West Gatineau LRT & Downtown Loop | Proposed

[Aylmer]

Here's my perspective on some of these concerns.

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

Add me to the "not sure this is a good idea" group. I'm still not sold that this very expensive loop project would be worthwhile. Who will this mostly serve? Hull & Aylmer residents wishing to access downtown Ottawa and some tourists (should that resume post-COVID). The reverse flow - of Ottawa residents needing to access Hull or Aylmer is much smaller.

In time, this will likely serve as the the main access point for all passengers to and from all sectors of Gatineau. The Rapibus was always meant to be converted to rail, much like the Transitway. And any future rail lines on Bank or Montreal/Rideau would also have their most expensive, disruptive downtown stretch pre-built.

Ottawa-to-Hull trips also can't be ignored. Although a lesser proportion of all Ottawa-originating trips, the difference in flow isn't actually huge. According to the latest Origin-Destination data, there are roughly 14k Gatineau-DT Ottawa trips, and 10k Ottawa-DT Hull trips per AM peak. 10 000 passengers per peak isn't a small number of Ottawans.

We also have to remember that, one way or another, these passengers will be arriving downtown. It's not a choice between a loop and nothing - it's between 35 trams per hour or 100+ buses per hour in 2030.

Also as mentioned, the flow of traffic will become even worst if Wellington were to be closed. In all of the CBD (and Centretown for that matter) there are only 3 major east-west routes;
-Parkway/Wellington/Rideau
-Scott/Albert/Slater
-Laurier
And each one of these options are sub-optimal (Rideau right now is closed, Albert/Slater dumps you on the Mackenzie King Bridge and continuing further east is a challenge, And Laurier doesn't connect on the west side).

Traffic expands to fill the space it's given. If it's given less space, it adjusts. Traffic is about as bad now as it was in 2011, even though Rideau Street has been closed for the better part of a decade.

As for the importance of direct car routes through downtown, it seems important at first blush. But when you really think about it - who's driving from the west end to the east end of town through downtown at rush hour? If you look at vehicle flows at rush hour, people are generally driving to - not through - downtown. This is why Wellington didn't get appreciably busier when Rideau closed: the number of people who were using it to get through downtown at rush hour was negligible to begin with.

Of course, outside of rush hour, trip patterns become less concentrated. People might indeed drive from Vanier to Westboro to go shopping or dining. But the roads are empty then - they don't really require multiple routes when any one will do.

Lastly, we already complain that our CBD is a ghost town, with very little residential or lively activity today. Closing Wellington to traffic (and having Sparks closed as well and Queen being a one-way) would only worsen this situation. Wellington is lined with government buildings - no residential or retail so it will be a dead zone the majority of the time. This is not a high-density square in the middle of a huge metropolitan European city like Milan.

I don't see how not having traffic on Wellington would either improve or worsen this situation. Enlivening Wellington isn't its objective - so what if it fails to?

[Truenorth00]

Making Wellington a tram mall offers so much opportunity to put up pop up vendors and make it lively. It's the cars that are wasting space on Wellington.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

It's not just for drivers. It's unpleasant for cyclists and pedestrians to stroll along a roadway packed with loud cars spewing exhaust.

Truthfully i'd rather walk along/on streets where cars aren't moving because of traffic instead of roads where they're going quickly. Safety considerations aside, it makes me feel good as someone that uses active transport to be quicker than cars stuck in traffic.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Truthfully i'd rather walk along/on streets where cars aren't moving because of traffic instead of roads where they're going quickly. Safety considerations aside, it makes me feel good as someone that uses active transport to be quicker than cars stuck in traffic.

But that's comparing empty streets vs traffic jams. It's not just intersections that these cars are blocking, but also crosswalks.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

But that's comparing empty streets vs traffic jams. It's not just intersections that these cars are blocking, but also crosswalks.

Sounds like the onus is on the driver to not block intersections.

[rocketphish]

Ottawa should take the downtown transit 'Loop' seriously

Randall Denley
Publishing date: Nov 10, 2020 • Last Updated 2 minutes ago • 3 minute read

The idea of an electric tram loop connecting Ottawa and Gatineau is catching fire, despite Mayor Jim Watson’s efforts to douse it with cold water.

