Jump to content

Beyond Stage 2: The Next Steps


Recommended Posts

Sad day for many of us who hoped for what would be an OC operated link to Gatineau using the PoW bridge.

Mayor Watson has indicated that he would support a conversion of PoW into a cyclist and pedestrian bridge, citing quite clearly that rail will not operate on the link in the future.

This basically kills two birds with one stone: Moose, and the proposed link which was part of Stage 3. In all fairness, it might actually help accelerate the start of Stage 3, though I don’t think the cost related to this specific part was major.

Some of the cited reasons by the city and other groups over time.

- Bayview doesn’t have enough built capacity, even if expanded as with stage 2.

- If built, there would be no proper feeder service on the Gatineau side, leading to poor connectivity.

- Work group between the STO and OC looking on how to integrate both rail projects. No further details provided.

  • Like 1
Link to post
  • Replies 28
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hey @occheetos. The new additions you are planning for the map are fantastic. Thank you for sharing some screenshots on the forums. Really gives a great visualization of the line and future expansion

It weird how just a few weeks ago the Mayor was talking about the future being linked to the POW bridge.     I see no reason for a short term proof of concept in which the Trillium is extended over to

Another look, this time at the full system! My digitization of what was on the display boards can be found here if anyone wants to play around with the data. They'll be similar in hue to t

Posted Images

It weird how just a few weeks ago the Mayor was talking about the future being linked to the POW bridge.     I see no reason for a short term proof of concept in which the Trillium is extended over to the Tache bus stop.  I bet it could be done by next summer for very little money.  Why wait for 10 years?  Just build it and see what happens.  We know what will happen, commuters in Quebec will bus/walk to Trillium to connect at Bayview.  And Commuters in Ottawa will connect to get the bus at Tache and arrive at Portage Place. See how it works and build on it.

I totally get how difficult the planning process is and how fraught with personalities, politics, and bad underlying information drive all mad, but here is my problem with the reasons given for ditching the POW.... To build Bayview for a bazillion dollars as a station where people are to change lines, with the POW as part of the futures plans, and then claim there is no capacity... is either intentionally misleading or negligent planning.  

And someone needs to tell me why, with 4 bridges designed to transport cars, humans, and bicycles, and 1 designed to transport trains.... we need to use the train bridge to transport more humans and bicycles????

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Other news in the "beyond Stage 2" topic: it was the first consultation for the Barrhaven LRT EA, which meant we got a first view of what would be the alignment beyond Baseline. The stations on the LRT would be the following.

  • Tallwood
  • Knoxdale
  • West Hunt Club
  • Fallowfield
  • Longfields
  • Strandherd
  • Barrhaven Centre

The alignment would mostly follow the current BRT, however due the limited space, the configuration from Baseline to West Hunt Club is still under consideration. image.thumb.png.b3f8f71d3113110097e8ae3a9e311ddd.png

Given the landscape and available space, it will either need to be fully trench / underground, or overhead for this entire section. Track geometry requirements dictate this requirement. The suggested track configuration are the following:

  • Over or under Woodroffe, reducing lanes during and after construction. This would either be centrally located or to the side.
  • Over or under the side of Woodroffe, reducing impact during construction but requiring the demolition of existing properties. This would result in the most direct alignment.
  • East or West alignment for West Hunt Club station, with a overhead crossing for pedestrian.

Beyond West Hunt Club, the crossing over VIA's track would be entirely grade separated, with the LRT going over the VIA ROW. No matter which configuration is chosen from Baseline to West Hunt Club, the recommended option is to built it as an overpass and have Fallowfield station be elevated, allowing access to VIA Fallowfield during construction and potential future integration. After Fallowfield, the track would be at grade, with Fallowfield road being redirected with an overpass.image.thumb.png.dd232fe6c079b1ce60d77bac0bb77d5d.png

