Tearing down the Queensway

[zzptichka]

Column in the Citizen from 2 years ago: http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/col...-the-queensway

People are not ready yet I'm afraid but we'll get there eventually.
I would bring in rush hour tolls on 417 as soon as the LRT is ready though.

[Acajack]

Demolish the Queensway? Sure, but provided there is a serious replacement plan.

The traffic that is on there needs to go somewhere. So... where?

Seriously though, it makes almost no sense.

Ottawa has very little freeway capacity for a city of its size. And I am not just comparing it to American cities BTW.

What logic would there be to replace and existing, "paid for" piece of vital infrastructure that is worth tens of billions of dollars where it sits.

Even if you sold off the land, the replacement cost for a cross-town freeway to the south of the urban area would still be huge.

[Uhuniau]

If money were no object, I'd bury the damn thing and restore the surface to human uses.

Maybe in the 23rd century or so.

[Aylmer]

In terms of freeing up land, I think that demolishing the Queensway completely would have relatively little value, unlike the highway removal successes in places like San Francisco or Seoul.

That said, the real killers are the bloated highway interchanges. Especially around LRT stations, they not only waste a whole lot of space, but they also create wide tears in the urban fabric, reducing the development potential to only one side of the highway. I think we would definitely benefit from one of the following:

- Interchange "Diets"; we reduce the size of interchanges to a minimum. Instead of cloverleaf-like exits, change them to simple parallel on/off-ramps. The land freed up can be developed and would most likely generate more than enough to cover the reconstruction.

- At-grade intersections. There's nothing magical about having a completely grade-separated highway: when and where it's most used, the average speed is no higher than a signalized road. And when it's least used, it doesn't really matter if you have to wait 10 or 20 seconds at a light. So at certain intersections by LRT stations, bring the Queensway to grade with quality pedestrian crossings (ex: crossing refuge islands).

I think it would be most beneficial to implement these measures anywhere a LRT stop coincides with an interchange:
- Vanier
- St-Laurent
- Blair
- Montreal Rd.
- Pinecrest
- Nicolas
- Bayshore

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by SkeggsEggs

I personally believe that we should demolish Colonel By Drive north of Main Street. Though, you could go all the way to the highway as most cars going North seem to turn left rather than continue on.

By the highway I assume you mean Hawthorne Ave/Pretoria Bridge since there isn't an interchange at Colonel By. The stretch between Rideau St and Daly Ave might need to be kept open to provide access to the Weston (though it could be just a driveway).

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

- Interchange "Diets"; we reduce the size of interchanges to a minimum. Instead of cloverleaf-like exits, change them to simple parallel on/off-ramps. The land freed up can be developed and would most likely generate more than enough to cover the reconstruction.

One thing I have seen them do in BC is use roundabouts instead of cloverleafs. They keep the traffic flowing on the overpass (unlike traffic lights) without wasting as much land as a cloverleaf. They seem to work quite well.

[Mikeed]

The Queensway, compared to the North American context, has done very little damage to Ottawa's urban fabric. It was built on railway lands and did not involve any wholesale destruction of neighborhoods.

The Queensway is an important link of the Trans-Canada highway, linking North Bay, and points West, with the Ottawa valley, Ottawa, and Montreal, and points East.

If you were to demolish the Queensway this regional transportation link within the broader national context would have to be maintained, to argue other wise would honestly, in my opinion, would be arguing against the concept of roads that has existed since Rome!

So you would still need to develop something that links points west and east, with Ottawa. This would require a rural/suburban road that would bypass Ottawa through farmland and the suburbs. This would promote urban sprawl, increased drive times and emissions, increased road surface, increased costs to build, maintain and plow.

Bad idea. An idea that hurts urbanism.

Edit: Think of every single grocery store- just grocery stores in Ottawa- every one of them receives roughly 3 loads a day from their DC in the suburbs of Toronto. Loblaw Companies Limited's DC is in Ajax. The reality of this idea, is to push the thousands of these transport trucks- again this is JUST grocery stores- onto local roads. Roads like Baseline & Carling would be the hardest hit and become epic traffic sewers. This really would be a great step forward in developing urban avenues in the spirit of complete streets (multiple modes of use), rapid transit, and medium density. /s

I'm all for avant-garde and bold thinking, but this idea collapses in the face of reality. And worse then that, while proposed with the best intentions, it has many effects that causes more harm then any of it's supposed good.

