT would go to Bayshore as well as Baseline, no BRT corridor is necessary here.

2 - A deviation from the existing Transitway will be required in order to create more room to make the curve without requiring more new bridges.

3 - The LRT line would turn under the existing bridge to the grass area between Carling Avenue and the local platform, at the existing Transitway and local platform grade (about 4.9 metres/16 feet below Carling).

4 - The interchange with the Ottawa River Parkway would need to be replaced with a T-intersection in order to fit the LRT line under the bridge. The ramps would all be bulldozed.

5 - The existing Transitway platform would be bulldozed and the land converted to parkland.

6 - The existing local platform would remain at its current location. If necessary, changes in the grade may be required to allow the trenched LRT to cross the entrance to Carling which would be at-grade.

7 - The LRT platform would have a centre platform, accessible from two station heads - one at the current pedestrian overpass, the other at the bus entrance.

8 - A short bored tunnel would be required to cross the westbound lanes of Carling.

9 - Between Wentworth and the west Woodroffe junction, the LRT would be in an open trench in the median of Carling. The elevation change precludes a surface alignment, even though the LRT would be gradually sloping upward throughout. The median of Carling would need to be widened, and that would require the travel lines being shifted slightly closer to the sidewalks. Carling would remain 4 lanes in the area.

10 - Two cut-and-cover tunnels would be constructed, one over each of the Woodroffe intersections to accomodate all the necessary turning lanes. They would be constructed one at a time to reduce construction issues. There would be frequent turning restrictions during construction. As the gradient is slightly downhill into Carlingwood, the LRT would remain fairly level or rise slightly.

11 - The LRT would rise to the surface in the southwest parking lot of Carlingwood. Ideally, Carlingwood would be up for a major renovation or reconstruction at the same time, so this section should be done in consultation with the mall and 20Vic Management.

12 - Carlingwood Station would be at the surface where the auto centre, the parking garage and the library branch are now. They would all obviously have to be expropriated and demolished. However, the design could be combined with a redevelopment of the area and a total reconstruction/removal of the mall, so it might be possible to shift it to an angled alignment next to where Sears is now. Again, Carlingwood and 20Vic need to be consulted. A special design (one resembling a heritage train station) might be warranted too to give a unique touch in the redevelopment. The platform would be centre-loading. Perhaps Carlingwood becomes a mixed-use lifestyle/entertainment centre? It is pretty close to Bayshore after all.

13 - Saville Row would be depressed under the LRT with a new underpass (LRT remains at-grade).

14 - As mentioned previously, the schools and park are demolished, and new opportunities would open up north of Carlingwood.

I'm not sure I understand the need to have the Lincoln Fields platform on the north side of Carling, which requires the line to cross Carling twice. Why not just put the platforms in the middle of Carling? Put in pedestrian tunnels or overpasses if necessary.

I also agree with Dado's comment that the plan for the area north of Carlingwood is needlessly destructive. This isn''t SimCity; we can't simply just ignore things that are there because we imagine it as a redevelopment area.

[eternallyme]

http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/tc/2011/06-15/06-ACS2011-ICS-TRA-0013%20Otrain%20business%20case.htm

Significant upgrades to the O-Train line planned.

However, wouldn't it be more effective to purchase, say, 5 or 6 new Talent or compatible trains and refurbish the existing 3 trains? That would also allow for 8-9 trains to be available, allowing for extensions of the O-Train line.

I would fund for 2013 the extension to Gatineau as well by refurbishing the Prince of Wales bridge and a passing track on Lemieux Island. That would eliminate the need to run Route 40 to Gatineau with a faster route available and reduce - but by no means eliminate - the need for Route 105 buses (Route 8 would remain unchanged). Such would require at least a 5th train in addition to frequency improvements.

Two other stations should be added near Gladstone Avenue and Walkley Road. Gladstone may need to be dual-platform based on the proposed location for the passing track.

I would also consider for 2013, an extension to Hunt Club Loop and a new station between South Keys and Lester Road (it is 2.2 km between South Keys and Lester Road so an intermediate station would be warranted anyway). Extending to west of Hunters Point (~900m south of South Keys) would require a 6th train in revenue service at once based on the official plans. Since the tracks and Hunt Club underpass are already in place, that extension should be cheap. That would greatly improve access to the Bridle Path Drive area including a high-density residential area.

