HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2013, 11:05 PM
NOWINYOW NOWINYOW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buggys View Post
... Gosh, how hard is it to contract a bridge-builder with enough insurance to ensure construction without delays & the City loosing money.
Great question. Too bad no one at City Hall appears qualified to undertake the task of getting a reputable contractor, with sufficient safeguards within the contract.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2013, 12:04 AM
S-Man S-Man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,639
So, the train resumes Tuesday (albeit not with the new train sets). This looks a ways from completion.

Will construction continue on the passing tracks after the O-Train has resumed? How does that work?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2013, 2:52 AM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by S-Man View Post
So, the train resumes Tuesday (albeit not with the new train sets). This looks a ways from completion.

Will construction continue on the passing tracks after the O-Train has resumed? How does that work?
The new trains need to go through a period of testing. They are not scheduled to go into service until 2014. That is when the service enhancement will take place.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2013, 2:55 AM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buggys View Post
How about we get the O-train to loop around going South of the airport, across the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge, run past Baseline Station near the college, and connect to Bayshore station via the Confederation Line.

...Might as well, if the plan is to have rail that far South on both sides of the bridge anyway. Gosh, how hard is it to contract a bridge-builder with enough insurance to ensure construction without delays & the City loosing money.
Although not exactly as described, this was the Chiarelli plan that we chose to cancel. It also had an east-west element largely using existing track.

The plan to build the O-Train across the Strandherd-Armstrong bridge has been cancelled.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2013, 2:42 PM
Buggys Buggys is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Although not exactly as described, this was the Chiarelli plan that we chose to cancel. It also had an east-west element largely using existing track.

The plan to build the O-Train across the Strandherd-Armstrong bridge has been cancelled.
Bleh.... Doesn't mean it can't re-appear in the 2013 update of the TMP, right ; - P.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2013, 5:02 AM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkArconio View Post
That's about right, there's a pdf with the exact planned route on the city website. But the green is going to be built as transit way, through a new 'town centre' in the field to the right of the current suburb. The terminus would presumably be a transfer point for the duration of the 40 year transportation plan.
New "town centre" - you mean a loosely-aggregate collection of chain stores and fast-food restaurants in stubby one-storey plazas, surrounded by ample parking?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2013, 5:06 AM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
As far as not encouraging sprawl, intensification will never be the full answer. Not everybody wants to live in a downtown condo or a quadplex or whatever. This is reality. Sure, I am all for intensification but it isn't going to address all the housing needs of a growing city.
And yet, oddly, the market is utterly incapable of building something that is neither a condo/quadplex or suburban ticky-tacky.

There is a whole generation of people who would love to live in a new urban neighbourhood. Genuinely new - like the suburban crap. But genuinely urban - like the Glebe or Westboro or Sandy Hill.

But no developer in Ottawa is capable of delivering that. They all think everyone wants either a condo or the suburban dream.

Why?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2013, 5:08 AM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
Here is the planned extension, don't know why they don't put the passing tracks at stations when possible, or in the case of Gladstone, if you have passing tracks, might as well build platforms.
Indeed. Your question can be rephrased as, Why don't they put stations at the passing tracks?

The failure to include a Gladstone station in this round of transit development is a hyper-super-mega-fail, even by Ottawa failure standards. And Ottawa is really really good at failing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2013, 5:11 AM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by S-Man View Post
If you're looking for examples of urban 'Non-intensification McMansions', look no further than Westboro and Champlain Park (Dominion Ave., Northwestern Ave., Berkley Ave.). No one tears down two 1998 homes in the suburbs to put up a McMansion.
1998? No, but it's happening to 1970s-era burbs.

Not that I care one way or another; your property, knock yourself out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2013, 5:14 AM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainView View Post
If they are only doubling the track up until the Galdstone bridge (I could be mistaken) they why don't they double the track into Bayview station and have a central platform? Seems silly to me to have a train leave the station slowly as the north bound one slowly makes its way onto the passing track, they pass each other, and then the north bound one switches back onto the main track and into the station. If the north bound one is early/South bound leaving Bayview is late, it could simply pull into the station without waiting if it was doubled into the station.

