Chief William Commanda Bridge (former Prince of Wales Bridge)

[OCCheetos]

I'm just going to repost what I wrote on Reddit to see what people on here think.

I think it's kind of obvious that Bayview wasn't really planned out as an interprovincial transfer hub, but I think the reasoning behind declaring Bayview unfit as one has less to do with the physical design of the physical station itself (or any possible station configuration) and more to do with the way the network is laid out.

Bayview is not that close to downtown, at least not in terms of the walking distance commuters are willing to tolerate. The vast majority of peak trips are being made to and from the very core (Lyon, Parliament, and Rideau) so if trains from Gatineau were unloaded at Bayview everyone would be piling on to the Confederation Line to get to either the core (or to Tunney's). That's on top of everyone coming in from the west end and everyone coming up north on the Trillium Line. In that sense, the Confederation Line would be easily overloaded over time and would constrain the over capacity of the regional transit network as a whole.

Because of that, Portage makes more sense as the crossing point for Gatineau's LRT since it allows them to hook up to the Confederation Line at Lyon. There it would already be in the core, and the strain the extra passengers would put on the Confederation Line would be lessened since people start getting off the Confederation Line at Lyon (headed eastbound in the AM) or they can just walk to their work directly from Lyon.

The Alexandra bridge was also originally proposed as another crossing option for the Gatineau LRT to connect up to the Confederation Line near Rideau. This would have the same benefits as Lyon and with the Alexandra Bridge needing to be rebuilt in a few years it would be the perfect opportunity to include light rail in the new design. Combined with Portage it would make an excellent inter-provincial rail system. Bonus points if Gatineau somehow convince the city of Ottawa to allow them to run surface level trains to connect Rideau to Lyon and create a loop (very unlikely though). Lately there hasn't been much word on the Alexandra option, so it may be dead, but we'll see for sure once Gatineau publishes their LRT study.

With all this said though, I think eliminating the Prince of Wales bridge as an option for extending the Trillium Line is silly. It obviously should not be the primary link between Ottawa and Gatineau, but there are still plenty of use cases for it to be used as a rail link. The south end generates a surprising number of trips across the river (routes like the 44 and 293) and plenty of people would benefit from that. Many students at Carleton live in Gatineau.

The Prince of Wales bridge doesn't lead to any super convenient transfer points or even that many destinations, but it doesn't need to be to still be useful. The original O-Train pilot's success wasn't measured in raw ridership (obviously) but I doubt anyone would say that it wasn't extremely beneficial to the city. It was built on existing infrastructure between two places that weren't exactly major transit hubs, but it provided a very useful connection to a niche of transit users (Carleton students) and it took off from there.

We have the infrastructure (albeit a little old) and we have the destinations (Either Terasses and Zibi or the Rapibus, Carleton, The Airport). It should be obvious what needs to happen. We don't have to be aiming for major ridership to avoid overloading our transit network, we'll leave that for Portage, but it can still have a very positive impact on our regional transit system.

Of course, I don't think that there shouldn't also be a pedestrian crossing here. But this isn't a case of one or the other. It's feasible to cantilever pedestrian/bike lanes off the side of the bridge, and it's even been studied before (albeit by engineering students funded by MOOSE).

In summary, this bridge still has rail potential, along with the obvious pedestrian connection potential. It shouldn't be blindly discounted.

[c_speed3108]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day.



Sparks will work underground only as far as Lyon Station, between Bay - Lyon - Kent, easily. But No Farther than Kent (reason: we're not allowed to know).

Bank of Canada Vault?

The renovations, with a price tag of $460 million, and due to be finished by January 2017, will be so extensive as to require the bank to move the entire contents of its Wellington building, including the subterranean vault, which extends from below Wellington and, reportedly, out under the Sparks Street Mall—“built,” in the words of Queen’s University historian Duncan McDowall, “right into the Laurentian Shield.”

https://www.macleans.ca/society/life...cret-treasure/

[OCCheetos]

To add to what I wrote above, I wonder if staff considered a Trillium Line extension as non-primary link (like zzptichka mentioned) and projected ridership accordingly. It's weird that no formal study was ever announced for a PoW extension other than what Gatineau came up with for their LRT, but that was as a primary link. Edit: Even the STO noted that it could be used as a secondary link.