If deemed cost-effective, in 2014-15 (could be done without closing the existing route since it could be adjacent with the current location preserved for twinning), a grade separation of the VIA tracks should also be considered to eliminate the need to freeze the system temporarily.

Passing tracks, at this stage, would be needed during busy times (daytime on weekdays):

1 - On Lemieux Island (connecting track sections 1 and 2) - Additional with bridge reconstruction
2 - Between Bayview and Carling (sections 2 and 3) - Planned
3 - Carleton Station (sections 3 and 4)
4 - Between Confederation and Walkley (sections 4 and 5) - Planned
5 - Between Greenboro and South Keys (sections 5 and 6) - Additional

Using 6 trains, the frequency of 8 minutes would require 6 trains in service during peak periods and midday on weekdays. During less-busy times (generally evenings and weekends), 3 trains would be needed at once for a 15 minute frequency. At the least busy times (late evenings and Sunday mornings), 25 minute service would be provided with two trains passing at Carleton.

[McC]

I like this proposal much more than your western LRT proposal

[eternallyme]

I like this proposal much more than your western LRT proposal

Yeah, I might need to rework my proposal based on all your thoughts, or see other proposals. After the critique, there is no way I am submitting that proposal as it stands.

[eternallyme]

If my idea for the existing O-Train line upgrades comes true, some bus route adjustments in 2013 that would be ideal:

1 - I proposed extending it down to Blossom Park along Bank, and continue to recommend such. That would provide a downtown link - all day - that avoids the Transitway completely (albeit not a fast link).

40 - Eliminate route. A Gatineau link is already provided (much faster) and downtown access would be cut off and likely quicker via the O-Train.

43 - Eliminate route. Renumber all trips as Route 143 trips. (I proposed the 143 be eliminated this year; maintaining the proposal would make the 143 a peak-only route with a re-routed 114 providing all-day service in the area.) Since the Transitway will be cut off, the number of buses on that corridor need to be reduced. An enhanced O-Train will accomodate such.

105 - Reduce the number of trips, as many will be coming from the O-Train which would be within walking distance (ideally, the station would be where the residual double track parallel to Tache is).

142 - Resurrect as a peak-only route on the same routing that Route 40 will run in September to Hurdman initially, then the temporary relocation afterward. Such will be aimed at those going at other non-downtown destinations or having to transfer eastward.

143 - Renumber all Route 43 trips as 143, and extend to Hurdman initially, then the temporary relocation afterward.

144 - Make minor adjustments during peak periods to avoid duplication with Route 142 and keep farther from the O-Train during peak periods.

Money savings would be found by shortening the 40/142 and 43/143 and reducing the number of 105s. It may be possible to reduce the number of 97s as well to a 10-12 minute frequency by eliminating the short runs and extending the 99 (the combined 97/98/99 would have to run at least every 4-5 minutes though most of the day)

[waterloowarrior]

from EM's link...

Recognizing the parameters above, and the Business Plan commitments, this report recommends an approach to expanding O-Train service that meets short and mid-term needs related to service frequency and capacity, while providing service comparable to the planned electric north-south light rail line (Bayview to South Keys) by 2014, a decade earlier than previously planned. It would also permit the potential extension of high-frequency light rail service south of Greenboro Station without the need for electrification, even though doing so would preclude some benefits of electrification including the potential for better urban integration at stations.

This report discusses the following key elements of the O-Train service expansion proposal:


Acquisition of six new diesel multiple-unit (DMU) trains to permit concurrent operation of four trains in peak periods, with two spare trains (including one “hot spare” ready to enter service if needed), beginning in 2014;
Construction of two new passing tracks and signalling infrastructure along the O-Train line at Gladstone Avenue and south of Brookfield pedestrian pathway crossing (see Figure 1);
An increase in peak service frequency from 15 minutes to approximately 8 minutes (which is lower than the 10‑minute frequency estimate in the 2011 Business Plan), yielding an increase in peak capacity of at least 80% (from 1,100 to over 2,000 passengers per hour in each direction—a further increase from 1,800 customers per hour in each direction estimated in the Business Plan);
Upgraded O-Train station facilities to improve accessibility and customer convenience; and
Expanded and upgraded maintenance facilities to accommodate the larger DMU fleet.


http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/tc/2011/06-15/06-ACS2011-ICS-TRA-0013%20Otrain%20business%20case_files/image005.jpg

[McC]

from EM's link...


http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/tc/2011/06-15/06-ACS2011-ICS-TRA-0013%20Otrain%20business%20case_files/image005.jpg

so Walkley and SoKeys would get stations (good) and Gladstone wouldn't?

