HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2021  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2018, 5:00 PM
OCCheetos OCCheetos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton View Post
It is one of many catch 22's that Moose is in. They need money to do a proper feasibility study so that the true costs can be calculated, and they can have a solid plan to pursue investors with. But they need some investors right out of the gate in order to get that study done. It feels like they have created a plan with numbers that are not so low that people don't think he doesn't know what he is doing, but not so high that it scares of potential investors by pushing a multi-billion dollar plan from the get go.

At this point I feel like one of five things will happen with this project (the list is in order of how likely I think the outcome is, from most likely, to least).
-One, no investors come to the table to even get the feasibility study done and once Moose runs out of money to pay for lawyers to pursue cases that keep their name in the paper, they just fade away.
-Two, the feasibility study gets funded, Potvin takes a million for his time, and when it comes out with more realistic numbers Moose says there is some nonsense reason they can't continue, and it shuts down.
-Three, it does continue after a feasibility study is done, but languishes after years of being unable to find investor support, and slowly fades away.
-Four, after the feasibility study there is a bait and switch. In order to keep the plan at their original budget, they drop lines, or change some key aspects of the project so that it is quite a bit different then originally planned. This likely leads to investors and local councils dropping support as it is ultimately not what they signed up for.
-Five, the plan goes ahead, but faces a critical battle with the City of Ottawa, and Gatineau. The use of the Trillium, and the placement of stations on, in particular, the VIA lines, cause the city to enter the commuter rail game/planning earlier than anticipated.

Even if it does get to scenario 5, the chances it gets through that unscathed are small. And while the NCR doesn't have any formal plans for commuter rail, there are no doubt people who are thinking out a decade or two about what might be feasible, and beneficial to the region. Between the Trillium line and a modernized VIA rail line, there are some pretty large development opportunities for the city. I have actually often wondered if the reason why Ottawa has been a bit slow to put too much more money into the Trillium line, and make it an immediate priority, is because VIA has an interest in using that corridor as well for inter-city rail service into Gatineau and beyond. I have no proof that is actually the case, but, VIA has been making somewhat more ambitious plans as of late (see VIA HFR), and if the city thought VIA might be close to investing in an upgrade to the Trillium line corridor to accommodate inter-city rail as well, it might be hesitant to make too many large investments in it, until those details are better understood.

A little off this topic, but something I thought of this morning, is how many riders would be needed in order to make back Moose's self indicated $200 million/year operating budget, if the only model they used was fare box recovery. It is hard to say what the average ticket price would be, but let's say that it is around $12, each way. The bulk of the passengers will be Monday to Friday commuters, so let's say that accounts for 80% of the trips done on the system. So that means commuters need to cover $160 million of the operating budget. There are 260 weekdays in a year, and once you factor days commuters don't travel because of holidays or vacations or being sick, they are likely to travel 240 days out of the year (though it could be even lower than that as many of the commuters will have 3, 4, maybe even 5 weeks of holidays, plus work travel, etc). When you do the math on all that, you find that the system would need 27,777 daily commuters, paying an average of $12 each way, in order to cover 80% of the operating costs. If the average ticket price, each way, was $10, then that 2 dollar difference would result in the system needing 33,333 commuters per day.

Just for comparison, GO trains, which serve the Golden Horseshoe, not just the GTA, which has a population of 9.2 million, has an average daily ridership of 215,500 people. For Moose to be able to cover its costs just through fare recovery, it would have to be almost as good as GO at capturing the commuter market. While Moose serves rural towns and small cities, GO gets to capture its market from cities like Barrie, Hamilton, Oshawa, Kitchener-Waterloo, Burlington, etc. Moose would have to capture a large portion of its commuter base from with the City of Ottawa in order to have any chance of building a customer base, which is hard to do when it is hostile to working with the city. Given that Moose might be lucky to attract 5000 daily commuters, that means almost a substantial part of its operating costs will have to be funded by some other "Property powered" method, to the tune of at least $150 million per year.

Whether it's tomorrow, or next month, or a few years from now, Moose will end up dead in the water.
I think if VIA had any intentions in using the Trillium Line corridor we would have heard about it by now. After all, they made a huge fuss over the Mount Royal tunnel just recently but not a peep about the Trillium Line (other than listing their conditions for the grade separation at Ellwood).

For VIA at least, there's no business advantage to crossing into Quebec in Ottawa. Anyone in Gatineau could get to the train station in Ottawa relatively easily if they needed to, and there's not much of a market to expand into on that side of the river.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2022  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2018, 5:13 PM
acottawa acottawa is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunnar777 View Post
I used to wonder why Ottawa had no regional rail system, and after reading like 95% of the posts on this thread, I can see why. Y'all hate rail.

