West Gatineau Tramway & Downtown Loop | Proposed

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

^ How would you have this loop run? As a single continuous loop through the downtowns, with the Gatineau and Ottawa rapid transit systems connecting to it via transfer, or with the various systems interlining with it some extent?

Just run the two Aylmer lines on a two way loop (every second train following the opposite route around the loop) via Alexandra Bridge, through the market, MacKenzie King Bridge, Albert/Slater, Booth back across at Chaudiere and the opposite direction. At least during tourist season and maybe in peak hours, we might have a few trains running around the loop exclusively for extra connectivity between the two downtowns.

At the present time, our downtown transit plans are so disjointed, that moving around the downtown area involves too many unnecessary transfers that discourage travel by transit. A two way looped tramway makes access to all parts of downtown a snap, whether it is the Byward Market, Rideau Centre, the main downtown area, Lebreton, Zibi and downtown Hull federal complexes. With so many new plans in the works, and my personal desire to see downtown Hull improved, we need this kind of plan to encourage all these places to become more people places. The four or five Confederation Line stations are not convenient enough to provide access to all parts of the downtown area.

[H>T&T>P]

They should tunnel the river and connect to Rideau station for transfer. Tunnels last for a tremendous amount of time where as bridges need to be replaced. I realize this comes at a much higher cost though.

Also the sooner these 2 transit agencies get turned into 1 the better.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by H>T&T>P

Also the sooner these 2 transit agencies get turned into 1 the better.

Won't happen.

[Acajack]

BTW the word on the street is that the STO braintrust at pretty much all levels is against this plan.

They'd be more in favour of a major westward of BRT, which could serve more areas a lot quicker than 10 years from now, for a lot less money and more bang for the buck.

The LRT plan is politically-driven against the STO's wishes.

[H>T&T>P]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Won't happen.

New York-New Jersey can do it across state lines and so can Kansas City so why not here.

If they had been working together the Stations on the Confederation line could have be built in order to facilitate connections from across the river. Maybe they were but I don't remember reading that anywhere.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by H>T&T>P

New York-New Jersey can do it across state lines and so can Kansas City so why not here.

.

This probably sucks as an answer but this isn't New York-New Jersey or Kansas City.

That's a fact.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

They'd be more in favour of a major westward of BRT, which could serve more areas a lot quicker than 10 years from now

Actually, the study and approval steps that are required before funding - notably the new BAPE requirements brought in in March - mean it's a 10-year project whether it's BRT, LRT, or anything more than paint, really. Heck, once SRB Pie-IX opens in 2022, it will have been over 13 years since the Bureau de projet was first set up.

You're right that for current needs, BRT is the appropriate option. But as per the STO's own studies, BRT will start to reach the limits of its effective capacity in 15 years. There are lots of reasons, but the main ones are the density of surface cross-streets, the interprovincial crossing question, and Ottawa's insistence on reducing busses downtown.

The necessary studies, approvals, and construction will be about 10 years, so the system would only meet the needs of the west for 5 years before running into problems. And then we go the Ottawa route, waiting another 10 years to design and build a system with sufficient capacity, suffering through an under-built system in the meantime.
In this scenario, we pay:

-500 M for BRT
-3 B+ for LRT (because infrastructure inflation is higher than the general rate)
-plus however much for transition measures.

And in the end, we pay significantly more to end up with the same LRT system, plus an additional decade of insufficient infrastructure and disruption.


Of course, BRT could extend its capacity a great deal by tunnelling under intersections (à la Scott Street), building a new transit bridge and an underground bus depot in downtown Ottawa, but then the cost benefit vs LRT evaporates pretty quickly.


The fact of the matter is that although LRT might seem expensive, over 20-30 years, it's likely the least expensive and the least disruptive option.
I'm certain that the STO braintrust is skeptical. But judging from the great success of the projects they've pushed in the past, I think that may actually be a good thing

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This probably sucks as an answer but this isn't New York-New Jersey or Kansas City.

That's a fact.

