HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1981  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 3:49 PM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy_haak View Post
Yes, but in ten years, we'll have the technology to implement artificial intelligence in all our electric double-decker buses, and they'll be able to drive themselves, as well as work as a hive mind improving inefficiencies in the city government. Not only will we have a cheap and efficient transit system, the time required to get a building permit will be cut in half!
What does this have to do with the inadequate option 4?
__________________
Francois
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1982  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 3:54 PM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey View Post
To the future

But for now, let's build a train.

"Hybrid double-decker bus launched
The bus will operate on route 141
London's first "green" double-decker bus has gone into service to help cut carbon emissions.

The hybrid vehicle, which runs on diesel and electricity, will produce 40% less carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions than regular buses."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6458601.stm
__________________
Francois
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1983  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 4:02 PM
c_speed3108 c_speed3108 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,806
Regardless of what gets built and where the city needs to stop shooting itself in the foot. Lack of parking chases away riders. They are already in their cars...they will just drive on.

The city of Ottawa needs to get in gear and do some serious paving. I will never understand why providing a parking lot in areas of the city where land is both cheap and available is so difficult...

The other thing I have been noticing is that the ridership is rising REALLY fast.

When you take the bus at rush hour you see the same faces all the time and there is alot of new people these day. They might need to look at going back to winter scheds on some routes at sometime and adding new buses for the fall.


Quote:
Park-and-ride crunch frustrates Ottawa transit users

Last Updated: Wednesday, May 7, 2008 | 11:20 AM ET
CBC News

OC Transpo's park-and-ride lots are full long before many people start work, frustrating commuters who say they sometimes feel they have no choice but to park illegally, risking fines.

"It's crazy," said Natalie Robichaud, who uses the OC Transpo lot at Greenoboro station. "You don't even look at first. You go straight to the back. By eight o'clock, 8:15, if you're not here, you don't get a spot."

With gas prices above $1.20 a litre this spring, OC Transpo said city buses have had more passengers than normal.

Many of the 350,000 people who ride public transit each day compete for 5,100 parking spaces at OC Transpo's 11 suburban lots before transferring to a bus.

The chair of the city's transit committee acknowledged that the jump in gas prices is making the crunch at the park-and-ride lots, which was already a problem, worse.

"We know the challenge is there," he said. "We're trying to accommodate as best we can. We have in our plan to provide more park-and-rides."

That doesn't immediately help commuters such as Robichaud, who arrived when the lot was full one day last month. She said she had nowhere to park downtown and no time to go home, so she found a patch of unoccupied pavement that appeared not to obstruct other cars or the fire route.

She was fined $55.

"It's not fair," she said. "You keep encouraging people to use public transit and you're fining us 55 bucks for parking in a spot like that where we're not harming anyone."
Ticketing 'a last resort'

James Babe, superintendent with the transit law enforcement unit at OC Transpo, said the company tickets five to 20 illegally parked vehicles a day, but doesn't enforce parking rules unless a car is blocking access for emergency vehicles or poses some other hazard.

"It's sort of a last resort," he told CBCNews.ca on Wednesday.

He added that typically, there are fewer illegally parked vehicles in the spring, when snow removed from the lots is no longer taking up some spaces and extra, temporary spaces can be added.

Parking is free at OC Transpo's park-and-ride lots except at Jeanne D'Arc, Baseline and Telesat lots during certain times when space is limited.

Riders at those three lots can pay $17.50 a month for a regular parking pass or $40.25 a month for "gold" parking passes that guarantee a space on weekdays before 6 p.m. ET.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1984  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 5:02 PM
p_xavier p_xavier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franky View Post
So you are going to fire 1,000 drivers from oc-transpo?