Also, have any of you been to places like, I don't know, the entire Outaouais region, or anywhere too far to the west? I'm talking about places like Thurso, Arnprior, Wakefield. They're all symbols of economic loserdom, there's literally no work for those people to do, unless you're one of the 6 lucky ducks who works at The Black Sheep Inn. No one in the entire region can get into town without a car, but somehow, adding in a commuter train would send sprawl out of control? Has the road system not already done that? Oh wait, yeah it has.
I know the train fans want any train built for any reason regardless of whether it makes any sense. Most of the existing sprawl is less than 25k from downtown. Your boy wants to double or even triple that. It is an order of magnitude of sprawl unheard of for a city of this size.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2023  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2018, 7:18 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
I know the train fans want any train built for any reason regardless of whether it makes any sense. Most of the existing sprawl is less than 25k from downtown. Your boy wants to double or even triple that. It is an order of magnitude of sprawl unheard of for a city of this size.
Yep. Potvin wants to turn Ottawa into such beautiful cities as Atlanta or Dallas. He just wants to do it with rail instead of roads.

Blows my mind that we spend so much time talking about a company that has nothing more than a brochure. And hasn't advanced beyond the brochure stage in nearly half a decade.

But I guess Potvin provides grist for the mill of railfans who have never seen a rail proposal they wouldn't want to spend somebody else's money on. It's been truly eye-opening to me to see how many people care more about literal steel track than urbanism and the lengths they will go to, to justify sprawl, if it yields shiny choo-choos.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2024  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2018, 7:37 PM
JohnnyRenton JohnnyRenton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by OCCheetos View Post
I think if VIA had any intentions in using the Trillium Line corridor we would have heard about it by now. After all, they made a huge fuss over the Mount Royal tunnel just recently but not a peep about the Trillium Line (other than listing their conditions for the grade separation at Ellwood).

For VIA at least, there's no business advantage to crossing into Quebec in Ottawa. Anyone in Gatineau could get to the train station in Ottawa relatively easily if they needed to, and there's not much of a market to expand into on that side of the river.
No one really knew HFR was a consideration until they announced it. I'm not saying that is proof I am right. But, a lot does take place behind closed doors, and if the City of Ottawa one day came out and said they are going forward with a plan for the Trillium corridor that would also accommodate the needs of VIA one day, I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised.

Also, I would disagree that the Ottawa station is easy access for those living on the other side of the river. I lived in the Hull sector for 3 years, and took the train quite a bit while I was there. If you are using transit, it would take, on average 30 - 40 minutes to get the station, and on weekends I remember it taking almost 60 minutes at times. There were several times where I walked from Lebreton because it was faster than waiting for a connection.

And that was from Hull. If someone had to take a bus from the Gatineau sector it would be even worse. Even if you are driving to the station from the Gatineau sector, or even the farther north parts of Hull, you could have been half an hour down Autoroute 50 already on your way to Montreal. It isn't an insignificant market on the Quebec side. But the NCR in general has that problem. Yes Ottawa has two VIA rail stations, but I would still say that not just Gatineau, but parts of Ottawa itself are definitely underserved.

Which leads in to gunnar777's remark. I don't think most people are anti-rail. I know I am not. I think that the idea of regional rail should be explored and developed. There are a lot of potential gains to be made, mostly within the borders of Ottawa and Gatineau. What I am against is the Moose plan, because its not really based in reality, nor does it provide the kind of benefits regional could offer the NCR one day. Rail service to Wakefield might not be a terrible idea, but if that happened, I would almost certainly provide more benefit to Gatineau, Wakefield, and the towns in between, if it was in the form of LRT.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2025  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2018, 7:42 PM
JohnnyRenton JohnnyRenton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
But I guess Potvin provides grist for the mill of railfans who have never seen a rail proposal they wouldn't want to spend somebody else's money on. It's been truly eye-opening to me to see how many people care more about literal steel track than urbanism and the lengths they will go to, to justify sprawl, if it yields shiny choo-choos.
Nailed it. A lot of people take the "trains, because trains" attitude. Empty rail corridor? Put a train on it! 100 year old, antiquated bridge across a river? Put a train on it! Does it actually go anywhere that serves the modern cities realities and needs? Who cares, put a train on it! In the long run it doesn't help push rail-centric development either because when a useless line is put in place, people will see that it is a failure, which actually hurts the case for more investment in rail transit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2026  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2018, 7:57 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton View Post
No one really knew HFR was a consideration until they announced it. I'm not saying that is proof I am right. But, a lot does take place behind closed doors, and if the City of Ottawa one day came out and said they are going forward with a plan for the Trillium corridor that would also accommodate the needs of VIA one day, I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised.
I'd be surprised. There's no business sense in VIA breaking up services to serve a suburb of a few hundred thousand. They could easily serve Gatineau with shuttle buses from Tremblay.