"You have to believe me, this was a stupid decision, but I did it with the best intentions. With the best intentions? Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions."
(Jurassic Park sure does teach us a lot about 'good intentions'.)

[Aylmer]

One thing I should point out is that demolishing the Queensway doesn't necessarily mean that it's not replaced by anything. In most places which took down limited access highways, they were replaced with boulevards. In many cases, these boulevards provided adequate car and truck access, but greatly improved conditions for other road users and land values. However, it's not automatic; sometimes, replacing 6 or 8 lanes of elevated traffic with 8 or 10 lanes of at-grade traffic have made it more difficult to cross for pedestrians.

I'm not convinced that a "Queensway blvd" would necessarily improve those conditions more than other measures such as more pedestrian under/overpasses. Often, the most problematic parts of the Queensway are not the highway itself but its access roads (like Catherine) and its on/off-ramps as I've already posted.

[lrt's friend]

Should the Queensway be Demolished? It would be Foolhardy to do so.

The Confederation Line does not and cannot replace the Queensway. It just replaces the Transitways.

The Queensway serves commuters that are poorly served by transit for the most part.

[kevinbottawa]

To the very first comment from the previous thread, as a parent of three small children, public transit isn’t a replacement for the Queensway. It depends on your lifestyle. Living in Vanier, taking public transit into downtown or Orleans is possible, but in other situations it sucks- like when you’re at a dinner party at a friend’s house late at night with your young children, you missed nap time and your kids pass out or are cranky, or your lifestyle takes you all over the city. The Queensway is so convenient for family life in a sprawling city like Ottawa. A boulevard, as someone else suggested, could work.

[1overcosc]

It would take a complete overhaul of how transportation works in this city (not just an improvement to an existing system which is what the LRT amounts to) before something as radical as removing the Queensway becomes an option.

[acottawa]

What is the problem that demolishing the Queensway would be intended to solve?

In places where there are no ramps (e.g. Preston) it is hardly noticeable (a bit of respite from the rain). It is certainly better than another King Edward.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kevinbottawa

To the very first comment from the previous thread, as a parent of three small children, public transit isn’t a replacement for the Queensway. It depends on your lifestyle. Living in Vanier, taking public transit into downtown or Orleans is possible, but in other situations it sucks- like when you’re at a dinner party at a friend’s house late at night with your young children, you missed nap time and your kids pass out or are cranky, or your lifestyle takes you all over the city. The Queensway is so convenient for family life in a sprawling city like Ottawa. A boulevard, as someone else suggested, could work.

Even in a city like Paris, parents use their cars a whole lot to ferry their young kids around for various family activities and obligations. Way more than people unfamiliar with the everyday life of Parisian families would expect.

[Aylmer]

But I think the question is not whether we should do away with all roads or even a road where the Queensway is now; that's unreasonable. But it's healthy for us to question whether a limited-access freeway is the best solution everywhere and, if not, what the alternatives could be.

Originally Posted by acottawa

In places where there are no ramps (e.g. Preston) it is hardly noticeable (a bit of respite from the rain). It is certainly better than another King Edward.

This is what I might fear. King Edward is almost certainly better than the Décarie sunken expressway which was proposed in its stead, but it still isn't good by almost any measure.

But with enough space, you can actually turn a King Edward into a Passeig de Gracia, which manages to pull 8 lanes of traffic plus four rows of parking. All while lookin' mighty fine.



Again, there aren't a whole bunch of spots along the Queensway with enough immediately-adjacent urban fabric to be able to pull off the boulevard treatment or for it to really improve much. But I think that, should Kanata ever decide to make a real downtown for itself or should we decide to completely redevelop areas surrounding LRT, we shouldn't bend ourselves into pretzels to maintain a limited-access expressway AT ALL COSTS.

A highway, like any other mode of transport, is a tool. And if you wouldn't use a screwdriver to hammer a nail, then you shouldn't use a highway where it isn't appropriate.

[ars]

Demolishing the Queensway sounds like a pretty terrible idea, unless you plan on replacing it in parallel(like turning Hunt Club into a 400 series highway), in which case it becomes a maybe terrible but definitely insanely expensive idea.

