Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by JM1

Along Bank Street, you already have a need. Transit should go where it is needed, not where development might be.

At the same time, the O-Train was only supposed to be a temporary thing of a couple of months (but success kept it going).

However, I definitely agree that Bank st. between Billings and Downtown is the next major corridor that should be built. However, the fact that it would most definitely have to be completely underground means it definitely won't be happening next Tuesday.

EDIT: Actually, that entire stretch of Bank st. is only about twice the length of the Downtown tunnel. We can assume then that it would cost about twice as much (about 800M). That's actually not all that bad... Maybe we can hope?

[JM1]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

At the same time, the O-Train was only supposed to be a temporary thing of a couple of months (but success kept it going).

However, I definitely agree that Bank st. between Billings and Downtown is the next major corridor that should be built. However, the fact that it would most definitely have to be completely underground means it definitely won't be happening next Tuesday.

EDIT: Actually, that entire stretch of Bank st. is only about twice the length of the Downtown tunnel. We can assume then that it would cost about twice as much (about 800M). That's actually not all that bad... Maybe we can hope?

For my own selfish reasons, I would like LRT under Montreal Road prioritized. But let's share the wealth... Montreal Road, connecting to the tunnel at Bank (after stopping at downtown East), and then continuing south under Bank.

Okay, that is selfish. Because the Bank Street line would really need to connect to Gatineau (and have a funny connection at Downtown East). Or, dare I say it, you could go back to my gondola network...

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by JM1

What I find to be the biggest oversight is the failure to create a single N-S line where it is most needed, under Bank Street.

But that would kill children in the Glebe and Old Ottawa South!

When they tore Bank Street up, end to end, for years and years during the past decade, they could probably have buried a concrete box tunnel of suitable dimensions, below the layer of other municipal services, for relatively little additional incremental cost.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

That just makes too much sense.

And corollary: If you DO insist on putting transit where development "might be", you have to get hard-assed with developers who then want to develop transit-unfriendly projects on the suitable adjacent sites.

Ottawa needs to learn that transit-oriented development, and development somewhere in the general vicinity of transit, are two very different things.

[eemy]

I think we should build a surface tram along Bank akin to the Spadina or St. Clair streetcars. I actually think it would be better suited for the corridor as it would be primarily geared toward local traffic. Yes, car traffic would suffer - boohoo. Also, it would probably piss off John Martin, and a little part (ok, a big part) of me would take a certain pleasure in that.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

I think we should build a surface tram along Bank akin to the Spadina or St. Clair streetcars. I actually think it would be better suited for the corridor as it would be primarily geared toward local traffic. Yes, car traffic would suffer - boohoo. Also, it would probably piss off John Martin, and a little part (ok, a big part) of me would take a certain pleasure in that.

Bank is basically a 2 lane road with on street parking along most of its lenght in the core. Spadina & St-Clair are much wider roads where the street cars run. As a cyclist I understand the anti-car sentiment but I'm also a realist. How is a slow moving tram stuck in traffic going to be better than a bus stuck in traffic?

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

Bank is basically a 2 lane road with on street parking along most of its lenght in the core. Spadina & St-Clair are much wider roads where the street cars run. As a cyclist I understand the anti-car sentiment but I'm also a realist. How is a slow moving tram stuck in traffic going to be better than a bus stuck in traffic?

My feeling too. I just don't think there's room for RoW and there's too much traffic for it to operate with traffic. The way I see it, it would have to be tunneled.

[Harley613]

i think a bank street subway line is inevitable...but probably not for 30 years. it's one of a few logical and increasingly necessary extensions to our fledgling LRT system.

good spots for stations in my opinion would be Queen(interchange), Somerset, Catherine, Glebe/Lansdowne, Old Ottawa South, Billings, Heron, Walkley, Greenboro, Hunt Club

[Capital Shaun]

And a subway line connected to Landsdowne Park would greatly help in reducing the amount of car traffic to events there.

[lrt's friend]

There is no way we can reinstall streetcars on Bank Street unless at the very least we do away with on street parking completely and even then it will likely cause enough traffic problems.


I just reflect back to what my mother said that when she worked at the Civic Hospital in the 1940s and lived in the Billings Bridge area, she would take the bus via Ottawa East. Obviously the Bank Street streetcar was ultra slow even 65 years ago when there was much less traffic than today.

[lrt's friend]

If we cannot even properly upgrade the O-Train, why would we ever think a Bank Street subway is possible?

[Harley613]

i don't think it is possible in this generation! that's why i said 30 years at least. i'm 32, when my generation is running things i'm hoping that logic will prevail and the baby boomer nimbys will all be gone.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Harley613

i don't think it is possible in this generation! that's why i said 30 years at least. i'm 32, when my generation is running things i'm hoping that logic will prevail and the baby boomer nimbys will all be gone.