Support this week from National Capital Commission boss Tobi Nussbaum was a major encouragement for community leaders from Gatineau and Ottawa who want to expand Gatineau’s proposed tram line into Ottawa to create a loop connecting major federal institutions and office buildings. The NCC would be the key federal agency planning the loop.

New players are also pressuring the federal government to come to the table with a financial commitment. Radio-Canada reports that Quebec’s transport minister and its minister responsible for the Outaouais have joined Gatineau Mayor Maxime Pedneaud-Jobin in looking for federal help, saying the loop proposal does not contradict the plan Gatineau has already put forward.

The next big step comes Nov. 16, when Ottawa’s transportation committee is expected to vote on a staff proposal that could at least keep the door open for the Loop plan. Unfortunately, the staff assessment did not take into account the community proposal to take Gatineau light rail across the Alexandra Bridge and back into Quebec. Instead, it looks only at a proposed tunnel under Sparks Street and a surface tram alternative that would stop at Elgin Street.

Of the two, the staff lean toward the tunnel plan, even though they estimate it would cost between $500 million and $900 million more than the Wellington route. The big argument for the tunnel is that it will cause less surface disruption, although Ottawa’s own LRT project suggests there would still be plenty. Additionally, the Sparks tunnel might boost the city’s umpteenth attempt to revitalize the street, staff suggest. Maybe if they strike oil.

The problem with the tunnel is the immense increase in cost. That additional money, if it is available, would provide far more value by extending the rail line as the Loop advocates suggest.

The objections staff raise to the Wellington surface route boil down to not enough space for cars, trams, pedestrians and cyclists. Eliminating the cars from Wellington, as Loop advocates suggest, would fix that.

City staff do make a compelling case for bringing Gatineau electric trams into the city. The peak flow of commuters from Gatineau is expected to double over the next 15 years. That would increase the current 115 Quebec buses per peak hour to 170 buses and the Ottawa roads are already at capacity. The tram plan would reduce peak hourly buses to 35 and reduce car traffic downtown. About 30 per cent of the trams’ customers are expected to originate their trips on OC Transpo, a boost for the city’s system.

How does a city that has declared a climate emergency, is spending billions of dollars on rail transit and continually preaches the virtues of limiting automobile impact reject a plan that ticks all those boxes?

Watson insists that the next transit project to take place in Ottawa will be the extension of LRT to Stittsville, Kanata and Barrhaven. The cost of all of that is nearly $5 billion and the city hopes the federal and provincial governments will pick up the entire cost.

The concern the mayor voiced obliquely is that the federal government will be less likely to put money into Stage 3 of Ottawa’s LRT if it is spending on the downtown Loop. Maybe so, but what would offer Ottawa the most value, the downtown Loop or a $3-billion extension to Barrhaven?

City staff are asking councillors to say yes to both the tunnel and the short line to Elgin, to keep options open for now. That’s better than the mayor’s thumbs down, but adding the Loop as an option worthy of study would be a rational move consistent with everything councillors say they believe.


Randall Denley is an Ottawa political commentator and author of the mystery Payback, available at randalldenley.com Contact him at randalldenley1@gmail.com

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/de...loop-seriously

[RuralCitizen]

I just thought of something. A lot of people are very against cars, stating the environmental impact. I'm all for reducing the amount of cars on the road but we can't fully remove them. It is easy to think of small delivery vehicles, plumbers, electricians, emergency vehicles, people needing to go to 5 different stops across the city within an hour, etc... One thing is certain, individual "cars" will always exist.

The thing that nobody mentions is the gradual transition to electric vehicles. The autonomy and price might not make it perfect for everyone right now, but who knows how much the technology will evolve in the next 50-100years. If the individual car was carbon neutral, I don't think we could use the environmental impact as a reason to remove cars on the road.

In my opinion we shouldn't remove one of the important east/west cross city roads. Wellington is essentially the historic road that brought you all the way to Montreal. If we absolutely needed to convert one street, I'd convert Queen for surface tram to leave Wellington, Albert, Slater and Laurier intact.

I may ask, where is the destination for most of the downtown workers, is it mostly along Wellington or closer to Queen?

