Review of Transportation Master Plan, Cycling Plan, Pedestrian Plan (2013)

[JM1]

Ottawa is strange. When it comes time to build public transit, we build it where nobody lives, because that is where we have the rights of way (witness the transitway).

Then when it comes to building expressway, some think it would be best to build them right through communities.

The trend should be the opposite -- build public transit where people live and build expressways away from communities.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

To be fair, not many people lived beyond St. Laurent Blvd. in 1960 so what would have been the justification for building the bridge at that time? There has been a plan for an east end bridge since the Greber Plan and the Aviation Parkway corridor had been approved by the region since the early 1970s.

Yes, a truck tunnel will get rid of trucks on downtown streets but it does not improve the connectivity of the city which will get worse and worse as the city continues to grow.

A truck tunnel also converts an interprovincial problem into an Ottawa problem. It lets Quebec and Gatineau off the hook and maybe even the Feds. This has become the easy way out but ultimately Ottawa and Ontario taxpayers are going to end up paying more.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by JM1

Ottawa is strange. When it comes time to build public transit, we build it where nobody lives, because that is where we have the rights of way (witness the transitway).

Then when it comes to building expressway, some think it would be best to build them right through communities.

The trend should be the opposite -- build public transit where people live and build expressways away from communities.

Ottawa builds rapid transit through vacant & underutilized areas in order to spur TOD which in my opinion is a good policy. Aside from the pre-war area which is geographically small, the entire city is very low density and car-oriented. Building rapid transit through such areas would be a waste of money as there would be few potential riders within walking distance of the stations. Redevelopment will happen but it takes a long time. Building through vacant areas gives us the chance to design transit-oriented areas from scratch.

That's the theory anyway. In practice the Transitway hasn't done much to spur development around it. Hopefully that will change post LRT conversion. Judging by all the activity around Carling Station, which is on a basic LRT line with limited capacity & headways (which will still be true even with the new trains) that doesn't go to much, the Confederation Line stations, which are on a metro-quality LRT with major destinations on it, will cause a boom. The only possible problem is the market slowdown. Ideally we'd put a moratorium on all new projects outside the Confederation Line TOD zone and only allow new condo proposals in the TOD zones at Blair, Lees, Hurdman, Tremblay, etc. but such a restriction would be instantly killed by the OMB.

On the topic of the truck tunnel, I think the study should look at the possibility of building a tunnel from the 417 to the 50 underneath the O-Train line & on the POW bridge. It might be cheaper, and if we did at the same time as double-tracking that section of the O-Train & extending the O-Train to Gatineau we could get economies of scale to make all three projects cheaper.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by McC

*some* trucks

It would have to be all trucks. In other words trucks would have to be banned on all other approaches to the bridges. Otherwise they would not pay the large toll required for the tunnel to pay for itself. Even then it seems unworkable as a truck only toll tunnel. Why would they not allow cars also? Then you might be looking at a reasonable toll.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

To be fair, not many people lived beyond St. Laurent Blvd. in 1960 so what would have been the justification for building the bridge at that time? There has been a plan for an east end bridge since the Greber Plan and the Aviation Parkway corridor had been approved by the region since the early 1970s.

Yes, a truck tunnel will get rid of trucks on downtown streets but it does not improve the connectivity of the city which will get worse and worse as the city continues to grow.

A truck tunnel also converts an interprovincial problem into an Ottawa problem. It lets Quebec and Gatineau off the hook and maybe even the Feds. This has become the easy way out but ultimately Ottawa and Ontario taxpayers are going to end up paying more.

Ideally the tunnel project, if it goes ahead, should be tolled one.

[McC]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

It would have to be all trucks. In other words trucks would have to be banned on all other approaches to the bridges.

impossible, hazardous materials (including fuel trucks) would be forbidden from using the tunnel.

[JM1]

The transitway has been around for decades and nobody has built anything by it. TOD is a City Hall dream. It won't happen. People don't want to live next to the 417 (which is where St. Laurent, Cyrville, Train, and Blair sit). People do want to live near parks and active night life. But even the Preston Carling junction will have trouble getting built... Witness the Claridge Icon's poor sales -- it won't happen.

