HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3721  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2010, 1:19 PM
reidjr reidjr is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli View Post
Regarding the comment that it would look awful in a G8 capital: I don't care whether it's in a G8 capital or some rust belt city, if there is sufficient demand, elevated trains are worth it for the cost and accessibility. I doubt even one tourist or god forbid a business person or politician would fault Ottawa for wanting an "El" train.
Yes and no people love ottawa because of the way it is built there is not many eyes sores tons of parkland etc.You build a mono rail type system that takes away form the look in a bad way.The majority want what works the best but is not a eye sore.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3722  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2010, 3:39 PM
adam-machiavelli adam-machiavelli is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,246
It's not like they'd be running on every street dude. They'd only run where that can't fit it in at ground level. I think your aesthetic arguments lack total merit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3723  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2010, 3:45 PM
reidjr reidjr is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli View Post
It's not like they'd be running on every street dude. They'd only run where that can't fit it in at ground level. I think your aesthetic arguments lack total merit.
If you keep it off the main road then it would be all right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3724  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2010, 10:20 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uhuniau View Post
I don't think G8 capital has anything to do with it. It would just look awful.

How long is Lyon-Bay, and how does it compare to the length of Vancouver trains?
The length of the individual blocks downtown on Albert and Slater:

Elgin-Metcalfe - 190m / 185m
Metcalfe-O'Connor - 165m / 170m
O'Connor-Bank - 185m / 185m
Bank-Kent - 190m / 185m
Kent-Lyon - 185m / 185m
Lyon-Bay - 135m / 140m
Bay-Bronson - 240m / 250m

The Lyon-Bay block could only sustain 4-car trains at surface level. The Metcalfe-O'Connor block is also marginal, it could hold only 5-car trains as well. All other blocks could fit a 6-car train (although not comfortably). The Bay-Bronson block is ideal for a station if at the surface though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3725  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2010, 10:57 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli View Post
Regarding the comment that it would look awful in a G8 capital: I don't care whether it's in a G8 capital or some rust belt city, if there is sufficient demand, elevated trains are worth it for the cost and accessibility. I doubt even one tourist or god forbid a business person or politician would fault Ottawa for wanting an "El" train.
I wouldn't either. I love the SkyTrain in Vancouver and the El in Chicago. I would love to see elevated portions of a future LRT in Ottawa, where they make technical and financial sense. But they don't do so downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3726  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2010, 2:31 AM
Aylmer's Avatar
Aylmer Aylmer is offline
Still optimistic
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal (C-D-N) / Ottawa (Aylmer)
Posts: 5,407
The El was extremely noisy at ground level. I wouldn't want something like that in Ottawa.
__________________
I've always struggled with reality. And I'm pleased to say that I won.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3727  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2010, 2:33 AM
Richard Eade Richard Eade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nepean
Posts: 2,613
Elevated through the core is definately a 'No-No'. The NCC would vote against it (because it would block views of the Parliament Buildings) and so would most of the City Councilors for their own reasons. It is an idea which will never be presented as an option.

Even in the suburbs elevated transit is apparently not an option: The S-W Transitway is planned to go under Tallwood but, unfortunately, the ground conditions there are VERY poor; there is running sand - saturated sand in a basin of clay. If the water is drained, the surrounding buildings, specfically the retirement centre which is built on a slab, will sink and crumble. The only option being considered is to do what was done for the 416 south of Baseline; deep walls would be built along each side to form dams to hold the water out of the roadway. This will be a huge extra cost!

I suggested that it would be less expensive to drive piles and build the Transitway over Tallwood, but both the City guy and the consultant went white. It was the consultant who finally said something to effect that 'No one would want to have an elevated crossing. That is not an option.' The City guy then piped up with 'And besides, the new Archives was designed for a below grade Transitway.' So even though it is going to cost a LOT more, the Transitway will be sunk under Tallwood.

If it is not acceptable to have elevated transit in the suburbs, then it won't happen in downtown. Period.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3728  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2010, 9:23 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Eade View Post
both the City guy and the consultant went white. It was the consultant who finally said something to effect that 'No one would want to have an elevated crossing. That is not an option.'
No one asked me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3729  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2010, 9:25 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Eade View Post
The City guy then piped up with 'And besides, the new Archives was designed for a below grade Transitway.'
That's the first hint I have seen that transit was taken into consideration in the new archives.

