HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted May 18, 2010, 8:50 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 6,977
I have had to do that maneuver a lot of times when working downtown (P&R) or going to the mall.... Once I had to honk as me and another driver tried to merge into each other's lanes, but otherwise it's OK (although certainly adds to your stress). The biggest problem I had was drivers coming from Orleans and getting off at St. Laurent would sometimes be going a lot faster than drivers on the three through lanes, and would sometimes pass merging drivers on the shoulder... or people would drive fast all the way up to the off-ramp and squeeze back onto the highway at the last second.

The rerouting to Aviation will certainly be safer, but I will miss the off-ramp with the bridge that takes you right to the mall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted May 18, 2010, 10:10 PM
bradnixon bradnixon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakche View Post
I believe this is the plan they settled on:

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/eng...pdf/SL-N-3.pdf

TPA - Construct a barrier to prevent traffic from 417 exiting at St. Laurent. Access for 417 via Aviation Parkway and Ogilvie Road. Access from OR 174 westbound via a new separate ramp to be built between the Queensway and Transitway
That's not what that PDF says... it says that the St Laurent and 417 EB off-ramps would be combined, with a barrier constructed to prevent 417WB traffic from exiting at St Laurent.

The Ogilvie alternative was looked at, but discarded.

If a bridge is built at Kettle Island, this whole interchange will need to be re-designed, and it will likely change again.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted May 19, 2010, 1:24 PM
Lakche's Avatar
Lakche Lakche is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Orleans
Posts: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradnixon View Post
That's not what that PDF says... it says that the St Laurent and 417 EB off-ramps would be combined, with a barrier constructed to prevent 417WB traffic from exiting at St Laurent.

The Ogilvie alternative was looked at, but discarded.

If a bridge is built at Kettle Island, this whole interchange will need to be re-designed, and it will likely change again.
That description wasn't mine, I just copied it from here:

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/eng...7ea/ttc2.shtml


I understood it just as you described. The barrier would block all 417 westbound traffic from exiting at St. Laurent when they merge at the split.

Instead, they would have to exit at Aviation parkway and turn on to Ogilvie road to get to St. Laurent.

174 westbound traffic can still exit at St. Laurent.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted May 19, 2010, 9:23 PM
Richard Eade Richard Eade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nepean
Posts: 1,064
Thanks, Lakche, for the link to the MTO stuff; it is helping me figure out why the Cyrville Road Bridge is being designed the way it is.

At the Open House, I was curious to see that the bridge was being lengthened only over the east-bound side of the 417/OR174. There will be space for an extra, future, lane as they move that abutment south, but the piers in the bridge center are to remain in the same location (which is reasonable since they are in the median of the 417/OR174) and the north piers are to replace the north abutment – in the same location. Thus, there will not be any extra room to add an additional west-bound lane in the future. A new abutment will be added to the north, creating a third span, but it is only to bridge the new extended St. Laurent off-ramp.

To illustrate this issue:


The critical points are the yellow notes: The distance between the central piers and the new north piers will be the same as the current distance from the central piers to the north abutment; this will only allow the current 2x OR174 + 2x 417 lanes.

The City could widen the 174 to 10-lanes in each direction, but the MTO is only allowing two lanes to enter the 417. ‘The Split’ will forever-more be a bottle-neck from the east. This is the MTO plan – basically throttle the flow from the OR174 so that the 417 only needs 4 west-bound lanes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted May 20, 2010, 2:33 AM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Eade View Post

The City could widen the 174 to 10-lanes in each direction, but the MTO is only allowing two lanes to enter the 417. ‘The Split’ will forever-more be a bottle-neck from the east. This is the MTO plan – basically throttle the flow from the OR174 so that the 417 only needs 4 west-bound lanes.
And yet the MTO rebuilt the 417 to Kanata with 4 lanes in each direction (plus bus lanes) in addition to the traffic from the 416.

