Chief William Commanda Bridge (former Prince of Wales Bridge)

[ACmodels]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Well, kiss REAL interprovincial transit goodbye, folks:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...940839?cmp=rss

Well at least MOOSE is trying to stop this.

[MoreTrains]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Well, kiss REAL interprovincial transit goodbye, folks:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...940839?cmp=rss

Yes, or... it opens the gateway for a double wide bridge to be built... But it is possible that the RFP would have a requirement for reversal in the next 15-20 years.

[1overcosc]

The POW bridge is too narrow to fit two tracks on it, and heritage concerns probably mean that it can't be enlarged, so you'd have to build a brand new two-track bridge anyway for real interprovincial transit.

[Kitchissippi]

I don't think the PoW bridge has a significant heritage designation slapped on it yet. One of the good things about the existing bridge is that the Environmental Assessment for extending its piers to widen the bridge is far less stringent than building a brand new bridge. This was one of the issues the NCC was facing when they were planning the Champlain bridge replacement / widening.

It would be neat to see something interesting done there in the future, like this bridge in Madrid, maybe even a morphing from the old structure to a modern one in just a section:

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The POW bridge is too narrow to fit two tracks on it, and heritage concerns probably mean that it can't be enlarged, so you'd have to build a brand new two-track bridge anyway for real interprovincial transit.

Until that happens, you could use the single track with a siding on the island.

Or, you could turn it into a bicycle or bus crapid transit bridge that will immediately become sacrosanct, and will never, ever, be convertible back into rail.

[ACmodels]

Here's a plan for 2 tracks on the POW bridge. And I don't have say anything about!!!

HERE:



or this



OR

you don't need to rip out tracks to put a bike path on the bridge

[J.OT13]

Nothing should be done with POW until Ottawa Gatineau and the NCC can sit down and come up with a valid, implementable interprovincial transit plan. The NCC finished up their last Interprovincial Transit Study what, a year ago. Nothing else happened. That was it. Another one bites the dust.

Maybe, just maybe, they should actually implement the damn thing for once.

[ACmodels]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Nothing should be done with POW until Ottawa Gatineau and the NCC can sit down and come up with a valid, implementable interprovincial transit plan. The NCC finished up their last Interprovincial Transit Study what, a year ago. Nothing else happened. That was it. Another one bites the dust.

Maybe, just maybe, they should actually implement the damn thing for once.

And I believe the report said for the medium term the O-Train should be extended to Gatineau by 2021. If we don't build rail to the airport we should build rail to Tach or Montclam over the POW. or at least extend the RapiBus to Bayview over a new deck. with that the Quebec government could pay for some

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by ACmodels

And I believe the report said for the medium term the O-Train should be extended to Gatineau by 2021. If we don't build rail to the airport we should build rail to Tach or Montclam over the POW. or at least extend the RapiBus to Bayview over a new deck. with that the Quebec government could pay for some

I'd opt for the Rapibus to Bayview in the mid term.

Once the O-train is converted to Confederation Line technology, I would (as I've said before) extend it to Gatineau and loop it around Hull through a tunnel, cross the Interprovincial, back underground and meet up with Rideau Station in Ottawa.

[MoreTrains]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I'd opt for the Rapibus to Bayview in the mid term.

Once the O-train is converted to Confederation Line technology, I would (as I've said before) extend it to Gatineau and loop it around Hull through a tunnel, cross the Interprovincial, back underground and meet up with Rideau Station in Ottawa.

Pics or it didnt happen. I can see it in my mind, but Im not 100% sure if what I am seeing is correct.

[Cre47]

Indeed one or the other options before we remove a single more STO bus downtown. Obviously the mayor hasn't seen the overcrowded STO buses (i.e. route 200 in particular and the Aylmer buses as well as routes 31 and 33)

[J.OT13]

Obviously we can't remove any more STO buses from downtown Ottawa before both cities (and maybe the NCC) meet up and find an actual short or mid-term solution.

Anyway, the RFP was a mistake, so the City will remove it.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...says-1.2940839

[Kitchissippi]

This is what the Prince of Wales bridge should be: The Tilikum Crossing Bridge. Transit, bike and pedestrian only bridge. It's amazing they built this for under $150 million US.

