Roads/Bridges projects/issues

[lrt's friend]

The problem on Bronson at Carleton is that the area was an old garbage dump. Bronson runs right through the middle of the dump. I am not sure how suitable the soil is for intensification.

We engineered this portion of Bronson for high speeds. I think there is a lot more effective ways to control speeding than speed cameras. Traffic lights and speed monitors are effective. I certainly notice the speed monitors and slow down. The problem with speed cameras is that you get feedback long after the fact, when the fine arrives in the mail.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The problem on Bronson at Carleton is that the area was an old garbage dump. Bronson runs right through the middle of the dump. I am not sure how suitable the soil is for intensification.

We engineered this portion of Bronson for high speeds. I think there is a lot more effective ways to control speeding than speed cameras. Traffic lights and speed monitors are effective. I certainly notice the speed monitors and slow down. The problem with speed cameras is that you get feedback long after the fact, when the fine arrives in the mail.

I didn’t know that about the garbage dump. I think Carleton and the city both have plans to build closer to the street at some point.

The data shows that speed cameras are pretty effective at slowing traffic. Speed boards have some effect, but not as much. I’ve never heard of traffic lights having that effect, and on a road like Bronson, they often do the opposite, encouraging people to speed to beat the light. Maybe with a bunch more lights and light timing you could get some impact, but I expect that would be offset by the behaviour of frustrated drivers.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by phil235

I didn’t know that about the garbage dump. I think Carleton and the city both have plans to build closer to the street at some point.

The data shows that speed cameras are pretty effective at slowing traffic. Speed boards have some effect, but not as much. I’ve never heard of traffic lights having that effect, and on a road like Bronson, they often do the opposite, encouraging people to speed to beat the light. Maybe with a bunch more lights and light timing you could get some impact, but I expect that would be offset by the behaviour of frustrated drivers.

The various parking lots on both sides of Bronson and the football field were part of the dump and no buildings have ever existed there. You can see the dump area on some air photographs until Carleton was being built in the late 1950s. The area towards Dow's Lake on the Carleton side of Bronson was also used as a dump for construction debris and may be more suitable for building eventually. All of these areas were originally part of Dow's Great Swamp including Brewer Park and have potential for flooding, which did occur some years ago while I was a student at Carleton. That year, Bronson Avenue was closed for a few days due to flooding.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

My local racetrack (street) had a traffic light taken down by a vehicle yesterday afternoon. Looked like a 'cowboy' in a high end pickup truck that took it down.

I'm glad to see a stretch of Tenth Line near my house on the list of possible speed cameras. There too we have speedsters all night with their "supped-up" mufflers.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by phil235

I think Carleton and the city both have plans to build closer to the street at some point.

I know zoning can change, but on the east side of Bronson, most of the land is zoned L1, and given that it is in a flood plane, I don't see that changing. There is a small strip north of Sunnyside that is zoned DR2, but considering half of it is also in the flood plane, it is unlikely to be developed. If it is, given how small the strip is, it would likely be best to have it face Canal Woods Terrace for serving Old Ottawa South.

Any land developed on the west side of Bronson would likely be for Carleton, and as such would be facing west, towards the rest of the campus (and away from Bronson).

Given this, I just don't see the need to encourage pedestrians to walk within a few feet of Bronson. The vast majority of those walking along this stretch of Bronson would be either heading to/from Carleton (thus could be directed further west) or to/from Old Ottawa South (thus could be directed further east).

Only those who are wanting to walk across both the Rideau Canal and River might want a more direct route along Bronson, and even then, well designed pathways could be preferable and not be much of a detour.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The various parking lots on both sides of Bronson and the football field were part of the dump and no buildings have ever existed there. You can see the dump area on some air photographs until Carleton was being built in the late 1950s. The area towards Dow's Lake on the Carleton side of Bronson was also used as a dump for construction debris and may be more suitable for building eventually. All of these areas were originally part of Dow's Great Swamp including Brewer Park and have potential for flooding, which did occur some years ago while I was a student at Carleton. That year, Bronson Avenue was closed for a few days due to flooding.

