West Gatineau LRT & Downtown Loop | Proposed

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Except, if you notice, the station is named UQO, not Taché-uqo, so I don't think they are the same station. I believe the station will be further west, due south of the University. I don't think they will want the trains to backtrack to there, and Rue Millar is in the way for getting direct access to the line.
.

I agree it wouldn't likely link directly to the Taché-UQO Rapibus station but OTOH I doubt it would be that far west. They will want to provide some type of linkage to the Rapibus network, so my guess is they'd rename Taché-UQO simply to Taché, and then extend the Rapibus road southward to link up with the train line at a new multi-modal BRT-LRT station south of Taché that would be called UQO.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Norman Bates

Actually looks good. Unless you live in the Gatineau sector.

Uh, yeah. Because the Gatineau sector has the Rapibus. That's kind of the point of why this is focusing on Aylmer.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I have put a guess as to where I think the line will run into Google MyMaps:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=12h...lW&usp=sharing

Downtown Hull is the big question. They may decide to follow Laurier instead.

I think they probably won't convert the Alexandra Bridge, but the one further east that would also facilitate a King Edward approach.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Uh, yeah. Because the Gatineau sector has the Rapibus. That's kind of the point of why this is focusing on Aylmer.

.

And even though I don't use it often (several members of my household do use it daily though) I am glad we have it, as opposed to waiting probably past my retirement age to see trains roll.

To be honest, Rapibus is only quasi-rapid transit in my mind, but it's still better than nothing.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

I think they probably won't convert the Alexandra Bridge, but the one further east that would also facilitate a King Edward approach.

Just being the devil's advocate, but what is the advantage of the King Edward approach under this scenario?

At that point of their trip, most anyone still on the G-Train after the Museum stop will have Rideau as their final or transfer destination.

[lrt's friend]

I still think there is an enormous advantage to connecting this service to a downtown to downtown two way loop.

Using a route similar to what was used by Hull Electric up to 1946 reflects a different time when downtown was mostly east of Bank and when most Quebecers shopped on Rideau Street. Ottawa's downtown has been spreading to the west for decades and hopefully will be spreading to Lebreton.

Regardless, a loop provides a much more effective way of delivering Gatineau residents to the western part of downtown and Ottawa residents to government offices in downtown Hull. We can eliminate shuttle buses entirely between downtowns and it maintains the viability of businesses on the south side of the Rideau Centre. Although there would not be a direct connection at Rideau Station, the walk is one block. It would be very beneficial to businesses on Rideau to have much increased foot traffic.

I see it being:
Interprovincial Bridge, St. Patrick and Murray, Dalhousie, Waller, MacKenzie-King Bridge, Albert/Slater, Booth, Chaudiere Bridge.

The further benefit is that this will connect all the tourist attractions in the downtown area. At the present time, transit connections are a hodge-podge to the various tourist attractions, which is a disincentive for tourists to use transit to get around. Furthermore, if the downtown arena is built, this provides a direct connection for Gatineau residents.

[Horus]

If, as Aylmer has indicated on numerous occasions, the Alexandra bridge is set for replacement in 10 years or so, it would make sense to rework it for both transit and road vehicles.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Just being the devil's advocate, but what is the advantage of the King Edward approach under this scenario?

At that point of their trip, most anyone still on the G-Train after the Museum stop will have Rideau as their final or transfer destination.

There is none, but I know how politicians and policy works.

You'll have people crying about the loss of the pedestrian and cycling part of the bridge, you'll have drivers complaining about the loss of a bridge that brings them across the river, and you'll probably have others (and potentially the NCC) that will complain about the "ugliness" of railway tracks and overhead wires in such important picturesque areas of Ottawa.

A tunnel would be the ideal solution, but probably prohibitively expensive and unlikely to get built unless the feds, both provinces, and cities are feeling particularly generous and forward-thinking (not a guarantee).

King Edward is the politically expedient option since it's further removed from the area, has "space" on the surface, and would face the least amount of opposition.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

There is none, but I know how politicians and policy works.

You'll have people crying about the loss of the pedestrian and cycling part of the bridge, you'll have drivers complaining about the loss of a bridge that brings them across the river, and you'll probably have others (and potentially the NCC) that will complain about the "ugliness" of railway tracks and overhead wires in such important picturesque areas of Ottawa.

A tunnel would be the ideal solution, but probably prohibitively expensive and unlikely to get built unless the feds, both provinces, and cities are feeling particularly generous and forward-thinking (not a guarantee).

King Edward is the politically expedient option since it's further removed from the area, has "space" on the surface, and would face the least amount of opposition.

I was thinking that if they used the Alexandra they'd simply (OK, I know it's not simple) add a new deck under the existing one (that would be refurbished at the same time) for the trains.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

There is none, but I know how politicians and policy works.

