Tearing down the Queensway - Page 5

Aylmer · #81 Posted **Dec 1, 2016, 4:57 PM**

^^
There is actually no credible evidence to affirm that highways funnel existing traffic away from other streets. The only way that this can work is if you introduce new capacity (like a highway) at the same time that you reduce capacity (like remove lanes from other streets).

FFX-ME · #82 Posted **Dec 1, 2016, 5:03 PM**

Signaled intersections are without a doubt slower. Stops are what cause traffic. Even though you aren't driving at 100km/h you'd still go faster on a freeway. and like others have said, it doesn't take up that much room so if it aint broke don't fix it. What could be done which would make sense is replace the larger clover-type interchanges.

ars · #83 Posted **Dec 1, 2016, 5:27 PM**

Quote:

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.

This might be true during the 3-4 hours of traffic every weekday where everything is jammed up due to exits that, ironically, end up at signalized roads, but for the rest of the day not having the Queensway would be a traffic nightmare for the city cosnidering the amount of east <-> west traffic there is. Also, pretty sure having a highway like the Queensway helps traffic clear up faster even during rush hour, otherwise we'd be stuck with a full day perpetual traffic jam.

If what you're saying is even remotely close to reality, why even have highways anywhere? Just replace every highway with signaled roads

Aylmer · #84 Posted **Dec 1, 2016, 7:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ars

This might be true during the 3-4 hours of traffic every weekday where everything is jammed up due to exits that, ironically, end up at signalized roads, but for the rest of the day not having the Queensway would be a traffic nightmare for the city cosnidering the amount of east <-> west traffic there is. Also, pretty sure having a highway like the Queensway helps traffic clear up faster even during rush hour, otherwise we'd be stuck with a full day perpetual traffic jam.

There's traffic because everyone eventually needs to slow down and stop in order to actually get somewhere. If you don't stop on the highway, you'll stop at the exit. If you don't stop at the exit, you'll stop at an intersection. If you don't stop at an intersection, you'll stop in the parking lot, but you will eventually stop.

Ignoring any longer-term behavioural changes, we still have to look at traffic capacity as the capacity of an entire system from your driveway to your parking garage.
Say Queensway can transport 8000 pphpd, but the downtown streets can only handle 7000. You could add another 10, 20, 100 lanes to the Queensway and the system's capacity would still be 7000 pphpd.

Conversely, if we reduce the Queensway's capacity to 7000 pphpd, the trip will take no longer than before because the system's capacity hasn't changed.

As for off-peak, I think it's doubtful that the introduction of a handful of signals would result in widespread congestion. If traffic densities were already that high, any small interruption (like rain or flurries) would cause widespread traffic. As that doesn't already happen off-peak, it probably is not the case.

Quote:

If what you're saying is even remotely close to reality, why even have highways anywhere? Just replace every highway with signaled roads

In a congested context - as are most cities - it's entirely valid to question the value of highways; the demand is far to high to operate practically and they require a very high economic cost (not only construction, but also the cost of land and depressed land values).

In an intercity context, there's a much better case for them; the demand is manageably low and the economic cost is more reasonable.

lrt's friend · #85 Posted **Dec 1, 2016, 7:23 PM**

You cannot eliminate the Queensway. You can just contain its growth by providing transportation alternatives, whether rapid transit or alternate roads. As I have said before, the Queensway serves a different transporation market than the Confederation Line. So if you want commuters off the Queensway, I expect that we will need to study other routes for rapid transit that better address the needs of Queensway commuters.

The big problem is truck traffic. Since we have virtually no freight railway corridors left, we don't have a lot of choices and it would be undesirable to funnel all that truck traffic onto urban roads, otherwise we will create a lot more King Edward Avenues.

Uhuniau · #86 Posted **Dec 1, 2016, 7:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You cannot eliminate the Queensway. You can just contain its growth by providing transportation alternatives, whether rapid transit or alternate roads. As I have said before, the Queensway serves a different transporation market than the Confederation Line. So if you want commuters off the Queensway, I expect that we will need to study other routes for rapid transit that better address the needs of Queensway commuters.

The big problem is truck traffic. Since we have virtually no freight railway corridors left, we don't have a lot of choices and it would be undesirable to funnel all that truck traffic onto urban roads, otherwise we will create a lot more King Edward Avenues.

Greber's anti-rail fetish was one of the single worst planning things that has ever happened to Ottawa (and there have been a lot of Bad Planning Things.)

zzptichka · #87 Posted **Dec 1, 2016, 7:31 PM**

I think a more interesting debate would be about tolling 417. It's more realistic and not 50 years away at this point.

FFX-ME · #88 Posted **Dec 1, 2016, 7:33 PM**

I just want to dispel some more s*** being flung around.

A freeway has a capacity of 1600-18000 pphpd
A boulevard has a capacity of 800-1000 pphpd

The capacity of a boulevard is then nearly half that of a freeway meaning that the boul. queensway would need to be 16 lanes wide to match what we currently have. That is just idiotic.

Sure you could argue to have multiple boulevards to distribute the population but we all know people will gravitate towards the one they know and congest it. Building multiple 10-lane boulevards will also require massive investment and imminent domain.

Kitchissippi · #89 Posted **Dec 1, 2016, 7:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Ignoring any longer-term behavioural changes, we still have to look at traffic capacity as the capacity of an entire system from your driveway to your parking garage.
Say Queensway can transport 8000 pphpd, but the downtown streets can only handle 7000. You could add another 10, 20, 100 lanes to the Queensway and the system's capacity would still be 7000 pphpd.

