HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #621  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2024, 4:22 PM
Ottawacurious Ottawacurious is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2022
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 563
It's been a year since he wrote that. Maybe he's getting a bit of his wish with the latest budget reveal for Kanata BRT?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #622  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2024, 7:36 PM
Richard Eade Richard Eade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nepean
Posts: 2,629
Not really “Future Plans”, but Kitchissippi’s comment, in the Confederation Line West LRT thread, about fully automated Metro from Lincoln Fields to Hurdman makes me think about how I would have liked to see things develop in the past.

My dream probably would have cost a bit more, since I would have done a bit more tunnelling. However, I would have made all of the tunnels using Cut & Cover (except in areas where it was impractical) to lower cost and make the stations much shallower. In hindsight, the roads were so disrupted by the LRT construction anyway, there was little benefit in doing the expensive mining.

The big changes I would have made would be planning for the Central Library / LAC to be on the other side of a re-aligned Albert, with an integrated below grade LRT station; the line running under Slater (instead of Queen); putting the uOttawa and Lees Stations underground; and tunneling through the Hurdman wasteland, and under Riverside Drive. (I chose Slater as that was the road that the old 1970s plan chose because the infrastructure under Slater needed to be replaced anyway; so, a Cut & Cover tunnel could be done at the same time, more cost effectively.)



Notice in the graphic, that the Confederation Line (in red) no longer goes to Rideau. Since most of the travelers on that line were not destined for the By Ward Market, I skipped that detour. Access to the Rideau Centre is provided through a pedestrian tunnel under the canal. The re-routed Trillium Line (fuchsia line along Bank) covers The Market.

Ideally, the Bank Street Subway would have been built as a shallow line, just under the new infrastructure, when Bank was completely dug-up from Wellington through the Glebe. There could have been side platforms, accessible via stairs and a small elevator on each of the four corners of an intersection – thus providing redundant access by simply crossing a side street.

As drawn, the Bank Street route could be below or at grade. I have also shown a possible branch across the Ottawa River. If this is a subway, it could include both Lines 2 and 4, splitting them at Sparks, with, say, Line 2 going directly to the government buildings.

Stating at the west, I would have the line descending underground before Booth Street. The Pimisi Station has been moved under the new library. Booth Street could have been MUCH less elaborate. The Central Library would have backed into the hill, and provided access from the upper and lower levels – and added a funicular at the end of Laurier Ave (just for the FUN of it).

There is a transfer station between the LRT lines under Bank Street, and another underground station under Confederation Park. That station would have pedestrian tunnels to the NAC (through its underground parking) and a longer one to the Congress Centre and Rideau Centre (probably ending at the Rideau Centre - DND HQ underpass).

The uOttawa Station is now underground (likely under Nicholas with an underpass of Nicholas at each end). The train then emerges as the ground drops and uses the existing 417 underpass. However, it does not turn as sharply to use the existing Transitway ramp to the river crossing. The train stays below grade and passes under the Rideau River through a station that spans the river. (Yes, this will be complex; but it is do-able.) This station provides access from the Lees Campus, and any future development at Hurdman.

Notice that I have completely removed a separate station at Hurdman and the associated bus facilities. I simply have the SE Transitway buses continue to a transfer point at Lees Station. The road surface (Transitway) would no longer drop to below grade north of the bridge, but would stay at grade and intersect with Lees Avenue (likely at a roundabout, since there would be several converging roads). A bus lay-up would be provided there, freeing up most of the land at Hurdman. Buses could, if needed, continue north on Lees and King Edward.

I would have kept the train underground through Hurdman Field and under Riverside Drive. Yes, I know that there is a large pipe there, but I expect that a Cut & Cover tunnel could still go under it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #623  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2025, 2:06 PM
qprcanada qprcanada is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 144
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #624  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2025, 7:51 PM
skewlis skewlis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3
Got bored at work and made a hopeful transit map. Tried to reclaim a bit of the unused rail line that goes from the hospital to prince of wales which then turns into a bank street tunnel. Would love a REM type train for this. Also I drove on Carling recently and with so many towers going up they will need something, maybe like the Finch LRT level of transit, potentially Eglington but that is mostly underground. Let me know what we think lol http://metrodreamin.com/view/R1gxVnlNYU5CblJGVHNWcDloak1vODYwVzJ4MXww
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #625  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2025, 8:41 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by skewlis View Post
Got bored at work and made a hopeful transit map. Tried to reclaim a bit of the unused rail line that goes from the hospital to prince of wales which then turns into a bank street tunnel. Would love a REM type train for this. Also I drove on Carling recently and with so many towers going up they will need something, maybe like the Finch LRT level of transit, potentially Eglington but that is mostly underground. Let me know what we think lol http://metrodreamin.com/view/R1gxVnlNYU5CblJGVHNWcDloak1vODYwVzJ4MXww