I know there is no integration between New York and New Jersey. New York and New Jersey trains run as separate operations.

I believe however that St. Louis trains cross the state line into Illinois.

We really need much better integration here though. The public will really suffer if we cannot integrate rail service. The Aylmer plan demonstrates this as direct service into downtown Ottawa will actually be reduced. We will returning to the days of infighting between Hull and Ottawa, and the Hull Electric and Ottawa Electric Railway or even worse since no Ottawa train will cross the river. In other words, we are dialing back the clock 80 years.

Of course, BRT plans simply don't address the desire to minimize diesel buses in downtown Ottawa.

I have seen nothing that properly addresses the needs of transit riders and the wishes of Ottawa for improving its downtown.

The only solution will come with federal involvement because nobody wants to pay for their trains running in the other province and that applies both ways.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Actually, the study and approval steps that are required before funding - notably the new BAPE requirements brought in in March - mean it's a 10-year project whether it's BRT, LRT, or anything more than paint, really. Heck, once SRB Pie-IX opens in 2022, it will have been over 13 years since the Bureau de projet was first set up.

You're right that for current needs, BRT is the appropriate option. But as per the STO's own studies, BRT will start to reach the limits of its effective capacity in 15 years. There are lots of reasons, but the main ones are the density of surface cross-streets, the interprovincial crossing question, and Ottawa's insistence on reducing busses downtown.

The necessary studies, approvals, and construction will be about 10 years, so the system would only meet the needs of the west for 5 years before running into problems. And then we go the Ottawa route, waiting another 10 years to design and build a system with sufficient capacity, suffering through an under-built system in the meantime.
In this scenario, we pay:

-500 M for BRT
-3 B+ for LRT (because infrastructure inflation is higher than the general rate)
-plus however much for transition measures.

And in the end, we pay significantly more to end up with the same LRT system, plus an additional decade of insufficient infrastructure and disruption.


Of course, BRT could extend its capacity a great deal by tunnelling under intersections (à la Scott Street), building a new transit bridge and an underground bus depot in downtown Ottawa, but then the cost benefit vs LRT evaporates pretty quickly.


The fact of the matter is that although LRT might seem expensive, over 20-30 years, it's likely the least expensive and the least disruptive option.
I'm certain that the STO braintrust is skeptical. But judging from the great success of the projects they've pushed in the past, I think that may actually be a good thing

I am actually not as anti-rail and pro-bus as is coming across.

I can just see the STO's (assumed, if we believe the grapevine) point about BRT.

[Aylmer]

I'm not saying that you're pro- or anti- anything. I just think it's important to point out that the case for BRT only works if you look no further than 10-15 years in the future. And when building public infrastructure, 10 years is an unacceptably near-sighted horizon to set.

Similarly, if you want to fly, the idea of jumping off a building makes sense if you look no further than the first 10 seconds.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I'm not saying that you're pro- or anti- anything. I just think it's important to point out that the case for BRT only works if you look no further than 10-15 years in the future. And when building public infrastructure, 10 years is an unacceptably near-sighted horizon to set.

Similarly, if you want to fly, the idea of jumping off a building makes sense if you look no further than the first 10 seconds.

Je pensais être le seul à employer ce genre de métaphore.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I know there is no integration between New York and New Jersey. New York and New Jersey trains run as separate operations.

I believe however that St. Louis trains cross the state line into Illinois.

We really need much better integration here though. The public will really suffer if we cannot integrate rail service. The Aylmer plan demonstrates this as direct service into downtown Ottawa will actually be reduced. We will returning to the days of infighting between Hull and Ottawa, and the Hull Electric and Ottawa Electric Railway or even worse since no Ottawa train will cross the river. In other words, we are dialing back the clock 80 years.

Of course, BRT plans simply don't address the desire to minimize diesel buses in downtown Ottawa.

I have seen nothing that properly addresses the needs of transit riders and the wishes of Ottawa for improving its downtown.