Well, at least it was taken into consideration from the perspective of the movement of vehicles. It sure as hell wasn't taken into consideration from the point of view of the movement of people, given its lousy orientation and site planning. Why does the city keep building public buildings whose entrances are recessed so far from the street? Morons.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3730  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2010, 12:14 AM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Eade View Post
Elevated through the core is definately a 'No-No'. The NCC would vote against it (because it would block views of the Parliament Buildings) and so would most of the City Councilors for their own reasons. It is an idea which will never be presented as an option.

Even in the suburbs elevated transit is apparently not an option: The S-W Transitway is planned to go under Tallwood but, unfortunately, the ground conditions there are VERY poor; there is running sand - saturated sand in a basin of clay. If the water is drained, the surrounding buildings, specfically the retirement centre which is built on a slab, will sink and crumble. The only option being considered is to do what was done for the 416 south of Baseline; deep walls would be built along each side to form dams to hold the water out of the roadway. This will be a huge extra cost!
$200M is starting to look optimistic...

One also has to wonder about environmental assessments, or at least those carried out in the 1990s. Shouldn't soil conditions be one of the things they take into account?

Quote:
I suggested that it would be less expensive to drive piles and build the Transitway over Tallwood, but both the City guy and the consultant went white. It was the consultant who finally said something to effect that 'No one would want to have an elevated crossing. That is not an option.' The City guy then piped up with 'And besides, the new Archives was designed for a below grade Transitway.' So even though it is going to cost a LOT more, the Transitway will be sunk under Tallwood.
Why didn't they just give up on grade separation here and go at grade? It's only Tallwood for crying out loud, not Hunt Club or Baseline! They're going across Fallowfield at grade for much the same reason, so they can go across Tallwood at grade.

Quote:
If it is not acceptable to have elevated transit in the suburbs, then it won't happen in downtown. Period.
Except in Kanata West, where they're proposing to build extensive elevated lengths of busway.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3731  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2010, 5:27 PM
DarkArconio DarkArconio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 182
Interprovincial Public Transit Ottawa-Gatineau

I found this just now, though apparently it's been posted since June:

http://www.interprovincial-transit-strategy.ca/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=nngg7HBOKW8%3d&tabid=38

All 6 major options outlined in the report recommend LRT expansion along the Rapibus corridor and varying degrees of connectivity with Ottawa's planned tunnel/light rail, using any number of the following options to cross the river: Prince of Wales bridge, Alexandria bridge, or eastern tunnel.

Personally, I hope they come out recommending maximum inter-connectivity with both a west and east downtown connection and full train transfer. Ideally, OC transpo would merge with the STO allowing for superior route planning, or at least a joint commission would run core LRT operations.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3732  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2010, 12:20 AM
Jamaican-Phoenix's Avatar
Jamaican-Phoenix Jamaican-Phoenix is offline
R2-D2's army of death
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Downtown Ottawa
Posts: 3,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkArconio View Post
I found this just now, though apparently it's been posted since June:

http://www.interprovincial-transit-strategy.ca/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=nngg7HBOKW8%3d&tabid=38

All 6 major options outlined in the report recommend LRT expansion along the Rapibus corridor and varying degrees of connectivity with Ottawa's planned tunnel/light rail, using any number of the following options to cross the river: Prince of Wales bridge, Alexandria bridge, or eastern tunnel.