Good luck with that.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Harley613

i think a bank street subway line is inevitable...but probably not for 30 years. it's one of a few logical and increasingly necessary extensions to our fledgling LRT system.

good spots for stations in my opinion would be Queen(interchange), Somerset, Catherine, Glebe/Lansdowne, Old Ottawa South, Billings, Heron, Walkley, Greenboro, Hunt Club

But wait! Neither of our two downtown stations will be at Bank.

The smart thing of course would be to build three downtown stations, one at Bay-Lyon, one at Bank, and one at Metcalfe-Elgin. Then design the one at Bank with provision for a second line to cross beneath it. That means digging out to one more level below the current project depth and making allowance for both the tracks and for elevators and escalators to go up to the Confederation Line. No more than that is needed - no need to go south or north along Bank at this time. Just do the portion beneath the Bank-Queen intersection and the current line. It can sit down there unused for decades if need be, but by doing it now it will be a lot easier than to try to do it after-the-fact.


A Bank line could also extend north across the Ottawa River (under/over) and under Place du Portage and maybe as far as the Casino.

[Aylmer]

The station wouldn't be underneath the DT East station, but it would be right beside it.



It's only about a third of a block's walk. Alternatively, the trains would have enough space to turn and join up with the tunnel under Queen street and they could use the same platform (though there might eventually be headway problems with that).

[Dado]

Anyone happen to recall how we went from this:



to this?:


http://www.ottawalightrail.ca/images/stations/downtown_west/09.jpg

That is, when did we switch from centre loaded to side loaded stations downtown?

When they do stuff like this, I wonder if they try to reconcile it with things they've already published that directly contradict what they're now going to do, such as:



So can we assume that the new side-loaded stations won't "Increase Transit Ridership and Mobility" as well the centre-loaded designs, that they're not as good at "Creat[ing] Successful Rapid Transit Stations" and, ooh, isn't this scary, won't be so good at "Provid[ing] Safe and Efficient Tunnel and Compatible Portals"?

But it gets better than the moronic cylinder things. There's also the written text:

Evaluation and Recommendation

The most efficient station design is the centre platform configuration. The centre platform, with an east and westbound LRT track on either side can be effectively and economically constructed as the tunnel boring machine (TBM) works its way through the limestone bedrock under the downtown area. The centre platform avoids duplication of stairways, escalators and elevators, thereby saving costs. This configuration also minimizes entrance and way-finding requirements associated with other platform types. Supporting infrastructure and equipment needs are minimized and the platform creates a safer environment since there is a higher likelihood of multiple passengers at any given time and it is easier to secure the area in case of an emergency. [p 8-14]


Hmmm.


Barring new information, aren't environmental assessments supposed to be replicable? Shouldn't they come to the best outcome the first time and every time? They are not supposed to be random processes that would come to different outcomes every time they're carried out, otherwise the whole point of doing them is, well, pointless.

Or is it really the case that the outcomes are largely predetermined from the outset and the entire exercise is about trying to justify the initial decision that was taken?

[Aylmer]

Well, they did change the construction method of the tunnel. Maybe that has something to do with it (?) I do find, however, that the side platforms seem to be very small, at least on the picture they show. It's all nice when you have people casually chatting, but when rush hour comes, I'd imagine it would be rather restricted.

Also - where do people sit? Again, I don't know if these are really the final final plans, so I don't know if it's supposed to contain these little details, but it's an uncomfortable omission. I really hope they look in to the little things - they really make all the difference.

[Dado]

True, the construction method has changed, but look at the diagram again: there's nothing in that cylinder thing which would change due to a change in construction methods.

And much of the rest of the text should remain true, such as the bits about sharing elevators etc. and the safer platform environment.


Now maybe it is the case that the TBM method and centre platforms work better, while mining works better with side platforms. It has an air of plausibility to it. But all that tells us in the end is that the method of construction is driving the choice of platform layout, and further that all the other so-called selection criteria was a bunch of hooey used to justify a choice arrived at for other reasons.

[JM1]

I have to say that I prefer centre platforms, but I also generally associate them with heavy rail.

I do agree though that one of the reasons prefer rail transit over buses is the sense off space. If you squeeze them on the platforms between the walls and the rails, you take away from the ridership.

One of the worst underground rail systems I have ridden is the Philadelphia u dear ground tram lines. These always feel claustrophobic.

[lrt's friend]

cost, cost, cost. Less mining, less cost. Also, moving from cross-country to under street operations. With cross-country and the deep tunnel, you could make the tunnel big. By following the Queen Street alignment, you have be more concerned about neighbouring buildings and especially underground garages. You basically are restricted to the width of the street corridor. I wonder how this will all work with a Canada Day crush crowd with almost all the passengers ending up at the Downtown East and Rideau stations.