I can see why east-end motorheads might have some reason to feel slighted.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted May 20, 2010, 1:25 PM
Lakche's Avatar
Lakche Lakche is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Orleans
Posts: 80
The population at both ends of the city is about equal, too.

The 2006 census, seen here:

http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/stati...able_1_en.html

Shows Orleans at about 100,000 and Kanata + Stittsville at 90,000 (rounded)


However, a lot more people in Orleans take public transit. I recall seeing some statistics at OC Transpo showing that Orleans had the highest ridership. Maybe the City/MTO is counting on that to continue and is preferring not to widen the highway unnecessarily.

That may backfire 10~20 years into the future, though...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted May 20, 2010, 5:39 PM
Acajack Acajack is offline
Libre penseur
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canada's Wretched Hive of Scum and Villany
Posts: 12,787
The west end has the Scotiabank Place traffic that has to be taken into account for road space needs as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted May 20, 2010, 6:55 PM
bradnixon bradnixon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 558
I've never really understood why the split bottleneck isn't addressed by simply re-arranging the westbound lanes so that 2 lanes come in from the 174 and only 1 from the 417, instead of the other way around.

I know that "technically" the 417 is the through-highway, but the reality is that the majority of the traffic is coming from the 174, not the 417.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted May 27, 2010, 2:09 PM
DubberDom DubberDom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 161
Here is the memo from the Cumberland Village Community Association

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cumberland Village Community Association
Highway 174 Safety Study


In October 2009, the City of Ottawa conducted a safety study on Regional Road 174 between Trim and Canaan Road, in response to concerns raised by Cumberland residents. Read the full report at: http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...9-COS-PWS-0024

The report contains the following statistics:

* Between January 2003 and December 2007 there were 270 collisions, including five fatalities
* The average daily volume is close to 19,000 vehicles
* The average operating speed is 95 to 104 km per hour
* In all cases, the majority of the accidents were rear-end collisions

While the report proposes short, medium and long-term measures to improve safety, it concludes that neither four-laning the 174 from Trim to Canaan Road nor adding passing lanes can be justified based solely on safety factors and that from a traffic safety perspective, the benefit to the corridor is not as clear (page 15). Many media reports wrongly concluded that the study supported widening the 174.

The CVCA reviewed the safety study and prepared a submission to the Transportation Committee supporting many of the safety measures outlined in the report. We also wrote a number of letters to the editor to clear up the misinformation.

We argue that the current speeds are unsafe, given that the road passes through a residential area. We do not support widening the 174 to four lanes.

We argue that widening will not make the road safer for the many residents who live along the river, that it will divide our community, harm the environment, and that it cannot address the volume of commuter traffic, even in the short-term.

We call for:

* more public transit and a park and ride at Canaan Road
* an alternate route to reduce the volume of high-speed commuting traffic in our community, and
* completing the speed study originally planned for 2011 as soon as possible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted May 27, 2010, 3:36 PM
DubberDom DubberDom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 161
The speed study should be done in 2010 as per memo from Counselor Jellett
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2010, 10:22 PM
Richard Eade Richard Eade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nepean
Posts: 1,064
OK, so what will it take to actually FIX The Split?

From what I can see, there are a number of problems:
• The MTO doesn’t like the weave from the 417-east to the St. Laurent off-ramp;
• There are only two lanes from each of the 417-east and OR174, which might not be enough for the volumes;
• One of the OR174 lanes becomes the St. Laurent off-ramp, forcing merges.

The current MTO plan to fix the problems is to extend the St. Laurent off-ramp back to a point east of The Split. This will stop the weaving problem and, once the St. Laurent overpass is widened, the two OR174 lanes will continue as two lanes. There is no answer to the road volume question.

The MTO’s plan also has the provision that should the Inter-provincial Bridge tie into the Aviation Parkway, the extended St. Laurent off-ramp would be removed to provide space for a ramp from the Aviation Parkway to the west-bound 417. There would then be no direct access to St. Laurent from the east.

