HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2010, 6:52 PM
adam-machiavelli adam-machiavelli is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 861
Now that I got your attention by demonstrating my advanced mapping and graphic communication skills, I would like to let you all know that even though I am fresh out of planning school, I am currently unemployed (I know I'm not the only one in this situation). If you know of any planning-related jobs that are available or will be filled in the near future, could you passed them on to me?

Thanks in advance
A-M
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted May 12, 2011, 5:16 PM
ThePlanner ThePlanner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 12
A map that appeared in this thread several months ago is featured in Spacing Ottawa this week: http://spacingottawa.ca/2011/05/09/d...s-transit-map/.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2012, 6:51 PM
imdec123 imdec123 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1
LRT in Aylmer

I guess you're aware that having an LRT in Gatineau/Aylmer is out of the question... Our mayor decided to go with the rapibus instead of using the existing rails for an LRT. Bad choice but what can we do when we have an incompetent mayor like we have. Maybe in 20 years we will have one when they see how well it is in Ottawa... We're always 20 years behind the technology and it will never change...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2012, 8:29 PM
KHOOLE KHOOLE is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 281
Streamless transit system

At the NCC 2067 public forum in Ottawa last year, George Hazel, an urbanist from Scotland, said that the transit system in our region should be integrated and streamless, just like in London, England where there are many owners but just one system (he said!).

OC’s Transitway and O-train and Gatineau’s Rapibus should be integrated together as one functioning unit with common fares and schedules. Perhaps the NCC and some private business interests should also go into a P3 partnership with them that should maximize use our roads and infrastructures as well as saving on management and resources.

That would mean to finally make use of the Prince of Wales across the Ottawa River that is presently just rusting away. If ever there is a goal that the NCC should have for 2067, it should be to facilitate transit throughout the entire national capital region.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2012, 9:18 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by imdec123 View Post
I guess you're aware that having an LRT in Gatineau/Aylmer is out of the question... Our mayor decided to go with the rapibus instead of using the existing rails for an LRT. Bad choice but what can we do when we have an incompetent mayor like we have. Maybe in 20 years we will have one when they see how well it is in Ottawa... We're always 20 years behind the technology and it will never change...
20 years behind the technology would be a step up! I wish Ottawa and Gatineau were only 20 years behind!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2012, 8:44 PM
Aylmer's Avatar
Aylmer Aylmer is offline
Still optimistic
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Ottawa (Aylmer)
Posts: 3,785
Sorry to resurrect a year-old thread, but I think this fits:

*click to enlarge*



Quote:
Line – Red: Mixed with Traffic (with signal priority), Blue: Right-of-Way, Orange: Mixed with pedestrian traffic

Stations – Green: Park-and-Ride, Bold: Interior shelter or station (heated, cooled)

Coloured circles - 500 metre radius around the stations.


I explain the whole thing on my blog, OnUrbanism.Wordpress.com, but here's the outline:



Quote:
This is my proposition for a tramway line from Aylmer to Ottawa. There are five elements in particular I’d like to explain:

The Tracks and the Trains
The Station types
The RoW
The Bank st. Bridge



1. The Tracks and the Trains

Installing Tramway tracks has traditionally been a costly business – you have to first dig up the entire street, displace the sewers and pipes and wires, place a foundation, put the long rails on and then repave the street. However, a new type of tramway tracks, LR55, by integrating just the grooved part of the rail into concrete foundations which can be laid in the pavement of the street, removes the need to displace underground utilities which eliminates the need to dig up the street to save a lot of money, time and grief. At an installation rate of about 200 m per day (16h), the entire 16 km of track could be laid in three months, whereas traditional track-laying techniques would require more than a year and a half. That’s a lot of labour costs saved and much less disruption for the businesses along the affected streets.


A comparison: Whereas the LR55 track only keeps the rail that the train will run on, traditional tramway tracks have the whole rail which requires foundations under it to displace utilities and requiring to dig up the entire street instead of just the pavement.