The only solution will come with federal involvement because nobody wants to pay for their trains running in the other province and that applies both ways.

https://xkcd.com/927/

Creating a federal agency to manage transit between Ottawa and Gatineau would probably result in there being three transit agencies in this region (and perhaps a third smart card? ).
The scope of the federal agency would probably only be the downtown areas and inter-provincial crossings. You'd then have OC Transpo and STO trying to serve the non-downtown areas of their respective cities with weaker control over how their services could integrate with the federal services.

I think a federal agency would work well for inter-regional commuter transit (similar to GO), but that's obviously not applicable to this area right now.
So long as Ottawa and Gatineau are two distinct cities with their own interests, throwing a federal agency into it may not work out as well as we'd hope.

[Acajack]

You'd probably end up with the federal agency managing only the downtown loop (roughly following Confederation Boulevard) that has been oft-mentioned on this forum.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Horus

I don't disagree with a proposal to use Allumettières as a route in principle, although having LRT vehicles navigate through the 3-ring circus (between Labelle and Saint-Joseph) might be problematic without grade separation as well. Allumettières does have much better TOD potential IMO.

You would have the LRT go through the centre of the roundabout. The video below shows one example of this (though I think the crossing gates are overly restrictive).

Video Link

However, your map now orphans the POW bridge spur. Given a choice, in this situation I think it makes much more sense for the Trillium line to be brought one stop over the bridge (to Chaudieres/Montcalm) than to have STO operate a shuttle spur over the bridge from Saint-Joseph to Bayview.

I agree that if we are going to use the POW bridge, it should be an extension of the Trillium Line, but it should be to Terrasses De La Chaudière (not Chaudieres/Montcalm) to make it more of a useful destination, reducing the need to transfer.

You could short-circuit the closed loop by following des Allumettières from Saint-Raymond/Plateau to Saint-Joseph, then veering onto Montcalm to create a Rapibus/G-train 'hub' at the current Rapibus hub at Montcalm, then, picking up the existing tracks to parallel the existing Rapibus route to Saint-Joseph/UQO and onward over the POW bridge. Maybe the best of both worlds?

I thought of that, but to be honest, I just don't see the synergy (from a user perspective) between the POW bridge and any of the Gatineau lines (including the Rapibus). The bridge is just too far west to be as useful as it should be for transit.

[Kitchissippi]

Ottawa's LRT was born out of a few years of studying corridors and several iterations of TMPs. This proposal is coming out of the blue politically with very little science or a solid business case. To throw $2.1 billion to service a sector with a little more than 60,000 people seems puzzling when Gatineau couldn't even afford to widen Pont Noir to accommodate two lanes of BRT.

Is a station by the Chateau Laurier really the best way to integrate with the O-Train? How will a surface tram affect pedestrian and cyclist environment on the Gatineau section of Confederation Boulevard? Using the Alexandra bridge is the achilles heel of this plan. It's easy to wave a neo-urbanist wand and ban cars on the bridge outright but this ends up opening a pandora's box of issues on both sides of the river. There are a lot of stakeholders involved beyond Gatineau, the bridge carries 13% of vehicular traffic and 40% of ped/bike movement across the river. The bridge is also designated by the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering as a National Historic Civil Engineering Site (for whatever that's worth), so any significant alteration or replacement will definitely have strong objectors. I suspect any work on the bridge will be focused on preservation, talk of replacement is mere hearsay.

I'm all for LRT in Gatineau, but all possibilities of corridors need to be considered and studied properly, and come up with a long-range, Gatineau-wide TMP to ensure that money will be spent wisely. Especially when it comes to integration with the O-Train, the ideal scenario should be explored without compromise, and not just go for solutions that are "easy".

Quebec City has a far more sophisticated tram proposal and they've had a hard time getting it off the ground.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Ottawa's LRT was born out of a few years of studying corridors and several iterations of TMPs. This proposal is coming out of the blue politically with very little science or a solid business case. To throw $2.1 billion to service a sector with a little more than 60,000 people seems puzzling when Gatineau couldn't even afford to widen Pont Noir to accommodate two lanes of BRT.