Anyways... pictures by me from yesterday - Aug 31/2013
Did they fix this bit of stupid?

http://www.friendsoftheotrain.org/printable/node/221
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2013, 1:52 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uhuniau View Post
And yet, oddly, the market is utterly incapable of building something that is neither a condo/quadplex or suburban ticky-tacky.

There is a whole generation of people who would love to live in a new urban neighbourhood. Genuinely new - like the suburban crap. But genuinely urban - like the Glebe or Westboro or Sandy Hill.

But no developer in Ottawa is capable of delivering that. They all think everyone wants either a condo or the suburban dream.

Why?
Part of this is our own fault. This requires that we seriously consider creating a transit suburb. We voted big time against that in the 2006 election. We cannot build a new Glebe, Westboro or Sandy Hill because these were all streetcar suburbs, where they were mostly designed to move people by transit. Nowadays, everything new is geared towards moving people by car. We end up with roads being the centre of all development, and complete segregation of uses and poor design, again centred on the car, that are both anti-transit and anti-pedestrian. The result is the need of a car to do almost everything in day to day life. The public needs a completely new mindset as do our politicians and urban planners. I do not see this changing anytime soon. Even if we tried, this will be perceived as giving a specific neighbourhood and developer preferential treatment. We saw all of these comments with Riverside South.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2013, 2:31 PM
Kitchissippi's Avatar
Kitchissippi Kitchissippi is offline
Busy Beaver
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Part of this is our own fault. This requires that we seriously consider creating a transit suburb. We voted big time against that in the 2006 election. We cannot build a new Glebe, Westboro or Sandy Hill because these were all streetcar suburbs, where they were mostly designed to move people by transit. Nowadays, everything new is geared towards moving people by car. We end up with roads being the centre of all development, and complete segregation of uses and poor design, again centred on the car, that are both anti-transit and anti-pedestrian. The result is the need of a car to do almost everything in day to day life. The public needs a completely new mindset as do our politicians and urban planners. I do not see this changing anytime soon. Even if we tried, this will be perceived as giving a specific neighbourhood and developer preferential treatment. We saw all of these comments with Riverside South.
The blame lies on current zoning by-laws. It is virtually impossible to build a house without a parking spot. The bulk of zoning regulations were formulated specifically around parking (for example setbacks are usually at least a car length), which means any site plan has to consider where a car is placed first (i.e., a garage) before the rest of the dwelling is designed. Creating a new suburb with transit from the beginning will not change these rules, and since you cannot put walkable amenities in the middle of a green field with a snap of a finger, you'll still end up with a neighbourhood that maybe will take transit in rush hour but otherwise will use a car.

It's an undeniable fact that suburban transit is periodic and unidirectional. If a suburb were truly successful, then transit would be internal, supporting movement within the community just like the urban model. This is why the the old N-S LRT model would have been nothing but an expensive express bus service.

I think you've bought into the idealism that public transit by itself can modify social behaviour. In reality, our public transit system needs to be modified to cater better to the people that already have already acquired that lifestyle and have chosen to live in walkable communities that are currently underserved or heavily affected by the volume of suburban commuters.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2013, 4:02 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitchissippi View Post
The blame lies on current zoning by-laws. It is virtually impossible to build a house without a parking spot. The bulk of zoning regulations were formulated specifically around parking (for example setbacks are usually at least a car length), which means any site plan has to consider where a car is placed first (i.e., a garage) before the rest of the dwelling is designed. Creating a new suburb with transit from the beginning will not change these rules, and since you cannot put walkable amenities in the middle of a green field with a snap of a finger, you'll still end up with a neighbourhood that maybe will take transit in rush hour but otherwise will use a car.

It's an undeniable fact that suburban transit is periodic and unidirectional. If a suburb were truly successful, then transit would be internal, supporting movement within the community just like the urban model. This is why the the old N-S LRT model would have been nothing but an expensive express bus service.