Perhaps an alternative (although more expensive) option would be to move the junction of the 417-east and the OR174 farther east. That way, traffic would have lots of time to move over to the St. Laurent off-ramp. The weaving problem would be solved and the ramp could remain where it is so it would not be affected by the Inter-provincial Bridge. I would still suggest that the St. Laurent overpass be widened so that both lanes of the OR174 could remain, as the MTO has planned. Again, this idea does not address the road volume question.



This is the full, future interchange should the Aviation Parkway need it because of the Inter-provincial Bridge; however, only the blue lines are required to pull the junction east. (But some of the Fuchsia, Red, and Green lines move other roads which are obstacles.) The curve along the 417 alignment is the same as it currently is, but the road is moved north-west to meet the OR174 sooner. This moves the junction more than 500 metres back from its current location, giving plenty of time for lane changes to get to the St. Laurent off-ramp.

In the diagram I have used the full area available to ensure higher speeds can be maintained when moving from one road to another. I have also tried to re-use existing infrastructure where I could. Yes, it would be expensive, but it can be done in stages.



If desired, the sequence could end at stage 5 which would move the junction and only maintain existing roadway connections.

Comments?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2010, 3:46 AM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,403
To fix the split: I would convert the interchange to an offsetting 4-level stack. Access to and from St. Laurent would ONLY be possible to 417EB and from 417WB and Aviation Parkway SB in order to reduce weaving - barriers would separate through traffic well ahead of the interchange, like a C/D road. Other ramps would need to be braided/reconfigured to minimize weaving considering the number of lanes that would need to merge down.

The ramp configuration would be:

From 417W To
417E - Side ramp in SW quad, 2 lanes (provisions for 3, incl. 1 HOV lane)
174E - 1st level through movement, 3 lanes (provisions for 4, incl. 1 HOV lane)
Aviation - 4th level flyover from SW to NE quad, 1 lane (provisions for 2)

From 174E To
417E - 4th level flyover from NE to SW quad, striped 1 lane (room for 2)
417W - 1st level through movement, 3 lanes (provisions for 4, incl. 1 HOV lane)
Aviation - Side ramp in NE quad, 1 lane (provisions for 2)

From 417E To
174E - Side ramp in SE quad, 1 lane (provisions for 2)
417W - 3rd level flyover from SE to NW quad, striped 2 lanes (room for 3, incl. 1 HOV lane)
Aviation - 2nd level through movement, striped 1 lane (room for 2)

From Aviation To
417E - 2nd level through movement, striped 1 lane (room for 2)
174E - 3rd level flyover from NW to SE quad, 1 lane (provisions for 2)
417W - Side ramp in NW quad, 1 lane (provisions for 2)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2010, 1:15 PM
Richard Eade Richard Eade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nepean
Posts: 1,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternallyme View Post
To fix the split: I would convert the interchange to an offsetting 4-level stack. Access to and from St. Laurent would ONLY be possible to 417EB and from 417WB and Aviation Parkway SB in order to reduce weaving - barriers would separate through traffic well ahead of the interchange, like a C/D road. Other ramps would need to be braided/reconfigured to minimize weaving considering the number of lanes that would need to merge down.

The ramp configuration would be:

From 417W To
417E - Side ramp in SW quad, 2 lanes (provisions for 3, incl. 1 HOV lane)
174E - 1st level through movement, 3 lanes (provisions for 4, incl. 1 HOV lane)
Aviation - 4th level flyover from SW to NE quad, 1 lane (provisions for 2)

From 174E To
417E - 4th level flyover from NE to SW quad, striped 1 lane (room for 2)
417W - 1st level through movement, 3 lanes (provisions for 4, incl. 1 HOV lane)
Aviation - Side ramp in NE quad, 1 lane (provisions for 2)

From 417E To
174E - Side ramp in SE quad, 1 lane (provisions for 2)
417W - 3rd level flyover from SE to NW quad, striped 2 lanes (room for 3, incl. 1 HOV lane)
Aviation - 2nd level through movement, striped 1 lane (room for 2)

From Aviation To
417E - 2nd level through movement, striped 1 lane (room for 2)
174E - 3rd level flyover from NW to SE quad, 1 lane (provisions for 2)
417W - Side ramp in NW quad, 1 lane (provisions for 2)
4-levels! Remember that this is Ottawa, not Montreal. We don't like tall things here unless they are trees.

