Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Dado]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

"Transit-oriented development" to boost construction around east-side LRT stations

By David Reevely, Ottawa Citizen October 15, 2012 5:02 PM



The zoning changes are meant to encourage developers to charge into the neighbourhoods-in-the-making knowing that they won’t have to apply for rezonings for each individual project. They cover vacant lots, commercial strips and box stores on property the city considers underused; the relatively few residential areas close to those east-side stations were deliberately excluded from the re-examination. Hume acknowledged it’ll mean an increase in property values for the rezoned landowners, but said a lot of that would come anyway just because of the LRT service.

So? Developers can always apply for yet another rezoning on the basis of being near to rapid transit.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

On a random note, I would like to see some sort of bylaw stating that Downtown Ottawa needs to keep a minimum of 40% of the city's office space, which would still be much lower than most other cities.

This kind of law would not encourage the development of mixed use communities and would drive up the cost of office space.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Dado

So? Developers can always apply for yet another rezoning on the basis of being near to rapid transit.

It means that the character of neighbourhoods near LRT will change substantially. In many cases, this will be a good thing, but in mature western residential neighbourhoods that may eventually be served by LRT, this may not be so clear cut.

[Dado]

My point, a bit sarcastically, is that just because the City is going about rezoning the place doesn't mean they won't face rezoning requests anyway. All they've done is simply raise the starting point.

[Capital Shaun]

The rail system, which is supposed to feature trains running nearly every three minutes on the day it opens in 2018, should attract people in a way the bus-based Transitway never quite has, Hume said.

Why in 2018? Can't this city get it's act together and get the LRT done before Canada's 150th!

As for transit oriented development, I'm all for it but they really should improve the pedestrians crossings over the 417/174 near current Transitway stations.
Also just look at the Trainyards development, there's no easy way to walk to the Train Transitway station.

[lrt's friend]

I know, zoning seems to be no more than a guideline anymore. This degree of intensification may be great to support LRT but expect much worse congestion around the corridor. And when this heads west, what will the plan be if it travels through mature residential neighbourhoods?

[S-Man]

Those renders are a little too far removed from the east end I currently know to accept them even as a possibility. Would be great to achieve that look though.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I know, zoning seems to be no more than a guideline anymore. This degree of intensification may be great to support LRT but expect much worse congestion around the corridor. And when this heads west, what will the plan be if it travels through mature residential neighbourhoods?

Richmond Road would probably gain more condos, but little change off that street. It is unlikely that any successful plan can be implemented along there. After Westboro Station, there likely would be no new intensification project until Lincoln Fields Station, unless it detours to Carlingwood (as I recommend).

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by S-Man

Those renders are a little too far removed from the east end I currently know to accept them even as a possibility. Would be great to achieve that look though.

Downtown is pretty much built out in terms of office availability, so any significant growth needs to be accomodated elsewhere.

[Uhuniau]

TOD in Ottawa?

I'll believe it when I see it. All the imagination-less city and gormless developers here can come up with, at best, is Development Located Somewhere Within 2000 Metres Of Transit (Ample Parking Available).

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It means that the character of neighbourhoods near LRT will change substantially. In many cases, this will be a good thing, but in mature western residential neighbourhoods that may eventually be served by LRT, this may not be so clear cut.

In mature western residential neighbourhoods IT WILL KILL CHILDREN TO DEATH.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Another challenging area will be from Knoxdale to south of West Hunt Club. It will be expensive no matter what there. The feasible options:

1) Tunnel from just north of Knoxdale to across from the Nepean Sportsplex.

- No expropriation required
- Highest costs due to tunnel in sensitive soil
- All movements maintained as they are now

2) Surface alignment throughout

- Requires an interchange at Woodroffe/West Hunt Club, with ramps on east side
- Full expropriation of at least 15 multi-family buildings required
- Partial expropriation of Confederation Education Centre required
- Knoxdale would require special signalling, Majestic would need to be closed
- Not feasible for BRT, but may be feasible if directly to LRT
- Lowest cost for soil movement, but countered somewhat by the interchange cost

3) Trenched from Knoxdale to across from the Nepean Sportsplex

- Full expropriation of at least 15 multi-family buildings required
- Structures required at West Hunt Club, Majestic and Knoxdale
- Sensitive soil may create additional problems
- Cost lower than tunnel but higher than surface option
- Cheapest feasible BRT option

I don't see how a tunnel would be WAY more expensive.

