Tearing down the Queensway

[JM1]

I was thinking that if you were to somehow manage a cut and cover operation for the 417 between, say Preston and the Rideau River, would the building space above it and the development rights justify the cost?

My guess is that the answer is yes. You could improve N-S road connections, and possibly even make way for an additional E-W LRT while simultaneously burying a noisy roadway. Between the sale of rights to the land, developmetn fees, and city taxes, it probably would not be too costly to pay the whole operation off (especially since it is not a tunnel, but a cut and cover operation).

Any views?

MOD EDIT: Changed the thread title from "417 Land Value" to "Tearing Down the Queensway" to reflect the discussion
-WW

[c_speed3108]

I can't really see it being feasible on only a dollars and cents stand-point.

Even if you took just a limited stretch - say the Canal to Bronson or so.

You would gain about 10 city blocks of space, give or take, as you would still need space for ramps and whatnot.

Even if you could build the tunnel for for say 500 million, that would mean you would need to raise an average of 50 million per city block. I can't see the land going for that much.

[McC]

the accounting could include land sale, development charges and property taxes over the debt repayment period for the tunnel, but I still don't know if it would have a positive net present value.

[Harley613]

i wonder how it worked when montreal built the ville-marie tunnel....i don't think there was an existing expressway on that route, i think they built it under existing real estate. the opposite of what we are talking about here, yet similar in design.

[Kitchissippi]

The fact that you can still get a detached house in Centretown north of the Queensway for less than $500K (http://www1.ottawarealestate.org/main/Details_RES.aspx?lid=g48e55nu1qi6mq0um20w451zelt3md), means that land isn't that valuable in that area.

For an inner city freeway, the Queensway is not that bad, it does not seen as visually divisive as an elevated highway like Toronto's Gardiner or Montreal's Metropolitain. The fact that it's built on a mound makes bridge replacement easy, as we've been witnessing in the Carling area. If anything, the sidewalks that pass underneath could just use better lighting and some aesthetic treatment to tie it to either side better.

[Aylmer]

I think it would be very interesting to do something with the Queensway. The way I see it, there are two options:

- Sink it: out of sight, out of mind, out of pocket.
- 'Embarcadero' it: along with adequate transit and an attractive (and cross-able) design, it could be a very interesting option

If my descriptions aren't enough of a hint, I'd be more favourable of making it into a boulevard. I'd imagine that most of the traffic from both sides of the Queensway turns north towards Downtown, I wouldn't think that traffic would be any worse than it is now. Plus, you could easily have rapid transit along the route (maybe it would integrate into our Bank st. subway!).

Who knows?

http://intermediatelandscapes.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/embarcadero.jpg

[Harley613]

it's already woefully inadequate capacity wise, i don't think boulevarding it would be a good idea! since a ring road isn't in the cards anymore i think it needs to be expanded, which might actually make sinking it plausible!

[Dado]

Even if the Queensway was sunk (my guess would be between Rochester and the Lees/Mann area since there's a transitway trench at Lees*), I doubt the land would be redeveloped - at least not most of it.

Between the need for interchanges and some way to continue the collector/ramp functions of Raymond, Catherine, Orangeville, Chamberlain and Isabella, my guess is that it would end up being a boulevard between Bronson and the Canal.


*Plus in light of the discussions elsewhere on a downtown tunnel/trench to Gatineau, there is a need to keep lower level interchange options open.

[Zach6668]

it's already woefully inadequate capacity wise, i don't think boulevarding it would be a good idea! since a ring road isn't in the cards anymore i think it needs to be expanded, which might actually make sinking it plausible!

Meh, it's really only at or over capacity for a few hours per day. I'd rather not give more people disincentive to take public transit

[eternallyme]

it's already woefully inadequate capacity wise, i don't think boulevarding it would be a good idea! since a ring road isn't in the cards anymore i think it needs to be expanded, which might actually make sinking it plausible!

That would be very difficult as it is the only east-west freeway and it carries over 180,000 vehicles every weekday, it would require at least 12-16 lanes if it was an urban boulevard, which would be even worse trying to cross and the land impact would be enormous.

A ring road would not draw significant traffic to relieve congestion to any great degree since the vast majority of traffic on the 417 is headed to, from or within Ottawa.

[eternallyme]

Meh, it's really only at or over capacity for a few hours per day. I'd rather not give more people disincentive to take public transit

Reduce the capacity and it would be over capacity 14 to 16 hours a day on weekdays, plus it would strain parallel arterials like Carling Avenue.

I don't see any significant changes in terms of design and capacity on the central section of the 417. There is no room to expand it, and traffic has been growing at a minimal rate, as opposed to the suburban sections.

Improved lighting and sidewalks on streets under the 417 I think would help, along with perhaps more greenery (i.e. more/taller trees).

[Zach6668]

Reduce the capacity and it would be over capacity 14 to 16 hours a day on weekdays, plus it would strain parallel arterials like Carling Avenue.

I don't see any significant changes in terms of design and capacity on the central section of the 417. There is no room to expand it, and traffic has been growing at a minimal rate, as opposed to the suburban sections.

Improved lighting and sidewalks on streets under the 417 I think would help, along with perhaps more greenery (i.e. more/taller trees).

Oh yeah, I'm indifferent to trenching or not, but wouldn't really want it expanded at all anywhere near downtown.

[eternallyme]

Oh yeah, I'm indifferent to trenching or not, but wouldn't really want it expanded at all anywhere near downtown.

Trenching would not change the capacity, but it would be expensive and disruptive.

There is almost no chance of any expansion of the 417 in the downtown area. No room to do so.

[Aylmer]

That would be very difficult as it is the only east-west freeway and it carries over 180,000 vehicles every weekday, it would require at least 12-16 lanes if it was an urban boulevard, which would be even worse trying to cross and the land impact would be enormous.

A ring road would not draw significant traffic to relieve congestion to any great degree since the vast majority of traffic on the 417 is headed to, from or within Ottawa.

However, since there's relatively little through-traffic, most of the cars are already having to wait at lights to get onto the N-S streets. I think you could do 8-10 lanes with a medians separating the different directions as well as two lanes of left/right turning traffic, so you only ever have to cross 3 lanes a a time. And along with a rapid transit line, you could easily surpass the Queensway's current capacity.

So, in order or appearance, looking east

Two lanes of right-turning traffic, median two lanes of traffic plus a left-turning lane, median, light rail, median, two lanes of left-turning traffic, median, two lanes of right-turning/through traffic.

[DubberDom]

However, since there's relatively little through-traffic,

Are you insane? The Through traffic is the main problem, that's why westbound traffic backs up all the way to the 417/174 split at nights, and EB typically backs up between Carling and Parkdale.

The Gatineau-bound traffic is another problem, the Kettle Island option would end up encouraging more through traffic from Ottawa West to 417/174/Aviation parkway split. Best option is not only to plan an eastern bridge (like Kettle), but also a Western bridge option with direct 417 access (eg at 416).

Public transit usage is at it maximum in Ottawa, there is no way to get more people using public transit, light rail or not. I know where I work, it is impossible for us to get to work without a car, unless we spend 1.5 hours on the bus each way with 3 transfers. There are multipple employment areas in Ottawa without transit access. Downtown office workers already use transit.

