Chief William Commanda Bridge (Prince of Wales Bridge) | Closed for Winter

[McC]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The Trillium Line is the only potential for a direct airport-downtown service.

Like Yoda says "there is another" -- the good ole southeast Transitway.

[Kitchissippi]

I don't think removing cars from the Alexandra bridge would be seen as a viable option by many, including the city of Gatineau snd the NCC, especially when plans for a new bridge is still up in the air. The turn from Laurier onto the bridge is also a sharp acute angle, less than 90˚ which the train will have to negotiate from an underground to a surface route constricted by the Museum of History. Continuing the line past Jacques Cartier Park (one of the capital's largest event spaces, not` to mention the TOD potential with developments similar to VIU) and using a widened MacDonald-Cartier Bridge and a cut-and-cover tunnel along Dalhousie (or King Edward in conjunction with a truck tunnel) would make more sense.

[Aylmer]

Why remove cars? You'd still have the east deck which could be reversible to accommodate rush hour traffic. So all you're only down one counter-flow lane out of 11.

As for the turn off the bridge, you have to remember that LRVs are designed to negotiate 90° street angles on streets like in Toronto, slow as it is. Turning onto Laurier also has a veeery large radius: not enough to take it at 50, but large enough for it not to be a problem in the least.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by McC

Like Yoda says "there is another" -- the good ole southeast Transitway.

The Southeast Transitway cannot be connected to the Confederation Line though. Any connection from the south end to downtown needs to find a different route - i.e. a Trillium Line tunnel through downtown, or a Bank Street subway.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Why remove cars? You'd still have the east deck which could be reversible to accommodate rush hour traffic. So all you're only down one counter-flow lane out of 11.

As for the turn off the bridge, you have to remember that LRVs are designed to negotiate 90° street angles on streets like in Toronto, slow as it is. Turning onto Laurier also has a veeery large radius: not enough to take it at 50, but large enough for it not to be a problem in the least.

Although a new deck for southbound cars (with the LRT using the main bridge) is possible, it forces an at-grade crossing, at a difficult angle, at the southern end of the bridge (especially dangerous given the 80-degree skew).

The east deck would most likely be contraflow and one way (into Ottawa in the morning, into Gatineau in the afternoon).

[Aylmer]

Wait, were does this new deck come from? Or this at-grade intersection?

What I propose is that SLRT run on the south side of Laurier, then take the wide curve to the centre deck (currently used for northbound traffic). From the southern end of the bridge, it would follow the old rail RoW to the Plaza Bridge. There are no vehicular intersections, no new decks.

To give a little visualisation of the Alexandra Bridge as it would be looking north:



Ped/Cyclists|| LRT LRT || Switchable car lane
――――――――――――――――――――

[Kitchissippi]

Surface rail in front of the Museum of History? If you're going to do interprovincial transit through the capital core, you might as well do it right. Grade separated to metro standards and high volume so that it is good well into the future.

Untangling the pedestrian/cycle and train ROW on either side of the bridge would require considerable money anyway as they cross each other, and the result won't be beyond mediocre

[Kitchissippi]

The access to the parking level at the museum even suspiciously looks like it was designed to eventually be a subway station entrance: http://goo.gl/maps/zXTId Two way escalators seem overkill and high volume for parking access.

[Aylmer]

We shouldn't fall into the trap of technological fetishism : Grade-separated metro-grade transit is nice and even necessary in a lot of places, but it's an unnecessary luxury in others which can prevent us from properly serving entire sections of the city. For Gatineau's purposes, tunnelling under Laurier would provide little added benefit at much expense:

A tunnel from Montcalm to Portage allows transit to bypass some major vehicular intersections as well as what will become, in time, an area of intense pedestrian activity. Not only this, but it does so with little need for much new infrastructure.
Along the south side of Laurier, there are NO vehicular intersections and little pedestrian flow towards the north. The time savings from metro-grade LRT would be counted in seconds, not minutes, so there's no actual need for grade separation. Not only that, but the challenges of the soft soil and the Museum's underground parking make it an expensive proposition.

