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

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by S-Man

I would love to see this, though I very much doubt how it could ever be, especially in Ottawa.

I was concerned after the election when the new Somerset councillor talked of making an 'urban bloc' (or something) of downtown councillors to advocate for their own interests. It struck me as the wrong thing to do and say, especially at this critical time in the city's history.

Once upon a time the Region decided the city's transit needs. Now it's councillors looking out for their futurevotes by placating squeaky wheels in their community and elevating those concerns over the needs of everyone else in the city.

I'd like to see what happens if/when this urban bloc (made up of Kitchissippi, Somerset, Capital and Rideau-Vanier, I assume) decides that LRT money would be better spent in the downtown, while those in Bay ward, Gloucester-Southgate and another in the east can beg for change.

Much worse cities have started turnarounds with the idea of civic engagement.
That urban bloc does seem fairly small-minded. Ottawa can't really improve if small-minded voters continue to elect small-minded leaders.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by defishel

(I think we've seen services diminished even).

Absolutely, with more diminishment planned, by design, by people who don't take transit.

Already we've seen route-splitting, forcing transfers just to get from one central neighbourhood to another; schedule cutbacks; capacity cutbacks with more runs being assigned to short buses instead of bendy ones; transfer points eliminated by moving former Rideau st routes to the upper level bridge at the Rideau Centre.

But if you try and raise a complaint with OC Transpo, the board, or your city councillor, they will tell you everything's fine.

Keep polishing that turd.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by S-Man

I'd like to see what happens if/when this urban bloc (made up of Kitchissippi, Somerset, Capital and Rideau-Vanier, I assume) decides that LRT money would be better spent in the downtown, while those in Bay ward, Gloucester-Southgate and another in the east can beg for change.

The urban bloc will always be outvoted by the suburban councillors, which is why most of urban Ottawa will not see any real transit investment in our lifetimes, that of our children, or likely that of our grandchildren, except insofar as it is incidental to moving people from their suburban residential cul-de-sacs to their offices downtown, at Tunney's, or in Hull, and back again.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by silvergate

Much worse cities have started turnarounds with the idea of civic engagement.
That urban bloc does seem fairly small-minded. Ottawa can't really improve if small-minded voters continue to elect small-minded leaders.

What's small-minded about it? It's about time the urban councillors grew some gonads. I just hope it doesn't mean, as is their historical trend, allying themselves with self-styled NIMBYist guardians of community values.

[rocketphish]

The NCC is expanding the options for light rail

Mark Kristmanson, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: November 24, 2014, Last Updated: November 24, 2014 11:55 AM EST

The National Capital Commission believes a light rail transit system will be a great addition to an already spectacular capital city.

That’s why the NCC has fast-tracked more than 100 land transactions for the 12.5 kilometres from Tunney’s Pasture to Blair Road.

The NCC has constructively engaged with the city in its phase two environmental assessment, to be completed next summer. This phase includes the extension from Tunney’s Pasture to Lincoln Fields.

The NCC shares the city’s vision for light rail that is affordable, rapid, effective, and that preserves our environment and ecology. We need to think of this project’s impact, not just for today, but 100 years hence.

In reviewing possible alignments from Tunney’s Pasture to Lincoln Fields, the city’s preferred route is on NCC lands along the Ottawa River shoreline, adjacent to the Sir John A. Macdonald Parkway.

The NCC will allow these national lands to be used, provided that the transit line offers continuous access to the river and minimizes the visual and environmental impact on the corridor’s landscape.

Following a detailed review of documents and data provided by the city, the NCC’s experts concluded that the only way our shoreline objectives can be achieved is if the transit line is constructed as a tunnel.

Last week, when the NCC’s Board examined the latest evidence, it concluded that the public and the city should be informed right away of its conclusions. The sooner the city is made aware of our analysis the better able it will be to complete its environmental assessment.

Preserving access to the extraordinary beauty of the riverfront has significance for our children and grandchildren. Its ecological and recreational potential cannot be readily reclaimed if an imposing infrastructure is given priority.

As the city densifies and grows, protecting the best of our capital becomes all the more important. In fact, hundreds of residents and experts have joined us to envision a waterfront linear park extending from the Canadian War Museum to Britannia. Enhancing this world-class gem can only unfold in harmony with light rail submerged in a tunnel configuration.

