HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1241  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2021, 2:05 PM
Aylmer's Avatar
Aylmer Aylmer is offline
Still optimistic
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal (C-D-N) / Ottawa (Aylmer)
Posts: 5,268
The insinuation of a pro-Gatineau, anti-Ottawa NCC conspiracy is, erm, interesting

I think it's a combination of factors. One is definitely that the times have changed, even since 2014. The NCC's leadership and its overseeing government are both much less hostile than they were under Kristmanson and the Harper government. Nussbaum and the Liberal government have seen the NCC steer quickly more pro-urban and pro-transit in a number of their projects.

There two projects are also radically different. They share the same vehicles and purpose, but is meant to carry trains at high speeds requiring a fully fenced-off right-of-way, and the other will run at 20-30 km/h with no separation. It was definitely rich of the NCC to bring up the argument considering they operate a highway not metres away, but it's also hard to make the argument that the railway-style LRT tracks would have improved the landscape either.

That actually brings me to the final reason why I think the NCC is more bullish on the tram option; the NCC likely sees it as a vehicle for radically improving the landscape. From their submission, it's clear that they're less interested in the transportation aspect and far more intrigued by the prospect of being able to completely refresh Confederation Boulevard in its look and function. Not only can they get rid of the tourist buses, SUVs, and tractor-trailers running in front of Parliament, but they'd get hundreds of millions of dollars to re-do the somewhat tired-looking boulevard for the first time in almost half a century. They'd probably love it more if the trams weren't there, but they know that they wouldn't get the opportunity nor the financial means without the transit component.


All that being true, I still think that burying LRT on the parkway was a bad move. But it's a bit misleading to automatically equate the two projects on the basis that they both have tracks.
__________________
I've always struggled with reality. And I'm pleased to say that I won.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1242  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2021, 2:41 PM
phil235's Avatar
phil235 phil235 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 2,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylmer View Post
That actually brings me to the final reason why I think the NCC is more bullish on the tram option; the NCC likely sees it as a vehicle for radically improving the landscape. From their submission, it's clear that they're less interested in the transportation aspect and far more intrigued by the prospect of being able to completely refresh Confederation Boulevard in its look and function. Not only can they get rid of the tourist buses, SUVs, and tractor-trailers running in front of Parliament, but they'd get hundreds of millions of dollars to re-do the somewhat tired-looking boulevard for the first time in almost half a century. They'd probably love it more if the trams weren't there, but they know that they wouldn't get the opportunity nor the financial means without the transit component.
I actually think that your final reason is likely the biggest factor. The NCC is seeing this primarily from a tourist perspective, showcasing the capital and all of that. Surface trams are a much better way to show off the attractions on Confederation Boulevard to visitors who aren't as likely to try to navigate the full transit system. This allows them to fulfill that mandate while still providing a useful transportation link.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1243  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2021, 4:04 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by phil235 View Post
I actually think that your final reason is likely the biggest factor. The NCC is seeing this primarily from a tourist perspective, showcasing the capital and all of that. Surface trams are a much better way to show off the attractions on Confederation Boulevard to visitors who aren't as likely to try to navigate the full transit system. This allows them to fulfill that mandate while still providing a useful transportation link.
A big change in viewpoint, of course due to the passing of a couple of generations, but in the past trams running by Parliament with all the wires and poles was something that was objectionable.

However, for big events such as Canada Day, Remembrance Day, there has to be a means to short turn surface trams. They can't run by Parliament nor Confederation Square on those occasions.

We have also argued the need to remove buses off of Albert and Slater because of potential protests. Obviously, transit on Wellington is at much higher risk.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1244  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2021, 4:08 PM
phil235's Avatar
phil235 phil235 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 2,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
A big change in viewpoint, of course due to the passing of a couple of generations, but in the past trams running by Parliament with all the wires and poles was something that was objectionable.

However, for big events such as Canada Day, Remembrance Day, there has to be a means to short turn surface trams. They can't run by Parliament nor Confederation Square on those occasions.

We have also argued the need to remove buses off of Albert and Slater because of potential protests. Obviously, transit on Wellington is at much higher risk.
Is short turning a big issue? Presumably if you are cutting the loop, you could just have bi-directional trains that stop short of Wellington and go back the way they came for big events.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1245  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2021, 7:40 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by phil235 View Post
Is short turning a big issue? Presumably if you are cutting the loop, you could just have bi-directional trains that stop short of Wellington and go back the way they came for big events.
I figure that it is practical to reach Bank Street before reversing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1246  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2021, 8:06 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 13,788
Having operational plans for major events and protests that would see trains short turn at Bank (or Lyon, with link to the Confederation Line) and Rideau coming from the Alexandra Bridge seems reasonable to me.

The difference between the Confederation Line and the STO line is capacity needs, but also people's destination. The Confederation Line tunnel is a through train traffic corridor that carries the entire east-west transit spine of Ottawa. For the STO Line, Downtown Ottawa is just a terminus. The transit loop is a bonus. Whether trains short turn or complete the loop, the capacity remains just about the same and it makes little difference to any one person's overall trip, compared to Confed, where downtown is not the final destination for everyone.