Transit should serve and build on existing neioghbourhoods and not contemplate new artificial and soulless neighbourhoods.

European cities work because they have incorporated modern public transit into centuries old neighbourhoods.

You are still working to get artificial cities to thrive.. Ever been to Brasilia or Canberra?

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Ottawa builds rapid transit through vacant & underutilized areas in order to spur TOD which in my opinion is a good policy. Aside from the pre-war area which is geographically small, the entire city is very low density and car-oriented. Building rapid transit through such areas would be a waste of money as there would be few potential riders within walking distance of the stations. Redevelopment will happen but it takes a long time. Building through vacant areas gives us the chance to design transit-oriented areas from scratch.

That's the theory anyway. In practice the Transitway hasn't done much to spur development around it. Hopefully that will change post LRT conversion. Judging by all the activity around Carling Station, which is on a basic LRT line with limited capacity & headways (which will still be true even with the new trains) that doesn't go to much, the Confederation Line stations, which are on a metro-quality LRT with major destinations on it, will cause a boom. The only possible problem is the market slowdown. Ideally we'd put a moratorium on all new projects outside the Confederation Line TOD zone and only allow new condo proposals in the TOD zones at Blair, Lees, Hurdman, Tremblay, etc. but such a restriction would be instantly killed by the OMB.

On the topic of the truck tunnel, I think the study should look at the possibility of building a tunnel from the 417 to the 50 underneath the O-Train line & on the POW bridge. It might be cheaper, and if we did at the same time as double-tracking that section of the O-Train & extending the O-Train to Gatineau we could get economies of scale to make all three projects cheaper.

[J.OT13]

I'm ok with making the tunnel tolled if it's a truck only tunnel (or a mixed traffic tunnel with only trucks paying tolls). Having regular traffic pay tolls would be ridiculous. Everyone would then avoid the tunnel and use the other available crossings unless all crossings are tolled. All this would do is further segregate Ottawa and Gatineau when we should work on making it more of a seamless metropolitan region.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I'm ok with making the tunnel tolled if it's a truck only tunnel (or a mixed traffic tunnel with only trucks paying tolls). Having regular traffic pay tolls would be ridiculous. Everyone would then avoid the tunnel and use the other available crossings unless all crossings are tolled. All this would do is further segregate Ottawa and Gatineau when we should work on making it more of a seamless metropolitan region.

When the city mentions a toll I assume they are trying to make it pay for itslef. There is no way trucks only would generate enough to do this. A one or two dollar car toll in rush hour could generate significant revenue.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I'm ok with making the tunnel tolled if it's a truck only tunnel (or a mixed traffic tunnel with only trucks paying tolls). Having regular traffic pay tolls would be ridiculous. Everyone would then avoid the tunnel and use the other available crossings unless all crossings are tolled. All this would do is further segregate Ottawa and Gatineau when we should work on making it more of a seamless metropolitan region.

White elephants were regarded as holy in ancient times in Thailand and other Asian countries. Keeping a white elephant was a very expensive undertaking, since the owner had to provide the elephant with special food and provide access for people who wanted to worship it. If a Thai King became dissatisfied with a subordinate, he would give him a white elephant. The gift would, in most cases, ruin the recipient.

I agree that connectivity should be improved wherever possible, but we have to make sure that we can afford to sustain the subsequent and sizable increases in demand: if it becomes much easier to get from A to B, we know that people will adjust their routines and patterns to take advantage of this new ease (eg: work in Nepean, live in Gatineau; live in Alta Vista, shop on Maloney, etc.) which will result in large increases for the demand for the route as long as it's easy.

However, infrastructure for private modes of transportation (bikes, cars, walkways), by their nature, become less and less effective the more people use them, unlike mass transportation.

So, knowing that building a limited-access link between the 50 and the 417 will cause great increases in demand and that those increases will cause the tunnel to become less and less effective (i.e: more gridlock), do we have the resources necessary for adding more and more lanes in the future? Since a tunnel is so expensive, delicate and time-consuming, I don't think that we should set ourselves up for a situation where we need to expand and expand them at the tune of billions of dollars and months of disruption.