Video Link

[rocketphish]

Prince of Wales Bridge floated as temporary busway

By Jon Willing, Ottawa Sun
First posted: Saturday, December 12, 2015 05:22 PM EST | Updated: Saturday, December 12, 2015 05:26 PM EST

The Prince of Wales Bridge could have potential as a temporary busway before it becomes an interprovincial rail link.

"The idea has been floated as maybe an intermediate step before rail, but these are notional discussions we have had between the mayors and myself," National Capital Commission CEO Mark Kristmanson said.

The idea hasn't been bolstered by staff studies, but "certainly there was a sense that that could be worth exploring," he said.

Kristmanson said the NCC hasn't considered taking the bridge off the City of Ottawa's hands to spur a regional transit plan.

The NCC has the power to operate a railway "but we have no desire to operate a railway," he said.

The 135-year-old bridge spans the Ottawa River north of Bayview station.

A 2013-2031 interprovincial transit plan spearheaded by the NCC called for the extension of Ottawa's O-Train Trillium Line to Gatineau over the bridge -- with a cantilevered bike and pedestrian path -- as a "medium term" project.

But there's a short-term issue: What should be done about STO buses in downtown Ottawa once Ottawa's Confederation Line LRT opens in 2018?

Rideau-Vanier Coun. Mathieu Fleury acknowledged that the Prince of Wales Bridge has come up in discussions as a possible busway to help divert STO buses away from Ottawa's downtown.

Rather than STO buses continuing to run through Ottawa's core, ideally they would run to an LRT station, like Bayview, and people could transfer to a downtown-bound train, Fleury said.

The City of Ottawa wants to roll back the number of STO buses on Wellington St., Rideau St. and King Edward Ave.

The reason why the city will run trains in a downtown tunnel is to reduce the need for buses rumbling through the core.

STO spokesperson Celine Gauthier said the issue has a "political dimension."

Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson and Gatineau Mayor Maxime Pedneaud-Jobin will meet early in 2016 to discuss STO buses in Ottawa, Gauthier said.

Gauthier said the Rapibus system has reduced the number of afternoon buses in Ottawa and a planned western Rapibus link will also help.

The ultimate goal is to seamlessly connect Gatineau's Rapibus with Ottawa's LRT.

The Prince of Wales Bridge is the obvious link.

The City of Ottawa was going to use it as a temporary bike and pedestrian path between the cities, but it would be too expensive.

Kristmanson said regional transportation is a key point of interest for the NCC, but it's still undetermined how to integrate the Prince of Wales Bridge.

"The potential for that bridge to serve an even greater role, considering it's going to come right into Bayview, which is a hub for the light rail system, I don't know that we know yet what to do with it, but I think that's a proficuous avenue to explore to ease some of this," Kristmanson said.

Twitter: @JonathanWilling

http://www.ottawasun.com/2015/12/12/...mporary-busway

[AndyMEng]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Prince of Wales Bridge floated as temporary busway

By Jon Willing, Ottawa Sun
First posted: Saturday, December 12, 2015 05:22 PM EST | Updated: Saturday, December 12, 2015 05:26 PM EST

The Prince of Wales Bridge could have potential as a temporary busway before it becomes an interprovincial rail link.

Twitter: @JonathanWilling

http://www.ottawasun.com/2015/12/12/...mporary-busway

Doesn't it make more sense to continue using the rail line as a rail line? Why spend all that money to convert the bridge to a one-lane bus-way for STO, when you could easily continue the o-train past Bayview and over the bridge, DIRECTLY to a siding at the last Rapibus station, just on the other side of the river? Thus avoiding traffic issues of hundreds of buses on a one-lane bridge and huge conversion costs?

The word 'conversion' and 'temporary' and 'interim' don't go together. It's either all-in, or nothing at all.

PLUS, the buses will be covered in salt all winter, and they'll absolutely destroy this ancient steel bridge in a matter of a few years, guaranteed.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by AndyMEng

Doesn't it make more sense to continue using the rail line as a rail line? Why spend all that money to convert the bridge to a one-lane bus-way for STO, when you could easily continue the o-train past Bayview and over the bridge, DIRECTLY to a siding at the last Rapibus station, just on the other side of the river? Thus avoiding traffic issues of hundreds of buses on a one-lane bridge and huge conversion costs?