Is a station by the Chateau Laurier really the best way to integrate with the O-Train? How will a surface tram affect pedestrian and cyclist environment on the Gatineau section of Confederation Boulevard? Using the Alexandra bridge is the achilles heel of this plan. It's easy to wave a neo-urbanist wand and ban cars on the bridge outright but this ends up opening a pandora's box of issues on both sides of the river. There are a lot of stakeholders involved beyond Gatineau, the bridge carries 13% of vehicular traffic and 40% of ped/bike movement across the river. The bridge is also designated by the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering as a National Historic Civil Engineering Site (for whatever that's worth), so any significant alteration or replacement will definitely have strong objectors. I suspect any work on the bridge will be focused on preservation, talk of replacement is mere hearsay.

I'm all for LRT in Gatineau, but all possibilities of corridors need to be considered and studied properly, and come up with a long-range, Gatineau-wide TMP to ensure that money will be spent wisely. Especially when it comes to integration with the O-Train, the ideal scenario should be explored without compromise, and not just go for solutions that are "easy".

Quebec City has a far more sophisticated tram proposal and they've had a hard time getting it off the ground.

That is fair enough assessment, however, the Interprovincial Bridge began its history as a rail and tramway bridge. With three corridors on the bridge, it does not necessarily have to interfere with bicycle (or pedestrian) traffic.

This brings us back to why I was supporting a Kettle Island Bridge. We need another interprovincial crossing and we need to allow more traffic to bypass downtown.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Ottawa's LRT was born out of a few years of studying corridors and several iterations of TMPs. This proposal is coming out of the blue politically with very little science or a solid business case. To throw $2.1 billion to service a sector with a little more than 60,000 people seems puzzling when Gatineau couldn't even afford to widen Pont Noir to accommodate two lanes of BRT.

Is a station by the Chateau Laurier really the best way to integrate with the O-Train? How will a surface tram affect pedestrian and cyclist environment on the Gatineau section of Confederation Boulevard? Using the Alexandra bridge is the achilles heel of this plan. It's easy to wave a neo-urbanist wand and ban cars on the bridge outright but this ends up opening a pandora's box of issues on both sides of the river. There are a lot of stakeholders involved beyond Gatineau, the bridge carries 13% of vehicular traffic and 40% of ped/bike movement across the river. The bridge is also designated by the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering as a National Historic Civil Engineering Site (for whatever that's worth), so any significant alteration or replacement will definitely have strong objectors. I suspect any work on the bridge will be focused on preservation, talk of replacement is mere hearsay.

I'm all for LRT in Gatineau, but all possibilities of corridors need to be considered and studied properly, and come up with a long-range, Gatineau-wide TMP to ensure that money will be spent wisely. Especially when it comes to integration with the O-Train, the ideal scenario should be explored without compromise, and not just go for solutions that are "easy".

Quebec City has a far more sophisticated tram proposal and they've had a hard time getting it off the ground.

The Gatineau plan does appear a bit rushed to me, I agree.

[agl]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The Gatineau plan does appear a bit rushed to me, I agree.

According to the Facebook posts made by my Aylmer councilor, the route is very preliminary and only there as a placeholder in order to get the 10 year process started and commitments for funding at the provincial and federal levels. I would hope that as part of the lengthy process the city will undertake a complete review of the route options and potential integration with Ottawa's system, though admittedly every iteration of their previous reviews have all had serious flaws to them (ie. not fully considering commuters heading to Ottawa in the latest review, conducting an in-depth analysis of only one route via Allumetières in a preceding review).

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by H>T&T>P

They should tunnel the river and connect to Rideau station for transfer. Tunnels last for a tremendous amount of time where as bridges need to be replaced. I realize this comes at a much higher cost though.

Also the sooner these 2 transit agencies get turned into 1 the better.

Welcome to the forum!

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Why do you think the Plateau line is dumb?

Because it's bringing higher-order transit to an out-of-the-way suburban area that isn't very transit-supportive in its built form.

So, basically... North Ottawa transit thinking.