Blame the Feds, why are they building/moving to facilities not directly serviced by transit? Cases in point: RCMP in Barrhaven at JDS building, Agriculture Canada at old Nortel buildings on Baseline, DND moving to Nortel etc...

[eternallyme]

However, since there's relatively little through-traffic, most of the cars are already having to wait at lights to get onto the N-S streets. I think you could do 8-10 lanes with a medians separating the different directions as well as two lanes of left/right turning traffic, so you only ever have to cross 3 lanes a a time. And along with a rapid transit line, you could easily surpass the Queensway's current capacity.

So, in order or appearance, looking east

Two lanes of right-turning traffic, median two lanes of traffic plus a left-turning lane, median, light rail, median, two lanes of left-turning traffic, median, two lanes of right-turning/through traffic.

That's still a much larger barrier to cross than the current elevated freeway and also requires significant expropriation. The lights would create gridlock for sure...I don't know of a single non-freeway road in Canada that carries 180,000 cars each day.

[eemy]

If the ring expressway that the MTO was planning at one time ever goes forward, it might allow the Queensway to be turned into a urban boulevard in the central area by diverting most of the cross-town traffic. I'm not ever sure it's a worthwhile endeavour at this point. There are lots of other parts of the city that could use rejuvenation.

[McC]

http://twitpic.com/bgq4kr
rakerman put up this pic a while back comparing/contrasting* overhead views of the Greber Plan and the actual 417 in the Lees-Nicholas-Mann clusterfudge. Anyway, I think these shots show the one area where the Queensway, as it currently exists, wastes a lot of potentially-high-value development land. (although I recognize that it's not just the Queensway that's wasting space in this area)

* he was comparing, I think they are contrasting, FTR.
(When I look at the Greber boulevards I see all of those bridges and how much better integrated they are to the neighbourhoods, and how they connect the neighbourhoods together, where the Queensway divides them)

[Dado]

I think Gréber gets a lot of undeserved bad press because of things like the Queensway being turned into a freeway.

Even ideas like the Vanier Parkway/Expressway have to be considered from the perspective of a time in which most goods were still moved by rail.


Anyway, with hindsight, building the Queensway as a freeway rather than an urban boulevard was probably not a good move. I would have put our freeway further south, like roughly along the Baseline-Heron-Walkley axis or along the Beachburg Sub (the east-west railway through Nepean).

[eternallyme]

I think Gréber gets a lot of undeserved bad press because of things like the Queensway being turned into a freeway.

Even ideas like the Vanier Parkway/Expressway have to be considered from the perspective of a time in which most goods were still moved by rail.


Anyway, with hindsight, building the Queensway as a freeway rather than an urban boulevard was probably not a good move. I would have put our freeway further south, like roughly along the Baseline-Heron-Walkley axis or along the Beachburg Sub (the east-west railway through Nepean).

The latter plan might have actually been a good one (along the railway axis) as it would send all the trucks down there near the industrial areas, and would reduce the need to improve the Hunt Club Road corridor. There are no communities divided by the railway at all.

As for the Baseline-Heron-Walkley axis, maybe if that was done before those areas were developed. But by the 1960s it would have divided communities such as Heron Park, Herongate, Bel Air/City View and Pinecrest Park.

[rocketphish]

Demolish the Queensway

Jonathan McLeod, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: October 20, 2014, Last Updated: October 20, 2014 2:25 PM EDT

As we wind through this election, candidates speak on many topics and pet projects, but one issue has been neglected. It is time to champion Ottawa’s next great mega-project: eliminating the Queensway.

Get rid of it. Tear it up. Smash it to pieces. We don’t need it running through the heart of our city. As we welcome LRT in the coming decades, we should say goodbye to this monument to failed city planning.

In the core of the city, the Queensway has taken over valuable space in our community. It cuts through our heart, separating our downtown core from adjacent communities. These neighbourhoods are starved for space. We continue with development in Centretown, but we are forced to build up. There is no new land to develop.

The Queensway could provide us with a new stretch of land. It may not seem like much, but it provides an extra north-south block of space stretching the entire distance of downtown. It can give us greenery and park space, shops and cafes, entertainment and business.

Soon, it will be time to revitalize Elgin Street, a valued main street in Ottawa. Currently, the Queensway is a harsh end for the street. Removing it, we connect Elgin Street to the Glebe and the Canal. We could create a water feature similar to Patterson Creek or Brown’s Inlet. What was once a concrete barrier could be an oasis right in the heart of our entertainment district.

Further west, the elimination of the freeway could add to the rejuvenation of Preston Street and Little Italy. Whereas now we have separate entertainment areas linked by an underpass, we could link the two halves of the street. The restaurants, bistros and pubs of Preston Street are a joy. We could enhance that joy.

The Queensway does not merely waste the prime land it sits upon, it also wastes much of the adjacent space. Border vacuums — the areas adjacent to freeways and other urban areas — litter Ottawa. These areas, lacking development, are riddled with blight. Lees Avenue, Catherine Street and Raymond Street become de facto on and off ramps for the thoroughfare. The speed and traffic is a danger and deterrent to pedestrians and cyclists. Border vacuums limit and partition economic growth, as travel across them is restricted.

The question becomes: what would we do without the Queensway? The simplest answer is that Ottawa needs a ring road, and, thankfully, we are building that sort of infrastructure. New developments like the Hunt Club extension and Vimy Memorial Bridge can move people around the core, rather than through it. There is talk of extending Brian Coburn Boulevard and expanding Earl Armstrong Road. These would connect us east-west.

And, luckily, the National Capital Commission supplies Ottawa with freeways along the Ottawa River.

More importantly, we are building light rail. The Confederation Line will move people through downtown more efficiently than our cars can. If we begin eliminating the Queensway from the centre, its destruction mirroring the development of the LRT, people will be able to walk, bus, drive or cycle to LRT hubs to get downtown quickly.

And during peak hours, the Queensway doesn’t even move people quickly. This is the scourge of induced demand; our road development takes on a Field of Dreams quality. We build it; we drive. More road infrastructure increases traffic congestion. Communities that eliminate road space see a reduction in traffic, as transportation habits change accordingly.

Ever-expanding freeways are a counterproductive relic of a flawed past. They rob of us green space, clean air and economic development. Smart growth requires a new vision.

It’s time to demolish the Queensway.

Jonathan McLeod is a general fellow with the Canadian Council for Democracy. He writes about local matters at stepsfromthecanal.wordpress.com.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/jonathan-mcleod-demolish-the-queensway

[Cre47]

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/jonathan-mcleod-demolish-the-queensway

[Norman Bates]

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/jonathan-mcleod-demolish-the-queensway

Lunacy.

Go to winnipeg with its perimeter highway or Saskatoon with its circle drive. Now that's failed planning.

The Queensway may not be perfect - mostly because the folks in old ottawa east blocked the collector lanes it truly needs - but it cannot be replaced by a ring road.

Simply removing tractor trailers from the Queensway during two hours at the morning and afternoon peaks will solve whatever congestion we now have.

[silvergate]

Lunacy.

Go to winnipeg with its perimeter highway or Saskatoon with its circle drive. Now that's failed planning.

The Queensway may not be perfect - mostly because the folks in old ottawa east blocked the collector lanes it truly needs - but it cannot be replaced by a ring road.