But, back to your suggestion, I see a down side in only allowing the 417WB to exit at St. Laurent. I think that there are a lot of east-end people who use the OR174 to get to St. Laurent. Without the direct link, they will be using Ogilvie and the Aviation Parkway; but the Aviation Parkway will be crowded with people travelling to Gatineau and back. If possible, I think it is better to keep the traffic distributed between the Parkway and St. Laurent by maintaining a direct exit from the OR174.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2010, 4:24 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Eade View Post
4-levels! Remember that this is Ottawa, not Montreal. We don't like tall things here unless they are trees.

But, back to your suggestion, I see a down side in only allowing the 417WB to exit at St. Laurent. I think that there are a lot of east-end people who use the OR174 to get to St. Laurent. Without the direct link, they will be using Ogilvie and the Aviation Parkway; but the Aviation Parkway will be crowded with people travelling to Gatineau and back. If possible, I think it is better to keep the traffic distributed between the Parkway and St. Laurent by maintaining a direct exit from the OR174.
Actually, looking at the configuration of the current interchange, flipping the sides may make more sense. That means no access to St. Laurent from the 417WB through the split, they would have to get off at Innes. The thinking is similar to Moodie access from 416 to 417WB there, where a barrier blocks such access (very smart move).

Eliminating the loop ramp allows for more space for movements without interference with the Transitway/LRT corridor (which is unaffected by such an upgrade; all the ramps go over it).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2010, 8:13 PM
Richard Eade Richard Eade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nepean
Posts: 1,064
Well, I asked the City if it wouldn’t be a good idea to ask the Province to include room for an extra (third) east-bound OR174 lane under the new Cyrville Bridge.

[Just to refresh your memory; the Province is replacing the Cyrville Bridge over the 417/OR174. This will shut down Cyrville Road for two years. There will be additional room for a new east-bound 417 lane, but the west-bound lanes will be restricted to the current two lanes of 417 and two lanes of OR174. A new span will be added north of the bridge to house an extended St. Laurent off ramp so that it is available only to OR174 vehicles. This ramp will connect with the current 417E ramp which is also where the new third lane of the OR174 is to end. This will prevent cars from the 417 exiting at St. Laurent.]

The answer from Nancy Schepers was that the Province’s plans were based on a study that used the best City provided estimates of the early 2000s to a horizon year of 2021. She mentioned that the estimates have been updated, but that the updated numbers have not been used by the Province. She also said that there were no plans to widen the OR174 when the study was done.

Given that the OR174 has already been widened to three east-bound lanes from the 417 to Blair, and similar widening is happening this summer to the west-bound lanes, I asked whether the City feels that things have changed. I also asked for the latest traffic counts.

I got no answer about whether the City thinks conditions have changed enough to ask for a change in the bridge structure. (Aside: The City has augmented the Provincial plan and is paying $5M to have the bridge structure widened to four lanes.) It seems to me that since they are now widening the OR174 to three lanes per direction, there should at least be room for three OR174 lanes under the new bridge. That bridge will be in place for 60+ years. That is a long time to be funneling traffic from three lanes down to the same two lanes that were planned in the 1960s.

I did get some traffic counts:

As per your request, here are the 2005 morning peak hour volume at the requested locations:

- West-bound OR174 immediately east of Blair Road = 3650
- Entering OR174 from the Blair Road ramps = 600
- Leaving at the 417E ramp = 250
- Exit to St. Laurent Boulevard = 750
- West-bound 417 passing under Cyrville Bridge = 6850

These numbers were used in the modeling exercise for the TMP update.


