Bank Street Revitalization [Riverside Dr to Ledbury Ave]

[lrt's friend]

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.

Why is it that the south end is to be put on a 'road diet' while we keep adding highway lanes on the Queensway going towards Orleans and Kanata even as we build much superior transit at the same time in those directions?

It is not as if we are putting quality transit options in place to provide an alternative in the south end. Spending $600M on the Trillium Line that does not improve service towards downtown and indefinitely deferring the Baseline BRT that would have connected up to Billings Bridge and the existing Transitway.

I argue that there is a east-west bias in this city when it comes to transportation in general.

I also argue that deliberately increasing congestion does not make for a safer overall environment for pedestrians and cyclists.

Is it not good to designate specific 'speedways' in order to keep traffic off of more urban streets? So we clog up Riverside. Would it be better to encourage more cut through traffic, for example, through the Glebe as an alternative? Tell me where traffic is to go if not Riverside? Traffic is not going away.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Why is it that the south end is to be put on a 'road diet' while we keep adding highway lanes on the Queensway going towards Orleans and Kanata even as we build much superior transit at the same time in those directions?

It is not as if we are putting quality transit options in place to provide an alternative in the south end. Spending $600M on the Trillium Line that does not improve service towards downtown and indefinitely deferring the Baseline BRT that would have connected up to Billings Bridge and the existing Transitway.

I argue that there is a east-west bias in this city when it comes to transportation in general.

I also argue that deliberately increasing congestion does not make for a safer overall environment for pedestrians and cyclists.

Is it not good to designate specific 'speedways' in order to keep traffic off of more urban streets? So we clog up Riverside. Would it be better to encourage more cut through traffic, for example, through the Glebe as an alternative? Tell me where traffic is to go if not Riverside? Traffic is not going away.

You do realize that my idea was to grade separate through traffic on Riverside from Bank street. The idea of separate bike infrastructure was to keep them off of this highway. I guess induced demand on Riverside from this change would increase congestion though, so I am guess that that is what you are talking about.

[lrt's friend]

I know that most won't agree with me here, but isn't Riverside the ideal location for faster traffic? Between Brookfield and Coventry, there is minimal adjacent residential development, and there is an available separated MUP for the entire distance.

How do we justify spending countless millions on major reconfigurations, when basic safety measures are lacking for pedestrians and cyclists in other parts of the city and when it is stated that there is no money to make those basic improvements.

For example, there isn't a proper sidewalk leading to Cyrville Station as a high-rise development is currently being built nearby.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

You do realize that my idea was to grade separate through traffic on Riverside from Bank street. The idea of separate bike infrastructure was to keep them off of this highway. I guess induced demand on Riverside from this change would increase congestion though, so I am guess that that is what you are talking about.

I pointed out the challenges. But, does your suggestion allow for left turns off of Bank Street?

I don't know how there is induced demand if no additional traffic lanes are provided. Have I suggested that? No.

[OTownandDown]

Removing an entire signalized intersection can't result in more congestion...

Why should Riverside be prioritized over Bank, following your logic...

There's almost ALWAYS a line of traffic heading southbound on Riverside, stuck at Bank. Invariably its left and right hand turners who are stuck, usually because of cyclists or pedestrians. While there's a pedestrian underpass, it's bumpy and uncomfortable and sometimes flooded, so 75% use the top-route through the intersection. Back to the southbound riverside traffic, left hand (southbound) turns onto Bank are stopped by the 2ND intersection, and the light is shortened to 30 seconds, to allow Bank traffic and avoid congesting the 100m stretch between intersections. It's a pain. Just make one intersection for simplicity.

The 10 acres sandwiched between lanes to the north and south could definitely be put to better use than a breeding ground for yellow parsnip or a summer student career in grass cutting.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Why is it that the south end is to be put on a 'road diet' while we keep adding highway lanes on the Queensway going towards Orleans and Kanata even as we build much superior transit at the same time in those directions?

It is not as if we are putting quality transit options in place to provide an alternative in the south end. Spending $600M on the Trillium Line that does not improve service towards downtown and indefinitely deferring the Baseline BRT that would have connected up to Billings Bridge and the existing Transitway.

I argue that there is a east-west bias in this city when it comes to transportation in general.