"Doing it right" means choosing the right technology and alignment according to what is appropriate for each context: no one can accuse Kitchener of not "doing it right" because they opted for SLRT and not a 10-car subway and not everyone agrees that the Sheppard stubway 'did it right' just because they opted for a very high-capacity technology.

Just as we don't need a cloverleaf at every intersection, we don't need every transit line to be a metro.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

We shouldn't fall into the trap of technological fetishism : Grade-separated metro-grade transit is nice and even necessary in a lot of places, but it's an unnecessary luxury in others which can prevent us from properly serving entire sections of the city. For Gatineau's purposes, tunnelling under Laurier would provide little added benefit at much expense:

A tunnel from Montcalm to Portage allows transit to bypass some major vehicular intersections as well as what will become, in time, an area of intense pedestrian activity. Not only this, but it does so with little need for much new infrastructure.
Along the south side of Laurier, there are NO vehicular intersections and little pedestrian flow towards the north. The time savings from metro-grade LRT would be counted in seconds, not minutes, so there's no actual need for grade separation. Not only that, but the challenges of the soft soil and the Museum's underground parking make it an expensive proposition.

"Doing it right" means choosing the right technology and alignment according to what is appropriate for each context: no one can accuse Kitchener of not "doing it right" because they opted for SLRT and not a 10-car subway and not everyone agrees that the Sheppard stubway 'did it right' just because they opted for a very high-capacity technology.

Just as we don't need a cloverleaf at every intersection, we don't need every transit line to be a metro.

"Technological fetishism" seems like an odd pronouncement from someone who thinks we should have a tunnel to bring back a handful of intercity trains to Union Station (when the Confederation Line will adequately service the current train station from downtown) or spend public money on rural rail when privately owned bus lines do the job just fine

In fact my thought for grade-separated mass transit through downtown Hull isn't an Oedipus complex-driven desire to travel down some dark tunnel, but rather a more innocent wish that implementation of mass transit should not create any new impediments to pedestrians and cyclists where none currently exist (if one were to subscribe to the pedestrian-cyclist-transit-cars hierarchy). The Museum of History building is arguably one of the more successful urban interfaces with the river in the core; you can actually dip your toes in if you wish (try that in the fast moving turbulent waters by the Domtar site). Adding a new impediment to get there seems like a backward step. In the next few decades, the Kruger site will also face redevelopment without a doubt.

Part of "doing it right" does involve being appropriate to context, but also keeping a keen eye to the future. Investing in an ultimate solution far outweighs doing something some other way "just because it's cheaper". We've learned that lesson with the Transitway and Rapibus.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

"Technological fetishism" seems like an odd pronouncement from someone who thinks we should have a tunnel to bring back a handful of intercity trains to Union Station (when the Confederation Line will adequately service the current train station from downtown) or spend public money on rural rail when privately owned bus lines do the job just fine .

First of all, ad hominem hurts

But hey, I've got my fantasies and fetishes like anyone else I guess I'm just defensive about LRT in Gatineau because it's a project I'm actively working on, not just a random idea floating around (god knows I've got those).

In fact my thought for grade-separated mass transit through downtown Hull isn't an Oedipus complex-driven desire to travel down some dark tunnel, but rather a more innocent wish that implementation of mass transit should not create any new impediments to pedestrians and cyclists where none currently exist (if one were to subscribe to the pedestrian-cyclist-transit-cars hierarchy). The Museum of History building is arguably one of the more successful urban interfaces with the river in the core; you can actually dip your toes in if you wish (try that in the fast moving turbulent waters by the Domtar site). Adding a new impediment to get there seems like a backward step. In the next few decades, the Kruger site will also face redevelopment without a doubt.

