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

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Found this old report from 2004 relating to that site; apparently it was always privately owned. The committee refused the application; maybe it was overturned at the OMB?

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...4-DEV-APR-0195

the Committee voted against the staff recommendations - see the minutes MOTION NO. 21/15

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit.../minutes21.htm

It later went to the OMB and was approved. There is supposed to be a 10 metre naturalized rear yard.

http://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/doc...r_0700r_en.pdf (RR12 - 629r)

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

the Committee voted against the staff recommendations - see the minutes MOTION NO. 21/15

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit.../minutes21.htm

It later went to the OMB and was approved. There is supposed to be a 10 metre naturalized rear yard.

http://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/doc...r_0700r_en.pdf (RR12 - 629r)

But that application was to build 4 single family homes instead of the 1 house the land was zoned for. Does that mean we can expect 3 more houses beside that one?

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by roger1818

But that application was to build 4 single family homes instead of the 1 house the land was zoned for. Does that mean we can expect 3 more houses beside that one?

I didn't find the OMB decision, but it looks like two more houses (3 total) could be built based on GeoOttawa mapping.


From what I remember, a lot of these issues such as the west vs east station were all discussed through the West Transitway extension study

http://ottawa.ca/en/node/1000657

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Looks like the example I had has been fixed and the only ones I can find are in the 130m range. Still way too close IMHO. The absolute minimum should be 200m unless they are serving different routes.

Perhaps, but there's another sound exception - again, something that OC Transpo doesn't care about - dis-incentivizing dangerous crossings. OC Transpo is hell-bent on removing stops that are physically close, but time- and psychologically far apart on either side of major intersections. (Montreal/St-Laurent comes to mind.) This will only lead to bus passengers taking undue risks crossing multi-lane intersections to get to a far-side bus after the near-side stops have been removed in conformity with dogma.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Perhaps, but there's another sound exception - again, something that OC Transpo doesn't care about - dis-incentivizing dangerous crossings. OC Transpo is hell-bent on removing stops that are physically close, but time- and psychologically far apart on either side of major intersections. (Montreal/St-Laurent comes to mind.) This will only lead to bus passengers taking undue risks crossing multi-lane intersections to get to a far-side bus after the near-side stops have been removed in conformity with dogma.

True, but the stops I am thinking of (Richmond between Pinecrest and Grenon) have no major intersections between them.

[lrt's friend]

In the long term, the ideal location of the station is right under Moodie Drive, so that the few buses that run on Moodie Drive don't have to wind their way to an off-road station. Simply go up and down an escalator to bus stops on the overpass.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The reality is there won't be significantly higher ridership on the west side because of the way the Crystal Bay community was built and there is no changing that any time soon. Also, by using that tack, it probably better appeases some of the NIMBYs in the CA's ear.

The proposed East-side station location certainly isn't well-connected to the Crystal Beach community right now, and the current car-oriented residents may not be big users of transit, but once a station is built there things change. It becomes a TOD area, and with that might come zoning changes to allow higher density when it comes to property redevelopment, which is probably the unspoken "nightmare" of those behind this push to move the station to a less usable West-of-Moodie location. My guess is that this is a play to prevent intensification in Crystal Beach.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Found this old report from 2004 relating to that site; apparently it was always privately owned. The committee refused the application; maybe it was overturned at the OMB?

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...4-DEV-APR-0195

Application listed in that staff report was for 4 units on the property that had received development rights for 1 single family home. Applications were not approved and I gather somebody then built 1 home on the lot.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

In the long term, the ideal location of the station is right under Moodie Drive, so that the few buses that run on Moodie Drive don't have to wind their way to an off-road station. Simply go up and down an escalator to bus stops on the overpass.

Won't someone think of the bus-loop industry?!?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

It becomes a TOD area, and with that might come zoning changes to allow higher density when it comes to property redevelopment, which is probably the unspoken "nightmare" of those behind this push to move the station to a less usable West-of-Moodie location. My guess is that this is a play to prevent intensification in Crystal Beach.

What a terrible nightmare; the thought that someone might come up with an idea for more economically-intensive use of your land, and offer you the option of accepting a whole lot of money for it in order to put that idea into action.

The horror.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Lakeofthewood

1. I'm assuming the 1000 buses per day came in before they saw the ramp directly into the station for eastbound buses? Because that seems like an aggressively high number.