I think you've bought into the idealism that public transit by itself can modify social behaviour. In reality, our public transit system needs to be modified to cater better to the people that already have already acquired that lifestyle and have chosen to live in walkable communities that are currently underserved or heavily affected by the volume of suburban commuters.
Of course, everything is more complicated that it appears, however, there is also a chicken and egg scenario here. Nobody will use transit if it isn't available or if it is poor quality. When used, it will also be mainly unidirectional commuting. However, we are also seeing employment moving to the suburbs more and more and with no useful transit, of course we keep re-enforcing the use of cars continually. This applies even if you live in a central neighbourhood and your job moves out of downtown. You end up needing a car or dealing with a pathetic level of public transit. What I am saying is that our transit investments are not reflecting our changing travel patterns nor is it considering some of the congestion that is building up where transit may become a useful alternative if it was fast.

If we want to improve public transit and see ridership growth, we cannot keep investing in the same people over and over again. My complaint with the current plan is that we are spending a ton of money to serve the exact same route that already has very good transit service. Sure, there are other reasons, mainly downtown congestion, which is very valid, but we are also sucking money out of even central neighbourhood transit improvements as well. When do you think the Carling Avenue streetcar will be built? This will likely not take place for decades now.

The problem with your specific issue with parking is that it is almost impossible to deal with unless we implement transit improvements so that we offer an alternative. As it stands, there is very few areas of the city where you can live without a car and still maintain a lifestyle that has a degree of convenience. We have not adopted the frequent transit service that exists in fairly large areas of Toronto and Montreal.

And we are not considering other novel ideas such as another O-Train away from that typical downtown corridor, which proved more successful than anybody anticipitated despite the naysayers at the time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2013, 5:08 PM
Kitchissippi's Avatar
Kitchissippi Kitchissippi is offline
Busy Beaver
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
If we want to improve public transit and see ridership growth, we cannot keep investing in the same people over and over again. My complaint with the current plan is that we are spending a ton of money to serve the exact same route that already has very good transit service.
Define "very good transit service". Sure we have diesel-spewing buses running through Tunney's Pasture and the transitway trench every 5 minutes during rush hour, but we can't get on most of them, and if we do we won't get a seat because they're all taken by commuters from farther out. Ironically we pay higher property taxes to be closer to transit (therefore a higher transit levy), so yeah, we're the "same people over and over" but we are loyal, higher paying customers that deserve better. This isn't like a cell phone plan where better deals are for new customers only.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
As it stands, there is very few areas of the city where you can live without a car and still maintain a lifestyle that has a degree of convenience. We have not adopted the frequent transit service that exists in fairly large areas of Toronto and Montreal.
All I can say is the direction of public transit has never been clearer in this city. We now know what is scheduled to be built for the next couple of decades and it is an obvious path to higher capacity. At this point, if transit and LRT service are that important to you, make the choice and live closer to it rather than expecting it to come to you. Contrary to what you say, there are still lots of homes that are affordable close to future LRT stations, if not in this phase then the next one. The Overbrook and Cyrville area comes to mind as well as areas near the future New Orchard and Iris stations. Look at MLS, there are still plenty of detached houses in the $300K - $400K range within 500 metres of frequent service.

Anyone who would choose to live car-free would never ever live in Riverside South. and it would take more than just great transit service to convince them to move there. Most people I know who are car-free are die-hard cyclists and value being close to cultural amenities more than anything else. You can't will that on a green field, it takes generations to evolve.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2013, 8:11 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitchissippi View Post
Define "very good transit service". Sure we have diesel-spewing buses running through Tunney's Pasture and the transitway trench every 5 minutes during rush hour, but we can't get on most of them, and if we do we won't get a seat because they're all taken by commuters from farther out. Ironically we pay higher property taxes to be closer to transit (therefore a higher transit levy), so yeah, we're the "same people over and over" but we are loyal, higher paying customers that deserve better. This isn't like a cell phone plan where better deals are for new customers only.