$1 billion @ 5% interest is $50 million/year. $3 billion @ 5% is $150 million/year

If you lend me $2 million interest free, I can retire. LRT makes no sense either.
What about Transitway projects? These cost money too, we need new transit projects, buses will cost a billion too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1985  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 5:13 PM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by d_jeffrey View Post
What about Transitway projects? These cost money too, we need new transit projects, buses will cost a billion too.
Right. If you figure hybrid buses cost $1 million per (seems high), replacing Ottawa's 1,000 buses would cost less than $1 billion. Selling the existing fleet might account for extra buses needed down the road. That leaves $3 billion in avoided costs. Also, better fuel economy on hybrids means fuel savings too.
__________________
Francois
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1986  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 5:23 PM
Mille Sabords's Avatar
Mille Sabords Mille Sabords is offline
Elle est déjà vide!
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Big Bad Ottawa
Posts: 2,078
Option 4 is the most forward-looking AND realistic of the transit plans. I for one, as a transit user, would sooner move to another city than to endure eternity in Ottawa with buses, whether they spew diesel or Evian steam into the air. I want rail and I want it underground downtown, period. It's time for that to happen. It's not just a matter of saving sheckels, Franky, it's also a matter of making the system enticing. I'm speaking for myself but BRT will not entice me compared with LRT. I use transit and those are my customer wishes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1987  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 5:31 PM
Cre47's Avatar
Cre47 Cre47 is offline
Awesome!
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Orleans, ON
Posts: 1,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by c_speed3108 View Post
Regardless of what gets built and where the city needs to stop shooting itself in the foot. Lack of parking chases away riders. They are already in their cars...they will just drive on.

The city of Ottawa needs to get in gear and do some serious paving. I will never understand why providing a parking lot in areas of the city where land is both cheap and available is so difficult...

The other thing I have been noticing is that the ridership is rising REALLY fast.

When you take the bus at rush hour you see the same faces all the time and there is alot of new people these day. They might need to look at going back to winter scheds on some routes at sometime and adding new buses for the fall.
Quite frankly, I don't get it either about the reduced schedules. Keeping the same schedules minus obviously the extra buses for Carleton and la Cite, will give riders more chance to actually sit rather then standing all trip long. Also I remember in that document which talked about cuts to routes last fall, there was an option to increase the seasonal cuts starting in April. With a much larger demand for park and rides, I could expect maybe large P&R at Fallowfield, Orleans and Eagleson and thus another reason to fill in the gaps in the rapid transit ASAP.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1988  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 5:35 PM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mille Sabords View Post
Option 4 is the most forward-looking AND realistic of the transit plans. I for one, as a transit user, would sooner move to another city than to endure eternity in Ottawa with buses, whether they spew diesel or Evian steam into the air. I want rail and I want it underground downtown, period. It's time for that to happen. It's not just a matter of saving sheckels, Franky, it's also a matter of making the system enticing. I'm speaking for myself but BRT will not entice me compared with LRT. I use transit and those are my customer wishes.
Compared to a hybrid bus, rail's "advantage" is slower acceleration and deceleration which could be imposed as a limitation onto buses if the operators wanted to make travel more comfortable. Rail means lower frequency of service. It means more standing room and less sitting room. Honestly, our transit system could be so much better if they focused on customers instead of tasering and ticketing patrons, keeping time instead of picking up people etc...
__________________
Francois
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1989  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 5:46 PM
p_xavier p_xavier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franky View Post
Compared to a hybrid bus, rail's "advantage" is slower acceleration and deceleration which could be imposed as a limitation onto buses if the operators wanted to make travel more comfortable. Rail means lower frequency of service. It means more standing room and less sitting room. Honestly, our transit system could be so much better if they focused on customers instead of tasering and ticketing patrons, keeping time instead of picking up people etc...
Yes, but buses are much much more expensive to operate. I already find my taxes to be high. And I wasn't taking about rail specifically, there are metros using rubber tires in snow. And rail doesn't mean low frequency, because many bus routes are not frequent at all. Having 8 95-buses in 2 minutes doesn't improve frequency enough to actually make a difference. I'd rather wait into an indoors comfortable station.

In a line-haul system, the main line is to consolidate the buses into one big train, if done effectively, it doesn't reduce frequency. And as for less drivers, well they have trouble hiring many plus many are retiring so... done by itself.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1990  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 5:59 PM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
Code:
Capital Cost Comparison of Light Rail Systems  (costs in 2000 US Dollars)    
City                    $ / Wk  Day  Passenger  
Sacramento, CA       $9,100 
Baltimore, MD         $21,000 
St. Louis, MO           $12,500  
Salt Lake City, UT     $15,000 
Denver, CO              $10,400 
Calgary, AB            $2,400 
San Diego, CA        $15,700 
San Jose, CA          $27,800 
Pittsburgh, PA        $32,400 
Edmonton, AB        $8,900 
Portland, OR          $19,700 
Dallas, TX             $23,900  
Los Angeles, CA     $23,600 
N.E. New Jersey     $44,300 
Buffalo, NY            $32,000
http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/Ca...tilization.pdf