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by RuralCitizen

In my opinion we shouldn't remove one of the important east/west cross city roads. Wellington is essentially the historic road that brought you all the way to Montreal. If we absolutely needed to convert one street, I'd convert Queen for surface tram to leave Wellington, Albert, Slater and Laurier intact.

I may ask, where is the destination for most of the downtown workers, is it mostly along Wellington or closer to Queen?

I don't think there's much of a point building a tram directly above an LRT in the same travel direction. Would capture more people in a wider area by putting a tram on literally any other street.

[RuralCitizen]

Originally Posted by JHikka

I don't think there's much of a point building a tram directly above an LRT in the same travel direction. Would capture more people in a wider area by putting a tram on literally any other street.

Building the tram above the LRT would allow for better and faster transfer between the 2 lines. The tram coming from Gatineau isn't about capturing a wider area in Ottawa, it's about bringing people where they need to go. (The office towers in the cores, and other areas in the city served by the LRT.

[RuralCitizen]

You can look at Paris and New York subway maps. Both have lines following the same directions, but split at their extremities. I think it is quite common.

[Richard Eade]

As much as I’d like to help out the tourists, I am having difficulty trying to reason why having a loop would benefit the STO.

As far as I know, the point of the Aylmer Tram is to get people back and forth between Aylmer and downtown Ottawa. I’m struggling to see how a loop would be a benefit in accomplishing that goal. Basically, the STO is trying to determine the best way to replace many of the buses that come from Aylmer and go to Ottawa. The options were to create another Rapibus line or a tram line.

My understanding is that most of the current STO buses from the other regions of Gatineau will still be continuing to downtown Ottawa, including the Rapibus routes that use the Portage Bridge. Looking at the STO routes in Ottawa, only the Orange Corridor buses are being replaced.



It seems that the preferred option for the STO is a tram line that crosses the Portage Bridge and then ends in downtown Ottawa. That tram will be sharing the Portage crossing with a lot of STO buses. OC Transpo is currently using the Chaudière Bridge to cross the river – but if that route becomes unavailable due to the condition of those bridges, OC Transpo might need to switch to the Portage Bridge also.

When Ottawa was designing the North-South LRT, the initial plan was to have both buses and LRT on the same street. That was soon deemed unworkable – which led to our west-east LRT being put underground. I am not seeing the surface option for a tram line running on the surface in front of the Parliament Buildings being any more practical. All of the arguments against Ottawa running its LRT on the surface would still apply. There will be vehicle crowding on the bridge/roads. There will be security issues. There will be reliability issues with people disrupting the tram’s path. And, if ONLY STO vehicles were allowed to run in front of the Parliament Buildings, I think that Ottawa, the City, (and many Anglos across the country) would be up in arms about the favouritism. I really can’t see that option as being acceptable, except to a few ‘romantics’ who think it might bring a ‘European flair’ to Ottawa.

According to the information that STO released, the option of running a tunnel from Laurier and Portage, under the river, and under Bank Street to Queen was looked at and dismissed due to the complexity of construction. Although it would be more difficult to construct, that gentle curve would result in a 1.2 km tunnel, terminating at a station just under the Confederation line. (If a shallow Bank Street Subway terminated above the Confederation Line, then there could be a wonderful transfer point to trains leaving in all four directions.) For reference, the STO’s plan for the tunnel under Sparks Street is also 1.2 km in length.

STO proposed underground


In order to form a loop, using the Alexandra Bridge’s replacement, there would need to be a complicated, underground, path from where the STO tunnel under Sparks ended to the Alexandra Bridge. This would be non-trivial work and the cost would be very high. And for what benefit to the people traveling to and from Aylmer?

In my opinion, the best approach would be for the STO to have a tram-stop (on the surface, if they wish) at Les Terrasses de la Chaudière and one under the Portage Bridge ramp, just south of the intersection with Laurier. The Portage station would tie in with its huge underground parking lot. Then the tram would run under the river, along a high-speed (max. tram speed) curve to a terminal stop under Bank Street at Queen. There could be passages to both Lyon and Parliament/Parlement Stations. Alternatively, the curve could meet up with O’Connor Street – although that would mean a fairly sharp bent to avoid the west Block.

