HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4561  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2012, 12:40 AM
RTWAP's Avatar
RTWAP RTWAP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...ridor%20EA.pdf

WESTERN LRT CORRIDOR (BAYVIEW TO BASELINE) PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT
I'd be happy with either the Rochester-Richmond or ORP-Cleary-Richmond alternatives.

I'm wondering if the City will push for the ORP, NCC will counter with Rochester-Richmond (which has a lot more impact on the Byron linear park). And the hue and cry will lead to the NCC giving the city a ROW to Cleary. This would be optimal. It's so close to Ricmond Road that the development along the north side of Richmond would benefit, and it has minimal impact on the ORP greenlands (FWIW).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4562  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2012, 6:13 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTWAP View Post
I'd be happy with either the Rochester-Richmond or ORP-Cleary-Richmond alternatives.

I'm wondering if the City will push for the ORP, NCC will counter with Rochester-Richmond (which has a lot more impact on the Byron linear park). And the hue and cry will lead to the NCC giving the city a ROW to Cleary. This would be optimal. It's so close to Ricmond Road that the development along the north side of Richmond would benefit, and it has minimal impact on the ORP greenlands (FWIW).
Richmond/Byron corridor via Rochester Field and Richmond loses its advantage over Richmond/Byron corridor via ORP, Cleary, and Richmond if Dominion station is kept where it is. If Dominion Station is relocated to to Richmond, Rochester field is the best and cheapest of the viable urban routes. But as I'm sure everyone is long-tired of me saying: too few stations! 1000 metres should be the maximum, not the minimum distance in the built up area. Since the existing Transitway stations are being completely rebuilt anyway, there is no reason that they HAVE to stay in their current locations, they just can't disadvantage access from existing and approved development in favour of access to future development (objective should be to maximize both, but current objective seems to be minimizing stops).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4563  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2012, 10:58 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
One thing that seriously needs to be discussed is the Lincoln Fields-Bayshore segment. I have heard nothing from the City on that. At next hearings, I am going to propose it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4564  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2012, 11:54 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521


Both Bayshore and Baseline or bust!
Both Bayshore and Baseline or bust!
Both Bayshore and Baseline or bust!

__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4565  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2012, 1:50 AM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
My opinion for the Lincoln Fields-Westboro section:

1st choice is Richmond-Byron via Rochester Field to Woodroffe then via Carlingwood. It maximizes the catchment area and ridership potential, serving the largest mall not on the Transitway now and high-density residential areas. It covers most of the Richmond Road corridor with the easiest connection.

2nd choice is Richmond-Byron via Rochester Field all the way. It does not serve Carlingwood, but is a cheaper option.

3rd choice is Ottawa River Parkway. It has the lowest cost and most scenic route, but poorest service to communities in the area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4566  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2012, 4:27 AM
DarkArconio DarkArconio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternallyme View Post
My opinion for the Lincoln Fields-Westboro section:

1st choice is Richmond-Byron via Rochester Field to Woodroffe then via Carlingwood. It maximizes the catchment area and ridership potential, serving the largest mall not on the Transitway now and high-density residential areas. It covers most of the Richmond Road corridor with the easiest connection.

2nd choice is Richmond-Byron via Rochester Field all the way. It does not serve Carlingwood, but is a cheaper option.

3rd choice is Ottawa River Parkway. It has the lowest cost and most scenic route, but poorest service to communities in the area.
I suspect most people would agree with you on that, and the second choice will be taken as a compromise between cost and catchment area.

Going into the next steps of this plan, I would hope we look into some interesting and innovative financing options like borrowing funds against future development fees along the corridor, like Vancouver did with the Canada Line.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4567  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2012, 5:46 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkArconio View Post
I suspect most people would agree with you on that, and the second choice will be taken as a compromise between cost and catchment area.

