Cycling in Ottawa

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Most of what you are suggesting is politically unsaleable. We need a more positive approach. Replacing R1 zoning for example will just push a lot of people outside the city and pretty quick. It would be the 21st century version of blockbusting.

I'm really not sure what you are saying here. Making provision for more population density will drive people outside the city? Doesn't an increase in density mean that more people are moving into an area?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

From what I understand, Uhuniau's position is that it's OK to sacrifice a few lives per year so that they don't get inconvenienced by a couple of dings in mixed transit/cycling areas on Main/Booth/Montreal.

No, but by all means, put offensive words in my mouth.

Hopefully it will improve with the more permanent changes to the street, but on Beechwood, for example, the re-painting of the street markings last year led to such confusion on the part of almost all street users that it was more dangerous than the status quo ante.

How many people have you seen recently on a pavement in a position like this because of failed transit infrastructure design? This one is taken this weekend on Wellington where the city failed to adequately design the street and went with ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ approach.

It's not about getting faster from point A to point B by one mode of transportation or another. It's about not killing people and not getting killed.

For the record, I am opposed to killing people.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Maybe I'm missing something, but I have have lived in several urban neighbourhoods (Sandy Hill, Market, Centretown) and I am a frequent visitor to the New Edinburgh, Market and Preston areas and I never seen any evidence that cyclists are significant users of main street type businesses. Most cyclists I have seen using the Beechwood cycle lanes appear to be through traffic (they're certainly not kitted out to transport groceries) and you don't see that many bikes parked in front of either local or destination type businesses. Most actual residents of these neighbourhoods tend to walk to their destinations. People coming from further afield tend to drive.

I've seen some cargo-bikers on Beechwood going to/from the Metro grocery store, but it's not as busy in that regard as some other gentrified areas like the Glebe, OOS, or Westboro (the most dangerous neighbourhood in Ottawa, I hear from OOS folks!)

That's probably more a function of the retail and service mix on Beechwood, which is not amenable to a lot of bike-errand types, and the fact the retail/shops/services/restaurant strip is not as long or as intensely developed as some of those others. More infill, and - hopefully, at some point - moving frontages back to the street, instead of parking lots, those will make more of a difference.

An LCBO would also probably stimulate more non-car trips. I suspect the presence of OMG BEER in Metro may have already done so.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

Again, I think the bike lanes along Beechwood were poorly implemented, but that doesn't mean the concept of bicycle lanes along main streets is flawed.

And I don't think it's inherently flawed, either. It just has to be done right, and, in some cases, that will mean sorry, there simply is not enough space and time on the RoW for a dedicated bike lane or track.

But you can't say that to the fundamentalists.

[Uhuniau]

On a totally-related note, what do the local bikeists think of the post-separated lanes on the north end of St-Laurent?

[dougvdh]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

On a totally-related note, what do the local bikeists think of the post-separated lanes on the north end of St-Laurent?

Total fine in the context with the side benefit of calming down a peice of street that used to be a speedway. It's a bit of an oddity that they don't quite connect to the Montreal Rd ones to the east.

BTW, City did take the Road widening on the Beechwood / Mackay Minto redevelopment. They have 23m protected - that's 3 m more width than Laurier provides downtown.

[Uhuniau]

Aha! Not just me, then: I've noticed slower ambient traffic speeds on that stretch of St-Laurent, with the side benefit of an effective narrowing of the pedestrian crossings.

[dougvdh]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Aha! Not just me, then: I've noticed slower ambient traffic speeds on that stretch of St-Laurent, with the side benefit of an effective narrowing of the pedestrian crossings.

Amazing what some paint, some plastic poles and PXO can do to a stroad (without changing any of the curb-lines or paving or subsurface utilities.)

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by dougvdh

BTW, City did take the Road widening on the Beechwood / Mackay Minto redevelopment. They have 23m protected - that's 3 m more width than Laurier provides downtown.