The capacity of the STO Line is actually higher with the surface loop option because trains have two entry points into Ottawa, while with the tunnel, the loop would not happen. It may be technically feasible, but I don't think there is any apatite for such a expensive and complicated project.

Finally, a surface Confederation Line would need to cross all of the intersections through Albert and Slater and interact with cars coming in and out of parking garages. That's the best case scenario as long as the trains had an exclusive RoW. The STO trams on the north side of Wellington will only come into contact with maybe 4 driveways/intersections between the Portage Bridge and Bank and a few pedestrian crosswalks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1247  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2021, 8:12 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 13,788
As for the SJAM, I'm glad the NCC refused the City's request to run trains on the Parkway. A winding road would have slowed down the trains and increased maintenance. The distance from the built-up area would have reduced the catchment of the stations. I did prefer Ottawa's underground route that had natural ventilation windows towards the River as opposed to the NCC's deeper tunnel, but I digress.

The NCC reasoning might not have been the best, but that opposition (of running ON the Parkway) was beneficial in the long run.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1248  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2021, 5:38 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 13,788
I really wish the STO would end up building all tram, but with the hybrid routing, which would provide two lines through urban Hull.



The current all-tram option misses a lot of potential catchment.


https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle...amway-gatineau
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1249  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2021, 10:00 PM
Clinton Desveaux Clinton Desveaux is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 52
Any truth to the rumour about a spur line running up from Tache & St Raymond to Allummettieres?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1250  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2021, 10:03 PM
OCCheetos OCCheetos is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 1,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clinton Desveaux View Post
Any truth to the rumour about a spur line running up from Tache & St Raymond to Allummettieres?
What do you mean "rumour"? That's the STO's preferred plan.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1251  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2021, 10:11 PM
Aylmer's Avatar
Aylmer Aylmer is offline
Still optimistic
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal (C-D-N) / Ottawa (Aylmer)
Posts: 5,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
I really wish the STO would end up building all tram, but with the hybrid routing, which would provide two lines through urban Hull.



The current all-tram option misses a lot of potential catchment.
The only stop it provides which isn't already served by the Rapibus is at Labelle. There's nothing but single family homes and a dépanneur within walking distance of it.

On the other hand, the T1 alignment gives the Plateau better transfers to Aylmer and connects it directly with UQO and Terraces Chaudière.
__________________
I've always struggled with reality. And I'm pleased to say that I won.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1252  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2021, 10:26 PM
OtrainUser OtrainUser is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylmer View Post
The only stop it provides which isn't already served by the Rapibus is at Labelle. There's nothing but single family homes and a dépanneur within walking distance of it.

On the other hand, the T1 alignment gives the Plateau better transfers to Aylmer and connects it directly with UQO and Terraces Chaudière.
Wrong, he is talking about urban Hull which would be poorly served by the T1 option. The other 2 hybrid options serve Hull much better and would boost ridership numbers for the STO.

T1 is for the suburban riders, urban ridership be damned even though we pay the same transit taxes for worse service.

Now if the loop is added, then only the island part of Hull will see better service and i hope the loop gets added to the project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1253  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2021, 11:08 PM
Aylmer's Avatar
Aylmer Aylmer is offline
Still optimistic
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal (C-D-N) / Ottawa (Aylmer)
Posts: 5,268
I don't know if you read my post. Montcalm and the stops on Maisonneuve are already serviced by the Rapibus. Another line would not provide more service.
__________________
I've always struggled with reality. And I'm pleased to say that I won.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1254  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2021, 11:24 PM
Hybrid247 Hybrid247 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 669
I have to say I hope they go with 1 of the 2 hybrid options to leave the door open to interlining a converted rapibus corridor at some point in the future. Although the all rail option doesn't preclude converting and interlining the rapibus corridor, it would result in pretty low frequencies on each of the branches. Also, west Gatineau doesn't really need 2 LRT lines.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1255  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2021, 3:40 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 13,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylmer View Post
The only stop it provides which isn't already served by the Rapibus is at Labelle. There's nothing but single family homes and a dépanneur within walking distance of it.

On the other hand, the T1 alignment gives the Plateau better transfers to Aylmer and connects it directly with UQO and Terraces Chaudière.
I understand your point about access to UQO and easier transfers to Alylmer, but I disagree that the northern alignment of Hull isn't worth serving.
  • The Gatineau Park station could be used as a transfer onto NCC shuttles to and from the Park.
  • Labelle station could serve a bus route to Hull Hospital, the Cegep and other institution to the north. Some TOD opportunities could exist.
  • At Montcalm, they have the RapiBus, but some people may want to go east-west, not just north-south. It also offers a second transfer between the Tram and RapiBus. Not to mention significant TOD opportunities.
  • The following station would serve a redeveloped Robert Guertin arena and be near the Montcalm/Papineau/Morin arts and culture node.
  • All down Maisonneuve is existing and potential high/medium density.

