Confederation Line East LRT Extension (Stage 2) [Blair to Trim] | U/C

[lrt's friend]

The stations that most want to drop are the stations with the most opportunity for TOD.

If we want to promote traditional autocentric suburban design, place stations only where there is park n ride lots or in the middle of pedestrian hostile interchanges.

The design of LRT in Orleans is our one opportunity to urbanize the corridor between the 174 and St. Joseph Blvd.

I think we need to start being more consistent with our arguments.

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The stations that most want to drop are the stations with the most opportunity for TOD.

If we want to promote traditional autocentric suburban design, place stations only where there is park n ride lots or in the middle of pedestrian hostile interchanges.

The design of LRT in Orleans is our one opportunity to urbanize the corridor between the 174 and St. Joseph Blvd.

I think we need to start being more consistent with our arguments.

Another thought on the number of stations in Orleans: The only people actuall affected by this live in eastern orleans. Everyone else in the middle of the city will continue to have a consistent schedule no matter what.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by silvergate

Another thought on the number of stations in Orleans: The only people actuall affected by this live in eastern orleans.

This depends on whether you are talking about constrution costs or operational costs. Additional stations in Orleans may mean fewer or downgraded stations elsewhere in the city. If the additional stations are being funded by Rockland/Cumberland then that is a different situation.

Originally Posted by silvergate

Everyone else in the middle of the city will continue to have a consistent schedule no matter what.

You are correct on this point since it will not take people any longer to get to downtown if you live west of Place d'Orleans. The system should not be designed only to offer quick service from the suburbs to downtown. It needs to service the inner city residents as well as has been mentioned in many previous posts on this subject.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The stations that most want to drop are the stations with the most opportunity for TOD.

If we want to promote traditional autocentric suburban design, place stations only where there is park n ride lots or in the middle of pedestrian hostile interchanges.

The design of LRT in Orleans is our one opportunity to urbanize the corridor between the 174 and St. Joseph Blvd.

I think we need to start being more consistent with our arguments.

+1.

I don't see what the problem is with the station number and locations as proposed, except that there aren't enough of them inside the Greenbelt.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

This depends on whether you are talking about constrution costs or operational costs. Additional stations in Orleans may mean fewer or downgraded stations elsewhere in the city. If the additional stations are being funded by Rockland/Cumberland then that is a different situation.

t.

Cumberland is within the City of Ottawa, so those are the same city of Ottawa funds there. Rockland (Clarence-Rockland) is not in Ottawa.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

+1.

I don't see what the problem is with the station number and locations as proposed, except that there aren't enough of them inside the Greenbelt.

Needless to say the problem with having stations everywhere is it makes the system god awful slow.

[MoreTrains]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

+1.

I don't see what the problem is with the station number and locations as proposed, except that there aren't enough of them inside the Greenbelt.

I think that is the main issue that we have, is that the number of stops within the greenbelt have actually been reduced compared to Orleans.

[eternallyme]

Looking at the potential use and TOD opportunities at each station:

Jasmine Crescent (not on plans, but useful) - Not exactly a redevelopment spot unless the Pineview Golf Course becomes available, and even then it would have limited impact due to the Greenbelt and Green's Creek. However, it is already a dense area with demographics highly conducive to transit, so Day 1 ridership would likely be quite high - even if there is limited potential for future growth unless the area becomes even more dense.

Montreal Road - Limited redevelopment opportunity due to the Greenbelt and the industrial zoning of the area. A station there would mostly serve the business lands on Canotek Road, and to a lesser extent, the eastern part of Beacon Hill. Route 194 could be eliminated as a result as most of the route would be close to the LRT station. Ridership would be fairly low throughout most likely (i.e. levels of, say, Iris or Cyrville Stations).

Jeanne d'Arc Boulevard - There is definitely good redevelopment opportunity on the Youville side of RR174, but it is fairly stable to the north. Nonetheless, ridership is moderate to high at this location already. The lands on Youville will gain value so that area might open up.

