Bank Street Revitalization [Riverside Dr to Ledbury Ave]

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I can't see that. It is actually 5 lanes, with left turn lanes for most of this section of Bank Street. The left turn lane will be used for cycle tracks I am sure. It will be scary to access businesses when this is done.

Exactly. That's good that it makes drivers "scared". It means they are actually paying attention. Most accidents happen when they are not.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by LRTeverywhere

Designs are available at : https://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/publi...ledbury-avenue

Bank street will remain 4 thru lanes + turn lanes.

Thank you for sharing.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I can't see that. It is actually 5 lanes, with left turn lanes for most of this section of Bank Street. The left turn lane will be used for cycle tracks I am sure. It will be scary to access businesses when this is done.

You can’t possibly be arguing in favour of retaining the current stroad configuration of Bank St. south? It’s a legitimately dangerous stretch of road right now.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by phil235

You can’t possibly be arguing in favour of retaining the current stroad configuration of Bank St. south? It’s a legitimately dangerous stretch of road right now.

My comment came from the plans for no significant improvements for transit on this stretch of Bank Street. So, it remains 100% a stroad. It is not that I favour a stroad, but like the old saying, we can put lipstick on a pig but it remains a pig. It will be very difficult to convert this to an urban street. I watch a couple of efforts to build sidewalk facing buildings, and don't see this being very successful and producing momentum. If anything, I am seeing increasing business failure.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

My comment came from the plans for no significant improvements for transit on this stretch of Bank Street. So, it remains 100% a stroad. It is not that I favour a stroad, but like the old saying, we can put lipstick on a pig but it remains a pig. It will be very difficult to convert this to an urban street. I watch a couple of efforts to build sidewalk facing buildings, and don't see this being very successful and producing momentum. If anything, I am seeing increasing business failure.

No doubt it will take a while to replace building stock over that stretch, but it has to start with turning this into a regular street. They have done that north of Walkley, though from that intersection down it is going to be very similar to what currently exists.

There won't be improvements to transit speeds, but the pedestrian improvements will improve the transit experience, as transit users are pedestrians too. Having gotten off the bus at stops along Bank, it is currently pretty miserable to access the stops and businesses where you have 4-6 lanes of traffic whizzing by a couple of feet away.

Personally I don't think transit speeds there are bad. I'd rather see frequency improvements with priority measures to improve reliability (i.e. bus priority lanes at stops rather than right turn lanes).

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by phil235

No doubt it will take a while to replace building stock over that stretch, but it has to start with turning this into a regular street. They have done that north of Walkley, though from that intersection down it is going to be very similar to what currently exists.

There won't be improvements to transit speeds, but the pedestrian improvements will improve the transit experience, as transit users are pedestrians too. Having gotten off the bus at stops along Bank, it is currently pretty miserable to access the stops and businesses where you have 4-6 lanes of traffic whizzing by a couple of feet away.

Personally I don't think transit speeds there are bad. I'd rather see frequency improvements with priority measures to improve reliability (i.e. bus priority lanes at stops rather than right turn lanes).

I consider transit on this section of Bank Street back in the 1970s and 1980s and holy cow, it is so much worse today. There was so much better connectivity back in the day that has gradually been eliminated. Sigh! This is all about avoiding overlapping routes to save money. Transfers are the name of the game today, but that is more about transit efficiency rather than serving riders well.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I consider transit on this section of Bank Street back in the 1970s and 1980s and holy cow, it is so much worse today. There was so much better connectivity back in the day that has gradually been eliminated. Sigh! This is all about avoiding overlapping routes to save money. Transfers are the name of the game today, but that is more about transit efficiency rather than serving riders well.

Of course there was more transit on Bank Street in the 70s and 80s, there was no Southeast Transitway in the 70s and 80s! As soon as the Southeast Transitway opened in 1995, almost all transit routes previously using Bank Street were moved to the Transitway. In 1995 the only route that travelled on Bank Street between Heron Road and Hunt Club Road was Route 1, which is now Route 6. There was even a period in 1997 and 1998 where bus service was removed entirely from Bank Street between Kilborn and Alta Vista! Thankfully, that blunder didn't last long.

In summary, service today is basically status quo since the opening of the Southeast Transitway. Trying to compare today's service to a time when the Southeast Transitway didn't exist is misleading.

[DarthVader_1961]

Did anyone get to the open houses in early February? Anything new?

[TransitZilla]

The slides and detailed design drawings from the session earlier this month are online.

https://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/publi...8-562859198fd1

[OTownandDown]

OMG I'm going to say it again, but imagine how much better this could have been if Riverside Westbound was moved parallel to Riverside Eastbound

All of the lots are currently empty, never been a better time to expropriate a strip of land to allow for it.

The cost savings for deleting a signalized intersection would probably match the cost for buying the strips of land...

And why do we still need a slip lane from Riverside Eastbound to Bank Southbound? Are we in the 90's?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

OMG I'm going to say it again, but imagine how much better this could have been if Riverside Westbound was moved parallel to Riverside Eastbound

All of the lots are currently empty, never been a better time to expropriate a strip of land to allow for it.

The cost savings for deleting a signalized intersection would probably match the cost for buying the strips of land...

And why do we still need a slip lane from Riverside Eastbound to Bank Southbound? Are we in the 90's?

I still don't see how this would be better. For pedestrians, two three or four lane crossings are much better than one 6 or 8 lane crossing. At least, the current setup diffuses traffic onto effectively two streets.

