HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2007, 10:49 AM
d_jeffrey d_jeffrey is offline
Centretowner
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix View Post
Dammit, that just amde me want to see the N/S Line get built even moreso than before. Thanks a lot. :roll:


For me it's the opposite, how a waste of money it was. It's still in the field, and the E-W, parallels the existing tracks, out of reach of major destinations. It's akin of the Rapibus in Gatineau, how can you spend more money on something that's already there.

And for those who complain about, but but but direct service to Carelton University! If you have many lines that interconnects, that is not an issue at all, you have great service all around the city. You people are acting like a ex-couple that asks if they did the good thing with divorcing after a year, but forget to remember all the fights you had. LET IT GO.
__________________
If only "common sense" people had any.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2007, 12:50 PM
BlackRedGold BlackRedGold is offline
Progressive Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ottawa / Elsewhere
Posts: 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by d_jeffrey View Post
The numbers were from the city. They had a page with all From/To destinations.
That's crap. It was comparing numbers from Fallowfield Station for the 95, which is always behind schedule when it hits downtown, to numbers from a LRT station south of Strandherd which would be closer for more people in Barrhaven.

Quote:
Replacing the Transitway for these sections would offer better service, and better speed, which would increase ridership. You can't build a system on "good intentions". It needs to be backed up with facts and numbers.
Well, how about you back up your statements with facts and numbers for a change? How much faster would converting the Woodroffe Transitway to LRT make the route? And how many more riders will it convert?

Quote:
Of course the Barrhaven and Riverside South voted for that, (even if the polls weren't that favorable for the O-Train), they're the only one getting a good deal out of it. How can you sell a fast system like that? In the field?! Wetlands? Low ridership and extremely high cost and minimal return on investment? No wonder it was voted down.
If that's the case why develop anything that doesn't service the entire city?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2007, 1:29 PM
d_jeffrey d_jeffrey is offline
Centretowner
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold View Post
That's crap. It was comparing numbers from Fallowfield Station for the 95, which is always behind schedule when it hits downtown, to numbers from a LRT station south of Strandherd which would be closer for more people in Barrhaven.



Well, how about you back up your statements with facts and numbers for a change? How much faster would converting the Woodroffe Transitway to LRT make the route? And how many more riders will it convert?



If that's the case why develop anything that doesn't service the entire city?

It's basic math, if the Barrhaven Centre is supposed to be faster using the Transitway, and LRT is faster than the Transitway, than a separated line going East, that is slower, reaches less population in the same corridor. How is that not a better investment? You also forgot that the Barrhaven O-Train line was single tracked, and service every 14 minutes.

You said it yourself that the 95 is always late. Barrhaven town centre is in the middle of the city, and should be faster using the Transitway than the initially proposed O-Train. If the O-Train replaces the Transitway, in it's own ROW, it will be even faster than the current Transitway numbers, that will crush even more the old O-Train numbers. Plus the population density is much higher in the Woodroffe corridor.

You develop a major plan, that's what you do, and what people here try to do. It's called a vision.
__________________
If only "common sense" people had any.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2007, 1:36 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,293
Quote:
Replacing the Transitway for these sections would offer better service, and better speed, which would increase ridership.
Why would that be true? You are already providing good fast service on the Transitway. Speeding it up by a few minutes is not going to make a whole lot of difference. We have already largely captured this customer base. We need to draw new customers by providing new routes, cutting travel times to new destinations significantly. Its when we can cut transit travel times by 25% or 50%, then you will start drawing new riders. There are all kinds of examples where it takes excessive amounts of times to travel between locations by transit. My own is a perfect example. 10 minutes by car, 50 minutes by transit. You should be able to cut this by 50% simply by providing more direct routes and more frequent service.

I think people who live in the older parts of Ottawa don't realize how badly the southern tier of the city is choking on traffic and there is a lack of transit alternatives. Even then, transit is not viable because it also gets caught in the same traffic. The Albion Road issue is a symptom of the traffic problem. The Airport parkway is a mess and is failing to serve its original purpose to provide fast access to the airport. Hunt Club Road has many bottlenecks at various points, so bad, that traveling almost downtown to the Queensway is often faster. Remember the debat about travelling between South Keys and Scotiabank Place. Hunt Club is more direct but the Queensway was significantly faster. Very nice to direct cross-town traffic through Centretown neighbourhoods! I am sure that there are many other examples of traffic chaos in the southern tier of the city.

