Future Transit System Ideas - Ottawa/Gatineau | Fantasy

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I really don't get the fascination with imagining Lansdowne as a huge trip generator which drives transit requirements. Sports arenas don't drive peak flow which is what drives most transit planning. And they somehow manage to fill up Lansdowne with buses today. Presumably trams and buses in their own lanes would be alright in the future.

That's exactly the problem with transit planning; it's based primarily on peak flows to get suburbanites to downtown while skipping over any non-work destination, main streets and urban density. A Bank Street Line would have that peak-flow from the south suburbs, but also be used off peak 100+ nights a year thanks to sports, concerts, festivals... So yes, Lansdowne should be considered as an important off peak trip generator, something sorely lacking along our current rapid transit network.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Here's my really radical idea.

Connect McArthur to Laurier with a bridge or tunnel. Make that the main traffic crossing into the core. Then we don't to tunnel a Rideau-Montreal LRT at all. 1 lane of traffic and 1 lane of tram in each direction. Possibly even no lanes of traffic in some parts.

Laurier East is a narrow street with a high volume of pedestrians and cyclists, especially through the uOttawa campus. It would not be suitable as a main crosstown route. If anything, Laurier-McCarthur might be better suited for a surface tram than it would be as a main car thoroughfare.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

That's exactly the problem with transit planning; it's based primarily on peak flows to get suburbanites to downtown while skipping over any non-work destination, main streets and urban density. A Bank Street Line would have that peak-flow from the south suburbs, but also be used off peak 100+ nights a year thanks to sports, concerts, festivals... So yes, Lansdowne should be considered as an important off peak trip generator, something sorely lacking along our current rapid transit network.

Who said anything about skipping over Lansdowne? Any busway or tramway would be stopping there. It's a bit of a strawman to say that but a subway or el train means completely ignoring Lansdowne.

The reason peak flows drive transit planning is because that is what determines how much capacity is needed, which then drives the mode and investment allocation. If Lansdowne only needs 1000 pphpd most days on a corridor that needs only 6000 pphpd, LRT on the surface works just fine.

Basically, you're arguing that that problem is that planners shouldn't care about matching capacity to demand. Good for a fantasy thread I guess. But not sure that's practical in a world with finite resources.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Laurier East is a narrow street with a high volume of pedestrians and cyclists, especially through the uOttawa campus. It would not be suitable as a main crosstown route. If anything, Laurier-McCarthur might be better suited for a surface tram than it would be as a main car thoroughfare.

The problem with LRT on Laurier-McArthur is that it isn't where demand actually is and wouldn't connect to Rideau or Montreal stations. Better to sacrifice Laurier-McArthur to cars and prioritize transit on Rideau-Montreal. Alternatively, this becomes another place to spend a billion bucks to accommodate cars.....

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Who said anything about skipping over Lansdowne? Any busway or tramway would be stopping there. It's a bit of a strawman to say that but a subway or el train means completely ignoring Lansdowne.

You were asking about Lansdowne and why we think it's an important trip generator. I was saying that current transit plans skip over Lansdowne. I never said your fantasy plans would skip over Lansdowne or that any other surface option would not serve Lansdowne. Anything is better than the status quo from a Lansdowne perspective.

The reason peak flows drive transit planning is because that is what determines how much capacity is needed, which then drives the mode and investment allocation. If Lansdowne only needs 1000 pphpd most days on a corridor that needs only 6000 pphpd, LRT on the surface works just fine.

Basically, you're arguing that that problem is that planners shouldn't care about matching capacity to demand. Good for a fantasy thread I guess. But not sure that's practical in a world with finite resources.

Lansdowne would not the only trip generator. South end could draw 5,000-6,000 phpd during peak. Lansdowne would draw something similar, maybe more off peak during event nights. So the entire line would be better utilized overall. Surface would work if we shut down Bank, yes, but I don't believe that's feasible for the many reasons I've stated, which is why I'm proposing a Canada Line solution which has similar ridership as what a Bank light-metro would have.

That's not an invitation to shoot down the Bank light-metro. I know, you disagree, you want trams, that's fine. I'm just trying to evolve the conversation beyond metro vs surface by speaking to the Lansdowne situation as its own thing. Purely a response to your "fascination with imagining Lansdowne as a huge trip generator" comment.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The problem with LRT on Laurier-McArthur is that it isn't where demand actually is and wouldn't connect to Rideau or Montreal stations. Better to sacrifice Laurier-McArthur to cars and prioritize transit on Rideau-Montreal. Alternatively, this becomes another place to spend a billion bucks to accommodate cars.....

I'm not advocating for a Laurier-McCarthur tram, just saying that a tram would be better suited than turning it over as the main car route due to its current use and built-form. It's a terrible option for both.

Sometimes, tunnels are the best solution, and that's seems to be the case for Rideau-Montreal to St. Laurent. Closest thing to a consensus we've had when it comes to grade separation beyond Stage 3.