EDIT: never mind, I guess I misread those SE Transitway station dots.

[Richard Eade]

Recently I have been thinking about the Hurdman Station and whether there would be an easy way to get more buses through that station. I spent some time watching how well the buses flow through the station during the afternoon peak period and I was impressed that it works as well as it does. There are times when a line of five or six buses from the east can build at the all-way stop to the east of the station, but that is more the exception; and the backlog seems to clear up within minutes. This surprised me a bit since I had heard stories about how over-loaded the Hurdman station was and how the central platform tied the buses up in knots. What I saw was a very busy station, but not a failing one. On the west end, there seems to be a steady flow, but nothing in the way of a back-up was seen.

That said, the intersection on the east end does get backed up a bit every now and again. Every bus must stop at the four-way intersection, plus, this is the only pedestrian crossing facility to the station from any direction. There are also a good number of ‘Out of Service’ buses using the East and South-East Transitways for relocations so they also pass through this intersection; as well as buses coming out of the Hurdman bus lay-up.

Figure 1: Hurdman Station's existing configuration (facing south)
http://REade.fileave.com/Hurdman/Hurdman-Birds-view.jpg

Because the station has a central platform, the all buses must cross the opposing stream when arriving at and departing from the Station. Also, with this intersection being the only pedestrian access to the station, there are times when buses from all directions must wait while people cross up to three bus lanes.

These access issues are unavoidable without a complete reconfiguration of the station. I am wondering, though, if splitting up functions could lead to smoother bus operations into and out of Hurdman Station. Specifically, I suggest moving the east-bound buses away from the intersection at the east end of the station and routing them along the north of the bus lay-up area to the intersection of the Eastern Transitway and the extension of Industrial Avenue.

Figure 2: Hurdman Station - Rerouted (facing south)
http://REade.fileave.com/Hurdman/Hurdman-Rerouted.jpg

In the diagram, the blue lines represent the path of west-bound buses and the red lines are for east-bound buses. I have also changed the pedestrian path north of the station (shown in grey) so that pedestrians arrive directly at the station and are not required to cross at the busy intersection. By moving the east-bound buses to the south of the bus lay-up area, they no longer go through the east intersection. In fact, it might be possible to have buses from the east travel right through the intersection with yield signs on the South-East Transitway arms. Although this idea is not shown in the diagram, it would speed up buses going from east to west; including those from the Lay-up area.

Also, I have removed the right-turn at this intersection for buses heading south to go back to the south platform. As far as I know, there are no ‘in service’ buses which circle the platform’s east end so I suggest that any bus which needs to go from the north side of the platform to the south side would loop around the Operator facilities island. The only turning buses at this intersection will be those coming from the north-bound South-East Transitway into the station, and those ‘out of service’ buses turning from the Eastern Transitway to go south on the South-East Transitway, by-passing Hurdman Station.

Because Hurdman Station is still a central platform station, the buses must still cross the opposing path as they arrive and leave. In this design, some of those crossings would move east to their own dedicated intersection which is clear of other obstacles – such as pedestrians. In this suggestion, the east-bound buses would not be required to stop (as indicated by the solid red lines); the west-bound buses would yield to them. I chose this configuration because the majority of the west-bound buses are coming down the slope of the Transitway and would have an easier time of accelerating from the stop. Notice that I am suggesting YIELD signs so that none of the buses need to stop if the way is clear; perhaps sensors and signal lights can be used to help guide the bus Operators.

Figure 3: Modified dedicated intersection with Industrial Avenue (facing south)
http://REade.fileave.com/Hurdman/Hurdman-Rerouted---Alt-A.jpg

You will notice that west-bound buses from Industrial Avenue and Terminal Avenue will likely still need to stop if an east-bound bus is visible since it might be difficult to know if that east-bound bus is heading for the Eastern Transitway (turning left) or Industrial Avenue (continuing straight). In theory, if the direction of the east-bound bus were clear, then west-bound buses from Industrial Avenue and buses bound for the Eastern Transitway could mutually turn left without interference or delay; i.e., there would be no need for the west-bound bus to yield.

In order to ensure that this condition could be met more often, it might be possible to CONTRA-FLOW the short extension of Industrial Avenue.

