Future Transit System Ideas - Ottawa/Gatineau | Fantasy

[swimmer_spe]

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

First off, I like the acronym.

I would say that the goal shouldn't be to remove the surface streets, but to improve transportation overall. A tunnel would be a couple of km long, much like the lines into Grand Central Terminal in NY. There they have to deal with being below sea level.

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.

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.

https://www.viarail.ca/en/plan-your-...nte-foy-quebec

No Montreal bound trains use Falllowfield unless it is from Toronto.
I wouldn't see a need to close the 2 existing Ottawa stations, just add one more that a commuter rail type system would utilize and serve downtown better.

[Nowhere]

I know people here love to imagine $10+ billions subways that will never happen, but I'm trying to look at what could be done to improve transit in the core for a more affordable price tag. So here is my imaginary inner city transitway.

This would involve bus lanes in the median of Holly Acres, Carling, King Edward, St. Patrick and Vanier with transit priority at traffic lights, similar to what is planned on Baseline. The Queen Elizabeth Driveway would be converted to a transitway and cars would be removed entirely, expect for the short section west of Lansdowne where some people live on the parkway.

The stretch of Rideau St. beside the Rideau Centre would be converted to a bus-only transit mall. Bus lanes would be added on Laurier and Elgin beside the city hall and the National Arts Centre to link the Queen Elizabeth Driveway and Rideau.

No way this would ever happen politically however, since the amount of space that would be removed from cars would be a political suicide.

Edit. This would make a loop with the future Baseline transitway as well.

[RuralCitizen]

Originally Posted by Nowhere

I know people here love to imagine $10+ billions subways that will never happen, but I'm trying to look at what could be done to improve transit in the core for a more affordable price tag. So here is my imaginary inner city transitway.

This would involve bus lanes in the median of Holly Acres, Carling, King Edward, St. Patrick and Vanier with transit priority at traffic lights, similar to what is planned on Baseline. The Queen Elizabeth Driveway would be converted to a transitway and cars would be removed entirely, expect for the short section west of Lansdowne where some people live on the parkway.

The stretch of Rideau St. beside the Rideau Centre would be converted to a bus-only transit mall. Bus lanes would be added on Laurier and Elgin beside the city hall and the National Arts Centre to link the Queen Elizabeth Driveway and Rideau.

No way this would ever happen politically however, since the amount of space that would be removed from cars would be a political suicide.

Edit. This would make a loop with the future Baseline transitway as well.

Instead of making the Baseline/Walkley BRT line turn up on St-Laurent, I would extend it to connect with the Brian-Coburn BRT. This would provide redundancy for Orleans and reduce the rush hour traffic on 2 lines for the users who are not heading downtown.

I would put a tram along the Walkley rail line (Green line on your map) (I don't know how much use it currently has). This would service all of the south of the urban city. Then I would make this line turn up on St-Laurent, but not stop at Innes like you show. This would need to extend at least to St-Laurent allowing for transfer with the current LRT.

Now, after these are implemented, the last underserved area on your map would be Vanier, Overbrook, Manor Park, Carson Grove, Beacon Hill area. Essentially everything North of the 417 East of Rideau River. Maybe instead of having a line along Vanier Parkway I would have one follow Montreal road. Vanier Parkway is already hyper busy currently as it is the only alternative to the Nicholas/King Edward corridor to Quebec. BRT on it would just make it worse for everyone.
For a Montreal Alignment we'd just have to decide where it ends:
- Down on St-Laurent to meet the other St-Laurent Line?
- Down Blair to meet current LRT?
- Or further to Montreal Rd/417 Station?

If we invest in a subway for this alignment, I think the potential for High Density redevelopment is very high and would make it worth the investment. This area has lots of low income families and those would pretty much guaranty public transit usage instead of cars for those who can't afford a car.

[lrt's friend]

I know I am a fool but I have dreamt of resurrecting the Rockcliffe tramway as a scenic line that connects various tourist attractions but also extends to the new Wateridge development and eventually to Blair Station, where it could further be extended to the South Orleans transitway corridor. Downtown, it could also connect to the interprovincial tram loop. But as many here have said in the past, Ottawa cannot have nice things.