Simply removing tractor trailers from the Queensway during two hours at the morning and afternoon peaks will solve whatever congestion we now have.

Removing tractor trailers will not stop the congestion. Give this idea 20 years to grow though. Eventually it might be possible to, if not eliminate the highway entirely, then perhaps turn it into an at grade main street. It all depends on how transportation changes in the coming years.

[BenTheGreat97]

^^^

That's the stupidest idea I've ever heard.

A ring road would never replace it, and would just further encourage sprawl. Just because it's congested at peak times and isn't the best planned highway in Canada (lots of highways fall in the same boat as the 417 there) does not mean we should tear it up and start new.

[DarkArconio]

The main issue with articles like this is that they assume we can make drastic changes to solve our infrastructure issues. The reality is that infrastructure is build incrementally over decades, and building a better future requires incrementally better decisions now. The LRT is a great example, build great transportation options other than huge roads, and people will go to them. The goal shouldn't be to demolish the Queensway; the goal should be to make it obsolete!

[S-Man]

I have no idea why The Citizen runs this guy's pie-in-the-sky, postmodern/progressive rants each week. I'm getting more than sick of it.

There's taking a look at what we as a city can do better, and then there's this. A guy who opens his eyes each morning and sees that EVERYTHING IS WRONG, GUYS!

The Citizen as of late is trying my patience.

[1overcosc]

I would love to see the Queenway buried through the downtown core but that would be ungodly expensive. The best we can do is what Toronto is doing with the Gardiner Expressway--fill the roads along it with skyscrapers and build a network of skybridges and pedestrian tunnels between them to isolate people from the highway.

[MaxHeadroom]

Removing tractor trailers will not stop the congestion. Give this idea 20 years to grow though. Eventually it might be possible to, if not eliminate the highway entirely, then perhaps turn it into an at grade main street. It all depends on how transportation changes in the coming years.
As much as idealists like to think about the idea, the Queensway is never going away. Look at the design of any new subdivision in suburban areas - it's all designed around cars: double car garages, big driveways, wide streets with lots of room for street parking, and low density that makes walking places difficult and implementing effective transit expensive.

It's more important to give residents and businesses choices about transportation options so the economy can grow. Outside the core and transitway, buses are stuck in the same traffic as joe schmoe in a car. Yes it's important to have rail transit, but it can't serve everywhere and a decent, but not excessive, road network is essential.

[c_speed3108]

While the Queensway is not perfect, the result of not having it would be a ton of raods along the lines of King Edward Avenue.

No one loves trucks, but the reality is they are how goods get to stores and such. It is much better to give trucks and heavy traffic a proper route.


This is what is even happening on King Edward and Rideau. No one wants trucks there but they will at least for the time being.

When the road was redone they did not adequately round out corners and such to accommodate long trailers. Sadly I can picture what the result of that is going to be (and it ain't pretty) The result is much better to properly accommodate this stuff than not. The Queensway is a big part of that.



The other thing is that looking at Historical photos of the city, statements like "the Queensway divided neighbourhoods" or "the Queensway cut through neighbourhoods" are not accurate. The land where most of the Queensway (particularly the downtown part) was previously a railway, which if left as a railway would have and did cut those areas in half every bit as much as the highway does. Actually the highway with overpasses and landscaped embankments probably actually is less impactful than level crossings and chain linked fences - but I suppose that is a matter of opinion.

[Dado]

It is a little unfortunate though that the Queensway was built as a freeway.

Had the NCC not come up with its railway removal plans and had the MTO not in turn distorted them by turning a proposed Parisian boulevard into a freeway, in all probability Ottawa's major east-west freeway would have been built further south along the Baseline Rd-Heron-Walkley axis.

[Mulder]

The other thing is that looking at Historical photos of the city, statements like "the Queensway divided neighbourhoods" or "the Queensway cut through neighbourhoods" are not accurate. The land where most of the Queensway (particularly the downtown part) was previously a railway, which if left as a railway would have and did cut those areas in half every bit as much as the highway does. Actually the highway with overpasses and landscaped embankments probably actually is less impactful than level crossings and chain linked fences - but I suppose that is a matter of opinion.

Coming from Toronto, I find it very interesting that while the gardener has been seen as the barrier to the waterfront, I don't find the Queensway to be a barrier at all between downtown. Then again, on the east end of Toronto you have both the Gardiner and train tracks.

[JeffB]

Yes it's important to have rail transit, but it can't serve everywhere and a decent, but not excessive, road network is essential.

Ultimately, the LRT isn't supposed to replace the road infrastructure, but complement it. Unfortunately, people like the fellow who wrote this piece get the idea that it is either one or the other.

[waterloowarrior]

The impact of the Queensway on the ground is much worse in the inner suburbs than downtown... I find the inner city overpasses quite short and not much of a barrier. We even have separated bike lanes going under the Queensway. There could always be improvements but overall it's not bad.

However it would be an interesting exercise to see how the Queensway is being used as a cross-town route vs a feeder into downtown. You can see the data for the Gardiner here - only a small percentage is being used for crosstown trips.
http://www.gardinereast.ca/sites/default/files//documents/Gardiner%20East%20Public%20Forum%20%231%20-%20Presentation.pdf

The argument could be that the urban redevelopment benefits would outweigh the small amount of traffic using the highway to get across town (if this is the case in Ottawa). One issue I see with this is that Toronto has lots of potential routes to get around downtown while the canal, rivers and railways limit Ottawa's potential alternative routes. Toronto is on a grid with few geographical constraints while Ottawa already has major issues with limited alternative routes (e.g. for trucks).

[Dado]

The impact of the Queensway on the ground is much worse in the inner suburbs than downtown... I find the inner city overpasses quite short and not much of a barrier. We even have separated bike lanes going under the Queensway. There could always be improvements but overall it's not bad.

Agree, west of Carling/Kirkwood or let's say Cole, the Queensway becomes far more of a barrier due to the fact that it is at general grade and everything else has to go up and over it on overpasses with lengthy approaches.

Freeways and expressways like the Queensway really should be sunk in trenches or elevated on embankments so that they don't interfere as much with the rest of the urban grid.

Sunk freeways are less visually obnoxious (and easier still to hide in the long term by covering over) and also probably constrain noise better but with the continued dominance of internal combustion engines they also likely contribute more to local (i.e. immediate neighbourhood) air pollution than raised freeways.

[c_speed3108]

I find a bit factor in the impact of highway design is the ramp design.

Things like clover leafs tend to expand the interchange area rather drastically vs a design where the ramp huge the side of the highway only angling outwards slightly to accommodate the increasing embankment.

The other aspect is how the ramps integrate into area streets at intersections. Some are definitely better than others. For example the Lyon street WB on ramp is just an ordinary intersection vs say the off ramp at Metcalfe that is a real mess for pedestrians.

[eternallyme]

With no Queensway, Ottawa would have uber-congested urban arterials and most of them would need to be 8, 10 lanes wide. As it is, Ottawa has very few 6-lane arterials.

[waterloowarrior]

Combined discussions from a couple different threads on the same article and moved them here...

[Aylmer]

I'm not saying it will happen, but it could work. One thing's for sure, the predictions of carmageddon would be exactly as valid as they were in San Francisco, Seoul, Portland, Paris, Madrid, New York, etc.