The city has other options. This includes moving light rail away from the shoreline by turning into Rochester Field. This crucial open area is owned by the NCC, which will make the land available.

If the line moves inland, the city can determine a route that best meets its overall objectives, including the opportunity to place transit stops close to where people live. It would be up to the city to determine if a transit line that extends up from Rochester Field would be a tunnel, buried below grade, or run on grade.

By making Rochester Field available to the city the NCC is expanding the options, which we ask be fully compared in the ongoing environmental assessment.

Studying only the shoreline option, with partially buried configurations, as the city is doing today, will not move an effective light rail solution closer to reality.

The city’s data show us that the greater the investment in a deeper buried option to retain the essential shoreline character, the more viable becomes a re-alignment through Rochester Field — potentially achieving city-building and conservation at a comparable cost.

For this reason, the NCC is asking the city to include the Rochester Field route as part of its ongoing environmental assessment process.

The NCC Board communicated its recommendation as soon as was possible both to the city and to the public, occasioning a very lively public conversation. We believe this debate should be carried into the city’s consultations for the environmental assessment. It is in this context that an evidence-based decision can be made to select an affordable option that best respects our vital and thriving city that is also Canada’s beautiful and unique northern capital.

For its part, the NCC will continue its ongoing public consultation initiatives regarding the Ottawa River shoreline and the creation of a future Sir John A. Macdonald waterfront park.

Dr. Mark Kristmanson is the CEO of the National Capital Commission.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...for-light-rail

[rocketphish]

Rochester Field for western LRT?

By Kelly Roche, Ottawa Sun
First posted: Friday, November 21, 2014 10:34 PM EST | Updated: Saturday, November 22, 2014 04:20 PM EST

Gary Boyd is applauding the National Capital Commission's decision to deny the city's request for an LRT extension across federal land.

"That's what we were hoping for," said the Fraser Ave. resident.

"We really don't want it to go by here at all and have the disruption."

NCC officials held a surprise press conference downtown Friday morning, announcing two options for the city and its massive transit project: Bury the stretch near the Sir John A. Macdonald Pkwy., or use Rochester Field.

"That was always, what we felt, was the best option ... to go across Rochester Field," Boyd said.

The city is now left finding an acceptable preferred route.

Boyd has been considering selling his home for at least a year now, due to the project.

"It is getting very busy; another condo being built behind us so I don't think anything's changed that way; move somewhere quieter," he said.

But many residents are staying put.

Kitchissippi Coun. Katherine Hobbs said the community was never happy about the prospect of Rochester Field being an option for an LRT cut-through.

"I think now it looks like we're going to have to look at that corridor," Hobbs said, adding she believes it's a "valuable piece of land" that should be used for something "green-related."

Hobbs's term as councillor ends Nov. 30 since she was defeated in the municipal election.

Jeff Leiper, the councillor-elect for Kitchissippi, said any impact to the green space in Rochester Field would be "unacceptable."

The fear in the community now is that the Byron linear park could once again be in play after the city found a route that avoided eliminating the strip of parkland.

Leiper said it would be a surprise if council agreed to any option that would sacrifice the Byron linear park, something he's "adamantly opposed" to.

"I'm still digesting the implications of the announcement," Leiper said.

A spokesman for federal minister John Baird said the NCC's move isn't political, noting the city can't take federal land availability for granted.

"The NCC has an important responsibility to protect our nation's capital and its green space. The city's job is public transit," Adam Hodge wrote in an e-mail.

The feds "remain confident" the NCC and city "can come to a decision that is beneficial for the people of Ottawa."

-With files from Jon Willing

@kellyroche6

http://www.ottawasun.com/2014/11/21/...or-western-lrt

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

"The NCC has an important responsibility to protect our nation's capital and its green space. The city's job is public transit," Adam Hodge wrote in an e-mail.

Abolish the NCC.

Abolish, abolish, abolish, abolish, abolish.

Abolish the "greenspace" fetishism and pave every blade of Nationally Significant Grass for All Canadians.

Abolish, abolish, abolish.

[acottawa]

The hypocrisy on both sides is pretty ridiculous.