Either way, if they think the Trillium Line can overload Bayview, should we start being concerned about the Trillium Line as-is? And are they still going to build that second platform at Bayview? seems like a waste now.




Cue lrt's friend?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

To add to what I wrote above, I wonder if staff considered a Trillium Line extension as non-primary link (like zzptichka mentioned) and projected ridership accordingly. It's weird that no formal study was ever announced for a PoW extension other than what Gatineau came up with for their LRT, but that was as a primary link. Edit: Even the STO noted that it could be used as a secondary link.

Either way, if they think the Trillium Line can overload Bayview, should we start being concerned about the Trillium Line as-is? And are they still going to build that second platform at Bayview? seems like a waste now.




Cue lrt's friend?

I doubt the Trillium Line as currently designed by itself will overload Bayview station at any foreseeable date. A Portage crossing will serve most Hull bound passengers adequately, leaving modest ridership potential across the POW bridge with trains terminating a fair distance short of Place du Portage. Then, are there implications if the city ran an interprovincial service? Most importantly, what is the cost of renovating the POW bridge to resume rail service? This is likely the deal breaker considering the ridership potential.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by c_speed3108

Bank of Canada Vault?

The renovations, with a price tag of $460 million, and due to be finished by January 2017, will be so extensive as to require the bank to move the entire contents of its Wellington building, including the subterranean vault, which extends from below Wellington and, reportedly, out under the Sparks Street Mall—“built,” in the words of Queen’s University historian Duncan McDowall, “right into the Laurentian Shield.”

https://www.macleans.ca/society/life...cret-treasure/

A historian, but no geologist.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I doubt the Trillium Line as currently designed by itself will overload Bayview station at any foreseeable date. A Portage crossing will serve most Hull bound passengers adequately, leaving modest ridership potential across the POW bridge with trains terminating a fair distance short of Place du Portage.

Right, but if staff think "modest" ridership could overload Bayview, that doesn't bode well for the Trillium Line past our foreseeable dates, does it? i.e. 2046 or whatever that date they were throwing around was

Then, are there implications if the city ran an interprovincial service?

No? The city already provides interprovincial transit services, and Capital Railway is a federally regulated railway that is permitted to operate into Quebec.

Most importantly, what is the cost of renovating the POW bridge to resume rail service? This is likely the deal breaker considering the ridership potential.

Well, the most optimistic estimates pegged it at $60 million. The city itself threw $200 million out there, which I think is almost the cost of a new bridge so that sounds high but I don't know. Question is though, was this actually evaluated before the city decided that a $10m pedestrian conversion was the best use of the bridge? And would $200m be a bad investment for the service we'd get in return?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

And would $200m be a bad investment for the service we'd get in return?

I'm trying to remember how much we spent on the still unused sub-surface Baseline rough-in LRT station.

[Baybreeze12]

Yeah I'd like to throw my voice in here, getting rid of this potential for transit connection is a terrible idea.

Yes, it's sub-obtimal right now because it connects Ottawa to Gatineau outside of their CBD's. Almost suburb-to-suburb. But it's important to keep in mind that a lot of the things currently working against it are temporal instead of spatial. The picture today won't be the picture tomorrow:

1. Like others have said, this probably wouldn't overload Bayview if the primary Portage bridge connection goes ahead. Multiple crossing points would help alleviate issues. And if it induces demand for transit, how could that be a bad thing? It might take some effort and creativity to accomodate, but we should always look at increased transit ridership as a beneficial for our cities.
2. The growth of Lebreton, which has a timespan that may well be measured in decades, is pretty much inevitable. This likely shifts the Ottawa CBD center-of-gravity to the west.
3. The TOD growth in housing and business capacity along the current Trillium line that is slated to happen as a result of Stage 2 adds a lot of potential connections in the future.
4. The crossing, once established in 10-30 years, would mesh with the successor to the Rapidbus BRT - be it a rebuilt BRT or some form of rail extension - and connect the only directish north-south transit links in the NCR.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with adding ped and cycling components to this bridge. But to do it at the expense of future transit is crazy. And while rebuilding the bridge for transit may seem like an expensive opportunity cost now, it won't always be so. What's the harm in waiting, protecting the bridge (or whatever is left of it come 20XX) for transit? My take is this crossing will grow in value in the coming years. The only question is how many.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Mayors rule out Prince of Wales Bridge for transit link
The bridge should be cyclist and pedestrian connection, mayors say

CBC News
Posted: Sep 24, 2019 8:23 PM ET | Last Updated: 26 minutes ago

The Prince of Wales Bridge will never carry trains again, the mayors of Ottawa and Gatineau declared Tuesday, asking the next federal government to help them turn it into a cycling connection instead.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...idge-1.5296186

Finally some common sense. This way the historic bridge will be physically preserved without getting mixed up in a train to nowhere.

Now they can focus on transit connections where people actually want to go.

[Lakeofthewood]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Finally some common sense. This way the historic bridge will be physically preserved without getting mixed up in a train to nowhere.

Now they can focus on transit connections where people actually want to go.

I really hope the finished product is tasteful; I have nightmares picturing it being just a paved pathway. Something like the old railway bridge in Fredericton would be beautiful.

[Horus]

I wonder if this declaration would have been made if the LeBreton arena deal hadn't collapsed.

[Multi-modal]

I'll echo what others have already said: this makes sense in the near-term, but they absolutely need to plan and protect for a secondary transit connection (new bridge alongside the older bridge most likely) in the long-term.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I'm just going to repost what I wrote on Reddit to see what people on here think.

I think it's kind of obvious that Bayview wasn't really planned out as an interprovincial transfer hub, but I think the reasoning behind declaring Bayview unfit as one has less to do with the physical design of the physical station itself (or any possible station configuration) and more to do with the way the network is laid out.

Bayview is not that close to downtown, at least not in terms of the walking distance commuters are willing to tolerate. The vast majority of peak trips are being made to and from the very core (Lyon, Parliament, and Rideau) so if trains from Gatineau were unloaded at Bayview everyone would be piling on to the Confederation Line to get to either the core (or to Tunney's). That's on top of everyone coming in from the west end and everyone coming up north on the Trillium Line. In that sense, the Confederation Line would be easily overloaded over time and would constrain the over capacity of the regional transit network as a whole.

Because of that, Portage makes more sense as the crossing point for Gatineau's LRT since it allows them to hook up to the Confederation Line at Lyon. There it would already be in the core, and the strain the extra passengers would put on the Confederation Line would be lessened since people start getting off the Confederation Line at Lyon (headed eastbound in the AM) or they can just walk to their work directly from Lyon.

The Alexandra bridge was also originally proposed as another crossing option for the Gatineau LRT to connect up to the Confederation Line near Rideau. This would have the same benefits as Lyon and with the Alexandra Bridge needing to be rebuilt in a few years it would be the perfect opportunity to include light rail in the new design. Combined with Portage it would make an excellent inter-provincial rail system. Bonus points if Gatineau somehow convince the city of Ottawa to allow them to run surface level trains to connect Rideau to Lyon and create a loop (very unlikely though). Lately there hasn't been much word on the Alexandra option, so it may be dead, but we'll see for sure once Gatineau publishes their LRT study.

With all this said though, I think eliminating the Prince of Wales bridge as an option for extending the Trillium Line is silly. It obviously should not be the primary link between Ottawa and Gatineau, but there are still plenty of use cases for it to be used as a rail link. The south end generates a surprising number of trips across the river (routes like the 44 and 293) and plenty of people would benefit from that. Many students at Carleton live in Gatineau.