I hope it will. However, I'm still not convinced that it will be a barrier even if the Krüger site does get redeveloped - European cities have given us dozens of examples of how you can insert LRT in a way that bridges divides instead of creating them. And by removing two lanes of Laurier (which honestly never needed 4 of them that side of Portage), it could actually reduce the gap between Hull (well, at least the two blocks between Laurier and Maisonneuve, which remains a gaping chasm in Hill's urban fabric) and the river.

So then the issue is not whether LRT would impede pedestrian flow, but rather whether pedestrian flow would impact LRT. Again, I'm not convinced - the flow is limited (largely because de Maisonneuve prevents anyone from going much further than Laurier anyways), the distance is short and there are no vehicular lanes.

Part of "doing it right" does involve being appropriate to context, but also keeping a keen eye to the future.

Good point. However, there's little potential for heavy pedestrian traffic across Laurier in the future because of De Maisonneuve even if the Krüger site gets redeveloped.

Investing in an ultimate solution far outweighs doing something some other way "just because it's cheaper". We've learned that lesson with the Transitway and Rapibus

I agree wholeheartedly about not only taking cost and convenience into consideration when building 100-year infrastructure - the Rapibus is indeed a blatant and almost comical example of this. However, you shouldn't just build something "because it's more expensive" - that's how white elephants are made.




But all that aside, I do see how grade-separation could be achieved: coming off the Alexandra Bridge, have the tracks continue down into a cut and cover tunnel under Laurier, emerging into the trench just south of the Krüger site. Though I still worry about the cost, the disruption during construction would be tolerable.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The Trillium Line is the only potential for a direct airport-downtown service. You extend it to Gatineau, their will never be any political will to re-route to downtown.

You can split the line.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

"Technological fetishism" seems like an odd pronouncement from someone who thinks we should have a tunnel to bring back a handful of intercity trains to Union Station (when the Confederation Line will adequately service the current train station from downtown)

It's not about how the train station is serviced, it's about how the train station services.

A return to downtown would be another major game-changer for Ottawa, and would support an eventual regional commuter rail project, a more modest version of what Montreal or Toronto has; perhaps along the lines of West Coast Express in Vancouver.

Ottawa's intercity rail transport future is grim as long as the train station is that abortion of a building in that crappy location.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

You can split the line.

The capacity will already be fairly low without adding splits.

Downtown will have a max capacity of 24,000. That would split 3 times west (Trillium, Algonquin, Bayshore). If 2/3 of the capacity goes to the 2 west splits, that would bring down the Trillium capacity to 8,000. Split that at Bayview (Trillium north bound), and your down to 4,000 Gatineau, 4,000 downtown, or whatever configuration.

Either you have the direct airport-downtown line or a loop through Gatineau via the PoW back to downtown (Rideau).

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

First of all, ad hominem hurts

Well, saying that someone's opinion is a "fetish" (attributing it to the person's fixation as opposed to the merit of the idea) is in itself ad hominem

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I guess I'm just defensive about LRT in Gatineau because it's a project I'm actively working on, not just a random idea floating around (god knows I've got those).

---

I agree wholeheartedly about not only taking cost and convenience into consideration when building 100-year infrastructure - the Rapibus is indeed a blatant and almost comical example of this. However, you shouldn't just build something "because it's more expensive" - that's how white elephants are made.

But all that aside, I do see how grade-separation could be achieved: coming off the Alexandra Bridge, have the tracks continue down into a cut and cover tunnel under Laurier, emerging into the trench just south of the Krüger site. Though I still worry about the cost, the disruption during construction would be tolerable.

I applaud you if you're for pushing the project, but my advice would be is to keep the concept uncompromised (interprovincial urban transit) and open to where it might go or how it does it (grade separated or not). It is far easier to sell it as a pie-in-the-sky concept that can be altered or watered down later rather than an easy and convenient solution that has an achilles heel in compromise (like the old NSLRT plan). Transit projects are rarely self-justified; they have to be framed in quality-of-life and economic terms first.