The Yellow line should connect to the red, either at Blair or Montreal.
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #626  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2026, 6:40 PM
Kitchissippi's Avatar
Kitchissippi Kitchissippi is offline
Busy Beaver
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,684
My fantasy for Line 3 would be to split it off Line 1 at Hurdman and then have it go down the former AltaVista Parkway corridor via the General Hospital to Conroy and end in a terminus at the Hunt Club/417 interchange. The Hunt Club Station could be integrated into a large multi-storey park-and-ride garage and rural bus station. This has the potential to reduce the volume of traffic entering downtown.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #627  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2026, 7:27 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 28,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitchissippi View Post
My fantasy for Line 3 would be to split it off Line 1 at Hurdman and then have it go down the former AltaVista Parkway corridor via the General Hospital to Conroy and end in a terminus at the Hunt Club/417 interchange. The Hunt Club Station could be integrated into a large multi-storey park-and-ride garage and rural bus station. This has the potential to reduce the volume of traffic entering downtown.

I certainly remain disappointed that the City removed the inner Greenbelt section of the Cumberland Transitway in 2013 because of some BS about space in the Hydro Corridor. Imagine the ridership from the General Hospital campus, with around 10k employees + uOttawa staff and students + outpatients, if it was served by a train every 5 minutes.

And that's before considering the Pearly Health campus, medium density, areas, industrial areas poorly served by transit, and the Science and Tech Museum.


https://www.tac-atc.ca/wp-content/uploads/croft.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #628  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2026, 12:37 PM
misterg misterg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2024
Posts: 23
With the talks about too many connections and lack of direct trains to downtown, would this ever be possible/considered?

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #629  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2026, 1:12 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,788
The connection at Bayview was the original plan cancelled by Jim Watson to save money. It was also decided to not use the same trains on both lines at about the same time also to save money.

Bayview Station was originally to be to further east where Line 1 and 2 came together for interlining into the tunnel.

Last edited by lrt's friend; Jun 23, 2026 at 2:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #630  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2026, 2:33 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
The connection at Bayview was the original plan cancelled by Jim Watson to save money. It was also decided to not use the same trains on both lines at about the same time also to save money.

Bayview Station was originally to be to further east where Line 1 and 2 came together for interlining into the tunnel.
"Think of all the money I saved!"

- Transit Ozymandias
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #631  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2026, 3:42 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
The connection at Bayview was the original plan cancelled by Jim Watson to save money. It was also decided to not use the same trains on both lines at about the same time also to save money.

Bayview Station was originally to be to further east where Line 1 and 2 came together for interlining into the tunnel.
Also eventually saving money by not having interlining. Forcing a transfer is more effective and avoids the future problem of everyone expecting a one seat trip all the time on the train.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #632  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2026, 4:25 PM
ponyboycurtis's Avatar
ponyboycurtis ponyboycurtis is offline
Cigritbutt enthusiast
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Blahttawa
Posts: 1,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker View Post
Also eventually saving money by not having interlining. Forcing a transfer is more effective and avoids the future problem of everyone expecting a one seat trip all the time on the train.
I don't see a transfer at Bayview being the end of the world.

In a world of free money I would love to see a 3rd express track in the middle of all our lines that run a peak hours 1 way service with limited stops. SK and Carlton for example and just bomb that train down the middle as fast as is allowed.

The airport link train in Bangkok clips along at 120kmh and its lovely.
__________________
I don't understand how communism works.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #633  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2026, 5:38 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by ponyboycurtis View Post
I don't see a transfer at Bayview being the end of the world.

In a world of free money I would love to see a 3rd express track in the middle of all our lines that run a peak hours 1 way service with limited stops. SK and Carlton for example and just bomb that train down the middle as fast as is allowed.

The airport link train in Bangkok clips along at 120kmh and its lovely.
It is when you have to transfer a second time to get home with difficult to predict transfers to the final bus running every half hour.

Up until 2019, there was a well used express bus that became a transfer at Hurdman which has now become two transfers. How many will abandon transit under these circumstances? With how much ridership has fallen, clearly many believe that rail and the bus connections does not serve their needs anymore. That is certainly the case with me. I am not doing the 2 transfer business and then arrive at Greenboro with a 25 minute wait to get home. It has happened too often.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #634  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2026, 5:59 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 28,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
It is when you have to transfer a second time to get home with difficult to predict transfers to the final bus running every half hour.
That's a problem with the service not the transfer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #635  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2026, 2:17 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 28,869
And interlining so close to Downtown kills capacity for the line west of Bayview.