You'll have people crying about the loss of the pedestrian and cycling part of the bridge, you'll have drivers complaining about the loss of a bridge that brings them across the river, and you'll probably have others (and potentially the NCC) that will complain about the "ugliness" of railway tracks and overhead wires in such important picturesque areas of Ottawa.

A tunnel would be the ideal solution, but probably prohibitively expensive and unlikely to get built unless the feds, both provinces, and cities are feeling particularly generous and forward-thinking (not a guarantee).

King Edward is the politically expedient option since it's further removed from the area, has "space" on the surface, and would face the least amount of opposition.

The Interprovincial Bridge has three accesses. If two are used for LRT, we can still have the western access used for pedestrians and cyclists as we have at present.

I don't see how LRT tracks and overhead wires being so visually unattractive to rule it out.

Time to move forward with the Kettle Island Bridge, (also with an LRT connection, haha!, but certainly with reserved transit lanes)

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I was thinking that if they used the Alexandra they'd simply (OK, I know it's not simple) add a new deck under the existing one (that would be refurbished at the same time) for the trains.

Considering that the bridge needs a structural rebuild, not just a deck refurb, this is definitely not out of the question.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't know how much tunnelling vs. surface will be considered, but Laurier as opposed to the routing you've chosen through the heart of Vieux-Hull would reduce the amount of tunnelling considerably. Or at least minimize disruption to existing built-up areas if they're staying on the surface of this segment.

I highly doubt they will tunnel through Hull. It is significantly more expensive and demand isn't anywhere near what we are seeing in Ottawa.

I don't think this LRT will be anything like what we are building in Ottawa. It will be at grade and mostly on existing roads (the exception will likely be between Val-Tétreau and Chaudière where I believe they will use the abandoned rail line).

You are right and Laurier might be the better route. It isn't as close to portage but it would probably be easier to lay tracks on (more road space tow work with). My guess is they would run the tracks south/east of Laurier in a dedicated corridor to minimize conflicts with vehicles.

For fun I added what that route would look like to the map.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I was thinking that if they used the Alexandra they'd simply (OK, I know it's not simple) add a new deck under the existing one (that would be refurbished at the same time) for the trains.

That would be ideal, as would be a tunnel underneath Sussex. However...

Our good friends the US Embassy would likely ask that such a scenario not be allowed to continue for the security risk that someone could plant a bomb on the train and hit the US Embassy from an underground tunnel. Hell, look what they already asked us to do to Sussex and Clarence for "security reasons" (i.e. paranoia). :/

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The Interprovincial Bridge has three accesses. If two are used for LRT, we can still have the western access used for pedestrians and cyclists as we have at present.

I don't see how LRT tracks and overhead wires being so visually unattractive to rule it out.

Time to move forward with the Kettle Island Bridge, (also with an LRT connection, haha!, but certainly with reserved transit lanes)

Right, but here's the thing; that brings in the driver complaints like I said. If you close it off to drivers (which I'm okay with and it makes sense), you're no doubt going to face some stiff opposition from commuters on both sides of the river.

As for overhead wires, it would be a concern for some because this is Ottawa and the NCC we're talking about. Part of the reason they removed streetcars was to make the streetscape "more appealing." Again, I want to stress that I am personally not disagreeing with you, but just trying to show that issues like this WILL be brought up as an argument against progress. Hell, I have stories from the western LRT town halls that would make you angry and burst a blood vessel from rolling your eyes so hard and so often.

I thought the Kettle Island Bridge was dead in the water?

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Considering that the bridge needs a structural rebuild, not just a deck refurb, this is definitely not out of the question.

No, but will both provinces, cities, and the feds have the foresight and funds? That will remain to be seen. :/

[Aylmer]

The bridge is federal property. It would be a similar - albeit much smaller - scenario as Montreal's Champlain Bridge: the feds own the crumbling the bridge, so they pay for the rebuild 100%, leaving space in the new structure for rapid transit. The city/province pays for putting the actual rails and wires down.

[lrt's friend]

I thought the Kettle Island Bridge was dead in the water?

We need to bring it back. We cannot discard all possible bridge crossings, which is where we stand at the present time.

It would be a great location to have an iconic bridge, which includes MUP lanes and viewing platforms. It would command wonderful views of Ottawa and potential bird and wildlife viewing overlooking Kettle Island.

If Winnipeg can put up an iconic bridge, why can't Ottawa?

I guess I expect too much. Ottawans are so accustomed to compromise and everything being designed to be second rate.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

I think they probably won't convert the Alexandra Bridge, but the one further east that would also facilitate a King Edward approach.

With the only proposed stop after Musée being Rideau, I don't understand the benefit of taking a longer route. Even if they did add extra stops, I don't see it as much of an advantage for Aylmer commuters (most of whom are going to the CBD).

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

You'll have people crying about the loss of the pedestrian and cycling part of the bridge, you'll have drivers complaining about the loss of a bridge that brings them across the river,

Why would anyone loose access to the bridge? We are talking LRT (not light metro renamed LRT like in Ottawa). LRT can share the road with automobiles. I doubt if the line will see frequencies above one train every 5 minutes for a very long time, so there is lots of dead time for cars to use the bridge.