However, much as I'd like to see it, I'd rather see the Nicolas done away with first - it's shocking to have that monstrosity cut the university and the city from a UNESCO site. They're going to be removing two lanes of it during the LRT construction and once traffic mayhem fails to materialise, I would absolutely love it to be kept a two-lane street.

I'm glad this article was published and I truly hope that it starts some talk (hopefully accompanied by thinking).

[flar]

Ridiculous. Without the queensway we would spend our entire lives stuck in traffic.

You need a car to live in most of Ottawa, end of story. No amount of public transit will change that, it's the way it was built.

During non rush hour I can be downtown in 10 minutes via the queensway and leave when ever I want vs 30 minutes by bus and up to 15 minutes waiting.

During rush hour the transitway is equal or better than driving.

[White Pine]

Speaking as someone from outside Ottawa (Pembroke), the Queensway shouldn't be torn down until there is an alternative for getting to town (ex. commuter rail). Unless it gets buried.

[Innsertnamehere]

I'm not saying it will happen, but it could work. One thing's for sure, the predictions of carmageddon would be exactly as valid as they were in San Francisco, Seoul, Portland, Paris, Madrid, New York, etc.

However, much as I'd like to see it, I'd rather see the Nicolas done away with first - it's shocking to have that monstrosity cut the university and the city from a UNESCO site. They're going to be removing two lanes of it during the LRT construction and once traffic mayhem fails to materialise, I would absolutely love it to be kept a two-lane street.

I'm glad this article was published and I truly hope that it starts some talk (hopefully accompanied by thinking).


Not really, the highways they ripped down in SF and NYC were secondary feeder highways, not the core highway through the city which is fairly inelastic in terms of demand. Plus both those roads were replaced with large arterial roads which still carry large amounts of traffic. SF would never dare tear down I-80, which plays a similar roll to that of the 417. Nicholas could probably go without too much fuss, but the 417 is simply too busy and too important to disappear.

[Aylmer]

But if you really think of it, we have a highway with a 120 km/h design speed which most people (aka people who commute) only ever experience at a speed of 30-50km/h, if not less. For the majority of its users, a signalised, multiway boulevard wouldn't be significantly slower.

But let's say that people do drive at an average speed of 100km/h between Preston and Main and let's say that, with signalisation, the average speed of the new multiway boulevard is only 40km/h. If you're driving from Kanata to St. Laurent and you have zero slowdowns, it currently takes you about 20 minutes. With a multiway boulevard, you could expect it to take 22 minutes.

It's hardly dramatic to add 2 minutes to your commute.

[1overcosc]

If we were to rip up the Queensway, the transit, pedestrian, and cyclist mode share would have to be WAY higher. Probably something like 70% citywide, and above 90% for downtown commuters. The Confederation Line probably doesn't have the capacity to handle such a dramatic increase in ridership anyway (although it is capable of scaling up to almost three times its expected opening day ridership).

417 congestion is not going away, either. Even with the widening projects in the works (the 8 laning projects in Kanata and 174-Nicholas, and the future 8 laning between 416 & Carling that's likely coming by the end of the decade), projections are that congestion levels on the 417 will be even higher than they are today by 2031. For example, the city predicts AM gridlock will become regular in sections like 174-Walkley which are currently freeflowing at peak.

Replacing Preston-Main with a boulevard would actually harm the N-S streets IMO by adding a giant 8 lane road to cross at a crosswalk. I'd much rather walk underneath the 417 going along Bank, Metcalfe, etc. than have to cross a huge road in a crosswalk.

[bikegypsy]

Ridiculous. Without the queensway we would spend our entire lives stuck in traffic.

You need a car to live in most of Ottawa, end of story. No amount of public transit will change that, it's the way it was built.

During non rush hour I can be downtown in 10 minutes via the queensway and leave when ever I want vs 30 minutes by bus and up to 15 minutes waiting.

During rush hour the transitway is equal or better than driving.

True if your talking about the total land area but false if your talking about where most people live. Ottawa and Gatineau have quite decent transit systems and biking in the city is a breaze. 80% of the population have direct access to buses and/or lrt. I've never owned a car in Ottawa but I've lived in various neighborhoods including Overbrook, Mont-Bleu, Sandy Hill and even Aylmer as well as Bells Corners. No problem. On the Ottawa side, the only wards where a car would be really necessary are West Carleton-March, Rideau-Goulbourn, Osgoode and Cumberland, totaling only about 150,000 in population. On the Quebec side, I guess Buckingham is really tough without a car. Having said this, getting rid of the Queensway is an absurd idea.

[Uhuniau]

Soon, it will be time to revitalize Elgin Street

Why?

What's wrong with Elgin Street?

[Uhuniau]

Trenching would not change the capacity, but it would be expensive and disruptive.

There is almost no chance of any expansion of the 417 in the downtown area. No room to do so.

Expropriation is a hell of a drug.

[JM1]

The problem with transit in Ottawa is not access but speed, frequency and reliability. If I take transit to work, I cannot reasonably predict when I will get there (bike has the hgihest time reliability, followed by car).

Indeed, it may be the access to transit that causes the most problems -- long circuitous neighbourhood routes should be eliminated in favour of high frequency lines along major north-south and east-west arterials. I don't mind walking three or four blocks to a bus stop if I know that once I get there, I will have reliable, frequent, and fast service.


True if your talking about the total land area but false if your talking about where most people live. Ottawa and Gatineau have quite decent transit systems and biking in the city is a breaze. 80% of the population have direct access to buses and/or lrt. I've never owned a car in Ottawa but I've lived in various neighborhoods including Overbrook, Mont-Bleu, Sandy Hill and even Aylmer as well as Bells Corners. No problem. On the Ottawa side, the only wards where a car would be really necessary are West Carleton-March, Rideau-Goulbourn, Osgoode and Cumberland, totaling only about 150,000 in population. On the Quebec side, I guess Buckingham is really tough without a car. Having said this, getting rid of the Queensway is an absurd idea.

[Uhuniau]

The other thing is that looking at Historical photos of the city, statements like "the Queensway divided neighbourhoods" or "the Queensway cut through neighbourhoods" are not accurate. The land where most of the Queensway (particularly the downtown part) was previously a railway, which if left as a railway would have and did cut those areas in half every bit as much as the highway does. Actually the highway with overpasses and landscaped embankments probably actually is less impactful than level crossings and chain linked fences - but I suppose that is a matter of opinion.

Back in the day before bubble-wrapped everything, there would have been no chain-link fences.

[eternallyme]

How would you all feel if Carling, Baseline, Montreal Road, etc. were all 8 or 10 lanes wide instead of mostly 4 lanes now? That would be even worse for pedestrians.

[silvergate]

The queensway could be eliminated if the city committed to turning all of its communities into walkable places, so having multiple centers of employment surrounded by far denser neighbourhoods outside of the core. Of course, that probably doesn't fit in too well with current city planning.

[Marcus CLS]

Some of the above comments are invalid. The 417 is an interprovincial highway, with cargo truck traffic and allows for the movement of goods. It serves a double purpose. Commuting and through traffic that is not stopping by. It is under provincial jurisdiction not city. The Gardiner expressway in T.O. is under city jurisdiction so opinions about burying, altering or demolishing the Gardiner are valid. In Ottawa however, as a 400 series highway these considerations are invalid. It serves the province and the city but the province trumps local city considerations.