[Sauvanto]

You know what would be fun if we have time one day? For this forum to collaborate to make our own detailed transit master plan. And I'm talking not just fantasy crap but actually a list of projects we'd vote to select their priority, which bus routes we'd change, what the frequency would be, etc. I don't know how we'd even do that, but just a passing thought

[DarthVader_1961]

Originally Posted by Sauvanto

You know what would be fun if we have time one day? For this forum to collaborate to make our own detailed transit master plan. And I'm talking not just fantasy crap but actually a list of projects we'd vote to select their priority, which bus routes we'd change, what the frequency would be, etc. I don't know how we'd even do that, but just a passing thought

And send it to our respective city council reps.. just to see how they react

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Sauvanto

You know what would be fun if we have time one day? For this forum to collaborate to make our own detailed transit master plan. And I'm talking not just fantasy crap but actually a list of projects we'd vote to select their priority, which bus routes we'd change, what the frequency would be, etc. I don't know how we'd even do that, but just a passing thought

Given the latest debates, I wonder if any sort of consensus would be possible. It is surprising for an urbanist forum how much transit hostility is out there. There is more discussion about what we shouldn't build instead of what we should build.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Given the latest debates, I wonder if any sort of consensus would be possible. It is surprising for an urbanist forum how much transit hostility is out there. There is more discussion about what we shouldn't build instead of what we should build.

The problem is, we have a transit problem that needs multiple solutions. The next problem is that politicians want one solution to all. LRVs were the answer to "we messed up" when it came to ripping up streetcar lines. Grade separating them makes no sense as demand will outpace space. So, instead of spending for tomorrow's problems, we spend for yesterday's mistakes.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Given the latest debates, I wonder if any sort of consensus would be possible. It is surprising for an urbanist forum how much transit hostility is out there. There is more discussion about what we shouldn't build instead of what we should build.

It's also amazing for an urbanist forum how much some people want to prioritize private vehicular access.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I know I am a fool but I have dreamt of resurrecting the Rockcliffe tramway as a scenic line that connects various tourist attractions but also extends to the new Wateridge development and eventually to Blair Station, where it could further be extended to the South Orleans transitway corridor. Downtown, it could also connect to the interprovincial tram loop. But as many here have said in the past, Ottawa cannot have nice things.

SECONDED. Also, the eastern river shoreline is hard to access by almost anything other than a car. Even planes have almost as good access as cyclists. Pedestrians have to be endurance walkers and safety-conscious. Transit is effectively non-existant except a few tenuous "connections" with long walks.

[Richard Eade]

Here is a random idea:

Could we add a kilometre and a half of elevated track to the north end of Line 2 to interline with the Gatineau Tram tunnel under Sparks?



We could modify our new trains to include enough battery storage to get them back and forth within the tunnel. The rest of the time, they could continue to run on Diesel. Alternatively, we could add a pantograph to power them off of the overhead line when in the tunnel.

The new Park of the Provinces station would provide transfers between Line 2 and the tram.

Ultimately, I would like to see Line 2 run from Wellington, under Bank Street to Billings Bridge, and then run at grade along the (soon to be) existing Line 2 track between Mooney’s Bay and Limebank stations. This would be a fully double-tracked, electric line. Line 4 would run from the airport, through Carleton U. to Bayview, and then along these new, elevated, tracks to join the Gatineau Tram tracks under Sparks. Line 4 would not need to be as high a capacity line as Line 2.

[OTSkyline]

That would be very expensive with very little benefit. The only upside would be to save a transfer for those arriving from the south and heading downtown.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

That would be very expensive with very little benefit. The only upside would be to save a transfer for those arriving from the south and heading downtown.

Bayview/Confederation will have a breaking point where we'll need to find a solution.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Here is a random idea:
Could we add a kilometre and a half of elevated track to the north end of Line 2 to interline with the Gatineau Tram tunnel under Sparks?

But the GREEN SPACE? Why won't they think of the GREEN SPACE?!?!

That's not a half-bad idea.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Bayview/Confederation will have a breaking point where we'll need to find a solution.