The model of train is a detail to me, but one thing is important – low floor trams. Not only do they provide better accessibility for people with strollers or restricted mobility, but it just looks a hell’a’va lot better on a street when you don’t see the entire propulsion system of the train and it makes stations a lot easier to build when the only have to be 25cm from the ground.

2. The Station Types

As far as tram/LRT stations go, there are two big categories: at-grade and grade-separated. In my proposal, all but the Maison du Citoyen stations would be at-grade. The previously mentioned stop would be on the beginning of the bridge and would be placed about a storey above Laurier. But I digress.

The at-grade category has three types: centre platform, side platform or ‘other’. The centre platform stations have the benefit of being smaller and cheaper as well as being an efficient type for stations that have an almost uni-directional flow (like the Cormier or Des Allumettières stations). However, they’re ill-advised for busy stations in busy areas since you often need to have people cross the tracks to get to the centre platform which leads to a risk of someone being in the path of a train when there’s a lot going on (don’t worry though – when coming in to a station, trains are never going fast enough to seriously injure). I’d recommend centre-platform stations for the ROW stations that don’t have large numbers of people getting on or off like at UQO.

Side-platform stations are handy on the street since the stations can be permeable (people can pass through like a bus stop on a sidewalk) and therefore take up less dedicated space. It can also handle more people getting on and off quickly if the sidewalks are wide (like on Sparks st or Rideau). However, you need to put infrastructure (shelters, maps, benches…) on both sides, which costs a bit more. I’d recommend side-platform stations for the busiest stops as well as the stops in shared traffic areas like Downtown or in Aylmer.

Some features that a successful system would require in the stations are maps, ‘Next Train’ screens, Shelters designed with the surroundings for passive heating and cooling in addition to closed and heated/cooled shelters at some of the stops and lots of places to sit.

3. The RoW

A lot of the proposed route is RoW (i.e separate), not because I don’t want the trams to interfere with traffic, but I don’t want traffic to interfere with the trams. in the shared traffic areas, there’s relatively little vehicular traffic, so the tram can comfortably run. But the root cause of traffic is a too great number of vehicles, and not even prioritized signals could guarantee the trams a comfortable ride on Chemin d’Aylmer. That’s also why I don’t want to run the line along Alexandre-Taché: not only is there too much traffic, but there’s too little space for ROW, let alone stations. Instead, I’d want it to run along the former Aylmer railway from Val-Tétreau to Terraces de la Chaudière (much of that railroad still exists) behind the Université de Québec en Outaouais (UQO). The other ROW area, on Des Allumettières is ROW just because there’s plenty of space in the median. No other reason, really.

The ROW I propose along Chemin d’Aylmer would take up two lanes of traffic (leaving enough space for a Bike/Pedestrian multi-usage path (MUP) along the line). Now I know that many people might be scratching their heads wondering how on earth removing lanes of traffic can possibly relieve it from congestion, but, as stated in part I, the maximum capacity of a tramway track in one direction is eight times greater than that of a highway lane, let alone a lane of a road. I propose removing what are currently the Aylmer-bound traffic lanes and turning the two remaining lanes into a two-way road like Chemin d’Aylmer was for so many years. Since tramway lanes take up less space than that needed for a car lane, the extra space can be devoted to a MUP, something currently missing from the corridor and in high demand from cycling commuters tired of having to make a 3-km detour to get to work on their own two wheels. Landscaping can also play an important role in returning Chemin d’Aylmer back to the pastural image the city seems so keen on promoting with faux-stone on every neighbouring building (it ain’t pretty). The reason I recommend the Aylmer-bound lanes is because there’s a good deal of traffic from both directions towards the Champlain Bridge (southbound) and, in the spirit of wanting to assure a rapid ride and freedom from traffic, I think it’d be best to have it bypass that intersection to the north. It’s either that or an overpass or underpass, two rather expensive things that would be very restricted by the NCC which owns the adjacent lands. The only major level crossings in the path would be Wilfred-Lavigne, Vanier and Saint-Raymond, all of which could simply be fitted out with priority signals and/or crossing arms so the trains wouldn’t even need to slow down. The tracks would also have to cross Alexandre Taché at the western edge of Val-Tétreau and again to cross towards the Terraces de la Chaudière, so traffic lights or a traditional Railroad crossing there too.



