Bank Street Revitalization [Riverside Dr to Ledbury Ave]

[DarthVader_1961]

Do we have a thread for this?

https://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/publi...ledbury-avenue

I could not find one

[OTownandDown]

The topic did come up a couple of years ago, not sure which thread.

This is not the utopia we were promised back then. I thought the road was supposed to go on a diet down this stretch?

Looks like regular old northern-ontario Stroad Bank street but with bike lanes?

The more I look at the intersection of Riverside and Bank the more angry I get that we can't move the south(west)bound lanes to the north(east)bound lanes, decongesting the foot of the bridge, and removing all those dastardly ramps.

Here's a bang-up job of my 'redesign'. Yes I know its complex because of expropriations necessary. But that doesn't mean it's not worth it.

[LRTeverywhere]

I would take two smaller intersections over a massive combined intersection any day.

The intersection directly off of the bridge really needs improvement, but combining into a super intersection isn't going to make it safer.

I would shift the bridge intersection south to allow more room to work with making it a proper protected intersection (ideally smoother then my drawing). as well as getting rid of the slip lane that made it into the last round of design.

Of course if I had my way I would definetly not have it be 4 lanes through here anymore, but thats pretty unlikely.




Something to note for this project, it almost went to construction but they went into redesign again to conform more to the protected intersection design guide that was released about a year and a half ago, so we should see improvements when the new designs are out end of this month.

[Norman Bates]

I wonder if this would be a good application for one of those counterintuitive double diamond intersections?

[DarthVader_1961]

So according to the web link, preliminary work starts this summer near bank/riverside.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Norman Bates

I wonder if this would be a good application for one of those counterintuitive double diamond intersections?

Are you referring to a Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI)?

If so, they are not really applicable here. A DDI is a configuration for an interchange to a limited access roadway, not an intersection; which would, generally, permit turns directly between the roads involved.

Specifically, swapping the east-bound and west-bound lanes of Riverside, where they intersect with Bank, will not really change much.

[OTownandDown]

oh wow, I love this! More, I want more!

Can you do this for the Bank and Riverside intersection please?

Unless you think my diagram is sufficient lol

Every time I drive thru there, I think about it. Its become an obsession. The land is now empty and it's our only chance in the next 100 years to get it right.

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...94&postcount=2

Originally Posted by barbicels

Thanks! Updated link —> https://1drv.ms/b/s!Ahw8X47F_UFUipVjz9UVBa4mXG2nGQ

It’s a heavy touch relative to what was EA’d and PIC’d, chewing up a lot of Greenbelt land, and would likely irk people who believe that cars and carpool lots have no place in mass-transit plans like Stage 3 LRT, so would favour bus feed-in. It’s more like a GO station, or the Victoria Park TTC station, and it does suit a future March Road BRT. (See also my sketch for a monumental “roundabout interchange” at March/Teron: https://1drv.ms/b/s!Ahw8X47F_UFUjc42BKzbHz8jznAy9Q)

I think it should be considered, though, because Kanata’s geometry forms a wide, flat face against the Greenbelt, causing a huge fan-out of traffic from the 417 interchange at Eagleson. There’ll always have to be a carpool lot there; the only question remaining is, how to unclog the web of intermodal traffic. I think my design (complex though it is) flows a lot better than what’s currently proposed, and MTO might see enough benefit in it to throw some $$ at it.

[barbicels]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

oh wow, I love this! More, I want more!

Can you do this for the Bank and Riverside intersection please?

[...]

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...94&postcount=2

Interesting thought about Bank/Riverside — I'm taking a look at it now.

Back to my alternative design (https://1drv.ms/b/s!Ahw8X47F_UFUipVjz9UVBa4mXG2nGQ) for the Eagleson LRT station, for a moment: For reference, here is the PIC slide showing the range of alternatives presented for the station, PPUDO area, and BRT station. You see what I mean about how low-scale and crammed their plan is — it's just going to make the traffic snarl worse and disadvantage the Kanata North Business Park. https://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/do...bd15_16_en.pdf

[barbicels]

[QUOTE=barbicels;9888244]Interesting thought about Bank/Riverside — I'm taking a look at it now.

Referring to this design: https://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/do...awing01_en.pdf

Seems that there are only two ways to go here — your way (collapse both directions of Riverside onto the current EB RoW) or the status quo (which is what the City proposes, with the addition of bike lanes and “smart channels”). Grade separation is impossible due to flood risk, and in any case the City is trying to put this junction on a diet, not add capacity as I was suggesting for Eagleson/417 and March/Teron.

Your design is limited by how many bidirectional lanes you can cram in between the property at 1355 Bank and the historic building at 1346. The treed lot at 1352 (City-owned?) and a partial expropriation at 1355 could make way for a big roundabout — was that your thinking? The plans for 1335–1339 (https://heronpark.ca/2020/09/26/1335...t-development/) also have to be taken into account; maintaining the circulatory roadway around those buildings (and the Pebb Building) is probably essential.

