Airport Parkway and Lester Road Widening

[MoreTrains]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Maybe at the very start, but it's clear it isn't being used just for that. The widening is going to address traffic congestion first between Brookfield and Hung Club. Which is the majority of traffic.

It isnt being used that way because of the added on/off ramps at places like Hunt Club and Lester. At least that is how I see it.

Originally Posted by Mulder

You've failed to address the traffic impacts on Bank and Riverside. Do you think everyone will just jump on transit?

Bank and Riverside are at capacity yes, but are also the only actual routes south, so eventually the traffic on the Parkway has to meet up at one of those streets anyways. So keeping the interchanges, I dont think, will ease traffic anyways.

Originally Posted by Mulder

I'm well aware on how congested it is between those intersections. (Bank -> Airport) because I had a part in doing the recently completed widening and bus lanes design. Yet, closing that intersection would merely shift those traffic issues to the Bank/Hunt Club & Riverside/Hunt Club and make matters worse than they already are.

As before, they likely wont get any better with an expansion as traffic for the most part must get to those roads to go South anyways. The only real way to ease traffic on them, in my mind, is to run a road down the rail bed (or parallel to it) to create another contiguous egress from inside the greenbelt.

Originally Posted by Mulder

This is factually incorrect. Road planners and forecasters use proven math to project both transit uses and road uses for future use. Widening roads doesn't create more congestion. Traffic creates congestion. Planners can forecast out traffic and plan widening/new roads accordingly. Traffic doesn't magically increase when a road is widened.

Traffic seemed to magiacally increase on the 417W through Kanata when it was widened... That or people are just driving really wierd all the time. And generally speaking, decreasing the ease to get somewhere by car and increasing the ease to get somewhere by transit will increse transit use. And widening roads increases their potential for use which increases their potential for congestion. I mean, adding an extra lane to the offramp (SB) to Hunt Club will probably still lead to a backlog of cars as the lights will keep letting the same number of cars through per cycle, so really the limiting factor is not the number of lanes or on/off ramps but the lights and actual connections to places.

Also, those 'proven' maths have gotten us to where we are now; how are the roads now? Do they flow well even at their 'capacity'? I think the math is flawed to an extent.

[eternallyme]

One major problem is downstream congestion. There is no room to expand Bronson (especially north of Colonel By) and it is already ridiculously congested. An alternate path to Highway 417 is necessary and should be considered a prerequisite for any widening farther south.

[Mulder]

Originally Posted by MoreTrains

It isnt being used that way because of the added on/off ramps at places like Hunt Club and Lester. At least that is how I see it.

Bank and Riverside are at capacity yes, but are also the only actual routes south, so eventually the traffic on the Parkway has to meet up at one of those streets anyways. So keeping the interchanges, I dont think, will ease traffic anyways.

This doesn't make any sense. Traffic doesn't have to meet up with either of those streets. If the destination is residential or commercial between them

Originally Posted by MoreTrains

As before, they likely wont get any better with an expansion as traffic for the most part must get to those roads to go South anyways. The only real way to ease traffic on them, in my mind, is to run a road down the rail bed (or parallel to it) to create another contiguous egress from inside the greenbelt.

Assuming people need to get further south/east/west. Poor Stevey just wants to get home.

Originally Posted by MoreTrains

Traffic seemed to magiacally increase on the 417W through Kanata when it was widened... That or people are just driving really wierd all the time.

Sorry, wrong on this one. I drive this route every day. All you have is the same amount of people driving faster.

Originally Posted by MoreTrains

And generally speaking, decreasing the ease to get somewhere by car and increasing the ease to get somewhere by transit will increse transit use.

But your proposal & any proposal on the table hasn't increased transit access. Look at the projections.

Originally Posted by MoreTrains

And widening roads increases their potential for use which increases their potential for congestion. I mean, adding an extra lane to the offramp (SB) to Hunt Club will probably still lead to a backlog of cars as the lights will keep letting the same number of cars through per cycle, so really the limiting factor is not the number of lanes or on/off ramps but the lights and actual connections to places.