Going into the next steps of this plan, I would hope we look into some interesting and innovative financing options like borrowing funds against future development fees along the corridor, like Vancouver did with the Canada Line.
I'd eliminate all other options - the Churchill option is too expensive and technically very difficult, and the hybrid ORP/Richmond options don't benefit anyone really (neither cost nor catchment) and don't satisfy either set of critics.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4568  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 12:33 AM
kevinbottawa kevinbottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,229
Planned LRT system will turn Queen Street into Ottawa’s ‘showcase’

Quote:
Planned LRT system will turn Queen Street into Ottawa’s ‘showcase’

By David Reevely, The Ottawa Citizen June 3, 2012 7:02 PM

OTTAWA — The city is planning a complete overhaul of downtown streets once the planned light-rail system opens in 2018, hoping to finally live up to a decade of big talk.

The plans are still unfinished, but they’ve been through several rounds of brainstorming and revision. Queen Street is in for the biggest change, according to the latest draft. With the opening of the rail line running underneath the road two blocks from Parliament, the city expects thousands upon thousands of riders to head there instead of to the Transitway further south.

That will create an opportunity to turn Queen into Ottawa’s “showcase street,” putting a lot of high-flying ideas about pedestrian-friendliness and human-scale design into practice.

“Queen Street is the one where it becomes very practical, because we have the train running underground on Queen and we know with the number of passengers that are going to be exiting out of there, we really have to look at what does Queen look like and how can we apportion the space to make best use of it?” says deputy city manager Nancy Schepers, who’s in charge of the planning.

It means transforming Queen from the utilitarian strip of pavement it is now, bordered mostly by narrow sidewalks and building fronts with few entrances. Queen should have “the highest level of sustainable design, not only in wide sidewalks, but also in creative designs for parking and access, priority crosswalks, street tree planting, drainage, and materials,” the plans say.

Some of this is simple engineering: With station entrances likely near Lyon, O’Connor and Metcalfe streets, the city expects the busiest parts of Queen to have as many as 5,000 people trooping along them at rush hours. All those people won’t fit on sidewalks a couple of metres wide — in fact, standard engineering formulas say the sidewalks will have to be six metres wide (20 feet) and they’ll still be crowded.

The whole city right-of-way is only 18 metres across. “Within a limited right-of-way, this will have obvious implications on the space available for cyclists and vehicles,” the plan says.

The implications are that there will be a lot less space for cyclists and vehicles, with a plan to cut Queen Street’s four lanes of asphalt to two, plus narrow strips of parking in some places. Instead of being street parking, though, the city’s thinking of a kind of sidewalk parking.

“Nowadays, we have traffic lanes that, peak periods they’re open to drive on and off-peak, they’re available for parking,” Schepers says. “This option that’s here actually flips that and says OK, we get that off-peak, parking is really important for the commercial business, but maybe during peak, rather than making that available for vehicles on Queen, maybe we should have it a dual passenger-parking zone.”

Downtown councillor Diane Holmes says she’s pleased by the proposals for Queen. The busiest stretch of sidewalk in the city now is on the east side of Metcalfe Street between Slater and Albert — a block connecting the two directions of the Transitway. Depending on the day, it gets 4,000 to 8,000 pedestrians an hour in the afternoon.

“That has very many pedestrians and the sidewalk is way too narrow. That is an unsafe sidewalk, and we can’t perpetuate that when we’re designing the streets leading to the LRT,” Holmes says.

Queen could and should be first on the list for changes, Schepers says, both because of the demand the LRT riders will put on it and because the rail construction itself will be a chance to make changes, if city council supports the final version of the plan, or even just some of it. The idea isn’t to tear up perfectly good streets, but to make improvements over many years, like when they’re torn up because they’re due to be rebuilt anyway.

“Having an answer on Queen Street would allow us to talk to the successful (rail-building) proponent, depending on how they plan to construct the light rail system, for an incremental cost, we might be able to implement some of this,” Schepers says. “Clearly at the public-access locations, they will be digging it up, and so in that general vicinity they will be restoring it. By having a plan, we can start to see the first steps of an ultimate solution starting to emerge.”

