|
|
|
Turning into a trail is the same thing as destroying it. If they were to tear it down, they would have the same chance of ever seeing it used for rail again as if they turn it into a trail. When has a rail trail ever been returned to rail use in Canada? The pushback would be crazy.
I'm just glad I don't live in a city as looney as Ottawa.
About to receive federal approval and funding.
With the way they are doing it, they would be better off building a new bridge than they would be trying to tell residents that their trail is becoming a rail line and that comes with cost.
You seem to have a disdain for commuter and regional rail.
One of the nice things about it is that it allows people in the GTA with a great alternative to the freeways, and that it provides further reaching benefits than LRT in many circumstances.
The same could be said for an ancient single track rail bridge. It wouldn't actually be substantially practical for high frequency transit operations either. And the Gatineau side is exponentially worse than Ottawa because there is no actual passenger rail service on any of the tracks there. Heck, there's even a bridge where asphalt was laid between the tracks so that buses can use it most of the time with freight running at night.
I have a disdain for sprawl be it ransit or auto induced.
This sounds great in theory. It's a nice fiction that 905ers all tell themselves.
In reality, GO has enabled low density suburban living because the communities serviced outside the 416 weren't interested in transit oriented development at all, and GO happily played along with gigantic parking lots. Ultimately, we still ended up building plenty of freeways because all those suburbanites drive everywhere, except to work. Imagine a world where GO didn't exist. Toronto would have ended up as dense as Montreal, with an equally dense subway network.
Regional rail works just fine when paired with appropriate zoning forcing TOD and density. But no municipalities in the GTA were really willing to do that until forced to do so by the province. And these municipalities hoping for regional rail in Ottawa are too small to even have such rules imposed on them.
Ultimately, this entire discussion can be summed up thusly. These communities are too small to support regional rail service. And will require both substantial subsidies and massive growth driven by cheap low density real estate to support such services. None of this benefits taxpayers in Ottawa. In fact, absent several hundred million dollars, Ottawa residents would actually see worse service if existing track capacity had to be shared with a commuter rail service. So MOOSE and its sycophants want Ottawa taxpayers to possibly accept worse transit service and subsidize ex-urban sprawl with their tax dollars.
There's no need for a regional rail system to serve a bunch of hamlets and towns with a few thousand people each. Especially not if that takes up finite track capacity and impacts the services of Ottawa residents.
And if anybody was going to setup such a system, it most definitely shouldn't be the responsibility of the City of Ottawa. Let those communities petition Queen's Park to set up a GO system to serve them. I don't see why Ottawa taxpayers should subsidize their commutes.
You can disagree, but this is literally what the basis of MOOSE's proposal was. It was called "Property powered rail". The proposal specifically pitched outlying communities on the prospect of gaining substantial development based on offering commuter rail service.
Ottawa residents don't pay taxes to the City of Ottawa to have it spent on commuters from elsewhere. I'd go so far as to say that major metros like Ottawa should consider congestion charges that specifically target these out of town residents who are basically resorting to sprawl arbitrage on the backs of urban and suburban ratepayers. Let's see how many people would commute from Arnprior if they had to pay $5 every time they entered Ottawa.
The whole, "not just for Ottawa" thing sounds nice, don't you think?
Look, I'm not saying that Ottawa had to pay for the whole thing and I'm not sayint we had to go with Moose Rail, what I am saying is that the idea of having a regional rail system in the Ottawa area is something that should have been more seriously looked at.
An Ottawa area regional system could have been funded with help of the province and I totally disagree that it would have created transit-induced sprawl. In essence, what the whole laser focus on LRT did was let other rail infrastructure deteriorate, thus trapping residents who don't live in Ottawa in their cars unless they want to take a bus that gets stuck in traffic. But it would seem that in the whole concept of "density", it is forgotten that people in other town exist and should also have good mobility options that don't require rubber tires.
The nice thing about commuter/regional rail is that since it uses existing infrastructure, it isn't nearly as costly, and its benefits are more widely spread.
What is the worst thing about all of this is that this rail link is being permanently closed. There will likely never be another interprovincial (national) rail link to Gatineau after this which is very frustrating.
I would be willing to concede that Ottawa's further flung communities don't need commuter service RIGHT NOW, but you also have to consider the future.
As a major city, Ottawa has one of the lowest population densities in Canada. This was fueled through decades of suburban development and freeways.
expensive new LRT lines rather than using what they already have.
Also, to say GO was a bad thing is because of sprawl is mental gymnastics.
GO helped to manage the sprawl in a more sustainable way.
No GO means you trap millions in their cars which creates huge congestion problems for Toronto.
And honestly, if some sprawl means that we have a frequent service that allows people to travel around the GTA without needing a car, that was a worthy sacrifice.
It is really nice to be able to go to a Blue Jays game or concert and not worry about parking.
Let's clarify what I mean by commuter rail. By commuter rail, I mean a DMU style service with trains similar to that of the Trillium line, just with lower frequency and to further flung destinations. Not 12 car bi-level trains. Low cost to implement on existing infrastructure.
I'm not saying this plan is improving the density of Ottawa, what I am saying is that Ottawa has a lot of suburbs, and those suburbs are not going to go away. Unless you accomodate them with well connected transit, they are going to be a major source of congestion for you. And you can still build light rail for dense areas since the cost of building a Trillium Line style commuter service to some of the suburbs and yes, Gatineau, would be fractional to existing LRT plans. Regional rail would even help boost the usage of light rail in Ottawa if connected well. The problem is, total lack of coordination between all levels of government makes this difficult to achieve, but taking infrastructure that could be used for such a service and decommisioning it takes the difficult and makes it impossible.
I can't wish for something that already exists. I can only wish for something that can help manage the consequences of decades of development
The highways were vastly more responsible for this than GO.
No GO means people still move to Brampton, Mississauga, Oakville and others, but just drive.
We can't all live in downtown Toronto
Frankly, the Prince of Wales Bridge is a low priority transit corridor. It will not be used by Gatineau's STO as it is too far west of downtown and it would be a horrendous error to transfer all STO passengers at Bayview. Turning the POW bridge into a multi-use pathway at least preserves the bridge and turns what is becoming an eyesore and public hazard into a public asset. It does not preclude returning the bridge to rail use but I don't see that becoming a priority for decades. A future pathway can be built off the side of the bridge if rail is returned.Also, the fact that they are so hellbent on removing rails over the structure is so illogical. They are going out of their way to prevent rail use and it makes no sense. Rails WITH trails is a thing, and any added cost in doing so would surely be worth it, especially for a city with the resources of Ottawa.
It doesn't make sense to build a pathway off the side in the future if it can be done now. Converting the bridge into a pathway without explicit accommodations for future rail is a very short-sighted move. The city bought the bridge in 2005 for transit, and it should be held to that. It is very easy to build pedestrian crossings or modify existing structures to accommodate pedestrians. It is much more of an ordeal to try to build a new rail structure.
Also, the fact that they are so hellbent on removing rails over the structure is so illogical. They are going out of their way to prevent rail use and it makes no sense. Rails WITH trails is a thing, and any added cost in doing so would surely be worth it, especially for a city with the resources of Ottawa.