HFR is a whole different animal from what we have today. Once you have trains that run consistently on time, with an even and periodic schedule, feeder services become much more feasible. I would argue that VIA should build a bus terminal at Tremblay and put the current bus depot out of its misery. All kinds of rural bus services and regional feeder services could be operated from Tremblay.

Also, a lot of the issue of access to VIA will change in due course (a decade I guess) when Gatineau gets their LRT up and transfer become much easier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton View Post
Which leads in to gunnar777's remark. I don't think most people are anti-rail.
Don't even try to give such nonsense fair treatment. It was a strawman argument, put forward in bad faith. "You don't like MOOSE? You must hate all rail." Put forward from the crowd who argues they are urbanists while breathlessly defending sprawl and suburban (and increasingly exurban) expansion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton View Post
I know I am not. I think that the idea of regional rail should be explored and developed. There are a lot of potential gains to be made, mostly within the borders of Ottawa and Gatineau. What I am against is the Moose plan, because its not really based in reality, nor does it provide the kind of benefits regional could offer the NCR one day. Rail service to Wakefield might not be a terrible idea, but if that happened, I would almost certainly provide more benefit to Gatineau, Wakefield, and the towns in between, if it was in the form of LRT.
I have said before, I'd support regional rail if those towns were willing to accept some extremely strict limitations on sprawl. But this is Canada, and we all know no rural town will ever argue that newcomers have to face restrictions on lot sizes. So if that's the case, why subsidize their lifestyles? Let's put those resources into making more of Ottawa accessible for Ottawa residents.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2027  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2018, 8:05 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton View Post
Nailed it. A lot of people take the "trains, because trains" attitude. Empty rail corridor? Put a train on it! 100 year old, antiquated bridge across a river? Put a train on it! Does it actually go anywhere that serves the modern cities realities and needs? Who cares, put a train on it!
Their views aren't surprising. Most of them are suburbanites (inner or outer) who really don't give a shit about urbanism. They just pretend to care, on here, so they can push their rail-centric transit visions, that drops a choo-choo at their front door.

And they particularly don't care about the sustainability or feasibility of any of it because it's not their money, and they know urbanites can be fleeced for more to fund these fantasies, should they ever come to fruition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton View Post
In the long run it doesn't help push rail-centric development either because when a useless line is put in place, people will see that it is a failure, which actually hurts the case for more investment in rail transit.
Indeed. I shudder to think what would have happened if the original LRT plan was pushed and most of Ottawa was still suck on crowded buses on Albert and Slater, while watching half-empty LRTs roll slowly through the downtown core stopping at each streetlight. Public sentiment after seeing that and realizing they spent the better part of a billion on it, would have been very different toward rail transit.

Designing an LRT system that most existing downtown-bound riders will use has galvanized support for LRT. The bureaucrats are brighter than some of the folks here would ever give them credit for.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2028  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2018, 9:01 PM
acottawa acottawa is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post

Designing an LRT system that most existing downtown-bound riders will use has galvanized support for LRT. The bureaucrats are brighter than some of the folks here would ever give them credit for.
The bureaucrats wanted the Barrhaven plan. The voters shoved the Confederation Line down their throats.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2029  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2018, 10:01 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
The bureaucrats wanted the Barrhaven plan. The voters shoved the Confederation Line down their throats.
No. A certain set of politicians well supported by developers wanted to build LRT to service racoons in Riverside South. It's amazing how quickly the city's planners and engineers brought forward analysis supporting a tunnel and East-West LRT once O'Brien came to office. It's almost like they had all that in their backpocket ready to go.

I attended many of those presentations nearly a decade ago. They were quick to bring the facts and thorough. And eager to dismiss the idea that the tunnel wasn't needed. Left me wondering where these folks were before. But , of course, they can't speak out against their elected bosses.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2030  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2018, 10:26 PM
acottawa acottawa is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
No. A certain set of politicians well supported by developers wanted to build LRT to service racoons in Riverside South. It's amazing how quickly the city's planners and engineers brought forward analysis supporting a tunnel and East-West LRT once O'Brien came to office. It's almost like they had all that in their backpocket ready to go.

I attended many of those presentations nearly a decade ago. They were quick to bring the facts and thorough. And eager to dismiss the idea that the tunnel wasn't needed. Left me wondering where these folks were before. But , of course, they can't speak out against their elected bosses.
So you’re saying bureaucrats hated the proposals and recommendations they were producing under Chareli while secretly preparing recommendations to make under O’Brien?