I am assuming that the 6,850 vehicles attributed to the west-bound 417 passing under the Cyrville Bridge is actually the sum of vehicles on both the 417 AND the OR174 since pushing almost 7,000 cars through two lanes seems unreasonable to me. So, in pictorial form it looked like this in 2005:



It is no surprise that the TMP (2008 update) now identifies the need to widen the OR174 from the 417 to Jeanne d’Arc. The number of vehicles using the two OR174 lanes between Blair and the 417 is listed as 4,250!

So, if the need exists to widen the OR174 up to the 417, why does the City not think there will be a need to allow the third lane to pass under the Cyrville Bridge? The reasons given are that the extended St. Laurent ramp will take cars off the OR174 sooner; that there will no longer be weaving of cars from the west-bound 417 to the St. Laurent off ramp; and that both lanes of the OR174 will continue over St. Laurent, removing the need for cars in the right lane to merge left to avoid the St. Laurent exit.

Using the 2005 number as if they were current: The extended off ramp will remove approximately 750 more cars from the number passing under the Cyrville Bridge – this leaves 3,250 vehicles in the two OR174 lanes. There are also about 2,850 vehicles on the 417 lanes passing under the Cyrville Bridge. (This number may go down as cars which previously wove across the OR174 will be continuing north on the Aviation Parkway to Ogilvie Road to get to St. Laurent. The numbers provided can not provide this detail.) There is no merging between these lanes until west of the bridge so the OR174 could not take advantage of surplus capacity from the 417 lanes.

So, in 2005 numbers, it would seem that there is capacity to carry the OR174 traffic (3,250 vehicles per hour) onto the 417 with only two lanes. If I assume 2,000 cars per lane per hour, two lanes should carry about 4,000 cars in the peak hour. The OR174 will only be at 81% capacity once the St. Laurent off ramp is extended – again, using 2005 traffic counts.

So is a spare 19% enough to handle the growth of Orleans, Rockland, etc., traffic over the next 60+ years? Remember, there are two big roads people from the east can use to cross the Greenbelt, the OR174, and Innes Road. I understand that Innes is pretty much at capacity and the prospect for widening it further is not good. Thus, I think most of the new traffic will be coming along the OR174; where the three lanes will narrow to two lanes under the Cyrville Bridge.

Now think of the scenario where the Inter-provincial Bridge is built at Kettle Island. The traffic will be routed down the Aviation Parkway to the 417. The new N-W ramp from the Aviation Parkway to the 417 will replace the St. Laurent off ramp. (There will be room for only one ramp in the new span.) People will instead, leave the OR174 via a new E-N ramp onto the Parkway to Ogilvie Road to St. Laurent. This will not add any extra vehicles under the Cyrville Bridge, but will add merging traffic into the northern OR174 lane just west of Cyrville. If there were a third west-bound lane, the extra traffic could better be absorbed.

So, what do you think; should the new Cyrville Bridge be lengthened to allow for a future third OR174 west-bound lane?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2010, 4:47 AM
RTWAP's Avatar
RTWAP RTWAP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Eade View Post
..
Are they planning on making the 417 WB 5 lanes wide? If not then I don't see the point in having the 174 WB be 3 lanes wide. There may as well be a merge on the 174.

And I suspect that the 417 WB traffic coming from the south will grow fairly quickly too. There's a fair bit of growth in those outlying communities east of the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2010, 11:36 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Eade View Post
Well, I asked the City if it wouldn’t be a good idea to ask the Province to include room for an extra (third) east-bound OR174 lane under the new Cyrville Bridge.

[Just to refresh your memory; the Province is replacing the Cyrville Bridge over the 417/OR174. This will shut down Cyrville Road for two years. There will be additional room for a new east-bound 417 lane, but the west-bound lanes will be restricted to the current two lanes of 417 and two lanes of OR174. A new span will be added north of the bridge to house an extended St. Laurent off ramp so that it is available only to OR174 vehicles. This ramp will connect with the current 417E ramp which is also where the new third lane of the OR174 is to end. This will prevent cars from the 417 exiting at St. Laurent.]