All I can say is the direction of public transit has never been clearer in this city. We now know what is scheduled to be built for the next couple of decades and it is an obvious path to higher capacity. At this point, if transit and LRT service are that important to you, make the choice and live closer to it rather than expecting it to come to you. Contrary to what you say, there are still lots of homes that are affordable close to future LRT stations, if not in this phase then the next one. The Overbrook and Cyrville area comes to mind as well as areas near the future New Orchard and Iris stations. Look at MLS, there are still plenty of detached houses in the $300K - $400K range within 500 metres of frequent service.

Anyone who would choose to live car-free would never ever live in Riverside South. and it would take more than just great transit service to convince them to move there. Most people I know who are car-free are die-hard cyclists and value being close to cultural amenities more than anything else. You can't will that on a green field, it takes generations to evolve.
Don't worry, you will get your trains. Remember, how this discussion all came about. How the O-Train extension is being delayed despite being on the TMP priority list. Remember also the other observations about the amount of housing being built without significant supporting transit.

Yes, you are paying more taxes, but despite what you say, you are getting much more transit service than most are getting, even in most areas inside the Greenbelt. Everybody else is putting up with crowded buses too, you know. It is not a phenonmenon restricted to Westboro and Tunney's Pasture.

We are not here to support a carless lifestyle using our taxes. We are here to provide a service. Nothing more, nothing less. We are trying to reduce the pressures on our roadways and that is best achieved by getting people off the roads during peak periods.

The question remains whether we actually want new riders. Based on your comments, I expect the answer is not really.

Regarding, the affordability of housing. Overbrook isn't exactly a stone's throw from the Confederation Line, and Cyrville has only small pockets of developable land within walking distance of the station. Once LRT opens, especially new stations, the price of housing is going to go up and low income families over time will be moving elsewhere. This is what typically happens.

And before putting words in my mouth about wanting LRT within walking distance of my house, I have no expectations of that ever happening. It isn't in the plan and I don't expect it. I do think that there are wide expectations that rapid transit (in some form) be delivered to the major suburbs. Otherwise, prepare for the need to build lots of more roads and to see the quality of life in the city degrade as the city chokes on more and more traffic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2013, 12:38 AM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
It was mentioned today that the new trains will not be put into service until September 2014, which means that the new 8 minute service will not be implemented until then.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2013, 12:57 AM
ortelius ortelius is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 89
yep just saw it here
http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/ottawa-s-o-...rack-1.1438643
one year! it seems like a long time for this
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2013, 2:18 AM
p_xavier p_xavier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
No, the airport does not generate a lot of ridership.
The 747 bus route in Montréal is the only line that actually makes an operating profit. The previous owner was from the private sector and abandoned it because it lost money. There is always lots of ridership potential, and a direct train service would certainly attract a lot more riders than the current 97X.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2013, 2:44 AM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by d_jeffrey View Post
The 747 bus route in Montréal is the only line that actually makes an operating profit. The previous owner was from the private sector and abandoned it because it lost money. There is always lots of ridership potential, and a direct train service would certainly attract a lot more riders than the current 97X.
They charge a premium fare of $9.00 on it though if you don't have a pass.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2013, 2:11 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by d_jeffrey View Post
The 747 bus route in Montréal is the only line that actually makes an operating profit. The previous owner was from the private sector and abandoned it because it lost money. There is always lots of ridership potential, and a direct train service would certainly attract a lot more riders than the current 97X.
Another comment noted the premium fare in Montreal, which will also apply to the new train to start operating out of Pearson in Toronto. Isn't a premium fare charged on the Canada Line also at Vancouver Airport? Note all are direct to downtown services.

This is fine to charge extra to occasional visitors as it is competing with taxis and limousine services but it is a pretty steep fare to get airport employees to use it on a daily basis. At $9.00 a pop, that is something like $400 per month. Who can afford this kind of cost for commuting alone? I can't.

We will not be able to charge a premium fare as an O-Train extension will not be running downtown. Once Route 97 stops running downtown with the opening of the Confederation Line, won't this make airport transit much less attractive? Direct service to downtown hotels is critical to make it attractive to incoming tourists and business travellers. Who wants to face confusing transfers in an unfamiliar city. I used BART in San Fransisco from the airport because it went straight downtown.
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 1:37 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.