-Option one would require around 6 million in expropriation, the Woodroffe/West Hunt Club ramps are likely a million or two (although, as you say, countered somewhat by reduced soil costs), if a train crosses Knoxdale, it crosses a line where the system might no longer be rapid transit since we would have to limit the speed, and brings an additional risk of danger to cyclists and pedestrian, closing Majestic is closing the only direct route to Woodroffe for this neighbourhood (so more traffic on Knoxdale).

-Option two has similar expropriation costs, so still disturbs 15 families.

If we look at the extension between Queensway station and Pinecrest that has been debated to death 3 times in 20 years (and still not built), it should be a lesson that the extra cost of a tunnel is worth it if only to do it right and not re-locate 15 families.

So, in conclusion, I would suggest the tunnel and build it as LRT right off the bat to save money. Seems to me that a tunnel buit for double tracked LRT is cheaper than one for a 4 lane BRT highway.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

This kind of law would not encourage the development of mixed use communities and would drive up the cost of office space.

If you remember in May 2012, there was a report on the health of Canada`s downtowns, looking at 10 cities across the country. Ottawa`s Downtown had the lowest proportion of the cities office space (40%, as I suggest should stay). Here are the other cities from the highest proportion to the lowest;

1. London (81%) - according to the study, they have a bylaw stating that any office development over 5000 sqm has to be built downtown.

2. Winnipeg (77%)

3. Vancouver (73%)

4. Edmonton (65%)

5. Victoria (58%)

6. Fredericton (56%)

7. Toronto (53%)

8. Saskatoon (53%)

9. Halifax (46%)

I would want a 40% firm on downtown, 70% in the greenbelt (including downtown) which would be allowed to deviate 10% on each side and 10% for each suburban areas (Kanata-Stitsville, Barrhaven-Riverside South, Orleans), which would allow to deviate by 5% either way. An since no one will ever propose a million square foot complex in Richmond, I would not regulate the rural areas.

So if Ottawa has around 50 million square feet of office space, this is how office space would be divided;

• Downtown-20 million square feet
• Inside Greenbelt-30 million square feet
• Suburbs-3.3 million square feet each

• Rural, not counted in city wide total for the purpose of this bylaw.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I don't see how a tunnel would be WAY more expensive.

-Option one would require around 6 million in expropriation, the Woodroffe/West Hunt Club ramps are likely a million or two (although, as you say, countered somewhat by reduced soil costs), if a train crosses Knoxdale, it crosses a line where the system might no longer be rapid transit since we would have to limit the speed, and brings an additional risk of danger to cyclists and pedestrian, closing Majestic is closing the only direct route to Woodroffe for this neighbourhood (so more traffic on Knoxdale).

-Option two has similar expropriation costs, so still disturbs 15 families.

If we look at the extension between Queensway station and Pinecrest that has been debated to death 3 times in 20 years (and still not built), it should be a lesson that the extra cost of a tunnel is worth it if only to do it right and not re-locate 15 families.

So, in conclusion, I would suggest the tunnel and build it as LRT right off the bat to save money. Seems to me that a tunnel buit for double tracked LRT is cheaper than one for a 4 lane BRT highway.

15 multi-family blocks (rental townhouses/small apartments) = about 400 families I would estimate, and most are likely low-income families. The fallout would be enormous there for either the surface or trenching option. The expropriation cost would likely be higher - I would estimate about $15 million for the trench option and about $20 million for the surface option (since part of Confederation Education Centre would have to go as well).

Indeed, a surface alignment would have to cross Knoxdale at-grade with issues for traffic flow, and signalling issues come into play. Trenching removes that requirement (and eliminates the immediate need for an interchange at West Hunt Club, which absolutely cannot cross the LRT at-grade, especially adjacent to Woodroffe where it would be). Any tunnel would be about 1 km in length.