Trucks are banned from the NCC parkways.

A ring road will be required down the road as has happened in Calgary and Edmonton but the Queensway is here to stay.

The GTA has a ring road (sort of) it's called the 407, also under provincial juisdiction.

[manny_santos]

Some of the above comments are invalid. The 417 is an interprovincial highway, with cargo truck traffic and allows for the movement of goods. It serves a double purpose. Commuting and through traffic that is not stopping by. It is under provincial jurisdiction not city. The Gardiner expressway in T.O. is under city jurisdiction so opinions about burying, altering or demolishing the Gardiner are valid. In Ottawa however, as a 400 series highway these considerations are invalid. It serves the province and the city but the province trumps local city considerations.

Trucks are banned from the NCC parkways.

A ring road will be required down the road as has happened in Calgary and Edmonton but the Queensway is here to stay.

The GTA has a ring road (sort of) it's called the 407, also under provincial juisdiction.

That's the first anyone has pointed out that the 417 is a provincial highway, the City of Ottawa can't do anything about it. The suggestion by the Citizen writer is no different than someone suggesting the City of Toronto should get rid of the 401, it would never happen.

The 407 though is not provincial, it is a privately owned road (though originally built by the province)

[manny_santos]

With no Queensway, Ottawa would have uber-congested urban arterials and most of them would need to be 8, 10 lanes wide. As it is, Ottawa has very few 6-lane arterials.

You'd have London, Ontario's traffic on an even worse scale.

[rocketphish]

The 407 though is not provincial, it is a privately owned road (though originally built by the province)

My interpretation of the following pages is that the Province of Ontario remains the owner of Highway 407, but it is being operated and managed by the 407 International Inc. consortium under a 99-year lease.

"The route is operated privately under a 99-year lease agreement with the provincial government."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Highway_407


"As the concessionaire for the highway, 407 ETR is responsible for all maintenance, construction and customer service and also pays the full cost of police enforcement along the highway. The highway lease requires that 407 ETR attract and maintain certain levels of traffic. If certain traffic thresholds are not met, a congestion payment to the Province may be required.

At the end of the lease agreement, the highway and toll systems etc. will be transferred to the Province of Ontario."

http://www.407etr.com/about/background-information1.html

[manny_santos]

At the end of the lease agreement, the highway and toll systems etc. will be transferred to the Province of Ontario."

http://www.407etr.com/about/background-information1.html

If we still have highways like we know them now in 2098. Depends on if we still have oil in 2098.

[HighwayStar]

If we still have highways like we know them now in 2098. Depends on if we still have oil in 2098.

Why are highways dependent on oil?? Electricity, hydrogen, propane and probably a bunch of other stuff powers vehicles just fine

[roger1818]

This discussion was originally started in the New Civic Hospital | Planning (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=7635667#post7635667) thread. Since the conversation was off topic, I have created a new thread for it here.

If anything, the Queensway should be demolished, as other, more progressive (better) cities are starting to do. Public transportation is being improved (and is already much better north of the Queensway than south), there are more opportunities for development and currently more people who live north of the Queensway that realistically we don't need to be too considered about traffic. But trying to fix traffic by widening roads never works (famous simile: "Widening roads to prevent congestion is like a fat man loosening his belt to prevent obesity.")

The suggesting that the Queensway should be demolished is a suggestion outside the scope of reality. I prefer to deal with realities.

It's very well within the scope of reality, as many other cities have realised. Unfortunately, our political leaders aren't progressive/ forward-thinkers and don't have much in the way of urban studies education to understand the impact the Queensway has had on the city and how it limits its potential. San Francisco used to think freeways were necessary to move their city, and when the earthquake happened the soon realised how unnecessary and burdensome it actually was that they chose not to replace it. Seoul removed their freeway over the Cheonggyecheon, and both cities having done this boosted the economies of the surrounding areas and made highly desirable locales.

People will only continue moving out of the city and driving everywhere if we decide that something that has only caused problems for Ottawa should not only stay, but be added to to create more problems. As someone who has lived their entire lives blocks from it in the urban parts of Ottawa, I can only ever live the reality of what the Queensway has done and continues to do.

Those examples (and others listed on the webpage ) have one thing in common: They all passed through the downtown core. However, the Queensway is on the outer skirts of Ottawa's downtown. Before demolishing the Queensway, I would look at demolishing Colonel By Drive, Queen Elizabeth Drive and even Nicholas Street. The removal of those would really open up access to the Rideau Canal and the pathways beside it, though we would probably also need to bury the new LRT tracks as well :rolleyes:.

[SkeggsEggs]

I personally believe that we should demolish Colonel By Drive north of Main Street. Though, you could go all the way to the highway as most cars going North seem to turn left rather than continue on. The green space and roadway is very wide along the canal at this point. We could make the canal more a destination, while the UNESCO heritage thing is nice, there isn't really much to do except walk along the Canal. You could put small buildings such as a coffee shop, or other amenities. In the winter it could also be used for more Winterlude stuff.

[TheGoods]

LOL, I almost feel off my chair. You want to demolish the Queensway, forget about the people commuting to work, what about all of the commercial trucks and people going to cities like Toronto and Montreal, how would that work, send them on the side / residential streets. Every business that sells items (retail) such as grocery stores, restaurants, and other types of retail, all their products come for outside of Ottawa. What about the individual that has to go to work or take a weekend in Toronto and is coming from Orleans, or an individual coming from Kanata to go to Montreal. Reality is that we still need cars and truck.

[zzptichka]

Column in the Citizen from 2 years ago: http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/jonathan-mcleod-demolish-the-queensway

People are not ready yet I'm afraid but we'll get there eventually.
I would bring in rush hour tolls on 417 as soon as the LRT is ready though.

[Acajack]

Demolish the Queensway? Sure, but provided there is a serious replacement plan.

The traffic that is on there needs to go somewhere. So... where?

Seriously though, it makes almost no sense.

Ottawa has very little freeway capacity for a city of its size. And I am not just comparing it to American cities BTW.

What logic would there be to replace and existing, "paid for" piece of vital infrastructure that is worth tens of billions of dollars where it sits.

Even if you sold off the land, the replacement cost for a cross-town freeway to the south of the urban area would still be huge.

[Uhuniau]

If money were no object, I'd bury the damn thing and restore the surface to human uses.

Maybe in the 23rd century or so.

[Aylmer]

In terms of freeing up land, I think that demolishing the Queensway completely would have relatively little value, unlike the highway removal successes in places like San Francisco or Seoul.

That said, the real killers are the bloated highway interchanges. Especially around LRT stations, they not only waste a whole lot of space, but they also create wide tears in the urban fabric, reducing the development potential to only one side of the highway. I think we would definitely benefit from one of the following:

- Interchange "Diets"; we reduce the size of interchanges to a minimum. Instead of cloverleaf-like exits, change them to simple parallel on/off-ramps. The land freed up can be developed and would most likely generate more than enough to cover the reconstruction.

- At-grade intersections. There's nothing magical about having a completely grade-separated highway: when and where it's most used, the average speed is no higher than a signalized road. And when it's least used, it doesn't really matter if you have to wait 10 or 20 seconds at a light. So at certain intersections by LRT stations, bring the Queensway to grade with quality pedestrian crossings (ex: crossing refuge islands).

