Tearing down the Queensway

[Gat-Train]

To answer the OP, no. But maybe we could bury it and put a commuter railroad on top.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

To answer the OP, no. But maybe we could bury it and put a commuter railroad on top.

For HFR?

I actually found the greenspace idea attractive though. Plus it can rejoin all the neighbourhood that’s been broken up. Unfortunately, it’s the latter part that almost necessarily precludes commuter rail because of all the at-grade intersections.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I’m open to the idea of “460” from Renfrew to Huntsville too. In fact I’ve thought about it for quite a bit.

The thing is, plans have been in place to have the freeway go from North Bay to Renfrew/Nipissing boundary. Granted, from there to the CFB, there’s still ~100 km to go. But having freeways on both ends then 2-lane road in the middle? Okay...?
I’m the type that says “we may as well bridge the gap”. That’s just me though.

Thanks for your input too.

Highway 460 will never happen. You can't run an expressway through a wilderness park. That destroys the most popular part of the park.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by White Pine

I think this is about right. Before anything else, the C line is underbuilt for such a thing. also, being from Pembroke, the Queensway gives access to people who don't live in Ottawa. I tried looking into OCTranspo's park in rides and by what I could tell you need a monthly pass to park there. The malls don't allow you to use their lots as one either-- though I'm not sure how they would enforce that. So any non-commuter who needs to go to Ottawa for a day (or pretty much at all) needs to drive in.

You don't need a monthly pass to use the park n rides. There are restricted gold pass areas to guarantee a parking spot at busy lots. There is a monthly fee for those areas. Just don't park there. I have used my local park n ride casually countless times then hopped onto a bus or train.

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Highway 460 will never happen. You can't run an expressway through a wilderness park. That destroys the most popular part of the park.

How many times must I state this?

We have known for the past 30 years that building/widening more freeways doesn't alleviate road congestion, thanks to induced demand.

If congestion in that area is an issue, maybe we should think about running a couple GO buses a day in the park.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

How many times must I state this?

We have known for the past 30 years that building/widening more freeways doesn't alleviate road congestion, thanks to induced demand.

If congestion in that area is an issue, maybe we should think about running a couple GO buses a day in the park.

I have actually asked the same question in my own thread about TCH. As it turns out, induced demand is actually just an urban phenomenon. In rural or even wild area, it’s not a concern at all.

In fact, 60 should be left as is because it traverses some of the most pristine area in Ontario.

As for induced demand for 417 through Upper Ottawa Valley? I’d be happy to see the AADT there reach 20K.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I have actually asked the same question in my own thread about TCH. As it turns out, induced demand is actually just an urban phenomenon. In rural or even wild area, it’s not a concern at all.

In fact, 60 should be left as is because it traverses some of the most pristine area in Ontario.

As for induced demand for 417 through Upper Ottawa Valley? I’d be happy to see the AADT there reach 20K.

It can be a concern in a rural area, if it reduces travel time into the city by enough to induce its transformation from a rural area to a suburban one. We've seen first hand how that happened to places like Russell and Kemptville after the freeways were built. You have to be far out enough that commuting is unappealing even at 120km/h.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I’m open to the idea of “460” from Renfrew to Huntsville too. In fact I’ve thought about it for quite a bit.

The thing is, plans have been in place to have the freeway go from North Bay to Renfrew/Nipissing boundary. Granted, from there to the CFB, there’s still ~100 km to go. But having freeways on both ends then 2-lane road in the middle? Okay...?
I’m the type that says “we may as well bridge the gap”. That’s just me though.

Thanks for your input too.

I drive to North Bay about a dozen times a year. Traffic drops off significantly west of Renfrew, so 4 lanes to there is probably OK. There's rarely any traffic so to speak between Deep River and Mattawa. Even between Renfrew and Deep River is pretty good except on the busiest travel weekends. Two lanes with passing is enough capacity, the issue is at the intersections. If we started to grade separate intersections and bypass Cobden, Chalk River and Deep River, that would solve most of the issues.

Of course, head on collisions are the real issue on northern 2 lane highways, but there seems to be little interest in something like a cable median super 2 design, and northerners will likely play up any proposal for such as an equity issue.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Catenary

I drive to North Bay about a dozen times a year. Traffic drops off significantly west of Renfrew, so 4 lanes to there is probably OK. There's rarely any traffic so to speak between Deep River and Mattawa. Even between Renfrew and Deep River is pretty good except on the busiest travel weekends. Two lanes with passing is enough capacity, the issue is at the intersections. If we started to grade separate intersections and bypass Cobden, Chalk River and Deep River, that would solve most of the issues.

Of course, head on collisions are the real issue on northern 2 lane highways, but there seems to be little interest in something like a cable median super 2 design, and northerners will likely play up any proposal for such as an equity issue.

I also find it interesting that AADT on the 17 hits 14K up to Renfrew but that afterwards it drops to ~8K. I guess Ottawa’s exurban sprawl really reaches that far eh? It’ll be funny to watch if extending 417 to Renfrew pushes the AADT on 17 between Renfrew and Pembroke to ~10K.

As for upgrades short of 4 lanes, the County of Renfrew did come up with this last week: https://www.renfrewtoday.ca/2019/11/...-17-expansion/. Personally I think it’s selling itself short, but if it works, it works. I still think it doesn’t hurt to determine where the 4 lanes will go, even if construction’s 20 years down the road. I do agree that, right now, grade separation is much needed, especially from CFB to Whitewater. We can definitely turn it into the likes of Sudbury’s SW and SE Bypass.