‘The Loop’ should be a completely separate project. It would be a slow-speed vehicle that runs on a single set of tracks, in one direction, along the surface of Canada’s first pedestrian mall, Sparks Street. The loop would have stops in a number of places that tourists might be interested in, including, but not limited to; the Bank of Canada’s Money Museum and the Supreme Court of Canada; the (redesigned) Garden of the Provinces and the memorial to Communism; across Pooley’s Bridge with the Pumphouse’s Whitewater Course; the Ottawa Public Library’s new Central Branch with its Library and Archives Canada and genealogy holdings; through Pindigen Park in LeBreton Flats; past the National Holocaust Monument and the Canadian War Museum; across the (redesigned) Chaudière Bridges with access to the Kabeshinan Minitig Pavilion and views of (what is left of) the Chaudière Falls; along Rue Laurier to the Canadian Museum of History and Jacques Cartier Park; across a (redesigned) Alexandra Bridge to Nepean Point and the National Gallery of Canada; along Mackenzie to Colonel’s Major’s Hill Park, the Embassy of the United States of America, and the Stairs to the By Ward Market; the Fairmont Chateau Laurier, the Rideau Centre, and the Government Conference Centre; the National Arts Centre; the National War Memorial; and back to Sparks Street. Ideally, this would be a free service that runs every 30 minutes, or so, with two vehicles.

We should not be trying to shoe-horn more functions into the STO’s plans. The Aylmer Tram Line can not be all things to all people. It must be allowed to be the best service it can be to encourage the people of Aylmer to use transit when going to Ottawa.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Harley613

I agree with you completely this is a vanity project, form over function. I don't want the governments in our region spending 10 billion + on an integrated transit system unless it's PROPERLY integrated and a 'No Car' Wellington is a 'No Go' as far as I'm concerned.

My thoughts exactly. I feel a lot of support for the Wellington surface option comes from urban Europe romanticism. Running trams on the surface in front of Parliament will essentially "look cool". There's widespread neglect of the fact that the surface option on wellington has a lot of potential for service disruptions, little opportunity for enhanced street-level interaction and vibrancy (i.e. no opportunity for street-level retail or mixed-use applications because both sides of Wellington are almost for exclusive Parliamentary Precinct uses), and how it will cut off crucial vehicular access for many buildings along Wellington. The roadways aren't just used by commuters and personal vehicles; there are many crucial services that require vehicular access too.

As others have said, if tunneling isn't an option, why not run on the surface of Sparks or Queen? There would be better potential to simplify transfers from confed line to the tram and better potential to truly have a complete street with mixed-used applications on both sides. Wellington would just turn into a ghost street after 5pm.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

As much as I’d like to help out the tourists, I am having difficulty trying to reason why having a loop would benefit the STO.

The bus/tram issue is a real one. From some of the wording and hinting, it seems as if the STO is realizing this, and is backing away from the idea of joint running. All the better.

The easy solution to this is to change the Rapibus's operation from a single line to a trunk line, as was originally planned. So instead of transferring from a local bus onto the Rapibus, local Gatineau buses run all the way to Hull, with a connection to the Loop. Ottawa-bound passengers will require one transfer (as before), but you've eliminated transfers for all Hull-bound passengers (roughly half of trips). The whole reason the Rapibus wasn't operated this way to begin with was due to pressure by Ottawa to reduce the number of buses on Wellington.

__

To understand the value of the loop for the STO, you have to think about capacity. Whatever gets built is likely to be the single downtown connection for all of Gatineau's rapid transit lines for the 50-75 years. It needs to be a piece of infrastructure which can carry the demand of a third of the metro area.

An in-and-out tunnel, although undeniably faster, actually underperforms in terms of capacity. Trains can't run through, trains have to dwell longer at the station to switch cabs, and the station itself becomes a potential capacity problem. All three of these problems compound each other: longer dwells at the station decrease the train throughput, decreased train throughput increases crowding in the station. Crowding in the station increases the dwell time.

The loop, although not perfect, performs better from a capacity perspective. Through-running in both directions allows for both more trams and a more even distribution of passenger loads. More stations on the surface means that they don't face the same capacity issues as a single underground station, and can be easily expanded.

