Ottawa's Byward Market

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

[B][SIZE="4"]...

Watson said the Market needs to have more local fresh food vendors.

“It just can’t be a place for restaurants and bars and shops. It has to go back to its roots,” Watson said.

...

If he's serious, then the new "destination building" almost has to have a year-round urban/farmers' market on the ground floor, istm. Perhaps with the existing market building upgraded to a proper food hall.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Don't we already know that the new Alexandra Bridge will carry two lanes of traffic?

Likely, but I don't think that's completely settled yet. The interprovincial traffic study is still ongoing and the possibility of a new east-end bridge could shift the new Alexandra's vocation. I'm still holding on hope that cars could be removed form Alexandra, and by extension, clear much of Sussex and MacKenzie for trams and active use, along with a narrower RoW for cars at this key intersection in front of old Union and the Chateau Laurier.

[Richard Eade]

At the risk of encouraging this conversation to remain distracted from the By Ward Market and into the Alexandra’s replacement:

I keep hearing that the Alexandra ‘only’ carries about 10 percent of the cross-river traffic, so it is not a main crossing. If it is not a main crossing, then cars can be removed from it with little collateral effect.

What is not clarified is that that 10% is of the total number of crossings across the entire city. The Alexandra carries a lot more than 10% of the crossings from its local area. Surely all of you have seen the steady stream of cars ‘crawling’ along St. Patrick in the afternoon as they attempt to move to cross the Alexandra.

Now, try to imagine all of those cars having to cross the river somewhere else. How will they get to those other crossings? Is there excess capacity on those other crossings (and the roadways and intersections leading to them)?

Now imagine taking Makenzie and/or Sussex out of the option-list. While you are at it, how about removing Wellington as a through connection for people who try to use the Portage Bridge as an alternative. (Remember, when people talk about Wellington being choked by heavy traffic today, it is because there is already a large number of people using Wellington as a throughfare.)

Well, if the Alexandra is closed to cars, it will cause such a traffic nightmare that people will take transit instead, you might suggest. But, is the transit network (away from the assumed ‘Loop’) sufficient for a large number of people to use it effectively? What about the people who ‘can not take transit’ for some reason (must drive during the day for work, for example)? That, I imagine, is not a trivial percentage of the current number of vehicles.

If a magic wand could be used to immediately make huge changes to a large number of inter-linked systems, then, maybe, things can become as some imagine they ‘should’ be. Unfortunately, the current patterns have built up over many decades, and making a drastic change in one system affects many others. Dismantling the current environment and rebuilding something different will take many, many more decades, huge amounts of money, and the tolerance of the population to put up with disruption and inefficiencies for those decades.

It is great to have ideas, but you must think of the unintended consequences that your ideas could bring. Sometimes the anticipated benefit of one idea is out-weighed by the negatives that it might cause.

[kwoldtimer]

It has always seemed to me that traffic in the core is a mess whenever any of the bridges are closed for whatever reason.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

At the risk of encouraging this conversation to remain distracted from the By Ward Market and into the Alexandra’s replacement:

I keep hearing that the Alexandra ‘only’ carries about 10 percent of the cross-river traffic, so it is not a main crossing. If it is not a main crossing, then cars can be removed from it with little collateral effect.

What is not clarified is that that 10% is of the total number of crossings across the entire city. The Alexandra carries a lot more than 10% of the crossings from its local area. Surely all of you have seen the steady stream of cars ‘crawling’ along St. Patrick in the afternoon as they attempt to move to cross the Alexandra.

Now, try to imagine all of those cars having to cross the river somewhere else. How will they get to those other crossings? Is there excess capacity on those other crossings (and the roadways and intersections leading to them)?

Now imagine taking Makenzie and/or Sussex out of the option-list. While you are at it, how about removing Wellington as a through connection for people who try to use the Portage Bridge as an alternative. (Remember, when people talk about Wellington being choked by heavy traffic today, it is because there is already a large number of people using Wellington as a throughfare.)

Well, if the Alexandra is closed to cars, it will cause such a traffic nightmare that people will take transit instead, you might suggest. But, is the transit network (away from the assumed ‘Loop’) sufficient for a large number of people to use it effectively? What about the people who ‘can not take transit’ for some reason (must drive during the day for work, for example)? That, I imagine, is not a trivial percentage of the current number of vehicles.

If a magic wand could be used to immediately make huge changes to a large number of inter-linked systems, then, maybe, things can become as some imagine they ‘should’ be. Unfortunately, the current patterns have built up over many decades, and making a drastic change in one system affects many others. Dismantling the current environment and rebuilding something different will take many, many more decades, huge amounts of money, and the tolerance of the population to put up with disruption and inefficiencies for those decades.

It is great to have ideas, but you must think of the unintended consequences that your ideas could bring. Sometimes the anticipated benefit of one idea is out-weighed by the negatives that it might cause.

