(08-28-2018, 04:52 PM)drum118 Wrote: [ -> ]Having a crossing from Traynor to Fairview should had shown up during the EA stage.
It was clear to me when I walked the route at the start of construction that there should be a crossing or 2 in the area, otherwise would piss off the residents and force them to do long walks or getting into a car to drive to X. Lets see how long it takes to get a crossing in, but will be in 2019.
It will still be interesting to see who has their line open first for KW or Ottawa. By rights, KW should be open first based on what I saw in Ottawa a few weeks ago.
As far as I know, only one station in Ottawa is completed and never saw it. What I saw from the downtown to the last station in the west, maybe ready early 2019. Was told by family and others, the contractor is working 7/24 and supposed to turn the system over to the city in early Nov and the city opening the line by the end of Nov.
Caught a few videos of testing the new cars that were using both tracks at the same time in the same direction. If it wasn't for the rain, would have got more at a better location.
https://youtu.be/4oyqY0_jSCU
https://youtu.be/l-ky7afvoac
https://youtu.be/TwvxyrMq5pE
https://youtu.be/pdrnP_jA51U
The need for a crossing came up during the EA stage but no formal need arose because the area was a hydro corridor and all the crossings through that area were informal and no residents from the area expressed the need for one during the EA stage.
(08-28-2018, 04:57 PM)panamaniac Wrote: [ -> ]At the moment, it looks like Ottawa will open first.
Maybe yes. But apart from the station construction referenced above, their trains aren't complete yet, either.
(08-28-2018, 05:17 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-28-2018, 04:57 PM)panamaniac Wrote: [ -> ]At the moment, it looks like Ottawa will open first.
Maybe yes. But apart from the station construction referenced above, their trains aren't complete yet, either.
Are they not? I thought they were up and running. I confess that I haven't followed developments here in Ottawa very closely.
(08-28-2018, 05:42 PM)panamaniac Wrote: [ -> ] (08-28-2018, 05:17 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe yes. But apart from the station construction referenced above, their trains aren't complete yet, either.
Are they not? I thought they were up and running. I confess that I haven't followed developments here in Ottawa very closely.
Not all of them, at least (similar situation to ours), according to the CBC:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ot...-1.4784052
(08-29-2018, 01:23 PM)jeffster Wrote: [ -> ] (08-28-2018, 06:09 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: [ -> ]My money is on Ottawa starting first; I don't think it will even be close.
They seem much further along in testing and vehicle assembly.
This Ottawa council has a list of official recent updates (mostly PDFed photos).
They sure have a lot of the system underground. Really sucks that we couldn't have done that here, but I guess money is more available in Ottawa.
What is the value in putting the system underground?
It's a lot money, so we should try to be clear about what benefits we hope to achieve by burying it.
I don't see any value that could be gained by burying our system. If grade separation was important, I would rather elevate than bury.
Ottawa had the advantage of much better geology. They have very solid bedrock, very close under the surface, that can mostly hold itself up.
We have sand, and high water tables. Not very helpful at all.
Burying under downtown is also arguably one of the sole reasons they embarked on the LRT conversion. The system worked reasonably well out in the suburbs. It was an nightmare downtown, even when I lived there 20 years ago. Ottawa didn't really have a choice but to bury it.
(08-29-2018, 02:53 PM)jamincan Wrote: [ -> ]Burying under downtown is also arguably one of the sole reasons they embarked on the LRT conversion. The system worked reasonably well out in the suburbs. It was an nightmare downtown, even when I lived there 20 years ago. Ottawa didn't really have a choice but to bury it.
A big part of that is that the city designed seemingly every route to go along that buried stretch. They were very big fans of the transfer-less system, where you could hop on a bus at the end of your obscure cul-de-sac in Kanata or Orleans, and get delivered 20+ kilometers to Tunney's Pasture, where countless government employees work. A single-transfer system might have bought them a lot more time.
(08-29-2018, 02:53 PM)jamincan Wrote: [ -> ]Burying under downtown is also arguably one of the sole reasons they embarked on the LRT conversion. The system worked reasonably well out in the suburbs. It was an nightmare downtown, even when I lived there 20 years ago. Ottawa didn't really have a choice but to bury it.
They did have an option of not burying it. It's always a question of tradeoffs. What was the benefit of burying it? The alternative is taking a lane of traffic and giving priority at all the intersections. Value in burying it is to give more space for cars. The same is true here, and given how little traffic congestion we have, I believe burying (or elevating) the LRT would have been a big waste of money.
But no matter* where it is always remember that the main beneficiary of burying transit is generally automobile traffic.**
* Up to a certain density only seen in places like Manhattan or maybe downtown Toronto, but not Ottawa, and with other obvious geological exceptions like rivers and mountains. And of course it is also technically possible to replace the space with something else (a greenspace, bike lanes, buildings) but AFAIK this is not the typical case.
** This is not an attack on cars, or a value judgement. But it is important to understand what exactly we get for our money.
[
attachment=5476]I had my first LRT spotting today while at DTK for a meeting. and low and behold, the train had to stop and wait while it blew its horn...
(08-29-2018, 01:23 PM)jeffster Wrote: [ -> ]They sure have a lot of the system underground. Really sucks that we couldn't have done that here, but I guess money is more available in Ottawa.
Last time I looked at plans it seemed the only part underground is the bit through Downtown. There are some trenched areas but those were already trenched for the Transitway. By “a lot” do you just mean “more than ours”?
As to our system, I’m not sure where you would bury it. Uptown is one candidate but the creek probably makes that impractical (not impossible; just really expensive, even by the standards of a buried system).
(08-29-2018, 03:27 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2018, 02:53 PM)jamincan Wrote: [ -> ]Burying under downtown is also arguably one of the sole reasons they embarked on the LRT conversion. The system worked reasonably well out in the suburbs. It was an nightmare downtown, even when I lived there 20 years ago. Ottawa didn't really have a choice but to bury it.
They did have an option of not burying it. It's always a question of tradeoffs. What was the benefit of burying it? The alternative is taking a lane of traffic and giving priority at all the intersections. Value in burying it is to give more space for cars. The same is true here, and given how little traffic congestion we have, I believe burying (or elevating) the LRT would have been a big waste of money.
But no matter* where it is always remember that the main beneficiary of burying transit is generally automobile traffic.**
* Up to a certain density only seen in places like Manhattan or maybe downtown Toronto, but not Ottawa, and with other obvious geological exceptions like rivers and mountains. And of course it is also technically possible to replace the space with something else (a greenspace, bike lanes, buildings) but AFAIK this is not the typical case.
** This is not an attack on cars, or a value judgement. But it is important to understand what exactly we get for our money.
Ottawa did have bus lanes in that section, so it would have been a change from bus lanes that had to deal with traffic lights to light rail lines that had to deal with traffic lights. I expect a lot of bus routes will still use those corridors, whereas they would need to turn those into transit-only routes to keep LRT and buses there (so that each had a way to offload passengers while not interfering with the other public transit vehicle type).