Personally, I hope they come out recommending maximum inter-connectivity with both a west and east downtown connection and full train transfer. Ideally, OC transpo would merge with the STO allowing for superior route planning, or at least a joint commission would run core LRT operations.
That would make sense, but it seems this city is allergic to sense.
__________________
Franky: Ajldub, name calling is what they do when good arguments can't be found - don't sink to their level. Claiming the thread is "boring" is also a way to try to discredit a thread that doesn't match their particular bias.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3733  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2010, 2:33 AM
Cre47's Avatar
Cre47 Cre47 is offline
Awesome!
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Orleans, ON
Posts: 1,971
Not sure, but with the newly elected council with 10 new faces and new mayor (Tierney, Hubley, Blais, Fleury, Egli, Churneshenko, Clark, Taylor, Moffatt, Hobbs and Watson) replacing Bellemare, Feltmate, Jellett, Bedard, Hunter, Doucet, Legendre, Cullen, Brooks, Leadman and O'Brien, will we have the threat of the reset button again? I looked at most of the pages on the Citizen election section, a large majority of the 10-14 council favors light rail, that was pretty much obvious, but some have issues with the tunnel but some opts with extensions to the suburbs.

I could eventually look at the stance of each of the newly elects tomorrow in regards to the tunnel. Sounds like a bit tighter then the 06-10 council.

Edit: The tunnel seems to have a clear majority anyways, I've look at the pages and the newer faces there is at least Watson, Hubley, Clark, Egli, Blais, Hobbs and Tierney that are in favor of the tunnel. My initial count shows at least 18 in favor of the tunnel and several of those not counted, I still haven't found their position though. On the nay side Chernesenko cites some concerns about the impact of the downtown tunnel on street life and wants a revision of the plan.

Mark Talor (well like most of the Ward 7 candidates) is against LRT on the Ottawa River Parkway.

Nevertheless, general consensus is that the current plan doesn't seem in danger ... for now.

Last edited by Cre47; Oct 26, 2010 at 3:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3734  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2010, 3:50 AM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cre47 View Post
there is at least Watson... in favor of the tunnel.
He's in favor of it this month, anyway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3735  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2010, 6:44 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,771
I think the determining factor will be the RFP. If it comes in at or below estimates, the tunnel will be built. If it comes in significantly higher than $2.1 billion, then it will be difficult to predict how councillors and the mayor will swing.

One has to wonder sometimes whether estimates really are the floor price for bidders and they will try to raise it beyond that as high as they think they can get away with. I guess I am cynical about the bidding process. I have noticed this in buying non-standard computer hardware and software where a commission is involved. I often get asked, how much is your budget? When you get prices, you start to wonder whether you are actually getting a good deal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3736  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2010, 7:30 PM
TransitZilla TransitZilla is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,799
I would not be surprised if some work began to start looking into a surface route as a "backup", in case RFP prices come in too high.

The Bulldog had a story back in the summer where Councillor Desroches made a staff inquiry to see if the downtown portion of the North-South EA could be refreshed for the current plan. The answere was basically "no", but I don't believe this. (http://communities.canada.com/ottawaciti...roches-wants-light-rail-alternative.aspx)

With new tunnel-doubting councillors like Chernushenko, Blais, Taylor, and Tierney (not to mention previous doubts expressed by Watson himself), I will expect this Council will want to have something in their back pocket.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3737  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2010, 7:34 PM
Kitchissippi's Avatar
Kitchissippi Kitchissippi is offline
Busy Beaver
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,679
Or they could look at the cheapest tunnel alignment possible, like a shallow cut-and-cover along Slater that could shorten the tunnel length to about 2 kilometres.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3738  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2010, 9:11 PM
Richard Eade Richard Eade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nepean
Posts: 2,613
Thinking further about the Western LRT Corridor, after the connection with the Western Transitway, the next hurdles heading north are Lincoln Fields Station followed by Richmond Road.

Richmond Road:
I’ll start with Richmond Road since there should be no parallel bus lanes in this section. I am assuming in this instance that the chosen route is the Richmond/Byron Corridor. If the Ottawa River Parkway (ORP) alignment is chosen, then the following issue would not arise; same with a Carling alignment.

According to one Transit Committee member, IF the Richmond/Byron Corridor were chosen, it would be a good possibility that the eastern alignment (at the curve onto the ORP Corridor) would follow the old tram corridor which the City saved for this purpose. I was a bit surprised by the comment since I didn’t think he was considering any option but the ORP, and secondly because the City, from his viewpoint, had saved a corridor for a railway here. I don’t know if I have much faith in his statement, but I have included it in the following image.