A coworker complained today about the awful traffic crossing town from Richmond via Manotick. Can you imagine, traffic problems this far south? And we continue to offer no alternatives. If we don't, we will soon face demands for massive road expansion. At what cost?

Quote:
Low ridership and extremely high cost and minimal return on investment? No wonder it was voted down.
It got voted down because it was allowed to become a political issue. Both Alex Munter and Larry O'Brien used the issue to court voters in the east and west end of the city. We also had some very selfish councillors, who didn't understand that by voting it down, we were delaying not only that route, but also the east-west route. If we had gone ahead, we would be planning right now the first east-west route. This was Bob Chiarelli's vision and he had the track record to get it done. Instead, we voted him out of office and we have rolled the clock back on LRT by years.

Talking about high costs, your skytrain proposal is going to be far more expensive. Funny, that you are bringing this up.

Quote:
For me it's the opposite, how a waste of money it was. It's still in the field, and the E-W, parallels the existing tracks, out of reach of major destinations. It's akin of the Rapibus in Gatineau, how can you spend more money on something that's already there.
Hmmmm. And laying track on the Transitway is not the same thing? Its already there, isn't it? It already provides very good service, doesn't it? We cannot achieve the quality of service by restricting ourselves to using the existing track that you mention. For the cost, Rapidbus is going to offer much more frequent service than what would be possible on a shared use heavy rail line. The east-west route used the existing rail corridor but was to deviate from it to access major transit destinations such as Algonquin College. It was also going to be a true rapid transit line by providing both fast and frequent service to places that people wanted to travel to. Using the existing single track was going to restrict the level of service and the quality of the destinations, the so-called fields that you often mention.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2007, 1:51 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,293
Quote:
service every 14 minutes.
The LRT proposal called for 10 minute service to Barrhaven and 5 minute service as far as Leitrim. This was from opening day. The track from Leitrim to Barrhaven was to be designed so that double tracking could be done at a later date.

Quote:
If the O-Train replaces the Transitway, in it's own ROW, it will be even faster than the current Transitway numbers
Yep, it might cut 5 minutes off the travel time, max. And at what cost? Building an exclusive right of way along Woodroffe and between Lincoln Fields and the end of the Transitway near Westboro is going to be extremely expensive. This will make the Dow's Lake tunnel sound very cheap.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2007, 2:19 PM
d_jeffrey d_jeffrey is offline
Centretowner
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Why would that be true? You are already providing good fast service on the Transitway. Speeding it up by a few minutes is not going to make a whole lot of difference. We have already largely captured this customer base. We need to draw new customers by providing new routes, cutting travel times to new destinations significantly. Its when we can cut transit travel times by 25% or 50%, then you will start drawing new riders. There are all kinds of examples where it takes excessive amounts of times to travel between locations by transit. My own is a perfect example. 10 minutes by car, 50 minutes by transit. You should be able to cut this by 50% simply by providing more direct routes and more frequent service.
It is not just a few minutes, it's nearly half and hour by converting this section of the Transitway, compared to the old O-Train plan. As you just mentionned, when we will cut transit times by 25 or 50%.

Quote:
I think people who live in the older parts of Ottawa don't realize how badly the southern tier of the city is choking on traffic and there is a lack of transit alternatives. Even then, transit is not viable because it also gets caught in the same traffic. The Albion Road issue is a symptom of the traffic problem. The Airport parkway is a mess and is failing to serve its original purpose to provide fast access to the airport. Hunt Club Road has many bottlenecks at various points, so bad, that traveling almost downtown to the Queensway is often faster. Remember the debat about travelling between South Keys and Scotiabank Place. Hunt Club is more direct but the Queensway was significantly faster. Very nice to direct cross-town traffic through Centretown neighbourhoods! I am sure that there are many other examples of traffic chaos in the southern tier of the city.

