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

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I think the POW bridge works great as a secondary link. If it was extended over to Portage and Terraces it would be great for Ottawans heading to Gatineau (walking distance to the major employment areas + fast connection to Rapibus for trips further in), and it would also be great for Gatinois heading to western or southern Ottawa. But you're 100% right IMO that it would be a horrible choice for Gatinois headed to the downtown core of Ottawa.

I like to sum it up as this: As a interprovincial transit link, POW works well. As the interprovincial transit link, POW —.

Preach!

I maintain that the Alexandra Bridge is the best alignment to hook back into Ottawa because it better serves downtown Hull and has a clear right-of-way which leads straight to the Château Laurier, itself within easy walking distance of Downtown, the Market, and the Rideau LRT stop.

But there's an additional reason why the Alexandra Bridge would be an ideal choice: it has to be replaced within the next 10-15 years because of structural deterioration. Whether it's a brand new bridge or a complete rebuild of the base structure, it's a tremendous opportunity to integrate rapid transit into the crossing.

If the Trillium Line does get electric, low-floor LRVs, then they could run past Bayview, through Hull, and hook back downtown. It's a longer route, but it could provide relief should the Confederation Line ever get overcrowded.

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Preach!

I maintain that the Alexandra Bridge is the best alignment to hook back into Ottawa because it better serves downtown Hull and has a clear right-of-way which leads straight to the Château Laurier, itself within easy walking distance of Downtown, the Market, and the Rideau LRT stop.

But there's an additional reason why the Alexandra Bridge would be an ideal choice: it has to be replaced within the next 10-15 years because of structural deterioration. Whether it's a brand new bridge or a complete rebuild of the base structure, it's a tremendous opportunity to integrate rapid transit into the crossing.

If the Trillium Line does get electric, low-floor LRVs, then they could run past Bayview, through Hull, and hook back downtown. It's a longer route, but it could provide relief should the Confederation Line ever get overcrowded.

Good Day...

? Are you planning a terminus at the Chateau L. , in the old tram/RR trackway ?
... or planning eventually for a southward or eastward extension from there ?

Not that I am objecting - it's a good plan, and a terminus at the C.L. makes a lot of sense to me. There is enough space for one.

I am just asking what you may see as a potential extension from there, if at all.

Thx.

[lrt's friend]

I have been advocating that the use of the Interprovincial Bridge as part of a downtown tramway loop that would run through the ByWard Market, down Albert and Slater and cross back to Hull through Zibi on the Chaudiere Bridge. This would be great for tourists and bring light rail closer to more Ottawa destinations for Gatineau residents than using the old Chateau terminus. As it stands, the Zibi and proposed Lebreton developments are too far from the market and the Rideau Centre and this would be more effective than the Confederation Line in order to access Hull offices and the Museum of History as well.

It will be great to get rid of most of the buses out of downtown, but a modern surface tramway will be a great way to still promote that Ottawa is a transit city. It could also be used to extend the lifetime of the Confederation Line tunnel by redirecting more passengers onto the downtown loop including potentially the Trillium Line being extended down Albert and interlined onto the loop.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It will be great to get rid of most of the buses out of downtown, but a modern surface tramway will be a great way to still promote that Ottawa is a transit city. It could also be used to extend the lifetime of the Confederation Line tunnel by redirecting more passengers onto the downtown loop including potentially the Trillium Line being extended down Albert and interlined onto the loop.

Why is getting buses out of downtown so often bandied about as if it is a desirable goal?

The city and NCC fixation with getting buses out of the core led to some stupid proposals earlier on in the redesign of post-LRT local bus service. Fortunately, most (though not all) of that stupidity seems to have been rolled back, but still: why is it taken as given that eliminating buses in the core is a desired outcome?

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I have been advocating that the use of the Interprovincial Bridge be use as part of a downtown tramway loop that would run through the ByWard Market, down Albert and Slater and cross back to Hull through Zibi on the Chaudiere Bridge. This would be great for tourists and bring light rail closer to more Ottawa destinations for Gatineau residents than using the old Chateau terminus. As it stands, the Zibi and proposed Lebreton developments are too far from the market and the Rideau Centre and this would be more effective than the Confederation Line in order to access Hull offices and the Museum of History as well.

It will be great to get rid of most of the buses out of downtown, but a modern surface tramway will be a great way to still promote that Ottawa is a transit city. It could also be used to extend the lifetime of the Confederation Line tunnel by redirecting more passengers onto the downtown loop including potentially the Trillium Line being extended down Albert and interlined onto the loop.