Closing Alexandra, in my view, would assume a new east-end bridge at Kettle which would clear King Edward and the MC Bridge from truck traffic, thus providing capacity to accommodate former Alexandra users to MC (which, the bridge itself, already has excess capacity, just not King Ed's partly because of truck traffic).

I'm still not convince about fully closing Wellington to traffic despite the countless arguments I've see on other threads, but we'll leave that for another conversation.

In any case, I don't think its wise to start planning a new Wellington/MacKenzie/Sussex/Rideau/Colonel By intersection, let alone a international competition, until the entire interprovincial piece is settled (STO tram, loop, Wellington, new bridge(s) and all).

[RuralCitizen]

Sussex is curently a one way in front of the US embassy. If we are to remove the Rideau-Colonel By ramp, we would need to make sussex 2way the whole way. Otherwise, how would someone drive near the Mint on sussex access the ColonelBy drive? I don't think with the removed ramp, people will be able to turn left from Mackenzie and then right on Colonel By.

Maybe it could be an opportunity to convert Mackenzie to tram?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by RuralCitizen

Sussex is curently a one way in front of the US embassy. If we are to remove the Rideau-Colonel By ramp, we would need to make sussex 2way the whole way. Otherwise, how would someone drive near the Mint on sussex access the ColonelBy drive? I don't think with the removed ramp, people will be able to turn left from Mackenzie and then right on Colonel By.

Maybe it could be an opportunity to convert Mackenzie to tram?

Mackenzie would be the best option for the Tramway because it only has one "intersection", the pedestrian crossing from Major's Hill to the York Street steps It also has few pedestrians the rest of the corridor compared to Sussex, thus providing more capacity on the sidewalks for tramway passengers to get to and from a station (assuming one would be built on Mackenzie, and one just south of the York steps would make a lot of sense).

This would cause a problem with the Chateau Laurier expansion and garage entrance, however. We could ask they make use of the entrance next to the old photography museum (now committee rooms) and the one between 700 Sussex and Connaught.

The other option is the old railway RoW below Major's Hill, but that would require the demolition of the old photography museum (committee rooms) to build a ramp down, or use the parking garage ramp which would direct all Chateau Laurier parking traffic to Mackenzie.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

At the risk of encouraging this conversation to remain distracted from the By Ward Market and into the Alexandra’s replacement:

I keep hearing that the Alexandra ‘only’ carries about 10 percent of the cross-river traffic, so it is not a main crossing. If it is not a main crossing, then cars can be removed from it with little collateral effect.

What is not clarified is that that 10% is of the total number of crossings across the entire city. The Alexandra carries a lot more than 10% of the crossings from its local area. Surely all of you have seen the steady stream of cars ‘crawling’ along St. Patrick in the afternoon as they attempt to move to cross the Alexandra.

Now, try to imagine all of those cars having to cross the river somewhere else. How will they get to those other crossings? Is there excess capacity on those other crossings (and the roadways and intersections leading to them)?

Now imagine taking Makenzie and/or Sussex out of the option-list. While you are at it, how about removing Wellington as a through connection for people who try to use the Portage Bridge as an alternative. (Remember, when people talk about Wellington being choked by heavy traffic today, it is because there is already a large number of people using Wellington as a throughfare.)

Well, if the Alexandra is closed to cars, it will cause such a traffic nightmare that people will take transit instead, you might suggest. But, is the transit network (away from the assumed ‘Loop’) sufficient for a large number of people to use it effectively? What about the people who ‘can not take transit’ for some reason (must drive during the day for work, for example)? That, I imagine, is not a trivial percentage of the current number of vehicles.

If a magic wand could be used to immediately make huge changes to a large number of inter-linked systems, then, maybe, things can become as some imagine they ‘should’ be. Unfortunately, the current patterns have built up over many decades, and making a drastic change in one system affects many others. Dismantling the current environment and rebuilding something different will take many, many more decades, huge amounts of money, and the tolerance of the population to put up with disruption and inefficiencies for those decades.

It is great to have ideas, but you must think of the unintended consequences that your ideas could bring. Sometimes the anticipated benefit of one idea is out-weighed by the negatives that it might cause.

I think a huge part of the problem is we don’t know how much of the downtown traffic is actually related to downtown. A significant chunk of the interprovincial traffic is passing through downtown just because that’s where all of the bridges are. Evening rush hour is often heavier heading into downtown than out of it.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think a huge part of the problem is we don’t know how much of the downtown traffic is actually related to downtown. A significant chunk of the interprovincial traffic is passing through downtown just because that’s where all of the bridges are. Evening rush hour is often heavier heading into downtown than out of it.

I use this example all the time, but I live in Orleans and many of my friends and family live in the east end of Gatineau, so I always have to either go through downtown or use the Masson-Cumberland ferry. A Kettle Island Bridge would be very beneficial to remove unnecessary traffic from downtown. I would love to see origin-destination figures for each bridge.