A little note on the intersections: for the RoW areas, since the trains will be going faster, I’d recommend crossing arms when trams pass. For the shared areas, I think that small mounted lights would be enough such as this one in Manchester.

Driveways, and there are about 15 of them, pose a bigger challenge. They should be rerouted if possible and perhaps the MUP could double as a ‘front alleyway’ to eliminate the need for driveways to cross the tracks. If they do, they should also have small mounted warning lights installed. But alas, an issue to resolve.

4. Bank Street Bridge

The new bridge is important because it lets the line serve both downtown Hull and Ottawa directly. The only alternatives are the Prince-or-Wales RR bridge completely outside of both downtowns, the Alexandra Bridge, which would be very difficult to direct downtown because of both the NCC and the American Embassy. Alternatively, there could be a tunnel, but it would have to be very deep and, more importantly, very expensive. Plus, the bridge would definitively have to also incorporate bicycle and pedestrian paths, greatly improving the woefully deficient pedestrian integration of the two downtowns. To reduce costs and to make it more pleasant for other forms of transportation, I recommend not having any automobile traffic, though perhaps buses could pass along with the tramway.

The bridge would begin at the top of the Hôtel-de-ville street in Gatineau before it slopes down towards Laurier. The bridge is almost completely flat, passing beside the raised plaza at the Gatineau City Hall, over Laurier and would end just before Bank st. and Wellington. The Krüger factory, which is set to be demolished anyway, would have to be removed. There are two notable features of the bridge: the pedestrian accesses from Laurier and the Gatineau riverfront as well as the Maison-Du-Citoyen station: the station would serve City Hall and the Museum of Civilization (Harper can call it what he likes, but it’ll always be the Museum of Civilization to me!) and would be located on the bridge just after the Laurier overpass towards the river. It would be the only elevated station on the whole line and you may as well make it special: have it covered and interior and put a big emphasis on the views of downtown which you can get from there (it’s quite breathtaking). It has to be able to accommodate a lot of people and a high frequency of trains since I see a whole network of these trams throughout Gatineau and I’d expect most lines would pass through that station at frequencies as high as a tram a minute per direction for all lines combined).

It will be an exciting design opportunity and I suspect this part could be open to international architectural competition for the best design, though the NCC will certainly have something to say about this.

I've made one or two changes to my plan since I made the map, including extending the ROW just past 'Principale' station, getting rid of the Vanier station (for now) and moving the Victor-Beaudry east about 400m.

But I digress.

In another post, I 'calculate' and compare the speed of a tram to that of a bus and a car, but I take it with a wee bit of a grain of salt since I'd imagine there's a lot more to keep in mind than speed, stops and de/acceleration. But it's a ballpark number at worst, I figure.

Quote:
I’ve got (a) little time right now, so here’s a little math (yuck) on the proposal detailed in the last post.

Speed
So, the maximum operating speed of LRT is generally about 80 km/h. I’m an optimist, so let’s roll with that.

Max speed: 80 km/h

The breaking distance and time (which by some bit of randomness is also generally the needed time and space to accelerate), according the the design guidlines of the Edmonton LRT are, respectively, 190m and 18 seconds. Because I’m really not mathamtically-minded, I’m just going to assume that, what with accelerating and decelerating, I’m just going to assume that it takes 18 extra seconds per stop than if the train chugged along at 80kph because even though it’s not going as fast, a decelerating train is still moving forward so just saying 36 seconds would be wrong.

A stop on the New York subway when it first opened was about 15 seconds and I can’t seem to find any other information, so let’s say about 15.

