HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #7861  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2016, 3:01 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
If the Trillium line was interlining with the Confederation Line then it would have to use the same signalling system, which wouldn't be compatible with any mainline trains. Also, the loading gauge of the mainline trains could cause them to hit stations, OHLE equipment etc designed for smaller vehicles.

You might be able to get some trains that could use high and low floor platforms, but you'd still need to buy new ones regardless - it would be easier to rebuild the stations. I'm not saying interlining is impossible, and it may even be a good idea, but it definitely isn't super easy either. If that is the path to go down, better make the decision early while there has been much invested.



Maybe not 'Central' Ottawa, but the wikipedia article states "The present line runs north-south on a railway line, from Bayview to Greenboro, a distance of approximately 8 kilometres (5 mi). It is isolated from road traffic, but shared with other trains; after operating hours the track has been infrequently used by Ottawa Central for freight service to the National Research Council."
The National Research Council freight trains are very infrequent and they run from Walkley Yards to Lester Road. At the moment, they share track with the Trillium Line for only a few hundred metres at Greenboro Station. The rest of the Trillium Line has been abandoned for freight service. With the next expansion, more of the track south of Greenboro will be shared but at least in places the freight track will be separated. All freight traffic now operates during the middle of the night when the Trillium Line is not in operation and the passenger platforms are designed that small sections can be lifted out of the way to allow freight cars to pass. It is not an ideal situation but it is a reflection of the poor design for the Trillium Line going forward based on too many trains trying to operate on a single track.
     
     
  #7862  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2016, 3:52 PM
Beedok Beedok is offline
Exiled Hamiltonian Gal
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
The National Research Council freight trains are very infrequent and they run from Walkley Yards to Lester Road. At the moment, they share track with the Trillium Line for only a few hundred metres at Greenboro Station. The rest of the Trillium Line has been abandoned for freight service. With the next expansion, more of the track south of Greenboro will be shared but at least in places the freight track will be separated. All freight traffic now operates during the middle of the night when the Trillium Line is not in operation and the passenger platforms are designed that small sections can be lifted out of the way to allow freight cars to pass. It is not an ideal situation but it is a reflection of the poor design for the Trillium Line going forward based on too many trains trying to operate on a single track.
What about the crossing near Confederation? There's at least Via going down there, and I'm fairly certain there's some freight going that way.
     
     
  #7863  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2016, 8:35 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,480
How did this happen? It sounds like the exact opposite of the original Edmonton LRT line.

The $600 million Edmonton train that snarls traffic, slows down transit times and increases emissions

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-commen...wn-transit-times-and-increases-emissions
     
     
  #7864  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2016, 1:00 AM
Razor Razor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylmer View Post
Oh, that's a truck tunnel, but it wouldn't make its way to Gatineau - it would go from the Ottawa side of the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge (Autoroute 5) to the Nicholas/417, also in Ottawa. That's actually one of the critiques of the idea - since it wouldn't cross the provincial boundary, it would put the entire financial burden on Ottawa and Ontario as opposed to sharing it between Ottawa, Gatineau, Quebec, Ontario and the federal government. And for that reason, I deem it unlikely to go through, for better or for worse.

* * *

As for the timing of Phase 2, it is supposed to start in 2018, immediately following the opening of Phase 1 and finish five years later in 2023. So in the space of 5 years, Ottawa will increase its rail RT tenfold from 5km today to just short of 50km. We might also hope for even more transit on both sides of the river with the federal government's new funding commitments. In Gatineau at least, I know that there have been some very interesting discussions since October...!

Yup more talk in today's Citizen

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/king-edward-truck-tunnel-study-expected-soon
     
     
  #7865  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2016, 3:21 AM
swimmer_spe swimmer_spe is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor View Post
Maybe 1 of those options will include ROW for transit to eventually connect Gatineau.
     
     
  #7866  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2016, 2:47 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 28,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
How large will the stations be?
The three subway stations will be 120 meters to eventually handle 130 meter train sets. All other stations are 90 meters to handle 98 meter trains that will run day 1.
     
     
  #7867  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2016, 8:09 PM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 11,889
^^ Someone from Ottawa should come out here and tell Vancouver how to build a rapid transit line with the future in mind.
     
     
  #7868  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2016, 6:39 PM
thmx
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Content removed
     
     
  #7869  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2016, 7:46 PM
swimmer_spe swimmer_spe is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomax View Post
Hamilton Community News - Gondola idea gaining popularity as transit link up and down Niagara escarpment

Part of Hamilton's Transportation Master Plan discussion

By Gord Bowes | January 13, 2016


A composite illustration imagines a cable car gondola over Sam Lawrence Park on the edge of the escarpment.

