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

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Dado

If anything, I wonder if the car-loving NCC might not seize the opportunity to create a connection from the Queensway to the SJAM Parkway, which by that time will be happily free of buses and visible transit users.

or, god forbid, turned into an extension of Woodroffe north of Baseline. This is probably what would happen if the parkway was ever transferred to the city.

[eternallyme]

Ken Gray is calling for Watson to resign over this.

http://bulldogottawa.com/lrt-jim-watson-should-resign/

He wants the worst possible option - LRT along Carling from the Trillium Line corridor, which is a no-no for two reasons: it divides the regional rail network (and requires 2 transfers for many movements) and also does not serve Tunney's Pasture, which has very high ridership.

[Cre47]

I think he forgot two letters in front of logical regarding Carling Avenue in his blog. Sure, like Mike Maguire in the campaign, he wants commuters to do a sight-seeing tour (albeit not as extensive sightseeing tour than Maguire) of the city before arriving at work.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Cre47

I think he forgot two letters in front of logical regarding Carling Avenue in his blog. Sure, like Mike Maguire in the campaign, he wants commuters to do a sight-seeing tour (albeit not as extensive sightseeing tour than Maguire) of the city before arriving at work.

A Carling route starting at Kirkwood or Churchill (with a tunnel underneath) would work well, except for the fact it has a much higher cost I believe - the current Transitway route corridor from Churchill to Lincoln Fields is dead space anyway, and ridership would increase. However, any route skipping Tunney's Pasture should be considered a non-starter, and any route skipping Westboro completely would miss a lot of ridership too.

[J.OT13]

Love how he uses Calgary as an example, considering they built their LRT when they had less than half the population of Ottawa today and they are now waiting on funds to build a tunnel to replace the surface route. You know, capacity issues when your City reaches 1 million+. Your allowed to be apposed to something, but don't pull outdated arguments from a project completed in totally different circumstances.

IMO, Richmond is the best place to place the line. It is a straighter alignment and serves a pre-war urban stretch, an area that is vibrant desirable with good density today and plenty of TOD potential. Station locations were the same an all City reports, no matter the alignment, so there is not much of a difference if it is built on the Byron Strip or under the ORP. If anything, ORP is better due to lesser disruptions to the life in the area.

Dominion Station is not at the absolute best location, but by building a proper rapid transit stations that people want to use (as opposed to a bust stop) and proper way finding, it could be an integral part of the community. And with a few towers already their, the heart of Westboro a stone's throw away and plenty of TOD potential also (Rogers comes to mind), it's not half bad.

Cleary will serve a few existing condo buildings and again has good TOD portential.

New Orchard will serve a few existing condo/apartment towers and potential TODs where car dealerships stand now.

As for Carling; people seem to be forgetting other major problems with the route such as the orphaned Tunney's, where thousands work and thousands more will live/work in the future, the awkward 90 degree turns at Bayview and Carling (no way would they ever have turned the train further west of Bayview; to expensive), the orphaned Trillium line (bad enough people will have to transfer at Bayview, but at least it will be a destination with offices and maybe an NHL arena and STO), but not a whole lot of people will travel from the south end to Carling and get off.

Carling should get "lrt classic" at some point, but rapid transit is not necessary.

In conclusion, I think this is a fine compromise.

[Cre47]

And more importantly a commute that will be at least 15 minutes shorter than what Gray prefers. (providing that the 60's, 70's, 90's, 150's, 160's and 170's have better frequencies).

Route 85 is good enough for Carling for the time been even though the frequencies dropped after the route splitting in 2007. Unless it is overcrowded, which I doubt but most trips have 60-footers and the 101 (which enters/exits Carling at Kirkwood is a big helper except for Sundays). Buses are good enough for now until a future secondary rapid corridor can be done but not a commute route which would add 15-30 minutes to the commute). I think for example, Bridlewood in south Kanata should get rail before Carling (though again NCC would be a huge factor) because of the messy traffic issues and crappy lay-outs). It would also easily connect with the future west extension at Bayshore in 5 minutes unlike the 66 that takes over 15 minutes via a circutous loop, some congestion on Richmond and than through Bells Corners and a loopy-detour to Bayshore and than around Pinecrest and Queesnway Station. Same thing for Orleans South where a secondary LRT corridor should be built before Carling (but again some parts might have the NCC's influence (near Innes and Navan one area I'm thinking)

[Cre47]

Also does Leiper (unlike Gray) like the comprise presented yesterday? If so, watch for Gray posting negative posts on him on the Bulldog.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Cre47

And more importantly a commute that will be at least 15 minutes shorter than what Gray prefers. (providing that the 60's, 70's, 90's, 150's, 160's and 170's have better frequencies).

Route 85 is good enough for Carling for the time been even though the frequencies dropped after the route splitting in 2007. Unless it is overcrowded, which I doubt but most trips have 60-footers and the 101 (which enters/exits Carling at Kirkwood is a big helper except for Sundays). Buses are good enough for now until a secondary rapid corridor for now.

