West Gatineau Tramway & Downtown Loop | Proposed

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by kevinbottawa

They're probably referring to overhead wires.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

They are 100% referring to overhead wires, which is, apparently, the worst possible thing that can exist in a city.

This would make sense if the STO hadn't already decided they were going to use battery-powered operations across the Portage and down Wellington.

Nope, they just don't like trams in front of Parliament Hill. But cars and tour buses are a-ok.

Either that or the councillors don't understand the concept of battery-powered trams...

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

This would make sense if the STO hadn't already decided they were going to use battery-powered operations across the Portage and down Wellington.

Nope, they just don't like trams in front of Parliament Hill. But cars and tour buses are a-ok.

Either that or the councillors don't understand the concept of battery-powered trams...

It makes sense though. When the streetcars were around they weren't allowed on Wellington so no one should be surprised at these turn of events.

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

This would make sense if the STO hadn't already decided they were going to use battery-powered operations across the Portage and down Wellington.

Nope, they just don't like trams in front of Parliament Hill. But cars and tour buses are a-ok.

Either that or the councillors don't understand the concept of battery-powered trams...

Trams on Wellington would be nice, but would be interrupted by all the protests, parades and ambassador motorcades. Underground means more reliability, also shelter from the elements.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

This would make sense if the STO hadn't already decided they were going to use battery-powered operations across the Portage and down Wellington.

I don't think any decisions were made. The mention of battery-powered vehicles were there to specifically pre-empt objections to overhead wires.

The STO isn't really accountable to Ottawans and if we don't like the result of a transit corridor on Wellington it would be difficult to take action after the fact. I could even see petty issues like the fact that STO RapiBus stations are unilingually French being brought up. The way I see it, the tunnel should be federal infrastructure that STO gets to use (much like Montreal's REM gets to use the Samuel-de-Champlain Bridge across the St-Lawrence).

[corynv]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

I don't think any decisions were made. The mention of battery-powered vehicles were there to specifically pre-empt objections to overhead wires.

The STO isn't really accountable to Ottawans and if we don't like the result of a transit corridor on Wellington it would be difficult to take action after the fact. I could even see petty issues like the fact that STO RapiBus stations are unilingually French being brought up. The way I see it, the tunnel should be federal infrastructure that STO gets to use (much like Montreal's REM gets to use the Samuel-de-Champlain Bridge across the St-Lawrence).

STO has stated that they would use batteries. You can hear this on the most recent transit committee video (at about 13:40-14:10 if time stamp doesn't end up working)

• Video Link

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by corynv

STO has stated that they would use batteries. You can hear this on the most recent transit committee video

“To protect the visual aesthetics of Wellington Street batter power will be used...” precisely my point regarding pre-emoting objections to wires. Obviously they won’t bother with this detail if the train runs through a tunnel.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

I don't think any decisions were made. The mention of battery-powered vehicles were there to specifically pre-empt objections to overhead wires.

The STO isn't really accountable to Ottawans and if we don't like the result of a transit corridor on Wellington it would be difficult to take action after the fact. I could even see petty issues like the fact that STO RapiBus stations are unilingually French being brought up. The way I see it, the tunnel should be federal infrastructure that STO gets to use (much like Montreal's REM gets to use the Samuel-de-Champlain Bridge across the St-Lawrence).

Yeah these are good points. The tunnel of course is more popular but given the route has almost no crossing and the volume that would actually use the train it's crazy to spend that much money on a tunnel. Maybe the liberals will announce huge new funds for transit. I am hopeful it will be more of this and less wasteful green subsidies. If we spent even one month of CERB payments on transit countrywide it would be trans-formative.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

“To protect the visual aesthetics of Wellington Street batter power will be used...” precisely my point regarding pre-emoting objections to wires. Obviously they won’t bother with this detail if the train runs through a tunnel.

The statement applies to the Portage Bridge too.

[passwordisnt123]

I don't mind the Sparks Street tunnel to be honest.

If they do a very shallow cut and cover, this will constrain the STO tunnel to stay in centretown since it can't cross the canal, which is a good thing. This provides an opportunity down the road for the STO tunnel to eventually extend either south at Bank street (if it can negotiate a sharp turn there) into something that resembles this forum's beloved Bank Street Subway or it could be extended across Sparks to Elgin and then south for pretty much as far as the imagination can take you. City Hall? Pretoria Bridge? Lansdowne? Carling O-train station via Queen Elizabeth Drive?

Since the Confederation Line and Trilium Line are more suburban oriented, I find it ironic that one of the best chances we may get at good, high-quality urban transportation in Ottawa might come about because of STO.