Time per stop: 30 seconds

So every station costs about 30 seconds. In my plan, there are 25 stations, so that makes in total about 13 minutes.

I’ve also divvied up the line into different speeds, ranging from 30-40 km/h to 80, from shared areas to ROW, which makes the entire 17 km system a 17 minutes without stops at 60 km/h on average. Add the stops to it, and it’s about 30 minutes from the very edge of Aylmer to Rideau Centre at an average of 35 km/h. You may think this seems rather slow, but it’s very much on average with full LRT systems.

System KPH

Baltimore 38
Dallas (Red Line) 33
Dallas (Blue Line) 30
Denver (Alameda-Littleton) 61
Denver (Downtown-Littleton) 41
Los Angeles (Blue Line) 38
Los Angeles (Green Line) 61
Salt Lake City 38


At 8h30 on a weekday, an STO bus will do the same trip in just under an hour (59 minutes according to the Plani-bus), or at the sluggish speed of 17 km/h, or a leisurely bike ride. However, should there be traffic (there usually is, for the reasons explored in the second post), it can take almost an hour and a half for a 17-kilometre trip, crawling along at 10 km/h, or the speed of a very brisk walk.

Cars, on their part, aren’t much better: though (according to Google Maps) the trip can be as fast as 40 km/h (22 minutes) along Des Allumettières, most trips are done at a sluggish 22 km/h (40 minutes) on a good day. Bad days can see trips over an hour (15 km/h). A tram, however, would run at the same speed at all times except when Principale and Front streets are busy (which is only during festivals, 4 days per year (Saint-Jean (3) and the Santa Claus Parade).

So here’s everything summed up:

..........................Car............................... Bus......................................Tramway
Peak.........~40 minutes (22 km/h)......~80 minutes (12 km/h)............. 30 minutes (35 km/h)
Non-Peak.....22 minutes (40 km/h)......59 minutes (17 km/h)............... 30 minutes (35 km/h)


Now doesn’t that look nice? Plus, that’s the entire line. A trip from the Galeries d’Aylmer or Vieux-Aylmer would be about 20 minutes.

That means that taking the tram would save about 2 days from the average government worker’s year (assuming 2 weeks of vacation and 5 days a week) that would have otherwise been spent in traffic. And that’s not even taking into account what can be done on a tram that can’t be done in a car: add WiFi to the cars, and tada! you’re ride is not only faster, it’s productive (if you resist the Facebook siren call…).

And, should you chose to take the car, the roads will be clearer: as we saw in Part I, trams have very high attraction rates even (maybe even especially) from automobile-drivers. And at maximum headway capacity, there could be a train leaving every 5 minutes. Assuming trains of 200 people (the normal capacity for a tram), more than 2400 people could be comfortably transported per hour, per direction. For argument’s sake, we’ll say they’d all drive otherwise and the average car ‘density’ is 5 m of lateral space for every person. That means that the tram could remove a maximum of 12 km of traffic per hour, or roughly the distance between the Galeries d’Aylmer and the Rideau Centre. Whew. But this is entirely theoretic: not all new riders will come from cars and not all automobilists will take the tram. However, it would be logical to deduce that traffic, should you need to take the road, would be much lighter.


I'd be interested in getting some feedback, since I'm half-serious about the idea, especially considering the ideas circulating in the municipal council (rant in my first post).
__________________
I've always struggled with reality. And I'm pleased to say that I won.

Last edited by Aylmer; Oct 28, 2012 at 8:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2012, 11:09 PM
KHOOLE KHOOLE is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 281
Let's think it over for a start

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylmer View Post
Sorry to resurrect a year-old thread, but I think this fits:

*click to enlarge*







I explain the whole thing on my blog, OnUrbanism.Wordpress.com, but here's the outline:






I've made one or two changes to my plan since I made the map, including extending the ROW just past 'Principale' station, getting rid of the Vanier station (for now) and moving the Victor-Beaudry east about 400m.

But I digress.

