HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #141  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2014, 6:59 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
When it's straight, it's quiet; when it crosses a switch, it goes kathunk-kathunk; when it takes a tighter curve like the S-bend around the telephone pole between Albert and Somerset, it screeches a bit. These are universal facts of any steel-wheels-on-rails system I've ever seen, even brand new electric ones; e.g., the Canada Line in Vancouver screeches and whines through corners, slows down and bumps over switches, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #142  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2014, 7:35 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketphish View Post
"The city says it can’t afford the extra $300 million to $400 million it would cost for a tunnel along the river and doesn’t support surface rail along Richmond Road or the Byron Linear Park."

I too would like the City to address the other obvious option that they are trying to keep quiet about... tunneling under Richmond Rd. From a construction perspective, you couldn't ask for a more convenient routing, as traffic could easily be detoured onto Byron for the duration of the cut-and-cover project, for almost the entire length of the dig from Rochester field to Richardson Ave. Sure, businesses and residences to the north of Richmond would have to be accommodated, but it doesn't get much easier than this. If Vancouver could bury the Canada Line under the length of Cambie St. without the world coming to an end, we can do this. This routing allows for a greater catchment area for the stations and more options for station placement. Now all we need is for John Baird to offer up the extra funds to accomplish this.
If you're going to get into tunnelling, why even go under Richmond at all? We could just as easily go under Byron. No major detouring necessary, and if the tunnel is offset to the north side of Byron along the shoulder (variously paved and not), Byron can operate as a one-way right-in, right-out street during construction. And from what I can tell, Byron would require fewer utility relocations as well.

Though I'm sure someone along Byron will come up with some made-up reason why this would be the end of the world as they know it.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #143  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2014, 10:13 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
If you're going to get into tunnelling, why even go under Richmond at all? We could just as easily go under Byron. No major detouring necessary, and if the tunnel is offset to the north side of Byron along the shoulder (variously paved and not), Byron can operate as a one-way right-in, right-out street during construction. And from what I can tell, Byron would require fewer utility relocations as well.

Though I'm sure someone along Byron will come up with some made-up reason why this would be the end of the world as they know it.
I think this is the least disruptive alternative (likely cheapest) if we are going to follow the Richmond/Byron corridor. It will also generate more ridership than a route skirting the Ottawa River Parkway corridor.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #144  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2014, 1:07 AM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 15,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1overcosc View Post
I highly doubt the mayor's location of residence has anything to do this issue. He's never at home, and he's really associated with the south inner city (Glebe/OOS) since that's where he was first elected and where all his friends and family live.

The mayor is the one 'good guy' in all this IMO. someone who's trying to get this built at a low cost in a way that satisfies most. All the other parties with their hands in this are being unreasonable with expensive demands.
I don't know. The mayor may be a "good guy" in general (I wouldn't mind having him as an uncle or neighbour or something) and I enjoy his sarcastic tweets but on transit issues he has been quite duplicitous over the last few years. When the Confederation Line was Larry O'Brian's idea he was going out of his way to undermine it (terrorism fear mongering, doing a particularly bad job of getting provincial funding while he was in cabinet - to the extent it is the worst funded transit project in the province) then when he realized it was popular with voters he flip flopped and campaigned in favour of it for mayor. Then just before the last election he scrapped the city's staged transit expansion plan with a giant "phase 2" with lines all over the city. Obviously it was a cheap election stunt (since there is little chance of getting funding together for a multipart phase 2) but he was running unopposed (basically) and didn't need a cheap election stunt. On the western line (and I just mentioned this so sorry for duplicating) he has only looked for the "low cost" solution on land owned by the NCC. On city land he is pushing for a particularly high cost solution (a tunnel) despite there being plenty of room for an at-grade or open cut line. Moreover (again sorry for duplicating) he has pushed out options that use the transit RoW (the co-called linear park) near where he lives. Good guy, maybe, good guy in the transit debate, not so much.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #145  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2014, 1:09 AM
Buggys Buggys is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
If you're going to get into tunnelling, why even go under Richmond at all? We could just as easily go under Byron. No major detouring necessary, and if the tunnel is offset to the north side of Byron along the shoulder (variously paved and not), Byron can operate as a one-way right-in, right-out street during construction. And from what I can tell, Byron would require fewer utility relocations as well.