Figure 4: Contra-flow buses along the Industrial Avenue extension (facing south)
http://REade.fileave.com/Hurdman/Hurdman-Rerouted---Alt-B.jpg

The design of the traffic islands at the intersection of the Eastern Transitway and the Industrial Avenue extension would make it very clear for bus Operators which lane to follow; there could be no mix-up to enter the wrong direction lane. At the intersection of Terminal Avenue and the Industrial Avenue extension, there would need to be sufficient signage to prevent confusion and bus Operators would need proper training. Since there are no pedestrians at either of these intersections, the risk of danger to people is quite low. There would also need to be good signage for those vehicles accessing the pumping station.

In summary, the east-bound buses are removed from the intersection at the east end of Hurdman Station and the pedestrians are restricted to only cross at two locations. By moving the east-bound buses away, the number of lanes that the pedestrians must cross is reduced to two; making for less of a delay for the buses. Also, buses from the east might need to only yield to pedestrians; with the lower volume of buses on the South-East Transitway yielding to the buses from the east. Many buses would not need to completely stop at this intersection which could improve bus throughput. In addition, by not forcing every bus to stop there, the level of noise may be reduced for the neighbouring residential tower.

The pathway to the north of the station is modified so that it provides better direct access directly to the station, and guides people to the approved side of the intersection to cross.

The east-bound and west-bound buses would still need to cross paths, but would do so at the dedicated intersection of the Eastern Transitway and the Industrial Avenue extension. Again, to speed the operation, not all buses would be required to stop. In fact, the east-bound buses would have priority and not be required to stop at all. The west-bound buses would yield as required. If the west-bound buses were becoming backed up, an east-bound bus could stop and allow the west-bound buses to clear the intersection, although this should not be necessary since there should be adequate breaks in the east-bound bus stream. Buses arriving at the station from the Eastern or South-East Transitways seem to do so with gaps between buses.

By changing the bus-only extension of Industrial Avenue to have the buses drive on the left (contra-flow), buses from that route would not be interrupted at all by east-bound buses.

Although not specifically shown by the blue lines, where ever buses are merging together, for example, immediately south of the Eastern Transitway and Industrial Avenue extension intersection, there would be twined lanes for a distance to ensure smooth merging.

At this point, I don’t think there is an issue with the buses crossing at the west end of the station; although I’d like to try giving the west-bound buses a clear path, with the buses arriving at the station yielding to them, instead of the two-way stop. There should also be no right-turns (at the west end of the platform) at the same intersection that east-bound buses are crossing; all buses should go straight through the intersection and then there can be a ramp to turn back.

Figure 5: West intersection changes are optional (facing south)
http://REade.fileave.com/Hurdman/Hurdman-West-End.jpg

Not shown explicitly, there would be a YIELD sign for the east-bound buses.

Alternatively, the buses which are looping around the west end of the station can be removed before the east-bound buses would need to yield to them. This would mean fewer buses to yield to for the east-bound buses.

Figure 6: Alternative optional west end changes (facing south)
http://REade.fileave.com/Hurdman/Hurdman-West-End---Alt-B.jpg

So that is my current thinking about Hurdman Station: Do you think it would help the bus flow into and out of the station?

[eternallyme]

Recently I have been thinking about the Hurdman Station and whether there would be an easy way to get more buses through that station. I spent some time watching how well the buses flow through the station during the afternoon peak period and I was impressed that it works as well as it does. There are times when a line of five or six buses from the east can build at the all-way stop to the east of the station, but that is more the exception; and the backlog seems to clear up within minutes. This surprised me a bit since I had heard stories about how over-loaded the Hurdman station was and how the central platform tied the buses up in knots. What I saw was a very busy station, but not a failing one. On the west end, there seems to be a steady flow, but nothing in the way of a back-up was seen.

That said, the intersection on the east end does get backed up a bit every now and again. Every bus must stop at the four-way intersection, plus, this is the only pedestrian crossing facility to the station from any direction. There are also a good number of ‘Out of Service’ buses using the East and South-East Transitways for relocations so they also pass through this intersection; as well as buses coming out of the Hurdman bus lay-up.

Figure 1: Hurdman Station's existing configuration (facing south)
http://REade.fileave.com/Hurdman/Hurdman-Birds-view.jpg

Because the station has a central platform, the all buses must cross the opposing stream when arriving at and departing from the Station. Also, with this intersection being the only pedestrian access to the station, there are times when buses from all directions must wait while people cross up to three bus lanes.

