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

[m0nkyman]

Key concepts to understand here are 'induced demand', 'road diet', and 'hell yeah'.

[Buggys]

Thanks for the survey links Rocketphish.

The roadside bike lanes as are an invitation to crush bikers. Just widen the MUP for adjoining slow & fast bike lanes instead. This allows bikers to change speeds & turn into gwaking bike walkers whenever they feel like slowing down to enjoy the river as well.

Above the LRT tunnel, it can accommodate 4 non-segregated car lanes. Non-segregated will encourage people to watch their driving more, including slowing down to meet the speed limit & stopping for people crossing between intersections. This is also a road diet vs the existing condition, and an option that also prevents additional congestion. In the existing condition, the green segregation is useless as useable green space because it's jammed between 2 highway-like pairs of lanes, and feels like part of a wide speedway.

[acottawa]

I think the general problem with the parkways is the NCC can't agree what they're for (commuting, recreational driving, scenic gateway to the city centre). In their current condition they aren't really suitable for any of those purposes.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Buggys

The roadside bike lanes as are an invitation to crush bikers. Just widen the MUP for adjoining slow & fast bike lanes instead. This allows bikers to change speeds & turn into gwaking bike walkers whenever they feel like slowing down to enjoy the river as well.

Both are needed. Cyclists who go faster than 20kph should to be on the parkway where they can go as fast as they can. The SGEC parkway in the east side is an example of this, and you get less speeding cyclists posing a danger to pedestrians and slower cyclists like small kids just learning how to ride.

They could have the walking-only paths as packed stone dust or paving stone to provide automatic visual clues as to their intended purpose.

[zzptichka]

Great stuff. Finally NCC doing something right about the waterfront.
Reducing the lanes scenario is probably the best part of it. Wonder what would be Watson's stance on it.
They shouldn't have buried the rails. Train, narrow parkway and wide MUP would've been ideal.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Great stuff. Finally NCC doing something right about the waterfront.
Reducing the lanes scenario is probably the best part of it. Wonder what would be Watson's stance on it.
They shouldn't have buried the rails. Train, narrow parkway and wide MUP would've been ideal.

yay moar grass yay nationally significant shrubs yay.

I don't mind losing the lanes, but does it have to be for the cause of more pointless greenspace, as the greenspace fetishists (not you) are cheering on?

MUP the hell out of that corridor, absolutely. (And abolish Sunday bike waste while we're at it.)

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Both are needed. Cyclists who go faster than 20kph should to be on the parkway where they can go as fast as they can. The SGEC parkway in the east side is an example of this, and you get less speeding cyclists posing a danger to pedestrians and slower cyclists like small kids just learning how to ride.

They could have the walking-only paths as packed stone dust or paving stone to provide automatic visual clues as to their intended purpose.

Even for those speedy bikers, the problem is when they're starting up & slowing down -- they're squeezed between a curb & cars -- there's no slower bike lane beside them. However, with multi-lane MUPs people can stay right except to pass.

E.g.

walkers | slow bikes | fast bikes || fast bikes | slow bikes | walkers

[ElieB]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

yay moar grass yay nationally significant shrubs yay.

I don't mind losing the lanes, but does it have to be for the cause of more pointless greenspace, as the greenspace fetishists (not you) are cheering on?

MUP the hell out of that corridor, absolutely. (And abolish Sunday bike waste while we're at it.)

Boy you're jaded. Did anyone say anything about shrubs? Have you even looked at the plans? Re-naturalization is very small portion of these proposals. The big points are about place-making, activation, new paths and connections to the waterfront. Maybe you just find it offensive that watefront uses should prioritize nearby residents over the convenience of commuting from Kanata.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Buggys

Even for those speedy bikers, the problem is when they're starting up & slowing down -- they're squeezed between a curb & cars -- there's no slower bike lane beside them. However, with multi-lane MUPs people can stay right except to pass.

E.g.

walkers | slow bikes | fast bikes || fast bikes | slow bikes | walkers

It never ever works that way. Walkers, especially those out on a leisurely stroll while chatting, or with kids and dogs, end up being unaware of lanes and will wander any which way. It's much better to structure pathways with regards to speed limits, and with MUPs, it's really not safe to mix pedestrians with anything faster than 20-25 kph. Some cyclists go as fast as 30 to 40 kph. E-bikes are also banned from MUPs, while they can use bike lanes. I'm one of those cyclists who prefers riding with traffic rather than dodging pedestrians.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by ElieB

Boy you're jaded. Did anyone say anything about shrubs? Have you even looked at the plans? Re-naturalization is very small portion of these proposals. The big points are about place-making, activation, new paths and connections to the waterfront. Maybe you just find it offensive that watefront uses should prioritize nearby residents over the convenience of commuting from Kanata.

Not at all. It's just that most of the reaction I've seen on the media sites today has been about the greenspace, greenspace, greenspace. The same people who'd cheer on lane removals would be aghast if you proposed putting up an ice-cream stand.

[mykl]

Ok, but like, if we're still not ANIMATING the waterfront, what is the fucking point? Seeing the water from a different size of road or a walking path made of a different material or through different trees does not improve anything.