I also argue that deliberately increasing congestion does not make for a safer overall environment for pedestrians and cyclists.

Is it not good to designate specific 'speedways' in order to keep traffic off of more urban streets? So we clog up Riverside. Would it be better to encourage more cut through traffic, for example, through the Glebe as an alternative? Tell me where traffic is to go if not Riverside? Traffic is not going away.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I pointed out the challenges.

Yes there are challenges, but I don't beleive they are insurmountable.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

But, does your suggestion allow for left turns off of Bank Street?

Why don't you reread my original post?

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.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I don't know how there is induced demand if no additional traffic lanes are provided.

No new lanes, but increased traffic throughput, as:

• Through traffic on Riverside doesn't need to stop for a red light.
• The traffic light doesn't need a cycle for through traffic on Riverside (probably close to 50% of the current cycle), so the other cycles can have proportionally more time.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Have I suggested that? No.

No, but you suggested an increase in congestion despite an increase in vehicle capacity, so that was the only way I could figure that would happen.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Why don't you reread my original post?

No new lanes, but increased traffic throughput, as:

• Through traffic on Riverside doesn't need to stop for a red light.
• The traffic light doesn't need a cycle for through traffic on Riverside (probably close to 50% of the current cycle), so the other cycles can have proportionally more time.

I did read that, but this adds a left turn cycle off Bank that does not exist today.

Besides, it seems that a trench would restrict access into and out of Billings Bridge Plaza and onto Riverside.

And a trench would certainly not beautify the location and will make Riverside even closer to an expressway. Traffic signals are an effective way to slow down traffic. I guess we can add a cash cow, a speed camera and collect 10,000 or more fines a year.

Do we really want an even more complicated intersection for pedestrians to cross? Turn lanes, a bridge for through traffic and then more turn lanes, equivalent to at least eight lanes wide.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I did read that, but this adds a left turn cycle off Bank that does not exist today.

True, but I am sure there is far less traffic turning left on Bank than traveling straight on Riverside.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Besides, it seems that a trench would restrict access into and out of Billings Bridge Plaza and onto Riverside.

As others have said, Billings Bridge is likely to be redeveloped and at that point, access could be diverted to Data Centre Drive.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

And a trench would certainly not beautify the location and will make Riverside even closer to an expressway. Traffic signals are an effective way to slow down traffic. I guess we can add a cash cow, a speed camera and collect 10,000 or more fines a year.

Riverside Drive is already an expressway. Separating pedestrians and cyclists from the motor vehicles eliminates most of the reasons we would want to slow down the traffic.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Do we really want an even more complicated intersection for pedestrians to cross? Turn lanes, a bridge for through traffic and then more turn lanes, equivalent to at least eight lanes wide.

Not sure how 1+4+1 equals 8. Regardless, the trench could be partially capped so that the turning lanes can be (as I said) "above the trench". This would reduce the total number of vehicle lanes pedestrians need to cross to 2 (or 3 if you keep the current slip lanes).

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I know that most won't agree with me here, but isn't Riverside the ideal location for faster traffic? Between Brookfield and Coventry, there is minimal adjacent residential development, and there is an available separated MUP for the entire distance.

I'd argue that a parkway along the river isn't an ideal location for faster traffic. If we were building today, we wouldn't separate waterfront from residential areas with what is basically a divided highway, nor would we dedicate that amount of space to cars only.

Given that it is already there, I don't think wholesale design changes are in the cards, but I do think that there are some key safety improvements that can be made, starting with the intersection at Bank. With the planned development, that area is rapidly urbanizing and will be busy with all modes of transport, so preserving high speed traffic through that intersection would be the least of my concerns.

I do agree with your that the south end needs better transportation options. To me that starts with a Bank St. subway.

[Uhuniau]

Am I imagining things, or is there nothing in this for transit, other than another round of bus stop removal optimization?

[water_mage73]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Am I imagining things, or is there nothing in this for transit, other than another round of bus stop removal optimization?

This part of Bank Street doesn't tend to be bad for transit when compared to Old Ottawa South, Glebe, and Centretown. I'm not sure any transit priority would be needed, or if it would really improve travel times much. It is nice they are removing the bus bays though, merging in and out at each stop does eat up some time.

Are there any bus stops in particular that are removed that you are noticing?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Am I imagining things, or is there nothing in this for transit, other than another round of bus stop removal optimization?