There are some valid issues with a surface loop. Things like occasional disruption or slower service. But at the end of the day, none of these are deal-breakers like capacity. You can short-turn service during events for a few hours every two months or so, but you can't make up for a line which is strained at each peak, twice per day.

The loop isn't necessary today. Passenger loads aren't there yet. But keep in mind that the first day of service will likely be 2030. We're not building it for 2020, it has to be built to future-proof or -proofable through 2100. Surface options aren't often better than tunnels. But in this particular case, the tunnel is exceptionally challenging (lack of through-running capability) and the surface option is exceptionally advantageous (no significant cross-traffic).

[Aylmer]

As much as we shouldn't be building trams because they're "european/cute/numtot kawaii", we also shouldn't be building tunnels simply because they feel "big city/serious/subways subways subways".

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

As much as we shouldn't be building trams because they're "european/cute/numtot kawaii", we also shouldn't be building tunnels simply because they feel "big city/serious/subways subways subways".

I think the Ottawa has done well to not build unnecessary tunnels with the O-train so far. The Centretown tunnel was a very worthwhile investment and anything else they are digging for seems to make sense. Which tunnels do you think we shouldn't be building? O-Train or STO under Sparks?

[Aylmer]

The DT tunnel was unquestionably a good move. With both through-running underground and far too much cross-traffic on the surface, tunneling made sense for passengers and the long term viability of the line.

The Sparks tunnel has far fewer advantages and imposes new restrictions on future-proofing and capacity
Unlike the DOTT, the STO surface option doesn't have any significant cross-traffic. A Sparks tunnel would still be more reliable, but the difference isn't as significant. And unlike the DOTT, the STO's underground option doesn't allow for through-running, meaning that the tunnel would actually result in lower capacity in the long run.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Harley613

I agree with you completely this is a vanity project, form over function. I don't want the governments in our region spending 10 billion + on an integrated transit system unless it's PROPERLY integrated and a 'No Car' Wellington is a 'No Go' as far as I'm concerned.

Not sure how you can characterize a transit-first Wellington St as a "vanity project" when it actually saves $500-900M compared to the alternative of a Sparks tunnel.

The loop, if an when it happens, would have the effect of doubling the STO's cross-river capacity (compared to a tram line crossing only at Portage) so there are practical benefits as well.

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Not sure how you can characterize a transit-first Wellington St as a "vanity project" when it actually saves $500-900M compared to the alternative of a Sparks tunnel.

The loop, if an when it happens, would have the effect of doubling the STO's cross-river capacity (compared to a tram line crossing only at Portage) so there are practical benefits as well.

I'm characterizing 'The Loop' as a vanity project, not any of the actual proposed STO options.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

And, if ONLY STO vehicles were allowed to run in front of the Parliament Buildings, I think that Ottawa, the City, (and many Anglos across the country) would be up in arms about the favouritism. I really can’t see that option as being acceptable, except to a few ‘romantics’ who think it might bring a ‘European flair’ to Ottawa.

Richard, are you arguing that governments should spend $500-900M on a Sparks tunnel for STO so that... anglos don't get upset about "favouritism" and to stick it to the "romantics"? I'm not following this argument at all.

The main arguments for putting the tram on the surface are efficiency and cost. The "European flair" that might be created is just a nice bonus.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

There's widespread neglect of the fact that the surface option on wellington has a lot of potential for service disruptions, little opportunity for enhanced street-level interaction and vibrancy (i.e. no opportunity for street-level retail or mixed-use applications because both sides of Wellington are almost for exclusive Parliamentary Precinct uses), and how it will cut off crucial vehicular access for many buildings along Wellington.

Between Bank and Elgin (the stretch proposed to be closed to vehicles) I can really only think of one property that has direct vehicular access to Wellington- the old US embassy. I'm sure an alternative access can be found.

Regarding disruptions- as long as there is a cross-over track somewhere between Lyon and Bank to allow the trams to short-turn in case of disruptions, I don't think it will be an issue.

[Aylmer]

It's also the sort of thing that can be easily resolved with an Emergency and Authorized Vehicles Only sign.

That's actually something I hadn't thought about - having a network of traffic-free streets downtown (likely Sussex, Wellington, and Metcalfe/O'Connor north of Queen) likely means improvements to emergency response times throughout the area.