West Gatineau Tramway & Downtown Loop | Proposed - Page 32

roger1818 · #1 Posted **Jun 25, 2020, 7:08 PM**

Not nearly as good as Kitchissippi's drawings, but here is a rough sketch of how I would imagine the tunnel could be extended to the Alexandra Bridge (I struggled to get the curve to go exactly where I wanted, but you get the idea).

(click to enlarge)

Horus · #2 Posted **Jun 25, 2020, 7:23 PM**

In roger1818's route, I wonder how feasible it would be to incorporate a 3rd station at or near Chateau Laurier?

That would help with STO's stated objective to spread the load of downtown destination/origin passengers. I suppose the depth of the tunnel at that spot (dipping below the canal and locks) might not allow for a station at that spot

roger1818 · #3 Posted **Jun 25, 2020, 8:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horus

In roger1818's route, I wonder how feasible it would be to incorporate a 3rd station at or near Chateau Laurier?

I think it would be possible. I tried to draw a fixed radius curve but it came out more as a spline. With a fixed radius, track should be straight shortly past Rideau St.

YOWetal · #4 Posted **Jun 26, 2020, 6:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horus

In roger1818's route, I wonder how feasible it would be to incorporate a 3rd station at or near Chateau Laurier?

That would help with STO's stated objective to spread the load of downtown destination/origin passengers. I suppose the depth of the tunnel at that spot (dipping below the canal and locks) might not allow for a station at that spot

That would make sense. I would add another stop at the National Gallery which adds Bruyere and Foreign Affairs to it's service area as well as the North Market more generally.

All this as a tunnel seems very expensive. Couldn't the same route on the surface also work as a one way loop? Alexandria bridge could be one way only. Which would be inconvenient for me personally as a I backwards commute to Gatineau but overall much less traffic in that direction that would easily be dispersed.

JHikka · #5 Posted **Jun 26, 2020, 4:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horus

In roger1818's route, I wonder how feasible it would be to incorporate a 3rd station at or near Chateau Laurier?

Would it make more sense to have a station at the National Gallery instead? It would capture residents in the lower market and spread stations out a bit, as well as servicing the Bruyere hospital and public sector employees on Sussex.

Horus · #6 Posted **Jun 26, 2020, 5:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka

Would it make more sense to have a station at the National Gallery instead? It would capture residents in the lower market and spread stations out a bit, as well as servicing the Bruyere hospital and public sector employees on Sussex.

I'm not sure it would, would it? Considering that most of us here have assumed that any tram/rail connection via Alexandra bridge would follow the old Hull railway route down to the lower Chateau Laurier, the track would be hugging the escarpment (?) wall on its ascent up to the bridge from the Chateau. That would put any prospective station near Tavern on the Hill in Major's Hill Park, but at lower elevation. Rough measurement has that being about 250m from the intersection of St Patrick/Sussex, which would be the start of the capture zone.

I legitimately do not know if that is a useful spot or not.

The Conductor · #7 Posted **Aug 27, 2020, 2:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka

Would it make more sense to have a station at the National Gallery instead? It would capture residents in the lower market and spread stations out a bit, as well as servicing the Bruyere hospital and public sector employees on Sussex.

That is a very interesting idea and it could work with the traffic patterns around it

J.OT13 · #8 Posted **Jun 25, 2020, 7:32 PM**

I would love to see a station reinstated in the the old C.P.R. tunnel (the old Hull Electric station), but I don't believe that would be possible due to tunnel and track geometry as Roger's map shows and Horus pointed out, unless the line took a very wide turn, but that would place in the poor soil conditions that caused the sink hole in 2016. We might be able to add a station near the Art Gallery.

OCCheetos · #9 Posted **Jun 25, 2020, 7:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I would love to see a station reinstated in the the old C.P.R. tunnel (the old Hull Electric station), but I don't believe that would be possible due to tunnel and track geometry as Roger's map shows and Horus pointed out, unless the line took a very wide turn, but that would place in the poor soil conditions that caused the sink hole in 2016. We might be able to add a station near the Art Gallery.

Instead of a wide turn, it could be built with a fairly tight turn instead. This is a tram after all and doesn't have the same metro requirements as the Confederation Line.

I'm thinking of something like the track geometry of the tunnel approach to Queen's Quay station in Toronto. A sharp turn compared to what's on the Confederation Line.

PHrenetic · #10 Posted **Jun 25, 2020, 9:09 PM**

Good Day.

The turn is almost there..... you do not need to pass under the Monument, and you really should not want to. And there is no need to pass under the canal that much to the north.
As per my #714 :

Quote:

This becomes the more involved part - extending under Elgin south of the Memorial, curving northward to the south and east of the plaza, under the canal (at a much shallower depth than the C-Line), finishing the curve to align to the Chateau tunnel (as deep or shallow as need be), and thence surfacing out northbound to the Alexandra along the existing RoW.
If the Alexandra is rebuilt anytime soon (10 yr timeframe, as already expressed), the accommodation for this becomes very easy.
This can be done, because the C-Line dove so deep to 'try' to avoid most of the sand trench furthur to the east than this will be (misadventure notwithstanding!). So the STO tunnel remains in far more stable rock, above the C-Line tunnel.

As you note, the STO tram can make tighter turns, and at a shallower depth, should be able to align with and get into the Chateau tunnel (maybe a bit low) with little problem, staying in rock.

