HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #701  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2012, 11:00 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradnixon View Post
I'm sorry, but if by "transform" you mean "turn into a hellish highway wasteland" then I think you're bang on.

I hope nothing like this ever happens.

If we want to make our city more livable, building big ugly flyover ramps all over the place is exactly the way NOT to go about it.
My Bank Street plan goes against that though, since it is open for redevelopment (see that thread) and carefully worked.

The problem at that main interchange: lack of space forces tricky flyovers. One option is to close ALL accesses, which would negate completely the need for twinning the Airport Parkway, no building any ramps (except perhaps bus-only ramps to the Transitway) and allow for free flow. But that would require a shift to Uplands Drive for airport access from the south end. As a collector road, is Uplands up for the upgrade? Bank loses capacity so it is not in play.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #702  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2012, 11:31 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Here is a revised idea for the Bank/Airport Parkway/Hunt Club area. The key difference here: ALL ramps at the Airport Parkway are removed (notwithstanding what the map appears - they are indeed all turned over to grass), returning it to the airport scenic access it was before the 1990s.



PROS:

* New free-flowing ramps for buses between the Far South/Airport area and the Southeast Transitway, no longer requiring going through a difficult left turn
* No signals on that section of Hunt Club (currently there are 7 in the area between the Ottawa Hunt Club and Albion), significantly reducing congestion on a critical crosstown corridor
* The Southeast Transitway and rail corridor are fully preserved, with the Transitway access from Hunt Club unchanged
* Traffic would be significantly lower upstream on Bronson, helping reduce congestion and improve pedestrian activity there - opportunity for a much-desired narrowing would exist!
* With two signals on Bank instead of one and a narrow crossing, more pedestrian-friendly
* A very auto-oriented area is broken up, allowing for major redevelopment in the Bank Street corridor
* Access is preserved via Albion to the Southway Inn and a retirement residence, as well as several businesses via Daze
* Costs would be significantly lower than my original plan - and also would not require any unsightly flyovers that may cause noise issues in the Hunt Club community
* Pedestrian movements would be improved at McCarthy/Downpatrick, Daze/Bridle Path and Albion as they no longer have to cross a busy road, just an overpass, allowing for community integration

CONS:

* No access from Hunt Club to downtown via the Airport Parkway, requiring use of Riverside or Bank
* No direct access to the airport from Hunt Club, requiring use of Uplands (where a new offsetting interchange would be built in a place where communities are not impacted)
* Uplands would need to be improved to a 4-lane suburban arterial south of Hunt Club for airport access from the south end (it would actually be detached from the northern section!)
* Direct access to Hunt Club would no longer be provided from Albion, Downpatrick/McCarthy, Bridle Path/Daze or Uplands (on its current alignment) - all movements from Bank and Uplands (realigned) as seven signalized intersections and other accesses are combined into two interchanges
* Two houses and a church are displaced. Several other houses and a retirement residence require backlotting
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #703  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2012, 8:20 PM
bradnixon bradnixon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternallyme View Post
Here is a revised idea for the Bank/Airport Parkway/Hunt Club area. The key difference here: ALL ramps at the Airport Parkway are removed (notwithstanding what the map appears - they are indeed all turned over to grass), returning it to the airport scenic access it was before the 1990s.



PROS:

* New free-flowing ramps for buses between the Far South/Airport area and the Southeast Transitway, no longer requiring going through a difficult left turn
* No signals on that section of Hunt Club (currently there are 7 in the area between the Ottawa Hunt Club and Albion), significantly reducing congestion on a critical crosstown corridor
* The Southeast Transitway and rail corridor are fully preserved, with the Transitway access from Hunt Club unchanged
* Traffic would be significantly lower upstream on Bronson, helping reduce congestion and improve pedestrian activity there - opportunity for a much-desired narrowing would exist!
* With two signals on Bank instead of one and a narrow crossing, more pedestrian-friendly
* A very auto-oriented area is broken up, allowing for major redevelopment in the Bank Street corridor
* Access is preserved via Albion to the Southway Inn and a retirement residence, as well as several businesses via Daze
* Costs would be significantly lower than my original plan - and also would not require any unsightly flyovers that may cause noise issues in the Hunt Club community
* Pedestrian movements would be improved at McCarthy/Downpatrick, Daze/Bridle Path and Albion as they no longer have to cross a busy road, just an overpass, allowing for community integration