A coworker complained today about the awful traffic crossing town from Richmond via Manotick. Can you imagine, traffic problems this far south? And we continue to offer no alternatives. If we don't, we will soon face demands for massive road expansion. At what cost?
I'm surprised you're saying that, since city people, for example on the MTL road, have extremely bad service too. It's not just for Riverside South, it's nearly all the city that have bad service. The Transitway has done it's job, but you can't build new towers on a busway, nor put condos on the lands, nor sell the attractiveness of a bus. BRT can't achieve high density on the immediate premises.

Quote:
It got voted down because it was allowed to become a political issue. Both Alex Munter and Larry O'Brien used the issue to court voters in the east and west end of the city. We also had some very selfish councillors, who didn't understand that by voting it down, we were delaying not only that route, but also the east-west route. If we had gone ahead, we would be planning right now the first east-west route. This was Bob Chiarelli's vision and he had the track record to get it done. Instead, we voted him out of office and we have rolled the clock back on LRT by years.

Talking about high costs, your skytrain proposal is going to be far more expensive. Funny, that you are bringing this up.
Yes, it is gonna be far more expensive, but a much higher quality. If you want to go to Orleans from Kanata, you hop on the O-Train, with minimal stations. You want to do 30 stations, well use the old plan. For me it's not about the price, it's about what you get for the price, and the Riverside South stretch to the Airport shouldn't be double-tracked and electrified, simple as that.

Quote:

Hmmmm. And laying track on the Transitway is not the same thing? Its already there, isn't it? It already provides very good service, doesn't it? We cannot achieve the quality of service by restricting ourselves to using the existing track that you mention. For the cost, Rapidbus is going to offer much more frequent service than what would be possible on a shared use heavy rail line. The east-west route used the existing rail corridor but was to deviate from it to access major transit destinations such as Algonquin College. It was also going to be a true rapid transit line by providing both fast and frequent service to places that people wanted to travel to. Using the existing single track was going to restrict the level of service and the quality of the destinations, the so-called fields that you often mention.
No it doesn't offer very good service, as shown in the latest opinion polls. Just look at the map for the planned E-W link, or the map on the OT website, what major destinations ARE on the E-W link. You even said it yourself that they will have to do detours to go the Algonquin college.

You mean the Rapibus goes to DT Gatineau, where 30 000 people work? Oh wait... A commuter rail and LRT in the core would have helped revitalised the city, at the same price. People usually work at fixed hours, for a commuter train, it's not a big deal to change your daily schedule for 10 minutes. It's something else when you have dense areas that requires more service, as hospitals ect.
__________________
If only "common sense" people had any.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2007, 2:21 PM
d_jeffrey d_jeffrey is offline
Centretowner
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
The LRT proposal called for 10 minute service to Barrhaven and 5 minute service as far as Leitrim. This was from opening day. The track from Leitrim to Barrhaven was to be designed so that double tracking could be done at a later date.



Yep, it might cut 5 minutes off the travel time, max. And at what cost? Building an exclusive right of way along Woodroffe and between Lincoln Fields and the end of the Transitway near Westboro is going to be extremely expensive. This will make the Dow's Lake tunnel sound very cheap.
The time you quote was for peak service, which wasn't all day long. Service is 14 minutes off peak. A suburbain train like the O-Train could have offered service at 20 minutes intervall, at a much lower cost. And of course it was designed to be double tracked, it would have been silly not too.


You mean the $600M line in the field? Yes that sounds extremely expensive.


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. For me suburban trains are for suburbs. High density places in the core have lousy service, and for once, I would like them to have great service, and acknowledge them that they are doing a great thing for the city. I live in the core, and it takes me longer to get to work, also in the core, than someone who lives in Barrhaven. Is that a sound environmental policy?
__________________
If only "common sense" people had any.

Last edited by d_jeffrey; Oct 30, 2007 at 2:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2007, 2:42 PM
BlackRedGold BlackRedGold is offline
Progressive Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ottawa / Elsewhere
Posts: 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by d_jeffrey View Post
It's basic math, if the Barrhaven Centre is supposed to be faster using the Transitway,
Who said that it was?