This isn't a widening problem, as you pointed out. But a storage and queue length issue. Nothing that can easily be fixed. But when you add another lane, causing the through lanes not to get backed up on the left you end up with faster free flow traffic to the airport. = Objective Complete!

You still haven't dealt with additional traffic on Bank/Riverside other than saying "ohh well, they are going there anyways"

Originally Posted by MoreTrains

Also, those 'proven' maths have gotten us to where we are now; how are the roads now? Do they flow well even at their 'capacity'? I think the math is flawed to an extent.

Oh boy are you naive. If the math was flawed, then traffic engineers wouldn't be using it. Suggest a better system that takes existing traffic, applies a growth factor (provided by cities usually) to forecast future traffic. No, It's not an exact science as there is constraints beyond control that can happen 5-10-25 years down the road that can cause changes. But it's the best we have.

[lrt's friend]

All I can say is that something has to happen.

We cannot expropriate the Alta Vista Parkway corridor and then say we can't build it. Then follow this with an LRT plan that we decide to cancel, then close the Airport Parkway accesses, all while the population is continuing to grow.

At some point, we need to address growing transportation demand.

The O-Train expansion (not the current one) helps a bit, but with all the required transfers, it will not be the big draw to get a lot of people out of their cars.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Mulder

This is factually incorrect. Road planners and forecasters use proven math to project both transit uses and road uses for future use. Widening roads doesn't create more congestion. Traffic creates congestion. Planners can forecast out traffic and plan widening/new roads accordingly. Traffic doesn't magically increase when a road is widened.

People keep saying "congestion" like it's a bad thing...

[Mulder]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

People keep saying "congestion" like it's a bad thing...

My opinion on this varies.

Toronto's downtown vibrancy has a lot to do how much work is downtown, and how congested the highways are during rush hour. People are moving downtown because they don't want to be stuck in traffic for hours of their day. (I know this, I used to live in Toronto for a few years).

But it's also a very large city. Ottawa isn't there yet, and the population and how spread out Ottawa is doesn't help.

From what I remember, roads that meet a level of service of F (lowest) don't necessarily need to be upgraded unless they meet that criteria more than 2 days a month. (we rate roads at their lowest level of service, not the average)

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

People keep saying "congestion" like it's a bad thing...

I am sorry but nothing can be further from the truth. Congestion decreases the quality of life for everybody affected. Congestion wastes money because it delays the movement of goods and services. Congestion also increases the rate of obesity when people are stuck in traffic (whether in a car, a bus or a train) instead of doing more active things.

All these negatives are a big driving factor in Toronto's 'Big Move'. They need to move more people more efficiently and at least maintain the status quo as far as the movement of goods and services. The amount of lost time economically in the Toronto area due to congestion can be measured in the billions.

Ottawa's high quality of life in part relates to its relatively small amount of congestion. To maintain our high quality of life means that our transportation systems need to be properly maintained and improved.

Congestion and parking costs are the chief reasons why our downtown is not as vibrant as it could be. In days gone by, downtown was the place to go for shopping and entertainment. Congestion has driven the majority of Ottawans to other places for those activities. I know, because I lived through the transformation from downtown based to suburban based. Until we offer a real alternative, our downtown will continue to underperform. The Confederation Line is a hope for the future, however, its lack of coverage and lack of multiple lines will limit its success in restoring downtown to its former glory and beyond.

[Aprime]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Ottawa's high quality of life in part relates to its relatively small amount of congestion.

We're not that far off being ranked third for congestion. Only Vancouver and Toronto surpass us.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Aprime

We're not that far off being ranked third for congestion. Only Vancouver and Toronto surpass us.

Then we have a lot of work to do.

[Aylmer]

How about more lanes and highways? As history has demonstrated again and again, that next highway/widening/flyover/etc. will solve all of our traffic problems forever, perhaps even longer.

[MoreTrains]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

How about more lanes and highways? As history has demonstrated again and again, that next highway/widening/flyover/etc. will solve all of our traffic problems forever, perhaps even longer.

