Last Friday, the City revealed its detailed plans and costing estimates for the expansion of the Confederation Line east and west, and rebuilding the Trillium Line to a higher standard while extending its length southwards.
As part of the show, there were “artist impressions” of several new stations of interest to west side residents. I fully expect the designs to “evolve” somewhat before they are built, responding to cost pressures, value engineering, and political pressure. But here’s what we have to consider now:
Westboro Station
Here is Westboro Station today:
And here is is “tomorrow” ie 2025:
The pigeon view of the Westboro Station is from over two-traffic-lane Scott Street looking northeast towards the former CBC building. The transitway trench is converted for rail.
The bus pull over zone between the transitway station and Scott Street has been converted to a ped and cycling plaza.
The east-bound bus loop that crosses the trench to the north side entrance and then back out to Scott is now shown as being for east bound buses and private passenger vehicles for picking up and dropping off passengers (in city-speak, a PPUDO – Passenger Pick Up and Drop Off). The sidewalks on both sides of the trench bridges look much larger than today, but that may be just planning porn.
Note that the current MUP on the north side of Scott now seems to be one way westbound, and there is an on-street eastbound painted bike lane, NOT a complete-street cycle track protected from adjacent traffic lanes by the on-street parking lane.
I remain puzzled that the city feels providing free or cheap on-street parking is such a priority use of space and dollars. I’d love to see this revised to be a raised cycle track along the sidewalk and parking (if somehow essential) on the street side of the track.
The drawing does not show a signalized intersection. Nor does it show it as a “raised” or paver-dressed intersection, just asphalt.
The tail end of a private car is shown going left off the picture along the access ramp to transitway trench (??).
Note that this station has a much-simplified design compared to the Phase 1 stations. No fancy sloped multi-angled roof with soaring semi-interior spaces, just covered staircases.
The view from the platform level shows the roofed stairs. Escalators?? The drawing is unclear as to whether the steel struts over the platform has glass roofs or is open to the rain and snow. This was similarly un-seeable on the Phase 1 illustrations, and it turns out sometimes some of the platform is covered and sometimes not. I hope the “uncovered” sections are strong enough to someday be glazed.
The concrete trench walls look to be “dressed” in cut limestone or porcelain rather than raw concrete like today.
Next: westward ho !
Yes, all very nice, but costs are skyrocketing, and we need to say enough is enough.
Many on council already say so, but have to muster the courage to speak up at meetings and vote with conviction.
The excuses of inflation and demand (many cities in the East are putting in systems) are a lame answer.
There has to be more value engineering introduced. Or perhaps a complete redesign,
There are many more engineering firms around who would be happy to be involved.
I fully support the LRT but I question the desire to put in the luxurious stations that we have seen built as replacement for the bus LRT shelters. I have not had a lot of experience riding other LRT systems but for those which I have taken, I do note the simplicity of their design. What is to prevent the City from keeping the same shelters? If the shelters must be replaced, why not a simpler design? These are not facilities for long distance travellers, they are transit stops, pure and simple.
Eric,
You’ve put your finger on one of the most infuriating parts of the Scott Street redesign with this.
“Note that the current MUP on the north side of Scott now seems to be one way westbound, and there is an on-street eastbound painted bike lane, NOT a complete-street cycle track protected from adjacent traffic lanes by the on-street parking lane.”
Rather than simply upgrade the current outrageously popular and well used North side multi-use path to a proper bi-directional cycle track (as you’ve so articulately advocated for in the past), they continue to go with this Franken-path “compromise” of an Eastbound bike lane on the South coupled with the removal of the North roadside lane and instead going to a North side MUP that is ostensibly designed and signed to be UNI-DIRECTIONAL – Westbound only.
And of course, cyclists, and particularly those with biking with young children, will continue to use the North side path in both directions as they always have. But now they’ll have to break the law to do it.
A single bi-directional bike path would enable: a) less ROW real estate; b) DRAMATICALLY fewer intersection crossings; c) bike signals on only one side; d) unimpeded right turns for motorists from Scott Eastbound (i.e. all traffic “circlers” in the neighbourhood); e) intelligent connections to other Multi Use and bike Paths at Parkway / Island Park / O-Train; f) fewer street crossings by cyclists across Scott; g) MUCH easier winter maintenance as a single sidewalk plow can clear a MUP; and finally; h) the ability to complete the dream of an integrated E/W Bike “Super-Path” spine for urban bike commuters, taking many or most of the hard-core time-sensitive rush hour riders off the Ottawa River path system.
Den, you articulate many good reasons for my original “Bikewest” proposal (downtown to churchill, on a separated bidirectional path in a straight line). KISS isn’t a favored approach in this city, notwithstanding that such paths rate as the best and safest and most popular infrastructure.
I dont think there is a conspiracy or enough incompetence to thwart the KISS project, just competing demands and agendas, and a chronic inability to think beyond small project limits to look at the whole picture, the whole path, the whole commute.
Sadly, yes, there will be new bike infra on Scott-Albert, but it will be severely compromised. We just wont get what we could have had, and probably for less cost and more utility. The story of large bureaucracies.
Echoing what others have said about the terrible loss of the bidirectional bike lane on the north side of Scott. I currently use it to drop off and pick up my kids from daycare on my commute to work. I never cross and don’t feel safe using the street version. Also, so little thought has been given to how these all connect from Westboro to Laurier downtown this far, I hope this plan takes into account the final layout of all bike Lanes to ensure its the safest and can actually be used by families.
I’d seriously reconsider this design and find a way to make the separate bike lanes on the north side fit. They are heavily used and safe. Much safer than the new versions that have popped up around the city. How many more cyclist accidents and deaths do we need on our new bike lanes to prove that the new designs don’t work (Laurier Ave, O’Connor)?
Please leave the north bidirectional path!