My best idea, then, is to move the WB roadway south (as you suggested), converting today’s WB RoW to cycle tracks and a nice wide riverside pathway, retain the two “Michigan left” loops as clockwise circulatories to serve the properties between Riverside and the river, and grab some land around the unified intersection for either a roundabout or extra traffic lanes.

(We’re off-topic for this LRT S3 thread, so I guess this discussion should move elsewhere.)

[OTownandDown]

So both sides of the street are fully demolished now, between Riverside North and Riverside South. NOW is the time to expropriate the 15-20 foot swathe. Maybe even do a land swap to allow the new construction 15-20 feet closer to the river in exchange. It wouldn't be to the base of the bridge, just up to the right hand turn lane of southbound riverside.

[QUOTE=barbicels;9889670]

Originally Posted by barbicels

Interesting thought about Bank/Riverside — I'm taking a look at it now.

Referring to this design: https://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/do...awing01_en.pdf

Seems that there are only two ways to go here — your way (collapse both directions of Riverside onto the current EB RoW) or the status quo (which is what the City proposes, with the addition of bike lanes and “smart channels”). Grade separation is impossible due to flood risk, and in any case the City is trying to put this junction on a diet, not add capacity as I was suggesting for Eagleson/417 and March/Teron.

Your design is limited by how many bidirectional lanes you can cram in between the property at 1355 Bank and the historic building at 1346. The treed lot at 1352 (City-owned?) and a partial expropriation at 1355 could make way for a big roundabout — was that your thinking? The plans for 1335–1339 (https://heronpark.ca/2020/09/26/1335...t-development/) also have to be taken into account; maintaining the circulatory roadway around those buildings (and the Pebb Building) is probably essential.

My best idea, then, is to move the WB roadway south (as you suggested), converting today’s WB RoW to cycle tracks and a nice wide riverside pathway, retain the two “Michigan left” loops as clockwise circulatories to serve the properties between Riverside and the river, and grab some land around the unified intersection for either a roundabout or extra traffic lanes.

(We’re off-topic for this LRT S3 thread, so I guess this discussion should move elsewhere.)

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by LRTeverywhere

I would take two smaller intersections over a massive combined intersection any day.

The intersection directly off of the bridge really needs improvement, but combining into a super intersection isn't going to make it safer.

I would shift the bridge intersection south to allow more room to work with making it a proper protected intersection (ideally smoother then my drawing). as well as getting rid of the slip lane that made it into the last round of design.

Of course if I had my way I would definetly not have it be 4 lanes through here anymore, but thats pretty unlikely.

Something to note for this project, it almost went to construction but they went into redesign again to conform more to the protected intersection design guide that was released about a year and a half ago, so we should see improvements when the new designs are out end of this month.

I'm wondering if a better option would be to:

• trench the south-eastern branch of Riverside South for bi-directional, through, motor vehicle traffic,
• Have 2 surface lanes for turning traffic above the trench, and
• Convert the north-western branch to a cycle track, separating cyclists from the pedestrians on the existing MUP.

The dedicated cycle track should be extended in both directions from at least Herron to the Hospital Link and optimally further.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I'm wondering if a better option would be to:

• trench the south-eastern branch of Riverside South for bi-directional, through, motor vehicle traffic,
• Have 2 surface lanes for turning traffic above the trench, and
• Convert the north-western branch to a cycle track, separating cyclists from the pedestrians on the existing MUP.

The dedicated cycle track should be extended in both directions from at least Herron to the Hospital Link and optimally further.

What are soil conditions like here? Sawmill Creek used to cross Bank Street near this intersection (the south branch) and entered the Rideau west of Bank Street. The creek was re-routed to its current path around 1960 when Riverside was twinned. Historically, this was all swampland up to the current Sawmill Creek crossing just south of the Transitway Bridge. What problems will arise trying to trench in a potential quagmire? We also need to maintain 'safe' access to the two office buildings on the north branch of Riverside that minimizes traffic conflicts.

Although the current configuration is a bit like a freeway interchange, the actual Bank Street intersections are not bad from a pedestrian perspective and it provides relatively safe traffic movement for left hand turns and access into the shopping centre. This is particularly true for left turns off of Bank Street that make use of the ramps both east and west of Bank Street instead of direct left turns off of Bank Street.

I don't know how important it is to separate the MUP along Riverside Drive with virtually no housing east or west of the bridge and almost no possibility of this changing. We have already built a cycle track under the bridge where pedestrian/cycle conflicts are likely the greatest. Cycling improvements are most needed on Bank Street itself.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I don't know how important it is to separate the MUP along Riverside Drive with virtually no housing east or west of the bridge and almost no possibility of this changing. We have already built a cycle track under the bridge where pedestrian/cycle conflicts are likely the greatest. Cycling improvements are most needed on Bank Street itself.