So, if ease of access begets increased demand which begets increased need for infrastructure, but we can't afford those increases, we need to temper demand by reducing the ease of access either by not letting cars in the tunnel or charging a significant fee for using the tunnel according to demand.

Otherwise, we're taking on a white elephant which will very much drive us to ruin.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by JM1

The transitway has been around for decades and nobody has built anything by it. TOD is a City Hall dream. It won't happen. People don't want to live next to the 417 (which is where St. Laurent, Cyrville, Train, and Blair sit). People do want to live near parks and active night life. But even the Preston Carling junction will have trouble getting built... Witness the Claridge Icon's poor sales -- it won't happen.

Transit should serve and build on existing neioghbourhoods and not contemplate new artificial and soulless neighbourhoods.

European cities work because they have incorporated modern public transit into centuries old neighbourhoods.

You are still working to get artificial cities to thrive.. Ever been to Brasilia or Canberra?

Never been, but all the Australians I've ever met have been from there.

Back on topic though, I mostly agree with you. There are precious few Transitway stations where people live, and few will change in the next 10-20 years. However, I don't see what Claridge Icon has to do with it. There's been a market slowdown, and the prices for Icon were ridiculous. Also, according to several members here, their presentation and interaction with potential buyers was pretty piss poor.

European cities also work because they tend to be milder, more compact, and closer together. Five hours of travel in Europe can bring you to another country. Five hours of travel in Canada can bring you to another part of Canada, and it may not even be interesting or a modestly sized city.

Allow me to use my personal experience with Ghent. They have a mix of trams and buses, and both go right into the heart of their amazingly preserved city centre, which is chock-full of medieval architecture. So long as there aren't road closures, the transit works fairly well. Now, the friend I was staying with lived in the suburbs or Ghent, which still felt like an inner city urban neighbourhood because of how dense it was. Also, lots of people in Ghent use transit or bikes to get around the city. This is partly because the streets are often narrow in the old city, and transit has been given the priority over cars in a lot of areas.

Also, their transit is meant to connect neighbourhoods, and not just be used as a commuter tool to take cars off the road. This is all well and good, but Ghent is not Ottawa, nor does it compare to any Canadian city, in part for the reasons listed above.

Originally Posted by Aylmer

White elephants were regarded as holy in ancient times in Thailand and other Asian countries. Keeping a white elephant was a very expensive undertaking, since the owner had to provide the elephant with special food and provide access for people who wanted to worship it. If a Thai King became dissatisfied with a subordinate, he would give him a white elephant. The gift would, in most cases, ruin the recipient.

I agree that connectivity should be improved wherever possible, but we have to make sure that we can afford to sustain the subsequent and sizable increases in demand: if it becomes much easier to get from A to B, we know that people will adjust their routines and patterns to take advantage of this new ease (eg: work in Nepean, live in Gatineau; live in Alta Vista, shop on Maloney, etc.) which will result in large increases for the demand for the route as long as it's easy.

However, infrastructure for private modes of transportation (bikes, cars, walkways), by their nature, become less and less effective the more people use them, unlike mass transportation.

So, knowing that building a limited-access link between the 50 and the 417 will cause great increases in demand and that those increases will cause the tunnel to become less and less effective (i.e: more gridlock), do we have the resources necessary for adding more and more lanes in the future? Since a tunnel is so expensive, delicate and time-consuming, I don't think that we should set ourselves up for a situation where we need to expand and expand them at the tune of billions of dollars and months of disruption.


So, if ease of access begets increased demand which begets increased need for infrastructure, but we can't afford those increases, we need to temper demand by reducing the ease of access either by not letting cars in the tunnel or charging a significant fee for using the tunnel according to demand.

Otherwise, we're taking on a white elephant which will very much drive us to ruin.

This was a very well thought out post. Just putting that out there.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

White elephants were regarded as holy in ancient times in Thailand and other Asian countries. Keeping a white elephant was a very expensive undertaking, since the owner had to provide the elephant with special food and provide access for people who wanted to worship it. If a Thai King became dissatisfied with a subordinate, he would give him a white elephant. The gift would, in most cases, ruin the recipient.