I think it would be most beneficial to implement these measures anywhere a LRT stop coincides with an interchange:
- Vanier
- St-Laurent
- Blair
- Montreal Rd.
- Pinecrest
- Nicolas
- Bayshore

[roger1818]

I personally believe that we should demolish Colonel By Drive north of Main Street. Though, you could go all the way to the highway as most cars going North seem to turn left rather than continue on.

By the highway I assume you mean Hawthorne Ave/Pretoria Bridge since there isn't an interchange at Colonel By. The stretch between Rideau St and Daly Ave might need to be kept open to provide access to the Weston (though it could be just a driveway).

[roger1818]

- Interchange "Diets"; we reduce the size of interchanges to a minimum. Instead of cloverleaf-like exits, change them to simple parallel on/off-ramps. The land freed up can be developed and would most likely generate more than enough to cover the reconstruction.

One thing I have seen them do in BC is use roundabouts instead of cloverleafs. They keep the traffic flowing on the overpass (unlike traffic lights) without wasting as much land as a cloverleaf. They seem to work quite well.

[Mikeed]

The Queensway, compared to the North American context, has done very little damage to Ottawa's urban fabric. It was built on railway lands and did not involve any wholesale destruction of neighborhoods.

The Queensway is an important link of the Trans-Canada highway, linking North Bay, and points West, with the Ottawa valley, Ottawa, and Montreal, and points East.

If you were to demolish the Queensway this regional transportation link within the broader national context would have to be maintained, to argue other wise would honestly, in my opinion, would be arguing against the concept of roads that has existed since Rome!

So you would still need to develop something that links points west and east, with Ottawa. This would require a rural/suburban road that would bypass Ottawa through farmland and the suburbs. This would promote urban sprawl, increased drive times and emissions, increased road surface, increased costs to build, maintain and plow.

Bad idea. An idea that hurts urbanism.

Edit: Think of every single grocery store- just grocery stores in Ottawa- every one of them receives roughly 3 loads a day from their DC in the suburbs of Toronto. Loblaw Companies Limited's DC is in Ajax. The reality of this idea, is to push the thousands of these transport trucks- again this is JUST grocery stores- onto local roads. Roads like Baseline & Carling would be the hardest hit and become epic traffic sewers. This really would be a great step forward in developing urban avenues in the spirit of complete streets (multiple modes of use), rapid transit, and medium density. /s

I'm all for avant-garde and bold thinking, but this idea collapses in the face of reality. And worse then that, while proposed with the best intentions, it has many effects that causes more harm then any of it's supposed good.

"You have to believe me, this was a stupid decision, but I did it with the best intentions. With the best intentions? Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions."
(Jurassic Park sure does teach us a lot about 'good intentions'.)

[Aylmer]

One thing I should point out is that demolishing the Queensway doesn't necessarily mean that it's not replaced by anything. In most places which took down limited access highways, they were replaced with boulevards. In many cases, these boulevards provided adequate car and truck access, but greatly improved conditions for other road users and land values. However, it's not automatic; sometimes, replacing 6 or 8 lanes of elevated traffic with 8 or 10 lanes of at-grade traffic have made it more difficult to cross for pedestrians.

I'm not convinced that a "Queensway blvd" would necessarily improve those conditions more than other measures such as more pedestrian under/overpasses. Often, the most problematic parts of the Queensway are not the highway itself but its access roads (like Catherine) and its on/off-ramps as I've already posted.

[lrt's friend]

Should the Queensway be Demolished? It would be Foolhardy to do so.

The Confederation Line does not and cannot replace the Queensway. It just replaces the Transitways.

The Queensway serves commuters that are poorly served by transit for the most part.

[kevinbottawa]

To the very first comment from the previous thread, as a parent of three small children, public transit isn’t a replacement for the Queensway. It depends on your lifestyle. Living in Vanier, taking public transit into downtown or Orleans is possible, but in other situations it sucks- like when you’re at a dinner party at a friend’s house late at night with your young children, you missed nap time and your kids pass out or are cranky, or your lifestyle takes you all over the city. The Queensway is so convenient for family life in a sprawling city like Ottawa. A boulevard, as someone else suggested, could work.

[1overcosc]

It would take a complete overhaul of how transportation works in this city (not just an improvement to an existing system which is what the LRT amounts to) before something as radical as removing the Queensway becomes an option.

[acottawa]

What is the problem that demolishing the Queensway would be intended to solve?

In places where there are no ramps (e.g. Preston) it is hardly noticeable (a bit of respite from the rain). It is certainly better than another King Edward.

[Acajack]

To the very first comment from the previous thread, as a parent of three small children, public transit isn’t a replacement for the Queensway. It depends on your lifestyle. Living in Vanier, taking public transit into downtown or Orleans is possible, but in other situations it sucks- like when you’re at a dinner party at a friend’s house late at night with your young children, you missed nap time and your kids pass out or are cranky, or your lifestyle takes you all over the city. The Queensway is so convenient for family life in a sprawling city like Ottawa. A boulevard, as someone else suggested, could work.

Even in a city like Paris, parents use their cars a whole lot to ferry their young kids around for various family activities and obligations. Way more than people unfamiliar with the everyday life of Parisian families would expect.

[Aylmer]

But I think the question is not whether we should do away with all roads or even a road where the Queensway is now; that's unreasonable. But it's healthy for us to question whether a limited-access freeway is the best solution everywhere and, if not, what the alternatives could be.



In places where there are no ramps (e.g. Preston) it is hardly noticeable (a bit of respite from the rain). It is certainly better than another King Edward.

This is what I might fear. King Edward is almost certainly better than the Décarie sunken expressway which was proposed in its stead, but it still isn't good by almost any measure.

But with enough space, you can actually turn a King Edward into a Passeig de Gracia, which manages to pull 8 lanes of traffic plus four rows of parking. All while lookin' mighty fine.

http://i.imgur.com/gsNdr.jpg

Again, there aren't a whole bunch of spots along the Queensway with enough immediately-adjacent urban fabric to be able to pull off the boulevard treatment or for it to really improve much. But I think that, should Kanata ever decide to make a real downtown for itself or should we decide to completely redevelop areas surrounding LRT, we shouldn't bend ourselves into pretzels to maintain a limited-access expressway AT ALL COSTS.

A highway, like any other mode of transport, is a tool. And if you wouldn't use a screwdriver to hammer a nail, then you shouldn't use a highway where it isn't appropriate.

[ars]

Demolishing the Queensway sounds like a pretty terrible idea, unless you plan on replacing it in parallel(like turning Hunt Club into a 400 series highway), in which case it becomes a maybe terrible but definitely insanely expensive idea.

SF and Seoul aren't good examples. First, they both have a much greater population density than Ottawa. Second, SF has the i-280 and i-80/US-101 going through the core, it's basically their version of Queensways. Seoul has an unorthodox layout to contain its population of 25 million and the city core is surrounded by neighbouring cities and highways, not to mention that it has the best subway network on the planet, Ottawa has none of that.

[acottawa]

But I think the question is not whether we should do away with all roads or even a road where the Queensway is now; that's unreasonable. But it's healthy for us to question whether a limited-access freeway is the best solution everywhere and, if not, what the alternatives could be.