[lrt's friend]

The Laurier-McArthur connection has been discussed before. It seems impractical because of the elevation difference between the east and west side of the river and then there is the Russian embassy at the east end of Laurier. On top of that, we would be basically converting Laurier East into another traffic sewer. I am not sure how we improve central Ottawa by creating yet another traffic sewer.

Then we will also be further centralizing truck traffic through downtown if Rideau is no longer an option.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by phil235

I was thinking of Granville St. and was trying to remember the details. It's a street that has definitely had its ups and downs over the years. I recall that the transit portion is roughly 10 blocks or so. Wouldn't that part of the street be more comparable to Bank St. downtown than to Bank through the Glebe.

As for Queen St. in Oxford, I was there once 15 years ago. My recollection is that the pedestrian portion of the street is essentially the heart of the city. I do remember that Oxford did a really good job of directing drivers to lots on the outskirts and getting them onto transit before they enter the urban area.

My memories of Vancouver was that Robson Street was the more appealing street to be on, and I recall Granville being a bit sketchy.

Also, Granville has two close by parallel streets for traffic for the entire length of the downtown area. Bank Street's parallel streets are long blocks away and are not continuous for the entire length of interest (downtown to Billings).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am not sure how we improve central Ottawa by creating yet another traffic sewer.

So close to getting it....

Start by outright removing car access. We have built a $7B regional metro system with parking too. Time for the suburbanites to actually use it.

In any event, after we spend another $3-5B building Confederation Line extensions to Barrhaven and Kanata, and still have downtown choking on traffic while completely exhausting the transit capital budgets for a generation, I think folks will slowly start coming around to the idea.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

There is space for inexpensive ground-level LRT along Baseline, Vanier Parkway and Montreal Road

We are in the middle of rebuilding Montreal Road so as to remove any prospect of it having a dedicated transit ROW. To run surface LRT (streetcars) on Montreal would be a massive investment for zero payoff in terms of better transit performance for the customer, and precious little in terms of the ability to use transit reshape that part of the city going forward. And the fact that it would be disjoint a single urban axis by not respecting the continuity of Montreal and Rideau only makes it worse.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I will make my fantasy really simple. To sum it up.

I don't think any more grade separated rail is needed beyond Stage 2 for the next 30 years. But I guess we'll build out to Barrhaven, Kanata and Stittsville to help them out with some transit induced sprawl.

All I want are curbside bus lanes with transit priority on every major avenue. All of them. Greenbank, Woodroffe, Merivale, Bank, Conroy, St-Laurent, Hunt Club, Walkley, Heron, Baseline, Montreal, Somerset-Wellington-Richmond, Gladstone, Carling, Castlefrank-Kanata, Stittsville Main, etc. There's probably a few in there I forgot. Start at the lowest level in Google maps. Zoom out nine times. If you still see a thick white line, that corridor should have painted curbside bus lanes, transit priority, protected bus shelters and stops before the light.

We need to stop making bus riders wait in traffic in this town. And giving buses priority, along with bolstering frequencies is what will actually foster transit ridership and gain share from the car in this town. Building more expensive downtown focused LRTs that most folks are only going to use for their commute, isn't going to change car dependency. It's just going to perpetuate the idea that transit is for commuters. It's not a replacement for a car.

On Montreal Road, we are in the middle of doing the exact opposite of all those things, and all those things clash with the planning orthodoxy at Ottawa city hall anyway, especially near-side stops.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Montreal, I would want to see the proposed bus priority measures built within 5 years, not the City's 20 year timeline.

Regardless of when they are built, the rebuild currently under way on the River-St. Laurent portion through Vanier completely takes transit priority off the table for this generation and the next one. Despite the teeny tiny tinkering with "transit priority" lights at two intersections, buses are going to take longer than they already do to traverse Montreal Road.

Ever since the big once-a-century rebuild of the older urban main streets in Ottawa began in the 90's, there has not been a single case that I can think of where anything other than the weakest of transit improvements was put into place. Not on Bank, not Rideau, not Elgin, not Main, not Montreal. And a lot of things have been done, and are being done, to make urban transit, urban bus-based transit, even worse in Ottawa.

Us urbanites just get the honour of paying higher taxes to build suburban LRT.

[Kramata]

Since this is fantasy here is a wacky idea.

Since a Deschênes bridge isn't going to happen anytime soon, how about an urban gondola crossing the river there. Have it connect to Lincoln Fields and the Aylmer LRT and you got a transit connection.

If that seems too risky, we can do a trial run with a tall zip line tower first or something.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Kramata

Since this is fantasy here is a wacky idea.

Since a Deschênes bridge isn't going to happen anytime soon, how about an urban gondola crossing the river there. Have it connect to Lincoln Fields and the Aylmer LRT and you got a transit connection.

If that seems too risky, we can do a trial run with a tall zip line tower first or something.

Why not a Trebuchet? It would work well.