The answer from Nancy Schepers was that the Province’s plans were based on a study that used the best City provided estimates of the early 2000s to a horizon year of 2021. She mentioned that the estimates have been updated, but that the updated numbers have not been used by the Province. She also said that there were no plans to widen the OR174 when the study was done.

Given that the OR174 has already been widened to three east-bound lanes from the 417 to Blair, and similar widening is happening this summer to the west-bound lanes, I asked whether the City feels that things have changed. I also asked for the latest traffic counts.

I got no answer about whether the City thinks conditions have changed enough to ask for a change in the bridge structure. (Aside: The City has augmented the Provincial plan and is paying $5M to have the bridge structure widened to four lanes.) It seems to me that since they are now widening the OR174 to three lanes per direction, there should at least be room for three OR174 lanes under the new bridge. That bridge will be in place for 60+ years. That is a long time to be funneling traffic from three lanes down to the same two lanes that were planned in the 1960s.

I did get some traffic counts:

As per your request, here are the 2005 morning peak hour volume at the requested locations:

- West-bound OR174 immediately east of Blair Road = 3650
- Entering OR174 from the Blair Road ramps = 600
- Leaving at the 417E ramp = 250
- Exit to St. Laurent Boulevard = 750
- West-bound 417 passing under Cyrville Bridge = 6850

These numbers were used in the modeling exercise for the TMP update.


I am assuming that the 6,850 vehicles attributed to the west-bound 417 passing under the Cyrville Bridge is actually the sum of vehicles on both the 417 AND the OR174 since pushing almost 7,000 cars through two lanes seems unreasonable to me. So, in pictorial form it looked like this in 2005:



It is no surprise that the TMP (2008 update) now identifies the need to widen the OR174 from the 417 to Jeanne d’Arc. The number of vehicles using the two OR174 lanes between Blair and the 417 is listed as 4,250!

So, if the need exists to widen the OR174 up to the 417, why does the City not think there will be a need to allow the third lane to pass under the Cyrville Bridge? The reasons given are that the extended St. Laurent ramp will take cars off the OR174 sooner; that there will no longer be weaving of cars from the west-bound 417 to the St. Laurent off ramp; and that both lanes of the OR174 will continue over St. Laurent, removing the need for cars in the right lane to merge left to avoid the St. Laurent exit.

Using the 2005 number as if they were current: The extended off ramp will remove approximately 750 more cars from the number passing under the Cyrville Bridge – this leaves 3,250 vehicles in the two OR174 lanes. There are also about 2,850 vehicles on the 417 lanes passing under the Cyrville Bridge. (This number may go down as cars which previously wove across the OR174 will be continuing north on the Aviation Parkway to Ogilvie Road to get to St. Laurent. The numbers provided can not provide this detail.) There is no merging between these lanes until west of the bridge so the OR174 could not take advantage of surplus capacity from the 417 lanes.

So, in 2005 numbers, it would seem that there is capacity to carry the OR174 traffic (3,250 vehicles per hour) onto the 417 with only two lanes. If I assume 2,000 cars per lane per hour, two lanes should carry about 4,000 cars in the peak hour. The OR174 will only be at 81% capacity once the St. Laurent off ramp is extended – again, using 2005 traffic counts.

So is a spare 19% enough to handle the growth of Orleans, Rockland, etc., traffic over the next 60+ years? Remember, there are two big roads people from the east can use to cross the Greenbelt, the OR174, and Innes Road. I understand that Innes is pretty much at capacity and the prospect for widening it further is not good. Thus, I think most of the new traffic will be coming along the OR174; where the three lanes will narrow to two lanes under the Cyrville Bridge.