Michael Kostiuk made a website for the loop project: http://ottawastreetcar.com and a simulation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrgGASaitEM

If it ever gets done, very unlikely it will be anything more than a tourist attraction though.
Although I could see retro cars running through Sparks and modern trams taking Albert sharing the same tracks the rest of the loop.

IMO the hardest hurdle would be ditching cars from Alexandra bridge. It's a hill people will die on.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Why is getting buses out of downtown so often bandied about as if it is a desirable goal?

The city and NCC fixation with getting buses out of the core led to some stupid proposals earlier on in the redesign of post-LRT local bus service. Fortunately, most (though not all) of that stupidity seems to have been rolled back, but still: why is it taken as given that eliminating buses in the core is a desired outcome?

I am talking about STO buses rather than central Ottawa bus routes.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Michael Kostiuk made a website for the loop project: http://ottawastreetcar.com and a simulation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrgGASaitEM

If it ever gets done, very unlikely it will be anything more than a tourist attraction though.
Although I could see retro cars running through Sparks and modern trams taking Albert sharing the same tracks the rest of the loop.

IMO the hardest hurdle would be ditching cars from Alexandra bridge. It's a hill people will die on.

If it is strictly a tramway loop between the two downtown areas, I don't see the need to eliminate cars off the Interprovincial bridge. However, if it becomes part of a regional transit network with Gatineau and Trillium Line trams sharing the loop, then it would be wise to get rid of all cars off the bridge. It was always designed to be a railway bridge.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am talking about STO buses rather than central Ottawa bus routes.

Either way: I don't take it a self-evident that bus removal, whether STO or OCTranspo, is an inherently desirable goal in and of itself.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

And yet people, inadvertently or deliberately, keep getting those two types of articles confused, and use that confusion as a basis to shout down LRT on the PoW bridge.

I see the POW bridge route like the Longueuil metro route. It has not replaced all buses across the river. Also most who use it need to transfer at both ends.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day...

? Are you planning a terminus at the Chateau L. , in the old tram/RR trackway ?
... or planning eventually for a southward or eastward extension from there ?

Not that I am objecting - it's a good plan, and a terminus at the C.L. makes a lot of sense to me. There is enough space for one.

I am just asking what you may see as a potential extension from there, if at all.

I've advocated for a terminus at the Château where the trams used to run.

The big upside is that it's low-hanging fruit - there's an existing RoW leading straight to a ready-built space for a station under a busy downtown intersection. This isn't a common occurrence.

The downside is that I don't really see how it could be extended further. Any extension would probably require the line to either come up to grade (as LRT's Friend described a few posts up), or to tunnel down. I think that the tunnel is unlikely, if only because if you're going to spend that kind of money on it, you'd may as well tunnel under the river closer to the downtown core (e.g. in the alignment of Bank Street). The surface loop is more feasible in my eyes because the infrastructure is less expensive, yet still allows to link more destinations or extensions on the line. That said, running LRT on the surface in a dense and busy area like downtown is not without its significant pitfalls; even with separate lanes, the service would likely be slow and vulnerable to frequent interruptions and delays. Since the loop would mostly serve people getting on or off downtown (as opposed to people transiting through), slower service would still be acceptable from a transportation perspective.

However, I maintain that the Château option would be the best solution, at least until Ottawa resolves to build a loop through downtown. Until then, having a terminus under Wellington is a good example of the Pareto Principle: It will get you 80% of the benefits for 20% of the effort. And that's pretty damn good.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If it is strictly a tramway loop between the two downtown areas, I don't see the need to eliminate cars off the Interprovincial bridge. However, if it becomes part of a regional transit network with Gatineau and Trillium Line trams sharing the loop, then it would be wise to get rid of all cars off the bridge. It was always designed to be a railway bridge.

If you're re-doing the bridge completely, you could keep cars and pedestrians on the "top" level of the bridge and add a new level underneath for transit.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Acajack

If you're re-doing the bridge completely, you could keep cars and pedestrians on the "top" level of the bridge and add a new level underneath for transit.

Do you think the city would have that kind of vision if the tramway loop was not part of the immediate plans?

A great example of thinking ahead was when they built the Danforth Bridge (I think in the 30s) and they made provisions for a transit level on the bridge, that was not implemented until the 60s when the Bloor-Danforth subway was built.

[khabibulin]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Preach!

I maintain that the Alexandra Bridge is the best alignment to hook back into Ottawa because it better serves downtown Hull and has a clear right-of-way which leads straight to the Château Laurier, itself within easy walking distance of Downtown, the Market, and the Rideau LRT stop.