These access issues are unavoidable without a complete reconfiguration of the station. I am wondering, though, if splitting up functions could lead to smoother bus operations into and out of Hurdman Station. Specifically, I suggest moving the east-bound buses away from the intersection at the east end of the station and routing them along the north of the bus lay-up area to the intersection of the Eastern Transitway and the extension of Industrial Avenue.

Figure 2: Hurdman Station - Rerouted (facing south)
http://REade.fileave.com/Hurdman/Hurdman-Rerouted.jpg

In the diagram, the blue lines represent the path of west-bound buses and the red lines are for east-bound buses. I have also changed the pedestrian path north of the station (shown in grey) so that pedestrians arrive directly at the station and are not required to cross at the busy intersection. By moving the east-bound buses to the south of the bus lay-up area, they no longer go through the east intersection. In fact, it might be possible to have buses from the east travel right through the intersection with yield signs on the South-East Transitway arms. Although this idea is not shown in the diagram, it would speed up buses going from east to west; including those from the Lay-up area.

Also, I have removed the right-turn at this intersection for buses heading south to go back to the south platform. As far as I know, there are no ‘in service’ buses which circle the platform’s east end so I suggest that any bus which needs to go from the north side of the platform to the south side would loop around the Operator facilities island. The only turning buses at this intersection will be those coming from the north-bound South-East Transitway into the station, and those ‘out of service’ buses turning from the Eastern Transitway to go south on the South-East Transitway, by-passing Hurdman Station.

Because Hurdman Station is still a central platform station, the buses must still cross the opposing path as they arrive and leave. In this design, some of those crossings would move east to their own dedicated intersection which is clear of other obstacles – such as pedestrians. In this suggestion, the east-bound buses would not be required to stop (as indicated by the solid red lines); the west-bound buses would yield to them. I chose this configuration because the majority of the west-bound buses are coming down the slope of the Transitway and would have an easier time of accelerating from the stop. Notice that I am suggesting YIELD signs so that none of the buses need to stop if the way is clear; perhaps sensors and signal lights can be used to help guide the bus Operators.

Figure 3: Modified dedicated intersection with Industrial Avenue (facing south)
http://REade.fileave.com/Hurdman/Hurdman-Rerouted---Alt-A.jpg

You will notice that west-bound buses from Industrial Avenue and Terminal Avenue will likely still need to stop if an east-bound bus is visible since it might be difficult to know if that east-bound bus is heading for the Eastern Transitway (turning left) or Industrial Avenue (continuing straight). In theory, if the direction of the east-bound bus were clear, then west-bound buses from Industrial Avenue and buses bound for the Eastern Transitway could mutually turn left without interference or delay; i.e., there would be no need for the west-bound bus to yield.

In order to ensure that this condition could be met more often, it might be possible to CONTRA-FLOW the short extension of Industrial Avenue.

Figure 4: Contra-flow buses along the Industrial Avenue extension (facing south)
http://REade.fileave.com/Hurdman/Hurdman-Rerouted---Alt-B.jpg

The design of the traffic islands at the intersection of the Eastern Transitway and the Industrial Avenue extension would make it very clear for bus Operators which lane to follow; there could be no mix-up to enter the wrong direction lane. At the intersection of Terminal Avenue and the Industrial Avenue extension, there would need to be sufficient signage to prevent confusion and bus Operators would need proper training. Since there are no pedestrians at either of these intersections, the risk of danger to people is quite low. There would also need to be good signage for those vehicles accessing the pumping station.

In summary, the east-bound buses are removed from the intersection at the east end of Hurdman Station and the pedestrians are restricted to only cross at two locations. By moving the east-bound buses away, the number of lanes that the pedestrians must cross is reduced to two; making for less of a delay for the buses. Also, buses from the east might need to only yield to pedestrians; with the lower volume of buses on the South-East Transitway yielding to the buses from the east. Many buses would not need to completely stop at this intersection which could improve bus throughput. In addition, by not forcing every bus to stop there, the level of noise may be reduced for the neighbouring residential tower.

The pathway to the north of the station is modified so that it provides better direct access directly to the station, and guides people to the approved side of the intersection to cross.