Now think of the scenario where the Inter-provincial Bridge is built at Kettle Island. The traffic will be routed down the Aviation Parkway to the 417. The new N-W ramp from the Aviation Parkway to the 417 will replace the St. Laurent off ramp. (There will be room for only one ramp in the new span.) People will instead, leave the OR174 via a new E-N ramp onto the Parkway to Ogilvie Road to St. Laurent. This will not add any extra vehicles under the Cyrville Bridge, but will add merging traffic into the northern OR174 lane just west of Cyrville. If there were a third west-bound lane, the extra traffic could better be absorbed.

So, what do you think; should the new Cyrville Bridge be lengthened to allow for a future third OR174 west-bound lane?
I'd make it wide enough to accomodate a total of 12 lanes underneath as that is what it might need there to accomodate all the weaving and turning movements. Alternatively, I'd convert it to an tunnel (below both the Transitway/LRT and 417) to eliminate the problems and allow for flyover ramps to start farther west.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2010, 12:49 AM
MaxHeadroom's Avatar
MaxHeadroom MaxHeadroom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 93
As a former resident of Orleans...

IMHO The city doesn't want to do anything with the 174 because they're still upset it got downloaded to them from the province 10 years ago. They're hoping the province will take it back and do something with it. This is further evidenced by the city's refusal to even consider doing something with the 174 east of Trim, forcing the province and Rockland to fund the EA. And again further evidenced by the city's decision to use federal stimulus money to extend Hunt Club East as a dead end road to nowhere since the province has chosen not to proceed with the 417/Hunt Club East interchange. They could have used that money to widen the 174 instead!

The city has no plans to widen the mainline of 174 (joining ramps together doesn't count) and widening it east of Montreal Road isn't even in the official plan. http://www.ottawa.ca/city_services/p...anx_a_en.shtml Meanwhile, there is city-encouraged mass development going on in Orleans and traffic is getting worse. Six years ago Innes Road was a two lane rural standard and extremely congested, now it's a four lane arterial and extremely congested! Bravo.

Meanwhile, Kanata has a brand new ten-lane roadway serving it. Hardly seems fair.

The proposed plan for the split under the current Queensway EA is to widen the 417 eastbound to three lanes through the split and do nothing to the 174. Mind you, westbound 174 will have two dedicated lanes merging onto the 417 with two lanes for a total of four lanes, which will help a bit.

Unfortunately, Ottawa Orleans MPP Phil McNeely's promises to fix the split apply only to the provincial portion. And the business community has realized that without sufficient road networks in Orleans, nobody can get to work, which is why unlike Kanata the Orleans Business Park remains an empty field of weeds.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2010, 2:01 PM
Acajack Acajack is offline
Libre penseur
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canada's Wretched Hive of Scum and Villany
Posts: 12,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxHeadroom View Post
As a former resident of Orleans...

IMHO The city doesn't want to do anything with the 174 because they're still upset it got downloaded to them from the province 10 years ago. They're hoping the province will take it back and do something with it. This is further evidenced by the city's refusal to even consider doing something with the 174 east of Trim, forcing the province and Rockland to fund the EA. And again further evidenced by the city's decision to use federal stimulus money to extend Hunt Club East as a dead end road to nowhere since the province has chosen not to proceed with the 417/Hunt Club East interchange. They could have used that money to widen the 174 instead!

The city has no plans to widen the mainline of 174 (joining ramps together doesn't count) and widening it east of Montreal Road isn't even in the official plan. http://www.ottawa.ca/city_services/p...anx_a_en.shtml Meanwhile, there is city-encouraged mass development going on in Orleans and traffic is getting worse. Six years ago Innes Road was a two lane rural standard and extremely congested, now it's a four lane arterial and extremely congested! Bravo.

Meanwhile, Kanata has a brand new ten-lane roadway serving it. Hardly seems fair.

The proposed plan for the split under the current Queensway EA is to widen the 417 eastbound to three lanes through the split and do nothing to the 174. Mind you, westbound 174 will have two dedicated lanes merging onto the 417 with two lanes for a total of four lanes, which will help a bit.

