Barrhaven LRT | Proposed

[SkeggsEggs]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Stage 3 Kanata (2018)
11 km - 8 stations
Station spacing - 1.4 km
Central feature - mostly elevated
$1.85B or $168 million per kilometer

What is the per kilometer cost to only Terry Fox? Only 710 million for Moodie to Terry Fox

[Mikeed]

Originally Posted by SkeggsEggs

What is the per kilometer cost to only Terry Fox? Only 710 million for Moodie to Terry Fox

It's roughly 6 km. 3 stations. 2 highway 417 pedestrian crossing bridges which I imagine are expensive, but highly worth it.

$118M per km.

If Terry Fox > Moodie is 6km.
Terry Fox > Hazeldean must be ~5km.

If Terry Fox > Moodie is 710M for 6km, or 118M per km,
Than Terry Fox > Hazeldean must be $1.14B for 5km, or 228M per km.

[waterloowarrior]

Agreed with many others. This should be in the long term plan perhaps, but the priority should be re-evaluated in the new TMP. Given this will be more shovel ready, has a Liberal MP, PC MPP, and a prominent local councillor allied with the mayor I think a funding announcement could be possible before then...

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Post Covid financial holes, investment will be limited. I would argue funds will also have to be freed up to simply maintain and operate the bus fleet. So extensions will be all about reducing deadheading and reducing bus usage. From that perspective going to Fallowfield in Barrhaven and Eaglson in Kanata may be enough. And none of this is probably getting a shovel in the ground before 2030. Probably 2035.

OT for this thread maybe, but stopping at Eagleson in Kanata would make no sense. A rapid transit link (either LRT or BRT) between Terry Fox and Eagleson is really essential for the local bus network in Kanata to be able to be effective.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

OT for this thread maybe, but stopping at Eagleson in Kanata would make no sense. A rapid transit link (either LRT or BRT) between Terry Fox and Eagleson is really essential for the local bus network in Kanata to be able to be effective.

I replied in the Kanata LRT EA - Bayshore to Palladium thread.

[J.OT13]

I'll put this here because I think that the Barrhaven extension, especially at that price, has the weakest business case.

Watson says this 30-year plan to cut GHG emissions is "not a blank cheque" for staff.

LRT is the "single biggest weapon", he adds.

https://twitter.com/KatePorterCBC/st...68878606786560

An all electric bus fleet would be a far greeter tool against GHG for far cheaper than a massive rail infrastructure project that produces a high amount of GHG during the building phase.

[OCCheetos]

Let me guess, "not a blank check" means no money for the Carling LRT or Baseline BRT, but billions for the Confederation Line?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I'll put this here because I think that the Barrhaven extension, especially at that price, has the weakest business case.


https://twitter.com/KatePorterCBC/st...68878606786560

An all electric bus fleet would be a far greeter tool against GHG for far cheaper than a massive rail infrastructure project that produces a high amount of GHG during the building phase.

I agree that if we can only do one thing, the best option is to start buying e-buses. While they cost about 33% more up front, the total cost of ownership is about 25% less, so it is a pay me now or pay me more later type situation. ref.

Having said that, if we can do both, both the dollar and carbon cost of building the line can be amortized over a much longer period than that of building a bus, as the developed ROW will be useful for many decades. Buses OTOH only last for 10-15 years.

[On Edge]

Confed should end at Blair and Bayshore and future funds have been put into Bank, Rideau-Montreal, and Carling surface LRT. Just saying.

[J.OT13]

If we can do both sure, but claiming that rail is the "single biggest weapon" is just not true. Stage 1 and 2 were huge, but Stage 3 will have limited impact on operating emissions. Electrifying the entire fleet, and not just buses, but the ENTIRE City fleet, would be far more impactful at reducing GHG.

Even after that, we'd still have Billions left for other green projects like retrofitting existing buildings to be more energy efficient, implementing vast improvements to our sanitary system in order to recycle/compost/re-use the majority of garbage (or "garbage"), add more parks and green space, plant trees, build the required infrastructure to stop all spillage into the Ottawa River (the new CSST reduces spillage significantly, but does not prevent all such events)...

[Ottawa Champ]

Originally Posted by On Edge

Confed should end at Blair and Bayshore and future funds have been put into Bank, Rideau-Montreal, and Carling surface LRT. Just saying.

Council is controlled by the suburbs and always will be. LRT will continue to extend out to every new subdivision without consideration for urban transit.

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by Ottawa Champ

Council is controlled by the suburbs and always will be. LRT will continue to extend out to every new subdivision without consideration for urban transit.

It's more of a regional rail plan at this point.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Ottawa Champ

Council is controlled by the suburbs and always will be. LRT will continue to extend out to every new subdivision without consideration for urban transit.

