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

[Capital Shaun]

I tried to but I just couldn't finish the survey.

Felt like I was wasting my time... which might have been the intent.

[McC]

Please try again! I'd suggest to just enter don't knows or whatever it takes to get to the end, because that's where you get to actually send genuine comments (in 500characters or less, of course). Courage!

[JeffB]

Methodologically, this survey is garbage. Not to bring up the spectre of an old and hopefully departed project, but this is in line with the survey John Martin did for his Lansdowne Park Conservancy. He had no idea what he was doing, and the NCC doesn`t seem to know what they are doing here either. Putting poorly written questions on a website is not going to give you any sort of realistic information. If you do not do a study like this with a proper methodology, you end up with garbage in and garbage out.

They should have contracted this survey out to a reputable local research firm who could either conduct a random telephone survey or used an online panel (though the telephone survey would have been better). The research firm could consult with them on writing questions that made sense to respondents and gives them the opportunity to answer them in a thoughtful manner. Well, at least a semi-intelligent manner. They could remove as much bias from the questions as possible, and allow the NCC to get a report that shows them what people actually think.

The NCC has hired research companies in the city for many public opinion surveys in the past, so why they thought they should do this one on their own, I dont know.

[gjhall]

While doing the survey, I could hear and see my university statistical methods professor weeping at the site of this thing.

[Cre47]

Oh yes I definitely mentionned LRT, but also mentionned about the Lac-des-Fees Parkway which should be used by transit as a connector to an eventual Rapibus extension to Aylmer. That Parkway is purely only a commuter parkway using as a shortcut to avoid Saint-Raymond and Saint-Joseph traffic tie-ups and traffic lights heading downtown.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by gjhall

While doing the survey, I could hear and see my university statistical methods professor weeping at the site of this thing.

You can't weep after your head explodes.

[umbria27]

Originally Posted by McC

All of the above!

I grit and clenched my way through it so I could give my 3-tweet-sized two cents at the end:

"Safe crossings at all logical points (Main St; 5th-Clegg; Bank St; Bronson Ave; Hartwell Locks; Arboretum; etc.). Transit on the urban parkways (start with buses on Queen Elizabeth, graduate to French-style Tramways without overhead wires). Rationalized speed limits (60 is inappropriately fast on Queen Elizabeth/ColBy; inappropriately slow on SirJohnA). Bike lanes on the parkways for higher speed active commuting."

I'm replying to this late I know, but I'm genuinely surprised by the near consensus here that the parkways should be given up to transit. The City's first option for transit always seems to be to put it on someone else's roads - the NCCs, not their own. This is a cop out on the City's part. I guess it's always easier to imagine some other agency giving up their roads.

I get the objection that the parkways are already used by commuters, but the solution isn't to compound that error by laying rails. It's not like Ottawa is such a dense urban areas that other routes can't be found. It's just that the NCC is an easy target and those nice clear expropriation-free parkways look so tempting.

What would be the point of putting buses on the Queen Elizabeth? To go from Dow's Lake to the Rideau Centre? Surely there's a more direct route and one that would service more people. On the parkways buses would conflict with bike traffic too.

That big objection aside, I'm with you on all the other points:
-safe crossings where pedestrians have right of way
-40km/hr on Colonely By and Queen Elizabeth
-Bike lanes for active commuting (not to be confused with multi-use recreational pathways shared with dog leash trip wires and zig zagging toddlers)

[Aylmer]

The best argument for buses on QED is the 1 and 7 on Bank. Seriously, when I have the misfortune to have to take it at rush hour, I walk to the Glebe because it's faster than the bus.

Transit is necessarily and inherently less disruptive than its equivalence in cars: we takes up 1400% more space than LRT for an equivalent theoretical capacity (in reality, a freeway lane rarely attains the theoretical 2000 pphpd because of traffic). Would a LRT tram taking up 3m of space and passing every 90 seconds really be as bad as a 24-lane expressway in gridlock?
As for safety, transit accidents are so rare, it makes front page news whenever it happens. Cars, on the other hand, are the #1 cause of preventable death for u35yo in the world. If we hope to turn the parkway corridors into areas of any activity whatsoever, there is no way that we can continue with automobile roads.