I think that the biggest issue is that Billings Bridge mall is likely to be redeveloped to include lots of housing in the future, so then Riverside becomes a huge barrier in terms of mobility. From the perspective of accessing natural assets, having a divided parkway bisecting the park on the river is a pretty big waste. Much better to consolidate it in the eastbound right of way, add sidewalks and bike lanes, and create a more usable park on the river.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

What are soil conditions like here? Sawmill Creek used to cross Bank Street near this intersection (the south branch) and entered the Rideau west of Bank Street. The creek was re-routed to its current path around 1960 when Riverside was twinned. Historically, this was all swampland up to the current Sawmill Creek crossing just south of the Transitway Bridge. What problems will arise trying to trench in a potential quagmire?

Certainly the soil conditions could be a challenge, and it would certainly require good drainage.

We also need to maintain 'safe' access to the two office buildings on the north branch of Riverside that minimizes traffic conflicts.

A solution could be found that gives them access to the new branch. The parking lots for those buildings aren't all that big, so I don't see how they will be generating massive amounts of traffic. Alternatively, the city could expropriate the land and demolish the buildings.

I don't know how important it is to separate the MUP along Riverside Drive with virtually no housing east or west of the bridge and almost no possibility of this changing. We have already built a cycle track under the bridge where pedestrian/cycle conflicts are likely the greatest. Cycling improvements are most needed on Bank Street itself.

I remember way back when taking CanBike II in the early 90's (now classified as Level 4), this intersection was one of the ones we rode as a demonstration of a difficult intersection to navigate.

[OTownandDown]

People have died at these intersections, so it can't be THAT easy to navigate.

We're talking a 4-lane Bank Street and a 4-lane Riverside, with left hand turns in each direction, and then delete the right hand slip lanes, because we like doing that now. Without the slip lanes, the 'mega intersection' isn't actually that much bigger.

Seems to me the entire swathe from Brookfield to Bank Street can be 'optimized' and all the old sh*tty towers full of asbestos can be demolished. All the ramps and interchanges can be deleted for normal intersections, and we can develop the entire swathe for housing and intensification, leaving a nice broad strip at the river's edge for enjoyment and flooding.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

People have died at these intersections, so it can't be THAT easy to navigate.

We're talking a 4-lane Bank Street and a 4-lane Riverside, with left hand turns in each direction, and then delete the right hand slip lanes, because we like doing that now. Without the slip lanes, the 'mega intersection' isn't actually that much bigger.

Seems to me the entire swathe from Brookfield to Bank Street can be 'optimized' and all the old sh*tty towers full of asbestos can be demolished. All the ramps and interchanges can be deleted for normal intersections, and we can develop the entire swathe for housing and intensification, leaving a nice broad strip at the river's edge for enjoyment and flooding.

As I recall, there was one bike fatality in recent years that resulted in the construction of the cycle track under the bridge. While I have no objections to this construction, it is quite typical of Ottawa policy to build safety improvements only following a fatality. It is very telling when the city can't be bothered to build any sidewalk at all on another part of Bank Street, as if that is not a more critical safety problem.

Nevertheless, I don't believe it is possible to entirely eliminate fatalities or injuries at any intersection, and converting Bank/Riverside into a standard intersection will almost certainly increase collisions and congestion.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by phil235

I think that the biggest issue is that Billings Bridge mall is likely to be redeveloped to include lots of housing in the future, so then Riverside becomes a huge barrier in terms of mobility. From the perspective of accessing natural assets, having a divided parkway bisecting the park on the river is a pretty big waste. Much better to consolidate it in the eastbound right of way, add sidewalks and bike lanes, and create a more usable park on the river.

Are pedestrians and cyclists getting to the point where they can't handle signaled intersections any more?

I think it is unrealistic to expect Riverside Drive to be downgraded from its status as an arterial boulevard.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I remember way back when taking CanBike II in the early 90's (now classified as Level 4), this intersection was one of the ones we rode as a demonstration of a difficult intersection to navigate.

Maybe I am missing something here, but we are talking about Bank and Riverside, right? If so, didn't we build an underpass at Billings Bridge to make it safer already?

If we are talking about the bridge crossing itself, that is a different story. I am not sure what the answer is for that, but some day, we need to build another river crossing for pedestrians and cyclists somewhere nearby.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Are pedestrians and cyclists getting to the point where they can't handle signaled intersections any more?

How did you glean this from their post? The way I read it they were asking for a road diet on Riverside so it's less of a speedway and safer for current and future pedestrians and cyclists as well as future residents in the area. This has the added benefit of also adding more park space along the river.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by JHikka

How did you glean this from their post? The way I read it they were asking for a road diet on Riverside so it's less of a speedway and safer for current and future pedestrians and cyclists as well as future residents in the area. This has the added benefit of also adding more park space along the river.

Thanks, that was my point. Bank and Riverside is in no way safe for cyclists or pedestrians as currently configured. It can remain a functional arterial road without having having what are basically highway design features.