People on this forum like to spread FUD like that. The reality is there are 23 wards and each Councillors has an equal vote in council. If you look at the ward map, there are 11 wards outside of the greenbelt (including 4 Rural wards who don't care about transit) and 12 wards inside the greenbelt, so from a voting perspective, the Councillors inside the greenbelt have the edge.

[Ottawa Champ]

Originally Posted by roger1818

People on this forum like to spread FUD like that. The reality is there are 23 wards and each Councillors has an equal vote in council. If you look at the ward map, there are 11 wards outside of the greenbelt (including 4 Rural wards who don't care about transit) and 12 wards inside the greenbelt, so from a voting perspective, the Councillors inside the greenbelt have the edge.

The problem is that the inner greenbelt suburban councillors behaviours align more with the outer greenbelt councillors than the urban caucus. Their mindset around transit is still geared towards the 9 to 5 commuter crowd. Even if many of their constituents use transit regularly, the main voting block in those wards are still the middle class commuter families who live in mostly single homes.

Also, as long as transit dollars are being spent, rural councillors would prefer LRT along with park and rides at the edge of the suburban area as opposed to urban transit. This makes for an easy drive to the LRT for their constituents, many of whom commute to jobs in the core.

[Ottawa Champ]

Also, the last transit chair represented a rural ward!

[TheMatth69]

Watson should really watch this video. The perfect exemple of what to do and what not to do with Transit in North America. 9-5 downtown centric transit doesn't create ridership especially if you avoid major density hubs. However I have to say Ottawa is doing well with transit oriented urbanism Trinity Centre, the Blair condos or the Claridge tower are good exemples.

PS: couldn't put the link correctly, if someone can fix it, thanks

• Video Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZDZ...ab_channel=Vox

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by TheMatth69

Watson should really watch this video. The perfect exemple of what to do and what not to do with Transit in North America. 9-5 downtown centric transit doesn't create ridership especially if you avoid major density hubs. However I have to say Ottawa is doing well with transit oriented urbanism Trinity Centre, the Blair condos or the Claridge tower are good exemples.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZDZ...ab_channel=Vox

I have seen it before and agree it is a good video.

PS: couldn't put the link correctly, if someone can fix it, thanks

Here you go (you almost had it, you just needed to delete the information after the "&" as you only need the video tag, not the channel tag).

• Video Link

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I'll put this here because I think that the Barrhaven extension, especially at that price, has the weakest business case.


https://twitter.com/KatePorterCBC/st...68878606786560

An all electric bus fleet would be a far greeter tool against GHG for far cheaper than a massive rail infrastructure project that produces a high amount of GHG during the building phase.

An all electric fleet also substantially reduces the cost of deadheading. In any scenario where buses are all electric, there's no justification to go beyond the first stop after the Greenbelt.

[ars]

Originally Posted by On Edge

Confed should end at Blair and Bayshore and future funds have been put into Bank, Rideau-Montreal, and Carling surface LRT. Just saying.

As someone who lives in the suburbs, I agree. It's ridiculous that there still is no official plan for expanding the LRT to Bank.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Ottawa Champ

The problem is that the inner greenbelt suburban councillors behaviours align more with the outer greenbelt councillors than the urban caucus.

That may be true some of the time, but in terms of O-Train Stage 3, not so much. The vast majority of inner suburban wards would not benefit from Stage 3 (nor would Orleans), so from a purely selfish point of view, they wouldn't support it.

Their mindset around transit is still geared towards the 9 to 5 commuter crowd. Even if many of their constituents use transit regularly, the main voting block in those wards are still the middle class commuter families who live in mostly single homes.

I certainly don't disagree with you on that. The unfortunate reality is (assuming you consider only wards 12 (Rideau-Vanier), 13 (Rideau-Rockcliffe), 14 (Somerset), and 17 (Capital) to be urban, only about 17% of Ottawa's population lives in the urban area.

Also, as long as transit dollars are being spent, rural councillors would prefer LRT along with park and rides at the edge of the suburban area as opposed to urban transit. This makes for an easy drive to the LRT for their constituents, many of whom commute to jobs in the core.

Another piece of FUD that seems to be common here is that many/most people who live in Ottawa's rural and exurbs commute into central Ottawa. Sure some do, but I would be surprised if it is even as high as 25% (please prove me wrong if you have stats).

A corollary to that is the assumption on here that most people who live in the outer suburbs work downtown. Sure a lot do, but I would say most (as in >50%) work in the suburbs (either inner or outer). This is especially true in Kanata/Stittsville, where there are many local employment opportunities, though I am not so sure about Orleans or Barrhaven.

Originally Posted by Ottawa Champ

Also, the last transit chair represented a rural ward!

I thought the previous transit chair was Councillor Allan Hubley - Kanata South (ward 23). I agree that was a poor choice, but by no means a rural ward.