I guess that is possible, but it seems pretty unlikely to me. Municipal officials have a fair bit more autonomy than in the Federal Government.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2031  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2018, 1:30 AM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
So you’re saying bureaucrats hated the proposals and recommendations they were producing under Chareli while secretly preparing recommendations to make under O’Brien?
No. I'm not alleging some nefarious plot.

I'm saying their data was probably showing them how much that tunnel was really needed but they were going along with direction given to them from council. When the mayor and council changed, I think they were ready to package that data and get it out the door, since they actually had what they needed on hand already.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2032  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2018, 2:06 AM
acottawa acottawa is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
No. I'm not alleging some nefarious plot.

I'm saying their data was probably showing them how much that tunnel was really needed but they were going along with direction given to them from council. When the mayor and council changed, I think they were ready to package that data and get it out the door, since they actually had what they needed on hand already.
That’s possible, but the study that led to the former plan was very much staff driven.

https://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/ci...V-POL-0010.htm

I just don’t think anyone (including staff) was able to think outside of the box and it took a political paradigm shift to change things.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2033  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2018, 5:22 AM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,639
There is nothing more effective on encouraging sprawl as being 100% dependent on automobiles and roads.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2034  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2018, 5:50 AM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
So you’re saying bureaucrats hated the proposals and recommendations they were producing under Chareli while secretly preparing recommendations to make under O’Brien?

I guess that is possible, but it seems pretty unlikely to me. Municipal officials have a fair bit more autonomy than in the Federal Government.
The previous TMP was supported by City council.

The reality of what happened was highly political.


We forget that the original NS plan was still an enormous investment by the city. At that point there was not sufficient funding to build a downtown tunnel.

City council was somewhat split on what to do. Some councillors wanted to stay with Transitways, others didn't know what they wanted, while others wanted further extensions (particularly to Hurdman) that the original funding envelope could not afford.


But the number one thing was the Conservative-Liberal power struggle. When it became apparent that O'Brien was successfully selling his tax freeze proposal to the public during the 2006 election, John Baird took advantage of the situation to use the LRT contract to end Liberal foe Bob Chiarelli's chances of re-election.


O'Brien favoured a downtown tunnel (which seemed like a pipe dream at the time) but it was his economic policy that won the election. Nobody on City Council campaigned on a tunnel, and it took a few years to firm up O'Brien's idea, which was effectively written on the back of an envelope.


I can't see how bureaucrats would have had time for other proposals, which were contrary to the TMP, when the contract had already been signed and the bureaucracy was ramping up towards the beginning of construction in early 2007. Why would there be any suggestion of secret plans or anything else, when it took a couple of years to come up with the subsequent proposed changes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2035  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2018, 9:18 AM
OtrainUser OtrainUser is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
The previous TMP was supported by City council.

The reality of what happened was highly political.


We forget that the original NS plan was still an enormous investment by the city. At that point there was not sufficient funding to build a downtown tunnel.

City council was somewhat split on what to do. Some councillors wanted to stay with Transitways, others didn't know what they wanted, while others wanted further extensions (particularly to Hurdman) that the original funding envelope could not afford.


But the number one thing was the Conservative-Liberal power struggle. When it became apparent that O'Brien was successfully selling his tax freeze proposal to the public during the 2006 election, John Baird took advantage of the situation to use the LRT contract to end Liberal foe Bob Chiarelli's chances of re-election.


O'Brien favoured a downtown tunnel (which seemed like a pipe dream at the time) but it was his economic policy that won the election. Nobody on City Council campaigned on a tunnel, and it took a few years to firm up O'Brien's idea, which was effectively written on the back of an envelope.


I can't see how bureaucrats would have had time for other proposals, which were contrary to the TMP, when the contract had already been signed and the bureaucracy was ramping up towards the beginning of construction in early 2007. Why would there be any suggestion of secret plans or anything else, when it took a couple of years to come up with the subsequent proposed changes.
Political or not, without a downtown tunnel the intial plan would have been a disaster and we would not be talking about phase 2 or even phase 3 LRT today.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2036  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2018, 12:27 PM
Charles5 Charles5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 192
Does anyone here know anything about this new investment syndicate that MOOSE has entered into an arrangement with?

The latest article posted on the MOOSE news page refers to them (see extract below) and I've seen the name pop up before in other correspondance.