I know this whole conversation might seem off topic, but it's not. The Wellington/Rideau/Sussex/MacKenzie/Colonel By intersection is part of the ByWard Market public realm proposal and interprovincial mobility plans are very relevant to the redesign of that intersection.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by RuralCitizen

Sussex is curently a one way in front of the US embassy. If we are to remove the Rideau-Colonel By ramp, we would need to make sussex 2way the whole way. Otherwise, how would someone drive near the Mint on sussex access the ColonelBy drive? I don't think with the removed ramp, people will be able to turn left from Mackenzie and then right on Colonel By.

....

I thought that was the intention.

[RuralCitizen]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I thought that was the intention.

Maybe it is implied, but I haven't seen any direct mention of it, and on the plan, the stretch in front of the embassy looks reduced to the one way layout (as current)

See page 26 and 64
https://mathieufleury.ca/wp-content/...UBLIC3-v10.pdf

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by RuralCitizen

Maybe it is implied, but I haven't seen any direct mention of it, and on the plan, the stretch in front of the embassy looks reduced to the one way layout (as current)

See page 26 and 64
https://mathieufleury.ca/wp-content/...UBLIC3-v10.pdf

I meant the last part of your post about the left/right turn to get from Mac to Col By.

[J.OT13]

FEDCO. ByWard Market piece starts at 4:34:50.

• Video Link

[RuralCitizen]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I meant the last part of your post about the left/right turn to get from Mac to Col By.

I don't remember where I saw the original location of this plan, but it looks like it would be 2 right turning lanes on Mackenzie.

[J.OT13]

The City speaks of a potential partnership with a private developer to make-up for the lost parking. Where could that be? What developer?

At this time, it's too late for u/c projects. Proposed projects, 126 York could come to mind, but the preservation of the Major Building (huge positive for this project) limits parking.

There Claridge Land Andaz, but they did not build parking under the Andaz, limiting parking once again.

I can't think of any other recent proposals that could accommodate that lost parking.

A redevelopment of the Courtyard by Marriott would have huge potential, not only as a synergy to a revitalized Market by removing surface parking, along with one of the ugliest buildings, but also provide that missing parking.

[Blackburnian]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Mackenzie would be the best option for the Tramway because it only has one "intersection", the pedestrian crossing from Major's Hill to the York Street steps It also has few pedestrians the rest of the corridor compared to Sussex, thus providing more capacity on the sidewalks for tramway passengers to get to and from a station (assuming one would be built on Mackenzie, and one just south of the York steps would make a lot of sense).

This would cause a problem with the Chateau Laurier expansion and garage entrance, however. We could ask they make use of the entrance next to the old photography museum (now committee rooms) and the one between 700 Sussex and Connaught.

The other option is the old railway RoW below Major's Hill, but that would require the demolition of the old photography museum (committee rooms) to build a ramp down, or use the parking garage ramp which would direct all Chateau Laurier parking traffic to Mackenzie.

Personally I prefer the idea of (if the gatineau tram is tunnelled) to have it be tunnelled under Mackenzie, (allowing for a station entrance under the staircase from Sussex to Mackenzie and tunnelling under Major's Hill to a train deck under the new Alexandra bridge. But if a surface option is taken (which I believe is unlikely at this point) a surface option on Mackenzie or the old ROW would make sense.

[RuralCitizen]

Originally Posted by Blackburnian

Personally I prefer the idea of (if the gatineau tram is tunnelled) to have it be tunnelled under Mackenzie, (allowing for a station entrance under the staircase from Sussex to Mackenzie and tunnelling under Major's Hill to a train deck under the new Alexandra bridge. But if a surface option is taken (which I believe is unlikely at this point) a surface option on Mackenzie or the old ROW would make sense.

I know this isn't Byward market related, but how deep this "york staircase station" would need to be so the tram tunnel can cross the canal and tunnel under spark. The tunnel would probably be as deep as the confederation line tunnel.
It could be an interesting new gateway to access both the Market and Major Hill.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I meant the last part of your post about the left/right turn to get from Mac to Col By.

There would be no way to get from MacKenzie to Col. By. SB on MacKenzie, you would need to turn right.

But also, the one-way segment of Sussex from York to St. Patrick would be converted to 2-way. So if you wanted to head south on Col. By, you would need to use Sussex.

[kwoldtimer]

edit

[Blackburnian]

Originally Posted by RuralCitizen

I know this isn't Byward market related, but how deep this "york staircase station" would need to be so the tram tunnel can cross the canal and tunnel under spark. The tunnel would probably be as deep as the confederation line tunnel.
It could be an interesting new gateway to access both the Market and Major Hill.

Apparently the confederation tunnel is 20 metres under the canal, which may not be required (unless it is) for a loop tunnel.

In my allignment it's about 300m from the canal to york street stairs are about 10-13m tall (also taking into consideration the 90° turn from sparks to mackenzie, the grade would probably be too steep for platform at essentially sussex street level, but for a concourse above the platform (maybe a tunnel at a slope down from sussex, it may be ok, but Idrk )