Rethinking the Queensway

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by 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

I've never been to Winnipeg, but one thing that's common when you have large-ish cities without freeways is that the avenues/boulevards have to be much wider as a result. I wouldn't be surprised if Winnipeg is full of six lane and eight lane arterials which are generally rare here. These super wide avenues form a big barrier to pedestrian movement and they put a lot of hurt on the city fabric.

[adam-machiavelli]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I've never been to Winnipeg, but one thing that's common when you have large-ish cities without freeways is that the avenues/boulevards have to be much wider as a result. I wouldn't be surprised if Winnipeg is full of six lane and eight lane arterials which are generally rare here. These super wide avenues form a big barrier to pedestrian movement and they put a lot of hurt on the city fabric.

You are correct about wide roads in Winnipeg. There are many 5 and 6-lane roads. Portage and Main are each a whopping 9 lanes wide from city edge to centre!

[Harley613]

Why is this even a discussion?

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by 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

Well, Winnipeg isn't laid out the same as Ottawa and you're overstating the "problem". Yes, it can take a long time to get from one side to the other but it's not like you have only one route. If you went through the south side of the city along Bishop Grandin, you can do it fairly quickly.
Also, Winnipeg is an older city and was built with very wide streets for the most part. The flow in that city is pretty good and traffic really isn't a problem...ever. I've crossed Winnipeg in under an hour.

Also, the Perimeter isn't a full freeway but there are some rather significant sections that are definitely controlled (the north west and western sections are free flow and separate)

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I've never been to Winnipeg, but one thing that's common when you have large-ish cities without freeways is that the avenues/boulevards have to be much wider as a result. I wouldn't be surprised if Winnipeg is full of six lane and eight lane arterials which are generally rare here. These super wide avenues form a big barrier to pedestrian movement and they put a lot of hurt on the city fabric.

They're wide but we're not talking about telescope-to-see-the-other-side wide. Portage and Main intersect with 8 lanes each. Otherwise, Main gradually narrows to 4 by the civic boundary and Portage remains at 6 to just outside the city.

If you're familiar with say, pretty much any suburban boulevards, it's no different. Kanata, Barr Haven, Orleans...same thing. Also, Winnipeg isn't completely devoid of high-speed arterial corridors. The difference is that there aren't many interchanges in the city proper.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

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

I'm changing my vote to that.

[Aylmer]

I would have too, but I'd already voted

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I would have too, but I'd already voted

I want to change vote as well -- from No to whatever you suggested.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I would have too, but I'd already voted

I think WW changed it for me. I had voted no", but now the reduce footprint is in italic.

So, thanks again WW.

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I think WW changed it for me. I had voted no", but now the reduce footprint is in italic.

So, thanks again WW.

Wow, nice. Same here -- that "reduce footprint" is italics.

Thanks WW as well! :-)

[waterloowarrior]

Haha... adding the extra option messed up the poll a bit. If you voted no before the extra option was added, it would count towards 'no' but show that you voted for reduced footprint. But I re-adjusted the numbers based on the posts above, so your re-vote counts towards the reduce footprint instead. I can't see your individual votes unless it's enabled in the poll options.

In any case even PRT beat the demolish and by-pass options, so it looks like the Queensway is here to stay

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I've never been to Winnipeg, but one thing that's common when you have large-ish cities without freeways is that the avenues/boulevards have to be much wider as a result. I wouldn't be surprised if Winnipeg is full of six lane and eight lane arterials which are generally rare here. These super wide avenues form a big barrier to pedestrian movement and they put a lot of hurt on the city fabric.

Looking at Google Earth there are many 6 to 8 lane arterials there, which I agree are more wasteful than narrower freeways. Ottawa - and even Toronto - generally have few such wide arterials. Some of them are quite wide as well (wider than the Queensway ROW) but have full access available so they don't help with flow (I would guess the speed is 60 km/h on them?).

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Looking at Google Earth there are many 6 to 8 lane arterials there, which I agree are more wasteful than narrower freeways.

6 to 8 lane arterial roads are probably even less pedestrian friendly than elevated freeways IMHO (just look at King Edward). The problem with elevated freeways is most were built in an era where car was king and other forms of transportation were either given lip service or not considered at all. More could be done to improve access under the Queensway for both pedestrians and cyclists and make it more friendly. Underpasses are typically dark, narrow, noisy and ugly. It doesn't have to be like that, it just costs money to fix.