The Prince of Wales bridge doesn't lead to any super convenient transfer points or even that many destinations, but it doesn't need to be to still be useful. The original O-Train pilot's success wasn't measured in raw ridership (obviously) but I doubt anyone would say that it wasn't extremely beneficial to the city. It was built on existing infrastructure between two places that weren't exactly major transit hubs, but it provided a very useful connection to a niche of transit users (Carleton students) and it took off from there.

We have the infrastructure (albeit a little old) and we have the destinations (Either Terasses and Zibi or the Rapibus, Carleton, The Airport). It should be obvious what needs to happen. We don't have to be aiming for major ridership to avoid overloading our transit network, we'll leave that for Portage, but it can still have a very positive impact on our regional transit system.

Of course, I don't think that there shouldn't also be a pedestrian crossing here. But this isn't a case of one or the other. It's feasible to cantilever pedestrian/bike lanes off the side of the bridge, and it's even been studied before (albeit by engineering students funded by MOOSE).

In summary, this bridge still has rail potential, along with the obvious pedestrian connection potential. It shouldn't be blindly discounted.

I don't think the original o-train is a good comparison. For the O-train, the costs were pretty low, there was a major driver of ridership along the route (Carleton), there were pretty significant secondary drivers of ridership (Little Italy, South Keys, the Confederation Heights office buildings) and the routing provided a clear shortcut between heavily-used BRT corridors to the West and South of the city (avoiding close to a dozen stops).

Any theoretical PoW transit link would be very expensive (varying depending on speeds, frequency, technology, etc), has no drivers of ridership, and doesn't offer an obviously shortcut except in very limited circumstances (Carleton students living in Alymer, UQ students living in the South or West of Ottawa, Alymer residents who want to travel on Line 2) and even then the shortcut is only a few minutes.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I'm just going to repost what I wrote on Reddit to see what people on here think.

I think it's kind of obvious that Bayview wasn't really planned out as an interprovincial transfer hub, but I think the reasoning behind declaring Bayview unfit as one has less to do with the physical design of the physical station itself (or any possible station configuration) and more to do with the way the network is laid out.

Bayview is not that close to downtown, at least not in terms of the walking distance commuters are willing to tolerate. The vast majority of peak trips are being made to and from the very core (Lyon, Parliament, and Rideau) so if trains from Gatineau were unloaded at Bayview everyone would be piling on to the Confederation Line to get to either the core (or to Tunney's). That's on top of everyone coming in from the west end and everyone coming up north on the Trillium Line. In that sense, the Confederation Line would be easily overloaded over time and would constrain the over capacity of the regional transit network as a whole.

Because of that, Portage makes more sense as the crossing point for Gatineau's LRT since it allows them to hook up to the Confederation Line at Lyon. There it would already be in the core, and the strain the extra passengers would put on the Confederation Line would be lessened since people start getting off the Confederation Line at Lyon (headed eastbound in the AM) or they can just walk to their work directly from Lyon.

The Alexandra bridge was also originally proposed as another crossing option for the Gatineau LRT to connect up to the Confederation Line near Rideau. This would have the same benefits as Lyon and with the Alexandra Bridge needing to be rebuilt in a few years it would be the perfect opportunity to include light rail in the new design. Combined with Portage it would make an excellent inter-provincial rail system. Bonus points if Gatineau somehow convince the city of Ottawa to allow them to run surface level trains to connect Rideau to Lyon and create a loop (very unlikely though). Lately there hasn't been much word on the Alexandra option, so it may be dead, but we'll see for sure once Gatineau publishes their LRT study.

With all this said though, I think eliminating the Prince of Wales bridge as an option for extending the Trillium Line is silly. It obviously should not be the primary link between Ottawa and Gatineau, but there are still plenty of use cases for it to be used as a rail link. The south end generates a surprising number of trips across the river (routes like the 44 and 293) and plenty of people would benefit from that. Many students at Carleton live in Gatineau.