The word 'conversion' and 'temporary' and 'interim' don't go together. It's either all-in, or nothing at all.

PLUS, the buses will be covered in salt all winter, and they'll absolutely destroy this ancient steel bridge in a matter of a few years, guaranteed.

The Trillium Line can't handle a fraction of the passengers headed for Gatineau, but bringing RapiBus to Bayview can remove most of the STO buses from downtown, especially if the bridge was widened to a two lane busway. Extending the Trillium line would just screw up its schedule, and it's far better to have a bus every minute rather than a train every 8 or 10 which results in an extra transfer from the Confederation line.

I'd favour dismantling the high maintenance iron trusses and using the piers for a simpler wider structure.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

... Extending the Trillium line would just screw up its schedule, ...

But seriously, I agree that the best option would be to bring the STO across the PoW Bridge and dump the passengers onto the Confederation Line. If the Trillium line went across the bridge to a Rapibus terminal, it would force everyone to transfer from Rapibus to the Trillium Line, then go one stop across the river and transfer again to the Confederation Line. One extra transfer is maybe already asking too much, but asking them to transfer twice in rapid succession is a bit absurd.

Unless the Trillium Line (which would likely need to be renamed) was extended all the way up along the Rapibus line, it would not be an improvement in service for people crossing the river. Nor would it improve the Trillium Line, since, as Kitchissippi points out, any semblance of a schedule would disappear. In order to make the 1.8 km journey to Alexandre-Tache from Bayview, the LRT would take about three minutes, then there would be a three minute turn-around and another three minutes to get back to Bayview. Since there isn’t an extra nine minutes in the Trillium Line’s schedule, there would likely need to be a new passing track added (and likely another train or two). This could make it a twelve minute extension with the capital cost of the added passing siding. (It might be possible to extend the existing north siding up to the PoW bridge and have trains pass at the Bayview Station – similar to Carleton Station – but the current design of the new Bayview Station does not appear to include capacity to twin-track the Trillium Line through the station.)

If buses were used across the single-lane PoW Bridge segments, they could more easily pass on Lemieux Island or off each end of the bridges. Passing for buses is done under local control (visually, by the bus operators) so it is very fast. Also, with busways, it seems to be OK to have pedestrian crossings, which would not be permitted for a rail line.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

But seriously, I agree that the best option would be to bring the STO across the PoW Bridge and dump the passengers onto the Confederation Line. If the Trillium line went across the bridge to a Rapibus terminal, it would force everyone to transfer from Rapibus to the Trillium Line, then go one stop across the river and transfer again to the Confederation Line. One extra transfer is maybe already asking too much, but asking them to transfer twice in rapid succession is a bit absurd.

Unless the Trillium Line (which would likely need to be renamed) was extended all the way up along the Rapibus line, it would not be an improvement in service for people crossing the river. Nor would it improve the Trillium Line, since, as Kitchissippi points out, any semblance of a schedule would disappear. In order to make the 1.8 km journey to Alexandre-Tache from Bayview, the LRT would take about three minutes, then there would be a three minute turn-around and another three minutes to get back to Bayview. Since there isn’t an extra nine minutes in the Trillium Line’s schedule, there would likely need to be a new passing track added (and likely another train or two). This could make it a twelve minute extension with the capital cost of the added passing siding. (It might be possible to extend the existing north siding up to the PoW bridge and have trains pass at the Bayview Station – similar to Carleton Station – but the current design of the new Bayview Station does not appear to include capacity to twin-track the Trillium Line through the station.)

If buses were used across the single-lane PoW Bridge segments, they could more easily pass on Lemieux Island or off each end of the bridges. Passing for buses is done under local control (visually, by the bus operators) so it is very fast. Also, with busways, it seems to be OK to have pedestrian crossings, which would not be permitted for a rail line.

It seems to me that having two way traffic on a single lane bridge requires signal controls, not just visual decision making. Whenever you see a bridge reduced to single lane traffic during construction there are signals. And when it is controlled by signals, there is always significant delays. Is that not already the case when Rapibus crosses the Gatineau River?