During the 2014 municipal election, mayoral candidate Crystal Levigne’s gondola idea was mocked in many corners.

But her out-of-the-box idea for a new transportation corridor up and down the Mountain hasn’t gone away.

In fact, the idea may be picking up steam.

Nearly half of the 50 or so people who responded at Transportation Master Plan public meetings last summer said they liked the idea of a gondola, said Steve Molloy, who is heading up the review of the plan for the city.

“Whether it is gondolas or incline railways, what we’ve identified as part of our process is there’s a need to make better connections between the Mountain and the lower city,” he said.

“What it looks like, that’s to be determined. The key point here is there’s a need to better connect the city through the escarpment. How do you do that? The technology is up for debate.”

The city is updating its Transportation Master Plan from 2007. There is a survey running until Jan. 29 — which includes a question on gondolas — on the city’s website (hamilton.ca/TmP) where residents can provide input.

In the spring, the draft plan will be revealed at a public meeting, said Molloy.

“You’re still going to have to run a couple buses up the Mountain but it’s going to lessen the fuel costs and wear and tear on the buses,” said Levigne.

It will also save transit users a lot of time.

Levigne said while living on the central Mountain, it would take her brother 60 to 90 minutes by bus to visit her, even though he lived just below her in the lower city. Taking a bus to a gondola stop and coming straight up the Mountain to catch another bus for a short ride, rather than going out of the way through the core, would be much more convenient, said Levigne.

The gondolas should also have room to transport bicycles, the Stoney Creek resident said, and they would be a nice tourist attraction.

In her plan, she proposed setting up three gondola stations, located on the east, west and central Mountain.

East Mountain councillor Tom Jackson said the gondola idea comes up from time to time, but basic infrastructure needs are “still paramount with me.”

Cycling and commuting opportunities, along with trail improvements need to be looked at ahead of “charming, nice-to-have” ideas such as a cable car on the escarpment, he said.

“I’m still pushing hard for a greater number of HSR routes — better running times, extended hours, extended routes on the Mountain particularly,” said Jackson.

“The gondola for me can be part of the conversation as the city does this huge master transportation plan review, but ultimately it will come down to dollars and what the public feels is the greatest priority with limited resources.”

West Mountain councillor Terry Whitehead did not respond to requests for comment.

With the renewed discussion, Levigne said she feels some vindication after being the butt of jokes during the election campaign.

“I really hope they do implement it,” said Levigne.

“I hope it’s part of the grand master plan and if they do install it, I get to cut the ribbon.”
Not an overly bad idea.

They are looking at doing this in Burnaby to service SFU
     
     
  #7870  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2016, 9:41 PM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 11,889
In hilly cities and ones with steep inclines they are finding that gondolas are not just an amusement ride but can actually be a real and viable option for transit users.

They have been brought in places like La Paz where steep incline and narrow roads make bus service near impossible and so they recently brought in a gondola system that has been a stellar success far more than even the supporters thought it would be.

It would be very effective in places like Hamilton, SFU/Burnaby or getting to Toronto Islands. the people who are against such novel ideas often have ties to the rail industry which see such ideas as a threat to their bottom line or land owners who want to make a killing along a LRT route serving the same area and gondolas fly by their properties and so they don't benefit from the appreciation they would get on standard improved transit along the proposed route.
     
     
  #7871  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2016, 11:57 PM
SteelTown's Avatar
SteelTown SteelTown is offline
It's Hammer Time
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 20,355
I hope the gondola idea becomes a reality. HSR service on the Mountain absolutely sucks.

Probably about 80% of all HSR buses on the Mountain are North/South routes and all ends at downtown Hamilton. If we could get North/South HSR Mountain buses to end at the edge of the escarpment and let people take the gondola in the lower end of Hamilton that would dramatically improve HSR service scheduling and perhaps add new routes.
     
     
  #7872  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2016, 12:47 AM
miketoronto miketoronto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,932
Hamilton had incline railways, and they were taken out decades ago.

I am not sold on the idea that taken a bus, then a incline, and then another bus is faster than taking a bus from the lower to upper city. Everytime I have been on HSR buses going up the Mountain, the trip has been quick.
__________________
Miketoronto
     
     
  #7873  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2016, 1:00 AM
TorontoDrew's Avatar
TorontoDrew TorontoDrew is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 10,635
Hopefully you can build one as nice as Portlands.

posted on: http://www.alexblock.net/
__________________
"Less is more" – Ludwig Mies van der Rohe
     
     
  #7874  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2016, 4:58 AM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 12,821
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toro...getting-smaller-cheaper/article28208774/



John Tory’s SmartTrack transit plan for Toronto getting smaller, cheaper



Quote:
Mayor John Tory’s SmartTrack transit plan is becoming smaller and cheaper, with the promise of more frequent service, The Globe and Mail has learned.