Though I'm sure someone along Byron will come up with some made-up reason why this would be the end of the world as they know it.


They city can sell it as tunneling but in reality cut n cover under Byron linear park : - P.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #146  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2014, 3:51 AM
Kitchissippi's Avatar
Kitchissippi Kitchissippi is offline
Busy Beaver
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,364
The other thought I had was to have two separate narrow cut-and-cover tunnels on either side of the linear park, one for each direction. At the spots where the stations are, just excavate the space in between for centre platforms. This would mean really shallow excavation and minimal space taken up for stairways and escalators/elevators — the entrances could look like nice little pavilions in the park, maybe integrated with amenities like public washrooms or a small café, really bringing life to the park. Very few trees would be in the way.

Last edited by Kitchissippi; Nov 28, 2014 at 4:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #147  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2014, 4:02 AM
Kitchissippi's Avatar
Kitchissippi Kitchissippi is offline
Busy Beaver
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,364
I like having a mix of hard and soft landscaping in a linear park, it gives it more interest, like this one in Mexico City built on top of a pipeline, but the structures could easily be station entrances:
source
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #148  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2014, 4:41 AM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
I don't know. The mayor may be a "good guy" in general (I wouldn't mind having him as an uncle or neighbour or something) and I enjoy his sarcastic tweets but on transit issues he has been quite duplicitous over the last few years. When the Confederation Line was Larry O'Brian's idea he was going out of his way to undermine it (terrorism fear mongering, doing a particularly bad job of getting provincial funding while he was in cabinet - to the extent it is the worst funded transit project in the province) then when he realized it was popular with voters he flip flopped and campaigned in favour of it for mayor. Then just before the last election he scrapped the city's staged transit expansion plan with a giant "phase 2" with lines all over the city. Obviously it was a cheap election stunt (since there is little chance of getting funding together for a multipart phase 2) but he was running unopposed (basically) and didn't need a cheap election stunt. On the western line (and I just mentioned this so sorry for duplicating) he has only looked for the "low cost" solution on land owned by the NCC. On city land he is pushing for a particularly high cost solution (a tunnel) despite there being plenty of room for an at-grade or open cut line. Moreover (again sorry for duplicating) he has pushed out options that use the transit RoW (the co-called linear park) near where he lives. Good guy, maybe, good guy in the transit debate, not so much.
Everybody knows I have been quite critical of the decisions that have been made concerning LRT, however, I am more sympathetic towards Jim Watson's role in all of this.

Jim Watson, while a provincial politician, was skeptical of the cost of a downtown tunnel and was frustrated by Larry O'Brien's decision to skuttle the first plan, which cost the city millions. The provincial government could not condone the cancellation of a signed contract of this size. After all, this was not the example that was to be encouraged in other projects or in other cities. There was a penalty to be paid for being irresponsible and pressure to rein in costs in what had exploded into a much larger project than had originally been intended. This is why a less than ideal funding arrangement was offered.

Yes, Jim Watson had a change of heart when he became mayor but it wasn't really about the popularity of the new plan but rather that the city could not possibly press the reset the button a second time in four years. If any progress was to be made, the second plan had to proceed. The credibility of the city of Ottawa depended on it. As we saw, Jim Watson also put his stamp on it by rationalizing the original tunnel plan in order to keep costs under control.

But the first phase also dictated the route of the second phase and there was a need to get this moving as soon as possible after completion of the first phase. LRT ending at Tunney's Pasture in the long-term would simply not be acceptable to the public. So he had to find a way to extend LRT westward at a cost that the city could afford. This involved trying to satisfy as many people as possible that LRT would have a minimum of disruption while not breaking the bank. This became the route that the NCC rejected. Realistically, a surface LRT route along Byron would never sell to the community as a similar Transitway could not be sold 30 years ago. In this day and age, you cannot force a busy railway line through a residential area as could be done 100 or 150 years ago. Times have changed and communities will challenge unpopular decisions as we saw at Lansdowne Park. This could be much worse with the wrong plan.