In another post, I 'calculate' and compare the speed of a tram to that of a bus and a car, but I take it with a wee bit of a grain of salt since I'd imagine there's a lot more to keep in mind than speed, stops and de/acceleration. But it's a ballpark number at worst, I figure.





I'd be interested in getting some feedback, since I'm half-serious about the idea, especially considering the ideas circulating in the municipal council (rant in my first post).

AYLMER, I'm glad that you are bringing this up because I sincerely believe that, as I wrote on this thread on Jan 27th (BTW read that as "seamless" not "streamless"!), there is a great need to coordinate the two public transit systems together because more than 75,000+ local residents travel across the Ottawa River twice a day to go to work or go back home.

Quebec Hgy 50 from Montreal is near completion and it terminates at Montcalm St in Hull, just beside the Rapibus line which terminates, I believe, just a little bit beyond where the Train Station used to be and possibly the Prince de Galles Stn beside the U. du Québec à Gatineau (olympic-size soccer field) that you have on your map.

With an extension to Aylmer, all public transit in Gatineau will converge just there: at a spot just across the river from the O-Train Bayview Station and where the planned Ottawa LRT will be passing through.

And there is an unused and forgotten railroad bridge connecting those two converging spots directly! And politicians are talking about spending handreds of millions of dollars for a new bridge in the east end!

What gives?

How about a streetcar aka LRT line looping around between the two cities that would interface with OC Transpo and STO's Rapibus?

Using your map, such a streetcar line would loop from the Rideau Centre to Prince de Galles andto downtown Ottawa via the Prince of Wales Bridge?

Why not put Sparks Street and Queen Street to good use for such a loop line? And forget about a downtown tunnel?

A LRT from Orléans to the Rideau Centre would be more serviceable and get a lot of cars off the 417.

A LRT from Kanata to the Bayview Stn or the O-Train line via Carling Ave would also be more serviceable and get a lot of cars off the 417 from the other direction.

The O-Train could be extended to Barrhaven and the Airport and get more cars and taxis off the roads.

Instead of building a bridge in the east end where no one wants it, why not a companion bridge beside the Prince of Wales over Lemieux Island and connect the two downtowns directly instead of that big mess on King Edward?
..or doubling Chaudiere Bridge, or Portage Bridge, or Alexandra Bridge?

Why not have streetcars on the Alexandra Bridge and the Chaudiere Bridge?

Why not sell OC Transpo to private enterprise or at least interest private interprise into a public-private partnership?

Where's the NCC when you need them?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2012, 2:12 AM
Capital Shaun Capital Shaun is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 507
A tram/LRT between Aylmer and at least downtown Hull would be a good idea but I doubt the current batch of politicians are capable of it. Look at the Rapibus, Gatineau just converted an existing rail right of way into a clone of the Transitway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2012, 1:29 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,313
What about the old Hull electric/CPR Right of Way? Does it still exist? It ran from Hull right though Aylmer and to the Chateau Laurier via the Interprovincial Bridge. Could this be recreated? I know that when they were revamping the bridge at Confederation Square, they found the old Hull Electric streetcar turnaround next to the Chateau Laurier.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2012, 1:39 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
CanadiEn errant
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canada's Wretched Hive of Scum and Villany
Posts: 14,366
Does anyone really think Gatineau would pick a rail-based technology for linking Aylmer to the transit system when it has already hitched its wagon to BRT and Rapibus (whether it was a good choice or not)?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2012, 1:42 PM
jeremy_haak's Avatar
jeremy_haak jeremy_haak is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Waterloo
Posts: 3,210
I think that is why this is only a dream.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2012, 12:43 PM
Aylmer's Avatar
Aylmer Aylmer is offline
Still optimistic
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Ottawa (Aylmer)
Posts: 3,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Does anyone really think Gatineau would pick a rail-based technology for linking Aylmer to the transit system when it has already hitched its wagon to BRT and Rapibus (whether it was a good choice or not)?
I think so, especially considering the fact that they plan to eventually make it LRT (déjà vu...). Space is also a problem in Aylmer unless you build it on Des Allumettières (their current idea/plan) which has a small catchment radius (poorly-connected streets) and what little there is within that is at a density which can hardly support a local bus, let alone BRT. Even if they did build it there, the problem of space is even worse when you get to the Gatineau Park, since they'd have to dynamite again, closing down a major artery for weeks, partially rebuild the bridge over the creek AND completely redo the roundabout section. If well done, it will attract relatively few people and probably piss commuters off more than anything since the two other roads to Ottawa will be tied up for weeks on end.
What's worse is that they're planning to create a new centre of employment and commerce along des Allumettières, despite being unwalkable from anywhere in Aylmer (or anywhere, really) and doomed to perpetually being on the fringe of the city because of the new Urban Boundary. The problem here is that it would effectively kill Principale, the revitalizing heart of Aylmer and the only reason they're putting jobs there is because it's to be served by the Rapibus. What I propose is that they build a tram/LRT along the main artery of Aylmer and bring the jobs to the centre of the town on the ruins of the dying mall and stripmalls and their sea of parking lots so the existing businesses and the future jobs can benefit from eachother and add life instead of draining it to the outskirts.