If they do widen the bridge (one way or another) we can give LRT a dedicated ROW at that point.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

With the only proposed stop after Musée being Rideau, I don't understand the benefit of taking a longer route. Even if they did add extra stops, I don't see it as much of an advantage for Aylmer commuters (most of whom are going to the CBD).



Why would anyone loose access to the bridge? We are talking LRT (not light metro renamed LRT like in Ottawa). LRT can share the road with automobiles. I doubt if the line will see frequencies above one train every 5 minutes for a very long time, so there is lots of dead time for cars to use the bridge.
If they do widen the bridge (one way or another) we can give LRT a dedicated ROW at that point.

And that is with the whole City of Gatineau receiving service, not just Aylmer.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I agree it wouldn't likely link directly to the Taché-UQO Rapibus station but OTOH I doubt it would be that far west.

They would want the station within easy walking distance of UQO as that would be the lion's share of the passengers using the stop.

They will want to provide some type of linkage to the Rapibus network, so my guess is they'd rename Taché-UQO simply to Taché, and then extend the Rapibus road southward to link up with the train line at a new multi-modal BRT-LRT station south of Taché that would be called UQO.

Or keep the station close to UQO and have the buses travel 120m on Alexandre-Taché to the new road/driveway that runs past the soccer field and behind UQO to the station, since the buses travelling to Taché-UQO are heading west anyway. Buses going to Tunnies Pasture would likely turn on Alexandre-Taché anyway.

[J.OT13]

I was convinced that the best way to connect an STO LRT Line to the Confederation Line was by using the old CPR right of way and tunnel however, there are several major issues with this.

1. For one, a lot of parties would be involved; the NCC that owns the pathway along the canal (old CPR right of way), the Feds who own the CPR tunnel and committee rooms, Larco who owns the Château Lauirer, the plaza above the tunnel and car ramps to the parking garage and the City of Ottawa.

2. Next, we have the visual obstructions along the canal with trains, poles and wires. Not to mention fencing to block off the track from pedestrians and cyclists. What are the chances this would ever be approved?

3. Then the high costs of demolishing everything in the tunnel and the vast underground concourse that would have to be built under the Sussex/Rideau/Mackenzie/Colonel By if we want to plug into Confederation’s Rideau. Otherwise, people would have to go up to street level, cross three streets and go down to the Confederation Rideau. Labour intensive transfer.

4. Limits of future expansion. Once the lines ends under the Plaza Bridge, it ends under the plaza bridge. There is no opportunity to extend it along the canal (obstruction of views) or tunnel (large ramp similar to what is now at uOttawa). An eventual loop around downtown becomes impossible.

Then I saw roger1818’s post showing the Fergus plan (hands down the best option IMHO) and a sketch up of what a possible route might be. roger1818 here recommends Mackenzie Avenue. Well the major problem here is that Mackenzie or Sussex is a mess as it is. Imagine adding a 50-100 meter long streetcar. Imagine these big poles and all that wiring along one of Ottawa’s showcase streets.

Now imagine if the line goes underground after it crosses the Interprovincial Bridge, turns south under Sussex and terminates at the intersection of Sussex and Rideau. How easy would it be to plug the STO’s Rideau Station with OC’s Rideau Station. Just a few short pedestrian tunnels that could connect with the Transportation Building, and Farm Boy entrance. Other entrances could be added at Chapters (Rideau entrance, with added elevator), between 700 Sussex ant the Cannaught Building and the Chapters George entrance.

In addition, a station cavern could be built at the intersection of St-Patrick and MacKenzie for a future National Gallery Station.
I realize that the American Embassy might push back on the idea, but if the subway is deep in underground in bed-rock, safety concerns might be mitigated.

In order to make this as intuitive as possible, I would suggest keeping the O-Train moniker for the STO Line. Call it the Portage Line 4, indicate it on the map as the blue line. STO would still own and operate it, but would be part of a broader O-Train system and be consistent with the same wayfinding, mapping, fonts and colours as Ottawa’s lines.

Here’s a quick mock-up of how it could plug in with Confederation’s Rideau. Sorry for the quality. Quick and dirty Microsoft Paint job.


[IMG][/IMG]

[lrt's friend]

That is exactly where the sinkhole was. Would that cause problems?

[OtrainUser]

My suggestion would be once the line crosses the bridge the tunnel should go under st patrick then turn south on dalhousie then head west under Rideau to connect with Rideau station.

At least this way even though its more expensive, will avoid the problems with the NCC and the US embassy and hopefully can give the city of Ottawa an idea of extending rail further east under Rideau-Montreal road corridor.

Im guessing I'm probably on of the few people here who is going to see their transit services improved, with Gatineau's lrt plan puts me at a 7 min walk from an lrt station