Innes-Walkley-Hunt Club Connector | Phase 1 (Hunt Club to 417 Extension) Proposed

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

I know a guy who was rear-ended 2 days ago on the eastbound Queensway while he was the last car in the lineup to exit at Bronson. The line was backed-up, as it often is, up onto the highway at the time.

I have been in exactly that situation at the Bronson exit and I felt very uncomfortable until I was able to get my car fully onto the exit.

[MountainView]

Exited 417 eastbound to Hunt Club last night and they are currently modifying the exit so you do not have to stop. You will definitely have to slow down but the exit ramp will turn into the right hand lane to allow for a smooth merge. No idea why they made that a T intersection in the first place. Only people who missed an exit would ever turn left to go back on the 417 there.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by MountainView

Exited 417 eastbound to Hunt Club last night and they are currently modifying the exit so you do not have to stop. You will definitely have to slow down but the exit ramp will turn into the right hand lane to allow for a smooth merge. No idea why they made that a T intersection in the first place. Only people who missed an exit would ever turn left to go back on the 417 there.

Hunt Club is planned to be extended further east later on, so in the future left turns will exist; that's why the T intersection was built.

I suspect the design for the interchange is to ultimately have the 417 EB -> Hunt Club offramp split into two lanes; the left one going straight to a T intersection for left turns, and the right one merging into Hunt Club for right turns. During construction somebody (either in the city or in the MTO) made the decision to have only the T intersection built at this time as they expected volumes to be low. Given that somebody stopped there turning onto Hunt Club would have to yield only to traffic coming in from 417 WB -> Hunt Club (which is a very small volume as it's all countryside east of Hunt Club), they must have figured it wouldn't be a big deal.

Now that they see that it is a big deal, they're adding in the merging right turn piece now. The T intersection will probably be kept, but it will be either fenced off or turned into a U-Turn section or something.

[MountainView]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Hunt Club is planned to be extended further east later on, so in the future left turns will exist; that's why the T intersection was built.

I suspect the design for the interchange is to ultimately have the 417 EB -> Hunt Club offramp split into two lanes; the left one going straight to a T intersection for left turns, and the right one merging into Hunt Club for right turns. During construction somebody (either in the city or in the MTO) made the decision to have only the T intersection built at this time as they expected volumes to be low. Given that somebody stopped there turning onto Hunt Club would have to yield only to traffic coming in from 417 WB -> Hunt Club (which is a very small volume as it's all countryside east of Hunt Club), they must have figured it wouldn't be a big deal.

Now that they see that it is a big deal, they're adding in the merging right turn piece now. The T intersection will probably be kept, but it will be either fenced off or turned into a U-Turn section or something.

Right, I had completely forgot about the eventual expansion further east, so thank you for that.

As for the T intersection they will still have it available for cars to turn left with the right merge lane becoming the right hand lane of Hunt Club.

[ServiceGuy]

Went past the Hunt Club off ramp East bound 417 in the afternoon drive this past week and it's already become so popular that traffic backs up on to 417 at a dead stop in the right lane. Problem seems to be the stop sign at the top of the ramp not allowing traffic to flow through fast enough to clear the ramp. A right turn on to Hunt Club merge lane and yield sign is needed.

[Cre47]

Now on Street View. Speed limit of 80 km/h and cyclists prohibited (for the moment)

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.374299,-7...v5Ehmmn2CTeTGVwKfOYSw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.382769,-7...lvcc9Fi-SmiP4akWlfjzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Cre47

Now on Street View. Speed limit of 80 km/h and cyclists prohibited (for the moment)

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.374299,-7...v5Ehmmn2CTeTGVwKfOYSw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.382769,-7...lvcc9Fi-SmiP4akWlfjzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This is one of those stupid things where the least they could have done was give cyclists access to Russell Road with a ramp instead of building bike lanes to and from nowhere.

[1overcosc]

I think the expectation is there will soon be development on the new part of Hunt Club so cyclist access will be good to have.

[ServiceGuy]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I think the expectation is there will soon be development on the new part of Hunt Club so cyclist access will be good to have.

That's great but... dead stopped traffic on 417 main lanes is not so great. A better design is needed because we now have a significant safety issue that didn't exist before... stopped traffic well beyond the split heading to Montreal.

[1overcosc]

The right lane starts at the EB offramp, so simply removing the stop sign and slightly rounding the curve would allow for a stopless merge. I think they're doing that right now from what was posted earlier.

[MountainView]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The right lane starts at the EB offramp, so simply removing the stop sign and slightly rounding the curve would allow for a stopless merge. I think they're doing that right now from what was posted earlier.

Can confirm this is what they are doing.

[Athens]

Is there any update on Phase II of this? I’ve been paying attention the Brian Coburn extension and the plans for Phase II of this really have me scratching my head. Why the heck does this not link up to Blair Road? City planners have decided that this stretch of Innes needs another signalled intersection apparently

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Athens

Is there any update on Phase II of this? I’ve been paying attention the Brian Coburn extension and the plans for Phase II of this really have me scratching my head. Why the heck does this not link up to Blair Road? City planners have decided that this stretch of Innes needs another signalled intersection apparently

I agree. Quite the mess of intersections. With such short-distances between traffic lights, I expect some major back-ups.

