Ottawa Bypass Corridor

[Jeremy Coe, C.E.T.]

It'll never happen now. The province doesn't even want to twin Hwy 17 to Petawawa, let alone build a NEW road south of Ottawa....

Originally Posted by hwy418

That's right - it was MTO's Vars-to-Kars study (this was to be Highway 418 )

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

They should really extend the 417 to North bay, Sudbury and Sault Ste Marie too.

Considering the map doesn't even extend to Pettawawa, North bay, Sudbury or Sault Ste Marie, its hard to know what (if anything) was planned. Talk about edge of the flat earth thinking. The map could at least have been extended to include all of the destinations.

Interesting that there were no plans to extend Hwy. 7 beyond Carleton Place.

[hwy418]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Maybe someone got confused between Ottawa and Oshawa and decided to build the 418 to bypass Oshawa instead.

Yes - the nerve of them taking our road!

[hwy418]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Coe, C.E.T.

It'll never happen now. The province doesn't even want to twin Hwy 17 to Petawawa, let alone build a NEW road south of Ottawa....

Planning work for the twinning of Highway 417 was completed up to Petawawa. Design and construction for each segment is proceeding subject to funding.

[passwordisnt123]

I think there seems to be a misapprehension about how this thing works.

I agree with what others have said about not continuing to build more urban sprawl.

The fact of the matter is though that there are only three options:

1. don't allow urban sprawl (my preferred option)
2. expand and widen highways/thoroughfares to encourage sprawl and facilitate traffic (dubious for any number of reasons not least of which are that we probably shouldn't be encouraging sprawl and that road widening doesn't fix traffic problems in the long run.
3. allow sprawl but make it so undesirable/problematic for the people who want a 7000 square foot, 8 bedroom McMansion down south of Greely that the desirability of such properties stays low thus creating a market curb on urban sprawl.

#1 doesn't seem likely to happen. The political will isn't there.

#2 doesn't seem likely to happen either. The political will isn't there and people like me will fight tooth and nail to stop these kinds of wasteful investments from being made.

So that leaves us with option #3. Welcome to option #3.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Acajack

One thing is certain is that there is a lot of east-west vehicle traffic that goes through central Ottawa on the 417 that doesn't have to go through there.

Not really, since traffic on the highways outside Ottawa are not particularly high - none of the main roads leading in and out have an AADT higher than 25,000 once outside the immediate commuter zone. Even most of that traffic is destined for Ottawa. An outer ring road wouldn't benefit very many.

[daud]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Not really, since traffic on the highways outside Ottawa are not particularly high - none of the main roads leading in and out have an AADT higher than 25,000 once outside the immediate commuter zone. Even most of that traffic is destined for Ottawa. An outer ring road wouldn't benefit very many.

That's only one component. I would never propose building a bypass to accomodate through traffic. There are a number of issues at play and an underlying debate about urban planning as it relates to sprawl. I don't want to frame the discussion by saying one is wholly right or wrong. In general, I approve of public transit, LRT and intenstification, but lets be honest. Not everyone is a Dual Income No Kids that works for a consulting firm downtown. You have families with parents who work in industrial parks, you have families that need a real home, not a shoebox. san Francisco is great, but I would never raise a family downtown.

My overwhelming concern is the continued approval of developments outside the greenbelt, to the tune of "thousands" of homes with little or no near term transportation solutions. O-Train is great but it is not going to magically make the traffic disappear. there is a huge emerging problem and sticking our heads in the sand is bad urban planning, plain and simple.

[lrt's friend]

We are reaping the rewards of multiple decisions. The old bypass plan wouldn't address in city traffic to any degree. It was too far on the periphery and mainly was designed for traffic wanting to bypass Ottawa. But how much traffic is actually bypassing the city? Not much. Ottawa is 'the' destination for most traffic running through the Ottawa valley. Remember, that the eastern terminus of the bypass highway was at Vars. I remember the signs. How would this really help people crossing town from Orleans to Barrhaven? It won't.

We have thrown most of our money at the Confederation Line, to cover a route that was already addressed. I have said this countless times. It doesn't solve other emerging traffic problems. Not one bit.

We are moving major employment centres, RCMP from Overbrook to Barrhaven, and DND from downtown to near Kanata. Neither to be really effectively served by LRT anytime soon. And in the case of the former, no wonder Leitrim Road is a mess. It is a rural road, for pete's sake. And all those people who worked at the RCMP who chose to live in the east end now face an arduous commute using these old rural roads. Forget transit. It is not effective with our current plans.