But there's an additional reason why the Alexandra Bridge would be an ideal choice: it has to be replaced within the next 10-15 years because of structural deterioration. Whether it's a brand new bridge or a complete rebuild of the base structure, it's a tremendous opportunity to integrate rapid transit into the crossing.

But the Bridge (1/2 of it anyway) was just shut down for 7 months for structural repairs. They would do all that (at what cost?) just to get an extra 10 years out of it?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Subways should only be built when surface transit can no longer cope with passenger traffic. This is why we are building the Confederation Line underground downtown. this is why the Yonge Street subway was built in 1954. This is why the Bloor-Danforth subway was built in the 60s.

As I said before, if we need a bus every 2 minutes on Bank or Rideau-Montreal and having trouble keeping up, then we need a subway. Certainly, Bank Street appears to be a little closer to reaching that point than Montreal Road especially with event traffic at Lansdowne. But in both cases, under normal conditions, existing buses are coping without reaching that 2 minute threshold.

OC can't even respect its 15 minute schedule up and down Rideau. People have to wait 40+ minutes for 2-3 buses to arrive at once. I agree that "phase 1" of downtown subway should be under Bank from Billings Bridge to the Rideau Centre to better serve Lansdowne Park.

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Yeah. And the capacity problems to that do exist on Bank and Rideau-Montreal are solvable by using higher capacity buses (the city is already leaning in that direction with increased use of double-decker buses on Bank), and upping frequency.

Double decker buses are fine for long hall express service where suburbanites take it directly from home (or a park and ride) to downtown and vis-versa. In an area like Bank-Rideau-Montreal, where people travel short distances, it would be a total disaster because it would require long well times to load and unload the bus.

[J.OT13]

Another positive with using the Alexandra Bridge is balancing the traffic on the Confederation Line. As someone mentioned earlier, the west end of the line already splits twice at Lincoln Fields, actually serves a high density urban area (Scott Street, Richmond Road, Bayshore) and has to take on the traffic from the Trillium Line. The east portion, since it runs along the Queensway, serving not much more than retail, only really deals with Orleans traffic.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Double decker buses are fine for long hall express service where suburbanites take it directly from home (or a park and ride) to downtown and vis-versa. In an area like Bank-Rideau-Montreal, where people travel short distances, it would be a total disaster because it would require long well times to load and unload the bus.

This is already being done in the real world, so conditional verbs are not required.

DDs, to my surprise, work OK on routes 6 and even 12 on the weekends.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

In an area like Bank-Rideau-Montreal, where people travel short distances, it would be a total disaster because it would require long well times to load and unload the bus.

I think there's a famous city across the pond where they might disagree with that statement. Having ridden double deckers here fairly frequently they actually don't dwell as long as you think, as long as people understand double decker etiquette (move downstairs a stop ahead). Newbies though hold up the process. Now where I live, I take the 1..er...6 frequently and really wish they'd run double deckers on weekdays and not just weekends. I usually get an artic on the way into work which is also okay, but on the way home it's always a packed to the gills 40 footer.

[lrt's friend]

My experience repeatedly with double deckers is that the dwell times at stops are too long due to the time to open and close the rear doors. I have seen 40 foot buses pass DDs and be several blocks ahead in no time. This has happened on more than one occasion.

Perhaps, this would not be as problematic in parts of the city where traffic is routinely moving quite slowly anyways with traffic signals every few blocks.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

My experience repeatedly with double deckers is that the dwell times at stops are too long due to the time to open and close the rear doors. I have seen 40 foot buses pass DDs and be several blocks ahead in no time. This has happened on more than one occasion.

Perhaps, this would not be as problematic in parts of the city where traffic is routinely moving quite slowly anyways with traffic signals every few blocks.

Part of that problem - and it's a problem on other models of OC Transpo bus as well - is inattentive operators.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

I think there's a famous city across the pond where they might disagree with that statement. Having ridden double deckers here fairly frequently they actually don't dwell as long as you think, as long as people understand double decker etiquette (move downstairs a stop ahead). Newbies though hold up the process. Now where I live, I take the 1..er...6 frequently and really wish they'd run double deckers on weekdays and not just weekends. I usually get an artic on the way into work which is also okay, but on the way home it's always a packed to the gills 40 footer.

London's double deckers are better designed for flow.. they have multiple stairs going up. Furthermore Europeans in general are much better than Canadians at being efficient users, so they get to/from their seats a lot faster.