Alto High Speed Rail

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by harls

To rile shit up?

Eh, putting a HSR station at fallowfield is a bad idea, especially or maybe specifically if the main station is trambley.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by RuralCitizen

I don't need a reality check, I'm aware of the trail agreements with the railway. Was making an observation.

I wasn't complaining about the affected roads, I was simply asking how it would be handled. It's not only 2 roads throughout Ottawa and Prescott Russell (Frank Kenny, Rockdale, Dunning, Sarsfield, Gendron, Bouvier... just to name a few). I took Bourget as an example because this project would affect this town directly compared to the rest of the segments. Regardless, I'm hopeful none of the streets will end up cut in half by the train, and that the rails are in a trench will little overpasses along the way. This would be the least impactful solution as many of these roads are important for these communities, and would require detours for the users.

For the recreational trail aspect, I agree with you. The reality is this would require expropriation elsewhere, and most of the property tax money gets spent within Rockland itself and not the smaller surrounding towns. These residents will just have to accept the loss.

For the Toronto commuter, i disagree. Has anybody made the calculation to check an affordability comparison? if Alto proposes a 2hr commute from Ottawa to Toronto, anybody in the GTA who currently has more than 2 hour commute to downtown Toronto may consider a move to Ottawa. It might not be a huge amount of people, but it is still a possible consequence of this project. Another possibility is if someone may now start working in both Toronto and Montreal (2 offices).

Yes, trenching will be the least impactful.

Those involved with the project know that many roads will be impacted. That will occur regardless of the route. Your Bourget example may explain why this route is chosen as the existing VIA route goes right through the middle of Casselman. I am sure busy roads will not be severed, just the quietest roads with alternatives close by.

Why would Torontonians want to commute from Ottawa? It is not just the 2 hour rail trip, but also the local connections at both ends. Peterborough is much closer.

[harls]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Eh, putting a HSR station at fallowfield is a bad idea, especially or maybe specifically if the main station is trambley.

You misunderstand. Bill does not want a station at Fallowfield. His masters are telling him to spout some shit, and have you heard about the New Oak Tree? or Jiffy?

[Nouvellecosse]

I'm sure there would be some extreme commuting, especially for people who only need to be in office a couple days per week. But I doubt it would be very common because 2-hours just for the train journey is very long for a commute just on its own. But most commute times that people quote are the total time from their home to the workplace, while in this case that would just be one segment of the trip. There would also be the time getting to get to the HSR station and onto the train (which requires extra buffer time to ensure you don't miss it), and time to get from the destination HSR station to the workplace.

And unless one worked close to Union and lived very close to the Ottawa HSR station, that additional stuff could easily add over a half hour per direction which is basically an additional commute. So you'd end up spending 5 or more hours per office day just in travel time. If you worked a traditional 8 hours from 9-5, you'd have to leave home at 6:30 and not get back until 19:30. So if it takes you an hour to get up, dressed, eat, etc. you'd need to be up by 5:30. And if need 7 hours of sleep, you'd need to get to sleep by 22:30. So there would be only 3 hours in your entire day that you weren't working, preparing for work, or traveling.

So I wouldn't fear the HSR putting much pressure on Ottawa housing prices from Ottawa to Toronto commuting except for maybe a 1km radius from the station. Would probably be more likely for people to commute to Montreal, but its housing prices aren't nearly as high so there wouldn't be as much pressure to commute long distances. It's important to remember that long travel times are themselves a cost. People will pay more money for housing to avoid an inconvenient location just as often as they'll commute farther to avoid high housing prices. And it's also necessary to factor in the cost of the train as well since even if the HSR isn't any more expensive than current VIA service, that's still a significant additional cost that detracts from the housing cost savings. The lowest fares i see on the VIA website right now are $110 return which is economy class, middle of the day, non-refundable with online discount. If you did that twice a week, it would be an extra $880 per month. Not terrible, but we're specifically talking about people so desperate to save money that they'd consider super-commuting.

[urbanforest]

Originally Posted by RuralCitizen

I think people are stuck with the idea and Nostalgia of the former Union Station without really knowing the exact benefits and disadvantages. Excluding the tourists, how many people would truly find an advantage from arriving/departing from the Colonel By/Rideau intersection? (taking the entire scope of the Ottawa-Gatineau travellers, and taking into account how this specific intersection gets gets very busy with cars and pedestrians).