1. The NCC is concerned about potential "eyesores" and impeding access to the river only when talking about trams, despite the fact it owns a giant eyesore freeway that makes it very difficult to get to the river. They should be burying the SJAM expressway.

2. The city is quite happy to spend big bucks to bury the LRT when running on its "greenspace" but then is horrified when the NCC wants it to bury the LRT on their greenspace.

It seems to me the best solution is using the Byron/Richmond RoW all the way from Holland (with a short tunnel to Tunney's) - it is a corridor that was designed for light rail from the beginning and is much closer to sources of ridership than SJAM (which has very little in walking distance).

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It seems to me the best solution is using the Byron/Richmond RoW all the way from Holland (with a short tunnel to Tunney's) - it is a corridor that was designed for light rail from the beginning and is much closer to sources of ridership than SJAM (which has very little in walking distance).

Really ???? Isn't the point of the LRT supposed to be pseudo-rapid transit? How can that be if it's chugging down Byron with a dozen or more at-grade crossings over 5km ??

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

Really ???? Isn't the point of the LRT supposed to be pseudo-rapid transit? How can that be if it's chugging down Byron with a dozen or more at-grade crossings over 5km ??

They would need to close them. Woodroffe is the only one that critically must be maintained - most likely the LRT would sink underneath. The endpoints would be grade separated - either elevated or tunnelled - anyway.

[Kitchissippi]

The difference between the proposed "Richmond Underground" route and one that goes through Rochester Field is a 500 metre cut and cover tunnel under Richmond instead or a partially buried/bermed line close to the Parkway.

Considering the fact that the NCC is OK with having the line partially on surface through Rochester Field and that Cleary Station would no longer require the expropriation of private property on the north side (as it could be similar to the design of New Orchard and use up just a little bit of linear park space but still keep it continuous), the cost difference should be negligible. The city just needs to be willing to sharpen their pencils.

[Harley613]

I think these are the two routes we are comparing:
Byron is 3.15kms:

The Parkway Route is 3.41kms:


The Byron route hits a lot of high density housing and opens up a lot of opportunites for more. The parkway route is like a bypass..I think it would be a huge mistake.

[Kitchissippi]

No, the city's proposed route is this;
http://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/doc...nderground.pdf

[Kitchissippi]

The option the NCC wants to revisit is this, which the city curiously priced at 1.7 billion, $800 million more (more that the cost of the $681 million downtown tunnel), and was rejected at the first round.

http://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/doc...chmondug_0.pdf


surely there is a middle ground here, as the costing was clearly a mistake, and a hybrid of what is proposed for the Richmond Underground route and this is definitely possible.

furthermore, the option the city advanced was one that had the train running completely on surface along the linear park which the residents were really against, just to make the Richmond Underground route look good.
http://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/doc..._rochester.pdf


The city has been utterly devious here, and should hardly pretend to be the victim of the NCC's manipulations

[1overcosc]

At first I was very angry about this announcement, but as more info becomes available and I digest it all, I think I'm coming around to this. The NCC didn't give us what we wanted but they did give us free use of Rochester Field. That's a plus. And they did lay out clear and specific conditions of what they will accept and what they won't, four years in advance of when construction has to begin, which gives us lots of time to work it out. It's the next best thing to just letting the city do it.

It may still be possible to fit the $980M budget with Rochester Field AND go underneath all of Byron Park, by applying the cheap 'covered berm' solution we originally wanted to use for Skead Street to the whole of Byron Park. The extra cost of adding a shallow covered trench between Cleary and Rochester Field could be offset by the savings of replacing the originally planned bored tunnel between Cleary & New Orchard with a shallow covered trench as well. Heck, by avoiding the water table issues originally associated with Skead Street it might even be cheaper. Plus it could allow us to rejig the stations to better serve the community--I like Dado's idea of moving Dominion down to Richmond Road @ Rochester Field, then moving Westboro over to Churchill and then adding an infill station at Island Park.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

Really ???? Isn't the point of the LRT supposed to be pseudo-rapid transit? How can that be if it's chugging down Byron with a dozen or more at-grade crossings over 5km ??