The east-bound and west-bound buses would still need to cross paths, but would do so at the dedicated intersection of the Eastern Transitway and the Industrial Avenue extension. Again, to speed the operation, not all buses would be required to stop. In fact, the east-bound buses would have priority and not be required to stop at all. The west-bound buses would yield as required. If the west-bound buses were becoming backed up, an east-bound bus could stop and allow the west-bound buses to clear the intersection, although this should not be necessary since there should be adequate breaks in the east-bound bus stream. Buses arriving at the station from the Eastern or South-East Transitways seem to do so with gaps between buses.

By changing the bus-only extension of Industrial Avenue to have the buses drive on the left (contra-flow), buses from that route would not be interrupted at all by east-bound buses.

Although not specifically shown by the blue lines, where ever buses are merging together, for example, immediately south of the Eastern Transitway and Industrial Avenue extension intersection, there would be twined lanes for a distance to ensure smooth merging.

At this point, I don’t think there is an issue with the buses crossing at the west end of the station; although I’d like to try giving the west-bound buses a clear path, with the buses arriving at the station yielding to them, instead of the two-way stop. There should also be no right-turns (at the west end of the platform) at the same intersection that east-bound buses are crossing; all buses should go straight through the intersection and then there can be a ramp to turn back.

Figure 5: West intersection changes are optional (facing south)
http://REade.fileave.com/Hurdman/Hurdman-West-End.jpg

Not shown explicitly, there would be a YIELD sign for the east-bound buses.

Alternatively, the buses which are looping around the west end of the station can be removed before the east-bound buses would need to yield to them. This would mean fewer buses to yield to for the east-bound buses.

Figure 6: Alternative optional west end changes (facing south)
http://REade.fileave.com/Hurdman/Hurdman-West-End---Alt-B.jpg

So that is my current thinking about Hurdman Station: Do you think it would help the bus flow into and out of the station?

Because it is a central platform, it is almost impossible without a major reconstruction to avoid a double-crossover. 2 and 6 seem like the most reasonable short-term modifications though.

Ultimately, Hurdman should become an LRT junction and only a small local platform would be necessary (or even on-street connections if my vision of the area - a satellite downtown area with the real tallest buildings while maintaining a strict height limit on new buildings in the current core area (no more buildings taller than the bottom of the clock of the Peace Tower) - becomes reality.)

[MalcolmTucker]

After the LRT is in place, shouldn't volumes fall enough that the needs for reconfiguration become moot?

[Richard Eade]

Yes, this would be a temporary change, only needed until the station is reconfigured for the LRT. The problem is that that could be five or so years away (2016-17) and bus traffic keeps growing. There are conflicting views as to when Hurdman Station will be taken ‘Off-line’ for buses; OC Transpo is explaining the need for increased O-Trains on handling the passenger load when Hurdman is taken out of service (presumable in 2013 when the new train-sets are delivered); while the Rail Implementation Office (RIO) is saying that they hope to maintain Hurdman Station and the bridge across the Rideau River as long as possible (maybe 2016-17) while the new Hurdman Station is build north of the existing station. At this point, it is unclear whether any bus changes to Hurdman Station will be needed or justified.

That said, I agree with eternallyme that the buses will need to cross at each end of Hurdman Station; the question is whether such an arrangement could be made more efficient by dividing the bus crossings. For the most part, the suggestions I have made do not eliminate the crossings, but they allow the interactions to take place only when necessary; that is, for the most part, the buses should be able to cross without having to stop at an all-way stop intersection.

OC Transpo is continually saying that Hurdman Station is in need of modification to help buses get through it faster. Changes are pending, but I do not know what is planned. Whatever changes are made will need to be very inexpensive since it would be a waste to put much money into a station which is slated to be replaced within 7 years. This is why my suggestions tried to follow existing paved areas with only small ‘hard infrastructure’ changes. I would be tempted to put off any changes to the western crossing while moving the east-bound buses to the north of the lay-up area, as in Figure 2. I would suggest that Figure 4 be implemented to minimize the delays for buses crossing at the intersection of the Eastern Transitway and the extension of Industrial Avenue. Anyway, I expect this is more a mind exercise that what can really happen but I was wondering if it would have any positive affect.

Yes, once the LRT is up and running, Hurdman will simply become a transfer station for people connecting to/from the South-East Transitway; this, will however amount to a large number of people transferring to the trains. The buses arriving will circle around an island and the platform will be on the outside, north of the loop, so no more bus crossing. Yes, the volume of buses should be lower, but hopefully the volume of passengers through the station will increase.