Orleans Boulevard - Minimal development opportunity here. The communities are fairly stable with mostly single family homes and not much land available. Any station here would service local residents - ridership would be similar to today's Jeanne d'Arc Station. Local buses aren't a good indicator since bus service nearby is relatively minimal. I recommend deferring this station.

Place d'Orleans - Talk about a gold mine here. If, as expected, the mall struggles in the next 10 to 20 years, this is a golden redevelopment opportunity with significant land available. It could even be a "downtown" for Orleans. However, a clear structural plan needs to come forward so the opportunity isn't wasted with big box stores or other pointless uses. A possibly comparable location would be Reston Town Centre in Reston, VA (near Washington, DC). As this would be the local bus collection point, Day 1 ridership would be quite high here too.

Tenth Line Road - The area is largely undeveloped surrounding the interchange, with medium-density residential farther away. That means ridership would be very low here. However, the area is mostly parkland, and there would be local controversy if the area is developed. That said, if they develop such, a TOD opportunity does exist to a slight degree (but would be overshadowed by Place d'Orleans). Taylor Creek is too far away for any real catchment from this location. I recommend deferring this station.

Trim Road - It is likely this will be mostly a Park and Ride station. That said, there is a great deal of development opportunities - some already being used - in the vicinity of this station. That includes both the Petrie Island side and the Taylor Creek/Sealtest side. If the business park and dairy lands become available, this could be prime for redevelopment. But that could be farther down the road.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The stations that most want to drop are the stations with the most opportunity for TOD.

If we want to promote traditional autocentric suburban design, place stations only where there is park n ride lots or in the middle of pedestrian hostile interchanges.

The design of LRT in Orleans is our one opportunity to urbanize the corridor between the 174 and St. Joseph Blvd.

I think we need to start being more consistent with our arguments.

I think I'm pretty consistent with my arguments. Why should Orleans have a higher density of stations then the segment within the Greenbelt? I have one answer: because it's cheap. The segment to Orleans doesn't require tunnels & there's minimal haggling with the MTO or NCC. But cheap doesn't mean serves the city the best. I agree with you about pedestrian hostile interchanges. But again, costs. Running the line from Blair along Ogilvie/Montreal/St-Jopesh towards Orleans would bring it closer to people (better IMO) but would cost a bundle since the city would probably have to bury it much of the way there. (I'm sure some would propose we run the LRT on the road but this isn't a tram were building, it's essentially a subway with LRT tech.)

There might be potential for TOD between the 174/St-Joseph but I don't see lots of it happening in the near future even if LRT is built with 7 stations operating at opening along the 174. I say plan for all the stations now but don't build them yet. The current TransitWay only serves Jeanne d'Arc, Place d'Orleans & Trim so even if LRT only has 4 or 5 stations operating on opening day it'll be an improvement over today.

Maybe I'm being too pessimistic.

[OTSkyline]

Some of those Orleans stations need to be nixed. And to all arguing it won't affect anyone but the Orleans residents think of the two most important resources; time and money.

Time: If we keep the same amount of trains on the line but the train needs to make 7 or 8 stops in Orleans instead of 4 or 5, that means the system is automatically slower. That means, by not having so many stations, frequency ON THE ENTIRE LINE, could be better.

Cost: What is the average cost of an LRT station on the confederation line? Even if they are more "bare bones" than, let's say, the Hurdman station, I'm sure it is still in the tens of millions of dollars. Multiply that by 3 or 4 and you have easily over 100 million saved up which can be used to extend the existing lines to South, East or West.

It's simple and easy...

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

Some of those Orleans stations need to be nixed. And to all arguing it won't affect anyone but the Orleans residents think of the two most important resources; time and money.

Time: If we keep the same amount of trains on the line but the train needs to make 7 or 8 stops in Orleans instead of 4 or 5, that means the system is automatically slower. That means, by not having so many stations, frequency ON THE ENTIRE LINE, could be better.

