[OCCheetos]

With stage 2 and eventually stage 3 being built, won't it just be an orphaned thing of the past?

As mentioned, it serves a pretty important role in providing transit in Alta Vista, Uplands, Greenboro, and the general hospital. Plus it will be a part of the future Baseline BRT.

Once the Trillium Line starts carrying the bulk of the South Keys area ridership, the SE Transitway will be a bit of an orphan. Yes, it will still have utility as the defacto extension of the Baseline BRT, but there are other options for that corridor for sure.

Well no, not really. The Trillium Line dodges everything north of Walkley. The South Keys to Walkley stretch will still be required for all Greenboro and Uplands transit for connections to Billings Bridge (local service) or Hurdman (either to head eastbound, or to Lees + uOttawa for instance). The Trillium Line isn't a replacement for that kind of service.

If anything, the new Line 2 stations at South Keys and Walkley will generate new trips since they open up travel options that weren't really possible or convenient before.

 

[micheal_can]

There aren't many trip generators, apart from the Riverside Hospital. It wouldn't be cheap, and then we run into the cost-benefit problem, which dictates that there is probably a better use for money somewhere else.

Since the 80s, has there been a change in the trip generators along this section? If there has, then your argument is moot.

Given the soil conditions in "Sandy Hill", cut and cover would be the safest option to avoid another sinkhole. Remember, U Ottawa station was initially proposed to be underground, and they shifted the portal back to just south of Laurier due primarily to soil conditions.

Good to know. Cut and cover sounds like the most sensible thing to do then

Once the Trillium Line starts carrying the bulk of the South Keys area ridership, the SE Transitway will be a bit of an orphan. Yes, it will still have utility as the defacto extension of the Baseline BRT, but there are other options for that corridor for sure.

For what it's worth, I still think redirecting and electrifying the Trillium Line under Bank St is a better option than routing to Union, but the Union option should at least be given a preliminary look before being discarded. And FWIW, the alignment I prefer is current alignment to Carleton, then under Colonel By to Bank, then up Bank. That way you still maintain access to Carleton.

There is a pretty good chance no one will look at the reactivation of Union till the LRT is at crush load. Even then, there's a good chance no one will be this bold. Seriously, prior to me bringing it up, did anyone really even think of it?

That's why I proposed Line 5, which would use the Line 2 corridor north of Ellwood Diamond. Line 2 customers would be able to transfer to Line 5 at Billings. This routing would also have the secondary benefit of connecting Carleton directly to Billings.

Do you have some sort of map of the different lines you speak of?

My preferred overall phasing would be this:

1) Complete Phase 3 of the existing plan.

2) Convert the SE Transitway to rail (flexible enough configuration to be used by DMUs, VIA, or whatever else). Add Line 5 (the U line) and extend Line 4 to terminate at Hurdman. This would at least avoid having to make 2 transfers to get from the Airport to downtown. This configuration would mean that you would have Lines 2 and 5 terminating at Bayview, and Lines 4 and 5 terminating at Hurdman. Line 5 would also provide a downtown bypass option.

3) Add Line 6, which would be a Beachburg Sub line that would run from Hurdman, via the SE Transitway corridor to Ellwood Diamond, then hop on the Beachburg Sub through Nepean (transfer to Line 1 at Knoxdale Station) and up to the north end of Kanata or to Carp.

4) Examine options for a Bank St Subway, or extending all services that would end at Hurdman into Union station instead. If the Bank St Subway option is chosen, use the alignment I proposed above (Carleton/Colonel By/Bank) and have the future Carling LRT join that corridor around Dow's Lake.

These are great ideas.

As others have mentioned, its capacity is limited by single track sections, particularly the Rideau River bridge and the Dow's Lake tunnel. Upgrade those two infrastructure items and you could have the line running subway-level frequencies.

And with a Union option, I don't know if you'd need to convert the whole line to electric. You could go with some sort of battery hybrid option that would work for the relatively short tunnel stretch.

And neither option would be cheap, I'm just saying study the alternatives instead of assuming that Bank St Subway is the best way to go.

By the time they plan to do that, there might be other technologies, but the bridge and tunnel are the first hurdles to get over.

Which is why nobody is looking at this from a VIA perspective.

With the new Siemens equipment, it can run in reverse at track speeds. There is no reason it couldn't serve the downtown Union station if it ever got built. I don't expect the station to ever be done, but if it were, at least to the 2050s. If that is the case, there is no reason that it can't. Eventually, the bean counters will figure out whether it is worth the extra time.

