Rideau Street Renewal

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

The problem with the Cummings Bridge is the incline, and a bridge at Daly would have the same issue. I think a better spot for a ped/bike bridge would be a bit south between Laurier and McArthur (with McArthur being "complete-streeted").

A bridge at McArthur strikes me as being too close to the Adawe. I agree the elevation change could be an issue, but there is lots of width in the river so the slope could be pretty gradual.

Note that GeoOttawa shows a crossing at Cummings Island as part of the "Ultimate Cycling Network", so the idea of a bridge there isn't entirely out of left field.

EDIT: I also suggested the east landing be at Selkirk St. I didn't show anything in my map, but potentially the cycling route could be extended along Selkirk to a MUP alongside the Vanier Pkwy; this would allow cyclists to go north (to connect with the Montreal Rd cycle tracks) or south (to connect with the McArthur cycle tracks).

This would actually integrate the cycling grid in this area if the bike track on Rideau continued on to Cumberland. I would also suggest a MUP link on Waller with the bus mall's function has been reduced post-LRT to link the MK bridge with the MUP to Hurdman.

As someone else mentioned, it is already planned to extend the MUP along the LRT further up Waller to MacKenzie King Bridge. Cumberland already has two blocks of southbound separated bike lanes (between George and Besserer) and one northbound block (between Rideau and George) will be added as part of the Claridge Royale development. Councillor Fleury mentioned that Nicholas is also being looked at as a future link between Besserer and Laurier.

I'm just not sure there will be room to extend the lanes on Rideau any further east. On Besserer, there is lots of space to add a bi-directional bikeway on the north side between Nicholas and King Edward, and east of KE it's quiet. What I like about Besserer is that it is only one block from Rideau, so it's the ideal parallel route.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

No choice but to build that new bridge. The Cummings Bridge is far too narrow. Not even sure it would be possible to widen the sidewalk unless we removed a traffic lane (which isn't doable considering the traffic).

I agree, your plan is awesome.

Can a MUP be slung over one side (ideally the Cummings Island side) I wonder?

[Aylmer]

Have you perhaps considered that the reason transit sucks on Montreal and Bank isn't the nonexistent bike lanes... but the cars?

[mykl]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Sorry, sharrows don't count.

Sharrows counted on other parts of the map in question, so lets be consistent or not at all.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by mykl

Sharrows counted on other parts of the map in question, so lets be consistent or not at all.

Sorry, can you point out where?

Sharrows could be appropriate on low speed , low volume residential roads, but on a high volume arterial with buses like the Cummings Bridge, definitely not.

[Aylmer]

Sharrows are funny things. They're only appropriate on streets with slow, bike-ish-speed traffic and low traffic volumes. But... those are also streets which don't need sharrows because they're low-speed and low-volume.

So in a way, sharrows are only appropriate in contexts... where they're not needed.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Sharrows are funny things. They're only appropriate on streets with slow, bike-ish-speed traffic and low traffic volumes. But... those are also streets which don't need sharrows because they're low-speed and low-volume.

So in a way, sharrows are only appropriate in contexts... where they're not needed.

I agree. On low-speed, low-volume roads they are useful for wayfinding the bike route, but that's about it.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

I agree. On low-speed, low-volume roads they are useful for wayfinding the bike route, but that's about it.

Exactly, they should be used for wayfinding on a confusing route through local streets. For example, if you are following the Rideau River Western Pathway (or Rideau River Nature Trail) as a cyclist you are kind of forced off the pathway south of Greystone - from there you have to take Onslow-Elliot-Bullock-Rideau Garden to get back on the pathway. That route has a few sharrows, but it would actually benefit from even more to improve wayfinding. Another example is parts of the new Nepean Trail bike route.

The City usually uses sharrows inappropriately.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

Exactly, they should be used for wayfinding on a confusing route through local streets. For example, if you are following the Rideau River Western Pathway (or Rideau River Nature Trail) as a cyclist you are kind of forced off the pathway south of Greystone - from there you have to take Onslow-Elliot-Bullock-Rideau Garden to get back on the pathway. That route has a few sharrows, but it would actually benefit from even more to improve wayfinding. Another example is parts of the new Nepean Trail bike route.

I actually just rode that route last weekend and had the exact same thought. It lacks signage and could benefit from more signage and sharrows to guide cyclists along the route.

[TransitZilla]

Maybe we should move the Bank St canal bridge discussion to another thread? It's a worthwhile discussion but the Rideau Street thread is probably not the place...

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Maybe we should move the Bank St canal bridge discussion to another thread? It's a worthwhile discussion but the Rideau Street thread is probably not the place...

Done. A new Bank Street Canal Bridge Improvements thread is over here:

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=243358

[Lightspotting]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

The cycle tracks look awesome and they have so much potential to create a larger east-west bike spine.

I was biking down Besserer on the weekend and I was struck by how similar it is (or could be) to the "Off-Broadway" bikeway along W 8th Ave is Vancouver. Like W 8th is parallel to Broadway and 1 block away, Besserer is parallel to Rideau for its full length and one block south.

The map below shows existing and planned cycling infrastructure in green:
-thin lines for bike lanes or shared lanes
-medium lines for uni-directional protected lanes
-thick lines for MUP or bi-directional protected lanes

The proposed Besserer Bikeway is shown in red.

Not saying this is a bad idea but fundamentally I disagree with the idea of pushing bicycles away from a street filled with shopping/employment. Rideau street is a destination for cyclists, not just a pass through.