Beyond Fallowfield, the line would remain at grade up to Highbury Park Drive, where it would become a trench all the way to Barrhaven Centre. Current crossings would be turned into overpass so that there is no interference. Tracks would be prolongated beyond Barrhaven Centre so that trains can be parked there if needed. Worth noting that, as of now, the only station with two platforms would be Longfields as all the others would be island platforms. However, given the uncertainty for the Baseline to West Hunt Club, it could differ also.image.thumb.png.2200daad87d6b72f7d654663c3522297.png

Due to operational requirements, the Barrhaven LRT would need a Train Storage Facility at launch, otherwise operations would be inefficient. 6 locations are considered (numbers on the maps), each of them with considerable impact due to the close proximity of construction and uncertainty regarding the soil. Feedback was requested in regards to the proposed locations.

Since it was the first consultation, nothing is definitive, with a second consultation expected in early 2020. Per the TMP, projected peak AM ridership in 2031 would be 4500 passengers per hour, with further projections being part of the next TMP. No projected start of work date was submitted, which likely indicate a post-2030 implementation.

Also noted was the need for active water management, due to the existing conditions and potential liquefaction of the ground in certain areas. This will likely increase the construction cost as they are required no matter the configuration chose.

Edited by DavidBellerive
Link to post
13 hours ago, DavidBellerive said:

image.thumb.png.dd232fe6c079b1ce60d77bac0bb77d5d.png

 

Does anyone know what the development plan is for around the Fallowfield area?   If someone tells me, "oh there is going to 4 strip malls, 3 condo buildings and lots of surface parking for Costco going in, I am going to strangle them... ok, maybe not...but where two growing train systems overlap, development booms.  The area in my high tech ms paint diagram should be developed like a town/community/high street/etc...  A walk-able community with residences, offices, trade, etc...  not single family homes with a need for lots of cars and buses to take people to the transit center.

Anyone have any leads on where this development info is?

barr-fallow.jpg

Edited by Herlsone
spelling
Link to post
3 hours ago, Herlsone said:

Does anyone know what the development plan is for around the Fallowfield area?   If someone tells me, "oh there is going to 4 strip malls, 3 condo buildings and lots of surface parking for Costco going in, I am going to strangle them... ok, maybe not...but where two growing train systems overlap, development booms.  The area in my high tech ms paint diagram should be developed like a town/community/high street/etc...  A walk-able community with residences, offices, trade, etc...  not single family homes with a need for lots of cars and buses to take people to the transit center.

Anyone have any leads on where this development info is?

Most of the land you marked on this map is under NCC control, so there is no real opportunity for the city to impose densification. It seems to me that Fallowfield is a "while at it" platform to connect with VIA, but no "real need" for it. Barrhaven is, to me at least, a urban planner nightmare as it such a bad use of space and makes any densification difficult. The greenbelt is IMO important as it was meant to stop the cities from spreading further, so the city just decided to "jump over it". What a stupid approach.

EDIT: I was informed on Twitter that some of the land has development restrictions due to the landing path at YOW. I cannot confirm entirely how much impact it has, but definitely limits what can be built in there.

I had more time to go over the boards, and the more I look at it, the more I think Barrhaven getting LRT is a move to appreciate the suburbs more than an actual necessity. Of course I want people to take transit and reduce their carbon footprint, but the scheme seems overly expensive for relatively low ridership. 4,500 riders per hour during the AM peak is actually "not that much" in the grand scheme of things (remember that the central core is built for anything up to 25k per hour, currently configured for 9-10k). I might be short-sighted with this, but unless Barrhaven grows vertically, or continues to expand, there is no "real" need for it.

Edited by DavidBellerive
Zoning
Link to post
1 hour ago, DavidBellerive said:

Most of the land you marked on this map is under NCC control, so there is no real opportunity for the city to impose densification. It seems to me that Fallowfield is a "while at it" platform to connect with VIA, but no "real need" for it. Barrhaven is, to me at least, a urban planner nightmare as it such a bad use of space and makes any densification difficult. The greenbelt is IMO important as it was meant to stop the cities from spreading further, so the city just decided to "jump over it". What a stupid approach.