"A Toronto-based group of investment sydnicators (sic) is under an agreement with MOOSE to raise the funds for the railway project once MOOSE clears its regulatory hurdles, says Charles Ivey, representing the financial investment group. “We are the agents who are putting the (funding) syndication together,” he said." (link)

I've tried to do some searches online but the only thing I can come up with is a linkedin profile which says that Charles Ivey is the "President of Ineco Inc. (located in Toronto, Ontario), a holding company managing a portfolio of investments in both the private and public sector."

All my searches for information on an investment agency under the name 'Ineco Inc' have come up empty so far. In this day and age, it's surprising to not have any sort of online presence. Perhaps someone else out there might have more success in finding out who these folks are.

Note that these are not investors, they're not putting any money into the MOOSE proposal. They are simply working to try and find investors on behalf of MOOSE (and will likely get paid to do it I imagine).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2037  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2018, 3:05 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by OtrainUser View Post
Political or not, without a downtown tunnel the intial plan would have been a disaster and we would not be talking about phase 2 or even phase 3 LRT today.
I highly doubt your conclusion. If there had been problems, it would have emphasized the need to proceed immediately with the tunnel. If O'Brien hadn't been such a political neophyte, we would be further ahead today, not stalled as you suggest. I know other disagree, but this is the way I saw it as this all unfolded. Of course, we are both speculating on an alternative outcome.

My original comment was about whether there were alternate plans ready to go or advice against the original plan from city staff. I was present when the final city council debate and vote took place in July 2006. There was not a hint that the bureaucracy was advising against it. The plan at that time had been developed over a period of years with bureaucracy involvement. There had not been a great deal of interest in re-building the Transitways at that point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2038  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2018, 3:18 PM
acottawa acottawa is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles5 View Post
Does anyone here know anything about this new investment syndicate that MOOSE has entered into an arrangement with?

The latest article posted on the MOOSE news page refers to them (see extract below) and I've seen the name pop up before in other correspondance.

"A Toronto-based group of investment sydnicators (sic) is under an agreement with MOOSE to raise the funds for the railway project once MOOSE clears its regulatory hurdles, says Charles Ivey, representing the financial investment group. “We are the agents who are putting the (funding) syndication together,” he said." (link)

I've tried to do some searches online but the only thing I can come up with is a linkedin profile which says that Charles Ivey is the "President of Ineco Inc. (located in Toronto, Ontario), a holding company managing a portfolio of investments in both the private and public sector."

All my searches for information on an investment agency under the name 'Ineco Inc' have come up empty so far. In this day and age, it's surprising to not have any sort of online presence. Perhaps someone else out there might have more success in finding out who these folks are.

Note that these are not investors, they're not putting any money into the MOOSE proposal. They are simply working to try and find investors on behalf of MOOSE (and will likely get paid to do it I imagine).
He seems to own some sort of Thomas the Train attraction in Niagara Falls. I wonder if they are pivoting to some sort of tourist train, which would certainly make more sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2039  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2018, 4:57 PM
roger1818 roger1818 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 3,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
I highly doubt your conclusion. If there had been problems, it would have emphasized the need to proceed immediately with the tunnel. If O'Brien hadn't been such a political neophyte, we would be further ahead today, not stalled as you suggest. I know other disagree, but this is the way I saw it as this all unfolded. Of course, we are both speculating on an alternative outcome.
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this theoretical outcome.

Quote:
My original comment was about whether there were alternate plans ready to go or advice against the original plan from city staff. I was present when the final city council debate and vote took place in July 2006. There was not a hint that the bureaucracy was advising against it. The plan at that time had been developed over a period of years with bureaucracy involvement. There had not been a great deal of interest in re-building the Transitways at that point.
I doubt if there was an alternate plan in place, but all the research that showed a tunnel was necessary was probably there but not publicly available, since the old plan didn't have one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2040  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2018, 5:16 PM
zzptichka zzptichka is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 716
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunnar777 View Post
I used to wonder why Ottawa had no regional rail system, and after reading like 95% of the posts on this thread, I can see why. Y'all hate rail.

Also, have any of you been to places like, I don't know, the entire Outaouais region, or anywhere too far to the west? I'm talking about places like Thurso, Arnprior, Wakefield. They're all symbols of economic loserdom, there's literally no work for those people to do, unless you're one of the 6 lucky ducks who works at The Black Sheep Inn. No one in the entire region can get into town without a car, but somehow, adding in a commuter train would send sprawl out of control? Has the road system not already done that? Oh wait, yeah it has.
We love rail. As long as it doesn't kill already established and successful rail in the process.
Moose has a good cheap option for their regional rail without disrupting O-Train LRT but for some reason they want to go after an expensive and unrealistic pie in the sky instead. Without any money for it to boot.

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 2:24 PM.

     

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