Staff with the city and the regional transit agency Metrolinx have been working on how to integrate SmartTrack with plans to expand GO Transit rail service, and, according to sources and a draft government document, a revamped version of the plan is taking shape.

The latest estimate is that the proposed integration of SmartTrack would add $2-billion to $3.5-billion to the existing GO plans.

Although details have not been finalized, Metrolinx staff are expected to recommend adding only four or five new stations along the Kitchener and Stouffville corridors, and an LRT – instead of heavy rail – along Eglinton Avenue West to Pearson airport. The plan originally called for three stations along that stretch, but with an LRT, staff are looking at between six and 17 stations.

SmartTrack was central to Mr. Tory’s successful mayoral campaign – featured on his lawn signs and referenced in nearly every appearance – even though his policy was not spelled out. As a candidate, and then as mayor, he argued that he didn’t have the resources to hire engineers to work out all the details of what he thought would be an $8-billion project.

Those studies were approved by city council, with the results expected to appear in the coming months.

At city hall, staff are expected to concur with Metrolinx that LRT is the best way to serve the western portion of Mr. Tory’s plan. And they will suggest that the service from the Mount Dennis neighbourhood in the west to Kennedy station in the east be prioritized, with this U-shaped section and the LRT forming Phase 1 of the project. The northeastern section up to Markham would be pushed into the future.
     
     
  #7875  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2016, 9:38 AM
caltrane74's Avatar
caltrane74 caltrane74 is offline
gettin' rich!
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 34,204
That is doable.
     
     
  #7876  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2016, 2:25 PM
niwell's Avatar
niwell niwell is online now
sick transit, gloria
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Roncesvalles, Toronto
Posts: 11,593
This is what I predicted his "out" for a realistic SmartTrack would be during the election period. I didn't think it would take so long to get to this point, but I am happy with the solution. A heavy rail line on Eglinton West was impractical and unnecessary. Also glad that the DRL studies have gone on more or less unabated in the background.
     
     
  #7877  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2016, 8:22 PM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 12,377
So it amounts to:
1) Taking the Wynne government's GO RER plan as a foundation, and adding to it higher frequencies and a few more stations along a central U section of it
2) Extending the Crosstown line to the Airport

I imagine the city & federal government will foot the bill for these two with the province using the GO RER plan foundation, which it is already paying 100% for, as its share.

I'm pretty sure Tory had 1) as his idea all along, with the SmartTrack campaign promise being a clever way to present the province's plans as his own.
__________________
"It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that nobody has complete power over us, that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves." - Friedrich Hayek
     
     
  #7878  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2016, 8:53 PM
TorontoDrew's Avatar
TorontoDrew TorontoDrew is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 10,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere View Post
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toro...getting-smaller-cheaper/article28208774/



John Tory’s SmartTrack transit plan for Toronto getting smaller, cheaper



Why go to Kennedy? The people in that ward fought for a Subway screwing the city out of a DRL for even longer. Personally I hate the smart track plan but I still like Tory.
__________________
"Less is more" – Ludwig Mies van der Rohe
     
     
  #7879  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2016, 9:03 PM
hipster duck's Avatar
hipster duck hipster duck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,845
4 or 5 new stations between Mount Dennis and Kennedy? That's pretty much RER spacing. Do those 4 or 5 include existing GO stations like Danforth and (please change the name) Scarborough?

What stations will likely make the list?

I'd say: Gerrard, Cherry (although Tory wants to build a less useful station at the old Lever-Ponds site for some reason), Spadina and Queen-Dufferin.
     
     
  #7880  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2016, 9:34 PM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 12,821
The stations seem to be those on this map:



so 11-13 stations (unclear whether or not the white dots are "phase 2").

Mount Dennis
St Clair
Bloor
Lansdowne (Phase 2?)
Liberty Village
Spadina
Union
Great Gulf / Unilever
Queen (Phase 2?)
Gerard
Danforth
Scarborough
Kennedy

The reason Unilever is being pushed is because the owner of the lands is discussing putting in 8 million square feet of office space.. which would be a much larger driver of ridership than that would come from the Distillery or the couple of midrise condos in the West Donlands.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:02 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

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