I agree that connectivity should be improved wherever possible, but we have to make sure that we can afford to sustain the subsequent and sizable increases in demand: if it becomes much easier to get from A to B, we know that people will adjust their routines and patterns to take advantage of this new ease (eg: work in Nepean, live in Gatineau; live in Alta Vista, shop on Maloney, etc.) which will result in large increases for the demand for the route as long as it's easy.

However, infrastructure for private modes of transportation (bikes, cars, walkways), by their nature, become less and less effective the more people use them, unlike mass transportation.

So, knowing that building a limited-access link between the 50 and the 417 will cause great increases in demand and that those increases will cause the tunnel to become less and less effective (i.e: more gridlock), do we have the resources necessary for adding more and more lanes in the future? Since a tunnel is so expensive, delicate and time-consuming, I don't think that we should set ourselves up for a situation where we need to expand and expand them at the tune of billions of dollars and months of disruption.


So, if ease of access begets increased demand which begets increased need for infrastructure, but we can't afford those increases, we need to temper demand by reducing the ease of access either by not letting cars in the tunnel or charging a significant fee for using the tunnel according to demand.

Otherwise, we're taking on a white elephant which will very much drive us to ruin.

Weighing cost and benefits, I would opt for a 4 lane truck only toll tunnel. Whenever capacity is needed for personal vehicles, then I would build the Aviation bridge to Gatineau, which would include an LRT link between Blair Station and De La Cité Rapibus station (hopefully Rapirail by then, creating the possibility of a U shaped line between Ottawa and Gatineau).

[Aylmer]

Though I agree with you on the tunnel (though since its users are both limited and can be controlled with scheduling to redistribute traffic from the peak times, I think that two large lanes would suffice), my point was a bit more radical than that:

Considering that we can't afford all the auto-dependant housing, roads, parking structures and societal and economic impacts of the car, I don't think that we should build any more infrastructure for it, now that we know better. We should maintain the status quo for roads and highways and put all of the restores that would otherwise have gone into new interchanges, highways and lanes (which, as I explained, only worsen congestion after two or three years at great expense) into improving the alternatives in order to alleviate congestion on the roads and provide a long-term way to cut costs all while maintaining (and even improving) our quality of life.

If a bridge were to be built, I'm of the strong opinion that it should not be open to private vehicles and be instead dedicated to public transportation, bicycles, pedestrians and emergency, service and commercial vehicles. Otherwise, we're just setting ourselves up for a host of expensive and costly (not the same thing) problems associated with an auto-dependant lifestyle as opposed to an auto-optional one.


I know that the idea of prioritising other modes of transportation than the car seems radical when looking at how things are done here, but fringe-ness is relative and, from what I've read and seen, I am absolutely certain that this idea is right.

[eternallyme]

Regarding bringing transit and using it as development, let's say hypothetically they left the Transitway alone and decided to build a subway under Bank Street initially. That would be bringing high-level transit to some of Ottawa's most established communities. Would that be even more of a development tool? I'd argue yes in that case...

Look around Westboro Station, that seems to be where there is a lot of demand for new developments. It is also an established area AND along major transit (both local and rapid). So a point may exist there...take away ANY of the established business development (it's one of Ottawa's most popular urban shopping areas), local transit (Route 2, which connects it to other businesses and amenities in the area) and rapid transit (to get to work and more distant activities), it wouldn't be nearly as popular. Once the LRT gets that far, it will be even more pronounced.

I'd argue the stations along the east Transitway from St. Laurent to Blair (particularly around St. Laurent and Blair Roads) are better suited for office development and not residential, especially considering the CBD is pretty much built out. There is already a decent employment area around both stations, and I would focus the LRT on such.

[eternallyme]

As for the tunnel, one of the most glaring weaknesses in the entire transportation system in Ottawa (other than the downtown Transitway gap) is the lack of a connection between the Quebec and Ontario freeway networks. Since Montee Paiement was not going to be upgraded, the Kettle Island bridge would not have fixed that issue.

If the truck tunnel is built, it would require as well a prohibition on trucks on the Chaudière Bridge. Other than dangerous goods (which make up about 3% of trucks if that), all trucks would be forced into the tunnel. It would probably need to be 4 lanes wide. Cars would be permitted as well, but the toll would be high so it may not be desirable for them. Perhaps the ideal toll would be $5.00 per trip (in both directions). There would be no traffic signals or grade crossings between the 417 and M-C Bridge, resulting in a free-flow connection between Ottawa and Gatineau. The toll money would go partially to recoup the construction costs and partially to maintenance.