I think I've got a very strong argument against the n and I'm taking this further: I'm actually drafting a letter to the editor of the local newspaper, arranging a meeting with my municipal councillor and, if that works out, I'll seek the support of the APICA, the business association of Aylmer. Whatever bridge needs crossing, I'll cross then, but I've got a plan as for what I'll do for the moment.


The only thing more dangerous than a determined person is a determined person with a lot of time on his hands.
__________________
I've always struggled with reality. And I'm pleased to say that I won.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2012, 12:54 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
CanadiEn errant
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canada's Wretched Hive of Scum and Villany
Posts: 14,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylmer View Post
Space is also a problem in Aylmer unless you build it on Des Allumettières (their current idea/plan) which has a small catchment radius (poorly-connected streets) .
How exactly does a rail-based system take up less space than BRT?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylmer View Post
and what little there is within that is at a density which can hardly support a local bus, let alone BRT. .
BRT is actually better for serving lower density areas than any rail-based system I'd say.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2012, 3:44 PM
Aylmer's Avatar
Aylmer Aylmer is offline
Still optimistic
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Ottawa (Aylmer)
Posts: 3,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
How exactly does a rail-based system take up less space than BRT?
According to the American Public Transportation Association standards, a BRT ROW should be about 6 metres (18 feet) wide per direction or an absolute minimum of 5 metres. However, LRT can run on a ROW of 3 metres even with a canetary, or about half the space. Without the canetary, it can be as small as 2.6m of ROW (this according to the City of Hamilton documents).


Quote:
BRT is actually better for serving lower density areas than any rail-based system I'd say
You're quite right, which is why my proposal has rail going through the denser centre of Aylmer as well as other dense neighbourhoods like Val-Tétreau instead of going through the Plateau and North Aylmer, as the BRT proposal would.
__________________
I've always struggled with reality. And I'm pleased to say that I won.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2012, 4:05 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
CanadiEn errant
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canada's Wretched Hive of Scum and Villany
Posts: 14,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylmer View Post
According to the American Public Transportation Association standards, a BRT ROW should be about 6 metres (18 feet) wide per direction or an absolute minimum of 5 metres. However, LRT can run on a ROW of 3 metres even with a canetary, or about half the space. Without the canetary, it can be as small as 2.6m of ROW (this according to the City of Hamilton documents).




You're quite right, which is why my proposal has rail going through the denser centre of Aylmer as well as other dense neighbourhoods like Val-Tétreau instead of going through the Plateau and North Aylmer, as the BRT proposal would.
Ideally, you would have two lines: one to the north serving North Aylmer and Le Plateau (and also Wrightville and that part of Hull) and the other to the south along the Aylmer Road and Alexandre-Taché.