Ya but Laurier downtown is two vehicle lanes + a turning lane / parking lane. There is currenlty 4-5 squeezed into Beechwood between the Vanier Parkway and Mackay. Their plan (not sure if this has already happened) is to reduce that to 4 lanes at the Vanier Parkway: 2 westbound lanes and 2 eastbound lanes; that means no dedicated westbound left-turn lane (terrible idea, will lead to awful congestion on Beechwood). FYI westbound in this case is towards the St. Patricks Street bridge, silly street grid.

What they SHOULD have done (I think) if they wanted to reduce to 4 lanes is to have 2 westbound lanes, one westbound left-turn lane, and one eastbound lane. The eastbound lane would be fed by one general vehicle lane (queued up on the St. Patrick Bridge) and one transit priority lane with signal priority. This way westbound traffic flows as well (or as poorly) as before, while eastbound traffic flows well in Beechwood, but gets stuck on St. Patrick St (not as important in my opinion).

On the west side of Mackay it could open back up to 2 eastbound lanes and 2 westbound lanes like today, doesn't really matter. The benefit with that is most traffic would still be in the curb lane, so the lane-drop at Springfield wouldn't catch so many people by surprise.

O well, maybe they can re-do it like that later once, their plan is terrible for a year or two.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by phil235

I'm really not sure what you are saying here. Making provision for more population density will drive people outside the city? Doesn't an increase in density mean that more people are moving into an area?

A lot of people want a degree of privacy not offered by multi-unit living. If we want to eliminate this completely from the urban area, people are going to leave the city. Also, if we open up neighbourhoods and actually encourage changes that result in conversions, full or partial demolitions that change the character of the neighbourhood, many people will also want to leave. I have seen this kind of activity and it creates a lot of contention. Old Ottawa South is an example where there has been and is contention. I know because I have a cousin who lives there and has been through the stress from attempts to convert single family homes into student housing. Yeah, it is considered a renovation but amounts to a total rebuild. In Centretown, we have seen a lot of beautiful Victorian homes replaced with crap.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

A lot of people want a degree of privacy not offered by multi-unit living. If we want to eliminate this completely from the urban area, people are going to leave the city. Also, if we open up neighbourhoods and actually encourage changes that result in conversions, full or partial demolitions that change the character of the neighbourhood, many people will also want to leave. I have seen this kind of activity and it creates a lot of contention. Old Ottawa South is an example where there has been and is contention. I know because I have a cousin who lives there and has been through the stress from attempts to convert single family homes into student housing. Yeah, it is considered a renovation but amounts to a total rebuild. In Centretown, we have seen a lot of beautiful Victorian homes replaced with crap.

Some people will leave, but more people will replace them. That is the whole point. Reduction in family size means R1 zoning can no longer support the density required for City vitality. Should we remove all low-density zoning... no, probably not. But R1 zoning is too restrictive and should be upgraded to at least R2 if not R3.

Heritage designations of beautiful Victorian homes, and quality building standards, is a separate issue.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Hopefully it will improve with the more permanent changes to the street, but on Beechwood, for example, the re-painting of the street markings last year led to such confusion on the part of almost all street users that it was more dangerous than the status quo ante.

Beechwood painted lanes are terrible. It should be in the cycling infrastructure conversation only as an example how not to build it.
Half-assed compromise that just proves that car parking lobby trumps all.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

A lot of people want a degree of privacy not offered by multi-unit living. If we want to eliminate this completely from the urban area, people are going to leave the city. Also, if we open up neighbourhoods and actually encourage changes that result in conversions, full or partial demolitions that change the character of the neighbourhood, many people will also want to leave. I have seen this kind of activity and it creates a lot of contention. Old Ottawa South is an example where there has been and is contention. I know because I have a cousin who lives there and has been through the stress from attempts to convert single family homes into student housing. Yeah, it is considered a renovation but amounts to a total rebuild. In Centretown, we have seen a lot of beautiful Victorian homes replaced with crap.