 

[ARG1]

With the new Siemens equipment, it can run in reverse at track speeds. There is no reason it couldn't serve the downtown Union station if it ever got built. I don't expect the station to ever be done, but if it were, at least to the 2050s. If that is the case, there is no reason that it can't. Eventually, the bean counters will figure out whether it is worth the extra time.

Literally makes no sense. Most trains will be passing by Ottawa going between Montreal and Toronto. Going to Union Station is quite literally a waste of time. Please, you have 2 people defending your idea, don't scorched earth any merit your idea has.

 

[micheal_can]

Literally makes no sense. Most trains will be passing by Ottawa going between Montreal and Toronto. Going to Union Station is quite literally a waste of time. Please, you have 2 people defending your idea, don't scorched earth any merit your idea has.

I don't mind if everyone thinks I am crazy.
I don't mind if my ideas seem odd.

Pretend you are a business person, or a government employee and you need to go downtown Ottawa. If you take the train to Ottawa, would you rather be within walking distance of where you need to be, or still need a transfer to the LRT?

 

[ARG1]

I don't mind if everyone thinks I am crazy.
I don't mind if my ideas seem odd.

Pretend you are a business person, or a government employee and you need to go downtown Ottawa. If you take the train to Ottawa, would you rather be within walking distance of where you need to be, or still need a transfer to the LRT?

Is it worth to prioritize the few people going to Ottawa, or the many people going to Montreal?

 

[DirectionNorth]

Since the 80s, has there been a change in the trip generators along this section? If there has, then your argument is moot.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Good to know. Cut and cover sounds like the most sensible thing to do then

Cut and cover besides a canal? Or along Nicholas, disrupting the LRT line?

There is a pretty good chance no one will look at the reactivation of Union till the LRT is at crush load. Even then, there's a good chance no one will be this bold. Seriously, prior to me bringing it up, did anyone really even think of it?

Because it's such a terrible idea?

By the time they plan to do that, there might be other technologies, but the bridge and tunnel are the first hurdles to get over.

$$$

 

[micheal_can]

Is it worth to prioritize the few people going to Ottawa, or the many people going to Montreal?

You mean is it worth prioritizing adding a stub station when one place already has one? Look at Central station. Correct me if I am wrong, but trains cannot continue through it.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You need to help me out on how there are 2 wrongs with the trip generation.

Cut and cover besides a canal? Or along Nicholas, disrupting the LRT line?

The great thing is, they can drain the canal with no long term negative effects. TBH,, I don't know what is the best way to do it, but if they were to do it, I'd expect engineers would think of the water in the canal.

Because it's such a terrible idea?

No one has been able to show it is a terrible idea. At best, people have shown that it is not something to be done in the short term.

$$$

I hate to break it to you, but all new things that the governments do cost $$$.....

 

[lenaitch]

It's pretty hard to counter an idea that comes out of the blue with little to no known details other than a suggestion of 'why don't they do [x]'. One sides view that something is not feasible/too expensive/just plain dumb/etc. is just as valid as the other side's 'no it's not' or 'prove me wrong'.

I vote for a transit mall to be included in the rebuilding of the Centre Block, and that there be a dedicated line from Rockcliffe Park with a stop at Rideau Hall and 24 Sussex. So there.

 

[Urban Sky]

It's pretty hard to counter an idea that comes out of the blue with little to no known details other than a suggestion of 'why don't they do [x]'. One sides view that something is not feasible/too expensive/just plain dumb/etc. is just as valid as the other side's 'no it's not' or 'prove me wrong'.

This is why I usually ask what exactly the problem is which ought to be addressed with such an intervention. People who introduce their ideas with „why don‘t they do [x]?“ or „wouldn’t it be great if [y]?“ have had usually already chosen their prefered transport mode („we need more trains!“) before they looked at where they might be able to apply it…

 

[DirectionNorth]

You mean is it worth prioritizing adding a stub station when one place already has one? Look at Central station. Correct me if I am wrong, but trains cannot continue through it.

How many VIA trips go through Montreal? If HFR is built, how many trips will go through Ottawa?

Remember that Ottawa is a car-focused city, much more than Montreal is (or we are). The Tremblay location is, in reality, much better for Ottawa's population.

You need to help me out on how there are 2 wrongs with the trip generation.

I say that there are few generators. You say that there's been no change since the 1980s, which could be sunk cost fallacy, or an argument that there are enough trip generators. But given your history, I'm leaning towards the former.