I live not far from this emerging mess in the south end and I can tell you that traffic conditions are deteriorating fast yet nothing to speak of is coming to address this. Co-workers trying to cross the south end to Richmond and to the south of the city and facing more and more delays and attempts to try alternative routes and facing the same traffic jams on every road.

Our decision to cancel the N-S LRT route is now coming home to roost. This would have facilitated getting people off the roads and moving people between suburbs. This is something that Metrolinx in the GTA is starting to realize. It is no longer just moving people to downtown, yet that is our plan. And our alternative plan for Trillium Line will solve very little. I knew this. How does it make it easy to go from Orleans to Barrhaven with the current plan? Way too many transfers.

The south end is now the fastest growing part of the city, the easiest to service with rapid transit but we have become obsessed now with Phase 3 of the Confederation Line and reaching the very fringe of the city. There is no balance in our planning. Phase 2 of the Trillium Line ends in the bush and will not address real needs to get people out of their cars. The Trillium Line does not go where people want to go or where they live. We have no money so just build a token line that doesn't solve any problems.

Things are going to get worse, much worse.

[acottawa]

Many of the posts on this thread seem to imply there is some sort of strategy or coordination at play. I don't think that is the case.

• New development is decided by the OMB (or cities fearful if OMB appeals). The OMB does not give any regard to transportation.
• Freeway-style highways are usually built by MTO who do not concern themselves with intra-urban transportation unless it somehow interferes with inter-urban transportation.
• Arterial road projects and transit projects are managed by the city and any proposed improvements have to get in line. These tend to go to parts of the city with more political influence.
• Most home buyers tend to pay way more attention to countertops than then they do to transportation and then act surprised when transportation in their area sucks.

[1overcosc]

^ The province is moving forward with a plan to decrease the OMB's power so that first problem might be somewhat rectified soon.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The old bypass plan wouldn't address in city traffic to any degree. It was too far on the periphery and mainly was designed for traffic wanting to bypass Ottawa. But how much traffic is actually bypassing the city? Not much. Ottawa is 'the' destination for most traffic running through the Ottawa valley. Remember, that the eastern terminus of the bypass highway was at Vars. I remember the signs. How would this really help people crossing town from Orleans to Barrhaven? It won't.

Agreed. The proposed Kars to Vars route would have been underutilized, which is probably why the Province decided not to build it.

We have thrown most of our money at the Confederation Line, to cover a route that was already addressed.

I disagree. Albert and Slater streets are at maximum capacity. Something had to be done to increase the capacity through the city core.

I have said this countless times. It doesn't solve other emerging traffic problems. Not one bit.

I agree. Resolving transportation issues south of the Airport may be your top priority, it isn't the city's top priority.

We are moving major employment centres, RCMP from Overbrook to Barrhaven, and DND from downtown to near Kanata. Neither to be really effectively served by LRT anytime soon.

Nor should it. LRT's biggest strength is transporting a large volume of people. I don't know, but I highly doubt if either of them will be employing enough people to make LRT feasible for them. Given that people will be coming from a large number of directions, buses would be much more effective. If an LRT line is coming close to one of the campuses, then an extension/detour might be worth considering, but it shouldn't be a fundamental requirement.

And in the case of the former, no wonder Leitrim Road is a mess. It is a rural road, for pete's sake. And all those people who worked at the RCMP who chose to live in the east end now face an arduous commute using these old rural roads. Forget transit. It is not effective with our current plans.

The new location for the RCMP headquarters is certainly awkward to get to, especially from the east end. I am not sure we want to build infrastructure to encourage employees to make this commute though. I suspect over time the problem should fix itself as people move closer to their work.

Our decision to cancel the N-S LRT route is now coming home to roost. This would have facilitated getting people off the roads and moving people between suburbs.

How would it have done this? It might have helped some of the residents of Riverside South avoid the traffic mess created by the RCMP employees by giving the residents an alternate mode of transport (if it goes where they are going).

How does it make it easy to go from Orleans to Barrhaven with the current plan? Way too many transfers.

The original plan wouldn't have helped people get from Orleans to Barrhaven either (too many transfers and a long, exaggerated S shaped route).