[Aylmer]

A doodle:

This is what I'd imagine an "interchange diet" could look like; I drew up what Nicolas/417 might look like if we rearranged the interchange, turning empty, unusable space (ex: between on-ramps) into useful, developable space. I just kinda photoshopped a low-density grid in there (mostly because it was easier to do graphically), but with high-density development within a stone's throw of LRT, the city would probably be able to recuperate its investment in the slimmer interchange.



And with the current interchange superimposed

[1overcosc]

^ I like that, but there is a problem: no access to the local street grid in the Lees area, as Nicholas does not connect with any streets in between Laurier and the 417.

Two possible tweaks to your idea to get around this problem:
1) A small diamond interchange at Lees Avenue; will probably require a bit of expropriation
2) Make a new roundabout at Nicholas & Greenfield to replace the overpass; this would allow access between Greenfield and the 417 while still keeping traffic moving. The roundabout would have to be a little further north than the current overpass to avoid a conflict with the ramps

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

^ I like that, but there is a problem: no access to the local street grid in the Lees area, as Nicholas does not connect with any streets in between Laurier and the 417.

My biggest issue with the idea is that is a pretty sharp S curve being introduced on the Queensway. You would probably have to limit the speed on that stretch to 70 or 80 km/h and it could become a death trap.

My thought is to do all of the following:

1. Tear up Nicholas (south of Laurier) and Colonel By (between Hawthorne and Daly) to create a nice green space beside the Canal. Optimally the LRT along that stretch would also be buried to open up access from UofO, but it is probably too late for that.
2. Extend King Edward to Lees Ave.
3. Convert the Nicholas/Lees interchange to simple on/off ramps with roundabouts on King Edward.

EDIT: This change should be timed with the opening of an alternate route to Gatineau (be it the "truck" tunnel, a Kettle Island bridge or some other routing). King Edward could then handle the remaining displaced traffic (with minor modifications, like the removal of street parking).

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by roger1818

My biggest issue with the idea is that is a pretty sharp S curve being introduced on the Queensway. You would probably have to limit the speed on that stretch to 70 or 80 km/h and it could become a death trap.

Which isn't that huge a problem. Many stretches of highway in Montreal have 80-90 km/h limits.

You could straighten out the curve somewhat, but you get the idea; rearrange the on-ramps, realign the highway and, presto; less waste, more city.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

My biggest issue with the idea is that is a pretty sharp S curve being introduced on the Queensway. You would probably have to limit the speed on that stretch to 70 or 80 km/h and it could become a death trap.

My thought is to do all of the following:

2. Tear up Nicholas (south of Laurier) and Colonel By (between Hawthorne and Daly) to create a nice green space beside the Canal. Optimally the LRT along that stretch would also be buried to open up access from UofO, but it is probably too late for that.
3. Extend King Edward to Lees Ave.
4. Convert the Nicholas/Lees interchange to simple on/off ramps with roundabouts on King Edward.

Yes, eliminate a critical downtown vehicular link from both the south and east end of the city.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Yes, eliminate a critical downtown vehicular link from both the south and east end of the city.

A large percentage of the traffic using Nicolas are heading to Gatineau. My suggestion (which I forgot to mention) would be to time this change with the opening of an alternate route to Gatineau (be it the "truck" tunnel, a Kettle Island bridge or some other routing), King Edward could then handle the remaining displaced traffic (with minor modifications, like the removal of street parking).

As for Colonel By, I don't believe it is an effective vehicular link and the city would be better without it.

Going full circle to the examples raised by Urbanarchit referenced in post #1, this is the type of change that cities like San Francisco and Seoul found to be improvements to their cities (despite calls that the sky is falling from commuters) as it has a direct effect on the downtown core.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Which isn't that huge a problem. Many stretches of highway in Montreal have 80-90 km/h limits.

You could straighten out the curve somewhat, but you get the idea; rearrange the on-ramps, realign the highway and, presto; less waste, more city.

I agree with the principle. I don't think the change needs to be so radical though. Using roundabouts on either side of the overpass uses a lot less land than a cloverleaf and still allows excellent traffic flow. The Woodroffe interchange would be an ideal candidate for this treatment.

Looking closer at your photo-shopping, you have drawn an old Transitway access road as a highway interchange. There also seem to be some other discrepancies between where the on ramps actually are and where you say they are.

Also, I assume you didn't plan on tearing down the Citadel Apartments north of Lees Ave and adjacent to Lees Ave Station and replace them with low density housing. This is a prime location for high density housing.