The city’s also hoping that the owners of some of the buildings along Queen Street, mostly medium-sized office towers with main entrances and little else going on at ground level, will open up to the public a little more, especially with restaurants and cafés that will have patios in warm weather. Again, the LRT is the key. As the planners put it: “Over time, buildings will become more-street oriented with active uses at grade, benefiting from the new pedestrian economic opportunity.” The city builds rail, riders come, and businesses follow.

It uses the block of Queen between Bank and O’Connor as a particular example.

The CBC’s downtown broadcast centre on the north side of that block, in use since 2004, was supposed to be more open to the public, even featuring a pedestrian passage between Queen and Sparks. But along the way the builder and owner, Morguard, scrapped the passage and put only a locked back door on Sparks. The Queen side has a public café with a couple of narrow doors.

The Sun Life Centre across the street is only a little more open: the famous Hy’s Steakhouse has a patio from which noshers and imbibers will practically be able to roll down the stairs to an LRT platform (subject to a little wiggling of that station location, on which the planners are now working), and the south side of Queen is lined with growing trees. But even so most of the building’s facade is steel and glass, doorless and flat.

That will change naturally, Schepers says. “Certainly in new development, (the city government has) a role to play in influencing what kinds of developments are appropriate … but in addition, as the community changes and evolves, we all experience how different stores will come in and start to satisfy the demands that are starting to emerge. So as areas of the downtown become more mixed-use so there’s more residents living there, that becomes a different set of shops, a different set of experiences.

“That’s not driven by the city saying, ‘Thou shalt do that,’ that’s driven by the businesses seeing a need and following through. They put together their business model, they say, ‘This is an opportunity,’ and we’ll find some people will be very smart about that.”

Queen Street’s just one example, Schepers emphasizes. The removal of 2,000 daily bus trips from downtown streets (leaving about 600 a day) creates other possibilities, too.

“I look out my window every day at the line of buses on the Mackenzie King Bridge, and one of the ideas that’s out there is making part of that bridge a walkway,” she says. “Why not? Paint it, make it a promenade that connects the National Arts Centre to Arts Court and the Convention Centre. It’s such a beautiful, beautiful corridor. You can see Parliament, you can see the canal.

“I’m really excited because I think this process will allow us to identify some opportunities that will be, not huge, but that will make a difference and that will become a treasured space for the citizens of the future,” Schepers says.

dreevely@ottawacitizen.com

ottawacitizen.com/greaterottawa

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Pl...#ixzz1wmTyOPI3
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4569  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 2:34 AM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,991
I'm surprised that instead of the Richmond/Byron via Churchill option, they didn't have a Richmond/Byron via Rogers.

a. would be cheaper
b. would have used more of the Transitway
c. still no usage of the OPR
d. at Churchill they would need to expropriate the laundromat so expropriating Rogers isn't any worst
e. less disruption
f. Rogers is a better site for a public-private partnership for a station than the laundromat
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4570  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 5:24 AM
ikerrin ikerrin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 335
Thumbs down I'll believe Byron when I see it!

I can't believe that Bryon is seriously on the table. Westboro residents are pretty much the most organized, engaged group of NIMBYs in the city. You might as well try to expropriate Glebe Avenue for a Queensway extension or build a Walmart in New Edinburgh as run an LRT through a West-end park and within meters of million dollar homes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4571  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 12:31 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
I'm surprised that instead of the Richmond/Byron via Churchill option, they didn't have a Richmond/Byron via Rogers.
That would be a really tight S-curve (granted, not much worse than Churchill) possibly worse than the one between Riverside and Pleasant Park that the RMOC promissed was designed for eventual light rail conversion, but the latest TMP insists is too tight for rail. Who to believe?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4572  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 7:17 PM
gjhall's Avatar
gjhall gjhall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,297
That idea of MacKenzie King as an Arts Bridge is an interesting one - it will connect the NAC to the Arts Court - an opportunity there for sure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4573  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 7:49 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by McC View Post
That would be a really tight S-curve (granted, not much worse than Churchill)
The second curve (the onto Richmond) would have to be about a 100 m radius curve - sharp, but doable. The bigger problem is the fact that the entire thing would end up being backward-bending (between the two curves) and completely ruin any chance of a station while still requiring trains to crawl through.