Quote:
and LRT is faster than the Transitway,
Is it always? Unless you grade separate the line so that it avoids the traffic lights that the Transitway line deals with, I'm not sure it will be any faster.


Quote:
than a separated line going East, that is slower, reaches less population in the same corridor.
Less population? The N-S route was going to have TOD around the line. That's not possible around the Transitway line.


Quote:
You said it yourself that the 95 is always late. Barrhaven town centre is in the middle of the city, and should be faster using the Transitway than the initially proposed O-Train. If the O-Train replaces the Transitway, in it's own ROW, it will be even faster than the current Transitway numbers, that will crush even more the old O-Train numbers.
You're not making sense here.

Quote:
Plus the population density is much higher in the Woodroffe corridor.
The Woodroffe corridor is full of large lot single homes with a couple of townhome developments sprinkled in. It is not dense at all until you get north of Baseline.

The N-S line was to be developed for transit. In the developed areas around the line it would have been far denser.


Quote:
You develop a major plan, that's what you do, and what people here try to do. It's called a vision.
The city did develop a major plan. It was the N-S LRT line. It was vision. What people here try to do is the transportation equivalent of a hockey pool. It's not vision, it's playing around.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2007, 2:45 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,293
I don't want to argue with you about who should get service first. My only point is the value of laying track on the Transitway as an early priority.

By the way, who said it is going to cost $600M to run an electric train from the airport to Riverside South? Your proposal calls for electrifying everything else.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2007, 2:56 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,293
I contend that a diesel O-Train running from the east part Riverside South to the Via Rail station is simply not viable. The competition with a much more frequent electric train at the airport will put enormous pressure to build a park and ride at Lester Road in the wetland.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2007, 2:58 PM
d_jeffrey d_jeffrey is offline
Centretowner
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
I don't want to argue with you about who should get service first. My only point is the value of laying track on the Transitway as an early priority.

By the way, who said it is going to cost $600M to run an electric train from the airport to Riverside South? Your proposal calls for electrifying everything else.
Electrification only costs 1M$ a km. The inflated costs of the original N-S south for that section. It's the rails that are expensive to build.

The Transitway is a good priority, because of its mostly exclusive ROW, and it reaches many sectors of the city, and it values density. And you can connect to other sectors easily.
__________________
If only "common sense" people had any.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2007, 3:00 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,293
Whether you cross the Greenbelt along Woodroffe or along the CPR rail corridor east of the airport, you are still travelling through open fields. At least the airport lands offer a place to put maintenance yards where they will least bother neighbours.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2007, 3:00 PM
d_jeffrey d_jeffrey is offline
Centretowner
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
I contend that a diesel O-Train running from the east part Riverside South to the Via Rail station is simply not viable. The competition with a much more frequent electric train at the airport will put enormous pressure to build a park and ride at Lester Road in the wetland.
It is extremely viable, because it's much faster to reach Confederation than a LRT with many stations! The frequency of Via trains is quite low, if you double track stations, with a basic design, it's really more than sufficient.

There are plans that called for a park and ride there, and the metrO had one too.
__________________
If only "common sense" people had any.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2007, 3:02 PM
d_jeffrey d_jeffrey is offline
Centretowner
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Whether you cross the Greenbelt along Woodroffe or along the CPR rail corridor east of the airport, you are still travelling through open fields. At least the airport lands offer a place to put maintenance yards where they will least bother neighbours.
Well if we use commuter trains for that CPR corridor, you can use the Walkey maintenance yard, and the Airport section for the ELRT.
__________________
If only "common sense" people had any.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2007, 3:07 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,293
Quote:
Electrification only costs 1M$ a km. The inflated costs of the original N-S south for that section. It's the rails that are expensive to build.
Then what is your point? You were going to provide diesel O-Train service. That requires rails too and we already own the entire right of way. The same cannot be said about the alternative.

I don't think there is any point in continuing this discussion. You can't argue about costs being too high when you already admit that your proposal is much more expensive.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2007, 3:58 PM
d_jeffrey d_jeffrey is offline
Centretowner
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Then what is your point? You were going to provide diesel O-Train service. That requires rails too and we already own the entire right of way. The same cannot be said about the alternative.