SF and Seoul aren't good examples. First, they both have a much greater population density than Ottawa. Second, SF has the i-280 and i-80/US-101 going through the core, it's basically their version of Queensways. Seoul has an unorthodox layout to contain its population of 25 million and the city core is surrounded by neighbouring cities and highways, not to mention that it has the best subway network on the planet, Ottawa has none of that.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

But I think the question is not whether we should do away with all roads or even a road where the Queensway is now; that's unreasonable. But it's healthy for us to question whether a limited-access freeway is the best solution everywhere and, if not, what the alternatives could be.




This is what I might fear. King Edward is almost certainly better than the Décarie sunken expressway which was proposed in its stead, but it still isn't good by almost any measure.

But with enough space, you can actually turn a King Edward into a Passeig de Gracia, which manages to pull 8 lanes of traffic plus four rows of parking. All while lookin' mighty fine.



Again, there aren't a whole bunch of spots along the Queensway with enough immediately-adjacent urban fabric to be able to pull off the boulevard treatment or for it to really improve much. But I think that, should Kanata ever decide to make a real downtown for itself or should we decide to completely redevelop areas surrounding LRT, we shouldn't bend ourselves into pretzels to maintain a limited-access expressway AT ALL COSTS.

A highway, like any other mode of transport, is a tool. And if you wouldn't use a screwdriver to hammer a nail, then you shouldn't use a highway where it isn't appropriate.

Barcelona (and other European cities) maintain a network of controlled access freeways for heavy trucks, intercity traffic, etc. In places where highways have been demolished they have usually been routes primarily used for commuting rather than the main freeway network.

I suppose in an ideal scenario, during the freeway building era of the 50s and 60s an east-west and north-south route would have been built further from the city centre to act as the main freeway network, with the Queensway as a branch for commuters. In that scenario, it might be reasonable to consider other solutions, but I don't think it is viable in a foreseeable future to make Ottawa freeway-free.

[Aylmer]

But again, I'll reiterate that there's nothing magical about a limited-access expressway. When it is most used, the Queensway does not provide any significant advantages over signalized roads in terms of speed or capacity. A 100 km/h speed limit means nothing when you're inching along at 20-30 km/h at 8 am. It would be no slower with signalized intersections.

For trucks and intercity traffic (what little passes through Ottawa from Montreal to, erm, Arnprior?), it might make a difference of a few minutes if they avoid peak hours. That's hardly the end of the world, nor is it reasonably worth the expense of a 100% limited-access highway.

Again, there is nothing magical about highways. There is capacity, speed and cost. And a highway does not always score highest on any of those in every context.

[adam-machiavelli]

I'd support demolishing the Queensway if it were replaced by a ring road that ran south of the city.

[Kitchissippi]

Highways can enable main streets to remain main streets, though, by funnelling away commuter traffic that is non-essential to its commerce. It's always sad to see old streets turn into busy unliveable arterials. The good thing is that the central Queensway was purpose-built over the old Grand Trunk Railroad and did not really displace any main streets, and the division between the neighbourhoods had already existed prior to the freeway.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

But again, I'll reiterate that there's nothing magical about a limited-access expressway. When it is most used, the Queensway does not provide any significant advantages over signalized roads in terms of speed or capacity. A 100 km/h speed limit means nothing when you're inching along at 20-30 km/h at 8 am. It would be no slower with signalized intersections.

For trucks and intercity traffic (what little passes through Ottawa from Montreal to, erm, Arnprior?), it might make a difference of a few minutes if they avoid peak hours. That's hardly the end of the world, nor is it reasonably worth the expense of a 100% limited-access highway.

Again, there is nothing magical about highways. There is capacity, speed and cost. And a highway does not always score highest on any of those in every context.

They're not magical, but they are an efficient way to move large number of vehicles using a minimum amount of land that have been adopted by almost every country in the world (even ultra-dense countries such as the Netherlands and Singapore). Yes they slow down during rush hour but but in most cases are still faster than parallel arterial roads in rush hour. Plug two destinations across town into google maps and compare the times with the "no highways" checkbox clicked on and off.

If were were talking about a proposed highway the cost/benefit would be a serious consideration, but destroying existing infrastructure is a much different calculation.