Overall cost estimate:

Tunnel - $160 million

Expropriation - none, I believe the City of Ottawa owns all the non-private land necessary
Interchange/Structures - none
Transit corridor itself - about $160M (based on the soil conditions and partial estimate from the downtown tunnel project, as it would be a bored tunnel)

Surface - $130 million

Expropriation - about $20M
Interchange/Structures - about $50M (for the West Hunt Club interchange, not counting land costs)
Transit corridor itself - about $60M (rough guess, excluding the interchange and land costs)

Trench - $145 million

Expropriation - about $15M
Interchange/Structures - about $10M (for the required bridges at Knoxdale, Majestic and West Hunt Club)
Transit corridor itself - about $120M (rough guess, excluding land costs, inflated due to the unstable soil)

[Dado]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Another challenging area will be from Knoxdale to south of West Hunt Club. It will be expensive no matter what there. The feasible options:

1) Tunnel from just north of Knoxdale to across from the Nepean Sportsplex.

- No expropriation required
- Highest costs due to tunnel in sensitive soil
- All movements maintained as they are now

2) Surface alignment throughout

- Requires an interchange at Woodroffe/West Hunt Club, with ramps on east side
- Full expropriation of at least 15 multi-family buildings required
- Partial expropriation of Confederation Education Centre required
- Knoxdale would require special signalling, Majestic would need to be closed
- Not feasible for BRT, but may be feasible if directly to LRT
- Lowest cost for soil movement, but countered somewhat by the interchange cost

3) Trenched from Knoxdale to across from the Nepean Sportsplex

- Full expropriation of at least 15 multi-family buildings required
- Structures required at West Hunt Club, Majestic and Knoxdale
- Sensitive soil may create additional problems
- Cost lower than tunnel but higher than surface option
- Cheapest feasible BRT option

I don't get the need to expropriate through here.

Right now Woodroffe has 4 general traffic lanes, 2 bus lanes, 2 bike lanes, 2 sidewalks and a wide median. Both north and south of this segment Woodroffe is still currently limited to 4 general traffic lanes.

All you need to do is "shuffle" the lane distribution around a bit. The transit lanes would be placed as far to the west as possible, against the sound wall. Whether they are at grade or trenched is of little consequence here to the land requirement. Then you put a bit of a median, then the sidewalk, bike lane, 2 lanes, a narrowed central median, 2 more lanes, the other bike lane and the other sidewalk.

Alternately, the 2 bike lanes could be combined into a median separating the transit lanes from the road and link up with the path system further north and possibly with the path on the east side of Woodroffe south of the Sportsplex.

There are also a few metres of land available on the east side (some is grass, some is landscaping in front of the pharmacy and some is extra RoW for Crestlea Crescent) that could be used if needed (mainly to move the east sidewalk a few metres to the east).

All told, there is enough space to maintain the current 4 lanes of general traffic and a bus or rail transitway without recourse to expropriation of multi-family units.

North of Knoxdale there would pretty much end up being 6 general traffic lanes by default on Woodroffe.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

15 multi-family blocks (rental townhouses/small apartments) = about 400 families I would estimate, and most are likely low-income families. The fallout would be enormous there for either the surface or trenching option. The expropriation cost would likely be higher - I would estimate about $15 million for the trench option and about $20 million for the surface option (since part of Confederation Education Centre would have to go as well).

Indeed, a surface alignment would have to cross Knoxdale at-grade with issues for traffic flow, and signalling issues come into play. Trenching removes that requirement (and eliminates the immediate need for an interchange at West Hunt Club, which absolutely cannot cross the LRT at-grade, especially adjacent to Woodroffe where it would be). Any tunnel would be about 1 km in length.

Overall cost estimate:

Tunnel - $160 million

Expropriation - none, I believe the City of Ottawa owns all the non-private land necessary
Interchange/Structures - none
Transit corridor itself - about $160M (based on the soil conditions and partial estimate from the downtown tunnel project, as it would be a bored tunnel)

Surface - $130 million

Expropriation - about $20M
Interchange/Structures - about $50M (for the West Hunt Club interchange, not counting land costs)
Transit corridor itself - about $60M (rough guess, excluding the interchange and land costs)

Trench - $145 million

Expropriation - about $15M
Interchange/Structures - about $10M (for the required bridges at Knoxdale, Majestic and West Hunt Club)
Transit corridor itself - about $120M (rough guess, excluding land costs, inflated due to the unstable soil)

Holy crap Batman!!! I was way off on my estimates!!