If it could go between the two towers on Dominion it might not be too bad but overall it looks like a lot of extra effort for little if any gain.

Quote:
possibly worse than the one between Riverside and Pleasant Park that the RMOC promissed was designed for eventual light rail conversion, but the latest TMP insists is too tight for rail. Who to believe?
That's not in the TMP or any supporting documentation, and the curves are not too tight for rail (they are also 100 m radius curves). Even if they were, just realign the route through the parking lot. If anything, it looks like preservation of a large parking lot was a deciding factor in the alignment choice through there.

For some reason that is still not too clear, the City just does not want the Southeast Transitway converted and they keep going to some length to make it difficult (such as the refusal to even plan for the possibility of it at Hurdman). I keep hearing various technical reasons - which I think just get offered up by engineers under pressure - but upon inspection they always fall down. The one excuse I've heard mentioned in conspiratorial tones that I can't dismiss is that it is some kind of emergency exit route for VIPs to the airport. As conspiracies go, it at least has a certain air of plausibility to it and would go some way to explaining the City's peculiar positions on the issue.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4574  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 8:04 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikerrin View Post
I can't believe that Bryon is seriously on the table. Westboro residents are pretty much the most organized, engaged group of NIMBYs in the city.
It's "Richmond-Byron"

If you look through the design possibilities, quite a few make use of Richmond rather than Byron or the park.

It's worth pointing out here that this section of Richmond is one of the strangest bits of road in the entire city. From Cleary to Westminster, Richmond has three lanes: two eastbound and one westbound (everyone seems to feel the need to speed up along here - you almost can't help yourself). And within that section, from Windermere to Westminster there is a bit of a shoulder lane. From Westminster to Golden (Westboro), Richmond widens out to four lanes. So there's actually quite a bit of 'spare' space.

At the same time, the City's TMP currently calls for the entirety of Richmond between Carling Avenue and Golden to be widened to four lanes, with the Byron linear park to be utilized for that purpose along its entire length. Putting in light rail could well 'occupy' the RoW that would otherwise go to widening Richmond, thereby permanently preventing it.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4575  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2012, 9:07 PM
agl agl is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 93
Bogotá's BRT Faces Riots Due To High Fares And Overcrowding

I seem to recall awhile back someone referencing the success of the Bogota, Columbia BRT system that has been in place there for awhile. Unfortunately, it has run into a capacity problem as well as other issues -

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=198394


[QUOTE=M II A II R II K;5639933]Why Are People Rioting Over Bogotá's Public Transit System?


Mar 20, 2012

By Eric Jaffe



Read More: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/com...t-system/1537/

Quote:
Earlier this month, protests over service on Bogota's bus-rapid transit system, the TransMilenio, quickly escalated into riots in Colombia's capital city. The event required some 1,200 law officials to contain and led to dozens of arrests, a handful of injuries, and the destruction of five bus stations, according to news reports. The protests reportedly began as demonstrations against the TransMilenio's crowded buses and high fares, and the city's general lack of public transportation options. The immediate response to the news was surprise that one of the world's most celebrated transit systems could spark such widespread anger.

- The fact is, despite this successful record, social dissatisfaction with TransMilenio is nothing new. Public approval of the system began to drop in 2004, with people complaining about crowding and fares. In March of that year passengers protested poor service that resulted largely from ongoing repairs to three of the busways. In April 2008 passengers again went on strike over the system's service, this time citing overcrowded buses, low frequencies, and a lack of alternatives. Traffic models from this time suggested that without steps to increase the city's public transportation coverage, congestion would reach a standstill by - you guessed it - 2012.

