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

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don't think the original o-train is a good comparison. For the O-train, the costs were pretty low, there was a major driver of ridership along the route (Carleton), there were pretty significant secondary drivers of ridership (Little Italy, South Keys, the Confederation Heights office buildings) and the routing provided a clear shortcut between heavily-used BRT corridors to the West and South of the city (avoiding close to a dozen stops).

Any theoretical PoW transit link would be very expensive (varying depending on speeds, frequency, technology, etc), has no drivers of ridership, and doesn't offer an obviously shortcut except in very limited circumstances (Carleton students living in Alymer, UQ students living in the South or West of Ottawa, Alymer residents who want to travel on Line 2) and even then the shortcut is only a few minutes.

Isn't it kind of ironic that the official reasoning for ditching the PoW bridge as a rail link directly contradicts the main argument you've been making for several pages now? That there aren't any ridership drivers?

How does an extension with no potential for ridership put Bayview at risk of being overloaded?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Isn't it kind of ironic that the official reasoning for ditching the PoW bridge as a rail link directly contradicts the main argument you've been making for several pages now? That there aren't any ridership drivers?

How does an extension with no potential for ridership put Bayview at risk of being overloaded?

How is that ironic? I don't write the Mayors' talking points. I don't know what they are based on.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I'd ask someone who recommends that the terminus be at Taché.

Even if they use that little spur that goes to Zibi instead (and there are probably numerous reasons that isn't practical) the distances are about the same. You're trying to force a crossing at a point where the river is particularly wide and the main transit routes on both sides are particularly distant. If a better transit connection to TdlC from Ottawa is really necessary, something using the Chaudiere bridge (which I believe is anticipated to be replaced or significantly reconstructed) would be a much shorter, much more direct route.

[J.OT13]

It's like the City of Ottawa deliberately built Bayview Station in a way that limits, or even eliminates, all possible options. Because of its configuration, it can't be properly interlined with Confederation; because of the shifted location, Trillium is no longer aligned with PoW. And too boot, it wasn't even designed as a proper terminus station for Trillium, which seemed to be the ultimate goal (side platforms, no space for vertical circulation on the east side).

I agree that crossing the STO over the bridge would be an undesirable option. Having an STO line (BRT or LRT) meet-up head-to-head with Trillium and have thousands of passengers scramble through a poorly designed station.

However, with the Stage 2+ side platforms at Trillium, it would make a good line station. By crossing Trillium to Gatineau and terminating at Zibi, it would eliminate hundreds, and possibly thousands of transfers from the high ridership Confederation (south end commuters heading to Hull). It would also save quite a bit of time for Gatineau commuters who live at Tunney's Pasture. (more transfers but much shorter distance on trains).

I think this decision to eliminate the idea of using PoW as a secondary link, one for Trillium to cross, is extremely short-sided. Seems the design of Bayview was Jerry-rigged to prevent any such connection.

As for the STO line, I do hope they use both Portage and Alexandra, now that PoW has been eliminated, and would hope to see their line loop around downtown Ottawa (Alexandra, old CPR tunnel along the Château, Sparks and Portage); underground would be great, with direct indoor links to Lyon and Parliament fare-paid concourses however, surface would also be acceptable (using Sussex and/or Mackenzie instead of the existing tunnel).

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Disagree. The pedestrian/bike path could be re-designed to be cantilevered off to the side. Or, a new parallel bridge could be built for transit.

Sure, physically that's quite possible.

Politically, it isn't: once a railbed or rail bridge is converted to Sacred Bike Usage, it will never revert.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day.

Yep....highly complicated.

It's not that complicated at all: the proponent of a Gatineau LRT (whether the city, STO, province of Quebec, etc.) would seek the same approvals for a construction project in Ottawa, Ontario, as any other project proponent would.

It's a bit of an odd situation in Canada, where we only have one metropolitan area that spans a provincial boundary, but it's quite common in the U.S.

In the grand scheme of a multi-hundred-million-dollar project, the administrative and political approval issue of extending higher-order transit under, over, or through the Ottawa River, is almost trivial.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

I guarantee you, had they decided today to run train on it, any bridge refurbishing plan would 100% require addition of cantilever bike/ped path. Today, tomorrow, 20 years from now, doesn't matter. It's a moot point.

