West Gatineau Tramway & Downtown Loop | Proposed

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

As in a tunnel all the way to Wellington? Would be the first I hear of it. Got a link?

http://www.sto.ca/index.php?id=838&L=fr

Search for the key word "Lyon".

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

http://www.sto.ca/index.php?id=838&L=fr

Search for the key word "Lyon".

Thanks! Didn't know this was something being considered. If they do decide on the Wellington option, that would certainly be helpful.

Another interesting detail I hadn't noticed before is that they estimate it would take 5 minutes to walk between Wellington and both Lyon and Parliament stations, which doesn't seem to include the time that it would take to go down to platform level.

[Horus]

Originally Posted by RuralCitizen

Is there a way to find what % of commuters will have a destination to buildings along Wellington and Sparks? Unless we get accurate numbers on where the commuters destinations are, I will continue to believe that a line on Wellington won't bring passengers where they actually want to go. The current STO lines mostly bring people close to Slater and Albert, which I believe is more central.

That's irrelevant. Until just a short while ago, all STO buses ran on Wellington, so running a tram along Wellington would just be a return to what all STO riders were used to.

[Aylmer]

5 minutes definitely includes the walk down. Otherwise, it's 1.8 km/h. Unless it takes you a full 40 minutes to cover a kilometre on foot.

[Hybrid247]

It says "3 minutes walking and 2 minutes waiting at signalized intersections". The waiting at intersections part would really apply mostly to Lyon, if anything. I can see it taking 5-6 minutes from platform to platform at Parliament, but Lyon I think could be a little longer if there's no tunnel connection.

[Aylmer]

I stand corrected. Although I can't help but feel that that's a massively inflated figure. Even 3 minutes to walk 150m is only 3 km/h, almost half the commonly-accepted walking speed of 5-6 km/h.

Signal time is also a non-issue for Parliament (because there's no cross-traffic on Wellington on Sparks) and at Lyon (assuming a tunnel). I'd peg a more realistic platform-to-platform transfer time at 4 minutes at a leisurely pace: 2 to walk, 2 to descend/ascend.

[Acajack]

This whole discussion about whether a few blocks more or a few blocks less would actually dissuade people from using the STO tramway is, as we say in French, de l'enculage de mouches.

(Have fun with Google Translate if you don't understand.)

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I stand corrected. Although I can't help but feel that that's a massively inflated figure. Even 3 minutes to walk 150m is only 3 km/h, almost half the commonly-accepted walking speed of 5-6 km/h.

Signal time is also a non-issue for Parliament (because there's no cross-traffic on Wellington on Sparks) and at Lyon (assuming a tunnel). I'd peg a more realistic platform-to-platform transfer time at 4 minutes at a leisurely pace: 2 to walk, 2 to descend/ascend.

Google Maps says it is a 3 minute walk from the north side of Wellington to Lyon Station (200m). From the south side of Wellington to Lyon Station (170m) it says it is a 2 minute walk.

Many people tend to walk at about 1.4 metres per second, so to walk 200m, it should take an average of 143 seconds, or 2m23s without traffic lights.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Google Maps says it is a 3 minute walk from the north side of Wellington to Lyon Station (200m). From the south side of Wellington to Lyon Station (170m) it says it is a 2 minute walk.

Many people tend to walk at about 1.4 metres per second, so to walk 200m, it should take an average of 143 seconds, or 2m23s without traffic lights.

We're Gatinois. We jaywalk. No need to count time for traffic lights.

[Hybrid247]

At the end of the day, it's a preference thing. There are trade-offs between both options and everyone weighs things differently. Not to mention some peoples' decisions are also influenced by more trivial aspects of each scenario, which I'm sure applies to most of us in some shape or form, but mostly Wellington supporters

[Aylmer]

I suppose that my view is that the strongest argument carted out for a tunnel is "the transfers are better", and even that is marginal at best when you scratch the surface. At an extra billion dollars and without the benefit of expandability or Wellington de-Merivale-ing, there's gotta be more compelling of an argument than "it's a preference thing".

Of course, we're not actually sitting down and designing the thing. We're just shooting the shit online. But part of the fun of an online discussion is being able to articulate a position, and see where others find flaws or disagreements with it. We build on some of the things we find to imagine new ideas to discuss. Someone states that they think a certain thing is 'good' for 'reasons', another identifies flaws in that reason, someone else disagrees. No one owes it to anyone to defend their idea, but it certainly is more fun and interesting to actually dig into why it is that they think a certain thing.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Acajack

We're Gatinois. We jaywalk. No need to count time for traffic lights.

Wellington is the least jaywalk-able street in the CBD. Good luck dodging tour buses, dump trucks, transport trucks, and confused tourists.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Wellington is the least jaywalk-able street in the CBD. Good luck dodging tour buses, dump trucks, transport trucks, and confused tourists.