What I hope to one day see is Line 2 upgraded to 6 minute frequencies (maybe possible by double tracking everything but the Dow's Lake tunnel and Rideau River Bridge) and then shortened to Bayview-South Keys with a Bank Subway taking over Line 4 and the Riverside South portion.

If we keep RSS and the Airport as part of Line 2, Bayview transfers will eventually be too high to handle.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #636  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2026, 12:38 AM
dougvdh dougvdh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanforest View Post
Not to drag the discussion off-topic, but am I the only one who thinks a Bank Street subway is an absurd proposition?

The Glebe is far too low density to warrant the immense cost of a subway, and the same is even more true for everything that lies south of the Glebe. The case in Centretown is a bit stronger but I still think the demand isn't there.

Besides the fact that having to schlep deep underground to move around isn't a good experience and only adds time to your trip.
What you're missing is the development potential that adding rapid transit stations in the Glebe would unlock. Think about three new stations, each with an area of high-rise development around them. . . .
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #637  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2026, 5:42 AM
YOWetal YOWetal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanforest View Post
Not to drag the discussion off-topic, but am I the only one who thinks a Bank Street subway is an absurd proposition?

The Glebe is far too low density to warrant the immense cost of a subway, and the same is even more true for everything that lies south of the Glebe. The case in Centretown is a bit stronger but I still think the demand isn't there.

Besides the fact that having to schlep deep underground to move around isn't a good experience and only adds time to your trip.
Obviously. It's not remotely in the universe of possiblity. If we find a bag of money to invest in transit it's not in the top 10. We don't have any funding on the horizon for a big investment in transit either. Perhaps of Alito dies we will see proposals to give cities transformational funding. If we get given our share of $90 Million that could be $4 Billion. That's likely to see phase 3 expansion of LRT whatever its merits rather than new downtown infrastructure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #638  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2026, 1:14 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 28,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanforest View Post
Not to drag the discussion off-topic, but am I the only one who thinks a Bank Street subway is an absurd proposition?

The Glebe is far too low density to warrant the immense cost of a subway, and the same is even more true for everything that lies south of the Glebe. The case in Centretown is a bit stronger but I still think the demand isn't there.

Besides the fact that having to schlep deep underground to move around isn't a good experience and only adds time to your trip.
The Glebe doesn't have much TOD potential, but Lansdowne alone could justify the investment of a station there. That said, a Bank Line would not exclusively be about serving the Glebe; it would better serve Centretown and unlock huge TOD potential on Bank south of the Rideau River.

There's also the question of Line 2, which isn't sustainable on its own in the long term. There's so much capacity on Line 1 for transfers from Line 2. Imagine 300 to 400 people trying to cram into an already over capacity Line 1 trains. Not terrible now with 12 minute frequencies on Line 2 (three Line 1 trains for every Line 2 train), but as we grow frequency on Line 2 with upgrades, and continue insane TOD on Line 2, the problem gets worse.

At some point, we have to decide; do we get Line 2 to Downtown? How would we do that? Or do we shut it all down for 5 years to convert it to Line 1 rolling stock and interline, but then you limit capacity west of Bayview. Conclusion will eventually be "we need a relief line".

We don't need that relief now, but in 30 to 50 years, it will be required.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #639  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2026, 3:17 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by YOWetal View Post
We don't have any funding on the horizon for a big investment in transit either.
Some of that is self-inflicted by "low taxes" municipal politics, and some of that is an utterly indifferent provincial government.

But we also don't even have any funding for a *small* investment in transit, and certainly not for anything that would actually benefit the parts of the city with the highest ridership and highest transit dependency. In fact, with the measures that the city voted this spring, it's pretty clear that they have completely thrown in the towel.

Meanwhile, my municipal taxes will continue to be put to work planning LRT Phase III to Barrhaven.
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #640  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2026, 2:05 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uhuniau View Post
Some of that is self-inflicted by "low taxes" municipal politics, and some of that is an utterly indifferent provincial government.

But we also don't even have any funding for a *small* investment in transit, and certainly not for anything that would actually benefit the parts of the city with the highest ridership and highest transit dependency. In fact, with the measures that the city voted this spring, it's pretty clear that they have completely thrown in the towel.

Meanwhile, my municipal taxes will continue to be put to work planning LRT Phase III to Barrhaven.
Low taxes are part of the problem, but a bigger problem is that we invested billions in transit for little return. This kind of investment should have produced a boom in ridership. I know, COVID, but that is now 6 years ago. A boom in ridership would give us money and motivation to invest in more transit. Hopefully, Phase 2 will help. Time will tell. We need a better network, whereas LRT is a rehash of the Transit ways. We need a more robust network. More ridership will help. We may be seeing a little more emphasis on transit in the upcoming election. Vote wisely.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:42 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.