It's interesting, I was curious how realistic that number is so I did a rough count and came much closer to 250 buses each way per day (maybe a bit higher if some of the buses have to deadhead one way to/from the station, though some of that can be optimized by having Connexion routes combined with routes to DND and beyond).

[Kitchissippi]

They should just get rid of the north part of the parclo and make northbound Moodie to westbound Queensway ramp a signalized left turn. Tighten up the arrangement of the ramps so they take half the space and put a station beneath Moodie. The Corkstown intersection could even be shifted south.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

It's interesting, I was curious how realistic that number is so I did a rough count and came much closer to 250 buses each way per day (maybe a bit higher if some of the buses have to deadhead one way to/from the station, though some of that can be optimized by having Connexion routes combined with routes to DND and beyond).

I think this makes too much sense. But this goes contrary to the theory that bus routes need to be broken up in order to improve reliability (and add transfers).

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Perhaps, but there's another sound exception - again, something that OC Transpo doesn't care about - dis-incentivizing dangerous crossings. OC Transpo is hell-bent on removing stops that are physically close, but time- and psychologically far apart on either side of major intersections. (Montreal/St-Laurent comes to mind.) This will only lead to bus passengers taking undue risks crossing multi-lane intersections to get to a far-side bus after the near-side stops have been removed in conformity with dogma.

What do you have against far-side stops? Far-side bus stops are far more efficient than near-side stops and in particular, transit priority signals are basically impossible with near-side stops (if we ever got around to implementing the tech). If the far side stop is a long way after the intersection forcing a detour to cross the street then sure, I get it, but then it's not a far side stop--it's a mid-block stop you're complaining about. A true far side stop, the bus crosses the intersection than stops immediately. The stop is still right at the intersection, just on the far side of it.

A good example of this is southbound Holland at Wellington (https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.39974...2!8i6656?hl=en). Ideal stop placement.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

What do you have against far-side stops?

Nothing, except when they are used as excuses not to have near-side ones.

They delay passenger descents, adding unnecessary time to the outbound walking portion of a transit trip. They do not respect pedestrian desire lines or desire times. They unduly maximize walk distances, and are the proximate cause of thousands of just-missed connections a day.

Far-side bus stops are far more efficient than near-side stops and in particular, transit priority signals are basically impossible with near-side stops (if we ever got around to implementing the tech). If the far side stop is a long way after the intersection forcing a detour to cross the street then sure, I get it

Have you not seen Ottawa's far-side stops? They are almost invariably a long way after the intersection. They are a feature of the system insisted upon by people who do not use their own transit system.

but then it's not a far side stop--it's a mid-block stop you're complaining about.

Potayto, Potahto.

A good example of this is southbound Holland at Wellington (https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.39974...2!8i6656?hl=en). Ideal stop placement.

Yes, but too bad there are very, very few far-side stops in Ottawa's system which heel to this ideal. Most of them are far to far on the far side, especially on streets and roads which have more than two effective lanes of traffic.

Ottawa's real reason for far-side stops has nothing to do with efficiency or any notions of transit planning; it's to keep right-turn lanes and bloody right-turn channels free for drivers, at the expense of transit passenger convenience, especially at those intersections where one four- or six-lane traffic sewer meets another.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Nothing, except when they are used as excuses not to have near-side ones.

They delay passenger descents, adding unnecessary time to the outbound walking portion of a transit trip. They do not respect pedestrian desire lines or desire times. They unduly maximize walk distances, and are the proximate cause of thousands of just-missed connections a day.

Have you not seen Ottawa's far-side stops? They are almost invariably a long way after the intersection. They are a feature of the system insisted upon by people who do not use their own transit system.

Potayto, Potahto.

Yes, but too bad there are very, very few far-side stops in Ottawa's system which heel to this ideal. Most of them are far to far on the far side, especially on streets and roads which have more than two effective lanes of traffic.

Ottawa's real reason for far-side stops has nothing to do with efficiency or any notions of transit planning; it's to keep right-turn lanes and bloody right-turn channels free for drivers, at the expense of transit passenger convenience, especially at those intersections where one four- or six-lane traffic sewer meets another.

Ottawa has far-side bus stops because it is widely agreed that the far side of a signalized intersection is the best location for a bus stop, no matter what you think of the matter. They may add a couple of moments to the trip time of a passenger alighting at that stop if the bus waits at a red light, but they improve the overall transit time of all of the people on the bus, and improve reliability. They may force pedestrians to walk a few paces further back to the intersection to cross, but those pedestrians are not then crossing the street right in front of the bus they just alighted from. Connecting routes, and routes that diverge are some of the few reasons to have nearside bus stops. Even if they are not both on the same corner, your bigger issue is pedestrian signals and intersection timing. Your "thousands of just-missed connections" comment is fabricated nonsense, and saying they increase walking times assumes everyone getting off the bus must be walking back the direction they came from.