That was my impression all along. Increase congestion, which makes transit even slower. But, isn't that the plan? Make local transit worse, because everybody on Bank Street is supposed to use Line 2. Of course, not everybody is within reasonable walking distance, but does that matter in the new plan for transit optimization (service cuts)?

In my area, transit is being removed from Bank Street entirely, for the reason that transit is not to run on 'residential streets', but really, it is also about increasingly horrendous traffic congestion. The city has no money to resolve traffic congestion other than to build hundreds of more houses. Wasn't that one of the purposes of development fees? To build adequate roads (and transit) to serve new neighbourhoods. Does development fees now go into general revenue?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by water_mage73

This part of Bank Street doesn't tend to be bad for transit when compared to Old Ottawa South, Glebe, and Centretown. I'm not sure any transit priority would be needed, or if it would really improve travel times much. It is nice they are removing the bus bays though, merging in and out at each stop does eat up some time.

Not yet, perhaps, but we ought to be building something more future-proof, especially if we are serious about infill and intensification, or if we keep building sprawl further south on Bank, or both.

Are there any bus stops in particular that are removed that you are noticing?

The bus part of the consultation seems to still be in the future, but bus stop removal and relocation is the flavour of the decade, so that's pretty much the only transit connection that there seems to be with this whole project.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Am I imagining things, or is there nothing in this for transit, other than another round of bus stop removal optimization?

Exactly what the suburbanite residents of this city voted for.

Amalgamation has been a bigger disaster for Ottawa than it was for Toronto. At least, inner suburbanite voters in the 416, eventually came around on the importance of transit.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Exactly what the suburbanite residents of this city voted for.

Amalgamation has been a bigger disaster for Ottawa than it was for Toronto. At least, inner suburbanite voters in the 416, eventually came around on the importance of transit.

I entirely agree. The centralization of control of local amenities at Laurier Avenue has been undemocratic, where unelected community associations (where they exist) have stepped in to fill the void (replacing local elected councils), even though they often have specific agendas, that may or may not represent the wishes of the majority of the community. Where no community association exists, the community has very little say on what is going on. Often a very few at City Hall decide what is happening right down to your street.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by water_mage73

This part of Bank Street doesn't tend to be bad for transit when compared to Old Ottawa South, Glebe, and Centretown. I'm not sure any transit priority would be needed, or if it would really improve travel times much. It is nice they are removing the bus bays though, merging in and out at each stop does eat up some time.

Are there any bus stops in particular that are removed that you are noticing?

I live upstream from this, and traffic has been a problem between Billings Bridge and Walkley for decades. Transit has been unreliable all this time because buses get caught up in traffic particularly during busy periods. The transitway took a lot of buses off of Bank Street, but the resulting reduction in service meant that local trips were no longer convenient unless you live within walking distance of this section of Bank Street. I learned that very quickly when the Transitway opened in the 90s. Forget about Bank Street destinations. A bus running every 15 minutes, which can't maintain the schedule is pretty well useless. Also, a transfer that requires you to cross 8 lanes of traffic, is unattractive.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I live upstream from this, and traffic has been a problem between Billings Bridge and Walkley for decades. Transit has been unreliable all this time because buses get caught up in traffic particularly during busy periods. The transitway took a lot of buses off of Bank Street, but the resulting reduction in service meant that local trips were no longer convenient unless you live within walking distance of this section of Bank Street. I learned that very quickly when the Transitway opened in the 90s. Forget about Bank Street destinations. A bus running every 15 minutes, which can't maintain the schedule is pretty well useless. Also, a transfer that requires you to cross 8 lanes of traffic, is unattractive.

If only that section of Bank was a stroad wide enough for dedicated transit lanes.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

If only that section of Bank was a stroad wide enough for dedicated transit lanes.

That is actually why I kind of like that they kept Bank 4-lanes between Riverside and Walkley - it means if we ever come to our senses, we can just re-designate the curb lanes for transit only.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

That is actually why I kind of like that they kept Bank 4-lanes between Riverside and Walkley - it means if we ever come to our senses, we can just re-designate the curb lanes for transit only.

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.

[LRTeverywhere]

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.

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

Bank street will remain 4 thru lanes + turn lanes.