Exactly! It's not like Carling will become desirable anytime soon; rapid transit won't be necessary for the few decades. Focus on serving the areas that are currently in demand.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Cre47

Also does Leiper (unlike Gray) like the comprise presented yesterday? If so, watch for Gray posting negative posts on him on the Bulldog.

I haven't seen anything in regards to his reaction to the compromise, but he seems to have been on board with the City's western LRT plans, realizing it is not perfect, but that this is the best we can get for the budget.

During the election campaign, I thought he was more of a Clive Doucet figure, but he seems more of a Chernushenko.

[eternallyme]

Route 85 definitely works well, it is quite frequent most of the day and most trips use artics. Any overcrowding could be solved by any of:

* Increase the 85 frequency even more
* Increase north-south service perpendicular to the Carling corridor
* Rapid service along the Carling corridor, such as a limited stop version of the 85 and provide bus lanes or transit priority measures

As well, I do recommend that the service hours be increased on the 101, with more late evening service on weekdays and Sunday service at least during the daytime. In order to maintain transfers to routes to the southeast and speed up overall service, during the LRT construction, some peak period trips should be converted to a new route 100 which could run along part of the Southeast Transitway (perhaps interline with another route like 146 or 148 to allow service as far as Billings Bridge), while other 101's should operate to Place d'Orleans bypassing Hurdman for a faster trip.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Love how he uses Calgary as an example, considering they built their LRT when they had less than half the population of Ottawa today and they are now waiting on funds to build a tunnel to replace the surface route. You know, capacity issues when your City reaches 1 million+. Your allowed to be apposed to something, but don't pull outdated arguments from a project completed in totally different circumstances.

The claim that Calgary is going to *replace* its downtown surface route is a myth. It's on the books to remain for the long term.

Right now, two separate lines - the NW-S and the W-NE - converge onto the downtown 7th Ave corridor, and do so at grade crossings (i.e. incoming trains on the NW-S line have to cross the tracks of the W-NE line's outgoing trains).

The long term plan is to move the NW-S line into a tunnel under 8th Ave (sort of their version of Sparks St), while the W-NE line remains on 7th Ave.

Were it not for the grade crossings where the lines converge - something we in Ottawa have the ability to avoid (think Hurdman and Bayview) - it's unlikely they'd be considering a tunnel any time soon. They just have no practical way to grade separate those two crossing points.

A third line, the N-SE line, will also go in a tunnel because it will operate at right angles to the other two, which also places it on the narrow end of their downtown blocks, with the consequence that there's not enough distance between streets to have long enough platforms.

It's also worth pointing out that everywhere else, these lines are at grade for considerable lengths. They go under or over some roads but across others. For instance, there's no way that Calgary's planners would have agreed to run the WLRT in a long tunnel under Richmond Rd when there's a perfectly usable corridor right next to it. Using the Rochester Field route, they may well have gone across Richmond at grade, but they likely would have ducked under Woodroffe.

Overall, the Calgary approach is pragmatic. Ours is dogmatic.

[J.OT13]

I know Calgary's not planning to bury all lines. They want to run the lines on different levels to maximize capacity. I'm sure it won't take more than 5-10 years before they start construction.

Considering Ottawa is 2.5 times larger than Calgary when they built their LRT and that although we might be able to get away with a surface route today, it would be overcapacity within a few years. Why spend 200 million for a surface route needing replacement in 10 years when you can build a 700 million tunnel that will meet capacity needs for 50+ years?

As for the Richmond underground, which won't be nearly as expensive as the downtown tunnel, it is needed for maximum speed and efficiency. With this, there is 0 chance of any sort of accident involving pedestrians, buses or cars. No delays, no stress. The train can keep going to its maximum speed of 100 km/h. We're building a rapid transit system for a major metropolis, not just a simple public transit system.

That said, why do critics not compare Ottawa's current rapid transit plans with all 5 other systems in the country. It's always Calgary and their surface LRT built 35 years ago when they had a population of half a million, or the failures of Edmonton's short underground LRT, built 37 years ago when they were half a million. Although Ottawa's line will be short opening day, it will be tripled in length within 5 years.

They never compare to Toronto's mostly underground system introduced when they had a population similar to Ottawa today. Or how about Montreal's fully underground system, built when they had a population close to 2 million.

Better yet, why not compare Ottawa's transit plans to a city that built rail when they had the exact same population when opening their own system: Vancouver. When they opened the Skytrain in 1986, Vancouver's metro population was around 1.3 million, same as Ottawa today. The system is very similar to ours by the way it goes from elevated, to surface and underground where necessary. True rapid transit for the lowest possible cost. And yes, I realize that Vancouver "recycled" an existing tunnel for the downtown portion, but the point stays.

[jleiper]

Given the rough ride folks here give me, I'll take that as a compliment!

I posted the following while the press conference was on.

http://kitchissippiward.ca/content/p...ern-light-rail

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I haven't seen anything in regards to his reaction to the compromise, but he seems to have been on board with the City's western LRT plans, realizing it is not perfect, but that this is the best we can get for the budget.