You're assuming everyone goes downtown when there's a heck of a lot of cross-town traffic as well as trans-provincial movement on the Queensway. There's also the transport of oversized loads like wind turbine blades, factory built homes, heavy equipment, etc. that just would not be practical on city roads. I witnessed one of the LRT's traction power sub stations move through Richmond Road in the middle of Westboro on its way to Tunneys late at night a couple of weeks ago and they shut traffic down. Even though I hardly use the Queensway, I appreciate it like I do a good sewerage system.

FFX-ME · #90 Posted **Dec 1, 2016, 8:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

You're assuming everyone goes downtown when there's a heck of a lot of cross-town traffic as well as trans-provincial movement on the Queensway. There's also the transport of oversized loads like wind turbine blades, factory built homes, heavy equipment, etc. that just would not be practical on city roads. I witnessed one of the LRT's traction power sub stations move through Richmond Road in the middle of Westboro on its way to Tunneys late at night a couple of weeks ago and they shut traffic down. Even though I hardly use the Queensway, I appreciate it like I do a good sewerage system.

That type of traffic is why we need a ring road.

sestafanos · #91 Posted **Dec 4, 2016, 6:00 PM**

Whilst this thread usually talks a lot of sense, I am appalled that this is a debate. As someone who uses the Queensway anywhere from 5-7 days a week - and on many occasions to make several trips, I have to say that the only road changes that would need to be made concerning Queensway widening, or otherwise, is to turn Hunt Club into a second freeway.

Shoot me down.

Spocket · #92 Posted **Dec 4, 2016, 6:33 PM**

The Queensway is still the best and most viable option for moving traffic within the Ottawa region. It's really due to the way the region is laid out in terms of built form.

You've got two fairly large satellite cities anchoring each end of the city and only two main thoroughfares to move people in and out of them. You could remove the overpasses on the Queensway but it really wouldn't do anything good for the movement of traffic because it's the only way for most of the people in those cities to get anywhere anyway. In particular, Orleans doesn't have much in the way of employment and even Kanata isn't a hub either. People pretty much have to get into Ottawa proper for work and as such, what would be gained by limiting flow ?

At most, perhaps there's an argument for turning the Queensway through the Glebe into a surface road but for the rest of it, it really doesn't make sense. Or to speed things up maybe add more ramps in the same area.

The other option is to turn the whole thing into a surface road but you'd have to construct at least one more main arterial to maintain flow. For example, you'd have to cut a new corridor through the Greenbelt to alleviate the pressure along Hazeldean (as it's known through Kanata) and somehow make it a more direct route to the core along Baseline. As it is there's very little chance that the Queensway is going anywhere. There's far too much residential growth along it to explain how removing the only decent corridor's greatest asset will help anything.

It's also worth pointing out that you've still got two major freeway connections to consider no matter what you do. There's just too much invested in the Queensway as it is.

J.OT13 · #93 Posted **Dec 5, 2016, 4:42 PM**

GOD NO! Queensway should not be demolished until we have reliable ways to get downtown from everywhere in the City, Gatineau and beyond (VIA Rail). So never.

Moderator, is it possible to add a poll to this one?

gjhall · #94 Posted **Dec 5, 2016, 6:01 PM**

This conversation would be a bit more interesting/fruitful if someone could post their proposed alternative to the status quo?

HighwayStar · #95 Posted **Dec 5, 2016, 6:14 PM**

I moved to Ottawa from Winnipeg (quite) a few years ago...

Winnipeg is slightly smaller than Ottawa, but doesn't have a single freeway. Only highway (and it's not even controlled access) is the Perimeter Highway, which basically a ring road well outside the city proper...

It takes for-freakin ever to get from one side of Winnipeg to another, traversing probably 40+ traffic lights on the way.

First thing I noticed when I moved to Ottawa was:
a) This awesome highway where one could zip from one side of the city to another in 20 minutes
b) a) was even better because 100 km/h really means 120 km/h

c) These awesome parkways (QE Drive, SJAM) where one could zip around the city without too many traffic lights and other distractions.

Demolishing the Queensway is such a silly topic I would suggest this thread be deleted... or at very least the OP move to Winnipeg for a couple of years and experience the alternative

McC · #96 Posted **Dec 5, 2016, 6:30 PM**

Practical / more surgical solutions to specific problem areas would also be cool to brainstorm.

e.g., East of downtown, an alternative to the current Greenfield/Less/Mann/Nicholas ramps that currently consume a tonne of space and put up big barriers in a very central, and potentially-desirable, part of town.

Just west of downtown, I wish that while they were re-aligning and re-building the westbound Parkdale off-ramp and Westmount Ave, that they'd installed a pedestrian connection between Reid Park in Civic Hospital* and Rosemount Ave to improve direct and safe access to Connaught Public School, like the existing overpass at Harmer provides for Fisher Park and to a somewhat lesser extent, for Elmdale PS.

How much pressure will the new hospital location put for the addition of a westbound off-ramp at Rochester? Would that be safe by current design standards so close to the on-ramp from Bronson?

* what will we call that hood if/when the Hospital decamps eastward? Same thing? Follow the local tradition of Old Ottawa South and Old Ottawa East with "Old Civic Hospital"? Something a little edgier and metropolitain like "WoLiTa"? Topic for another thread!