By that time, there will be other things to worry about. It is no different than the issues with Bloor - Yonge station.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

But the GREEN SPACE? Why won't they think of the GREEN SPACE?!?!

That's not a half-bad idea.

Not to worry too much about the GREEN SPACE. I have bundled the elevated LRT beside the roadway, to minimize taking green away. And, if the LRT is built on piers, a la Montreal's REM, there could be a good flow of pedestrians and cyclists across (under) it. (It could even be used as cover for the sidewalk.)

The LRT is on the south side of the road so as to minimize the disruption of the NCC's view-plane; while providing transit riders with an elevated view. The only station that I would recommend is the Park of the Provinces station, which should not be in the view-plane, since, from there, that view is already blocked by the old LAC building.

[Yes, I know that you were being sarcastic, but it would likely be brought up as a real concern, too. ]

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Bayview/Confederation will have a breaking point where we'll need to find a solution.

It will eventually, but given that prior to Line 2 shutdown the vast majority of those using it were going to/from Carleton, the proportion of Line 2 riders transferring to the Confederation line will be a small. It will gradually grow, but I feel most on here are over estimating it, especially when you consider the effect of WFH. Also, capacity issues at Bayview/Confederation approach, increasing service on the S/E Transitway will help relieve the issue.

Once both Bayview/Confederation and Hurdman/Confederation do eventually reach their breaking point, N/S ridership will be high enough that we can look at a Bank St. Subway as an alternate route downtown, and that would relieve the congestion.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

By that time, there will be other things to worry about. It is no different than the issues with Bloor - Yonge station.

And Bloor-Yonge is a mess. The relief line should have been build decades ago. Even then, not quite the same situation. Bloor-Yonge has two transfers, and the transfer is further outside of downtown.

Originally Posted by roger1818

It will eventually, but given that prior to Line 2 shutdown the vast majority of those using it were going to/from Carleton, the proportion of Line 2 riders transferring to the Confederation line will be a small. It will gradually grow, but I feel most on here are over estimating it, especially when you consider the effect of WFH. Also, capacity issues at Bayview/Confederation approach, increasing service on the S/E Transitway will help relieve the issue.

Once both Bayview/Confederation and Hurdman/Confederation do eventually reach their breaking point, N/S ridership will be high enough that we can look at a Bank St. Subway as an alternate route downtown, and that would relieve the congestion.

For sure, prior to the shut-down, Carleton was the main destination, but with major TOD, a massive new health care complex, an arena, the library and new development, that will change.

With that said, it's not an immediate problem that needs to be solved, but for sure, I think Bank Street should be considered as a relief line for Bayview and Hurdman over the next decades.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Bayview/Confederation will have a breaking point where we'll need to find a solution.

1) Not anytime soon.

2) There's cheaper solutions to be had, like converting the SE Transitway and interlining south of Greenboro.

3) There's better return on investment with a Bank St. Subway.

Lastly, given that the Trillium Line is not built for trams (like the Confederation Line), can it even make the turn needed to make this fantasy connection?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

1) Not anytime soon.

2) There's cheaper solutions to be had, like converting the SE Transitway and interlining south of Greenboro.

3) There's better return on investment with a Bank St. Subway.

Lastly, given that the Trillium Line is not built for trams (like the Confederation Line), can it even make the turn needed to make this fantasy connection?

1) Agreed, we probably have a few decades.

2) I'd oppose converting the SE Transitway as it will never reach capacity. That money is better invested elsewhere.

3) My preferred solution as well, sometime before 2050 (at least shovel ready, not necessarily built).

Richard's proposal is certainly an interesting one, and would have been worth looking at had things turned out differently, for example if O'Brien's proposal of building the N/S without the downtown section had been approved.

At this point, considering ridership of Line 2 could easily reach 30k+ within 5 years, any sort of conversion to electric or low-floor would (at least should) be a non-starter. Extended shut-downs should never again be even considered. Any incremental improvement (double tracking Walkley, Dow's Lake Stations or any other section to increase frequency) should be done with weekend shut-downs at most.