EDIT: I was informed on Twitter that some of the land has development restrictions due to the landing path at YOW. I cannot confirm entirely how much impact it has, but definitely limits what can be built in there.

I had more time to go over the boards, and the more I look at it, the more I think Barrhaven getting LRT is a move to appreciate the suburbs more than an actual necessity. Of course I want people to take transit and reduce their carbon footprint, but the scheme seems overly expensive for relatively low ridership. 4,500 riders per hour during the AM peak is actually "not that much" in the grand scheme of things (remember that the central core is built for anything up to 25k per hour, currently configured for 9-10k). I might be short-sighted with this, but unless Barrhaven grows vertically, or continues to expand, there is no "real" need for it.

The problem will continue to be the limited methods of getting to school and work in the core? There's only so many cars you can fit down PofW, Merivale, Woodroffe and Greenbank Rd.  Barrhaven will continue to grow, yet these roads cannot be expanded. New roads cannot be added.

Therefore, isn't LRT the answer? Why is it that LRT is good for Riverside South and the Airport? Why was LRT good for Barrhaven 10-15 years ago (during the initial plan), but not now? You mention commuter rail in your Twitter post? How do you propose that work? Using the VIA Rail line to the Ottawa station, then take LRT and fight the crowds coming from Orleans and the East end to "backtrack" downtown? I'm sincerely asking these questions. Hope it doesn't sound like i'm attacking your views! ?  Thanks for this forum! Great reading! Merci!

Edited by Barrhavenois
  • Like 1
Link to post

Thank you for sharing the current plans David. I'm a bit surprised as well as interested by the fact that they would build the guideway as either an underground option or an elevated option, and not at-grade.

From the side profile, the elevated solution calls for a decent climb out of Baseline to Tallwoods, which may end up being similar to the ramp down from Cyrville to St-Laurent we currently have. While underground does present options for building over-top in the future, the elevated solution gives potentially a more pleasant experience for riders as the views would be substantially better, and who doesn't love an elevated rail line.

The stretch of greenbelt that the train would have to cross is approximately 3.7km, the stretch in Kanata is about 4.3km and in Orleans about 3.6km.

I do feel that the Kanata extension definitely needs to go ahead and get built as soon as possible to join up with Stage 2 and the rest of the network, so that the east-west route is complete. I do feel that Stage 2 should have gone atleast one more station west to Eagleson instead of terminating at Moodie. The original plans for Stage 2 in Orleans had the line terminating at Place d'Orleans, and then later funding was found to extend to Trim. Perhaps a similar scenario may occur for Eagleson?

For Barrhaven, should Line 1 extend into this suburb, Line 2 should also extend further than Limebank. Having rail approaching from both sides would be beneficial and offer better and closer connectivity to all in Ottawa's south end.

Link to post
12 minutes ago, Barrhavenois said:

The problem will continue to be the limited methods of getting to school and work in the core? There's only so many cars you can fit down PofW, Merivale, Woodroffe and Greenbank Rd.  Barrhaven will continue to grow, yet these roads cannot be expanded. New roads cannot be added.

Therefore, isn't LRT the answer? Why is it that LRT is good for Riverside South and the Airport? Why was LRT good for Barrhaven 10-15 years ago (during the initial plan), but not now? You mention commuter rail in your Twitter post? How do you propose that work? Using the VIA Rail line to the Ottawa station, then take LRT and fight the crowds coming from Orleans and the East end to "backtrack" downtown? I'm sincerely asking these questions. Hope it doesn't sound like i'm attacking your views! ?  Thanks for this forum! Great reading! Merci!

To me, LRT offers the greatest capacity increase over more roads (especially over roads that can't be expanded, or additional roads that can't be built). Moving people off of buses passing through this narrow corridor onto high capacity transit will help encourage people to switch. Also helps property value being close to this infrastructure.