It was just a joke.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I suppose that my view is that the strongest argument carted out for a tunnel is "the transfers are better", and even that is marginal at best when you scratch the surface. At an extra billion dollars and without the benefit of expandability or Wellington de-Merivale-ing, there's gotta be more compelling of an argument than "it's a preference thing".

Not sure what you mean by "without the benefit of expandability"? How is it not expandable?

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Of course, we're not actually sitting down and designing the thing. We're just shooting the shit online. But part of the fun of an online discussion is being able to articulate a position, and see where others find flaws or disagreements with it. We build on some of the things we find to imagine new ideas to discuss. Someone states that they think a certain thing is 'good' for 'reasons', another identifies flaws in that reason, someone else disagrees. No one owes it to anyone to defend their idea, but it certainly is more fun and interesting to actually dig into why it is that they think a certain thing.

Absolutely, but what I was trying to point out with regards to "preference" is that people prioritize and attribute different levels of importance to different things, and that is what a lot of it comes down to.

I think it's important to provide the best connectivity and level of reliability possible to serve us better further into the future, and I think a tunnel does that best because it provides more seamless connectivity, minimizes the potential for service disruptions and ensures we have a piece of infrastructure that can handle greater capacity much further into the future. If there's any segment of the tram line you want to futureproof the most, it's this section, as it will be used by all of Gatineau's future lines well into the future.

Look at all the examples where even planners thought that a certain configuration would be "good enough" only to have it fail spectacularly. Like the Trillium line for instance. We spent millions on bootleg upgrades thinking it would provide a great benefit (8 minute frequencies) at minimal cost and we end up with barely any benefit at all. Edmonton thought it could get away with a signalized level crossing on the Metro Line downtown, and that failed spectacularly as well. I'm sure if you ask many, including professionals, they would've endorsed more spending for those extra upgrades in retrospect.

I find we often overestimate the LOS achievable with cost-cutting alternatives in this country and underestimate the ROI of higher quality, more costly designs.

[Floppa]

As awesome as it would be to de-Merivale-ize Wellington, it's one of the very few through street in the CBD, so we might wanna think long and hard about this

[Aylmer]

I don't get what you mean. Queen, Albert, Slater, and Laurier all run the full length of it. As do Bronson, Bay, Lyon, Kent, Bank, O'Connor, Metcalfe, and Elgin. Only Sparks doesn't have car through-traffic.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I don't get what you mean. Queen, Albert, Slater, and Laurier all run the full length of it. As do Bronson, Bay, Lyon, Kent, Bank, O'Connor, Metcalfe, and Elgin. Only Sparks doesn't have car through-traffic.

Last I checked, Queen St terminated at both Bronson and Elgin. Slater merges with Albert just west of Bronson and just east of Elgin. Albert ends at Waller in the east. Laurier terminates at Cambridge St N. and the Rideau River. The other streets you listed run north south (though many of them don’t get very far outside of the core (Bronson and Bank are the only two that cross the Rideau Canal).

Where as Wellington (while it changes nana a bunch of times) basically runs from Lincoln Fields all the way past Orleans, almost all the way to Clarance-Rockland. While I agree no one travels along it from end to end, having the connectivity is useful.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Sauvanto

Look this is all very good, but do we actually need a tram in the first place? On the Gat side, what about just better/added bus lanes and priority traffic lights? For the Ottawa side, what about a bus-tunnel instead of tram? That way the infrastructure would be there if it needs to be converted to rail in the future

If you have to tunnel, tunnelling for buses is the absolute worst thing to do.

[Aylmer]

So you mean cross-town routes, ok.

And let me know if I've understood: it's important to consider the impact on cross-town traffic. But you agree that Wellington isn't useful or used for cross-town trips. BUT it's important to maintain it for the day that someone might decide to, despite that.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

So you mean cross-town routes, ok.

And let me know if I've understood: it's important to consider the impact on cross-town traffic. But you agree that Wellington isn't useful or used for cross-town trips. BUT it's important to maintain it for the day that someone might decide to, despite that.

No, you didn't understand. The value of cross-town streets (not highways) is that you can get between any two different points along it. For example, Wellington/Rideau/Montreal Rd is the only street north of the 417 that connects downtown to Vanier, and there aren't many ways to change that.

It is true that a stretch of Rideau was blocked to cars for many years, but after opening it up to cars again, I don't know how wise it is to close Wellington and redirect the traffic from Rideau, Sussex, Mackenzie and Colonel By bound for downtown onto Elgin.

Also, both the Ottawa River Parkway and the Portage bridge merge onto Wellington. I am not sure if redirecting all that traffic bound for downtown onto Lyon would work out all that well. I know some would say we should get rid of all those vehicles, but that is easier said than done.