This is a myopic argument. If you ‘exclude’ tourists (and businesspeople) then you’re ignoring the 10+ million people who live in other cities served by Alto, and if those people decide to get off the train in Ottawa, they will be the tourists who are better served by a downtown station.

And for anyone in Ottawa who is taking the train, sure, a station that’s more accessible from their home is ideal, but chances are they will want to disembark in downtown TO/MTL/QC/etc.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I'm sure there would be some extreme commuting, especially for people who only need to be in office a couple days per week. But I doubt it would be very common because 2-hours just for the train journey is very long for a commute just on its own. But most commute times that people quote are the total time from their home to the workplace, while in this case that would just be one segment of the trip. There would also be the time getting to get to the HSR station and onto the train (which requires extra buffer time to ensure you don't miss it), and time to get from the destination HSR station to the workplace.

And unless one worked close to Union and lived very close to the Ottawa HSR station, that additional stuff could easily add over a half hour per direction which is basically an additional commute. So you'd end up spending 5 or more hours per office day just in travel time. If you worked a traditional 8 hours from 9-5, you'd have to leave home at 6:30 and not get back until 19:30. So if it takes you an hour to get up, dressed, eat, etc. you'd need to be up by 5:30. And if need 7 hours of sleep, you'd need to get to sleep by 22:30. So there would be only 3 hours in your entire day that you weren't working, preparing for work, or traveling.

This is why station location matters. If it is near Rideau station you have thousands of residences within walking distances and thousands of workplaces. And there would be a boom in office and residential consruction as well. The idea of the project isn't to replace the few people flying or make those already taking the train save an hour it is to transform the interconectivity. Ottawa Toronto would be a super commute but it becomes possible. Montreal Ottawa could become common. Couples split by long distance could choose to live near the station and commute if their work is downtown and for 3X a week it will become common. I know people doing it now from Montreal to Ottawa on Via with a 3 hour door to door journey.

[J.OT13]

I do wonder about that, trails that could be removed by Alto. Has anyone asked if they are considering building trails along the Alto route, at least in some key areas? It would represent a minute fraction of the overall cost of the project.

[RuralCitizen]

Originally Posted by urbanforest

This is a myopic argument. If you ‘exclude’ tourists (and businesspeople) then you’re ignoring the 10+ million people who live in other cities served by Alto, and if those people decide to get off the train in Ottawa, they will be the tourists who are better served by a downtown station.

And for anyone in Ottawa who is taking the train, sure, a station that’s more accessible from their home is ideal, but chances are they will want to disembark in downtown TO/MTL/QC/etc.

My question didn't 'exclude' business people, only tourists. It's easier to say it that way than enumerate everybody else (business people, family members visiting, students, ...). Obviously tourists seek to reach the historical centre of the city, but not necessarily the rest of people. I don't like being told i'm being myopic for asking a legitimate question. My question remains, How many people (excluding tourists) truly benefit from departing/arriving from this specific intersection? Do we have a number? Do we have a similar estimate for Tremblay? We don't pick a station based on "feelings", I just want to have an argument based on numbers and wonder what the numbers are. We aren't building a high speed train primarily for tourism. It's for economic purposes.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by RuralCitizen

My question didn't 'exclude' business people, only tourists. It's easier to say it that way than enumerate everybody else (business people, family members visiting, students, ...). Obviously tourists seek to reach the historical centre of the city, but not necessarily the rest of people. I don't like being told i'm being myopic for asking a legitimate question. My question remains, How many people (excluding tourists) truly benefit from departing/arriving from this specific intersection? Do we have a number? Do we have a similar estimate for Tremblay? We don't pick a station based on "feelings", I just want to have an argument based on numbers and wonder what the numbers are. We aren't building a high speed train primarily for tourism. It's for economic purposes.

This is a bit of a weird argument. Why would you ask the benefit of arriving at a specific intersection? If you ask that of Tremblay or Fallowfield or South Keys, the answer would be zero. The benefit of the Union location is that it is very central and good for transit, which a large number of passengers will be using to get there. It's also close to Parliament, the central business district, and the densest population nodes in the city, and that is without even taking into acocunt the University of Ottawa, which will be a huge trip generator. It's good for the largest number of people, not just tourists.