Precisely what I have been saying!

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am sorry but nothing can be further from the truth. Congestion decreases the quality of life for everybody affected. Congestion wastes money because it delays the movement of goods and services. Congestion also increases the rate of obesity when people are stuck in traffic (whether in a car, a bus or a train) instead of doing more active things.

I completely disagree. Traffic congestion is the motivating factor for getting people to use transit and consider alternatives like cycling or car pooling. It also encourages people to make the smarter decision to live closer to where they work and in denser walkable communities served by transit. "Solving" traffic congestion just supports the bad habits that are actually increasing the rates of obesity.

Traffic congestion does not bother me one bit in my neighbourhood, I say bring it on just as long as public transit and cycling infrastructure is improved instead of wider roads.

[1overcosc]

If transportation improvements (both road & transit) to the far south end fail to materialize, the free market will result in growth slowing down there.

As commutes from there become more and more hellish, the area will gain a reputation as a bad place to live because its a PITA to get anywhere. People doing research on housebuying will not want to live there, people who already do will want to leave. As such real estate values in the area will drop, which will cut into the profits of new home projects in the area, in turn resulting in developers slowing down or stopping projects there in favour of more profitable projects elsewhere in the city. In other words growth will naturally stop, essentially. No need to think of road widening as urgent.

This is arguably already happening, as Riverside South is growing much more slowly than originally anticipated.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am sorry but nothing can be further from the truth. Congestion decreases the quality of life for everybody affected. Congestion wastes money because it delays the movement of goods and services. Congestion also increases the rate of obesity when people are stuck in traffic (whether in a car, a bus or a train) instead of doing more active things.

All these negatives are a big driving factor in Toronto's 'Big Move'.

In other words, if there wasn't such "congestion", there wouldn't be such political and economic pressure to build more transit.

Congestion and parking costs are the chief reasons why our downtown is not as vibrant as it could be. In days gone by, downtown was the place to go for shopping and entertainment. Congestion has driven the majority of Ottawans to other places for those activities. I know, because I lived through the transformation from downtown based to suburban based.

The times when most people are in the market for shopping - evenings and weekends - there's not much in the way of "congestion" downtown.

Until we offer a real alternative, our downtown will continue to underperform. The Confederation Line is a hope for the future, however, its lack of coverage and lack of multiple lines will limit its success in restoring downtown to its former glory and beyond.

Until we stop building crap suburbs, people are going to still live in crap residential monoculture, drive to shop in other crap retail "power centre" monoculture, and drive to work in "office park" monoculture, or drive or transitize to work downtown and in other large employment nodes.

This crap suburban auto-dependent monoculture garbage that is considered sacrosanct, desirable, and never allowed to change, is why downtown Ottawa (and other cities) ceased to be the go-to destination for people's everyday lives - not "congestion".

We should stop building this crap. Our official plans keep calling for us to stop building this crap. But this is all the developers ever propose, all city council ever approves, and if you try to do suggest anything different you get shouted down.

Then, every eight months when they start a new official plan, city hall and the hand-wringers wonder why nothing has changed.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

I completely disagree. Traffic congestion is the motivating factor for getting people to use transit and consider alternatives like cycling or car pooling. It also encourages people to make the smarter decision to live closer to where they work and in denser walkable communities served by transit. "Solving" traffic congestion just supports the bad habits that are actually increasing the rates of obesity.

Traffic congestion does not bother me one bit in my neighbourhood, I say bring it on just as long as public transit and cycling infrastructure is improved instead of wider roads.

Did you note my comment about commerce? You cannot ignore the cost of congestion. Regardless, my comment also mentioned moving people by transit but we cannot also forget that congestion also slows transit as well.

I will stand behind my comment that keeping congestion under control ties directly into our quality of life. We cannot allow Ottawa to degrade into a commuter hell. It is impossible to have everybody living within walking distance of rapid transit.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

In other words, if there wasn't such "congestion", there wouldn't be such political and economic pressure to build more transit.