CONS:

* No access from Hunt Club to downtown via the Airport Parkway, requiring use of Riverside or Bank
* No direct access to the airport from Hunt Club, requiring use of Uplands (where a new offsetting interchange would be built in a place where communities are not impacted)
* Uplands would need to be improved to a 4-lane suburban arterial south of Hunt Club for airport access from the south end (it would actually be detached from the northern section!)
* Direct access to Hunt Club would no longer be provided from Albion, Downpatrick/McCarthy, Bridle Path/Daze or Uplands (on its current alignment) - all movements from Bank and Uplands (realigned) as seven signalized intersections and other accesses are combined into two interchanges
* Two houses and a church are displaced. Several other houses and a retirement residence require backlotting
I'm sorry, I just don't understand the point of any of this.

I'm not sure how turning Hunt Club into a Freeway (which is what it seems like you are suggesting) would make the area more pedestrian friendly. What would you do with the sidewalks and bike lanes on Hunt Club? I guess you might as well rip down the local Royal Oak, because there sure wouldn't be anyone clamoring to sit on a patio under an freeway ramp.

This isn't even the most congested part of Hunt Club- that would be the approaches to the Hunt Club Bridge (and the bridge itself). Have any ideas about that?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #704  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2012, 9:04 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradnixon View Post
I'm sorry, I just don't understand the point of any of this.

I'm not sure how turning Hunt Club into a Freeway (which is what it seems like you are suggesting) would make the area more pedestrian friendly. What would you do with the sidewalks and bike lanes on Hunt Club? I guess you might as well rip down the local Royal Oak, because there sure wouldn't be anyone clamoring to sit on a patio under an freeway ramp.

This isn't even the most congested part of Hunt Club- that would be the approaches to the Hunt Club Bridge (and the bridge itself). Have any ideas about that?
Was it EVER designed to be pedestrian friendly on Hunt Club though? No.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #705  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2012, 1:29 PM
eltodesukane eltodesukane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 447
Crumbling bridge to come down

Crumbling bridge needs to come down.
The crumbling, half-done pedestrian bridge on the Airport Pkwy. must be demolished and the project restarted.
The work site is between Walkley and Hunt Club roads.
The city is paying $5 million for the bridge...
http://www.ottawasun.com/2012/04/13/...s-to-come-down
By Jon Willing, Ottawa Sun, First posted: Friday, April 13, 2012

Last edited by eltodesukane; Apr 15, 2012 at 11:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #706  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2012, 2:26 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 5,774
Questions; why is the pedestrian bridge so ugly!? And how much is this whole revised Bank/Airport Parkway/Hunt Club area going to cost?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #707  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2012, 1:07 AM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
Questions; why is the pedestrian bridge so ugly!? And how much is this whole revised Bank/Airport Parkway/Hunt Club area going to cost?
That is just a vision I have, not an official plan. The first idea would be well in the hundreds of millions easily, but the revision would be significantly cheaper.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #708  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2012, 1:28 AM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 5,774
My bad.
Bridge design still looks like crap. If we're going to tear it down, redisign (on contractor's buck).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #709  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2012, 5:07 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,594
City homes in on curvy design for new Canal footbridge

Continuous curve of the bridge deck provides a more gradual, smooth path for pedestrian and cyclist travel.

By David Reevely, The Ottawa Citizen April 17, 2012

OTTAWA - The city is homing in on a curvy design for a planned footbridge over the Rideau Canal at Fifth Avenue, including a wide section above the water for a lookout.

The bridge is meant to connect Old Ottawa East and the Glebe, and particularly a redeveloped Lansdowne Park, but designers have struggled with how to place the bridge’s entry points in the narrow strips of land available on either side of the waterway. They’ve come up with a nearly crescent-shaped span that would begin just north of the Canal Ritz restaurant, curve east across the canal over two V-shaped supports planted in the water, and alight at a long switchback ramp on the east bank.

The city is collecting comments online at ottawa.ca/rideaucanalbridge and plans an open house sometime in June. A full environmental assessment would have to be done before the bridge is built. The city would also have to negotiate with agencies like the National Capital Commission and Parks Canada.