I miss read the 15 dwellings part, I thought it was 15 single family homes, not multi family. With the cost estimates and the huge disturbance of families, I'm sticking with the tunnel option; it's not that much more expensive for the option that is by far the least disruptive.

And if these are low income rentals, who the hell would replace them? It’s not easy finding 400 affordable rentals in this city to accommodate these people. I don't see any private companies willing to build something that won't see any sort of profit for many years into the future, and if it ends up being the city who has to contribute to new social housing to replace these 400 units, well that brings up the price of the seemingly cheaper options a and b.

[Dr.Z]

Originally Posted by Dado

My point, a bit sarcastically, is that just because the City is going about rezoning the place doesn't mean they won't face rezoning requests anyway. All they've done is simply raise the starting point.

I imagine the accompanying OPAs will establish similar height and density levels so that if more was wanted an OPA would also be required, which sets the bar higher again.

[Dr.Z]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

If you remember in May 2012, there was a report on the health of Canada`s downtowns, looking at 10 cities across the country. Ottawa`s Downtown had the lowest proportion of the cities office space (40%, as I suggest should stay).

40% of what? 40% of City-wide office or 40% of downtown floor space should be office? These are two separate numbers. The former and above study basically says that there is a lot of office outside of downtown in Ottawa.

Why on earth would you want to allocate/restrict office supply? Is there a fear that the suburbs are going to suck out all of the office downtown? The amount of office space and type is really a factor of net rent and proximity to clients and services and the market is ideally the best place to sort out how much of what goes where.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Holy shit Batman!!! I was way off on my estimates!!

I miss read the 15 dwellings part, I thought it was 15 single family homes, not multi family. With the cost estimates and the huge disturbance of families, I'm sticking with the tunnel option; it's not that much more expensive for the option that is by far the least disruptive.

And if these are low income rentals, who the hell would replace them? It’s not easy finding 400 affordable rentals in this city to accommodate these people. I don't see any private companies willing to build something that won't see any sort of profit for many years into the future, and if it ends up being the city who has to contribute to new social housing to replace these 400 units, well that brings up the price of the seemingly cheaper options a and b.

Those numbers are just guesses, looking at similar projects in other cities, and assuming LRT (I wouldn't waste time and money on a long BRT tunnel at this time to save a couple minutes from the Woodroffe bus lanes).

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Dr.Z

40% of what? 40% of City-wide office or 40% of downtown floor space should be office? These are two separate numbers. The former and above study basically says that there is a lot of office outside of downtown in Ottawa.

Why on earth would you want to allocate/restrict office supply? Is there a fear that the suburbs are going to suck out all of the office downtown? The amount of office space and type is really a factor of net rent and proximity to clients and services and the market is ideally the best place to sort out how much of what goes where.

The 40 % figure, as well as the figures for all the other cities, is the current proportion of city wide office space located downtown. So 40% of the total Ottawa office space is downtown. And I am proposing to implement a bylaw requiring that the downtown should keep the 40% proportion. So for every million square feet of office space built in the city, 400,000 square feet should be built downtown.

So why should we implement such a bylaw?

-We are currently encouraging intensification inside the greenbelt, seeing bigger proportions of new residential units in the city. So why are we encouraging the opposite from employment areas?

-It is easier to build a transit system centred around downtown. Basically having rapid transit lines from all across the city converging in the one downtown tunnel.

-Similar to why most people would have preferred the Palladium to be built downtown, having the city’s jobs in a central location results in equal distance for everyone to get to and from their destination.

-For the people living in Gatineau and Orleans working for the RCMP or DND in a central location, it will be extremely disruptive for them once their jobs move to Barrhaven or the former Nortel campus. This will likely result in these people that once took frequent and relatively fast transit to switch to the more convenient option, the automobile (again, it’s easier to have all transit head to downtown in the morning and back to the burbs in the evening).

As for eternallyme, I think your numbers are pretty realistic, and I agree that no money should be invested for BRT in this area, or anywhere. Any transit money we can get should go on extending the ORT whenever possible. In this situation, a tunnel is the best option, and when built, it should be rail right off the bat and that rail corridor should extend all the way to Barrhaven.