I don't think there is any point in continuing this discussion. You can't argue about costs being too high when you already admit that your proposal is much more expensive.
A much shorter line, and single tracked for that, that connects to already built tracks.

I can argue about costs being too high if it's not well invested.
__________________
If only "common sense" people had any.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2007, 6:10 PM
jeremy_haak's Avatar
jeremy_haak jeremy_haak is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Waterloo
Posts: 3,175
I think it's important to point out that one of the primary goals in the TMP was to see an increase of the transit modal share to above 30% (something like that anyway). To those people advocating conversion of the West and Southwest Transitways over the original NS plan, do you really think that a corridor that already sees higher than average transit modal shares will increase that much more with LRT? I certainly don't think so.

Right now transportation to the SE part of Ottawa is a major problem. The road capacity is very limited, and the transit capacity is also quite limited. Considering the growth that is expected to occur in Riverside South, transportation in that part of the city could become a crisis if something isn't done.

Part of the solution was the NS project. It was considered that if LRT was introduced into this area early, the development would be centred on transit and there would be a greater opportunity to keep people on transit instead of in their cars. This is instead of building a road along the Altavista Transportation Corridor - a possibility that grows ever more likely as a transit solution is ignored.

Frankly, it's mind boggling that people are willing to throw this opportunity away. Here is a situation where the city actually has an opportunity to choose between roads or transit instead of simply roads AND transit. Here's a situation where the city has a developer that is keen on proceeding with a transit-oriented development. Here's a situation where the city has a fantastic opportunity to draw people out of their cars and actually achieve that 30% modal split for transit.

Instead, people here are arguing that this opportunity should be ignored for service to the airport ostensibly because 'world-class cities' have train connections to their airport. In doing so, they'll be pushing those potential transit riders into their cars and hoping that they'll park them at a Park n' Ride on the way to work, nevermind that the person is still driving their car and the development is still geared toward the car. Even with an exceedingly generous figure of 10% of airport passengers using the train (and that is extremely generous), that would only add roughly 1000-1500 passengers or so a day (based on 300000-450000 passengers per month at the airport), peanuts compared to the potential of extending the service south in Riverside South and Barrhaven.

I agree with BlackRedGold, this whole metrO proposal is just like a hockey pool. I think it's a fantastic idea to become involved and offer city council a proposal; however, so far your proposal lacks any credibility at all. You offer no references from which I can challenge your assumptions. Quite frankly, you've proposed several things in your system which run contrary to what I'd consider, but I have no way of assessing them because you don't offer any data to back up your ideas. You go to great lengths to discuss the shortcomings of the existing proposals, but you don't discuss the problems with the existing transit system and how your proposal addresses them. You don't consider the political realities at all in your proposal (how exactly do you propose to integrate Quebec into this, and do you really think that Gatineau would support a system that fundamentally treats it like a spur of Ottawa when it desires to become more distinct and self-sufficient?)

Anyway, great, become politically involved, but if you want to be considered seriously, you'll need to offer a bit more to support your proposal then a contrived list of advantages (what are the disadvantages?). Sorry if this is harsh, but that's the way I see it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2007, 7:45 PM
d_jeffrey d_jeffrey is offline
Centretowner
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy_haak View Post
Anyway, great, become politically involved, but if you want to be considered seriously, you'll need to offer a bit more to support your proposal then a contrived list of advantages (what are the disadvantages?). Sorry if this is harsh, but that's the way I see it.
That's not harsh at all, the way it started was to propose an alternative to what it doesn't work well in the first place. THere are thoughts on every little details and why, but for the last 4 weekends, I have worked up to 3 AM on the plans, and designs and everything. You want something produced that took a decade with the old plan. I still haven't seen any of you any helping hand, besides some of my friends that don't even live in Ottawa. This is the same discussions as with LRT Friend, it's not about absolute value, but what can you get more and do it more effectively.

I mean, one of the arguments I had with you guys, were that the lines were not straight enough, while I said the lines were based on the origin destination numbers. And you say that I don't back things up? Just look on how many posts I wrote. This is not building the best transit system, but the least worse, at a reasonable costs.