The south end is now the fastest growing part of the city,

That is such a misleading statement and another example of how you can lie with statistics. If you add two small numbers, the percentage increase is large. if you add a large number to a very large number, the percentage increase is small.

Kanata, Barrhaven and Orleans all have more housing starts than Riverside south, but since they are all about 10 times larger than Riverside South, the percentage increase is smaller. Even Stittsville has 2.5 times the population of Riverside South.

the easiest to service with rapid transit

Yes there is an abandoned rail bed from South Keys to Earl Armstrong Drive (about half way between Albion Rd and Bowesville Road) and beyond, but to get from there to Riverside South, a new Right of Way needs to be built.

If that is your argument for it being easiest, I will counter by saying there is an abandoned ROW from Bayshore to Stittsville via Bells Corners, Bridalwood and Blackstone, but no one is even thinking of using that despite it would serve over 5 times the population of Riverside South, plus the vast majority of Kanata/Stittsville's future growth.

but we have become obsessed now with Phase 3 of the Confederation Line and reaching the very fringe of the city. There is no balance in our planning.

I do agree and am against the current Stage 3 plan. Paralleling the Queensway does not improve service. The motive for this is to save costs by shortening multiple bus routs that run on the same road (and replace them with a single train) and serve commercial interests with big pockets.

Phase 2 of the Trillium Line ends in the bush and will not address real needs to get people out of their cars. The Trillium Line does not go where people want to go or where they live. We have no money so just build a token line that doesn't solve any problems.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this one. I have said it before and will say it again. The southern extension of the LRT doesn't make any seance. A community of 10,000 (children and adults) doesn't need a train that can 600 passengers every 12 minutes 3000 passengers an hour). The rest of the city have survived on buses for decades. For a similar cost, the southern transitway could be extended to Earl Armstrong Drive, giving residents a direct, and fast bus from their door to Hurdman Station (with stops along the way) that will allow direct transfers to both the Trillium line and Confederation line. All the other suburbs will have to make similar transfers.

[daud]

all great points being made.

However to address the population of the south and its resulting traffic, its way way more that "Riverside south". Its Barrhaven, Its riverside South, Its Findlay Creek, Its Manotick, Its Greely. Living here, I can tell you Nurses live in Barrhaven, work at the General. Walkey/St. Laurant and surrounding industrial area is home to thousands of workers, not single employers.

Housing start data YTD in order is as follows:

Ottawa city 810
Nepean Outside Greenbelt (Barrhaven) 588
Kanata 506
Gloucester Outside Greenbelt (RSS and Findlay) 441
Cumberland 186
Goulbourn 101

When you break it down in actual starts, South End is #2 + #4=1029
Ottawa city is 810
West is #3 +#6=607
East is #4=186

For simplicity, I left out osgoode, rideau etc...

In "actual" starts the south end is the fastest growing area of the city YTD. And I can tell you its ramping up even more, whole new areas are coming online with servicing just south of earl armstrong and starts are going to be very strong through the rest of the year.

Its an issue, and I just feel the city isn't planning well. The left hand is approving suburban car centric developments and the right hand is not building roads. that's my only point-the 2 hands should be working better together. And they do to some degree, but I feel not nearly enough.

[acottawa]

I'm not sure any amount of planning will counteract people willing to live large distances from work. If a nurse at the Ottawa Hospital chooses to live in Barrhaven (and bypass closer options in Gloucester or Nepean or even Oreleans) then no amount of transit construction or road widening is going to help.

[daud]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I'm not sure any amount of planning will counteract people willing to live large distances from work. If a nurse at the Ottawa Hospital chooses to live in Barrhaven (and bypass closer options in Gloucester or Nepean or even Oreleans) then no amount of transit construction or road widening is going to help.

well, lets redirect this and hopefully it will underscore my point. Is there any employment node in the city that justifies 100 thousand people living in Barrhaven?

[wave46]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

They should really extend the 417 to North bay, Sudbury and Sault Ste Marie too.

No. The 417 should probably end somewhere near Petawawa. I've driven the stretch between Sudbury and Ottawa repeatedly and there's no way the traffic justifies it between Deep River and North Bay (AADT between Deep River and Mattawa is about 2900 vehicles per day as per the MTO). Not to mention that the terrain is miserable for building a 400-series highway.

There also should be some local improvements to highway 17 between North Bay and Sault Ste. Marie, but that's about it.

