HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2321  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2019, 11:33 AM
acottawa acottawa is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gat-Train View Post
Having regional rail service could really help to boost tourism in the NCR, and if the increased tourism revenue is larger than the cost to maintain such a service I would gladly support my taxes funding regional rail.
That is a pretty big if. I think volumes of tourists are probably too low and attractions near rail lines too few.

The Wakefield train was great, but the second time it washed out nobody thought made sense to keep pouring money into it and building a washout proof service was deemed too expensive.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2322  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2019, 2:09 PM
JohnnyRenton JohnnyRenton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin View Post
Of course. There are several ways to do that. Look even at the original configuration of the Alexandra Bridge.

Without positive impacts either?? It seems you continue to assume the only potential scenarios are from neutral to bad, with the result that planning for positive synergy is ruled out as nonsensical. Well, I don't expect you'd say that, but your requirement of 'no impact' does at least rule out system-level optimization.
Yes, bridges can have 3 tracks, and they could even be designed to have 4, 5 or more. But the bridge in question, the POW, is also a hundred years old, and never had 3 tracks (so far as I know). The costs are going to be high enough to refurbish for modern use. Cantilevering one track will add to that, and a 3rd track, even more so. At that point, once you factor in not just how much it will cost to revitalize the bridge, but also what the cost of maintenance will be over the remainder of its lifetime, it might well be cheaper to just build an all new bridge.

That is a bit beside the point as the bridge itself has never really been much of a point of contention for me. Not just because it might be cheaper to outright replace it with something modern, but because it might not even be that useful for LRT. Whether Moose or LRT uses it, it suffers the same problem; it skirts around the employment areas people want to go.

Further to that, the bigger contention is the actual existing Trillium corridor. I have already expressed why LRT needs to be able to operate with total freedom and without interruption in how its service needs to be scheduled. If your intention is to leave the Trillium line alone, and build your own parallel line, that is fine. But that is going to be hugely expensive, and Moose seems to be all over the map as to whether it is going to be openly hostile to LRT, or whether it will potentially spend half a billion dollars to build its own line in this corridor.

If my evaluation only seems to come up with neutral or negative scenarios and outcomes, that isn't the fault of me looking at this the wrong way. I have looked at it every which way for 7 years. Should networks be linked? Should there be more collaboration between regional agencies? Of course. I think very few people would argue against that. And if an idea is good, then positive benefits will be clear and apparent (VIA HFR is a project that falls into that category). I come up with those scenarios because that is the reality of the project.

The last thing I will say is that if you think that the citizens of Ottawa are going to get behind the idea of Moose in the same way they are behind LRT, that would be a huge miscalculation on your part. The city has endured 5 years of constructions, detours, and delays to get the first phase of the Confederation Line completed. There will be another 5 - 10 years of the same for other parts of the city as the next phases start. People might grumble, but they knew that was part of the deal to get a modern inner city transit system. If LRT comes under threat in any kind of way, people will react very quickly. And who can blame them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2323  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2019, 2:42 PM
JohnnyRenton JohnnyRenton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by OCCheetos View Post
Woah now, let's not get carried away. The Trillium Line's primary customers are students at Carleton. You might get at most 20 passengers per train who ride the line through Carleton at peak periods. The city plans to maintain the current service (albeit with longer trains) and given the above MOOSE's service shouldn't affect that. In fact, dare I say that students would be better off with a combined OC Transpo/MOOSE service? Just saying.

Full disclosure, I am a student at Carleton and I take the Trillium Line every day but I don't live anywhere near an area that MOOSE is targeting. My local station would be Walkley.
The line isn't built to its full potential though, so its ability to attract more people is being limited. And as I have mentioned before, the true value of the line is the incredible amount of urban development that it will kick start. Bayview, Gladstone, and Carling are located in areas with a lot of land ready to be developed, surrounded by well established neighborhoods that they can naturally flow in to. It has even managed to spur on development in its limited form.

Bringing the Trillium Line up to Confederation Line standards wont be cheap. It could easily be a $1 billion dollar project across its entire length. And right now all of the money the city has for LRT projects is being put into the Confederation Line, as it should since it needs to be built out to at least phase 3 to really bring out the benefits that LRT will bring to Ottawa. I don't see the piecemeal approach that the city has taken to the Trillium Line as an indication that it thinks it isn't worth investing in. It is a way of developing what they have, and making investments that wont be wasted in the future, until the day comes where there is sufficient money to fully modernize it, once the primary needs of the Confederation Line are taken care of.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2324  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2019, 4:49 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton View Post
The line isn't built to its full potential though, so its ability to attract more people is being limited. And as I have mentioned before, the true value of the line is the incredible amount of urban development that it will kick start. Bayview, Gladstone, and Carling are located in areas with a lot of land ready to be developed, surrounded by well established neighborhoods that they can naturally flow in to. It has even managed to spur on development in its limited form.