- At rush hour, stations are so packed that people can't get off the bus, let alone on it. The crowding encourages some travelers to return to their cars, which only increases congestion in the city. Meanwhile the fare, at $1, is considered high for a city whose low-income users earn daily salaries only three times that, on average. The problem is a complicated one, writes Hutchinson, but it boils down to several core sources. The first is the city's decades-long, unrequited obsession with building a metro system that would cost much more than bus-rapid transit and cover far less of the city. Another is a lack of government subsidies that hampers the system's ability to expand and address its problems. Last, but certainly not least, the expansions that are being made by the system aren't being made quickly enough.

.....

We're obviously not at the point of rioting here in Ottawa, but planning, cancelling, and planning anew without any shovels in the ground has delayed our own progress in keeping up with moving the masses. I fully support the LRT with tunnel plan (though would have hoped for another downtown station and have them all more evenly spread out across the core), but sincerely hope there will be money available afterwards to continue investing in the infrastructure (increase frequency with more train sets, extend east to Orleans and west to Baseline and at least Lincoln Fields) to avoid crowding and bottlenecks at the transfer points. We cannot just build this line and then sit on it and be happy. But I am preaching to the choir here...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4576  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2012, 10:03 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,991
http://www.ottawasun.com/2012/06/05/...tern-lrt-route

Quote:
Debate continues on western LRT route
2

By Jon Willing,Ottawa Sun

First posted: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 03:45 PM EDT | Updated: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 05:07 PM EDT
Carling Ave. should be left as a secondary rail option and let one of the other two shortlisted corridors be a primary LRT route, council’s transportation chairwoman says.

Kanata North Coun. Marianne Wilkinson said Carling Ave. would be too slow to consider for a fast rail connection to Tunney’s Pasture or Bayview stations.

“I don’t want people going back to their cars, quite frankly,” Wilkinson said Tuesday.

Others, like Bay Coun. Mark Taylor, want to keep Carling Ave. on the shortlist of primary corridors linking Lincoln Fields with the end point of the Tunney’s Pasture-Blair station line, which will begin construction in early 2013.

Planning staff are playing down the Carling Ave. option for a primary LRT link to the west part of the city. Included in the list of challenges are the estimated costs, which put the Carling Ave. corridor in the ballpark of $2 billion.

In fact, building a high-speed primary line for Carling Ave. would cost more than building a primary line along one of the two other studied corridors – Richmond Rd./Byron Ave. and Ottawa River Pkwy. -- plus a secondary streetcar-like service on Carling Ave.

The transportation committee Wednesday will receive an interim environmental assessment report on extending LRT west after the $2.1-billion Tunney’s-Blair line is complete in 2018.

The parkway option remains the cheapest but the National Capital Commission has been vocal about not allowing trains to run along the scenic road.

“We can’t ignore a corridor because a landowner says no,” Wilkinson said.

Wilkinson said the city might have to lobby the NCC’s political masters on the Hill if it’s serious about wanting the parkway for LRT.

Alta Vista Coun. Peter Hume, council’s planning chairman, said the key to selecting a western LRT corridor from a planning perspective is deciding which route would be the “most transformative” for the city.

Some councillors are fixated on the costs.

Orléans Coun. Bob Monette, vice-chair of the transportation committee, wants to know why the estimates skyrocketed over the course of about three years.

The top four routes – which involve the Ottawa River Pkwy, Richmond Rd./Byron Ave., or a combination of both -- have a price range between $500 million and just over $1 billion.

The preliminary costing suggested a range between $80 million and $200 million for those corridors.

Monette said he wants an answer at the meeting.
2 things realy stood out for me;

Quote:
“We can’t ignore a corridor because a landowner says no,” Wilkinson said.
So having a landowner giving a consistent and resounding "NO" for the past couple of years isn't a reason to stop spending millions of dollars that could be used for actual trains to study a route that will never happen because the landowner has been giving a consistent and resounding "NO" for the past couple of years . I think the city should be happy that the NCC is ready to consider Rochester Fields as an option and concentrate on it (communicating with the NCC throughout the study) and the alternative, the NCC land free Churchill option in case NCCs demands end up costing about the same or more than the Churchill option.