The money is better spent elsewhere.

[Aylmer]

Infrastructure and planning can't tell you where you'll live, but whether we like it or not, it does draw the boundaries of the realm of possible places to live, work or socialize.

Think of it - if there were no roads crossing the Greenbelt, would people still buy houses in Kanata or Barrhaven expecting to be able to commute into town? Maybe some people would trek through the woods, but I think we can all agree that the population would be MUCH smaller.

The opposite is also true; say there was a direct hyperloop line that would get you to Petawawa in 15 minutes. You can bet that Petawawa would develop in a way it most certainly would not have done otherwise.

And that's an obvious truth that often escapes discussion about transportation networks: They both respond to demand and shape demand. We obsess over the former, but we hardly ever talk about the latter (although it happens more and more now).

We are often very fatalistic about transportation demand, seeing it as a rising tide we can either accommodate or drown in. But in reality, it's a feedback loop where each attempt to quench demand creates demand which must be quenched. And the evidence does indeed show that you can never build your way out of congestion, be it with superbypasses, cycleways, LRT or hyperloops. It is important that we truly grasp the truth that it is just not possible.
And if we don't address the rising tide? People aren't stupid - we make different choices: we'll travel at different times, travel to different destinations or use different ways of getting there. We will make our transportation choices according to what is and isn't possible, just like we do for every other aspect of our lives. I might want a Mustang, but since I don't have the money for it, I won't ask taxpayers to pay me one - I'll just have to get a Honda instead. Why should it be different for my transportation choices? Will traffic get worse in Jockvale and Manotick? Of course. But it won't be any better with a bypass.

So if nothing can ever truly satisfy demand, what's left over is infrastructure's effects on shaping demand. Cities with lots of transit and cities with a lot of highways have generally similar commute times, but look very different. And that's the big question we have to ask when thinking about infrastructure; what do we want our city to look like?

To draw a simplistic caricature:
- If we don't build a new highway, people will commute for about 40 minutes in a healthier, more compact city.
- If we build a new highway, people will commute for about 40 minutes in a less livable, less compact city.

No matter how much we try, we can't meaningfully impact the 40 minutes part, but we have more power than we think on the rest.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by daud

Living here, I can tell you Nurses live in Barrhaven, work at the General. Walkey/St. Laurant and surrounding industrial area is home to thousands of workers, not single employers.

Are you trying to say that the majority of people who work at the General. Walkey/St. Laurant and surrounding industrial area live in Barrhaven, or is it you just know that a few do. I also know of people who live in Barrhaven and work in Stittsville. We can't be providing infrastructure to provide direct transpiration links from every point in the city to every other point in the city.

South End is #2 + #4=1029

With the Rideau River dividing them, #2 and #4 can't really be combined as well as #3 and #6 where there is no physical barrier. The Vimy Memorial Bridge does help bring them together more than before, but its location makes it more useful for Riverside South residents (for access to Barrhaven services) than it is for Barrhaven residents.

[lrt's friend]

I just want to point out that my comments relate to the whole south end. You cannot divorce Barrhaven from Riverside South and Findlay Creek or visa versa especially when there is now a bridge that connects them. In fact, it is that bridge that has driven the traffic issues and I predicted that this would be the case as soon as the bridge opened.

And it does also point out the craziness of terminating a rail line in the bush that doesn't serve anybody well. I believe that there is ample population now to support regular rail service if you planned to cross the Vimy Bridge as originally planned. We are now closing in on 100,000 population and by the time a rail line is completed, what will the population be?

The great S route that so many ridiculed was actually very effective in bringing rail within walking distance of a good portion of the population. No need for cumbersome bus transfers and park n ride for many people. The fact of the matter is that the S route would have reduced transfers to a reasonable level and that is what people want even if the overall trip was 5 minutes longer. More gained by that than waiting 15 minutes for a bus transfers.

The right of way issue is really irrelevant. Whether there is rail right of way now will still have to be rebuilt completely and the whole right of way to Barrhaven Town Centre has already been purchased and set aside.

The whole issue of job relocation means that you should move your household is easier said than done. Some will relocate because of the commute but reality is that most households are now two or more income families, have ties to their existing neighbourhood and you have to consider schools for any children and uprooting them from their friends.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Infrastructure and planning can't tell you where you'll live, but whether we like it or not, it does draw the boundaries of the realm of possible places to live, work or socialize.