Bringing the Trillium Line up to Confederation Line standards wont be cheap. It could easily be a $1 billion dollar project across its entire length. And right now all of the money the city has for LRT projects is being put into the Confederation Line, as it should since it needs to be built out to at least phase 3 to really bring out the benefits that LRT will bring to Ottawa. I don't see the piecemeal approach that the city has taken to the Trillium Line as an indication that it thinks it isn't worth investing in. It is a way of developing what they have, and making investments that wont be wasted in the future, until the day comes where there is sufficient money to fully modernize it, once the primary needs of the Confederation Line are taken care of.
The Trillium Line will never reach its potential because it runs too far west of downtown. We can build all the condos around Bayview that we want. Condos are not a destination for those who have access to the Trillium Line. Destinations are shopping, offices, public facilities, universities and hospitals. As long as Carleton remains the biggest destination on the route, the biggest users will be students and employees of the university.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2325  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2019, 4:59 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 7,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
The Trillium Line will never reach its potential because it runs too far west of downtown. We can build all the condos around Bayview that we want. Condos are not a destination for those who have access to the Trillium Line. Destinations are shopping, offices, public facilities, universities and hospitals. As long as Carleton remains the biggest destination on the route, the biggest users will be students and employees of the university.
It's also a shame that 900 Albert no longer includes a hotel. It would have been a great option for travelers coming in from the airport. That could change however.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2326  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2019, 5:15 PM
roger1818 roger1818 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 3,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin View Post
Question: Which version of the Trillium Line do you prefer. There original version designed by RMOC that carried right on through to the Gatineau Airport, or the one you have today truncated at Bayview?
To be honest, I don't see any advantage to having a train station at the Gatineau Airport. In fact, I believe that the POW bridge is poorly located for transit usage. Neither Bayview nor Taché-UQO are downtown, thus a transfer would be needed for almost everyone using the line. The only way it could be useful is to have it run along the spur to Terrasses de la Chaudière, and even then its usefulness would be limited.

Quote:
MOOSE prefers the inter-provincial version. So does the NCC, and so did Collennette's Task Force.
Collennette's short-term recommendations (2010) didn't involve crossing the river and medium-term recommendations (2017) only went as far as the Casino (which didn't happen because until recently Gatineau was opposed to rail transit). Only his "Long-term recommendations to 2037 and beyond" had any suggestion of extending beyond the Casino.

Quote:
Hmm, so often here, participants choose paraphrase over quote, and attribute their paraphrases to me. In the post you at least refer to I said "Most likely such incongruities will get resolved ahead of time".
Sorry. I chose to summarize your post and provided a link to it for those who wanted to read it, but here is the whole thing:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin View Post
@roger1818,

We're planning on full-size bi-level trains, suitable for sharing track with VIA, CN, CP and Genesee-Wyoming.

Correct, these would not run on the same track as an LRT.

But it will be for the LRT operators to justify to the mobile public why passengers arriving comfortably into the core area on high-capacity trains should have to disembark and crowd onto low-capacity trains. We expect any terribly inconvenient and entirely unnecessary capacity bottleneck of that type to last, at most, one election cycle. Most likely such incongruities will get resolved ahead of time, since there are several places those LRTs can be re-deployed as feeder systems into a main line for overall system efficiency.

Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) | www.onyvamoose.com
Quote:
If the City needs it great. If MOOSE needs that. we'd finance it. Is that a problem?
It depends on your definition of need. IMHO, if the city wants to keep their current level of service and MOOSE wants to add additional trains, but there isn't capacity to do so, MOOSE should pay for the required upgrades. I would even argue that if the city wants to increase their level of service and could if MOOSE wasn't use the tracks, then MOOSE should pay. Only if the City is wanting to increase service to a level that wouldn't be possible even if MOOSE wasn't using them should the city be responsible.

Quote:
Well, if the voters want that...
I highly doubt if there would be a referendum to confirm that.

Quote:
It's startling that you can know what a guy would say even though he's never said anything like that.
So instead you believe your business model has flaws?

Quote:
How about another business model: Just get federal and provincial governments to conjure up a few billion dollars (from where ever those imaginary tokens come from) to rebuild the central electric LRT that the private sector originally installed but that government ripped out few decades ago. Ideally, put that new one waaay underground to maximize cost.
The Ottawa Electric Railway Company was "ripped out" 60 years ago. Is that is your definition of a "few decades ago?" As for tunnelling downtown, that was absolutely the right thing to do! If you read any of the studies comparing the maximum capacity of a surface route to a tunnel, you would see that the surface route would have been close to its ultimate capacity the day it opened.

Are you opposed to the idea of transporting people downtown?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2327  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2019, 5:09 PM
Joseph Potvin Joseph Potvin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Canada's National Capital Region
Posts: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818 View Post
IMHO
Kudos for that. Some others in this discussion claim to know what "the people" of Ottawa want, and purport to speak for "the people". My colleagues and I share your IMHO tone.


Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818 View Post
if the city wants
MOOSE gets quite a few city staff (at all levels) contacting us with positive feedback. "The City of Ottawa" is an amalgam of perspectives. And FWIW, all but one of the companies directly involved in creating MOOSE Consortium are Ottawa-based firms led by Ottawa residents.


Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818 View Post
So instead you believe your business model has flaws?
Guaranteed. Darned innovation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818 View Post
The Ottawa Electric Railway Company was "ripped out" 60 years ago.
Yup, you ought to speak with people in their 70s who remember using it. (That does not include me.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818 View Post
If you read any of the studies comparing the maximum capacity of a surface route to a tunnel, you would see that the surface route would have been close to its ultimate capacity the day it opened.
Not the design we'd have done, and you must surely admit, no? ... is it not the most expensive of the options to both build and maintain?

Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818 View Post
Are you opposed to the idea of transporting people downtown?
MOOSE will be transferring passengers to and from the LRTs and bus systems of both Ottawa and Gatineau. Facilitating those exurb invaders, while providing transit for urban dwellers to get out of the city once in a while.

Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) | www.onyvamoose.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2328  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2019, 3:16 PM
roger1818 roger1818 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 3,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin View Post
MOOSE gets quite a few city staff (at all levels) contacting us with positive feedback. "The City of Ottawa" is an amalgam of perspectives. And FWIW, all but one of the companies directly involved in creating MOOSE Consortium are Ottawa-based firms led by Ottawa residents.
Please don't snip your quotes so much that you totally loose the context that the quote was in. For reference, I said (with the part you quoted in bold):
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818 View Post
It depends on your definition of need. IMHO, if the city wants to keep their current level of service and MOOSE wants to add additional trains, but there isn't capacity to do so, MOOSE should pay for the required upgrades. I would even argue that if the city wants to increase their level of service and could if MOOSE wasn't use the tracks, then MOOSE should pay. Only if the City is wanting to increase service to a level that wouldn't be possible even if MOOSE wasn't using them should the city be responsible.
Which was said in reply to the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin View Post
If the City needs it [double tracking of the Trillium Line] great. If MOOSE needs that. we'd finance it. Is that a problem?
Back to your comment, I agree that "'The City of Ottawa' is an amalgam of perspectives" but I find it difficult to believe that many support the idea of taking an already infrequent service and making it even more infrequent.

Quote:
Guaranteed. Darned innovation.
Glad you admit it.

Quote:
Yup, you ought to speak with people in their 70s who remember using it. (That does not include me.)
There are people on this forum who do.

Quote:
Not the design we'd have done, and you must surely admit, no? ... is it not the most expensive of the options to both build and maintain?
Not at all. A bus tunnel would have been far more expensive to build and maintain. What option did you prefer to meet Ottawas transpiration needs downtown now and in the future?

Quote:
MOOSE will be transferring passengers to and from the LRTs and bus systems of both Ottawa and Gatineau. Facilitating those exurb invaders, while providing transit for urban dwellers to get out of the city once in a while.
Exactly. If the Confederation Line (it isn't LRT) wasn't being built, your passengers would have to transfer to buses. How many buses would it take to carry a trainload of passengers going downtown? With Albert and Slater streets are already at maximum capacity, where would all these extra buses run?

Speaking of transferring to the Confederation line, now that OCTranspo is dropping their arrangement for free transfers from the private regional bus companies, would I be correct in assuming that MOOSE can no longer expect their passengers to get a free transfer (and you will have to go back to your plan B)? That was the basis of the rational originally:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin View Post
Permit me to share the answer MOOSE received in response to our question during a meeting about what MOOSE passengers would need to pay to transfer to OC-Transpo:

$0.00

"Why?" we asked.

It's the same arrangement OC-Transpo already has with the private regional bus companies, on the rationale that they're reducing the number of cars coming into the core, so there's a net benefit to Ottawa.

Is the offer in writing to MOOSE? No. Would that answer remain the same in the event MOOSE does become operational? We have no idea. Does MOOSE have friendly "Plan B" in that eventuality? Yes, but I'd rather explore it within the planned financial modeling.
(please note I didn't cherry pick my quote to twist your words (different from paraphrasing and providing a link to the original source) or make my argument seem stronger, unlike some people in this forum ).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2329  
Old Posted Yesterday, 4:28 AM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
It's also a shame that 900 Albert no longer includes a hotel. It would have been a great option for travelers coming in from the airport. That could change however.
Just as a hotel was a no go at Lansdowne, it will be a no go near Bayview. Hotels need to be near concentrated business areas, airports or highways. Bayview is that in between area, just like Lansdowne. Too far away from downtown, but not close enough to highways and suburban business districts.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2330  
Old Posted Yesterday, 1:47 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 7,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Just as a hotel was a no go at Lansdowne, it will be a no go near Bayview. Hotels need to be near concentrated business areas, airports or highways. Bayview is that in between area, just like Lansdowne. Too far away from downtown, but not close enough to highways and suburban business districts.
It would offer a good central location while removing one transfer from O-Train trips from the airport. If you have any dealings int he CBD or something at the Convention Centre, just jump on Line 1 for a few stations heading east. I would think it would be very convenient.

If LeBreton ends up getting saved (fingers crossed), the arena and associated development will make the area a significant business tourist and business destination.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
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 2:12 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.