I personally don't even like the Parkway option - I find it doesn't do a very good job at serving urban areas - but I absolutely must take issue with this strange idea that we have that transit is even REMOTELY as disruptive than car traffic.

So is the Ottawa River Parkway the way to go for WLRT? Not in my opinion. But if we're going to even pretend to care about our parkway corridors, then we have to be not only open but proactive about transit on some of the key corridors like QED and Lac-Des-Fées.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by umbria27

I'm replying to this late I know, but I'm genuinely surprised by the near consensus here that the parkways should be given up to transit. The City's first option for transit always seems to be to put it on someone else's roads - the NCCs, not their own. This is a cop out on the City's part. I guess it's always easier to imagine some other agency giving up their roads.

If the parkways are for enjoying the view, including from vehicles, why should only those with private vehicles be able to enjoy it?

16% of all households in Ottawa have no car.
&
53% of households in the Central Area have no car

Why shouldn't they too get to enjoy the view whipping by at 80 km/h like motorists do?

[McC]

Originally Posted by umbria27

I'm replying to this late I know, but I'm genuinely surprised by the near consensus here that the parkways should be given up to transit. The City's first option for transit always seems to be to put it on someone else's roads - the NCCs, not their own. This is a cop out on the City's part. I guess it's always easier to imagine some other agency giving up their roads.

I'm not talking about anything too complicated, a Carling bus route, and eventually Carling tram that runs down QED, with stops only at the spots where there is, or needs to be, safe crossings. It would be a pretty fast, direct route that serves lots destinations and origins along the route. This might mean no car traffic past Bronson, except for the driveway access to houses.

Elsewhere, I'm just talking about a simple bus route, doesn't involve taking anything away from the NCC and Parkway experience.

A route from Mooney's Bay / Hog's Back up Col By downtown, then Sussex and Rockliffe Parkway out the Aviation and Space Museum would be a useful central route that would connect a lot of places nicely and directly.

On the ORP, I'm just thinking a bus route from Lincoln Fields to Lebreton that hits the beaches, North end of Tunney's, Remic, some higher density residential at Island Park and around LF. You could also run an Aylmer bus via Chaimplain towards downtown, too. Western OLRT gets cut and covered under Richmond Rd in my world, and actually stops, from time to time.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by umbria27

I'm replying to this late I know, but I'm genuinely surprised by the near consensus here that the parkways should be given up to transit. The City's first option for transit always seems to be to put it on someone else's roads - the NCCs, not their own. This is a cop out on the City's part. I guess it's always easier to imagine some other agency giving up their roads.

I get the objection that the parkways are already used by commuters, but the solution isn't to compound that error by laying rails. It's not like Ottawa is such a dense urban areas that other routes can't be found. It's just that the NCC is an easy target and those nice clear expropriation-free parkways look so tempting.

I agree to a point. I've written before on such things as the City's plans for the West Transitway around Moodie where their first options utilized NCC lands rather than MTO lands. The City and its consultants do seem to hold the NCC in lower regard than the MTO.

Similarly the initial 2008 TMP proposal to put LRT all the way down the then ORP was again an easy target that really made no sense due to the number of curves it introduced and such.

But by the same token, I don't think NCC lands should be sacrosanct, either. The current West Transitway trench follows a former railway corridor. This corridor then continues westwards as NCC land immediately south of the parkway. By the time it gets to Cleary, the corridor is only 100' removed from a former tramway corridor. It's the obvious thing to do to use the former railway corridor to that point and then switch over to the former tramway corridor. There's no other routing option short of more tunnel boring that results in as straight and smooth an alignment.

But the City sure would have an easier time making its case when there's a genuine need for NCC lands if it weren't constantly trying to poach NCC lands when there isn't.