It should work well, and a station here is IMO entirely possible.

My two cents.

Aylmer · #11 Posted **Jun 26, 2020, 10:52 AM**

Why would it be limited to one-way traffic? You can simply run different lines around the loop on different directions. For example, the Aylmer line might run via Portage, but the Plateau line would run via Alexandra. You can increase efficiency with through-running : inbound trams that arrive from Aylmer via Portage can leave via Alexandra as Plateau outbound trams.

Horus · #12 Posted **Jun 26, 2020, 11:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Why would it be limited to one-way traffic? You can simply run different lines around the loop on different directions. For example, the Aylmer line might run via Portage, but the Plateau line would run via Alexandra. You can increase efficiency with through-running : inbound trams that arrive from Aylmer via Portage can leave via Alexandra as Plateau outbound trams.

I was thinking about that too - and that makes sense, but then it makes a mess on the Hull side of the bridges.

Under all of the scenarios presented for this survey, whichever technologies are used for the Aylmer and Plateau lines (tram vs BRT), they converge into the office district of Hull first, then cross over. Using the Alexandra bridge, a Plateau line would logically continue straight along Boul des Allumettières - a route that bypasses the Portage/TdlC zone.

This is not an impossible problem to solve, but it's important to remember that this STO tram is supposed to serve Aylmer/Plateau/Hull first and should be designed to maximize the efficiency of passenger flow on the Quebec side of the river first. Downtown Ottawa is an important destination, no doubt, but it is not the primary design objective.

YOWetal · #13 Posted **Jun 26, 2020, 3:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Why would it be limited to one-way traffic? You can simply run different lines around the loop on different directions. For example, the Aylmer line might run via Portage, but the Plateau line would run via Alexandra. You can increase efficiency with through-running : inbound trams that arrive from Aylmer via Portage can leave via Alexandra as Plateau outbound trams.

I meant to keep half of the bridge open. There may be resistance to closing the bridge entirely. The Tram will serve, even very broadly, what maybe 25% of Gatineau's population and even less if we think of commuters from the Quebec side of the river who outside of Gatineau city limits would be more concentrated to the east and especially north.

It seems to me if you build a tunnel you really need to replace all the rapidbus lines with trams/LRT in order to justify it.

Aylmer · #14 Posted **Jun 26, 2020, 5:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I meant to keep half of the bridge open. There may be resistance to closing the bridge entirely. The Tram will serve, even very broadly, what maybe 25% of Gatineau's population and even less if we think of commuters from the Quebec side of the river who outside of Gatineau city limits would be more concentrated to the east and especially north.

It seems to me if you build a tunnel you really need to replace all the rapidbus lines with trams/LRT in order to justify it.

From the get-go, the Rapibus was always supposed to be converted around the 2030s. The downtown infrastructure should be thought of as being the principal transit link for all of Gatineau. First the western portion of the city, likely followed by a converted Rapibus from the east, and probably some future northward branch through Hull.

As such, it just wouldn't make sense to single-track any of the core portions. I agree that removing all motor vehicle traffic from the bridge would face some resistance. I argue that it would be worth it for a number of reasons such as cost, downstream lane capacity, and urban design. But it's not even a necessary disagreement since the bridge is set to be replaced in any event. If it were really important to have car lanes on it, the new bridge could be built to accommodate both two tram lanes and bi-directional car lanes.

roger1818 · #15 Posted **Jun 27, 2020, 1:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I agree that removing all motor vehicle traffic from the bridge would face some resistance. I argue that it would be worth it for a number of reasons such as cost, downstream lane capacity, and urban design. But it's not even a necessary disagreement since the bridge is set to be replaced in any event. If it were really important to have car lanes on it, the new bridge could be built to accommodate both two tram lanes and bi-directional car lanes.

As I said in the Interprovincial bridge crossing discussion thread when discussing removing vehicles from the Alexandra Bridge:

Quote:

Originally Posted by roger1818

I would argue that it is even more important is reducing the number of lanes on the MC bridge (if not eliminating it altogether). It funnels way too much traffic into Lower Town, most of which is destined elsewhere.

I am not altogether opposed to the closing of the Alexandra to cars, but it is more of a link between Lower Town and Hull.

I don't have stats to back it up, but I can't see many people using the Alexandra Bridge who's origin/destination isn't either Hull or Lower Town. Even then, if they are coming from or going to somewhere further away, the MC bridge is likely a more popular choice.

Hybrid247 · #16 Posted **Jun 28, 2020, 7:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aylmer

From the get-go, the Rapibus was always supposed to be converted around the 2030s. The downtown infrastructure should be thought of as being the principal transit link for all of Gatineau. First the western portion of the city, likely followed by a converted Rapibus from the east, and probably some future northward branch through Hull.

Doesn't that reinforce the case for the tunnel under Sparks, though? If the downtown infrastructure will eventually accommodate 2 and possibly even 3 LRT lines, wouldn't the tunnel make more sense to minimize potential surface level disturbances and to maximize capacity and reliability for that section?

The Conductor · #17 Posted **Aug 27, 2020, 1:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Doesn't that reinforce the case for the tunnel under Sparks, though? If the downtown infrastructure will eventually accommodate 2 and possibly even 3 LRT lines, wouldn't the tunnel make more sense to minimize potential surface level disturbances and to maximize capacity and reliability for that section?

Exactly