Using Calgary as an example of what to expect with LRT is misleading. Most LRT systems don't fare as well. The average capital cost per passenger is $21,164.29 compared to Calgary's $2,400.
__________________
Francois
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1991  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 6:04 PM
p_xavier p_xavier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franky View Post
Code:
Capital Cost Comparison of Light Rail Systems  (costs in 2000 US Dollars)    
City                    $ / Wk  Day  Passenger  
Sacramento, CA       $9,100 
Baltimore, MD         $21,000 
St. Louis, MO           $12,500  
Salt Lake City, UT     $15,000 
Denver, CO              $10,400 
Calgary, AB            $2,400 
San Diego, CA        $15,700 
San Jose, CA          $27,800 
Pittsburgh, PA        $32,400 
Edmonton, AB        $8,900 
Portland, OR          $19,700 
Dallas, TX             $23,900  
Los Angeles, CA     $23,600 
N.E. New Jersey     $44,300 
Buffalo, NY            $32,000
http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/Ca...tilization.pdf

Using Calgary as an example of what to expect with LRT is misleading. Most LRT systems don't fare as well. The average capital cost per passenger is $21,164.29 compared to Calgary's $2,400.
Actually the difference with Calgary is that people use transit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1992  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 6:16 PM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by d_jeffrey View Post
Yes, but buses are much much more expensive to operate. I already find my taxes to be high. And I wasn't taking about rail specifically, there are metros using rubber tires in snow. And rail doesn't mean low frequency, because many bus routes are not frequent at all. Having 8 95-buses in 2 minutes doesn't improve frequency enough to actually make a difference. I'd rather wait into an indoors comfortable station.

In a line-haul system, the main line is to consolidate the buses into one big train, if done effectively, it doesn't reduce frequency. And as for less drivers, well they have trouble hiring many plus many are retiring so... done by itself.
$4 billion divided by less than 1 million people means more than $4,000 per person of extra debt. This doesn't even cover operating cost.

LRT on average costs $20,000 per rider in capital cost. Then you have to pay for operating costs.

How will rail improve the local buses that run infrequently?

You're only thinking of peak hour operations? Do you think they will run trains on schedules that run only 1 car trains every 4 minutes or run 4 car trains every 15 minutes? These are the people who are designing the system to be standing room capacity. 135 people per LRT car means 70 are seated and 65 are standing.

The indoor stations must be heated and cooled while you wait which adds to the carbon footprint and energy use of the system.
__________________
Francois
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1993  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 6:23 PM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by d_jeffrey View Post
Actually the difference with Calgary is that people use transit.
From that same report:
"To reduce the demand for roads, The City of Calgary adopted a policy that limited the amount and location of downtown parking. In recent years, development has consumed most former surface parking lots in the downtown and parking space is limited. Much of the strategically located structured parking is managed by the City of Calgary. The combination of high priced long stay parking rates and limited roadway capacity encourage travel to the downtown by transit. "

Because they are forced to. The same tricks would work with BRT.
__________________
Francois
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1994  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 6:25 PM
p_xavier p_xavier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franky View Post
From that same report:
"To reduce the demand for roads, The City of Calgary adopted a policy that limited the amount and location of downtown parking. In recent years, development has consumed most former surface parking lots in the downtown and parking space is limited. Much of the strategically located structured parking is managed by the City of Calgary. The combination of high priced long stay parking rates and limited roadway capacity encourage travel to the downtown by transit. "

Because they are forced to. The same tricks would work with BRT.

Not really, because parking is not the capacity of the Transitway. While I would love to see limiting parking everywhere (in which the new bylaw seems to have MORE parking to be mandatory), it serves no purposes when access and exit to the core needs to be redone.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1995  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 7:28 PM
AuxTown's Avatar
AuxTown AuxTown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 4,102
Quote:
$4 billion divided by less than 1 million people means more than $4,000 per person of extra debt. This doesn't even cover operating cost.

LRT on average costs $20,000 per rider in capital cost. Then you have to pay for operating costs.

How will rail improve the local buses that run infrequently?
Quote:
So you are going to fire 1,000 drivers from oc-transpo?