Hardly any North-South streets on the west side actually go very far: Island Park, Kirkwood, Tweedsmuir, Churchill. I suspect a handful of grade separations and a pedestrian crossing every 500m or so would be a lot cheaper than either the NCC or city options and serve a lot more people.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

First of all, there is absolutely no possibility of a surface rail line on the old Britannia tramway right of way. What we are proposing is not anything like the old Britannia streetcar. The trains will be bigger, much more frequent and running faster. The line has to be grade separated with no level crossings. We just have to look at the issue of the level crossing in Barrhaven and there is something like 7 trains a day in each direction. It is a safety issue but it is also traffic issue.

And it's that kind of dogmatic attitude that leads to such high cost projects in this city.

Right now, all the buses that this line will replace go through two traffic lights at Dominion and Lincoln Fields. However many trains run, they will be much less frequent than the hordes of buses going through now. So, if we supposed for a moment that the line would run down the Parkway median, it would be entirely practical to run them at grade at the same two locations.

But we're not; we have to get the line across Richmond at Rochester Field. Is Richmond Rd any busier than the Parkway? Probably not since it is a single lane road in each direction (the multiple lanes in that section are orphaned, and would be replaced with rail anyway). So it's not like bringing the line across Rochester Field at grade and then across Richmond is some kind of unworkable solution.

Just go over to the Edmonton board and read about the traffic chaos being caused by ETS trains at level crossings. They created a bad design to save money and it is going to be very difficult to fix it.

I would strongly suspect that those problems occur at major *intersections* where there are multiple turning movements to accommodate. The problem the traffic engineers have to solve at such a location is to organize all the usual turn signal timings while adding in a timing for pre-empting trains. It's one of the reasons why going down Carling would be such a chore. By contrast, just taking a train across a road is a far simpler problem. For the traffic engineers, it's about as difficult as organizing a pedestrian demand crossing at a mid-block location, i.e. not very.

Now Woodroffe is an actual problem, since it's at a major intersection. It probably would be best to go below grade here.

I did take your advice and go over to the Edmonton board's transit thread (they surprisingly don't have one on roads). I had to go back all the way to May to find anything like what you suggest, but that was just a link to an Edmonton Sun columnist predicting doom and gloom due to a proposed line taking over road lanes (hello Carling!). I didn't find anything else along the lines you're suggesting going all the way back to the beginning of the year and into last. What I did find was, amongst other things, discussions on trade-offs of cost on tunnelling vs surface.

The bus-based Transitway, with its near-requirement for grade separation, has unfortunately coloured how most people in Ottawa think about rapid transit, be it the City, the NCC, or the public.

[Trans Canada]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

No, the city's proposed route is this;
http://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/doc...nderground.pdf

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

The option the NCC wants to revisit is this, which the city curiously priced at 1.7 billion, $800 million more (more that the cost of the $681 million downtown tunnel), and was rejected at the first round.

http://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/doc...chmondug_0.pdf


surely there is a middle ground here, as the costing was clearly a mistake, and a hybrid of what is proposed for the Richmond Underground route and this is definitely possible.

furthermore, the option the city advanced was one that had the train running completely on surface along the linear park which the residents were really against, just to make the Richmond Underground route look good.
http://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/doc..._rochester.pdf


The city has been utterly devious here, and should hardly pretend to be the victim of the NCC's manipulations

Fixed your images for you; pdfs don't show in [img] tags (for me at least). Click images for full size.

[RTWAP]

I think the NCC will stick to their guns and the city will end up compromising with the local community. Close two lanes of Richmond, put the LRT between the Park and Richmond, and go with a mix of surface, lowered, burm-covered, and sub-surface. I did a quick MSPaint and it looks like they could get about 20% surface, 30% partially below grade bermed or glass canopy, and 50% cut and cover (including stations), while providing 7 crossing for traffic. It will come down to the details, like a more stringent noise standard (better welds?) or fancy ornate overhead supports, or glass canopies to reduce noise.

But at the end of the day, the NCC isn't going to let them do it cheap by the river, and that was the only reason to go there. If they can save a lot of money by going on Richmond then go on Richmond.

[JM1]

I don't get why people want to preserve Byron linear park west of Rochester field. You could run LRT down it (or under it) at very little cost. The trams are not rickety squeaky old things and they will be running on straight track along Byron. They will also be far quieter than buses. If they were running around a curve, that might be different, but they won't be. The trains should be quiet and they will be sleek looking enough that they won't be too much of a visual intrusion.