Bus stops that are a far way from the intersection are a function of poor road design, not poor transit planning. If there is a right turn channelization with acceleration lane at the intersection, as there often is, the stop must be far enough away from the stop for the bus to enter the lane and pull to the curb. For an articulated bus, this means 35 metres or more past the end of the channelization island. You might say that this means stops should be nearside, but the stop would still have to be far from the intersection in this situation.

Your inability to accept that transit planning best practice puts the bus stop on the far side of the intersection is not the fault of the City of Ottawa. Far side stops are safer because they do not encourage right turning drivers to pass the bus and then turn in front of it, especially in a right on red movement with pedestrians coming in front of the bus.

[acottawa]

Some research on the matter.

https://www.citylab.com/transportati...s-stop/472188/

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Catenary

Ottawa has far-side bus stops because it is widely agreed that the far side of a signalized intersection is the best location for a bus stop, no matter what you think of the matter. They may add a couple of moments

If it was "a couple of moment", I'd have no concerns.

But it's not just "a couple of moments".

They may force pedestrians to walk a few paces further back to the intersection to cross

If it were just a "a few paces", I'd have no concerns. But it's not.

but those pedestrians are not then crossing the street right in front of the bus they just alighted from.

I prefer crossing in front of the bus, whose driver is much more inclined to drive safely, than crossing in front of general traffic being driven by people who get their drivers licenses out of cereal boxes.

Connecting routes, and routes that diverge are some of the few reasons to have nearside bus stops.

Yes. But OC Transpo's zeal to get rid of near-sides is breaking up those connections. Yes, the bus movement may be slightly more efficient, but passenger movement suffers.

Even if they are not both on the same corner, your bigger issue is pedestrian signals and intersection timing.

Related issue, yes.

Your "thousands of just-missed connections" comment is fabricated nonsense, and saying they increase walking times assumes everyone getting off the bus must be walking back the direction they came from.

No, it assumes that some of them will be, or will be crossing to the opposite corner to make the connection.

Bus stops that are a far way from the intersection are a function of poor road design, not poor transit planning. If there is a right turn channelization with acceleration lane at the intersection, as there often is, the stop must be far enough away from the stop for the bus to enter the lane and pull to the curb. For an articulated bus, this means 35 metres or more past the end of the channelization island. You might say that this means stops should be nearside, but the stop would still have to be far from the intersection in this situation.

Why? Some drivists have to hold for a bus carrying many more people than they are? Big deal. Hold.

Far side stops are safer because they do not encourage right turning drivers to pass the bus and then turn in front of it, especially in a right on red movement with pedestrians coming in front of the bus.

At the cost of incentivizing pedestrian dashes, yes.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Some research on the matter.

https://www.citylab.com/transportati...s-stop/472188/

Yes, some excellent research that puts the bus, not the bus passenger, at the centre of consideration.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Catenary

Bus stops that are a far way from the intersection are a function of poor road design, not poor transit planning.

Then fix the poor road design.

If there is a right turn channelization with acceleration lane at the intersection, as there often is, the stop must be far enough away from the stop for the bus to enter the lane and pull to the curb. For an articulated bus, this means 35 metres or more past the end of the channelization island. You might say that this means stops should be nearside, but the stop would still have to be far from the intersection in this situation.

Not necessarily. If the bus can completely block the entrance to the right turn cut-off ramp (on the near-side), passengers can safely get on and off the bus onto the ramp. On the far-side, this isn't possible as the bus can only block the exit from the ramp, so the bus needs to drive far enough to get the rear doors onto the sidewalk (either by changing lanes into the ramp or after the ramp ends).

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Yes, some excellent research that puts the bus, not the bus passenger, at the centre of consideration.

That was my thought as well. IMHO neither near-side nor far-side bus stops should be demonized and neither should be banned from use. In an ideal city, with grid networks, where all buses run in straight lines and there are no right turn cut-off ramps, far-side bus stops are likely superior. However, there are many real world situations that will tip the favour to near-side stops. As a result, each intersection needs to be evaluated based on its local conditions and the best form of stop should be used.