ARG1
Senior Member
I think a better solution would be to have the subway run on the current SE Transitway corridor. Cheaper and more sensible.
|
|
|
Ottawa Transit Developments
- Thread starter Reecemartin
- Start date
Clinton Desveaux
New Member
The Ottawa/Gatineau Rail Loop is already going to move forward from what I was told this week.. And the Gatineau Train G is moving forward. So Bank Street would be its own I guess.
OCCheetos
Active Member
I don't know why so many newer concepts for a Bank Street line decide that Billings Bridge is a sensible terminus. It's even weirder to me when one of the ones I've seen recently took a diagram I made a few years ago and just cropped it at Billings..
I disagree because the SE Transitway honestly does a poor job of serving any of the areas south of Billings (compared to following Bank Street), and if we're already trying to cut costs like that then I don't think a Bank Street line even deserves to be built.
I disagree because the SE Transitway honestly does a poor job of serving any of the areas south of Billings (compared to following Bank Street), and if we're already trying to cut costs like that then I don't think a Bank Street line even deserves to be built.
jamincan
Active Member
I think there have been long-term plans for a transportation corridor connecting to the General Hospital and then south connecting to Conroy Rd. I think it's more likely to turn into a transit corridor in the future. Between upgrading the SE Transitway to rail and building rail in the hospital corridor, my money is the hospital corridor.
Allandale25
Senior Member
Clinton Desveaux
New Member
Well I hope you have enjoyed part 1 & 2 of my Ottawa Bank Street O-Train Tunnel 5 Part Series.
Part 1: the idea
https://lnkd.in/eQyEXrj
Part 2: community political support: https://lnkd.in/eFTVjU2
Upcoming Parts
Part 3: station locations, Ottawa Gatineau pop forecast and Ottawa South
Part 4: construction/engineering & tunnel depth, vehicle emission particulate matter, safety, congestion, and noise
Part 5: community groups & businesses and tourism
Part 1: the idea
https://lnkd.in/eQyEXrj
Part 2: community political support: https://lnkd.in/eFTVjU2
Upcoming Parts
Part 3: station locations, Ottawa Gatineau pop forecast and Ottawa South
Part 4: construction/engineering & tunnel depth, vehicle emission particulate matter, safety, congestion, and noise
Part 5: community groups & businesses and tourism
A Torontonian Now
Senior Member
I love the map by the Bank Street group - it shows a great future network.
I think the Carling-Rideau portion is a greater need, and ought to proceed first. It would include a stint on Bank and so could have infill downtown stations along Bank at Somerset and Catherine, possibly even one in the Glebe before turning west.
As a savings (at least on a relative basis - this line would be expensive), I am not convinced the entire Carling-Rideau line would need to be tunneled. It would obviously need to be buried (possibly cut and cover) along whatever alignment cuts through the west part of the Glebe from Carling to Bank Street, as well as along Bank Street downtown. It should not share the existing Confederation Line tunnel downtown, but could turn east along Wellington and emerge prior to the canal. There is enough roadway for it to cross along Sapper's bridge, and to interchange with Rideau station with this line being on the surface. I am agnostic about whether it ought to enter a new tunnel for the balance of Rideau Street or if it could function in a protected right of way. with Rideau reduced to a single traffic lane in either direction. If it does go back underground, it ought to emerge to be a surface route along Montreal Road and Blair.
Similarly, most of Carling could be a surface route. Certainly through the experimental farm it could have a protected alignment just south of Carling. There may be some tight points where it ought to be buried west of that, but could emerge as a right of way probably west of Churchill.
Growing up in the south end, I always dreamed of a Bank Street subway, initially along the exact stretch proposed (Billings to Wellington), and then possibly extended along Bank further south. I do think that given the existing plans for Line 2, as well as the existing southeast transitway, it just is not a priority as there are other, albeit significantly longer, ways to get downtown from Billings. Basically, the potential cost likely outweighs the benefit for the near or medium term.
I think the Carling-Rideau portion is a greater need, and ought to proceed first. It would include a stint on Bank and so could have infill downtown stations along Bank at Somerset and Catherine, possibly even one in the Glebe before turning west.
As a savings (at least on a relative basis - this line would be expensive), I am not convinced the entire Carling-Rideau line would need to be tunneled. It would obviously need to be buried (possibly cut and cover) along whatever alignment cuts through the west part of the Glebe from Carling to Bank Street, as well as along Bank Street downtown. It should not share the existing Confederation Line tunnel downtown, but could turn east along Wellington and emerge prior to the canal. There is enough roadway for it to cross along Sapper's bridge, and to interchange with Rideau station with this line being on the surface. I am agnostic about whether it ought to enter a new tunnel for the balance of Rideau Street or if it could function in a protected right of way. with Rideau reduced to a single traffic lane in either direction. If it does go back underground, it ought to emerge to be a surface route along Montreal Road and Blair.
Similarly, most of Carling could be a surface route. Certainly through the experimental farm it could have a protected alignment just south of Carling. There may be some tight points where it ought to be buried west of that, but could emerge as a right of way probably west of Churchill.