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

It never ever works that way. Walkers, especially those out on a leisurely stroll while chatting, or with kids and dogs, end up being unaware of lanes and will wander any which way. It's much better to structure pathways with regards to speed limits, and with MUPs, it's really not safe to mix pedestrians with anything faster than 20-25 kph. Some cyclists go as fast as 30 to 40 kph. E-bikes are also banned from MUPs, while they can use bike lanes. I'm one of those cyclists who prefers riding with traffic rather than dodging pedestrians.

Well I'm one of those average (intermediate level) bikers who will ride as fast as I can to get to places, especially downhill, but no way in hell am I riding riding next to cars when there's a MUP nearby -- what if I hit a pothole and accidentally fall -- I will get crushed to my painful & untimely death!

While speedy bikers go at the speed of a running person, up to 40 km/hr, cars are zipping by at 60-90 km/hr, some of whom may wander onto the bike lane in special circumstances (their neighbour car is driving aggressively, avoiding pothole or other foreign object, driver is texting or drunk, etc). It's even less safe to mix bikes & cars.

I'm happy to ride towards the faster side of pedestrians. Whose who completely block the path not following the lines will get a good yelling and honking as I roll towards & past them.

So if the desire is to separate speedy bikers & pedestrians, another solution is to turn one of those 2 pedestrian-only paths into a speedy bike-only path.

[eemy]

I'd like to know who you run with!

One of the things I really liked about Copenhagen was that pedestrian and cycling facilities were segregated. They have a fantastic system there that we should consider emulating here when rebuilding roads.

[ElieB]

Originally Posted by mykl

Ok, but like, if we're still not ANIMATING the waterfront, what is the fucking point? Seeing the water from a different size of road or a walking path made of a different material or through different trees does not improve anything.

Alright true enough there's isn't a whole lot new activation with most of the work going into remaking westboro beach with new facilities. Rochester field will make a nice addition but it doesn't do a whole lot for the waterfront proper. I guess it's a bit disappointing compared to their recent plans for Jacques-Cartier street in Gatineau. A piece of waterfront with no one living around it gets all kinds of new leisure investments... mmk. NCC-Report-Summary-Jacques-Cartier-Street-Improvement-July-2006.pdf

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

I'd like to know who you run with!

One of the things I really liked about Copenhagen was that pedestrian and cycling facilities were segregated. They have a fantastic system there that we should consider emulating here when rebuilding roads.

I meant from the speed of a running person up to a speed that's still much slower than the cars' current speed limit, lol.

Although... Usain Bolt's record was almost 45 km/hr.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by mykl

Ok, but like, if we're still not ANIMATING the waterfront, what is the fucking point? Seeing the water from a different size of road or a walking path made of a different material or through different trees does not improve anything.

What you said.

But this, apparently, is what the people of Salmon Arm BC want in a capital for all Canadians blah blah blah

[AndyMEng]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

What you said.

But this, apparently, is what the people of Salmon Arm BC want in a capital for all Canadians blah blah blah

I bike through here all the time, and there is a ton of space in this corridor. When I imagine the changes they're talking about, I imagine the city-side lanes becoming 2 directions and the river-side lanes becoming a big bike path a-la Sunday bike-dayz.

What's the point of all this? Its not like we're congested and biking with the auto traffic all along the riverfront? The only pedestrians are mainly weekend warriors looking at the inukshuks built by the leathery guy near tunney's pasture.

Even if we dig up those extra lanes and put a slightly smaller bike path, the entire 'linear park' thing will look EXACTLY the same, but with more traffic congestion for the poor Gatineau suckers who don't want to pay Ottawa real-estate prices to live near their work, waiting an hour to turn onto the bridge during rush-hour.

If anything, the entire parkway should be moved as close as possible to the city, made into regular city street blocks, with new mixed-use-jargon-words development along the river front, to artificially increase the density to 4000+ ppl/km to force animation of the space Which will never, never, ever, never happen. The canal in front of the NAC is more likely to become animated (LOL) before the entire SJAM linear park parkway greenspace belt.

Having said all that snarkyness, I am in support of the plan. The parkway is ridiculous, its like the entire land area of downtown for a single road.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

yay moar grass yay nationally significant shrubs yay.

I don't mind losing the lanes, but does it have to be for the cause of more pointless greenspace, as the greenspace fetishists (not you) are cheering on?

MUP the hell out of that corridor, absolutely. (And abolish Sunday bike waste while we're at it.)

You do realize that it is a floodplain? All it would take is a wet snowy winter followed by a fast melt, or a day of continuous thunderstorms, to result in billions of dollars in damage as that new development is flooded. Right now, all that is affected for the most part is greenspace and possibly a roadway.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

You do realize that it is a floodplain? All it would take is a wet snowy winter followed by a fast melt, or a day of continuous thunderstorms, to result in billions of dollars in damage as that new development is flooded. Right now, all that is affected for the most part is greenspace and possibly a roadway.

They could build flood protections (as they did for the west don lands in Toronto).

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

You do realize that it is a floodplain? All it would take is a wet snowy winter followed by a fast melt, or a day of continuous thunderstorms, to result in billions of dollars in damage as that new development is flooded. Right now, all that is affected for the most part is greenspace and possibly a roadway.

What new development?