The project has no budget yet, and would only become reality once city council votes to allocate the money. The last bridge the city built across the canal, the Corktown bridge at Somerset Street, cost $7 million in 2006.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
From: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/City+ho...#ixzz1sJoIspm7








Reply With Quote
     
     
  #710  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2012, 5:45 PM
blackjagger's Avatar
blackjagger blackjagger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
My bad.
Bridge design still looks like crap. If we're going to tear it down, redisign (on contractor's buck).
And why should the contractor be held responsible for the design?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #711  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2012, 6:06 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,727
I note that there's no safe crossing of the driveway in the illustration.

UPDATE:
OpenFile's got more pictures, and one says signalized crossing at both ends:
http://ottawa.openfile.ca/ottawa/sli...ridge-pictures

Last edited by McC; Apr 17, 2012 at 8:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #712  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2012, 11:59 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 5,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackjagger View Post
And why should the contractor be held responsible for the design?
For delays due to their poor craftsmanship and for the hell of it.

But in all seriousness, the contractor should obviously foot the bill for any extra cost (demolition and reconstruction) and although I realize a redesign would involve significant cost (to the city or contractor) and delays. I really do think it looks like crap.

Last edited by J.OT13; Apr 18, 2012 at 1:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #713  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2012, 1:52 AM
MountainView MountainView is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 897
Quote:
Originally Posted by McC View Post
I note that there's no safe crossing of the driveway in the illustration.
There has been NO safe crossing for years on Colonel By at Carleton to connect to the Hartwell Locks - where numerous people cross daily and cars go zipping by at 60+ km/h. The NCC never wants to fund stuff like this and why should the city when it's not their property? I'm surprised they are considering a pedestrian signal at the new Fifth Avenue Bridge.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #714  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2012, 3:45 AM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainView View Post
There has been NO safe crossing for years on Colonel By at Carleton to connect to the Hartwell Locks - where numerous people cross daily and cars go zipping by at 60+ km/h. The NCC never wants to fund stuff like this and why should the city when it's not their property? I'm surprised they are considering a pedestrian signal at the new Fifth Avenue Bridge.
They should have frequent traffic signals for pedestrian crossings on the parkways. That would be one excellent place for one.

Such is especially true on the Ottawa River Parkway, where almost no one does the 60 km/h speed limit and they would act as a speed check (as it is now, the speed limit should be 80 km/h otherwise on that parkway).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #715  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2012, 2:16 PM
bradnixon bradnixon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
My bad.
Bridge design still looks like crap. If we're going to tear it down, redisign (on contractor's buck).
It looks like crap because the concrete's all cracked. The design is pretty cool, IMHO.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #716  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2012, 1:47 PM
eltodesukane eltodesukane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 447
Those pedestrian bridges should be covered.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #717  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2012, 10:57 PM
S-Man S-Man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,639
Covered bridges lead to druggies. Druggies everywhere!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #718  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2012, 11:35 PM
MountainView MountainView is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 897
You could actually make an argument that covered bridges attract "unwanted gatherings of youth" and are a target for graffiti. Just look at a lot of Ottawa's pedestrian train underpasses that are filled with graffiti and used for "druggies". Not saying that I would make this argument, but you could...

Anyways, covered bridges are more expensive, and in my opinion, don't look as nice as open-air bridges. Also, what's the point of covering it anyways?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #719  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2012, 1:33 AM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainView View Post
You could actually make an argument that covered bridges attract "unwanted gatherings of youth" and are a target for graffiti. Just look at a lot of Ottawa's pedestrian train underpasses that are filled with graffiti and used for "druggies". Not saying that I would make this argument, but you could...

Anyways, covered bridges are more expensive, and in my opinion, don't look as nice as open-air bridges. Also, what's the point of covering it anyways?
I'm in agreement with you...it would become a crime hotspot that would be hard to patrol, and people would become scared to use it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #720  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2012, 6:39 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainView View Post
You could actually make an argument that covered bridges attract "unwanted gatherings of youth" and are a target for graffiti. Just look at a lot of Ottawa's pedestrian train underpasses that are filled with graffiti and used for "druggies". Not saying that I would make this argument, but you could...

Anyways, covered bridges are more expensive, and in my opinion, don't look as nice as open-air bridges. Also, what's the point of covering it anyways?
If the bridge is crossing something like the Queensway, having them covered is great, especially in winter.

As for their appearance, frankly it depends on the design. If it's a concrete bridge with a shelter on top (the bridge to Blair Station comes to mind) then yes, open can look better. But the ones that are based on a glassed-in steel truss design look quite good since they are still largely open.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:54 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.