[scryer]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I'm torn. Underground would provide the best link between the STO and Confederation Lines, but a tramway on Wellington would introduce a new type of service to downtown and could be the start to the long discussed interprovincial loop. That could still be possible with the tunnel, but the City of Gatineau seems to only be considering this for the surface option.

Well I bet that one of the reasons Gatineau is only considering the surface option is that they will want Ottawa to pay more of a portion for the construction of the tunnel .

Originally Posted by Aylmer

The surface option is arguably more future-proofed as well. Running LRT on Wellington keeps the door open to extending the line back to Gatineau across the soon-to-be-rebuilt Alexandra Bridge. According to the STO, the tunnel option doesn't easily allow for future expansion.

I don't necessarily think that's the case though. And I really hate to say it (because we honestly study the fuck out of everything infrastructure in Canada) but I think that a small study should be made on the future extension of the Gatineau line in Ottawa with both the at-grade street integrated version and how a tunneled extension eastwards would look.

I am confident that we possess the technological means to achieve an eastward tunnel.

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Moreover, I think that we armchair transit planners have a tendency to forget that a transit system is more than just a collection of infrastructure speed and capacity metrics. They are also works of urban design, for better or worse. A surface line is an opportunity to massively improve the look and feel of the Parliamentary precinct. Currently, Parliament fronts a dull and noisy five-lane road. We have better streets in front of McDonald drive-thru's than we do for one of our most important national institutions. This is an opportunity to completely re-evaluate that.

I think that the alignment with no vehicular traffic on Wellington street won't be realized because it looks like Wellington is a main vehicular street that connects people from Gatineau to downtown Ottawa. You won't be able to win with the voters over with that particular alignment since you are funneling a large proportion of vehicular traffic into Bay Street and Lyon street. Wellington street is not going to become Sparks street because it is too vital for vehicle traffic. However I would be pleasantly surprised if the governments decided otherwise.

If you want an example of good city-scaping, Victoria's Government street surrounding the harbour is a great example of beautifying an important heritage area. It needs a better upgrade now but at the moment it still handles higher tourist numbers very well.

When it comes to revitalizing streets: there is nothing stopping the city of Ottawa from widening sidewalks, installing protected bike lanes, or adding more greenery to Wellington street to breathe new life into it that is more pedestrian friendly. Beautification does not need to be driven by a transit expansion.

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I'm not saying that urban design matters and infrastructure metrics don't. But I'd argue that in many cases, it matters a whole lot. In the case of Wellington, the infrastructure advantage of a tunnel is debatable (the tunnel offers better reliability, but worse walk times and capacity future-proofing) and the urban design and cost advantages of a surface option are tremendous. To me, that's a pretty compelling case for a surface option.

Urban beautification should only be a valued by-product of transit development; not the focus.

Transit development should be convenient and reliable before all else. An LRT system sharing the road with vehicular traffic on an extremely busy arterial in Ottawa diminishes the point of transit since you can still have traffic jams that interfere with the LRT system (if it's integrated with traffic). By tunneling the Gatineau LRT in Ottawa, you not only avoid a busy arterial but you can also connect it directly with the O-Train's underground stations, making the system even more valuable and versatile.

My opinion on this is completely contingent upon how each option would be able to get extended further east though as I can definitely see how it could be easier to extend a surface line east. Although with both options, it would get messy around the Murray/St.Patricks/Alexandra bridge. And I am still adamant that an extended tunnel heading east of Parliament station shouldn't be written off so easily.

For the record: I am all about designing cities for people, not cars. However I just can't deny the existence of predominant vehicle traffic and its place within a city.