[McC]

Originally Posted by Dado

But the City sure would have an easier time making its case when there's a genuine need for NCC lands if it weren't constantly trying to poach NCC lands when there isn't.

No argument to this part of your and Umbria's point from me.

[JeffB]

Originally Posted by umbria27

I'm replying to this late I know, but I'm genuinely surprised by the near consensus here that the parkways should be given up to transit. The City's first option for transit always seems to be to put it on someone else's roads - the NCCs, not their own. This is a cop out on the City's part. I guess it's always easier to imagine some other agency giving up their roads.

Part of it may be due to the NCCs roads not having a lot of build up right next to them, while the city's roads often do. During construction, putting the LRT next to the parkway may cause less traffic disruption than trying to lay tracks down Carling, where you would likely have to shift or remove lanes.

Originally Posted by umbria27

What would be the point of putting buses on the Queen Elizabeth? To go from Dow's Lake to the Rideau Centre? Surely there's a more direct route and one that would service more people. On the parkways buses would conflict with bike traffic too.

I suspect the appeal of Queen Elizabeth would be getting another transit line to Lansdowne Park.

[umbria27]

Just to respond to a couple of points here:

Originally Posted by McC

I'm not talking about anything too complicated, a Carling bus route, and eventually Carling tram that runs down QED, with stops only at the spots where there is, or needs to be, safe crossings. It would be a pretty fast, direct route that serves lots destinations and origins along the route. This might mean no car traffic past Bronson, except for the driveway access to houses.

Elsewhere, I'm just talking about a simple bus route, doesn't involve taking anything away from the NCC and Parkway experience.

Putting a bus on the Parkway does take something away from the Parkway experience. The QED and Colonel By specifically aren't well suited to bus traffic, because they are so narrow. You would significantly downgrade the experience of cyclists if they have to play leap frog and mirror dodge with buses.

Originally Posted by Aylmer

The best argument for buses on QED is the 1 and 7 on Bank. Seriously, when I have the misfortune to have to take it at rush hour, I walk to the Glebe because it's faster than the bus.

Yep, North-South transit options in Ottawa aren't great. You can take the O-train or 97 downtownish, but if your destination is somewhere in the middle of Centretown, you're stuck on the 1 down Bank. I don't think putting transit on the parkways is the solution to this problem. Don't you want to put transit options were people are and where they want to go? To me that means one of the big North/South streets through downtown is going to have to be given up to transit, at some point, preferably light rail, but that's a difficult political move.

Originally Posted by gjhall

If the parkways are for enjoying the view, including from vehicles, why should only those with private vehicles be able to enjoy it?

16% of all households in Ottawa have no car.
&
53% of households in the Central Area have no car

Why shouldn't they too get to enjoy the view whipping by at 80 km/h like motorists do?

A really interesting question, which I could take two ways:

A. the parkways are used for car commuters today, and give car commuters a pleasant experience of watching the view. Train commuters should be able to enjoy this view.

Valid, if the route itself is good, then a view is a great bonus. Usually the scenic routes don't serve the same number of people though. In theory you density along your transit lines. I don't think you want density along your parkways.

B. the parkways are used by pleasure drivers today, for people simply driving on the parkway as a destination itself. Non-drivers should be able to benefit from this.

As you note, most people who don't have a car are in the central area. Today they access the views at 5 to 15 km/h on foot or bike. There may be car-less people who aren't close enough to the parkway to walk or bike there. For them, isn't the best leisure option to take transit to the parkway, but once there disembark and walk or bixi?

[S-Man]

1. Make more pedestrian connections under the parkway to the river.

2. Build the damn LRT in the corridor the city wants.

3. Plant more trees - everywhere.

Anything else is insignificant.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by umbria27

What would be the point of putting buses on the Queen Elizabeth?

More connections from/to O-Train Carling, more service for Lansdowne, better service for the Glebe and Old Ottawa East.