Thanks for that background. I knew about the swamp, but not the dump. I guess that helps explain why we got what is there now. The Carleton side north of Sunnyside is slated for a quad of buildings, but that land is much higher than the other side. Possibly because of the construction debris dump?

[phil235]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Any land developed on the west side of Bronson would likely be for Carleton, and as such would be facing west, towards the rest of the campus (and away from Bronson).

Given this, I just don't see the need to encourage pedestrians to walk within a few feet of Bronson. The vast majority of those walking along this stretch of Bronson would be either heading to/from Carleton (thus could be directed further west) or to/from Old Ottawa South (thus could be directed further east).

I think the pool, the Westboro Academy building and the arena are already in that zone, so my guess is that the rebuild will be within that footprint.

You may be right that any development will face away from the road, but I think that is a bad idea for any urban road. We’ve really got to get away from infrastructure that creates big rifts in the urban fabric. They are almost invariably have a negative impact on the areas around them.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by phil235

You may be right that any development will face away from the road, but I think that is a bad idea for any urban road. We’ve really got to get away from infrastructure that creates big rifts in the urban fabric. They are almost invariably have a negative impact on the areas around them.

IMHO converting this stretch of Bronson into a stroad would be far worse. Stroads increase congestion while maintaining a horrible environment for pedestrians and cyclists. Better to keep it a road and invest in parallel infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by roger1818

IMHO converting this stretch of Bronson into a stroad would be far worse. Stroads increase congestion while maintaining a horrible environment for pedestrians and cyclists. Better to keep it a road and invest in parallel infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists.

What do you mean by keeping it a road? Keeping it a corridor for vehicles only? Right now it’s essentially a highway through a university and a residential area where vehicle speeds are very high. I’m not sure how that is better than a stroad.

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by phil235

What do you mean by keeping it a road? Keeping it a corridor for vehicles only? Right now it’s essentially a highway through a university and a residential area where vehicle speeds are very high. I’m not sure how that is better than a stroad.

I think they just meant making all non-vehicular infrastructure separate from the road itself. Bronson is already very dangerous for cyclists, and they are in danger from multiple slip lanes along the highway stretch. Separating them entirely from cars would solve that problem.

That said, an easy way to shave the road down would be to add traffic lights before the slip lanes, and block a lane each direction with jersey barriers to create a wider bike lane.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by phil235

What do you mean by keeping it a road? Keeping it a corridor for vehicles only?

I am using the Strong Towns definition of a road. I recommend watching this video for a better explanation.

• Video Link

He defines a road (and then a street) early on in the video at 0:48.

Right now it’s essentially a highway through a university and a residential area where vehicle speeds are very high.

I would argue that it is a highway (a.k.a. road) that runs between a university and and residential area since none of the campus is east of Bronson and none of the homes are west of Bronson (ignoring the student residence buildings, but those are part of the university). Some students might live on the other side of Bronson, but that is better resolved by having safe crossings.

I’m not sure how that is better than a stroad.

To quote the video linked above, "Stroads are a street/road hybrid, and they are dangerous, expensive, and ineffective." Bronson will never be a street, and there isn't an alternative road we can detour traffic to, so it is better to keep it a road and build better options for pedestrians and cyclists.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I would argue that it is a highway (a.k.a. road) that runs between a university and and residential area since none of the campus is east of Bronson and none of the homes are west of Bronson (ignoring the student residence buildings, but those are part of the university). Some students might live on the other side of Bronson, but that is better resolved by having safe crossings.



To quote the video linked above, Stroads are a street/road hybrid, and they are dangerous, expensive, and ineffective. " Bronson will never be a street, and there isn't an alternative road we can detour traffic to, so it is better to keep it a road and build better options for pedestrians and cyclists.

Thanks for the explanation. I get where you are coming from. Where I don't quite agree is with the conclusion that Bronson can never be a street. It is already a street north of the Canal, and the bridge over the Canal is going to serve pedestrians and cyclists for the foreseeable future. It seems to me that building a highway that runs into a city street is not the way to go.

