HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2321  
Old Posted Yesterday, 11:33 AM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,087
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 Yesterday, 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 Yesterday, 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 Yesterday, 4:49 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,628
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 Yesterday, 4:59 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 7,514
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 Yesterday, 5:15 PM
roger1818 roger1818 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 3,406
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
     
     
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 10:07 AM.

     

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