Student housing certainly has its own challenges (a house on our street was converted, which was not a big deal 90% of the time, but the other 10....), but most conversions in Centretown or the areas we are talking about aren't for that purpose. It's a lot more conversions to high end duplexes or stacked town houses.

In any event, while some people may leave, the increase in density ultimately makes room for more people in the city, who are more easily served by transit, support more local services, etc. When the alternative is sprawl, some level of intensification is certainly desirable. Given the ease with which these infill units seem to sell, clearly there is a big market for that.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

A lot of people want a degree of privacy not offered by multi-unit living. If we want to eliminate this completely from the urban area, people are going to leave the city. Also, if we open up neighbourhoods and actually encourage changes that result in conversions, full or partial demolitions that change the character of the neighbourhood, many people will also want to leave.

And?

Cities change. I don't get this idea that neighbourhoods should be fixed in time. Allow people to make economic decisions. If other people don't like it, to the point where they "leave", let them.

I have seen this kind of activity and it creates a lot of contention. Old Ottawa South is an example where there has been and is contention. I know because I have a cousin who lives there and has been through the stress from attempts to convert single family homes into student housing. Yeah, it is considered a renovation but amounts to a total rebuild. In Centretown, we have seen a lot of beautiful Victorian homes replaced with crap.

That's.... kinda how cities work, at least until anal zoning and NIMBY neighbours get their grubby fingers on the levers of power and policy.

[lrt's friend]

The risk is the destruction of neighbourhoods by poorly designed infill. My own neighbourhood has been ruined by infill that is out of character of the existing housing stock. My neighbourhood has probably had the most infill of any in the city and the end result has been plain ugly. When you place McMansions on tiny lots that dwarf neighbouring houses, it is ugly as hell.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

And?

Cities change. I don't get this idea that neighbourhoods should be fixed in time. Allow people to make economic decisions. If other people don't like it, to the point where they "leave", let them.



That's.... kinda how cities work, at least until anal zoning and NIMBY neighbours get their grubby fingers on the levers of power and policy.

So you support replacing attractive older homes with crap.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

So you support replacing attractive older homes with crap.

If an attractive older home owner, responding to their own economic stimuli, wants to replace their building with "crap", unless there are other sound public policy considerations, why shouldn't they be permitted to?

I have yet to see any of these "destroyed" neighbourhoods.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The risk is the destruction of neighbourhoods by poorly designed infill. My own neighbourhood has been ruined by infill that is out of character of the existing housing stock.

I am looking for a reason why, other than for built-heritage preservation reasons, the "character of the existing housing stock" should have any weight for any purpose.

My neighbourhood has probably had the most infill of any in the city and the end result has been plain ugly. When you place McMansions on tiny lots that dwarf neighbouring houses, it is ugly as hell.

Ugly, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Is there some compelling reason why a building next door shouldn't "dwarf" its neighbours? In places like the Glebe, Golden Triangle, etc., there are apartment and condo buildings of 10, 12, 15 storeys right next to perfectly attractive neighbouring houses - "dwarfing" them, if you will - without anything in my eyes at least that constitutes being "ugly as hell". Given the prices fetched by those dwarfed houses, it would appear the market is largely in agreement.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

When you place McMansions on tiny lots that dwarf neighbouring houses, it is ugly as hell.

This can happen just as easily with R1 zoning as it can with R3 zoning (as mentioned before, lot set-backs etc... are similar for both). The difference is we're more likely to get a unit that I can afford to live in with the R3 zoning.

A lot of people don't like the look of boxy infill that is so trendy nowaday, but I don't know if we should regulate that look out of the developers tool kit. Diversity (in time and style) is the beauty of mature neighborhoods.

[lrt's friend]

My point, infill can be done well or infill can be done poorly. In my neighbourhood, it has generally been done poorly. There are exceptions of course even in my neighbourhood. I would say if there are no controls on infill or demolition or renovation of the housing stock, even the Golden Triangle could lose its lustre.

In any event, this is the not appropriate location for this discussion.