[Kramata]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Why not a Trebuchet? It would work well.

Sorry, not viable in the slightest. With the cost of lumber now the price would be high enough to put a new Canada arm into space.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Kramata

Since this is fantasy here is a wacky idea.

Since a Deschênes bridge isn't going to happen anytime soon, how about an urban gondola crossing the river there. Have it connect to Lincoln Fields and the Aylmer LRT and you got a transit connection.

If that seems too risky, we can do a trial run with a tall zip line tower first or something.

I like it. Translink will be building a gondola between the Skytrain and Simon Fraser University as a legit transit link. I think this could be plausible as well.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Kramata

Sorry, not viable in the slightest. With the cost of lumber now the price would be high enough to put a new Canada arm into space.

Use steel or aluminum. Should be slightly lower cost.

[Kitchissippi]

A few years ago I suggested an aerial gondola across the Deschenes Rapids on one of the NCC public input sessions, mainly as a shuttle to connect the green spaces and pathways across the river. Of course, crickets.

The water up- and down-stream of the rapids is very shallow and it also wouldn't be very expensive to build a lightweight bridge across. Another idea would be to have a cable liner similar to the people mover in Venice, Italy, which consist of two light cable-pulled engineless trains travelling on a single track that meet in a midway station.

• Video Link

A mid-station at Mud Lake would enable cyclists and pedestrians to be shuttled to pathways on either side.



A similar idea could be used for the repurposing of the Alexandra Bridge (or built into its underside in the event of a redesign). I envision a semi-underground station on Laurier/des Allumettieres with a walk-out to the waterfront/ Museum of History/Jacques-Cartier Park, and the repurposing of the former Photography museum as a station.



in my fantasy world, these would be free or extremely cheap like a buck a ride.

[swimmer_spe]

I have a crazy idea.....

Restore the tracks to the Ottawa Union Station.

Here me out...

LRT will not cut it for commuting outside of the city.
With a single LRT line through the downtown core, it will eventually get too full to be useful to the city.

That is where the old Union Station comes in. From where the old tracks used to be where now there is a track that does not continue downtown, rebuild that connection underground. Use electric heavy rail NA standard approved rolling stock. Then, build the network out from the city.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I have a crazy idea.....

Restore the tracks to the Ottawa Union Station.

Here me out...

LRT will not cut it for commuting outside of the city.
With a single LRT line through the downtown core, it will eventually get too full to be useful to the city.

That is where the old Union Station comes in. From where the old tracks used to be where now there is a track that does not continue downtown, rebuild that connection underground. Use electric heavy rail NA standard approved rolling stock. Then, build the network out from the city.

Once the city decides to build either the Kettle Island bridge, or the Sandy Hill Interprovincial Truck Tunnel(SHITT), there will be no need for Nicholas street to exist between the 417 and Laurier. I say remove it and restore the purpose of Union Station. Then for a coating of around $100 million after that is finished you can have some form of a GO Train in this city

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Athens

Once the city decides to build either the Kettle Island bridge, or the Sandy Hill Interprovincial Truck Tunnel(SHITT), there will be no need for Nicholas street to exist between the 417 and Laurier. I say remove it and restore the purpose of Union Station. Then for a coating of around $100 million after that is finished you can have some form of a GO Train in this city

Nicholas is the main supply route that services the majority of stores, restaurants and offices downtown, so good luck with that fantasy. Millions of dollars worth of goods and services flow through it daily, far more valuable to the city’s economy than a train for exurbanites and out-of-towners that would probably run at an operating deficit forever.

[lrt's friend]

Nicholas Street was not on Union Station rail right of way. Colonel By Drive was built on that right of way.

The current setup with the Tremblay Road station now has some advantages since it allows trains to flow through Ottawa efficiently. As a result, both Montreal and Toronto bound trains can serve the two Ottawa stations. There would be significant delays if trains were to serve the old Union Station and then have to back out again, or Montreal bound trains would not serve Fallowfield Station, a significant loss.

The current setup also is a necessity if HFR is ever built with most trains passing through Ottawa and few terminating here.

The dream of bringing back Union Station is long dead and I see no scenario where it will be brought back.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Nicholas Street was not on Union Station rail right of way. Colonel By Drive was built on that right of way.

The current setup with the Tremblay Road station now has some advantages since it allows trains to flow through Ottawa efficiently. As a result, both Montreal and Toronto bound trains can serve the two Ottawa stations. There would be significant delays if trains were to serve the old Union Station and then have to back out again, or Montreal bound trains would not serve Fallowfield Station, a significant loss.

Trains will not have to be turned as the new trains will have a cab car on one end and a locomotive on the other.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The current setup also is a necessity if HFR is ever built with most trains passing through Ottawa and few terminating here.

The dream of bringing back Union Station is long dead and I see no scenario where it will be brought back.

I agree with you as it is only a short transit ride to downtown Ottawa and the rest of the city.