Think of it - if there were no roads crossing the Greenbelt, would people still buy houses in Kanata or Barrhaven expecting to be able to commute into town? Maybe some people would trek through the woods, but I think we can all agree that the population would be MUCH smaller.

The opposite is also true; say there was a direct hyperloop line that would get you to Petawawa in 15 minutes. You can bet that Petawawa would develop in a way it most certainly would not have done otherwise.

And that's an obvious truth that often escapes discussion about transportation networks: They both respond to demand and shape demand. We obsess over the former, but we hardly ever talk about the latter (although it happens more and more now).

We are often very fatalistic about transportation demand, seeing it as a rising tide we can either accommodate or drown in. But in reality, it's a feedback loop where each attempt to quench demand creates demand which must be quenched. And the evidence does indeed show that you can never build your way out of congestion, be it with superbypasses, cycleways, LRT or hyperloops. It is important that we truly grasp the truth that it is just not possible.
And if we don't address the rising tide? People aren't stupid - we make different choices: we'll travel at different times, travel to different destinations or use different ways of getting there. We will make our transportation choices according to what is and isn't possible, just like we do for every other aspect of our lives. I might want a Mustang, but since I don't have the money for it, I won't ask taxpayers to pay me one - I'll just have to get a Honda instead. Why should it be different for my transportation choices? Will traffic get worse in Jockvale and Manotick? Of course. But it won't be any better with a bypass.

So if nothing can ever truly satisfy demand, what's left over is infrastructure's effects on shaping demand. Cities with lots of transit and cities with a lot of highways have generally similar commute times, but look very different. And that's the big question we have to ask when thinking about infrastructure; what do we want our city to look like?

To draw a simplistic caricature:
- If we don't build a new highway, people will commute for about 40 minutes in a healthier, more compact city.
- If we build a new highway, people will commute for about 40 minutes in a less livable, less compact city.

No matter how much we try, we can't meaningfully impact the 40 minutes part, but we have more power than we think on the rest.

There is a lot of truth in what you are saying and that is why building public transit instead of highways is important. But building nothing is even worse. It destroys the quality of life if we end up with endless traffic jams because we offer no alternatives. We cannot ignore the problem and hope it goes away

Our transportation plans are definitely moulding our city for better or worse. And you can see how past plans are affecting the city. The building of the Britannia streetcar line produced streetcar suburbs to the west. The building of the Queensway created Orleans and Kanata. The Confederation Line will re-enforce this and with plans to go as far as Trim Road, we will be encouraging development in east Cumberland and Rockland. But overall, has this been a good idea?

I say no. There has been consistently off balanced planning resulting in a linear east-west city that continues to be more expensive to maintain. Whether it be building rapid transit, bus routes, roads, sewers and water lines, the strain and cost will continue to escalate.

As I pointed out, building rapid transit to the south is cheaper because the distance is shorter. Likewise with other services. But we continue down the same route and putting more and more pressure on east-west infrastructure and the cost of that will grow faster and faster as we reach capacity. We cannot widen the Queensway further, so we spend $5B on LRT when 1.5B would take us south and potentially serve 250,000. When the Confederation Line reaches capacity, will we spend $10B or $15B on a second east-west line in 25 or 50 years! It becomes and endless cycle.

Building a balanced city should be a high priority if we are to contain tax increases and maintain services in the future. And building a balanced city will build a more compact city as well.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

As I pointed out, building rapid transit to the south is cheaper because the distance is shorter.

Is it? I checked and once Stage 2 LRT is complete, the distance from Market Square (arguably the centre of Barrhaven, which has the vast majority of the population in the south) to Bank St downtown (arguably the centre of downtown) is under 22 km. Using the old LRT route, the same commute is 27.5 km (about 25% further). Now even after Stage 2, some of that will be by bus, but the reality is most people in the suburbs will have to take a bus to the LRT station as they aren't within walking distance of one.

Oh, and just in case you were wondering, the long expensive route to Orleans is only 21.5 km from Banks St. all the way to Trim Rd. Shorter even than it is to even Earl Armstrong Drive and River Rd in Riverside South on the old LRT route (23.5 km).

The old plan was great for Riverside South, but it wasn't good for Barrhaven, so if you insist that they are one big southern region, overall it was worse for it.