Building conditions on the former dump aside, is there any reason that we can't narrow the lanes, introduce trees and street parking, shorten the numerous crossings and generally slow traffic at least for that stretch of Bronson? Regardless of its current form, it seems like a really bad place for a highway.

[eltodesukane]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

https://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/public-en...nment-and-southwest-transitway-extension

here's a recent public consultation. Detailed design and property acquisition is underway along with updating previous designs. Construction not scheduled til 2031 horizon but will be reviewed as part of TMP.

This Greenbank-realignment is quite a realignment!

[J.OT13]

Oh no. Tell me we're not going to have a bunch of disjointed Greenbanks. "At the intersection of Greenbank and Greenbank, turn left on Greenbank and left again on Greenbank then continue straight on Greenbank until it becomes Harder Way".

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by phil235

Thanks for the explanation. I get where you are coming from. Where I don't quite agree is with the conclusion that Bronson can never be a street. It is already a street north of the Canal,

Although Bronson north of the canal is much closer to being a street, I am not sure that it checks all of the boxes to be a street. Admittedly it isn't a black and white issue though so maybe it is a street.

and the bridge over the Canal is going to serve pedestrians and cyclists for the foreseeable future.

True. The canal bridge should be made more friendly for pedestrians and cyclists with better separation. Instead of painted bike gutters (which northbound conflict with traffic turning right onto Findlay Ave), I would bi-directional cycle track on the west side of the bridge. I would then have the cycle track (and the adjacent sidewalk) branch off of from Bronson after it has crossed Colonel By Dr. and head south to cross the ramp a bit further from the intersection (improving visibility) and then straight to align with the exiting path into Carleton (with a branch to align with the crossover, which optimally would be grade separated). I would then have a sidewalk and cycle track from the crossover to the intersection of Canal Woods Terrace and Aylmer Ave. (see map below).


All purple lines include both sidewalks and cycle tracks.

It seems to me that building a highway that runs into a city street is not the way to go.

But south of the Rideau river Bronson (which later changes to the Airport Parkway) is a controlled access highway, so it is unavoidable.

Building conditions on the former dump aside, is there any reason that we can't narrow the lanes, introduce trees and street parking, shorten the numerous crossings and generally slow traffic at least for that stretch of Bronson?

In theory those things could be done, but the resulting stroad would be worse than what we currently have and I don't think it is the best solution.

Regardless of its current form, it seems like a really bad place for a highway.

Where would you move it to? It isn't an optimal location, but it could be much worse.

[MountainView]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Oh no. Tell me we're not going to have a bunch of disjointed Greenbanks. "At the intersection of Greenbank and Greenbank, turn left on Greenbank and left again on Greenbank then continue straight on Greenbank until it becomes Harder Way".

The Greenbank realignment plan has been around for at least a decade, if not almost two. It will be one continuous road from the Chapman Mills extension (current intersection with Jockvale), over a new bridge over the Jock, and south to Barnsdale. All the new community roads/layouts have been arranged with this ROW and extension in mind. The existing version of Greenbank will likely be renamed to something completely different (it does not have a lot of addresses on it), or something boring like "Old Greenbank".

[phil235]

[QUOTE=roger1818;9423554]

Although Bronson north of the canal is much closer to being a street, I am not sure that it checks all of the boxes to be a street. Admittedly it isn't a black and white issue though so maybe it is a street.

Bronson definitely has some work to do, but it's designated arterial mainstreet for a good part of that stretch, and there are a number of streetfront businesses from Second Avenue north, so hopefully it ends up being a street in the relatively near future.

True. The canal bridge should be made more friendly for pedestrians and cyclists with better separation. Instead of painted bike gutters (which northbound conflict with traffic turning right onto Findlay Ave), I would bi-directional cycle track on the west side of the bridge. I would then have the cycle track (and the adjacent sidewalk) branch off of from Bronson after it has crossed Colonel By Dr. and head south to cross the ramp a bit further from the intersection (improving visibility) and then straight to align with the exiting path into Carleton (with a branch to align with the crossover, which optimally would be grade separated). I would then have a sidewalk and cycle track from the crossover to the intersection of Canal Woods Terrace and Aylmer Ave. (see map below).

