NCC Ottawa River South Shore Riverfront Park Plan [Kichi Zībī Mīkan] | In Progress

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by vtecyo

Don't forget the Aviation Parkway - south of Montreal Rd it has two lanes in each direction. Although it is the worst of the NCC's "scenic parkways" - with nothing worth looking at but grass and trees.

Isn't Aviation City jurisdiction?

[OTownandDown]

Those enhanced at-grade pedestrian crossings, are those signalized with flashers? Good recipe for rear-endings and/or pedestrian collisions god forbid.

The meandering was NEVER able to control speed, except for some of the more extreme road alignments experienced during construction. 80km/hr is more than comfortable on any normal day. Its the jam-ups at Island Park that require a bit of foresight, not unlike current construction on the 417 creating giant pileups each day.

The parkway could be two lanes west of Island Park, just add a 1km right and left hand turn lane at Island Park so the Quebecers can get home without blocking goddam traffic.

In any event, the alignment should have prioritized the river front and active transportation. Meander the sh*t out of the road, but push it as far over as possible, maybe just put each direction side-by-side on the southern, eastbound alignment? Why do they need a median at all, its a 60km/hr speed limit.

Edit: Having revisited the map, its really the sweeping, outwards turns that are the problem, and they're technically not in the area of work. Realign the westbound lanes to be directly adjacent to eastbound, and voila, extra space.

[LRTeverywhere]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

Those enhanced at-grade pedestrian crossings, are those signalized with flashers? Good recipe for rear-endings and/or pedestrian collisions god forbid.

I believe they will be full signals.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Isn't Aviation City jurisdiction?

All the signs are NCC style and RCMP do the speed traps.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

Those enhanced at-grade pedestrian crossings, are those signalized with flashers? Good recipe for rear-endings and/or pedestrian collisions god forbid.

The meandering was NEVER able to control speed, except for some of the more extreme road alignments experienced during construction. 80km/hr is more than comfortable on any normal day. Its the jam-ups at Island Park that require a bit of foresight, not unlike current construction on the 417 creating giant pileups each day.

The parkway could be two lanes west of Island Park, just add a 1km right and left hand turn lane at Island Park so the Quebecers can get home without blocking goddam traffic.

In any event, the alignment should have prioritized the river front and active transportation. Meander the sh*t out of the road, but push it as far over as possible, maybe just put each direction side-by-side on the southern, eastbound alignment? Why do they need a median at all, its a 60km/hr speed limit.

Edit: Having revisited the map, its really the sweeping, outwards turns that are the problem, and they're technically not in the area of work. Realign the westbound lanes to be directly adjacent to eastbound, and voila, extra space.

Jam the two lanes directly next to the housing open and make any land touching it to the South mixed use. More greenspace, and activated waterfront. (Though still not the ideal idea if one but I'll take what I can get)

[Kitchissippi]

Are there still crossings with flashing signals in the city of Ottawa? I think they were phased out a while back. When I saw detailed plans a while back, the parkway had standard red-yellow-green lights for cars and the crossings had pedestrian and bike signals.

[hwy418]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Isn't Aviation City jurisdiction?

No unfortunately. NCC wouldn't let trucks use the 500m ramp from the 417 to Ogilvie Road as a detour for the rapid bridge replacements.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Are there still crossings with flashing signals in the city of Ottawa? I think they were phased out a while back. When I saw detailed plans a while back, the parkway had standard red-yellow-green lights for cars and the crossings had pedestrian and bike signals.

I've seen them on collectors and roundabouts..

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.2509625,..._ep=EgoyMDI0MDgyOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

[NOWINYOW]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

I've seen them on collectors and roundabouts..

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.2509625,..._ep=EgoyMDI0MDgyOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

I believe there is one on Dalhousie near St. Andrew Street. I've used it in the past.

[bartlebooth]

Originally Posted by NOWINYOW

I believe there is one on Dalhousie near St. Andrew Street. I've used it in the past.

This is correct. I cross at this intersection on foot at least 2-4 times a week. I never use it because it’s dangerous and ignored by people driving. There is also one on Preston close to Plant Bath.

[Ottawacurious]

There's also one at Dows lake with a hump.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by bartlebooth

This is correct. I cross at this intersection on foot at least 2-4 times a week. I never use it because it’s dangerous and ignored by people driving. There is also one on Preston close to Plant Bath.

Failure to stop at these crossing is 2 demerit point offense....equal to a failing to lower headlights......https://www.ontario.ca/page/understanding-demerit-points

Anyway, the NCC plan for the parkway is just plain bad.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Failure to stop at these crossing is 2 demerit point offense....equal to a failing to lower headlights......https://www.ontario.ca/page/understanding-demerit-points

Anyway, the NCC plan for the parkway is just plain bad.

Failing to lower headlights? The modern headlights are most likely far brighter than any halogen high beam of the past.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Failing to lower headlights? The modern headlights are most likely far brighter than any halogen high beam of the past.

Yep, and yet for some messed up reason an action that will likely result in death (running through a crosswalk) is treated the same as not lowering your headlights.

The headlight issue and the high front bumper issue both need to be fixed and quick.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Yep, and yet for some messed up reason an action that will likely result in death (running through a crosswalk) is treated the same as not lowering your headlights.

The headlight issue and the high front bumper issue both need to be fixed and quick.

Agreed.

[OTownandDown]

From what I understood, City Councillors have a traffic calming budget that they can spend as they like. Most choose to put up those electronic speed signs. But some (McKenny, in the past) preferred the signalized pedestrian crossing. The one on Somerset by Lyon, and the ones on Preston? Have they been removed?

I just mean for this 'parkway' situation, its either a parkway or its not. Typically it'll take about a year or more, and about 30 crashes, before people will understand to slow down a bit approaching these, lest the flashers go off. (See: 417 widening, eastbound at Carling crashes).

[zzptichka]

BTW what's the deal with NCC refusing to install streetlights on there? Are they still in denial that it's used for commuting almost exclusively, rather than leisurely drives? Or they don't want to disturb the wild life and cause light pollution?

[LRTeverywhere]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

But some (McKenny, in the past) preferred the signalized pedestrian crossing. The one on Somerset by Lyon, and the ones on Preston? Have they been removed?

Still there and a new one recently installed on Rochester, and a new one about to be done on Colonel By.

[Lakeofthewood]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

BTW what's the deal with NCC refusing to install streetlights on there? Are they still in denial that it's used for commuting almost exclusively, rather than leisurely drives? Or they don't want to disturb the wild life and cause light pollution?

Jokes aside I do believe it is the latter. The focus of lighting on the canals is the Canal itself, while the east and west parkways are not to disturb wildlife in the area.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by Lakeofthewood

Jokes aside I do believe it is the latter. The focus of lighting on the canals is the Canal itself, while the east and west parkways are not to disturb wildlife in the area.

Well, there is no wildlife in the area. They killed it with their sprawling parkway, and they are too coward now to trim it down.