Absolutely. You can (and should!) graft a MUP onto a transit bridge.

But regardless of the engineering, politically you can't do the reverse. Once that bridge is converted to be a Sacred Bike Path, it will become politically impossible, thanks to stupid prettyism, to convert it back to rail or any form of transit, or, probably, to even build a transit-carrying bridge anywhere that would block the precious river views.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The best thing that could happen to the preservation of the POW bridge will be to convert it into a MUP. Imagine the beautiful views from this vantage point. This is far better than letting it rot into the river given that rail is not in the cards, at least, not for a long, long time. I see this as a major asset to the community to be built at Bayview and Lebreton Flats.

And once those views are reserve for cyclists and fair-weather pedestrians, and permanently excluded to transit passengers, you will never again see rails or transit across the river anywhere near that bridge because prettyism.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Disagree. The pedestrian/bike path could be re-designed to be cantilevered off to the side. Or, a new parallel bridge could be built for transit.

Knowing the way infrastructure projects affecting pedestrians & cyclists go in this town...

- Bridge gets an uplift with a MUP.
- People get used to crossing there for a decade or more.
- Future governments finally decide to use the bridge for rail again.
- The crossing gets shutdown for two years for construction work pissing off all the regular users who now get pushed to Champlain or Chaudière.
- This frustration of course would be viewed as opposition to the project by some.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Absolutely. You can (and should!) graft a MUP onto a transit bridge.

But regardless of the engineering, politically you can't do the reverse. Once that bridge is converted to be a Sacred Bike Path, it will become politically impossible, thanks to stupid prettyism, to convert it back to rail or any form of transit, or, probably, to even build a transit-carrying bridge anywhere that would block the precious river views.

While I understand that the collective "bike lobby", which really does have some political power, has gotten in the way of certain transit priority measures (Montreal Road and others), I think your concern in this instance is misplaced.

In most cases, opposition to turning a path corridor into a transit + path corridor comes from adjacent homeowners not path users. It is for this reason that the Trans Canada Trail corridor in Stittsville will never again see rail, and why leaving transit corridors in Riverside South and south Orleans unconstructed is so dangerous. The PoW bridge does not have the same issue with adjacent homeowners and I don't think the bike lobby would have an issue with a transit + pathway bridge in the future as long as the adjacent pathway is not degraded in any way.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

While I understand that the collective "bike lobby", which really does have some political power, has gotten in the way of certain transit priority measures (Montreal Road and others), I think your concern in this instance is misplaced.

LOL, the bike lobby has no power. If we did, the bikes lanes outside the core would get plowed.

In most cases, opposition to turning a path corridor into a transit + path corridor comes from adjacent homeowners not path users. It is for this reason that the Trans Canada Trail corridor in Stittsville will never again see rail, and why leaving transit corridors in Riverside South and south Orleans unconstructed is so dangerous. The PoW bridge does not have the same issue with adjacent homeowners and I don't think the bike lobby would have an issue with a transit + pathway bridge in the future as long as the adjacent pathway is not degraded in any way.

Totally agree. I expect some people will eventually oppose projects as those transit corridors will have become unofficial parks used by locals.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

LOL, the bike lobby has no power. If we did, the bikes lanes outside the core would get plowed.

I'm referring to soft power. I.e. the ability to get things changed with protest, or that Bike Ottawa is often effective at getting things changed during the planning or functional design stages of large projects.

On the other hand transit users, groups, and even OC Transpo itself is often ineffectual at lobbying for transit priority.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

I'm referring to soft power. I.e. the ability to get things changed with protest, or that Bike Ottawa is often effective at getting things changed during the planning or functional design stages of large projects.

Barely. We have to complain A LOT, just to get little changes. It took a death to get a small change done to Laurier. And it's not even that great of a change either.

On the other hand transit users, groups, and even OC Transpo itself is often ineffectual at lobbying for transit priority.

As a transit user, I completely agree. The city pretty much ignores most issues and makes no attempts at small improvements.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Isn't it kind of ironic that the official reasoning for ditching the PoW bridge as a rail link directly contradicts the main argument you've been making for several pages now? That there aren't any ridership drivers?

How does an extension with no potential for ridership put Bayview at risk of being overloaded?

