O-Train Line 2 [Stage 1 | Bayview to Greenboro] | In Service

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

f you're taking the train regularly

I ain't.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by JFFournier

Run to your heart's content then, I suppose. Just be a dear and don't try to pry the doors open.

I can't imagine why anyone would think I'd be such a douchebag to do that.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I ain't.

Oh well that in case, run all you want. Just don't trample anybody

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

How do you know whether you are in Minute 1 of 8, or Minute 7, 52 Seconds, of 8?

That's why we run.

I use a radio scanner. This is the nerd way to avoid running.

[MoreTrains]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I can't imagine why anyone would think I'd be such a douchebag to do that.

Because even in your sarcasm you're quite convincing.

[agl]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Via the 417 thread: Confirmation from the MTO that the design for the replacement of the 417 overpass of the Trillium Line is protecting for double tracking. Not that there was that much doubt about it to begin with, but now we're absolutely sure

The problem is that the finalized plans for this bridge do not consider protection for a second MUP on the west side of the O-Train line, because the city planners never asked for it as they didn't think it would be of any benefit. While the developers with condos lining up along the western edge of the Trillium Line cut are already planning on adding a pathway along their property lines, planners figure folks will be just fine with having to cross back and forth over the tracks in order to proceed north or south on the western side. At least in the article on the 417 thread Leiper is saying he'll explore a request to a change to the plans, but all of this could have been avoided if the planning department got out and walked, rode a bike, and took the bus to get around the city just a little bit (this could apply to council members as well), or council asked for the planners to include this in the first place, as it is part of the secondary plan for the area.

Check out Darwin's blog for the details - http://www.westsideaction.com/qway-overpass-replacements-part-ii-notrain-pathway/

[1overcosc]

Uck. The city is being horrible with asking the MTO for things lately. The lack of a proper sidewalk on the Eagleson overpass, the lack of any sidewalks on the Huntmar overpass, and now this. Every time, caused by the city's failure to simply ask the MTO, who would have obliged.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Every time, caused by the city's failure to simply ask the MTO, who would have obliged.

For a price...

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Oh well that in case, run all you want. Just don't trample anybody

God, it's been, what, since 2009, the last time I trampled anyone!

[waterloowarrior]

Trillium Line extension public consultation summary
http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/public-consultations/transit/what-we-heard-comment-summary

[eltodesukane]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Uck. The city is being horrible with asking the MTO for things lately. The lack of a proper sidewalk on the Eagleson overpass, the lack of any sidewalks on the Huntmar overpass, and now this. Every time, caused by the city's failure to simply ask the MTO, who would have obliged.

And the lack of a proper sidewalk on the Vanier/Riverside overpass...
And...

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by eltodesukane

And the lack of a proper sidewalk on the Vanier/Riverside overpass...
And...

Have not heard about this one in the media. Does it have the same problem as Eagleson (too narrow for snowplows to use)?

[MoreTrains]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Trillium Line extension public consultation summary
http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/public-consultations/transit/what-we-heard-comment-summary

I love this one:

1.10

The plan should incorporate a single line serving the Airport, then running underneath the Airport to serve Riverside South. This would eliminate branching/transfers and bring the line closer to the population it is intended to serve.

5

This option was considered as part of the N-S LRT EA and not carried forward due to security and cost issues associated with tunnelling underneath the Airport.

Did they forget a road alread passes under a taxi way? And there dont seem to be cost issues anywhere else on the line (RE SJAM Parkway alignment). Basically I am saying what I have said before, align to where the people live, or align to a TOD. Dont align to a cornfield that will have a parking lot in it because thats just f**king stupid.

[1overcosc]

This one is promising:

Comment: "This station should be built with twin tracks that connect to the main line and passing tracks to the north, to permit efficient train operations."
Response: "Comment noted and under review as part of the functional design."

So the city hasn't abandoned this after all.

[McC]

yeah, but City Staff bait and switch with lines like that all the time "oh this isn't the time or process to answer that question, it'll be addressed [later, in another process]" then when later or the other process comes, they say "oh no, that decision was already made at an earlier stage when Council approved [the terms of reference, or whatever]"

[MoreTrains]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

This one is promising:

Comment: "This station should be built with twin tracks that connect to the main line and passing tracks to the north, to permit efficient train operations."
Response: "Comment noted and under review as part of the functional design."

So the city hasn't abandoned this after all.

19.3

Passing sidings at Walkley and Gladstone should be extended to permit dual-platform stations at Walkley and Gladstone. This would reduce the potential for one train’s delays to affect the other.

1

The location of passing sidings will be determined during functional design to permit the desired operating frequency with appropriate extra capacity to reduce delay.

And here is the f**k you 1overcosc, they dont like your idea, despite many of us agreeing it is the best alternative to full twinning.

[MoreTrains]

Or the last comment...

21.4

There is a high degree of skepticism that these consultation events pay attention to citizen concerns.

1

Comment noted. This issue is beyond the scope of the current study.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by MoreTrains

This option was considered as part of the N-S LRT EA and not carried forward due to security and cost issues associated with tunnelling underneath the Airport.

Security is such a BS excuse (same as having tunnels anywhere near Parliament Hill, which Mayor Dithers wrung his hands about once upon a time.)

If someone can get their hands on an explosive devise (A) small enough to smuggle aboard an underground train, but yet (B) powerful enough to cause life-threatening damage to targets on the surface, then, really, the location of the tunnel is the least of your concerns.

[MoreTrains]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Security is such a BS excuse (same as having tunnels anywhere near Parliament Hill, which Mayor Dithers wrung his hands about once upon a time.)

If someone can get their hands on an explosive devise (A) small enough to smuggle aboard an underground train, but yet (B) powerful enough to cause life-threatening damage to targets on the surface, then, really, the location of the tunnel is the least of your concerns.

Add to that an example of say, Heathrow where there is a Subway line and even a road under a runway. Or LAX where a highway runs under an airport. Clearly we are trying to make up excuses for not providing a service that makes sense but not using the 'it will cost too much' excuse.

[1overcosc]

Plus, if I was a terrorist going after transit I would probably target the Confederation Line downtown at rush hour.