Future of NCC Parkways

[lrt's friend]

The only time that this is required is for special events, when people are asked to take transit or park and take shuttles. Otherwise I can't think of a time that access to Lansdowne is that difficult. Where are people driving to / from that it is actually significantly faster to get in via QED versus Bank? Coming off the highway in either direction the difference is very little, coming from the south you're already on Bank St. I think the idea of QED being open to traffic is much more appealing to people than it actually being open.

Actually, coming from the south, access is faster via the QED because you don't face numerous traffic signals along Bronson/Airport Parkway compared to Bank.

[roger1818]

I wonder if a compromise would be to only keep the section between Princess Patricia Way and Pretoria open to cars and close both the northern and south/western portions. I am not sure how useful the stretch between Preston and Princess Patricia Way is beyond being a scenic drive.

As for the earlier comment about the usefulness of a tram to replace QED, if there was a station behind TD Place Stadium, it would be an easy walk to/from the station, especially if they added a back entrance to TD Place. The tram could run from Dows Lake Station to Rideau Station on a route that is mostly (though not completely) separated from traffic. This would give access to both Line 1 for East/West travel and Line 2 for North/South travel. The tram could then be extended along Carling as part of the Carling LRT project to Lincoln Fields.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Jay31

I find it a bit unusual the mayor wrote a column in the paper basically lobbying for the route as a transportation corridor to Landsdowne. I mean, it's not surprising, given his base and that he was largely put in his place due to his business connections... but it's definitely galling. Like, you might as well just have Roger Greenberg sitting on council rather than a puppet kind of galling...

I don't give two craps for the owners of Lansdowne's commercial interests, but the QED could be a very important part of the transport - that is, transit - solution to Lansdowne, but as with everything else that might conceivably be a way to improve or diversify the transit options for urban central Ottawa, everyone seems hell-bent on eliminating that option.

We can't have rail, we can't have better buses, or different routes, or lane priority, or signal priority; apparently urban Ottawa can't have or expect or dream of having anything. Ever.

It's infuriating.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Kelnoz

QED reserved for transit, be it tram or bus, sounds like exactly the solution to your problem.

It is by far and away the best solution for adding transit service and options to Lansdowne (and other parts of central Ottawa), but, nope, everyone is rushing to nip the very thought of it in the bud.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Jay31

I really don't get the tour bus operator angle - like, why don't they just use Colonel By drive? It's more scenic and goes downtown from the airport...and also rarely has any traffic. The QED was never meant to be a route for large vehicles anyway...or even significant vehicle traffic. It was always meant to be a scenic driveway.

And its status as a "scenic driveway" is inconsistent with transit use... how, exaclty?

The issue is the fact that Landsdowne's actual transportation needs have never been considered (or funded) by the city and they are looking to use NCC land to bail them out. If there was actual transit on Bank Street - where it should be, this wouldn't be an issue.

It doesn't need to be a question of better transit on Bank vs transit on QE at all. It can be both, if we choose to. In a city that wasn't further up its own rectum than a polyp, it would already be so.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by roger1818

If we have agreement that QED can be closed north of Pretoria, then rather than getting upset about the stretch south of Pretoria, lets run with it and "Make it so."

As much as it pains me to say so, Sutcliffe is correct in as far as we need to fix the transportation options for Lansdowne before we can start closing roads that access it. Diverting more traffic to Bank St. would negatively affect transit as well. Eventually a Bank St. subway would be optimal, but we aren't ready for that and we can't wait the decades for that to happen. A good alternative would be to convince the NCC to allow for a tram to be built to replace QED.

Sure, but Sutcliffe's only concern seems to be cars, as if cars are the only way to get people to Lansdowne. Maybe if he said we should use QED for transit, then he'd get my attention.

For the four days the Queensway was closed, over a weekend, Sutcliffe cried out to the NCC to reopen QED to cars. Well, now the train is offline. Is he proposing we close some roads or lanes to improve R1 speed and reliability? Have we heard him say anything at all?

Sutcliffe has zero credibility because he focuses exclusively on making the lives of drivers easier. He does not concern himself at all for cyclists (which he seems to think it's a recreational activity only), pedestrians of transit users.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

A tram is not the solution. Lansdowne is a regional facility. People come from all over the city and beyond for events there. A tram only serves a narrow corridor and still blocks general access to Lansdowne, unless it runs in mixed traffic. I would never want to spend money on a tram running in mixed traffic.

At the last Redblacks game, there were several chartered buses waiting on the east side of the park. Those have to access the park by QED. They cannot run or wait on Bank Street on top of OC special event and regular service. There is no room.

I agree. A tram would be a mammoth expensive for little benefit. A Transitway though...