Oh and by the way, most of the discussions about TCH happens here: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...229872&page=63. Originally, I just wanted to talk about the 2 branches between North Bay and Nipigon, but I have since expanded the scope to cover the entire length of TCH.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I have actually asked the same question in my own thread about TCH. As it turns out, induced demand is actually just an urban phenomenon. In rural or even wild area, it’s not a concern at all.

In fact, 60 should be left as is because it traverses some of the most pristine area in Ontario.

As for induced demand for 417 through Upper Ottawa Valley? I’d be happy to see the AADT there reach 20K.

Yes and in fact it is really a suburban problem. It's also based on old data when land use was more liberal. Build a proper highway to for example the airport do we really think thousands of houses will sprout up and it will be just as congested?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Yes and in fact it is really a suburban problem. It's also based on old data when land use was more liberal. Build a proper highway to for example the airport do we really think thousands of houses will sprout up and it will be just as congested?

As citytech already noted, the problem is that new highways tend to convert rural areas into suburban areas. Places like Kemptville and Carleton place have become de facto suburbs of Ottawa because of highway construction. I don't think an airport highway is immune from this phenomenon (look how the airport parkway has become clogged with commuters from the south end).

The best solution I think is to toll new highways, which creates a small expense for intercity users, but can discourage sprawl.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

As citytech already noted, the problem is that new highways tend to convert rural areas into suburban areas. Places like Kemptville and Carleton place have become de facto suburbs of Ottawa because of highway construction. I don't think an airport highway is immune from this phenomenon (look how the airport parkway has become clogged with commuters from the south end).

The best solution I think is to toll new highways, which creates a small expense for intercity users, but can discourage sprawl.

The Airport parkway became a commuter road when the NCC sold the road to the city and they opened the Hunt Club ramps and the Lester Road extension to the airport.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by CityTech

Tunneling the Queensway is something that makes more sense in a couple decades once most cars will be electric. No tailpipe emissions = way easier to build tunnels. If we did this, we could institute an electric vehicles only rule for the new tunnel.

I was thinking the same thing. A tunnel depressing for BEVs only would still need ventilation to clear smoke in case of a fire and to clear out any dangerous gases that somehow got into the tunnel, but the amount of ventilation needed would likely be less.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You don't need a monthly pass to use the park n rides. There are restricted gold pass areas to guarantee a parking spot at busy lots. There is a monthly fee for those areas. Just don't park there. I have used my local park n ride casually countless times then hopped onto a bus or train.

Agreed. AFAIK, only the Blair Park & Ride requires a Gold Pass for all of its spaces, but it only has 21 parking spots. Baseline requires a permit weekdays before 11 am, though apparently it fills up by 9:00am, so you kind of need the pass. Both of them are inside the greenbelt, so not a preferred option for those who live outside of it anyway. AFAIK, all of the other Park & Rides have free parking.

EDIT: Looking at https://www.octranspo.com/en/our-services/park-ride/, both Jeanne d'Arc and Ray Friel Park & Rides also require a pass. The following have at least some free parking:

• Canadian Tire Centre
• Carp
• Chapel Hill
• Eagleson
• Fallowfield
• Greenboro
• Innovation
• Leitrim
• Millennium
• Nepean Woods
• Place d'Orléans
• Riverview
• Strandherd
• Terry Fox
• Trim

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by acottawa

As citytech already noted, the problem is that new highways tend to convert rural areas into suburban areas. Places like Kemptville and Carleton place have become de facto suburbs of Ottawa because of highway construction. I don't think an airport highway is immune from this phenomenon (look how the airport parkway has become clogged with commuters from the south end).

The best solution I think is to toll new highways, which creates a small expense for intercity users, but can discourage sprawl.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The Airport parkway became a commuter road when the NCC sold the road to the city and they opened the Hunt Club ramps and the Lester Road extension to the airport.

Toll to twin Airport Parkway, send 75% of the commuters to the extended Trillium Line, then use the tolls to recuperate the cost and to finally twin the Trillium Line (Airport Spur optional). Then finally remove the toll. Lol, now one sure would hope that the city council wouldn’t be controlled by suburbians.

Leave space to join the eventual Ottawa Bypass though.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Toll to twin Airport Parkway, send 75% of the commuters to the extended Trillium Line, then use the tolls to recuperate the cost and to finally twin the Trillium Line (Airport Spur optional). Then finally remove the toll. Lol, now one sure would hope that the city council wouldn’t be controlled by suburbians.

Leave space to join the eventual Ottawa Bypass though.

That would automatically clog Bank Street to unbearable levels.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

That would automatically clog Bank Street to unbearable levels.

That depends on how large the toll is. If they also added a full interchange at Walkley, it would help balance things out.

Of course, the big problem with twinning the Airport Parkway (tolls or no tolls) is that it will make the congestion on Bronson even worse.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

That depends on how large the toll is. If they also added a full interchange at Walkley, it would help balance things out.

Of course, the big problem with twinning the Airport Parkway (tolls or no tolls) is that it will make the congestion on Bronson even worse.

And that is why they want to build rail first south of Greenboro.