This is what I might fear. King Edward is almost certainly better than the Décarie sunken expressway which was proposed in its stead, but it still isn't good by almost any measure.

But with enough space, you can actually turn a King Edward into a Passeig de Gracia, which manages to pull 8 lanes of traffic plus four rows of parking. All while lookin' mighty fine.

http://i.imgur.com/gsNdr.jpg

Again, there aren't a whole bunch of spots along the Queensway with enough immediately-adjacent urban fabric to be able to pull off the boulevard treatment or for it to really improve much. But I think that, should Kanata ever decide to make a real downtown for itself or should we decide to completely redevelop areas surrounding LRT, we shouldn't bend ourselves into pretzels to maintain a limited-access expressway AT ALL COSTS.

A highway, like any other mode of transport, is a tool. And if you wouldn't use a screwdriver to hammer a nail, then you shouldn't use a highway where it isn't appropriate.

Barcelona (and other European cities) maintain a network of controlled access freeways for heavy trucks, intercity traffic, etc. In places where highways have been demolished they have usually been routes primarily used for commuting rather than the main freeway network.

I suppose in an ideal scenario, during the freeway building era of the 50s and 60s an east-west and north-south route would have been built further from the city centre to act as the main freeway network, with the Queensway as a branch for commuters. In that scenario, it might be reasonable to consider other solutions, but I don't think it is viable in a foreseeable future to make Ottawa freeway-free.

[Aylmer]

But again, I'll reiterate that there's nothing magical about a limited-access expressway. When it is most used, the Queensway does not provide any significant advantages over signalized roads in terms of speed or capacity. A 100 km/h speed limit means nothing when you're inching along at 20-30 km/h at 8 am. It would be no slower with signalized intersections.

For trucks and intercity traffic (what little passes through Ottawa from Montreal to, erm, Arnprior?), it might make a difference of a few minutes if they avoid peak hours. That's hardly the end of the world, nor is it reasonably worth the expense of a 100% limited-access highway.

Again, there is nothing magical about highways. There is capacity, speed and cost. And a highway does not always score highest on any of those in every context.

[adam-machiavelli]

I'd support demolishing the Queensway if it were replaced by a ring road that ran south of the city.

[Kitchissippi]

Highways can enable main streets to remain main streets, though, by funnelling away commuter traffic that is non-essential to its commerce. It's always sad to see old streets turn into busy unliveable arterials. The good thing is that the central Queensway was purpose-built over the old Grand Trunk Railroad and did not really displace any main streets, and the division between the neighbourhoods had already existed prior to the freeway.

[acottawa]

But again, I'll reiterate that there's nothing magical about a limited-access expressway. When it is most used, the Queensway does not provide any significant advantages over signalized roads in terms of speed or capacity. A 100 km/h speed limit means nothing when you're inching along at 20-30 km/h at 8 am. It would be no slower with signalized intersections.

For trucks and intercity traffic (what little passes through Ottawa from Montreal to, erm, Arnprior?), it might make a difference of a few minutes if they avoid peak hours. That's hardly the end of the world, nor is it reasonably worth the expense of a 100% limited-access highway.

Again, there is nothing magical about highways. There is capacity, speed and cost. And a highway does not always score highest on any of those in every context.

They're not magical, but they are an efficient way to move large number of vehicles using a minimum amount of land that have been adopted by almost every country in the world (even ultra-dense countries such as the Netherlands and Singapore). Yes they slow down during rush hour but but in most cases are still faster than parallel arterial roads in rush hour. Plug two destinations across town into google maps and compare the times with the "no highways" checkbox clicked on and off.

If were were talking about a proposed highway the cost/benefit would be a serious consideration, but destroying existing infrastructure is a much different calculation.

[Aylmer]

^^
There is actually no credible evidence to affirm that highways funnel existing traffic away from other streets. The only way that this can work is if you introduce new capacity (like a highway) at the same time that you reduce capacity (like remove lanes from other streets).

[FFX-ME]

Signaled intersections are without a doubt slower. Stops are what cause traffic. Even though you aren't driving at 100km/h you'd still go faster on a freeway. and like others have said, it doesn't take up that much room so if it aint broke don't fix it. What could be done which would make sense is replace the larger clover-type interchanges.

[ars]

But again, I'll reiterate that there's nothing magical about a limited-access expressway. When it is most used, the Queensway does not provide any significant advantages over signalized roads in terms of speed or capacity. A 100 km/h speed limit means nothing when you're inching along at 20-30 km/h at 8 am. It would be no slower with signalized intersections.

For trucks and intercity traffic (what little passes through Ottawa from Montreal to, erm, Arnprior?), it might make a difference of a few minutes if they avoid peak hours. That's hardly the end of the world, nor is it reasonably worth the expense of a 100% limited-access highway.

Again, there is nothing magical about highways. There is capacity, speed and cost. And a highway does not always score highest on any of those in every context.

This might be true during the 3-4 hours of traffic every weekday where everything is jammed up due to exits that, ironically, end up at signalized roads, but for the rest of the day not having the Queensway would be a traffic nightmare for the city cosnidering the amount of east <-> west traffic there is. Also, pretty sure having a highway like the Queensway helps traffic clear up faster even during rush hour, otherwise we'd be stuck with a full day perpetual traffic jam.

If what you're saying is even remotely close to reality, why even have highways anywhere? Just replace every highway with signaled roads :rolleyes:

[Aylmer]

This might be true during the 3-4 hours of traffic every weekday where everything is jammed up due to exits that, ironically, end up at signalized roads, but for the rest of the day not having the Queensway would be a traffic nightmare for the city cosnidering the amount of east <-> west traffic there is. Also, pretty sure having a highway like the Queensway helps traffic clear up faster even during rush hour, otherwise we'd be stuck with a full day perpetual traffic jam.


There's traffic because everyone eventually needs to slow down and stop in order to actually get somewhere. If you don't stop on the highway, you'll stop at the exit. If you don't stop at the exit, you'll stop at an intersection. If you don't stop at an intersection, you'll stop in the parking lot, but you will eventually stop.

Ignoring any longer-term behavioural changes, we still have to look at traffic capacity as the capacity of an entire system from your driveway to your parking garage.
Say Queensway can transport 8000 pphpd, but the downtown streets can only handle 7000. You could add another 10, 20, 100 lanes to the Queensway and the system's capacity would still be 7000 pphpd.

Conversely, if we reduce the Queensway's capacity to 7000 pphpd, the trip will take no longer than before because the system's capacity hasn't changed.


As for off-peak, I think it's doubtful that the introduction of a handful of signals would result in widespread congestion. If traffic densities were already that high, any small interruption (like rain or flurries) would cause widespread traffic. As that doesn't already happen off-peak, it probably is not the case.




If what you're saying is even remotely close to reality, why even have highways anywhere? Just replace every highway with signaled roads :rolleyes:

In a congested context - as are most cities - it's entirely valid to question the value of highways; the demand is far to high to operate practically and they require a very high economic cost (not only construction, but also the cost of land and depressed land values).

In an intercity context, there's a much better case for them; the demand is manageably low and the economic cost is more reasonable.