Cost: What is the average cost of an LRT station on the confederation line? Even if they are more "bare bones" than, let's say, the Hurdman station, I'm sure it is still in the tens of millions of dollars. Multiply that by 3 or 4 and you have easily over 100 million saved up which can be used to extend the existing lines to South, East or West.

It's simple and easy...

Not only do you have to consider the above factors but you also have to consider equipment requirements. At some point travelling additional km or taking longer to travel the existing km requires additional equipment. This obviously requires additional equipment or frequency reductions. Hopefully frequency reductions would not be required with this plan. If the dwell time at the end points are reduced because of either of these factors then the schedule reliability is thrown into question. Who is going to pay for additional vehicles?

[lrt's friend]

I have said this before, that a station at the Shenkman Arts Centre is critical if we want to urbanize Orleans at all. This is where there has been an ongoing attempt to build a more traditional urban commercial area. It is also the location of public facilities including the afforementioned arts centre but also the municipal service centre for the east end of the city. That was the former Cumberland municipal hall. It is also the location of a multi-plex cinema. To me this is a no brainer. Without a station at this location, we can kiss goodbye further efforts to urbanize this location. We are also making easy access to the mentioned public facilities only available by automobile.

The station at Place d'Orleans many not be a long distance away but the entire distance is pedestrian hostile.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I have said this before, that a station at the Shenkman Arts Centre is critical if we want to urbanize Orleans at all. This is where there has been an ongoing attempt to build a more traditional urban commercial area. It is also the location of public facilities including the afforementioned arts centre but also the municipal service centre for the east end of the city. That was the former Cumberland municipal hall. It is also the location of a multi-plex cinema. To me this is a no brainer. Without a station at this location, we can kiss goodbye further efforts to urbanize this location. We are also making easy access to the mentioned public facilities only available by automobile.

The station at Place d'Orleans many not be a long distance away but the entire distance is pedestrian hostile.

It may be pedestrian hostile today, but it may not necessarily be in the future.

[J.OT13]

I posted this in the Trillium Line thread, and I'll place it here too:

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Display boards are up
http://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/doc..._boards_en.pdf

In parallel to our discussion on the East ORT extension, check out page 3's "Ultimate Network" diagram. The long haul through the inner city has 22 stations on the 30 or so kilometers from Bayshore to Montreal/174 while Kanata proper between Eagleson and Huntmar 7 stations on 4.5 kilometers.

Barrhaven gets 5 stations on 4 kilometres, Riverside South has about 6 stations on roughly 4 kilometers. Of course Orleans has 7 stations on 6 kilometers.

Calculate stations per kilometer (stations/kilometers):

Inner Greenbelt: 1/1.36
Kanata: 1/0.642
Barrhaven: 1/0.9
Riverside South: 1/0.66
Orleans: 1/0.857

Can anyone spot the problem?

[DEWLine]

Tenth Line and Trim will both be feeding from Avalon.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I have said this before, that a station at the Shenkman Arts Centre is critical if we want to urbanize Orleans at all. This is where there has been an ongoing attempt to build a more traditional urban commercial area. It is also the location of public facilities including the afforementioned arts centre but also the municipal service centre for the east end of the city. That was the former Cumberland municipal hall. It is also the location of a multi-plex cinema. To me this is a no brainer. Without a station at this location, we can kiss goodbye further efforts to urbanize this location. We are also making easy access to the mentioned public facilities only available by automobile.

The station at Place d'Orleans many not be a long distance away but the entire distance is pedestrian hostile.

I see what you were saying about the inner greenbelt (Trillium Line thread) and NIMBYs, but more could be done regardless to better serve the central area such as building Bayview to eventually connect N/S with the downtown subway, re-align and add stations between Dominion and Lincoln Fields (should have at least 3, not just two).

As for the suburbs, again I understand wanting to better intergrate future development around stations, but a few are questionable. Orleans Boulevard has 0 TOD potential. Just a bunch of suburban winding roads on each side of the highway. It will likely have the lowest ridership anywhere in Ottawa.