During the election campaign, I thought he was more of a Clive Doucet figure, but he seems more of a Chernushenko.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by jleiper

Given the rough ride folks here give me, I'll take that as a compliment!

I posted the following while the press conference was on.

http://kitchissippiward.ca/content/p...ern-light-rail

Yes sir! Definitely meant it as a compliment. And thank you for link!

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Dado

The claim that Calgary is going to *replace* its downtown surface route is a myth. It's on the books to remain for the long term.

Right now, two separate lines - the NW-S and the W-NE - converge onto the downtown 7th Ave corridor, and do so at grade crossings (i.e. incoming trains on the NW-S line have to cross the tracks of the W-NE line's outgoing trains).

The long term plan is to move the NW-S line into a tunnel under 8th Ave (sort of their version of Sparks St), while the W-NE line remains on 7th Ave.

Were it not for the grade crossings where the lines converge - something we in Ottawa have the ability to avoid (think Hurdman and Bayview) - it's unlikely they'd be considering a tunnel any time soon. They just have no practical way to grade separate those two crossing points.

A third line, the N-SE line, will also go in a tunnel because it will operate at right angles to the other two, which also places it on the narrow end of their downtown blocks, with the consequence that there's not enough distance between streets to have long enough platforms.

It's also worth pointing out that everywhere else, these lines are at grade for considerable lengths. They go under or over some roads but across others. For instance, there's no way that Calgary's planners would have agreed to run the WLRT in a long tunnel under Richmond Rd when there's a perfectly usable corridor right next to it. Using the Rochester Field route, they may well have gone across Richmond at grade, but they likely would have ducked under Woodroffe.

Overall, the Calgary approach is pragmatic. Ours is dogmatic.

Given the skew of Richmond, they might have gone with an overpass there. Also wasn't the main reason for the underground in that area the NIMBYism that shot down an overground route in Rochester Field and the linear park?

I believe Calgary had the same issue with the Northwest LRT there in the Sunnyside community (which has similar demographics as McKellar Park, even though it is much closer to downtown). But money and lack of alternatives forced it to go through the community IIRC (the alternative would be a subway under 14th Street I believe).

[eltodesukane]

Calgary is a good example. So is Denver Colorado, a city of about 600,000.

How Denver Is Becoming the Most Advanced Transit City in the West:
Taras Grescoe, Jun 24, 2014

The plan, to add 121 miles of new commuter and light-rail tracks to the region, 18 miles of bus rapid transit lanes, 57 new rapid transit stations, and 21,000 park-and-ride spots, was approved.

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/...e-west/373222/

[McC]

Originally Posted by eltodesukane

So is Denver Colorado, a city of about 600,000.

But a metro population five times that figure.

[Cre47]

I wish though there would be at least 1 station between LF and Dominion preferably at Woodroffe as there are several appartment buildings within a 1 km-radius. It would also be around 1 km from Carlingwood Mall, the library and other appartment buildings as well. There will likely still be a route serving Woodroffe so making it as or if not more frequent and longer hours than the 87 would help those who cannot help go from the station to Carlingwood and the appartment complexes. All in all would still be much faster than Carling.

FYI, a tunnel (see Gray's comment on my post) all along Carling would be 8 km long (over twice the Confederation Line tunnel) and would have a lot more stations (Lincoln Fields, Woodroffe/Carlingwood, Maitland, Churchill/Clyde, Kirkwood, Westgate/Merivale, Royal Ottawa, Civic Hospital among the possibilities). It might be still shorter time than the surface option (since less wait at lights, but transfer times would be longer) it would be still 10 minutes at least longer than the Richmond option. And also, I don't think most people in Kanata and Barrhaven would go to Carling while all the services/businesses there are available in their area too. Good to see that this proposal is officially out of the way even though virtually everybody was against it right off the bat and great to see Mr. Leiper not supporting that Carling option either as a primary commuter route. If this would have been a complimentary line as a replacement of route 85, that I would support that. Though the line would go also to Landsdowne and end at Hurdman.

Sure if adding another Kanata line to Bridlewood might contribute to sprawl, but aren't all the lands west of there between Eagleson and Stittsville north of Fernbank already approved for development anyways? (except south of Hope Side which is not planned for development anyways - would have been with O'Brien's fantasy edge city with his ring road plan which will not happen since the developments in Barrhaven and Manotick will force this to be pushed much further south)

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by eltodesukane

Calgary is a good example. So is Denver Colorado, a city of about 600,000.

How Denver Is Becoming the Most Advanced Transit City in the West:
Taras Grescoe, Jun 24, 2014

The plan, to add 121 miles of new commuter and light-rail tracks to the region, 18 miles of bus rapid transit lanes, 57 new rapid transit stations, and 21,000 park-and-ride spots, was approved.

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/...e-west/373222/

Denver's ridership is 209,000 compared to Ottawa's 300,000. So no, not comparable.

[BenTheGreat97]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Denver's ridership is 209,000 compared to Ottawa's 300,000. So no, not comparable.

By those expansion plans, it seems like they're trying to make those ridership numbers grow.