IMO, Walkley should connect at Blair while Brian Coburn would better connect where the Bypass strengthens-out after Weir (which does not actually cross the Bypass). No extension to Weir, but Anderson extending straight to form a 4-way "X" intersection at the Bypass with the new Brian Coburn, and the BRT replacing Anderson west f there, as depicted.

Renaud should be completely eliminated from public use between Anderson and Joshua, returning it to the Greenbelt (where the new Brian Coburn doesn't take over). It can be partially re-purposed for use by the farms only where needed.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

From Kate Porter.


https://twitter.com/KatePorterCBC/status/1499046341858799626

[waterloowarrior]

There are geotechnical issues around Greens Creek. High cost and environmental impact. The road has a 150 m setback from the creek in that area.
https://app06.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2007/12-07/trc/ACS2007-PTE-POL-0070.htm

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

There are geotechnical issues around Greens Creek. High cost and environmental impact. The road has a 150 m setback from the creek in that area.
https://app06.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2007/12-07/trc/ACS2007-PTE-POL-0070.htm

Some broader images.

[GeoNerd]

1) The Brian Coburn Blvd Option 7 is an absolute embarrassment. It’s actually nauseating how easily this mayor/council will pave over wetlands, woodlots, greenbelt, farmland, historic sites, experimental farm, mature trees, etc. The NCC has flat out rejected a suburban mini-freeway through their wetland, yet they are still pursuing it. Wasting time and tax dollars. This mayor/council has zero vision and zero comprehension of city building.

2) In regard to the Hunt Club extension, as others have mentioned, it would make much more sense to bridge Greens Creek and connect the Hunt Club extension at Innes Road to the Blair Road intersection instead of building a brand new intersection 500m east. They are already bridging/culverting the Ramsay Creek and Black Creek.

[Kitchissippi]

This whole thing does not make sense, building a road parallel to the 417 where there are close to no traffic issues. My suspicion for this not linking directly to Blair is that it's part of a long term plot for a Green's Creek Parkway that would link to the GEC Parkway. The NCC is just letting the city build it for them.

It would make more sense to rebuild Anderson road to parkway aesthetics, maybe even restoring some of the bog/wetlands to the west of it by putting sections of the roadway on stilts.

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

This whole thing does not make sense, building a road parallel to the 417 where there are close to no traffic issues. My suspicion for this not linking directly to Blair is that it's part of a long term plot for a Green's Creek Parkway that would link to the GEC Parkway. The NCC is just letting the city build it for them.

It would make more sense to rebuild Anderson road to parkway aesthetics, maybe even restoring some of the bog/wetlands to the west of it by putting sections of the roadway on stilts.

It makes sense to me. As of right now there are exactly two high volume road routes connecting Orleans to the rest of the city, Innes & the 174. Either of those gets blocked for any reason and it's pandemonium. A new major route (option 7) + the Hunt Club extension creates a third completely separate major connection. It could bleed off a lot of traffic between Orleans and the Airport/South Industrial Areas of Ottawa that would otherwise clog 174/Innes. Do I like the idea of all these roads running parallel to each other? No. Is there any other option to give Orleans a third major connection when Mer Bleue is in the way? No. Unless I'm reading into these plans wrong or missed something (which I often do ), I think this could work well.

[J.OT13]

As an Orleans resident, I'm also unsure that the Hunt Club extension is needed. Even more so now if commuting patterns are to change with a new hybrid work reality.

If it is needed, what if Brian Coburn and Hunt Club became one and not connect to Innes. As its own cross-town link, it doesn't need to directly connect to another. Someone who needs to take Innes from Hunt Club could take the Queensway, go up Anderson or Naven (or any other).

[orleans_man]

Originally Posted by Harley613

It makes sense to me. As of right now there are exactly two high volume road routes connecting Orleans to the rest of the city, Innes & the 174. Either of those gets blocked for any reason and it's pandemonium. A new major route (option 7) + the Hunt Club extension creates a third completely separate major connection. It could bleed off a lot of traffic between Orleans and the Airport/South Industrial Areas of Ottawa that would otherwise clog 174/Innes. Do I like the idea of all these roads running parallel to each other? No. Is there any other option to give Orleans a third major connection when Mer Bleue is in the way? No. Unless I'm reading into these plans wrong or missed something (which I often do ), I think this could work well.

Agreed. There's significant growth happening in Orleans and very limited East/West Connections. Orleans isn't really one place either. The highway is not the best Option for large parts of the Southern community in Orleans. People living/buying in these developments would have to drive sometime 8+ kms to get to the highway. So they take Innes or eventually Brian Co-Burn which would be right there.

If the city is going to stop approving the sprawling development in South Orleans, then sure this new connection is not needed. However, that's not the reality. They keep building, people keep coming. So some connection will be needed... maybe not now @ 125,000 people? But add 25,000 or 50,000 more people to South Orleans? Then of course... anything else is disconnected from reality.

Best to get the route sorted out now and planned before it's more of a problem...