Originally Posted by Catenary

The issue during RedBlacks is that Exhibition is closed at Bank, so the only way into/out of the parking garage is from QED. At the very least, a portion of it has to remain open for access.

On paper, no one (very few people?) are allowed to use the parking garage during RedBlacks games.

[J.OT13]

This thread was about de-paving the then called John A. MacDonald Parkway, but I've re-purposed it for all conversations about the future of the Parkways, whether for cars, transit or active transportation. I've also moved it to the transportation sub-forum.

[Kitchissippi]

Just cut-and-cover the canal for a subway. Stations accessible from both sides so less need for more pedestrian bridges. Put a chilled surface on top of the tunnel so the canal is frozen through the winter. Three birds with one stone!

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Just cut-and-cover the canal for a subway. Stations accessible from both sides so less need for more pedestrian bridges. Put a chilled surface on top of the tunnel so the canal is frozen through the winter. Three birds with one stone!

In a city that can't figure out how to make a tram take corners, I would hate to see a subway under a canal

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

2. We want QED closed and replaced by a tram.

2. We want QED used for transit purposes. Exclusivity and technology TBD.

Second, a QED closure for active transportation is not the same as QED closure for a tramway. The latter means the status quo for active transportation, in fact, there will be no cyclists on QED if there is a tramway.

Maybe not on a tramway (or other transit use) on the QED itself, but what if QED < the entire right of way? Shrink the Drive, use it for transit (exclusively or not, tram or not) and reallocate space within the ROW for other forms of transport.

[J.OT13]

Anyone catch the irony of how Sutcliffe, who refuses to write official letters as Mayor, wrote a letter to the NCC asking they reopen QED?

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

2. We want QED used for transit purposes. Exclusivity and technology TBD.



Maybe not on a tramway (or other transit use) on the QED itself, but what if QED < the entire right of way? Shrink the Drive, use it for transit (exclusively or not, tram or not) and reallocate space within the ROW for other forms of transport.

Yep, this is it for me. You could easily re-align the right of way to leave more space along the canal for whatever. Particularly around Lansdowne.

I do care about the businesses at Lansdowne though. The entertainment businesses like the theatre and the restaurants are the key day to day draws. As would be the Rec Room.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Anyone catch the irony of how Sutcliffe, who refuses to write official letters as Mayor, wrote a letter to the NCC asking they reopen QED?

What official letters doesn’t he write?

[lrt's friend]

We should never say that we don't care about business owners. They are often are our neighbours or employ our neighbours. Would we say that if the end result is the closure of our local grocery store, drug store, favourite restaurant or coffee shop, or the outright failure of a whole project? Our decisions should promote success.

Regarding Lansdowne, since it is a regional destination, we have a responsibility to facilitate regional access. To a degree, local desires cannot be a top priority, although they need consideration.

[Ottawacurious]

https://ncc-ccn.questionpro.ca/a/Tak...3D&lcfpn=false

NCC has a survey: To promote physical and mental well-being, the NCC opened its parkways / driveways across the region for active use. Please complete the following brief survey to tell us about your experience with this program in 2023 . The survey results, along with other information, will be taken into consideration when making further decisions regarding the program.

[Ottawacurious]

Originally Posted by Ottawacurious

https://ncc-ccn.questionpro.ca/a/Tak...3D&lcfpn=false

NCC has a survey: To promote physical and mental well-being, the NCC opened its parkways / driveways across the region for active use. Please complete the following brief survey to tell us about your experience with this program in 2023 . The survey results, along with other information, will be taken into consideration when making further decisions regarding the program.

I feel the questions are a bit skewed to having the parkways closed for active use. Perhaps that's just me.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Ottawacurious

I feel the questions are a bit skewed to having the parkways closed for active use. Perhaps that's just me.

Big time agenda. The headline will be X% wouldn't have come if not for active use and X% spent money in the Glebe so shut up everyone and embrace it.

[lrt's friend]

Why are questions of ethnicity included?

[Lakeofthewood]

Originally Posted by Ottawacurious

I feel the questions are a bit skewed to having the parkways closed for active use. Perhaps that's just me.

The hilarity is it's basically the same type of leading questions as we got with the official Lansdowne 2.0 survey, but with the opposite outcome desired.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Why are questions of ethnicity included?

Because they see everything through a lens of ethnicity. They will also try and parse any trend that supports their narrative. See it's white drivers who want it closed when equity demands the PoC who want to walk are accommodated. I am sure the results would skew the opposite direction in Ottawa actually though.

Originally Posted by Lakeofthewood

The hilarity is it's basically the same type of leading questions as we got with the official Lansdowne 2.0 survey, but with the opposite outcome desired.

Yes. Even when you agree with the narrative it is annoying. These survey's aren't scientific anyway but let's at least get an accurate view of those that respond.