Just look at the discussion on which corridor you want to use, the transitway or the riverside south path. Even with numbers, some people are stuck in thinking that way, emotionaly. That's when I agree to disagree.

And yes, even if you don't like it, swagger can be a thing to get some international events.

Your next task will be to come up with the numbers of people from Gatineau heading to Ottawa DT, and from Ottawa to Gatineau DT, and how the metrO loop will help to achieve that, while all museums on that line too. I also need a better cost analysis for using the existing tracks, and the cost for a distinct ROW to get to the Mac-C bridge.

Gatineau will never build the spur by themselves, it's against their principles, the funding will need to be from the Feds or it will not get up. It needs to be cost effective for Ottawa too.


You guys don't know me well yet, everything I say is backed up, I'm not called a emotionless machine for no reasons, it's something else entirely to write a 100 pages documents with all the references. I would love to meet up with you guys and having some help. I mean, I'm even paying for hosting and everything related, and trying to take charge with something. When did you guys propose your help? You're saying it yourself, to have more credibility, we need all the information in a written form, I already work 70 hours a week on different projects, it's time for others to take action too.
__________________
If only "common sense" people had any.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2007, 8:11 PM
d_jeffrey d_jeffrey is offline
Centretowner
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold View Post
Who said that it was?



Is it always? Unless you grade separate the line so that it avoids the traffic lights that the Transitway line deals with, I'm not sure it will be any faster.
I said distinct ROW, so of course it won't have any lights.


Quote:
Less population? The N-S route was going to have TOD around the line. That's not possible around the Transitway line. You're not making sense here.
Then if it's not possible, you change it, no? Will you be able to put a museum on a BRT line? You want to condemn any new TOD on existing lines? That's exactly why it should be converted to LRT, you can't do TOD around BRT lines, because of all the population, noise and what's next. Remember that it's not about not deserving Barrhaven or Riverside South, it's about which corridor will offer better service.

Quote:
The Woodroffe corridor is full of large lot single homes with a couple of townhome developments sprinkled in. It is not dense at all until you get north of Baseline.

The N-S line was to be developed for transit. In the developed areas around the line it would have been far denser.
Will you read the damn metro proposal, the TOD in riverside south and Barrhaven is still kept, with even better service. What I didn't agree on was the line between Riverside South and Leitrim. This won't have any population since it's in the greenbelt.

Quote:
The city did develop a major plan. It was the N-S LRT line. It was vision. What people here try to do is the transportation equivalent of a hockey pool. It's not vision, it's playing around.
You mean putting a line in the middle of nowhere, while you could keep improving existing sectors? That's where I don't understand your hockey pool thing. For me building a new sector just to have some fantasies about TOD, iis gambling. Offering clean, efficient transit to every part of the city, and change the culture, not for A SUBURB, is a vision. But again, we'll have to disagree on this too. The N-S plan was not a vision at all, it was just an extension of the existing O-Train, because the mayor at the time wanted that. And the E-W line was even worse, as they didn't know where to put a new line, so we'll put it where rails already are! Brilliant.
__________________
If only "common sense" people had any.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2007, 9:31 PM
Jamaican-Phoenix's Avatar
Jamaican-Phoenix Jamaican-Phoenix is offline
R2-D2's army of death
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Downtown Ottawa
Posts: 3,201
Quote:
What I didn't agree on was the line between Riverside South and Leitrim. This won't have any population since it's in the greenbelt.
True, but one thing that the Previous N/S LRT plan had done that so far no one else has, is plan for the future. It was shown that the community of Riverside South was going to grow and move east. They realized that if they wanted to get people out fo their cars, they would need to offer good/great transit in the area; N/S Line provided that by encouraging smart growth and providing walk-on stops/stations.

it was also meant to be a part of a Transportation Master Plan; not to replace it. It seems that people have lost sight of that recently...
__________________
Franky: Ajldub, name calling is what they do when good arguments can't be found - don't sink to their level. Claiming the thread is "boring" is also a way to try to discredit a thread that doesn't match their particular bias.
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 > SSP: Local Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:32 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.