[lrt's friend]

You cannot eliminate the Queensway. You can just contain its growth by providing transportation alternatives, whether rapid transit or alternate roads. As I have said before, the Queensway serves a different transporation market than the Confederation Line. So if you want commuters off the Queensway, I expect that we will need to study other routes for rapid transit that better address the needs of Queensway commuters.

The big problem is truck traffic. Since we have virtually no freight railway corridors left, we don't have a lot of choices and it would be undesirable to funnel all that truck traffic onto urban roads, otherwise we will create a lot more King Edward Avenues.

[Uhuniau]

You cannot eliminate the Queensway. You can just contain its growth by providing transportation alternatives, whether rapid transit or alternate roads. As I have said before, the Queensway serves a different transporation market than the Confederation Line. So if you want commuters off the Queensway, I expect that we will need to study other routes for rapid transit that better address the needs of Queensway commuters.

The big problem is truck traffic. Since we have virtually no freight railway corridors left, we don't have a lot of choices and it would be undesirable to funnel all that truck traffic onto urban roads, otherwise we will create a lot more King Edward Avenues.

Greber's anti-rail fetish was one of the single worst planning things that has ever happened to Ottawa (and there have been a lot of Bad Planning Things.)

[zzptichka]

I think a more interesting debate would be about tolling 417. It's more realistic and not 50 years away at this point.

[FFX-ME]

I just want to dispel some more s*** being flung around.

A freeway has a capacity of 1600-18000 pphpd
A boulevard has a capacity of 800-1000 pphpd

The capacity of a boulevard is then nearly half that of a freeway meaning that the boul. queensway would need to be 16 lanes wide to match what we currently have. That is just idiotic.

Sure you could argue to have multiple boulevards to distribute the population but we all know people will gravitate towards the one they know and congest it. Building multiple 10-lane boulevards will also require massive investment and imminent domain.

[Kitchissippi]

Ignoring any longer-term behavioural changes, we still have to look at traffic capacity as the capacity of an entire system from your driveway to your parking garage.
Say Queensway can transport 8000 pphpd, but the downtown streets can only handle 7000. You could add another 10, 20, 100 lanes to the Queensway and the system's capacity would still be 7000 pphpd.


You're assuming everyone goes downtown when there's a heck of a lot of cross-town traffic as well as trans-provincial movement on the Queensway. There's also the transport of oversized loads like wind turbine blades, factory built homes, heavy equipment, etc. that just would not be practical on city roads. I witnessed one of the LRT's traction power sub stations move through Richmond Road in the middle of Westboro on its way to Tunneys late at night a couple of weeks ago and they shut traffic down. Even though I hardly use the Queensway, I appreciate it like I do a good sewerage system.

[FFX-ME]

You're assuming everyone goes downtown when there's a heck of a lot of cross-town traffic as well as trans-provincial movement on the Queensway. There's also the transport of oversized loads like wind turbine blades, factory built homes, heavy equipment, etc. that just would not be practical on city roads. I witnessed one of the LRT's traction power sub stations move through Richmond Road in the middle of Westboro on its way to Tunneys late at night a couple of weeks ago and they shut traffic down. Even though I hardly use the Queensway, I appreciate it like I do a good sewerage system.

That type of traffic is why we need a ring road.

[sestafanos]

Whilst this thread usually talks a lot of sense, I am appalled that this is a debate. As someone who uses the Queensway anywhere from 5-7 days a week - and on many occasions to make several trips, I have to say that the only road changes that would need to be made concerning Queensway widening, or otherwise, is to turn Hunt Club into a second freeway.

Shoot me down.

[Spocket]

The Queensway is still the best and most viable option for moving traffic within the Ottawa region. It's really due to the way the region is laid out in terms of built form.

You've got two fairly large satellite cities anchoring each end of the city and only two main thoroughfares to move people in and out of them. You could remove the overpasses on the Queensway but it really wouldn't do anything good for the movement of traffic because it's the only way for most of the people in those cities to get anywhere anyway. In particular, Orleans doesn't have much in the way of employment and even Kanata isn't a hub either. People pretty much have to get into Ottawa proper for work and as such, what would be gained by limiting flow ?

At most, perhaps there's an argument for turning the Queensway through the Glebe into a surface road but for the rest of it, it really doesn't make sense. Or to speed things up maybe add more ramps in the same area.

The other option is to turn the whole thing into a surface road but you'd have to construct at least one more main arterial to maintain flow. For example, you'd have to cut a new corridor through the Greenbelt to alleviate the pressure along Hazeldean (as it's known through Kanata) and somehow make it a more direct route to the core along Baseline. As it is there's very little chance that the Queensway is going anywhere. There's far too much residential growth along it to explain how removing the only decent corridor's greatest asset will help anything.

It's also worth pointing out that you've still got two major freeway connections to consider no matter what you do. There's just too much invested in the Queensway as it is.

[J.OT13]

GOD NO! Queensway should not be demolished until we have reliable ways to get downtown from everywhere in the City, Gatineau and beyond (VIA Rail). So never.

Moderator, is it possible to add a poll to this one?

[gjhall]

This conversation would be a bit more interesting/fruitful if someone could post their proposed alternative to the status quo?

[HighwayStar]

I moved to Ottawa from Winnipeg (quite) a few years ago...

Winnipeg is slightly smaller than Ottawa, but doesn't have a single freeway. Only highway (and it's not even controlled access) is the Perimeter Highway, which basically a ring road well outside the city proper...

It takes for-freakin ever to get from one side of Winnipeg to another, traversing probably 40+ traffic lights on the way.

First thing I noticed when I moved to Ottawa was:
a) This awesome highway where one could zip from one side of the city to another in 20 minutes
b) a) was even better because 100 km/h really means 120 km/h ;)
c) These awesome parkways (QE Drive, SJAM) where one could zip around the city without too many traffic lights and other distractions.

Demolishing the Queensway is such a silly topic I would suggest this thread be deleted... or at very least the OP move to Winnipeg for a couple of years and experience the alternative ;)

[McC]

Practical / more surgical solutions to specific problem areas would also be cool to brainstorm.

e.g., East of downtown, an alternative to the current Greenfield/Less/Mann/Nicholas ramps that currently consume a tonne of space and put up big barriers in a very central, and potentially-desirable, part of town.

Just west of downtown, I wish that while they were re-aligning and re-building the westbound Parkdale off-ramp and Westmount Ave, that they'd installed a pedestrian connection between Reid Park in Civic Hospital* and Rosemount Ave to improve direct and safe access to Connaught Public School, like the existing overpass at Harmer provides for Fisher Park and to a somewhat lesser extent, for Elmdale PS.

How much pressure will the new hospital location put for the addition of a westbound off-ramp at Rochester? Would that be safe by current design standards so close to the on-ramp from Bronson?


* what will we call that hood if/when the Hospital decamps eastward? Same thing? Follow the local tradition of Old Ottawa South and Old Ottawa East with "Old Civic Hospital"? Something a little edgier and metropolitain like "WoLiTa"? Topic for another thread!

[waterloowarrior]

Adding a poll to the thread...

[J.OT13]

Adding a poll to the thread...

Awesome! You rock buddy!!!

[Aylmer]

Can we add an option "reduce its footprint at interchanges"?

[waterloowarrior]

Can we add an option "reduce its footprint at interchanges"?

Added... I changed the order so it might show the wrong option for people have already voted, but the vote totals are still correct.