In summary, this bridge still has rail potential, along with the obvious pedestrian connection potential. It shouldn't be blindly discounted.

We are being naive if we think there is no need for the POW bridge and a connection at Bayview. Bayview can become a destination in its own right if Le Breton Flats gets developed. The Trinity complex will draw workers there just like the the federal offices in Gatineau and if there ever is an arena built, then there is another substantial trip generator. Le Breton Flats will be an extension of downtown so to say that Bayview is too far from downtown is nonsense in the long term. Investments in rail are a long term investments so what seems to make sense today probably will not in the future. At some point in time, probably sooner rather than later a 2nd cross-town route will be required so Bayview will then be just another busy transfer point among several that will exist in the network.

As a proposal the use of the POW and transferring at Bayview makes more sense than proposals for interlining the Trillium line at Bayview to go downtown. There is passenger capacity for transfers but not train capacity to service downtown without negatively impacting service on the Confederation Line.

The more Ottawa and particularly Gatineau grows, the more we will regret not using Bayview as a transfer point.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

We are being naive if we think there is no need for the POW bridge and a connection at Bayview. Bayview can become a destination in its own right if Le Breton Flats gets developed. The Trinity complex will draw workers there just like the the federal offices in Gatineau and if there ever is an arena built, then there is another substantial trip generator. Le Breton Flats will be an extension of downtown so to say that Bayview is too far from downtown is nonsense in the long term. Investments in rail are a long term investments so what seems to make sense today probably will not in the future. At some point in time, probably sooner rather than later a 2nd cross-town route will be required so Bayview will then be just another busy transfer point among several that will exist in the network.

As a proposal the use of the POW and transferring at Bayview makes more sense than proposals for interlining the Trillium line at Bayview to go downtown. There is passenger capacity for transfers but not train capacity to service downtown without negatively impacting service on the Confederation Line.

The more Ottawa and particularly Gatineau grows, the more we will regret not using Bayview as a transfer point.

Even if in several decades there is demand for such a connection, there is no particular impediment to building one in the future. Letting the bridge further deteriorate until the service is needed is not a good idea, nor is spending a lot of money on a service long before it is needed. We have no idea what Ottawa will do with Line 2 over the longer term, nor do we know what Gatineau will do with Rapibus over the longer term (both are pretty provisional pieces of infrastructure), nor do we know what the long term plan is for the flats. That is a lot of maybes to justify a big expense.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Even if in several decades there is demand for such a connection, there is no particular impediment to building one in the future. Letting the bridge further deteriorate until the service is needed is not a good idea, nor is spending a lot of money on a service long before it is needed. We have no idea what Ottawa will do with Line 2 over the longer term, nor do we know what Gatineau will do with Rapibus over the longer term (both are pretty provisional pieces of infrastructure), nor do we know what the long term plan is for the flats. That is a lot of maybes to justify a big expense.

Anything done here regarding rail service will certainly be post 2031, probably much later. Preservation of the corridor and the POW bridge is all that is needed in the short-term.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Anything done here regarding rail service will certainly be post 2031, probably much later. Preservation of the corridor and the POW bridge is all that is needed in the short-term.

Correct. Any type of LRT service on the Gatineau side of the river is 10 years away - minimum. And it won't be crossing at PoW in the first phase(s).

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Sparks will work underground only as far as Lyon Station, between Bay - Lyon - Kent, easily. But No Farther than Kent (reason: we're not allowed to know).

Prolly too many underground utilities to relocate.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Finally some common sense. This way the historic bridge will be physically preserved without getting mixed up in a train to nowhere.

Now they can focus on transit connections where people actually want to go.

Fun fact: downtown Hull isn't nowhere and lots of people have to go there. (Whether they want to or not is another question.)

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

I'll echo what others have already said: this makes sense in the near-term, but they absolutely need to plan and protect for a secondary transit connection (new bridge alongside the older bridge most likely) in the long-term.

We started building an LRT system with a very secondary north-south line; why should a secondary connection have to wait for a primary one?