Station at Place d'Orleans and at Shenkman is way overkill. Just build one station in between. I mean Christ, the two buildings are literally a stones throw away from one another.

And two stations between Shenkman and Trim, why?

If we have 500 meters between stations downtown where 100,000 people live and/or work and thousands more go for shopping and entertainment, a place where stations will have tens of thousands of people going through all day, everyday, we sure as hell should not require stations every 250-500 meters in the burbs.

[silvergate]

I think they should compromise in Orleans. I like the idea of the two stations at Place and Shenkman. Maybe they could end up joined together like chatelet-les halles in Paris. They should never consider putting a station at 10th line. If the train is following the 174 then there is almost 0 walk up potential for that area. Just use busses to ferry people either to Trim or to Shenkman/Place and forget 10th line.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I see what you were saying about the inner greenbelt (Trillium Line thread) and NIMBYs, but more could be done regardless to better serve the central area such as building Bayview to eventually connect N/S with the downtown subway, re-align and add stations between Dominion and Lincoln Fields (should have at least 3, not just two).

As for the suburbs, again I understand wanting to better intergrate future development around stations, but a few are questionable. Orleans Boulevard has 0 TOD potential. Just a bunch of suburban winding roads on each side of the highway. It will likely have the lowest ridership anywhere in Ottawa.

Station at Place d'Orleans and at Shenkman is way overkill. Just build one station in between. I mean Christ, the two buildings are literally a stones throw away from one another.

And two stations between Shenkman and Trim, why?

If we have 500 meters between stations downtown where 100,000 people live and/or work and thousands more go for shopping and entertainment, a place where stations will have tens of thousands of people going through all day, everyday, we sure as hell should not require stations every 250-500 meters in the burbs.

Agreed that Orleans Boulevard has no TOD potential - it would be the Day 1 ridership and that is it. It is true that Jeanne d'Arc is similar, but at least it has established transfer connections and the Youville area might be developable.

The discussion about Shenkman makes me think there needs to be a structure plan for Place d'Orleans area concurrently with the LRT planning. It also has to consider the shape of the tracks (i.e. on a straight section) and has to consider bus connections.

As for the entire corridor, the question is where to place it:

1) RR174 median (it would resemble Crowchild Trail in northwest Calgary, or Allen Road in Toronto, some work required but the lanes could be restriped anyway)

2) North side of RR174 within ROW

3) South side of RR174 within ROW

My preference is north side as far as the station at Montreal Road (shortest distance to trip generators and does not require any structures over RR174), then median through the Greenbelt and west Orleans (least impact on NCC lands, no major interchange reconstruction required at Jeanne d'Arc and easiest to built a station at Orleans Boulevard if desired), then depends on structure plan for Place d'Orleans but likely on south side. Median throughout would be my second choice.

[Acajack]

The Place vs. Shenkman debate shows how old planning decisions can sometimes lock you into to something less desirable. I am sure that the city is going to want to repurpose the current Place station if it can even though it's not the best location and at the very least it should be near the Royal Bank branch near the corner of Centrum and Place d'Orléans Drive, and connected to the mall across the street by some sort of passerelle but with its main outflow being the Centrum Blvd. sector.

I am sure that the current Place station made sense for some reason at some point in the past...

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The Place vs. Shenkman debate shows how old planning decisions can sometimes lock you into to something less desirable. I am sure that the city is going to want to repurpose the current Place station if it can even though it's not the best location and at the very least it should be near the Royal Bank branch near the corner of Centrum and Place d'Orléans Drive, and connected to the mall across the street by some sort of passerelle but with its main outflow being the Centrum Blvd. sector.

I am sure that the current Place station made sense for some reason at some point in the past...

If they want to use the current Place d'Orléans station to save money, fine. But converting the current station and building a new one meters away at Shenkman is asinine. Build 1 brand new station in between. Don't double down on stations 200 meters apart. Enough with the laziness. This is even dumber than the distance between bus stops on Montreal Road.