Link to post
28 minutes ago, Barrhavenois said:

Therefore, isn't LRT the answer? Why is it that LRT is good for Riverside South and the Airport? Why was LRT good for Barrhaven 10-15 years ago (during the initial plan), but not now? You mention commuter rail in your Twitter post? How do you propose that work? Using the VIA Rail line to the Ottawa station, then take LRT and fight the crowds coming from Orleans and the East end to "backtrack" downtown? I'm sincerely asking these questions. Hope it doesn't sound like i'm attacking your views! ?  Thanks for this forum! Great reading! Merci!

Those are more than fair questions, and they do deserve consideration.

LRT might be the answer, but I do not believe the most efficient answer to the current situation. The fundamental difference between Riverside South and Barrhaven is that Riverside is still (for the most part) not built, meaning there is ample room for development zoning and densification. Airport link, by itself, is not a huge capital investment versus adding LRT through Barrhaven. Barrhaven is destined to remain low density for a long time, unless developers start buying properties and densifying considerably.

The initial LRT proposal is another topic entirely as I think it was a flawed vision of the needs for the city, and I still think the current TMP is flawed in its approach (downtown core is always a choke point, no real bypass). To answer it quickly, over-served Barrhaven and underserves the rest of the city. It really was a "suburbia dream" if you ask me...

Adding LRT after the fact requires resources that IMO could be better used elsewhere. There is still a considerable amount of capacity for BRT alongside Woodroffe, due to the reserved lane and possibility to give signal priority. I didn't mention it in the tweets, but LRT would account for "only" a 600 trip per hour increase versus a BRT option to Barrhaven. 4000-5000 pphpd is still within the realm of the transitway (downtown was running at 8000).

As for commuter rail, I was vague in my idea as I cannot entirely envision how it would be implemented. Fallowfield to Ottawa station is probably the most likely pathway to follow, and definitely raises other question on how to implement it. It remains that capacity on the central core of the Confederation Line can (and will) increase beyond the actual needs. With trains short turning at Blair, and assuming the same at Lincoln Field, one could have twice the capacity in the core than the rest of the network, making Tremblay a good end point. The backrracking / transfer element is always something to consider, but there is enough rail capacity on the two alignments to allow this. We need to remember that not all trips have downtown core as their destination, so offering options that "bypass" can be attractive and not have considerably higher cost. Another suggestion, though comes with a lot of problems: tracks being extended to Hurdman making it the hub instead of Tremblay. No matter how it would be implemented, there would definitely be compromises on its effectiveness, but there remains the cost arguments, practical case and impact on ridership to consider.

For all expansions, "fighting the crowd" depends on how much capacity OC makes available. What is 10,000 pphpd today can be up to 28,000 pphpd. The problem with Ottawa is that most trips occur during peak hours, with "relatively low" demand in between. Removing vehicles is possible (and is done in other cities), so there is ways to adjust with the actual fluctuation. I think we should have launched with the 15 vehicles, and be ready to integrate those built for stage 2 as time goes by.

I hope I don't come across as a "entitled urban core resident": I do believe transit should be a LOT better in this city, and while the Confederation Line is a good step, there is still a lot of work ahead. I do feel like building a "full fat" LRT to Barrhaven Centre is a nuclear option to a problem that can be solved with less resources / capital intensives approach. If the federal or provincial fully finance it, sure, go ahead. But the cost to the city needs to be minimal given how low of an impact it would have on ridership or solving the current problems.

18 minutes ago, Shane said:

Perhaps a similar scenario may occur for Eagleson?

Unlikely has scope and contracts are already defined / awarded. Trim was added to the scope before the RFP. Maybe as a separate contract but not within what we refer to as Stage 2.

Edited by DavidBellerive
Link to post
8 minutes ago, DavidBellerive said:

For all expansions, "fighting the crowd" depends on how much capacity OC makes available. What is 10,000 pphpd today can be up to 28,000 pphpd. The problem with Ottawa is that most trips occur during peak hours, with "relatively low" demand in between. Removing vehicles is possible (and is done in other cities), so there is ways to adjust with the actual fluctuation. I think we should have launched with the 15 vehicles, and be ready to integrate those built for stage 2 as time goes by.