The times when most people are in the market for shopping - evenings and weekends - there's not much in the way of "congestion" downtown.



Until we stop building crap suburbs, people are going to still live in crap residential monoculture, drive to shop in other crap retail "power centre" monoculture, and drive to work in "office park" monoculture, or drive or transitize to work downtown and in other large employment nodes.

This crap suburban auto-dependent monoculture garbage that is considered sacrosanct, desirable, and never allowed to change, is why downtown Ottawa (and other cities) ceased to be the go-to destination for people's everyday lives - not "congestion".

We should stop building this crap. Our official plans keep calling for us to stop building this crap. But this is all the developers ever propose, all city council ever approves, and if you try to do suggest anything different you get shouted down.

Then, every eight months when they start a new official plan, city hall and the hand-wringers wonder why nothing has changed.

Not everybody wants to live in a 750 square foot one bedroom condominium downtown.

We have to understand that part of living in a free society is to have choices and choices of housing are paramount in our lives.

The reason why we have 'crap' suburbs (I do agree to a great degree) is because the same people who complain about it don't want to offer a good transit alternative to car oriented suburbs. We have been doing this since the end of the war and we wonder why nothing improves. It is inevitable that we just create the same thing over and over again.

Also, Ottawa has quadrupled in population since the end of the war. It is not realistic to expect the city to be the same physical size as it was in 1945.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

If transportation improvements (both road & transit) to the far south end fail to materialize, the free market will result in growth slowing down there.

As commutes from there become more and more hellish, the area will gain a reputation as a bad place to live because its a PITA to get anywhere. People doing research on housebuying will not want to live there, people who already do will want to leave. As such real estate values in the area will drop, which will cut into the profits of new home projects in the area, in turn resulting in developers slowing down or stopping projects there in favour of more profitable projects elsewhere in the city. In other words growth will naturally stop, essentially. No need to think of road widening as urgent.

This is arguably already happening, as Riverside South is growing much more slowly than originally anticipated.

And the direct result is that more housing is pushed out to south and western Barrhaven, Stittsville, and Cumberland, which are even more costly to service with transit and roads. Is that really any better? I contend that it is worse. We all know that building rapid transit to Riverside South is far cheaper than it will be to Orleans, Kanata and Stittsville. And as the need to offer more transit service to more far flung locations increases and costs increase, there will be increasing pressure to cut service.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

And the direct result is that more housing is pushed out to south and western Barrhaven, Stittsville, and Cumberland, which are even more costly to service with transit and roads. Is that really any better? I contend that it is worse. We all know that building rapid transit to Riverside South is far cheaper than it will be to Orleans, Kanata and Stittsville. And as the need to offer more transit service to more far flung locations increases and costs increase, there will be increasing pressure to cut service.

It's probably better to add on extra development to already mature areas like Orleans & Kanata which serves to improve economies of scale in those areas, rather than add on entirely new areas. Ottawa's problem is that the city has too many areas, resulting in each one being incomplete and expensive to service. Focus on adding more to the areas we have, rather than creating new ones. I'd rather those 20,000 people supposed to move down to RS-Leitrim move out to the space between Kanata & Stittsville and give Kanata-Stittsville an integrated urban fabric and a critical mass necessary to support growth and an actual core. Complete our neighbourhoods before building new ones.

As for rapid transit, I'd disagree. Yes, the $100M plan we currently have is pretty cheap, but the Trillium Line, with its single track passing track layout is very crude rapid transit with obvious limitations, you've pointed them out quite clearly (with which I agree, I might add). Real rapid transit to the area, cost $600M with the N-S LRT plan in 2006, I have no idea what it costs now but probably more. By contrast, real rapid transit to Orleans through the Confederation Line extension is $500M.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

It's probably better to add on extra development to already mature areas like Orleans & Kanata which serves to improve economies of scale in those areas, rather than add on entirely new areas. Ottawa's problem is that the city has too many areas, resulting in each one being incomplete and expensive to service. Focus on adding more to the areas we have, rather than creating new ones. I'd rather those 20,000 people supposed to move down to RS-Leitrim move out to the space between Kanata & Stittsville and give Kanata-Stittsville an integrated urban fabric and a critical mass necessary to support growth and an actual core. Complete our neighbourhoods before building new ones.