For decades there were quite a few people with "technology fetishes" (including me) pushing in different fronts for LRT in Ottawa. In the end, the Confederation Line would have never gotten off the ground if it did not have a business case (cost of x number of buses vs. a train, time savings, and a potential for growth), with the added bonus of a vastly improved pedestrian environment downtown.

White elephant projects happen because of either a faulty prediction of the future (i.e. Mirabel Airport) or a failure to complete or follow through with an intrinsic holistic master plan (i.e. the Sheppard Stubway). As with the DOTT, very few things could go wrong with a properly designed grade-separated mass transit spine through downtown Hull — it sets a solid foundation for better public transportation instead of something that would have to be revisited in the future.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

The Southeast Transitway cannot be connected to the Confederation Line though. Any connection from the south end to downtown needs to find a different route - i.e. a Trillium Line tunnel through downtown, or a Bank Street subway.

I don't see how it couldn't be connected. Knock down the Hurdman station, and use the viaduct that the station is on for the fly-under for Southeast Transitway trains.

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The Trillium Line is the only potential for a direct airport-downtown service. You extend it to Gatineau, their will never be any political will to re-route to downtown.

Why do we even need to consider a train to the airport right now? Pearson has 36 million passengers/year, which is 9 times as many as Ottawa, and they are just getting one. The only good thing we have going for our airport is that it's only 6 kms from downtown, compared to Montreal and Toronto being 20+km away.
We could probably offer similar service at a much cheaper fare by offering a special shuttle bus between the airport and key downtown locations (westin, delta etc).
If the O-train tracks get fully doubled in the future then they should consider putting a spur in. The massive amount of parking and plentiful cabs to and from the airport already means demand for a train will be constrained.

[1overcosc]

One way we easily generate demand for transit link to the airport is through a simple measure: getting the federal government to require its employees to take transit to the airport instead of buying them cab fares. You'd be amazed how much government money is spent on buying cabs for employees, even when travelling between extremely transit friendly destinations. For example, there was a conference a few weeks ago at the downtown Convention Centre, and the government paid for cabs to transport employees to and from Tunney's Pasture! Even though it's an extremely easy trip by transit... I'm honestly shocked in this era of belt-tightening that the Treasury Board is still allowing this.

[lrt's friend]

The only answer to direct airport to downtown LRT service is to build a surface line from the Bayview terminus into downtown on the Albert-Slater corridor. In other words, what was originally planned (more or less) but after the bulk of the buses have been removed. At that point, the traffic levels should be able to handle surface LRT on Albert and Slater unless our intent is to fill it full of cars and trucks, which is a real possibility after the buses leave.

The beauty of this is that the POW bridge could be eventually used for LRT to replace Crapibus and also connected to the surface line into downtown providing direct interprovincial service to downtown.

There has always been a concern of creating a bottleneck at Bayview with the number of passengers needed to be moved on the Bayview/downtown leg if everybody had to transfer onto the Confederation Line, at least in longer term.

We cannot possibly have an eventual 6 way split of service at Bayview (Bayshore, Baseline, Riverside South, Airport, Gatineau and eventually Aylmer). This will simply not deliver the level of service desired on each of the branches.

[1overcosc]

That would be a good use of the Albert-Slater corridor. Though, the Albert-Slater corridor doesn't start until Booth Street so we'd have to widen the Confederation Line corridor from Bayview to Pimisi to 4 tracks, or alternatively, surface LRT along Albert Street in the area (the latter would probably be more expensive). Once we get it to Booth though it's clear sailing all the way out to the Mackenzie Bridge which I imagine would be the terminus (although it could be extended down the Rideau-Montreal corridor, too. Ideally we'd do that, but of course money is the issue).

The old N-S plan wasn't a bad idea, it was just a bad idea to built it first when E-W traffic was still using buses. Instead of being cancelled it should have just been pushed down until after what is now the Confederation Line is complete.