The Plateau and Aylmer lines could connect at Allumetiere or Vanier further west to maintain that transfer. For UQO students, they can transfer on the RapiBus at Montcalm or a bus shuttle can be offered between the two lines along St-Raymond.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1256  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2021, 3:51 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 13,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hybrid247 View Post
I have to say I hope they go with 1 of the 2 hybrid options to leave the door open to interlining a converted rapibus corridor at some point in the future. Although the all rail option doesn't preclude converting and interlining the rapibus corridor, it would result in pretty low frequencies on each of the branches. Also, west Gatineau doesn't really need 2 LRT lines.
Choosing between the north and south alignment for rail is difficult. Along the south, we'd be serving the UQO, which could expand significantly over the coming years with a Government that seems open to correcting years of neglect in the Outaouais. We'd also be serving many areas of potential TOD, the Champlain Bridge (transfers to OC Transpo), and the historic core of Aylmer, where trams would be far more desirable than buses.

To the north, Le Plateau has significant medium density with a respectable core area that could promote a more car-free lifestyle. In addition to my points above.

It's worth noting that the Gatineau tram will not be a light-metro like Ottawa's that comes with the expectation of high capacity and frequency. Five minute frequencies on the branches at rush-hour, and ten off peak would suffice and already be far superior to the current bus system.

We also must remember that we won't see a slew of 20-30-40 storey towers like Ottawa, but more medium density TOD.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1257  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2021, 7:54 PM
Hybrid247 Hybrid247 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 669
If I had to choose between the north and south, I'd pick the southern alignment for many of the same reasons you mentioned. Development is very patchy along chemin d'aylmer and the LRT could help infill some of those greenfield and low-density patches with some good medium density growth.

Also, the alignment for the southern option is a lot straighter than the north, which should make it more rail-friendly than the curvilinear alignment of blvd du plateau. The plateau's density is impressive for a suburb of its kind, but I don't understand the logic in building it around heavily meandered arterials.

As for the frequency of a 3-branch system, I don't think 5-minute frequencies would be possible on each of the branches at rush hour, would it? Maybe 6 minutes if you go with 2-minute frequencies on the central segment, but even that would be tough to achieve.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1258  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2021, 10:29 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 13,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hybrid247 View Post
If I had to choose between the north and south, I'd pick the southern alignment for many of the same reasons you mentioned. Development is very patchy along chemin d'aylmer and the LRT could help infill some of those greenfield and low-density patches with some good medium density growth.

Also, the alignment for the southern option is a lot straighter than the north, which should make it more rail-friendly than the curvilinear alignment of blvd du plateau. The plateau's density is impressive for a suburb of its kind, but I don't understand the logic in building it around heavily meandered arterials.

As for the frequency of a 3-branch system, I don't think 5-minute frequencies would be possible on each of the branches at rush hour, would it? Maybe 6 minutes if you go with 2-minute frequencies on the central segment, but even that would be tough to achieve.
I agree that the south alignment is probably better suited to rail.

For the 3-branch system, are you assuming the future RapiBus conversion?

With the loop, you could ultimately get that two minutes to serve the populated east-end (RapiBus conversion) and two minutes for the west-end, split in two (4 minutes each branch) at rush-hour. If the trams only cross Portage and terminate at O'Connor or Elgin, then that potential frequency is cut in half.

Basically, trains from the west end would cross Portage, go around Ottawa and come back via Alexandra to then serve the out-bound east-end branch while trains from the east-end would cross Alexandra, through Ottawa and head out-bound towards Aylmer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1259  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2021, 12:12 AM
Hybrid247 Hybrid247 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 669
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
I agree that the south alignment is probably better suited to rail.

For the 3-branch system, are you assuming the future RapiBus conversion?
Yes

Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
With the loop, you could ultimately get that two minutes to serve the populated east-end (RapiBus conversion) and two minutes for the west-end, split in two (4 minutes each branch) at rush-hour. If the trams only cross Portage and terminate at O'Connor or Elgin, then that potential frequency is cut in half.
If I'm understanding this concept correctly, that frequency would only be possible if the east and west lines don't intersect and share track before the loop, right? If all 3 branches converge into one ROW segment (presumably at UQO) before the loop switch, it would necessitate 1 minute frequencies on that segment to achieve 2-minute frequencies for the east and west, no?

My apologies if I'm misunderstanding.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1260  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2021, 1:39 AM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 13,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hybrid247 View Post
If I'm understanding this concept correctly, that frequency would only be possible if the east and west lines don't intersect and share track before the loop, right? If all 3 branches converge into one ROW segment (presumably at UQO) before the loop switch, it would necessitate 1 minute frequencies on that segment to achieve 2-minute frequencies for the east and west, no?

My apologies if I'm misunderstanding.
That's correct, they would not intersect outside the loop. How that would happen, I'm not entirely sure, but I feel the STO will need to figure that out in order to take full advantage of the capacity available in the loop. Unfortunately, that would mean the East end line would not serve UQO directly. Students would therefore have three choices:

- Stay on the train through the loop detour until it eventually heads West;
- Transfer in downtown Hull to avoid the loop through Ottawa;
- Transfer to a bus at Montcalm to take the short RapiBus segment remaining to UQO.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:02 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.