I am also not keen on the idea of having a major bus transfer station on Lebreton Flats or at Bayview.

And then there is the concern of passenger congestion at Bayview and capacity of the Confederation Line. The original studies specifically excluded Gatineau passengers.

What are we trying to accomplish with the Confederation Line and what happens if there are any problems in the downtown tunnel? How do we get people into and out of downtown if there are problems? We won't have the buses to do it any more once we switch to LRT.

I get nervous when we put all our transit eggs into one basket, and we are left with one train line and a few local bus routes in downtown.

I am all for getting STO buses out of downtown but isn't patching together a solution just heading us for trouble, much like we are starting to see with the Trillium Line.

And who is going to pay for the extra trains needed to move Gatineau passengers from Bayview to downtown?

[AndyMEng]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

But seriously, I agree that the best option would be to bring the STO across the PoW Bridge and dump the passengers onto the Confederation Line. If the Trillium line went across the bridge to a Rapibus terminal, it would force everyone to transfer from Rapibus to the Trillium Line, then go one stop across the river and transfer again to the Confederation Line. One extra transfer is maybe already asking too much, but asking them to transfer twice in rapid succession is a bit absurd.

Unless the Trillium Line (which would likely need to be renamed) was extended all the way up along the Rapibus line, it would not be an improvement in service for people crossing the river. Nor would it improve the Trillium Line, since, as Kitchissippi points out, any semblance of a schedule would disappear. In order to make the 1.8 km journey to Alexandre-Tache from Bayview, the LRT would take about three minutes, then there would be a three minute turn-around and another three minutes to get back to Bayview. Since there isn’t an extra nine minutes in the Trillium Line’s schedule, there would likely need to be a new passing track added (and likely another train or two). This could make it a twelve minute extension with the capital cost of the added passing siding. (It might be possible to extend the existing north siding up to the PoW bridge and have trains pass at the Bayview Station – similar to Carleton Station – but the current design of the new Bayview Station does not appear to include capacity to twin-track the Trillium Line through the station.)

If buses were used across the single-lane PoW Bridge segments, they could more easily pass on Lemieux Island or off each end of the bridges. Passing for buses is done under local control (visually, by the bus operators) so it is very fast. Also, with busways, it seems to be OK to have pedestrian crossings, which would not be permitted for a rail line.

You're both assuming that the confederation and trillium lines must be distinct from one another. Lots of passenger rail lines start and end at different junctions... why can't we just have a proper interchange to send trains across the PoW bridge, turn east, and head directly to Blair station and vice/versa? (In this case, the trillium line would NOT extend to the bridge because our transit leadership just replaced the trillium trains with diesel. Therefore the Rapibus trains do a hard left when they get off the bridge and travel to Blair before turning around and going back.)

For instance, this purple line in London has FOUR different terminal destinations.

http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/reso...e=article-full

So with a two-car train at 600 people per, that's about 3-4 full buses equivalent? How many trains would need to join into the system at Bayview?

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by AndyMEng

You're both assuming that the confederation and trillium lines must be distinct from one another. Lots of passenger rail lines start and end at different junctions... why can't we just have a proper interchange to send trains across the PoW bridge, turn east, and head directly to Blair station and vice/versa? (In this case, the trillium line would NOT extend to the bridge because our transit leadership just replaced the trillium trains with diesel. Therefore the Rapibus trains do a hard left when they get off the bridge and travel to Blair before turning around and going back.)

For instance, this purple line in London has FOUR different terminal destinations.

http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/reso...e=article-full

So with a two-car train at 600 people per, that's about 3-4 full buses equivalent? How many trains would need to join into the system at Bayview?

But there's no such thing as a "RapiBus Train", and if you are going to wait for that to happen it won't be for a long while. Using the Trillium line to go across is impractical with the way the line is today and upgrading it to handle the task of taking passengers across the river will also take a long time. Whereas you could start widening the bridge tomorrow and have Rapibus use it shortly after the Confederation line opens in 2018. We are talking about a realistic, practical solution here against hypothetical "what ifs".

You are also assuming that people from Gatineau only work downtown, some of them go to Tunneys and elsewhere