Why NOT put buses on it? It's for vehicles to use. Buses are vehicles (though I'd rather a tram.)

[umbria27]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Why NOT put buses on it? It's for vehicles to use. Buses are vehicles (though I'd rather a tram.)

Why not put garbage trucks on the QED? It's for vehicles. Garbage trucks are vehicles. For all the same reasons that you don't put buses on it. They stop frequently, blocking the rest of the traffic, and frankly their payload (garbage or passangers) is largely elsewhere. The QED and Colonel By drives are very narrow two lane roads with no shoulders. Large vehicles cannot pass bikes safely, nor vice versa.

I do agree with Dado, that the parkways shouldn't be sacrosanct. The Ottawa River and Aviation Parkways are much wider corridors than the canal parkways. If the right route for east west transit required some of these lands, I'd have much less of a problem with it, because likely you could devise some plan of that fulfills the main mission of the parkways and still accommodate transit. Usually though the parkways are too far away from the people.

Now if the city and the NCC got together and decided that they wanted to increase density at the edge of the Ottawa river parkways, that would be something else entirely. Lots of height along the edge of the parkway with many more people living and working adjacent to it would make it a more logical corridor for transit. Stations could coincide with public squares with views out onto the river. The whole orientation of the city would change. Instead of turning its back to the river, the city could look out onto it.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by umbria27

Why not put garbage trucks on the QED? It's for vehicles. Garbage trucks are vehicles. For all the same reasons that you don't put buses on it. They stop frequently, blocking the rest of the traffic, and frankly their payload (garbage or passangers) is largely elsewhere. The QED and Colonel By drives are very narrow two lane roads with no shoulders. Large vehicles cannot pass bikes safely, nor vice versa.

If your concern is bicycles, then let's build separated, cleared bike paths like they do in places which take cycling seriously. Simple.

If your concern is that the destination of people taking transit is mostly concentrated elsewhere than the canal, then it is all the more reason for removing cars from the parkway: their payloads, lest we build some parking lots along the canal, is also elsewhere.

However, it would seem that your concerns are more that transit ― or, if you'd like, garbage trucks ― would impede the passage of cars. If that's our goal, then we should get rid of cyclist and pedestrian interference, two things which also prevent cars from attaining their full potential for speed.



Now, I realise that transit vehicles are also incompatible with pedestrians, but surface transit, when well-done, takes away little from the pedestrian environment ― only enough to allow a vehicle to pass every minute or two. Here's a good example from Montpellier: several LRT lines pass through the Place de la Comédie, an enormous and busy pedestrian plaza in the heart of the city without taking anything from its pedestrian-friendliness.

In fact, more than not taking away from its pedestrian-friendliness, it amplifies it: the LRT brings tens of thousands of people every day who animate the park, activities and businesses in Comédie.



We could achieve the same effect on the canal:
A tram passing every two minutes allows for it to be pedestrian-friendly 95% of the time. Cars, however, pass every other second, cutting off the canal from the city except for a couple seconds at infrequent crossings.
With the ability to carry thousands of people per hour without huge parking lots or congested highways, we can animate the canal in ways that are currently impossible.

If we're serious about turning the city towards the waterfront instead of leaving them dead, lifeless and uninviting, then transit is 100% the way to go, no other way around it.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by umbria27

Now if the city and the NCC got together and decided that they wanted to increase density at the edge of the Ottawa river parkways, that would be something else entirely. Lots of height along the edge of the parkway with many more people living and working adjacent to it would make it a more logical corridor for transit. Stations could coincide with public squares with views out onto the river. The whole orientation of the city would change. Instead of turning its back to the river, the city could look out onto it.

Funnily enough, when I filled out that NCC survey I suggested to them that the area around Rochester Field and Dominion Station should be developed as a TOD.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by umbria27

For all the same reasons that you don't put buses on it. They stop frequently, blocking the rest of the traffic

Good. I don't see that as a problem. Why do you?