Let's compare. What is better? The Bank and Riverside intersections or the Riverside and Heron intersection. It is obvious which is better for anybody not in a vehicle.

[RomanR27]

Unsure if it's related to this work, but the middle turn lane on Bank at Karn has been closed the last couple days. Can't turn left onto Karn from Bank northbound and can't turn left onto Bank northbound from Karn.

[Ottawa Champ]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I still don't see how this would be better. For pedestrians, two three or four lane crossings are much better than one 6 or 8 lane crossing. At least, the current setup diffuses traffic onto effectively two streets.

Let's compare. What is better? The Bank and Riverside intersections or the Riverside and Heron intersection. It is obvious which is better for anybody not in a vehicle.

I cross both intersections regularly and I agree, the 'dual' Riverside is much preferred over Bank and Heron.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by RomanR27

Unsure if it's related to this work, but the middle turn lane on Bank at Karn has been closed the last couple days. Can't turn left onto Karn from Bank northbound and can't turn left onto Bank northbound from Karn.

That is a pretty unsafe place to make a left turn. What about similar turns onto Evans? Karn used to be a continuation of Evans. There is access to and from Karn through the Blue Heron Mall parking lot.

[Ottawa Champ]

Originally Posted by RomanR27

Unsure if it's related to this work, but the middle turn lane on Bank at Karn has been closed the last couple days. Can't turn left onto Karn from Bank northbound and can't turn left onto Bank northbound from Karn.

The crosswalk is also closed off with jersey barriers and the west sidewalk on Bank is also closed. Great for pedestrians

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by RomanR27

Unsure if it's related to this work, but the middle turn lane on Bank at Karn has been closed the last couple days. Can't turn left onto Karn from Bank northbound and can't turn left onto Bank northbound from Karn.

This looks like telecom prep work similar to what's been going on at Bank/Riverside.

[OTownandDown]

Originally Posted by Ottawa Champ

I cross both intersections regularly and I agree, the 'dual' Riverside is much preferred over Bank and Heron.

I just think that limiting traffic congestion by having just one set of lights instead of two, moving traffic (and the road and the salt) away from the river, opening up land for either development or more green space, reducing the number of pedestrian deaths at the base of the billings bridge, and allowing space for the replacement of the bridge (which is well overdue and is gonna ruin all those fancy bike islands) are all good things.

Imagine what you could do with that new development slated for the Harvey's lot there, if Riverside Westbound wasn't between the building and the river. Quiet riverfront restaurant patio, anyone?

Racetrack designed traffic sewers are SO 1960's.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

I just think that limiting traffic congestion by having just one set of lights instead of two, moving traffic (and the road and the salt) away from the river, opening up land for either development or more green space, reducing the number of pedestrian deaths at the base of the billings bridge, and allowing space for the replacement of the bridge (which is well overdue and is gonna ruin all those fancy bike islands) are all good things.

Imagine what you could do with that new development slated for the Harvey's lot there, if Riverside Westbound wasn't between the building and the river. Quiet riverfront restaurant patio, anyone?

Racetrack designed traffic sewers are SO 1960's.

There really isn't that much opportunity to do what you are suggesting, riverside development. Every new building would still need street access. Both sites are highly contaminated because they had been gas stations for many decades. It is unlikely that anything will actually be built on the former gas stations. As I recall, the proposal for the west side, places the two new buildings south and west of the old gas station.

Besides, road consolidation creates a bigger traffic sewer than what exists today and a bigger divide between the proposed developments and the shopping centre and its transit station.

Yes, traffic sewers are very 1960s, but we aren't getting rid of it by tinkering.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Besides, road consolidation creates a bigger traffic sewer than what exists today and a bigger divide between the proposed developments and the shopping centre and its transit station.

Yes, traffic sewers are very 1960s, but we aren't getting rid of it by tinkering.

The transit station isn't very accessible or pedestrian friendly as it currently stands. From the bridge you are basically crossing multiple high speed roads and parking lots to get there. Consolidating the road into a single intersection doesn't solve all of the problems, but it is a step towards a better pedestrian environment.

The biggest issue for me is that the current divided parkway alignment is a massive waste of prime space. The land between the EB and WB directions is mostly empty and useless as it stands. Development is basically limited to car-oriented uses. By consolidating lanes you push the road back from the river and create a much bigger swath of useable land.

Personally I think that it is pretty much indefensible to have a major divided parkway running on prime riverfront property.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by phil235

The transit station isn't very accessible or pedestrian friendly as it currently stands. From the bridge you are basically crossing multiple high speed roads and parking lots to get there. Consolidating the road into a single intersection doesn't solve all of the problems, but it is a step towards a better pedestrian environment.

The biggest issue for me is that the current divided parkway alignment is a massive waste of prime space. The land between the EB and WB directions is mostly empty and useless as it stands. Development is basically limited to car-oriented uses. By consolidating lanes you push the road back from the river and create a much bigger swath of useable land.

Personally I think that it is pretty much indefensible to have a major divided parkway running on prime riverfront property.

How much of it is federal property? All the riverside property, east and west of Bank Street was originally expropriated by the feds starting in 1948, so how are we going to make the desired changes? This is why we have parkland along the river and why Riverside Drive is a divided roadway. It was originally a federal parkway plan. Then there is Confederation Heights, which was also a federal project, and Riverside was one of the access roads to it. It wasn't like this before the expropriations when there were a lot of small market gardens, which would not have survived modern grocery supply chains.