The great thing is, they can drain the canal with no long term negative effects. TBH,, I don't know what is the best way to do it, but if they were to do it, I'd expect engineers would think of the water in the canal.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but what would be the increased costs of summertime drainage? Political pushback? (The canal being UNESCO and all)

No one has been able to show it is a terrible idea. At best, people have shown that it is not something to be done in the short term.

You're the one proposing a Union Station. You need to show us why it's a good idea, which I don't see.

I hate to break it to you, but all new things that the governments do cost $$$.....

Which are better value than a Union Station ... it's always about the cost/benefit ratio.

 

[micheal_can]

It's pretty hard to counter an idea that comes out of the blue with little to no known details other than a suggestion of 'why don't they do [x]'. One sides view that something is not feasible/too expensive/just plain dumb/etc. is just as valid as the other side's 'no it's not' or 'prove me wrong'.

Any and all future ideas could be feasible, and could be worth the cost, but most people only look 5-10 years down the line.

I vote for a transit mall to be included in the rebuilding of the Centre Block, and that there be a dedicated line from Rockcliffe Park with a stop at Rideau Hall and 24 Sussex. So there.

What is the reasoning to do that? What current or future need would it fill?

How many VIA trips go through Montreal? If HFR is built, how many trips will go through Ottawa?

If you look at pre covid times, there are 5 trains each way a day that pass through Montreal between Ottawa and Quebec City.Pre covid, there were 10 trains each way between Toronto and Ottawa that terminated or started in Ottawa. To me, that sounds like if they served the downtown Union station in Ottawa and terminated or started from there, it might make sense.

Remember that Ottawa is a car-focused city, much more than Montreal is (or we are). The Tremblay location is, in reality, much better for Ottawa's population.

And at$2 a litre, there are conversations about giving up the car. I am willing to be that a shift from owning more than 1 car per household will happen in the next 5-10 years. That means that a large station devoid of housing, and no easy connection to the station isn't so appealing. If the government will let Via take up the slack that many are looking at, we could see a renaissance in rail travel.

I say that there are few generators. You say that there's been no change since the 1980s, which could be sunk cost fallacy, or an argument that there are enough trip generators. But given your history, I'm leaning towards the former.

Actually, I was trying to point out the reverse - that since the 1980s, the trip generators have increased, and it would be foolish to ignore that increase.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but what would be the increased costs of summertime drainage? Political pushback? (The canal being UNESCO and all)

You bring up very interesting points.

Summertime drainage- can be mitigated.

Political push back -Doing this kind of project would need to be seen as it would be political suicide if it was not done. In that case, the push back would be lower. You will always have push back, but that does not mean we should do nothing.

UNESCO - If the canal and grounds around it remain as it was, but the road was ripped up to get the train lines down to the station, I don't think it would lose its designation.

You're the one proposing a Union Station. You need to show us why it's a good idea, which I don't see.

Some people will never see things as good, and that is ok with me.

Which are better value than a Union Station ... it's always about the cost/benefit ratio.

Did I suggest it to be the next big thing?
Nope. Like I said, I doubt if it is on anyone's radar, and that is good as it is not anywhere near a priority.

 

[KevinT]

You mean is it worth prioritizing adding a stub station when one place already has one? Look at Central station. Correct me if I am wrong, but trains cannot continue through it.

Yes, and Central station isn't between the two biggest trip generators in the country, it is one of the biggest trip generators in the country. Major difference.

 

[Urban Sky]

Friendly reminder that the topic of this thread is „Moose Rail (National Capital Region)“. There is a thread for almost every possible topic and if there isn’t one already, it can be created within seconds…

 

[lenaitch]

Any and all future ideas could be feasible, and could be worth the cost, but most people only look 5-10 years down the line

Fair enough, but perhaps more properly discussed in an existing fantasy thread. There's little to no way to either justify or denigrate it.

What is the reasoning to do that? What current or future need would it fill?

No clue. I just tossed out an idea. I thought that's what we were doing.

 

[kEiThZ]

Because it's such a terrible idea?

And literally not in any plan or even discussed in public in Ottawa. The Bank St subway has a better chance of happening than this.

Not in the least because the public in Ottawa isn't asking for commuter rail. They want LRT extensions to their hood. And nobody cares about VIA Rail moving downtown.

Let's not forget that none of this is free. And if you asked Ottawa residents whether they'd rather pay a billion for a reactivation of Union or put the towards an LRT extension, people would laugh that this is even a question.