From what I see, Jim Watson is doing what is possible. He has demonstrated an ability to work through complex issues to come up with a reasonable solution and bring projects to completion. Jim Watson is a skilled politician and I expect he will find a way to work towards a solution for the western LRT extension.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #149  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2014, 6:06 AM
S-Man S-Man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
I don't know. The mayor may be a "good guy" in general (I wouldn't mind having him as an uncle or neighbour or something) and I enjoy his sarcastic tweets but on transit issues he has been quite duplicitous over the last few years. When the Confederation Line was Larry O'Brian's idea he was going out of his way to undermine it (terrorism fear mongering, doing a particularly bad job of getting provincial funding while he was in cabinet - to the extent it is the worst funded transit project in the province) then when he realized it was popular with voters he flip flopped and campaigned in favour of it for mayor. Then just before the last election he scrapped the city's staged transit expansion plan with a giant "phase 2" with lines all over the city. Obviously it was a cheap election stunt (since there is little chance of getting funding together for a multipart phase 2) but he was running unopposed (basically) and didn't need a cheap election stunt. On the western line (and I just mentioned this so sorry for duplicating) he has only looked for the "low cost" solution on land owned by the NCC. On city land he is pushing for a particularly high cost solution (a tunnel) despite there being plenty of room for an at-grade or open cut line. Moreover (again sorry for duplicating) he has pushed out options that use the transit RoW (the co-called linear park) near where he lives. Good guy, maybe, good guy in the transit debate, not so much.
Summarization: he's a politician, through and through.

Quote:
From what I see, Jim Watson is doing what is possible. He has demonstrated an ability to work through complex issues to come up with a reasonable solution and bring projects to completion. Jim Watson is a skilled politician and I expect he will find a way to work towards a solution for the western LRT extension.
Skilled politician? Agreed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #150  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2014, 2:46 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 24,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Everybody knows I have been quite critical of the decisions that have been made concerning LRT, however, I am more sympathetic towards Jim Watson's role in all of this.

Jim Watson, while a provincial politician, was skeptical of the cost of a downtown tunnel and was frustrated by Larry O'Brien's decision to skuttle the first plan, which cost the city millions. The provincial government could not condone the cancellation of a signed contract of this size. After all, this was not the example that was to be encouraged in other projects or in other cities. There was a penalty to be paid for being irresponsible and pressure to rein in costs in what had exploded into a much larger project than had originally been intended. This is why a less than ideal funding arrangement was offered.

Yes, Jim Watson had a change of heart when he became mayor but it wasn't really about the popularity of the new plan but rather that the city could not possibly press the reset the button a second time in four years. If any progress was to be made, the second plan had to proceed. The credibility of the city of Ottawa depended on it. As we saw, Jim Watson also put his stamp on it by rationalizing the original tunnel plan in order to keep costs under control.

But the first phase also dictated the route of the second phase and there was a need to get this moving as soon as possible after completion of the first phase. LRT ending at Tunney's Pasture in the long-term would simply not be acceptable to the public. So he had to find a way to extend LRT westward at a cost that the city could afford. This involved trying to satisfy as many people as possible that LRT would have a minimum of disruption while not breaking the bank. This became the route that the NCC rejected. Realistically, a surface LRT route along Byron would never sell to the community as a similar Transitway could not be sold 30 years ago. In this day and age, you cannot force a busy railway line through a residential area as could be done 100 or 150 years ago. Times have changed and communities will challenge unpopular decisions as we saw at Lansdowne Park. This could be much worse with the wrong plan.

From what I see, Jim Watson is doing what is possible. He has demonstrated an ability to work through complex issues to come up with a reasonable solution and bring projects to completion. Jim Watson is a skilled politician and I expect he will find a way to work towards a solution for the western LRT extension.
I totally agree on all points. He didn't flip-flop overnight because of some political reasoning. With time and modifications to the project (such as the shallower and cheaper Queen Street alignment as well as the Rideau Subway Station re-location), he warmed up to the project until he became its champion.