The bridge would NOT be tolled though - cars exiting at King Edward or Sussex would not pay a toll.

Yes, it does give the Quebec government a free ride in a sense, but the bridge itself has plenty of capacity (the AADT capacity of the bridge is over 100,000 and it is nowhere near that), the traffic problems are downstream. The 5-50 interchange needs significant reconstruction though.

[Aylmer]

One thing about the "Free ride for Gatineau" idea - trucks on King Edward and Rideau are, strictly speaking, an 'Ottawa problem'. Though making the downtown(-ish) area safer and more attractive for pedestrians could be argued as a boon to the region as a whole, Gatineau has much less of a reason than Ottawa to invest in a solution to a problem in Lowertown.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

One thing about the "Free ride for Gatineau" idea - trucks on King Edward and Rideau are, strictly speaking, an 'Ottawa problem'. Though making the downtown(-ish) area safer and more attractive for pedestrians could be argued as a boon to the region as a whole, Gatineau has much less of a reason than Ottawa to invest in a solution to a problem in Lowertown.

An indirect benefit to Gatineau would be that the reduction in traffic jams in Ottawa might make the STO's Ottawa bound lines a little more rapid and efficient. That said, there is still no reason for them to pay for a tunnel on the Ottawa side.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

An indirect benefit to Gatineau would be that the reduction in traffic jams in Ottawa might make the STO's Ottawa bound lines a little more rapid and efficient. That said, there is still no reason for them to pay for a tunnel on the Ottawa side.

Scientists have theorised that if ever STO buses were to become rapid and efficient, the reality as we know it would fall apart under the sheer weight of the contradiction

Or at least that's my theory as for why buses often come 15+ minutes late to the FIRST STOP ON THE LINE.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

One thing about the "Free ride for Gatineau" idea - trucks on King Edward and Rideau are, strictly speaking, an 'Ottawa problem'. Though making the downtown(-ish) area safer and more attractive for pedestrians could be argued as a boon to the region as a whole, Gatineau has much less of a reason than Ottawa to invest in a solution to a problem in Lowertown.

I was gonna say this too. A lot of the trucks on KE are actually Ontario-plated and making deliveries from Ottawa businesses to Gatineau clients too.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Though I agree with you on the tunnel (though since its users are both limited and can be controlled with scheduling to redistribute traffic from the peak times, I think that two large lanes would suffice), my point was a bit more radical than that:

Considering that we can't afford all the auto-dependant housing, roads, parking structures and societal and economic impacts of the car, I don't think that we should build any more infrastructure for it, now that we know better. We should maintain the status quo for roads and highways and put all of the restores that would otherwise have gone into new interchanges, highways and lanes (which, as I explained, only worsen congestion after two or three years at great expense) into improving the alternatives in order to alleviate congestion on the roads and provide a long-term way to cut costs all while maintaining (and even improving) our quality of life.

If a bridge were to be built, I'm of the strong opinion that it should not be open to private vehicles and be instead dedicated to public transportation, bicycles, pedestrians and emergency, service and commercial vehicles. Otherwise, we're just setting ourselves up for a host of expensive and costly (not the same thing) problems associated with an auto-dependant lifestyle as opposed to an auto-optional one.


I know that the idea of prioritising other modes of transportation than the car seems radical when looking at how things are done here, but fringe-ness is relative and, from what I've read and seen, I am absolutely certain that this idea is right.

When we are building a 100% downtown-centric transit system, how will this ever work? The reality is that a larger and larger percentage of jobs are not located downtown. If we are not going to build transit considering this reality, won't our transportation system just end up choking on itself?

[lrt's friend]

I'd argue the stations along the east Transitway from St. Laurent to Blair (particularly around St. Laurent and Blair Roads) are better suited for office development and not residential, especially considering the CBD is pretty much built out. There is already a decent employment area around both stations, and I would focus the LRT on such.

Yes, locations along the Queensway are much better suited to office development over Condo development. We cannot force condo development into locations that are not attractive.