$1 billion @ 5% interest is $50 million/year. $3 billion @ 5% is $150 million/year

If you lend me $2 million interest free, I can retire. LRT makes no sense either.
I don't get what your point is here. Let's say (modestly) that the train/tunnel/tracks/stations lasts for 20 years, then we are actually looking at approximately $200 per rider not to mention the fact that there would be substantial money spent no matter what; whether we build option #4 or go with double-deck hybrid buses.

This is about making an investment in the city's future and $4B is not all that much if you look at some other transit projects around the world. For example, Amsterdam's new North/South Metro line is only 9.8 km long and the cost is currently 1.8 million Euros (still not complete). Or what about Vancouver's Skytrain with a $3.1B, 6km extension of the Expo line? Even closer to home is the expansion of the Montreal Metro into laval which will cost $1.5B for 6 or 7 new stations. The reason I quote all of this is to show that with Ottawa's already dedicated BRT ROW, it will be relatively cheap to convert to LRT compared to what it is costing other cities to produce much shorter distances of LRT or metro transit.

You ask how LRT will improve the frequency of local bus routes and I don't see how they are connected at all. The frequency of those routes will increase when the city decides it is reasonable (or even profitable) to do so. I think having a transit backbone with a technology which is reliable, on time, and not affected by traffic conditions in the core will open the door to a new form of local bus which will all feed into this rail system. For example, in Kanata, there could be 5 or 6 local bus routes which do their local run (including a stop at the Terry Fox and/or Eagleson park-and-rides) before shuttling down the Queensway (in dedicated lanes) to drop passengers off at Lincoln Fields or Queensway station, depending on what is the closest LRT station. All they would need is long enough trains with enough frequency to handle this influx of riders....also taking into account that gas briefly touched $120 per barrel today and transit ridership is sure to continue to climb at its current rate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1996  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 8:23 PM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey View Post
I don't get what your point is here. Let's say (modestly) that the train/tunnel/tracks/stations lasts for 20 years, then we are actually looking at approximately $200 per rider not to mention the fact that there would be substantial money spent no matter what; whether we build option #4 or go with double-deck hybrid buses.
? That first one said that for every Billion dollars saved, it's the equivalent of 50 million dollars per year. This doesn't even include depreciation of assets or operating costs.

If we spend 1 billion on hybrid buses instead of 4 billion on LRT, it's like getting 150 million per year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey View Post
This is about making an investment in the city's future and $4B is not all that much if you look at some other transit projects around the world. For example, Amsterdam's new North/South Metro line is only 9.8 km long and the cost is currently 1.8 million Euros (still not complete). Or what about Vancouver's Skytrain with a $3.1B, 6km extension of the Expo line? Even closer to home is the expansion of the Montreal Metro into laval which will cost $1.5B for 6 or 7 new stations. The reason I quote all of this is to show that with Ottawa's already dedicated BRT ROW, it will be relatively cheap to convert to LRT compared to what it is costing other cities to produce much shorter distances of LRT or metro transit.
Metro carries 50,000 people per hour where LRT carries 15,000 - this is a big difference. The Vancouver extravaganza is related to the Olympics. Remember how Montreal's Olympic stadium left the city in debt for decades?

Quote:
Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey View Post
You ask how LRT will improve the frequency of local bus routes and I don't see how they are connected at all. The frequency of those routes will increase when the city decides it is reasonable (or even profitable) to do so.
That was my point, LRT still requires buses and doesn't fix the weakest part of the system. It only replaces the Transitway which works pretty well already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey View Post
I think having a transit backbone with a technology which is reliable, on time, and not affected by traffic conditions in the core will open the door to a new form of local bus which will all feed into this rail system.
Converting our existing system to a line-haul/feeder combo will achieve the same results without the hassle of rail. Exclusive lanes and priority/synchronized traffic lights can also achieve this. The fact is that LRT capacity isn't much better than BRT capacity given the same operating conditions. That is stations/stops far apart and les frequent service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey View Post

For example, in Kanata, there could be 5 or 6 local bus routes which do their local run (including a stop at the Terry Fox and/or Eagleson park-and-rides) before shuttling down the Queensway (in dedicated lanes) to drop passengers off at Lincoln Fields or Queensway station, depending on what is the closest LRT station. All they would need is long enough trains with enough frequency to handle this influx of riders....also taking into account that gas briefly touched $120 per barrel today and transit ridership is sure to continue to climb at its current rate.
This is the line-haul/feeder comparison. It means more transfers which rail can't avoid, but buses could run peak hours as line-haul and off-peak with direct service.