I think that this is an ideal configuration. It would take some re-alignment of Bronson north of the bridge, but it would be a massive improvement. Particularly if it is combined with a proper bike route to Lansdowne and north south on Percy/Craig.

But south of the Rideau river Bronson (which later changes to the Airport Parkway) is a controlled access highway, so it is unavoidable.

Yep, no argument there. I think that it is unavoidable, but at least you could have a proper terminus at the intersection with Riverside.

In theory those things could be done, but the resulting stroad would be worse than what we currently have and I don't think it is the best solution.

I'm still not sure it would have to be a stroad, as it could definitely be slowed to 50 kmph or even 40 kmph. It's not like there are any strip malls or big box stores to account for, and we have a blank canvas (albeit one that could potentially be underwater at times).

Where would you move it to? It isn't an optimal location, but it could be much worse.

I would either not move it at all, and just turn it into an urban boulevard, or if we insist on having a high speed road downtown, I'd use the Airport Parkway-Riverside-Alta Vista-Nicolas alignment. Difficult politically I know, but adding a short link from Alta Vista to Nicolas is the least disruptive way to achieve that, if one thinks it is necessary.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by phil235

Bronson definitely has some work to do, but it's designated arterial mainstreet for a good part of that stretch, and there are a number of streetfront businesses from Second Avenue north, so hopefully it ends up being a street in the relatively near future.

IMHO, the term arterial mainstreet is an oxymoron. It is either an arterial road or a main street.

I think that this is an ideal configuration. It would take some re-alignment of Bronson north of the bridge, but it would be a massive improvement. Particularly if it is combined with a proper bike route to Lansdowne and north south on Percy/Craig.

Agreed. It should be extended at least as far as Holmwood Ave, which is the suggested bike route that connects to Craig. The current lanes end 1 block short at Findlay Ave though, as the street is very narrow there, so it could be tough.

Yep, no argument there. I think that it is unavoidable, but at least you could have a proper terminus at the intersection with Riverside.

Not sure what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that you disconnect the Airport Parkway from Bronson?

I'm still not sure it would have to be a stroad, as it could definitely be slowed to 50 kmph or even 40 kmph. It's not like there are any strip malls or big box stores to account for, and we have a blank canvas (albeit one that could potentially be underwater at times).

If all pedestrian and cyclists are directed away from this stretch of Bronson, I just don't see the point of limiting the speed that much. Who are you trying to protect?

I would either not move it at all, and just turn it into an urban boulevard, or if we insist on having a high speed road downtown, I'd use the Airport Parkway-Riverside-Alta Vista-Nicolas alignment. Difficult politically I know, but adding a short link from Alta Vista to Nicolas is the least disruptive way to achieve that, if one thinks it is necessary.

That alignment certainly has some advantages. Not sure how feasible it is though.

[phil235]

[QUOTE=roger1818;9424844]

Not sure what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that you disconnect the Airport Parkway from Bronson?

Not entirely, but basically make the transition to city street at that point, and give the option for higher speed traffic to go onto Riverside

If all pedestrian and cyclists are directed away from this stretch of Bronson, I just don't see the point of limiting the speed that much. Who are you trying to protect?

I meant that would be if we wanted to re-design and make this a proper street, with multiple pedestrian crossings (as is the case now). I.e. extending the walkable urban core south and including Carleton within it. That way the campus could be integrated into the city, instead of essentially functioning as an island.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by phil235

Not entirely, but basically make the transition to city street at that point, and give the option for higher speed traffic to go onto Riverside





I meant that would be if we wanted to re-design and make this a proper street, with multiple pedestrian crossings (as is the case now). I.e. extending the walkable urban core south and including Carleton within it. That way the campus could be integrated into the city, instead of essentially functioning as an island.

This will be a challenge given how isolated the campus is from almost everything.

I understand the desire to change this, but the main part of the campus is the furthest away from Old Ottawa South and the Glebe. On all sides, it is separated from the rest of the city by arterial roads, waterways and green space. Nothing is close by. There are few urban amenities within walking distance.