As for rapid transit, I'd disagree. Yes, the $100M plan we currently have is pretty cheap, but the Trillium Line, with its single track passing track layout is very crude rapid transit with obvious limitations, you've pointed them out quite clearly (with which I agree, I might add). Real rapid transit to the area, cost $600M with the N-S LRT plan in 2006, I have no idea what it costs now but probably more. By contrast, real rapid transit to Orleans through the Confederation Line extension is $500M.

We can complete Kanata/Stittsville all we want but when will we be able to afford to build true rapid transit out there? We can't even afford to get rail transit to the very edge of Kanata at Eagleson, let alone serving the masses of new subdivisions beyond. That is the problem that I am talking about.

And to a lesser degree, it also applies to Orleans. Yes, we may be able to build LRT to Place d'Orleans for 500M but what about all the masses of subdivisions now being built east of Trim Road and well south of Innes and even Navan Roads. We are so far behind in Orleans that we really should be building the second line in south Orleans right now, not 30 years from now. Those new subdivisions are so far away from the Confederation Line that transit will never efficiently move people living there into the city.

I am not against building the Confederation Line, however, we shouldn't be building a linear city based entirely around the Queensway and the Confederation Line. And good portion of the Confederation Line will parallel the Queensway. The Queensway is already at capacity in the centre of the city. And after spending several billions, the Confederation Line will eventually reach capacity and then what? Costs will increase exponentially. Toronto is in a pickle right now because the Yonge subway cannot be extended beyond Finch because of capacity issues even though there is substantial demand for extension further north. We cannot create this situation on our 'only' true rapid transit line serving downtown.

To build a sustainable city and in order to build a more compact city, we need to be moving people and traffic from multiple directions. We then don't need to build 8 or 12 lane roads. Transit lines can be shorter and cheaper to build. People don't have to travel as far whether by transit or car. This reduces congestion and transit costs in the long run.

The issues surrounding the location of CTC really illustrate why we can't continue to build only east and west. Traffic is horrible to get to CTC and distances are already too far. I have commented to my cousins in Pembroke that they can get to CTC as fast or faster than I can from the southeast part of the city. For some who now live there, that has become a daily commuter hell that we should not be encouraging. Allowing another 50,000 people to move into Kanata and Stittsville is going to make things a lot worse when the Queensway needs more lanes again and still LRT has not reached there.

All I want is some sound long term city planning.

[MoreTrains]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

It's probably better to add on extra development to already mature areas like Orleans & Kanata which serves to improve economies of scale in those areas, rather than add on entirely new areas. Ottawa's problem is that the city has too many areas, resulting in each one being incomplete and expensive to service. Focus on adding more to the areas we have, rather than creating new ones. I'd rather those 20,000 people supposed to move down to RS-Leitrim move out to the space between Kanata & Stittsville and give Kanata-Stittsville an integrated urban fabric and a critical mass necessary to support growth and an actual core. Complete our neighbourhoods before building new ones.

I think one of the largest issues facing Kanata/Stittsville and Orleans is the huge sprawl for the 100000 living there and lack of density and height. Kanata has, currently 8 or 9 non-retirement residences that are taller than 4 floors. That is 8-9 towers in a part of the city that is at or close to 100000. I am unsure about Orleans but I am sure it is no better. If we cannot build a dense 'city center' in these areas then there is no way to create a transit hub that would allow better mobility in the city. It also creates that vacuum in transit coverage that is damn near impossible to fill effectively. Those in R/S and Leitrim will create an even larger issue as there will only be single family houses and townhomes. There will be no density as the airport will need clearance for its expansion. Critical mass cannot be met with the current expansion of the city inside the Greenbelt, let alone those communities outside it without throwing out what out city officials have thought is good and radicalizing thoughts on walkability, density and transit coverage.

Back to the road expansions, just no. lol