I am not thrilled with the rumoured alignment along les Allumettières, but it may be that we will not have the money or political will to do more than one corridor. So if Allumettières it is, hopefully once the line is in the Aylmer area it will swing south (maybe along the mothballed Autoroute Deschênes corridor) to move it closer to the historic centre of the community.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2012, 4:32 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
How exactly does a rail-based system take up less space than BRT?
As usual, it depends.

If the transit RoW is entirely separated from the road system (e.g. à la Transitway or Rapibus) then a BRT system needs to have some shoulder room for it to function reliably. For reference, the approximate standard of the Transitway is 4 m per bus lane and 2.5 m per shoulder, coming out to 13 m. By contrast, a rail system basically just needs enough space for the tracks and wherever the catenary is installed, and that total can be quite small in places where the catenary can be supported off things like trench walls or other supports outside the RoW.

On street, things are a bit different. The buses no longer need their shoulders since they have access to the adjacent regular traffic lanes, but the bus lanes still need to be pretty wide if high speed running is the goal. Trains, not having lateral movement issues, don't need as much space, though they might still need some buffer zone to avoid having others intrude into their space. Catenary can likely be dealt with as part of the usual street light infrastructure. I would note that on-street LRT in which the tracks are laid in some kind of driveable surface but are otherwise separated from the rest of the street might become rather tempting to cyclists (smooth surface with infrequent vehicle passage whose lateral movements are restrained), so some other kind of cycling treatment might be advisable.

The biggest challenge in all cases are stations and the amount of space they can take up.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2012, 6:29 PM
Kitchissippi Kitchissippi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 2,111
Rather than duplicate an expensive transit ROW along the river, it would be far more economical to hook up to Ottawa's rapid transit system via a rail bridge across the Deschênes Rapids. Of course this would require an integrated transit strategy between Ottawa and Gatineau, something that remains a dream at the moment.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2012, 7:17 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
CanadiEn errant
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canada's Wretched Hive of Scum and Villany
Posts: 14,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitchissippi View Post
Rather than duplicate an expensive transit ROW along the river, it would be far more economical to hook up to Ottawa's rapid transit system via a rail bridge across the Deschênes Rapids. Of course this would require an integrated transit strategy between Ottawa and Gatineau, something that remains a dream at the moment.
Interesting proposal. I am not sure a bridge over the rapids would be less expensive though. Any thoughts?

Also, the bridge itself and (most likely) its approaches will serve no one as no one lives there. From a passenger catchment perspective that's all lost kilometrage (metric version of mileage - sounds ok in French). Whereas if you run your ROW through populated areas you have potential riders all along it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2012, 7:56 PM
Aylmer's Avatar
Aylmer Aylmer is offline
Still optimistic
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Ottawa (Aylmer)
Posts: 3,785
Actually, the rapids are very shallow and narrow, making a bridge an interesting prospect. There are even a couple of islands in between. I've always thought there should be a bike bridge there.

Transit across the bridge is actually a very interesting idea: I toyed with the idea for an eventual extension of an eventual 'Plateau' line (Sparks- Taché- Saint-Raymond- Plateau- Vanier- Lincoln Fields), but never as the route for an Aylmer line. It would cost less and would provide easier integration with the Ottawa system, but it would also reduce connectivity to the rest of Gatineau...

Interesting nonetheless...
__________________
I've always struggled with reality. And I'm pleased to say that I won.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2012, 8:08 PM
Kitchissippi Kitchissippi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 2,111
I would think a bridge across the Deschênes Rapids would be quite cheap to build as it is really shallow. Practically all the land between the river shore and Lincoln Fields is also owned by the NCC, and depending on their future inclination (they once proposed a parkway bridge here) it would require some convincing. An electric railway would be an easier sell than something potentially open to traffic.

Such a corridor opens up entirely new possibilities, such as a shortcut between Aylmer to Kanata's offices or DND's (old Nortel) campus, as well as Algonquin College, but all in all, I would imagine it would be a faster way to downtown Ottawa.
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 > SSP: Local Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:25 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.