There are really two different issues.

Overloading the Bayview transfer only happens if the POW bridge is the main interprovincial transit crossing.

In the case of a Trillium Line extension to Zibi/Chaudiere, ridership potential is quite small and almost entirely restricted to peak periods.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Even if they use that little spur that goes to Zibi instead (and there are probably numerous reasons that isn't practical) the distances are about the same.

The point where the northbound rail line meets Taché is about 700m from the Governbunkers of Hull; depending on the exact route of a surface spur (let alone a tunnel), it could terminate at the Governbunkers themselves or across the street, or some other place that is closer to a Governbunker entrance than the up to 200m that existing O-train stations expect the worst-treated bus transfer passengers to walk.

You're trying to force a crossing at a point where the river is particularly wide

You're right. If only there was already a bridge of any kind at that location; a rail bridge would be even better.

From the existing Bayview to a notional Hull station is about 2000m of track, which is on a par with the distance on the Montreal metro between Berri-UQAM and Jean-Drapeau, but without the nuisance of having to dig a tunnel under the river.

and the main transit routes on both sides are particularly distant.

There are zero metres between Bayview Station and Bayview Station, and a spur to downtown Hull would put LRT immediately adjacent to the big civil servant bus loop at Terrasses, which is also, by volume, effectively a RapiBus station.

If a better transit connection to TdlC from Ottawa is really necessary,

Perhaps a "better" one is necessary.

That doesn't mean a somehow imperfect one should be thrown out.

something using the Chaudiere bridge (which I believe is anticipated to be replaced or significantly reconstructed) would be a much shorter, much more direct route.

Shorter and more direct for whom?

And until that shorter or more direct route (for whom) is built, a rail link that can't get tied up by pinch-point mixed-traffic bridges in the core would share the same advantages that the tunnel under downtown now does.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

There are really two different issues.

Overloading the Bayview transfer only happens if the POW bridge is the main interprovincial transit crossing.

In the case of a Trillium Line extension to Zibi/Chaudiere, ridership potential is quite small and almost entirely restricted to peak periods.

What is the data behind the pronouncement that "ridership potential is quite small"?

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

It's not that complicated at all: the proponent of a Gatineau LRT (whether the city, STO, province of Quebec, etc.) would seek the same approvals for a construction project in Ottawa, Ontario, as any other project proponent would.

It's a bit of an odd situation in Canada, where we only have one metropolitan area that spans a provincial boundary, but it's quite common in the U.S.

In the grand scheme of a multi-hundred-million-dollar project, the administrative and political approval issue of extending higher-order transit under, over, or through the Ottawa River, is almost trivial.

Good Day.

Yep.... the construction thereof is not the problem; as you say, happens all the time. Crossing the river is trivial to build.
But crossing the river is not trivial, politically.
Rather, I am referring to the approvals of the project as a whole (or in parts as necessary), and to the financing thereof.
Spending one province's money in what is seen as another province is political anathema (here in Canada), and potential political suicide for somebody.
And it is the fact that not only is there only one main example of a cross-border conurbation,
but that it is - horror of horrors - also the provincial political sinkhole known as - Ottawa / Gatineau / NCR.
So, yes, in the GRAND scheme of thinks (sic!) it should be a no-brainer for functionality and reasonableness to create co-joint systems.
But the reality says - Good Luck Charlie ! Which is why the only hope for plans such as these is to have the Feds step in full finance (with each City) for the respective pieces, when (not if) the respective provinces shrink back, shy away, and bail out on anything but the pieces purely within that province's jurisdiction.
So, my point of complexity stands, in that any plans have to calmly and specifically parse out those pieces intolerable to the provincial level, so as to apply standard funding requests to the regular pieces, and Fed-City funding requests to the cross-border pieces. And make them all tie together at the ends.

EnJoy!

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

There are really two different issues.

Overloading the Bayview transfer only happens if the POW bridge is the main interprovincial transit crossing.

In the case of a Trillium Line extension to Zibi/Chaudiere, ridership potential is quite small and almost entirely restricted to peak periods.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

What is the data behind the pronouncement that "ridership potential is quite small"?

Good Day.