It seems to me that following the old tram alignment between the buildings would make for a fairly tight turn (roughly 40m radius curve shown) starting almost 100 metres away from the station (assuming west/south bound train). Now I realize that City Staff have not worried about restricting the speed of the train with tight turns well away from the stations, but I do so I have included my suggestion for where the track and station should be; following the fuchsia lines. I think that pulling the line closer to Richmond Road is a better idea than running it through the neighbourhood; even if it is a neighbourhood of towers.

Unfortunately, there would need to be an expropriation of a commercial building – the gas station. Alternatively, the land across the street, shown as 2368, could be exchanged for the gas station land. This would allow a new gas station to have its road access aligning with the intersection.

Lincoln Fields Station:
Turning now to the Lincoln Fields Station, I think it should be moved farther south; to Carling. I think it was originally positioned between Carling and Richmond roads so that a single station could cover both; and because there was space for the sprawling configuration of the current station. If, as I have shown above, there is an additional station at Richmond Road, then the current station is only about 300 metres away from it. By moving the station to Carling, the distance between the stations becomes more reasonable, and the Bus Transitway can be more easily handled.

With the ORP ramps, the rail, and bus lanes all running parallel, the Carling overpass would need to be replaced with one having a longer span for everything to fit under it. Also, the buses would likely need to be moved so that both directions were on the east side of the rails. By following the example of what Staff is planning for the Baseline Station, the lengthening of the Calring structure can be avoided. The buses could be raised on ramps to a transfer station above the LRT platform, as shown in the following depiction.



I have added an intersection to Carling to allow buses access the Transitway. Local buses would stop along Carling. The intersection would also give pedestrians a new place to cross Carling without hopping the fence in the median. It is on the east side of the bridge to provide the easiest route for the kids going to the school; which will likely be the majority of the users.

Bus lay-up space would be (as at Baseline) along the ramps up to the bus station (perhaps only on the east side, I'm not sure). This means that the existing Lincoln Fields Station could be entirely removed; including that intersection. If the chosen LRT routing is along Carling Avenue, then the space freed by the removal of the existing station north of Carling could be used for the LRT loop and potentially LRT car storage.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3739  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2010, 9:47 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Eade View Post
but both the City guy and the consultant went white. It was the consultant who finally said something to effect that 'No one would want to have an elevated crossing. That is not an option.' The City guy then piped up with 'And besides, the new Archives was designed for a below grade Transitway.' So even though it is going to cost a LOT more, the Transitway will be sunk under Tallwood.

If it is not acceptable to have elevated transit in the suburbs, then it won't happen in downtown. Period.
I guess it just sucks to be us suckers in Mechanicsville who are stuck with that "Transitway Wall" on either side of Bayview, eh?
;-)

It's amazing the gracelessness we accept in this town, when you compare that to, say the Canada Line in Richmond, where the elevated SkyTrain line doesn't cut the community in half at all, or even heavy old elevated sections of the Paris Metro like on Line6...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3740  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2010, 9:59 PM
Richard Eade Richard Eade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nepean
Posts: 2,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitchissippi View Post
Or they could look at the cheapest tunnel alignment possible, like a shallow cut-and-cover along Slater that could shorten the tunnel length to about 2 kilometres.

The problem is that the tunnel and mined stations is 'only' about 1/3 of the project cost; the conversion to rail is the biggest part of the expense. If a cheaper tunnel option were built, then the savings would likely be in the range of a couple of hundred million dollars; mostly from less expesive (shallower) stations. Even going to a surface rail system would likely only save a few hundred million. (The increase in disruption to the downtown core would be significant with both of these options and the added mitigation costs could eat up a lot of the capital savings; not to mention the economic loses due to that disruption.) I will grant you that hundreds of millions of dollars are nothing to scoff at, but in the scale of this project, $300M is inside the contingence amount.

As Haydon said, building the tunnel and using it for buses as a first stage could be an option. Planning for a proper conversion plan and the lengthening of the line could be the next step. For example, money could gradually be spent over the next few years (while the tunnel is being dug, maybe) to straighten the 'kinks' in the Transitway so that conversion could be done without shutting down the buses, but by simply moving them to the shoulders while the rails are laid.
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 11:51 PM.

     

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