And again, phase II isn't a political ploy; it was a badly needed re-think of the City's transit plan. Why built billions in busways just to convert them 20 years later. We've done that before and now we see the cost and disruptions related to this.

Although some people criticize the price of tunneling under Richmond, this is the best solution. We are building a rapid transit network that doesn't piss off the existing residents for the cheapest possible price by having the train coming in and out of the ground wherever needed and/or possible. This is Vancouver's approach as opposed to MTL's and to an extent TO's approach of fully underground or Calgary and Edmonton's approach of basically building a glorified street-car system.

And it will get funding. Province has given their commitment and the Feds are a year away from an election. After Hudak's screw up last election, you bet Baird will announce not only funding for phase II, but probably a reversal of the NCC's ORP decision.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #151  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2014, 3:26 PM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 11,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
Obviously it was a cheap election stunt (since there is little chance of getting funding together for a multipart phase 2).
Uh, what? Phase 2 is very much a real plan. It's got EAs underway for all of it, and it's got funding from the city and the province. Feds will fall in line because whether it's a Liberal or a CPC government,
1) They need to give billions for transit expansion in the GTA to win seats there, and that means having to give billions to other cities too for political fairness.
2) The provincial election confirmed that Phase 2 funding is critical to win support among Ottawa voters

I also doubt that any other mayor would have been able to push this all through. Without Watson's strong hand guiding it all it would all have fallen apart in squabbles much like what keeps happening to all of Toronto's projects. The mayor is not perfect and he's got his drawbacks, but he deserves big credit for getting transit expansion through.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #152  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2014, 3:26 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by McC View Post
When it's straight, it's quiet; when it crosses a switch, it goes kathunk-kathunk; when it takes a tighter curve like the S-bend around the telephone pole between Albert and Somerset, it screeches a bit. These are universal facts of any steel-wheels-on-rails system I've ever seen, even brand new electric ones; e.g., the Canada Line in Vancouver screeches and whines through corners, slows down and bumps over switches, etc.
The Canada Line is SUPER screechy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #153  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2014, 3:27 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitchissippi View Post
I like having a mix of hard and soft landscaping in a linear park, it gives it more interest, like this one in Mexico City built on top of a pipeline, but the structures could easily be station entrances:
source
Was it hit by a neutron bomb?

I can't see a single human being there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #154  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2014, 3:30 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
From what I see, Jim Watson is doing what is possible. He has demonstrated an ability to work through complex issues to come up with a reasonable solution and bring projects to completion. Jim Watson is a skilled politician and I expect he will find a way to work towards a solution for the western LRT extension.
He's also very good at minimizing what is possible. He's very much a Small Ottawa politician who feels the CFRA crowd are always breathing down his neck.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #155  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2014, 4:05 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
I don't even think it's fair to say Watson "flip flopped" on the tunnel. That's more media sensationalism and exaggeration than actual fact.

From my recollection, and I did meet him much earlier that year when he was still in cabinet, he was more ambivalent about it than anything else. At that time, if someone had come up with a credible surface alternative he may well have supported it. He was definitely concerned about its high cost and the potential for stuff to go wrong, as tunnel projects have a wont to do.

But by the time September 2010 rolled around with the election just several weeks away he had to decide one way or another on it, and with no other studied or proposed-in-depth options on the table, he supported the tunnel.

The previous council, and O'Brien in particular, can be faulted for not seriously looking at options other than a tunnel. The minimalistic grounds on which surface options were excluded just did not make much sense since they were relying on assumptions and conclusions used for the N-S LRT, which was trying to solve a very different problem, that being to design a dual BRT-LRT corridor.