They should be running 15 vehicles. It's clear that would solve alot of issues, less crowding on platforms, less chance of people getting caught up in doors on filled trains. Luckily for us, the Stage 2 trains are already being assembled, and hopefully the proper decision will be made to make use of some of them even before Stage 2 launches. Of course, that may necessitate a further order of additional trains to balance the line and maintain frequency and interval once Stage 2 is open.

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, DavidBellerive said:

We need to remember that not all trips have downtown core as their destination,

I think I may have reached a general understanding of a what concepts I was missing here.....    I have been disillusioned by the many LRT stations in all planning stages that are just connections to bus transit lines, parking lot pickup spots or other change of transit mode stations.... I constantly thought to myself, how can these people be so short sighted about planning and where the stations are located... so many mistakes... until digging into what this thread has been chatting about.... the idea behind Ottawa LRT really is just to get people in and out of downtown more efficiently, time and cost wise than with a zillion buses... To replace expensive bus labor with trains, to replace buses and traffic with trains....  When I thought it was to take that into account AND plan for 50 or 100 years of sustainable growth by the city(s) in the metro area

So back to my development at Fallowfield concept.   I think that what the city/lrt planners are forgetting is that people do not really listen to planners.  They see opportunities and go with it.  Once you create a well working train system, people's habits change, where they live changes, how they commute changes.   Take for instance Chicago, they have a horrid train system...unless you work downtown..then every train is perfect as you can live just about anywhere. Every form of train will take you downtown. So people live near these train and subway lines.  However, if you work elsewhere in the city, you are screwed (and nobody is complaining to the city, oh woe is me, bring a bus or train to my house, they move to a convenient place to commute via train from - no comment about car commuters)  Chicago has resisted making inter connecting train lines to bypass the downtown or make a system like London or Paris because it will dilute the importance of downtown. For Chicago politicians, spreading power to others outside the core is just a non-starter. Once people get to commute without a car pretty much anywhere..they will!  This means offices will move to less expensive areas...and the obvious economics apply, but then downtown suffers with competition and declining political influence.

This will happen here since the train in stages 2 and 3 and whatever happens with 4 and on, will end up with interconnections and not just a feed the downtown core.  That is why I argued for use of the PoW bridge and bringing frequent train service to the Gat BRT and beyond.  It will not be a build it and they will come now thing, but its for sure a "lower the overall cost of living and doing business" in the greater metro area by having good transit, and the metro area will grow properly concept.  And we all know we do not want just rampant senseless growth that plagues most suburbs of cities... and you avoid this building communities around transit options.  And let me be frank .... Bus options are not real transit options. Sorry bus people, but a bus is just a human decision to run or not or even keep in your area.  A train system has long term staying power because of the infrastructure involved.  Communities are built around trains all over the world, not around buses.  Buses simply cannot scale due to operational cost and pensions. And from my perspective, our municipal governments should not ever be in the pension business.

So I have rambled on ad nauseam here, but now that I realize what I was missing conceptually, the LRT makes sense it was planned.  But it does not make sense as the city will inevitably change, double in population, and people will work in different areas commuting from one neighborhood to another and never going downtown.   We need to build communities where trains meet, and plan on having more trains systems meet in other parts of the metro area to plan more communities. (note, as in transit oriented, not more Costco parking lots.)  

 

Edited by Herlsone
spelling
Link to post
On 2019-11-06 at 11:14 PM, occheetos said:

A sneak peek at the Barrhaven Alignment alternatives data that will be available on the system map soon... (colours not final).

Some of these were quite difficult to digitize off of those display boards.

I actually like the colors! Maybe just a touch more contrast between them, but it makes it clear that there is something different going on for that part of the line versus the more "defined" alignment.

Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...