[The Conductor]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

Trams on Wellington would be nice, but would be interrupted by all the protests, parades and ambassador motorcades. Underground means more reliability, also shelter from the elements.

NO - we NEED a subway line like the existing Confederation line. Trams offer nothing but long term problems and issues.

[The Conductor]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

I don't mind the Sparks Street tunnel to be honest.

If they do a very shallow cut and cover, this will constrain the STO tunnel to stay in centretown since it can't cross the canal, which is a good thing. This provides an opportunity down the road for the STO tunnel to eventually extend either south at Bank street (if it can negotiate a sharp turn there) into something that resembles this forum's beloved Bank Street Subway

EXACTLY - shallow or deep cut that would make it perfect with future connection at Bank

[corynv]

Originally Posted by The Conductor

NO - we NEED a subway line like the existing Confederation line. Trams offer nothing but long term problems and issues.

plenty of european cities disagree. If your only mode of transit is metro, that's not a good system. The best systems are intermodal where the best type of transit it fit that specific need is chosen, whether it be buses, LRT/tram (in the form of streetcars, mainly grade separated (Calgary/Edmonton) hybrid (Ion) or light metro), metro, gondolas, ferries etc.

Not to mention subways still have cons of their own.

[Truenorth00]

Be careful. You'll get called an "alt-right troll" who supports "Big Oil" for not supporting subways everywhere....

In his world, Paris would have subpar transit because they insist on building tramways in their suburban areas. And their suburbs are denser than anything in the NCR:

• Video Link

In his world cities with no subways, only using LRT, like Bordeaux or Málaga have poor public transit. Imagine being from Gatineau and legitimately believing this.

[caboose]

Originally Posted by The Conductor

EXACTLY - shallow or deep cut that would make it perfect with future connection at Bank

Bank is essentially Parliament Station, so the connection to both the Gatineau Tram tunnel and fantasy Bank Street Subway could be made at Parliament.

[Hybrid247]

I'm a proponent of the Spark Street tunnel, but would it not be potentially cheaper to tunnel under the river into downtown Ottawa? If I'm not mistaken, STO planners said the Portage bridge would have to be rebuilt to accommodate LRT. If that's true, the cost of rebuilding the bridge and tunneling under Sparks would be quite expensive.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

I'm a proponent of the Spark Street tunnel, but would it not be potentially cheaper to tunnel under the river into downtown Ottawa? If I'm not mistaken, STO planners said the Portage bridge would have to be rebuilt to accommodate LRT. If that's true, the cost of rebuilding the bridge and tunneling under Sparks would be quite expensive.

They already evaluated (at least) two tunnel options below the river and they were too risky and expensive.

You have to remember just how far the line would need to descend to get below the river, and then just how far underneath downtown Ottawa it would be because the core sits on a plateau.

A rebuilt bridge + cut-and-cover(?) tunnel is much cheaper than an ultra-deep bored tunnel.

[The Conductor]

Originally Posted by caboose

Bank is essentially Parliament Station, so the connection to both the Gatineau Tram tunnel and fantasy Bank Street Subway could be made at Parliament.

Exactly!

[The Conductor]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

They already evaluated (at least) two tunnel options below the river and they were too risky and expensive.

You have to remember just how far the line would need to descend to get below the river, and then just how far underneath downtown Ottawa it would be because the core sits on a plateau.

A rebuilt bridge + cut-and-cover(?) tunnel is much cheaper than an ultra-deep bored tunnel.

Good points!

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

They already evaluated (at least) two tunnel options below the river and they were too risky and expensive.

You have to remember just how far the line would need to descend to get below the river, and then just how far underneath downtown Ottawa it would be because the core sits on a plateau.

A rebuilt bridge + cut-and-cover(?) tunnel is much cheaper than an ultra-deep bored tunnel.

Ah I didn't know they actually evaluated it. Thanks for the insight. I thought the grade change might not be too bad since the tunnel would have to go beneath the C-line tunnel, but I have no idea how deep beneath the river it would actually have to go.

If the Sparks tunnel gets built, I wonder if it would be possible to eventually extend Trillium line eastward to interline with the Gatineau LRT in the downtown core.

[corynv]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

If the Sparks tunnel gets built, I wonder if it would be possible to eventually extend Trillium line eastward to interline with the Gatineau LRT in the downtown core.

I'd highly doubt that, you'd either need to build the downtown stations with multiple platforms (low ones for STO high ones for Trillium), buy trains with multi-level doors (i'd imagine this wouldn't go to well with accessibility requirements) or completely rebuild the trillium line to go low-floor.