Growing up in the south end, I always dreamed of a Bank Street subway, initially along the exact stretch proposed (Billings to Wellington), and then possibly extended along Bank further south. I do think that given the existing plans for Line 2, as well as the existing southeast transitway, it just is not a priority as there are other, albeit significantly longer, ways to get downtown from Billings. Basically, the potential cost likely outweighs the benefit for the near or medium term.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Bank St subway is such a hilariously Ottawa pipedream. Multi-billion dollar subway, for a corridor that at its furthest point is 2 km from a heavy rail transit corridor. And that's before we get to the fact that Bank St. runs through some of the wealthiest neighbourhoods in Ottawa, who would all be extremely opposed to the kind of densification necessary to justify a subway line.
Heck, these folks don't even ride the bus enough today. Your average suburban avenue in the 416 has higher bus frequency and fuller buses than Bank St ever will. Meanwhile all these same proponents will ignore corridors like Rideau-Montreal which actually has ridership, development potential and far less NIMBYism. All because of some weird Ottawa envy of the Yonge line.
Nobody at Queen's Park will ever fund this literal pipedream. But the real risk of the Bank St subway fixation is that a lot of other transit issues in Ottawa get ignored. One would think they'd focus on their ridiculously infrequent (for a major city) bus service before fixating on a subway for the rich. But hey it's Ottawa....
Heck, these folks don't even ride the bus enough today. Your average suburban avenue in the 416 has higher bus frequency and fuller buses than Bank St ever will. Meanwhile all these same proponents will ignore corridors like Rideau-Montreal which actually has ridership, development potential and far less NIMBYism. All because of some weird Ottawa envy of the Yonge line.
Nobody at Queen's Park will ever fund this literal pipedream. But the real risk of the Bank St subway fixation is that a lot of other transit issues in Ottawa get ignored. One would think they'd focus on their ridiculously infrequent (for a major city) bus service before fixating on a subway for the rich. But hey it's Ottawa....
Clinton Desveaux
New Member
Ottawa Bank Street O-Train Tunnel Video
Agreed. I kind of suspected they were going to go that route. When you look at all of the Confederation Line signage, particularly locations where the (1) is shown, they all leave room for additional icons.
The one thing I would change is I would have flipped the 1 and 3 in the west end. I think it makes more sense to have Line 1 run east-west across the entire city, and have Line 3 be the one that dips south.
One thing I really wish they had built into the Confederation Line design was building Hurdman as a 3-track, 2 platform station. This would have allowed Line 3 to terminate there (the train using the middle track, which accesses both platforms, to short-turn), and would have given Southeast Transitway riders the option to board an empty train.
Deadpool X
Senior Member
I wonder what made Ottawa go crazy on building LRT lines at this pace when they had built barely anything until 2015. What changed suddenly to warrant building multiple lines at the same time like that?
This plan has been in the works for decades. I remember going to public consultations for the City's Official Plan back in 2000, and the TMP even back then was very LRT-focused. The biggest obstacle was the downtown tunnel, which required a TMP reset, but was ultimately the right move to adopt.
Once the tunnel part was in place, it was pretty well understood by Planners at the time that the rest of the network could be completed pretty easily, since with the exception of a few pieces, the rest of the proposed network would either be a conversion of the existing Transitway ROW, was vacant ROW that was specifically reserved for transit, or would fit into other publicly-owned ROWs (such as the 174 corridor).
Outside of the downtown tunnel, the only part of the network that was really a question mark as to where it would go was the section between Dominion and Lincoln Fields. This is specifically why Phase 1 ended at Tunney's, because the City knew they couldn't do both a tunnel debate and a Byron Linear Park/SJAM Parkway debate at the same time.
Last edited:
tayser
Active Member
Two interchanges to get to town from the airport? Ouch.
Deadpool X
Senior Member
What's the reason for not interlining lines 2 and 4?
tayser
Active Member
Isn't it single track with loops for much of its length? (i.e capacity becomes an issue).
In saying that (and my previous post), based on what's been said about our recently double-announced (dont ask) Melbourne airport rail link, we should all not focus too much on CBD/downtown - airport jouirneys... Politicians here said modelling for us shows only 6% of journeys will be from the CBD (they've made a point of designing it as a new branch of the mega-line created with the Melb Metro tunnel so you get 1 seat journeys from the airport to ~30-35 stations versus only a handful). I guess in Ottawa's case, this would be like if line 2 were double-tracked and extended over the river to serve Gatineau as well.
In saying that (and my previous post), based on what's been said about our recently double-announced (dont ask) Melbourne airport rail link, we should all not focus too much on CBD/downtown - airport jouirneys... Politicians here said modelling for us shows only 6% of journeys will be from the CBD (they've made a point of designing it as a new branch of the mega-line created with the Melb Metro tunnel so you get 1 seat journeys from the airport to ~30-35 stations versus only a handful). I guess in Ottawa's case, this would be like if line 2 were double-tracked and extended over the river to serve Gatineau as well.