So short of funding a study himself in mid 2010, Watson really didn't have much choice, but I wouldn't fault him for waiting as long as possible before deciding, either.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #156  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2014, 4:15 PM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 11,494
One piece of good news happened that was buried in the NCC LRT storm. The NCC approved the use of the Pinecrest Creek lands for the LRT routes to Baseline & Bayshore.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #157  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2014, 6:43 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 12,365
Watson and Baird call 100-day truce — finally

Joanne Chianello, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: November 27, 2014, Last Updated: November 27, 2014 7:20 PM EST


The best thing to come out of the latest debacle over the western LRT expansion is the announcement that Mayor Jim Watson and Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird are going to stop talking about it. Or, more accurately, stop talking about it in public for at least 100 days.

The long-standing squabbling between Watson and Baird reached foolish proportions last week, with the mayor taking pot shots at the federal government for not building a new science and technology museum, even though they are investing more than $80 million in the existing building. A few days later, the National Capital Commission’s politically appointed board of directors held a hastily thrown together news conference to demand the city consider an alternate route for the 1.2-kilometre portion of the western light-rail extension planned for the southern side of the Sir John A. Macdonald Parkway — an option city council had considered and rejected as too expensive.

With city staff barred from attending, the meeting took on a political flavour. Rhetoric skyrocketed, underlined by a Watson suggestion that the western LRT route become an issue in next year’s federal election.

But somewhere along the line, cooler heads prevailed. The NCC officially apologized for barring city staff. Baird’s people reached out to Watson over the weekend to try to de-escalate the situation. Watson couldn’t meet but the two did sit down face-to-face, perhaps for the first time in months, for about an hour in Baird’s Parliament Hill office Thursday morning.

Neither is giving interviews about the meeting, but insiders from both sides say the tone was constructive. The two issued a joint statement vowing that they are “committed to taking the next 100 days to continue to work constructively along with the NCC toward a solution on this transit issue,” which is the first official step they’ve taken together in a long time. They’re also promising to meet more regularly “on a range of regional issues, and maintain a positive dialogue as we work together for the betterment of our great capital.”

This should come as a huge relief to us all. Ottawa-the-City intersects with Ottawa-the-Capital on so many levels that it’s just not on to have the two senior politicians from both those levels of government constantly bickering. From dealing with the Barrhaven railway crossings — an issue that is only just starting to heat up — to the huge infrastructure investments to prevent raw sewage from flowing into the Ottawa River, there are countless points where the city and the federal government’s duties overlap.

The NCC makes things more complicated, of course — it’s a federal body that takes its direction from an appointed board, with oversight from Baird, whose decisions often directly affect the operations of the municipality. (The NCC also oversees some of the city’s most beloved attractions, such as the Rideau Canal and Gatineau Park, funded by all Canadians but overwhelmingly enjoyed by us locals.) Still, despite it being a complex relationship, we have every right to expect that everyone involved act professionally and communicate clearly.

That does not mean everyone will agree. Or even that they should agree. No one expects Baird and Watson to put aside their partisan views and why should they? Different ideas spur discussion on how to build a better city. But there’s a way to do it constructively and we haven’t seen that lately.

All that said, come March 7 — 100 days from Thursday — it is highly unlikely the NCC and the city will have come to a joyful agreement. Indeed, these next few months are all about city and federal officials putting their heads down to see what headway, if any, they can make on the issue of the LRT extension.

The NCC supports the city’s light rail transit project, and has given the go-ahead to the planned route along the Pinecrest Creek corridor, but has made it pretty clear it isn’t thrilled over the section alongside the parkway. (Despite some news reports, the NCC has not outright rejected the the city-preferred parkway route.) It’s certainly within the NCC’s right to disagree. Its mandate includes a direction to protect greenspace. We can disagree about the importance of the greenspace in question and on the larger question of what the best western LRT route is, but we can do it like grown-ups.

jchianello@ottawacitizen.com
twitter.com/jchianello

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...-col-chianello
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #158  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2014, 12:42 AM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 15,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1overcosc View Post
Uh, what? Phase 2 is very much a real plan. It's got EAs underway for all of it, and it's got funding from the city and the province. Feds will fall in line because whether it's a Liberal or a CPC government,
1) They need to give billions for transit expansion in the GTA to win seats there, and that means having to give billions to other cities too for political fairness.
2) The provincial election confirmed that Phase 2 funding is critical to win support among Ottawa voters