Hybrid buses and later plug-in capability address the fuel cost issue. Trolley buses were never investigated either for the Transitway - possibly the best of both worlds.
__________________
Francois
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1997  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 10:28 PM
Kitchissippi's Avatar
Kitchissippi Kitchissippi is offline
Busy Beaver
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franky View Post
? That first one said that for every Billion dollars saved, it's the equivalent of 50 million dollars per year. This doesn't even include depreciation of assets or operating costs.

If we spend 1 billion on hybrid buses instead of 4 billion on LRT, it's like getting 150 million per year.
Why do you still not get that it is NOT $4 billion for LRT. A chunk of that money is for BRT and buying buses.

I don't get your arguments. On one hand you are promoting a ridiculous PAT system and then on the other you argue for keeping an inadequate BRT system.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1998  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 11:09 PM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitchissippi View Post
Why do you still not get that it is NOT $4 billion for LRT. A chunk of that money is for BRT and buying buses.
Most projects seem to go over budget (by a lot). But even if the difference is "only" 2.5 Billion, that still means $125 million/year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitchissippi View Post
I don't get your arguments. On one hand you are promoting a ridiculous PAT system and then on the other you argue for keeping an inadequate BRT system.
What's ridiculous is spending so much money on an inadequate system. If you want to discuss Personal Automated Transit that means emissions free, safe, fast, climate controlled, comfortable transport available 24/7, it has it's own thread: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=149358
And one for Ottawa specifically: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=149424
__________________
Francois
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1999  
Old Posted May 8, 2008, 1:35 AM
Cre47's Avatar
Cre47 Cre47 is offline
Awesome!
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Orleans, ON
Posts: 1,971
Quite franquly, I don't see how a PAT system will work. We will need a wackload more buses then actual, if the transit system needs to meet up with the demand especially if those PAT vehicules are (looks like) very low capacity (even though your plan calls for 4 000) not to mention that there are forecasts for 100 million passengers/year and increasing this year or before 2010. Basically, probably the congestion downtown (even though the capacity of the buses could be higher) may still be there. Also, as for parking downtown ... good luck during the workweek. As there is possibility that with the new plan there will be some 24-7 service along the core of the city. Considering the new job realities of today, there is a need to re-introduce 24-7 service in the OC network. Personnaly I would say do it now along the 95-96-97 corridors.

Compared to the Laval Metro extension, the system is a bargain with about 15-20% of the cost for the tunnel and a large portions for BRT sections. Quite frankly my ideal system is extensions of Option 4 to Riverside South, Fallowfield, Place d'Orleans and Eagleson with a east-west transit corridor by-passing downtown maybe along the mostly-abandonned rail corridor. That would mean a lot more effective and will have more capacity then that PAT system and will obviously attract much more ridership but even though John Baird would find any stupid excuse not to support any plan. Also, we would really need to explode the production of electric vehicules or low-fuel consumption. Ford and particularly GM are failing miserably and it's probably one of the reasons why jobs are cut in the thousands in a shot. They keep on continuing on focusing on vehicules where the demand tumbles instead of expanding production on areas where demand explodes such as fuel-efficient vehicle.

Back to our transit system, any preference a la Gord Hunter (which means just buses only) will be a complete failure and will require tens of millions in investments for buses and road-widening project for gas-guzzling SUVs. People in Knoxdale-Merivale needs a much better voice at Council for their ward. This guy has little if any vision.

Last edited by Cre47; May 8, 2008 at 1:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2000  
Old Posted May 8, 2008, 1:51 AM
Cre47's Avatar
Cre47 Cre47 is offline
Awesome!
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Orleans, ON
Posts: 1,971
Looks like, there is more consideration on eating lanes from the 417 between Pinecrest and Woodroffe thus saving the homes nearthe Pinecrest Garage. Quite frankly there is no need for 4 lanes each direction on that section for gas-guzzling SUVs - 3 lanes each direction should be okay there. That looks to be a good compromise.

http://www.ottawasun.com/News/Ottawa...7/5500891.html
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 3:45 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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