The problem with asking about the "rest of the people" is that they are going all sorts of different places by different modes of transportation. A central location also serves them better as a group than any other location because their destinations will be very spread out around the region.

The real debate isn't whether a centrally-located station is best for passengers or for the city. It is. The debate is whether the financial or technical risks of going downtown are high enough that they tip the balance to another location.

[RuralCitizen]

Originally Posted by phil235

This is a bit of a weird argument. Why would you ask the benefit of arriving at a specific intersection? If you ask that of Tremblay or Fallowfield or South Keys, the answer would be zero. The benefit of that location is that it is very central and good for transit, which a large number of passengers will be using to get there. It's also close to Parliament, the central business district, and the densest population node, and that doesn't even include the University of Ottawa, which will be a large trip generator. It's good for the largest number of people, not just tourists.

The problem with asking about the "rest of the people" is that they are going all sorts of different places by different modes of transportation. A central location also serves them better than any other location because their destinations will be very spread out.

The real debate isn't whether a centrally-located station is best for passengers or for the city. It is. The debate is whether the financial or technical risks of going downtown are high enough that they tip the balance to another location.

It isn't an argument, it is a question so i can better form an argument after.

Is it 90% of Alto users stopping in Ottawa that will benefit from the union station intersection? 50%, 35%? if you are a pedestrian, sure it is the better location than Tremblay for walking distance. Tremblay wouldn't be necessarily 0% because there would still be people using the hotel across the hwy or immediate neighbourhood, but that's negligible i agree with you. For a drop off/pick up area, is the union station intersection offering a benefit to 70% of alto users, 40%, 20%?

If you're from the west end and using LRT, Union is a better location time wise. would it make LRT Rideau station more crowded? Yes. to what extent?

I'd argue that Tremblay is closer to Hwy for vehicular access, only one exit away.

I agree with you that cost will have a big weight in the decision making, but answering my question would also help justify if that extra cost is warranted.

If when tallying all the potential Alto users we can come up to an estimate where let's say 60% would benefit most from a union location vs 40% at Tremblay, that's a significant sign in considering spending on union station. If it's closer to 50/50 or even less, i'd say, let's just forget about union station and save some tax dollars as the project will most definitely have cost overruns.

Another question, how many passengers can sit on these trains? The trains will stop 20-30 in each directions (up to 72 total).

[harls]

The old train station is flat out a logistic nightmare. Tremblay will probably be the choice.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

This is why station location matters. If it is near Rideau station you have thousands of residences within walking distances and thousands of workplaces. And there would be a boom in office and residential consruction as well. The idea of the project isn't to replace the few people flying or make those already taking the train save an hour it is to transform the interconectivity. Ottawa Toronto would be a super commute but it becomes possible. Montreal Ottawa could become common. Couples split by long distance could choose to live near the station and commute if their work is downtown and for 3X a week it will become common. I know people doing it now from Montreal to Ottawa on Via with a 3 hour door to door journey.

Actually the point I was making is that intercity super commuting is not going to be a significant enough customer segment to warrant much focus either way, whether Alto does everything possible to optimize for it or not. Yes there would be more, but still a very small subset. The people doing the super commute would be scenarios like the odd couple who wants to live together but whose careers are in separate places. Quite different from the housing cost issue. Yet optimizing for super commuting by having a poor (overly expensive and disruptive) station location would add a huge price and logistics penalty that would affect other aspects of the operation.

But i do agree with others in that it would extend the commute range for places like Peterborough so it could still help people access lower cost housing.

[dougvdh]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I do wonder about that, trails that could be removed by Alto. Has anyone asked if they are considering building trails along the Alto route, at least in some key areas? It would represent a minute fraction of the overall cost of the project.

The PRT corridor was sold by VIA a few years ago (which looks a bit silly today). It's now owned by the Prescott-Russell Recreational Trail Corporation. So ALTO may be able appropriate / buy it back, but the PRRTC would be in the position to ask for something in return - maybe a parallel trail that could also service as a service access route.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by dougvdh

The PRT corridor was sold by VIA a few years ago (which looks a bit silly today). It's now owned by the Prescott-Russell Recreational Trail Corporation. So ALTO may be able appropriate / buy it back, but the PRRTC would be in the position to ask for something in return - maybe a parallel trail that could also service as a service access route.