Quantitatively, I doubt there are any numbers extant anywhere; possibly some exist to a small degree within STO and/or OC-T passenger studies/surveys.
Qualitatively, I must (however reluctantly) agree with lrt's friend,
with the proviso that probably the same opinion existed in terms of ridership potential for the original O-Train pilot planning in 1999.

There are some few Zibi residents and businesses; growing in future, but still small.
There are a chunk of Fed civil servants in TdlC which are basically rush load only, and not a 'huge' number.
If you add in those willing to walk over to Portage Complex, it is more, but still.....
There is on/off cross transfer traffic to STO either at Tache/Rapibus or TdlC.
Overall, it has to add up to a level of traffic best described as secondary.
Which is fine by me - I think it has the potential to grow, and is worth it in it's own right. But that's IMHO.
There is a possibility of a Gatineau LRT station somewhere in there, depending on how those plans develop, providing a transfer station possibility. Maybe.
Which would develop more customer traffic. Maybe.

To continue your analysis with reference to Montreal's Yellow Line - remember that that was built to service Expo 67. It was 'necessary'.
So was the plan extension to Longueuil - they saw the reasonable opportunity to reduce car traffic load big time, and got Longueuil to buy-in for long-term post Expo advantage (and yes, I mean buy in - we paid for it).
Conversely, the T-Line extension to TdlC / Zibi is not 'necessary', but would be useful, with potential. That is all it has going for it.

As for using a rebuilt Chaudiere bridge, for lrt,..... I just cannot see it there. The space is too confined unless massively rebuilt from scratch.
It does not align with either Gat's lrt plans, or with either of Ott's two lines.
And from what I recall of the plans for Zibi, they do not see -any- transit, let alone lrt, within their precinct.
Do correct me if I am wrong, but I saw nothing for transit in the diagrams published. They also really do not show a rebuilt bridge either.
A serious lack, IMHO - I recall thinking of both points when the plans came out.

So I will continue to advocate for the T-Line north, knowing that it grows less likely as time goes on, but ever hopeful (silly me).

EnJoy!

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day.

Quantitatively, I doubt there are any numbers extant anywhere; possibly some exist to a small degree within STO and/or OC-T passenger studies/surveys.
Qualitatively, I must (however reluctantly) agree with lrt's friend,
with the proviso that probably the same opinion existed in terms of ridership potential for the original O-Train pilot planning in 1999.

There are some few Zibi residents and businesses; growing in future, but still small.
There are a chunk of Fed civil servants in TdlC which are basically rush load only, and not a 'huge' number.
If you add in those willing to walk over to Portage Complex, it is more, but still.....
There is on/off cross transfer traffic to STO either at Tache/Rapibus or TdlC.
Overall, it has to add up to a level of traffic best described as secondary.
Which is fine by me - I think it has the potential to grow, and is worth it in it's own right. But that's IMHO.
There is a possibility of a Gatineau LRT station somewhere in there, depending on how those plans develop, providing a transfer station possibility. Maybe.
Which would develop more customer traffic. Maybe.

A key source of ridership missing from this list is Carleton students. Plenty of them live in Gatineau and would go out of their way to transfer to the Trillium Line, even if its Gatineau terminal was in a less than ideal place.

As for using a rebuilt Chaudiere bridge, for lrt,..... I just cannot see it there. The space is too confined unless massively rebuilt from scratch.
It does not align with either Gat's lrt plans, or with either of Ott's two lines.
And from what I recall of the plans for Zibi, they do not see -any- transit, let alone lrt, within their precinct.
Do correct me if I am wrong, but I saw nothing for transit in the diagrams published. They also really do not show a rebuilt bridge either.
A serious lack, IMHO - I recall thinking of both points when the plans came out.

So I will continue to advocate for the T-Line north, knowing that it grows less likely as time goes on, but ever hopeful (silly me).

EnJoy!

Unlike the PoW bridge, the STO's study outright rejected the Chaudiere bridge. PoW was identified as a secondary connection with the primary link being Portage, with Alexandra being an option for expansion.

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

A key source of ridership missing from this list is Carleton students. Plenty of them live in Gatineau and would go out of their way to transfer to the Trillium Line, even if its Gatineau terminal was in a less than ideal place.

Good Day.

! Thank You ! Total BrainOut !