Quote:
Orléans Coun. Bob Monette, vice-chair of the transportation committee, wants to know why the estimates skyrocketed over the course of about three years.
No s**t!!! The real question is how the hell did they come up with what was OBVIOUSLY grossly under estimated pricing in the first place!?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4577  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2012, 2:54 AM
DarkArconio DarkArconio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 182
It turns out the NCC has bosses who also politicians who can be lobbied. If the city decides that the only option it can afford by itself is along the parkway, then I suspect the Harper government will be pretty open to being pressured to contribute land to the project instead of cash.

Not that that would be the best option. I prefer the full use of the current trench with a crossing at rochester field and then use of the byron/richmond corridor from a cost/benefit perspective.

I suspect the choice will come down to parkway starting right away or richmond/byron much later for funding reasons. I don't think either the grits or tories will be willing to assist as much with funding for this one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4578  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2012, 6:38 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
With the NIMBYism, what options are left? Tunnel the whole thing? If Westboro residents cry over parkland, they should have to pay the entire cost - and only they - for the extra tunnel part, including all cost overruns, and yes, that will be well over $1 billion in extra cost most likely. Other city taxpayers should not have to pay extra there.

Without the the Byron option, that forces the NCC to give up land on the Parkway corridor, at least in the old railway ROW.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4579  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2012, 7:19 PM
Jamaican-Phoenix's Avatar
Jamaican-Phoenix Jamaican-Phoenix is offline
R2-D2's army of death
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Downtown Ottawa
Posts: 3,576
What's funny (except not really) is that I saw the following headline in today's Ottawa West EMC:

"Group looks to save Byron park from light rail".

Am I the only one here who has read the document and looked at the map and seen that Byron Park is under no real threat whatsoever with at least one of the options? Sometimes the kneejerk reactions of people in this city really tick me off.
__________________
Franky: Ajldub, name calling is what they do when good arguments can't be found - don't sink to their level. Claiming the thread is "boring" is also a way to try to discredit a thread that doesn't match their particular bias.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4580  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2012, 8:08 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix View Post
What's funny (except not really) is that I saw the following headline in today's Ottawa West EMC:

"Group looks to save Byron park from light rail".

Am I the only one here who has read the document and looked at the map and seen that Byron Park is under no real threat whatsoever with at least one of the options? Sometimes the kneejerk reactions of people in this city really tick me off.
Yes, if we build on the Ottawa River Parkway or on Carling Avenue. Neither of those are the likely choices, so yes, Byron Park is under threat.

From the report:

Quote:
Most likely, the operation of the O-Train would have to be terminated at the Carling/O-Train station, due to the frequency of trains along the east-west primary line.
WARNING - Rant begins

This is something that was never indicated when this rapid transit reassessment started taking place in 2007. We have been sold a bill of goods. This means that no direct to downtown service will EVER be possible to the south end including the airport whether via the O-Train corridor or the South east Transitway corridor. Basically, the east-west route will assume the full capacity of the tunnel. Again, we ignore best practices demonstrated by the C-Train network in Calgary that provides direct to downtown service to all major sections of the city whether by train or by bus (in advance of C-Train service expansion).

I know I will get zero sympathy from anybody here but there is a down side to this as well as we will have to provide excess capacity on trains running east and west to capture all the passengers travelling from the south. These trains will have to run at significantly less than capacity except in the downtown leg. It also means that south end residents will face crowded trains every day on their in bound trip in addition to having to deal with a new inconvenient two transfer system.

And we said a surface LRT route downtown had no value? How about a downtown surface extension of an electrified O-Train to eliminate one of these transfers?

I grow more and more ticked off with the entire process that has taken place since 2007. I feel that my tax dollars are being used to treat myself and my neighbours like second class citizens.

Why are all our tax dollars for the next 10 or 20 years being directed into a project that will really only serve east and west end passengers well with NO prospect of ever delivering similar service in the north-south direction? I remind everybody that the south end is now your fastest growing section of the city with pitiful transportation infrastructure.

End of rant.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:06 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.