That's a good point. An access route would likely be needed. They could easily build an MUP along the entire Alto corridor (where space allows) that doubles as an access route for maintenance and emergencies.

[ponyboycurtis]

I can't imagine any logical reason why Tremblay isn't a reasonable choice.

What even is downtown?

I take VIA to Toronto often enough and ... Man.. I stay 2 places.. Richmond and Bay .. and midtown.

Even at Richmond and Bay I'm probably going to take the Subway up to Queen and then walk back down with a rolling carryon. Especially if its winter or raining I am just going to Uber. And thats like.. 4.5 blocks minus the labyrinth of the station itself.

After a 5 hours train ride I am plenty happy to just plunk a few dollars on an Uber and get me right to my spot so I can settle in, shit, shower, shave etc and then go hit the town.

Matter of fact. As a person who travels overseas for leisure as much as I can. I'm not super cool but I've been overboard a good dozen times. I don't ever walk from a train station or bus station when arriving in a new city. I just spent XYZ to get here plus my time. Just get me to my spot ASAP so I can unwind and prepare for the next level.

Someone staying at the Delta isn't going to walk from downtown train station man. It just.. won't happen. Even if you are doing an event at the Shaw centre or something, everything is going to be comped. Nobody is going to blink an eye at a $12 Uber.

Tremblay is incredibly central with great links in the grand scheme of things.

[phil235]

I don’t think you can necessarily say that because you don’t walk to your hotel when you take the train to a city, people won’t do it. I pretty much always walk to my hotel in Toronto or Montreal and often pick hotels in New York because they were walkable to Penn Station. I don’t think I’m that unusual.

As for Ottawa, the Delta is a bit far, but how many thousand hotel rooms are within a 5-10 minute walk of Union. People will clearly walk to the Chateau, the Westin, the Germain. Les Suites, the Doubletree, the hotels in the Market and the ones on the east side of the CBD like the Lord Elgin or the Metcalfe. Lots of destinations in walking distance. And no one is driving to the Roger’s/Shaw Centre from Union.

« Incredibly central » is not a description that I would ever use for Tremblay, particularly when you consider the Quebec side of the region. Sort of central perhaps.

[harls]

Originally Posted by phil235

« Incredibly central » is not a description that I would ever use for Tremblay, particularly when you consider the Quebec side of the region. Sort of central perhaps.

We should put in Hull..

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by harls

The old train station is flat out a logistic nightmare. Tremblay will probably be the choice.

I don't think so. The platforms would have to be deep underground. Lots of examples of this in Asia. You don't at that point need to have a huge footprint above the station as exits can end up as far away as Mckenzie for Taxis and Parliament station. Would we pay for that to make it more useful in Ottawa probably not but the whole thing is likely tunneled in Toronto so it's possible to built a 10 km tunnel in Ottawa and do it right. Otherwise it's going to add a lot of time inching out of Ottawa in the west anyway. Less so in the east but still a few minutes. What seems more likely is they skirt the edge of Ottawa altogether and maybe put the station at the Airport cutting maybe 20 minutes off the Montreal to Toronto time. Paying for true HSR doesn't seem to make sense if we are going to lose a ton of time in each stop.

[Kitchissippi]

Best thing about Tremblay: no panhandlers and drugged out people when you walk out the door. I don't think that problem on Rideau will ever be solved. It will probably get worse if the station is placed there.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I don't think so. The platforms would have to be deep underground. Lots of examples of this in Asia. You don't at that point need to have a huge footprint above the station as exits can end up as far away as Mckenzie for Taxis and Parliament station. Would we pay for that to make it more useful in Ottawa probably not but the whole thing is likely tunneled in Toronto so it's possible to built a 10 km tunnel in Ottawa and do it right. Otherwise it's going to add a lot of time inching out of Ottawa in the west anyway. Less so in the east but still a few minutes. What seems more likely is they skirt the edge of Ottawa altogether and maybe put the station at the Airport cutting maybe 20 minutes off the Montreal to Toronto time. Paying for true HSR doesn't seem to make sense if we are going to lose a ton of time in each stop.

Look at what a protracted and costly experience building 3 underground stations and 3 km of tunnel was. A 10 km tunnel and a deep underground mainline station would be a nightmare. Stuttgart still hasn't finished their project, which started construction in 2010 and is now estimated at €12 billion, to convert their dead end station to a through station with tracks deep underground.