Pedestrians, cyclists and e scooters etc do not contribute to noise, pollutions or congestions the way that cars do. I don't believe that we should push active transportation away. I believe that we should reduce car lanes and put active transportation on centre stage on our main streets with a protected design.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Lightspotting

Not saying this is a bad idea but fundamentally I disagree with the idea of pushing bicycles away from a street filled with shopping/employment. Rideau street is a destination for cyclists, not just a pass through.

Pedestrians, cyclists and e scooters etc do not contribute to noise, pollutions or congestions the way that cars do. I don't believe that we should push active transportation away. I believe that we should reduce car lanes and put active transportation on centre stage on our main streets with a protected design.

I don't disagree with you, but the problem on Rideau is lack of width and most importantly, transit. Any reduction in the number of lanes on Rideau Street would mean giving up the transit lanes. Given how important transit is on this corridor, I don't think that would be acceptable.

Having a cycling facility on Besserer would allow cyclists to park within a block of almost all destinations on Rideau.

[JayBuoy]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

I don't disagree with you, but the problem on Rideau is lack of width and most importantly, transit. Any reduction in the number of lanes on Rideau Street would mean giving up the transit lanes. Given how important transit is on this corridor, I don't think that would be acceptable.

Having a cycling facility on Besserer would allow cyclists to park within a block of almost all destinations on Rideau.

It is a matter of what is politically salient, not what is possible. Remove cars from Rideau and you will have plenty of space for transit lanes and active transportation. But this is not currently possible given the political climate.

I think it will be necessary in the next 5-10 years as thousands of people move into the Rideau-Montreal corridor.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by JayBuoy

It is a matter of what is politically salient, not what is possible. Remove cars from Rideau and you will have plenty of space for transit lanes and active transportation. But this is not currently possible given the political climate.

I think it will be necessary in the next 5-10 years as thousands of people move into the Rideau-Montreal corridor.

When thousands move to that corridor, we need to revisit our transit plans for the corridor. Frankly, the Rideau-Montreal corridor is a whole lot more attractive for intensification than the Confederation Line corridor which is next to the Queensway.

We also have to understand that we cannot block the only east-west transportation route through downtown.

[Aylmer]

Well let's not exaggerate. From a automobile perspective, Rideau/Montreal is a two-lane street which inches you through a thousand traffic lights to a dead end before downtown. The theoretical maximum capacity of a freeway lane is about 1k cars per hour, and we can safely assume Rideau carries much less than that.

We'd survive limiting through-traffic on Rideau because we've been doing it since like 2013 now.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Well let's not exaggerate. From a automobile perspective, Rideau/Montreal is a two-lane street which inches you through a thousand traffic lights to a dead end before downtown. The theoretical maximum capacity of a freeway lane is about 1k cars per hour, and we can safely assume Rideau carries much less than that.

We'd survive limiting through-traffic on Rideau because we've been doing it since like 2013 now.

We cannot have no through traffic routes. After all, we want to make the market more pedestrian oriented as well.

It is all well and good to want to make our city more pedestrian, bike, and transit friendly, but there is also a cost. For a major segment of the population, this makes downtown a 'no go' zone. It is already happening.
Not good for overall downtown business if we make access very difficult for the 75% modal share which is private vehicles.

We also have to face it that transit has now taken a major hit and may not recover for years, if ever, especially if substantial service cuts are implemented, which seems to be inevitable at some point in the future.

[Aylmer]

No one is saying that there'd be no through-traffic routes. It's just that Rideau isn't actually a major car route. Coming from the east, you've got 5 lanes per direction on the Queensway, 2 on St Patrick and 2 on Sussex. The single lane on Rideau is hardly the make-or-break vehicular link many imagine it to be.

On the other hand, measures to create a usable avenue for other modes would not only be better for those modes, but also shift people out of cars (and reduce congestion) on the other routes.

[JayBuoy]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We cannot have no through traffic routes. After all, we want to make the market more pedestrian oriented as well.

It is all well and good to want to make our city more pedestrian, bike, and transit friendly, but there is also a cost. For a major segment of the population, this makes downtown a 'no go' zone. It is already happening.
Not good for overall downtown business if we make access very difficult for the 75% modal share which is private vehicles.

We also have to face it that transit has now taken a major hit and may not recover for years, if ever, especially if substantial service cuts are implemented, which seems to be inevitable at some point in the future.

The opinions of local residents should be central to this discussion, so frankly, if you don't live in the community your opinion on the matter has limited value. OR at least it ought to. The personal automobile is privileged in the Rideau-Montreal corridor. Its about time it gets knocked down a peg.

Privileging public and active transportation instead would probably increase throughput. Especially with a dedicated busway and signalization for buses (not the current half-measure with buses dodging parked cars).

Of course with the future OTS transit plans, vehicle traffic will be limited on wellington. New bike lanes on wellington eventually, as well.

We've already had limited throughput on Rideau with the LRT construction, and now road reconfiguration.

Montreal is getting rebuilt as well. Its not exactly the ideal route for crossing town.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Have you perhaps considered that the reason transit sucks on Montreal and Bank isn't the nonexistent bike lanes... but the cars?

Have you perhaps considered that the grafting of the bike lanes onto Montreal Road is a significant constraint on the roadway which will result in even worse local bus transit - the only kind of transit which Vanier is permitted to have - and that this is by design?