I also doubt that any other mayor would have been able to push this all through. Without Watson's strong hand guiding it all it would all have fallen apart in squabbles much like what keeps happening to all of Toronto's projects. The mayor is not perfect and he's got his drawbacks, but he deserves big credit for getting transit expansion through.
It has no funding from the city, it has a vague commitment from the province to fund the "next phase of Ottawa light rail" (without details as to what they mean by that). It doesn't have an agreed route (and has been arguing with the NCC since at least 2008 or 2009). Little has been done on the other parts of phase 2 (Place D'Orleans and Bayshore) mostly because Watson made those up during an election campaign and the city had been planning for those to be BRT for the forseeable future).

The Confederation Line planning was almost all done during the previous mayor's administration (route selection, EA, federal and provincial funding) - Watson's contribution was to cut a station to keep it under 2.1B (a prudent move, IMHO) and to do a whole lot of photo ops.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #159  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2014, 12:54 AM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 15,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
I don't even think it's fair to say Watson "flip flopped" on the tunnel. That's more media sensationalism and exaggeration than actual fact.

From my recollection, and I did meet him much earlier that year when he was still in cabinet, he was more ambivalent about it than anything else. At that time, if someone had come up with a credible surface alternative he may well have supported it. He was definitely concerned about its high cost and the potential for stuff to go wrong, as tunnel projects have a wont to do.

But by the time September 2010 rolled around with the election just several weeks away he had to decide one way or another on it, and with no other studied or proposed-in-depth options on the table, he supported the tunnel.

The previous council, and O'Brien in particular, can be faulted for not seriously looking at options other than a tunnel. The minimalistic grounds on which surface options were excluded just did not make much sense since they were relying on assumptions and conclusions used for the N-S LRT, which was trying to solve a very different problem, that being to design a dual BRT-LRT corridor.

So short of funding a study himself in mid 2010, Watson really didn't have much choice, but I wouldn't fault him for waiting as long as possible before deciding, either.
It sounds like you have inside information so I'm not going to argue too much, but I seem to recall there being a lot of study and debate (including on this forum) about the feasibility of a surface vs. underground options. Certainly the previous project had a design ready to go for surface rail through downtown (as far as the Rideau Centre). Transport 2000 came up with a fairly detailed plan for giant block long trains that would meet the projected ridership allowances.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #160  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2014, 1:05 AM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 24,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
It has no funding from the city, it has a vague commitment from the province to fund the "next phase of Ottawa light rail" (without details as to what they mean by that). It doesn't have an agreed route (and has been arguing with the NCC since at least 2008 or 2009). Little has been done on the other parts of phase 2 (Place D'Orleans and Bayshore) mostly because Watson made those up during an election campaign and the city had been planning for those to be BRT for the forseeable future).

The Confederation Line planning was almost all done during the previous mayor's administration (route selection, EA, federal and provincial funding) - Watson's contribution was to cut a station to keep it under 2.1B (a prudent move, IMHO) and to do a whole lot of photo ops.
Stage II isn't some election promise Watson pulled out of his ass; it's been part of the City's updated official transportation plan since October 2013. It's not a political document and I'm pretty sure that the Orleans and Bayshore extensions are currently being studied. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

And the province has consistently been saying that the money is on the table when needed, and with an election in 2015 for the feds, the year OT will likely be asking for funding and a provincial election in 2018, the year Stage II is scheduled to start construction, you bet your ass we will get the 2/3 needed.

As for the Dominion to Lincoln Fields portion, I'm predicting that in March Baird and Watson will announce a new "compromise", likely a shallow tunnel under the ORP between Dominion and Cleary, raising the price tag by maybe 100 million instead of 400 million. To make up the difference, the City might decide on one new station at Woodroffe instead of the original 2 (Cleary and New Orchard).

As for Watson's contribution for phase I, he didn't cut a station from the plan, he only re-routed the tunnel to Queen and moved Rideau Station 2 blocks east under Rideau. And yes, those were prudent moves and have kept the budget in line.
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



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:58 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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