Unfortunately, Ottawa Orleans MPP Phil McNeely's promises to fix the split apply only to the provincial portion. And the business community has realized that without sufficient road networks in Orleans, nobody can get to work, which is why unlike Kanata the Orleans Business Park remains an empty field of weeds.
I also grew up in Orleans and still have family and friends there. Every time I go I find that in addition to the traffic issues between Orleans and downtown, traffic within Orleans itself is getting particularly bad. Especially if you are trying to travel north-south, where there are few direct routes say between the 174/St-Joseph and Innes. Tenth Line Rd. is just about the only direct route and it is particularly bad. The other main north-south roads are all exaggeratedly curvy (Jeanne d'Arc and Orleans blvds) or dead-ended at some point (Boyer and Belcourt). As the crow flies, it is only about 3 km between the 174 and Innes.

It is weird how it can almost take as much time to drive across Orleans north-south than it does to drive from downtown Ottawa to Trim Rd... (I do realize that from downtown it is freeway driving, but still...)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2010, 5:35 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxHeadroom View Post
As a former resident of Orleans...

IMHO The city doesn't want to do anything with the 174 because they're still upset it got downloaded to them from the province 10 years ago. They're hoping the province will take it back and do something with it. This is further evidenced by the city's refusal to even consider doing something with the 174 east of Trim, forcing the province and Rockland to fund the EA.
Well that's fair enough. There's not enough Ottawa-origin traffic (i.e. from Cumberland) on that segment to justify using Ottawa tax dollars to widen it, and, furthermore, a widening of that section will probably precipitate a widening of the 174 through Orleans.

Ottawa's incentive is to pacify old Hwy 17 east of Trim down to a rural arterial so as to slow traffic to make it safer for its residents along the road. Ottawa has absolutely no incentive to make it easier for Rockland residents to drive in to Ottawa.

Quote:
And again further evidenced by the city's decision to use federal stimulus money to extend Hunt Club East as a dead end road to nowhere since the province has chosen not to proceed with the 417/Hunt Club East interchange. They could have used that money to widen the 174 instead!
I don't know if widening 174 is "shovel ready". An EA definitely exists for Hunt Club, though. The City is trying to force the Province's hand.

Quote:
The city has no plans to widen the mainline of 174 (joining ramps together doesn't count) and widening it east of Montreal Road isn't even in the official plan. http://www.ottawa.ca/city_services/p...anx_a_en.shtml Meanwhile, there is city-encouraged mass development going on in Orleans and traffic is getting worse. Six years ago Innes Road was a two lane rural standard and extremely congested, now it's a four lane arterial and extremely congested! Bravo.
Innes is six lanes across the Greenbelt to Blackburn Hamlet and they're planning to extend the Blackburn Hamlet bypass further south in Orleans (along with constructing the Cumberland Transitway), which is where most of the development is happening. I can't see that Orleans-origin traffic on the 174 is going to increase much more. There'll be more traffic from Orleans going through the Split, but it'll be using the 417 via Innes.

Quote:
Meanwhile, Kanata has a brand new ten-lane roadway serving it. Hardly seems fair.
I was appalled when I realized it was going to be 8 lanes + 2 bus lanes + shoulders. Initially I thought it was going to upgrade the 4 lanes + 2 shoulder bus lanes to 6 lanes + 2 bus lanes + shoulders (i.e. one new lane in each direction + restoring the shoulders), which would allow the 2 bus lanes to become regular lanes when the West Transitway was extended. Instead, ultimately, we'll have a 10-lane freeway with a pair of lanes or tracks for transit beside it - and those 10 lanes will have nowhere to go east of the 416, either.

I can well understand why people in the east end would have cause to be pissed off at the MTO and the Province.

Quote:
The proposed plan for the split under the current Queensway EA is to widen the 417 eastbound to three lanes through the split and do nothing to the 174. Mind you, westbound 174 will have two dedicated lanes merging onto the 417 with two lanes for a total of four lanes, which will help a bit.

Unfortunately, Ottawa Orleans MPP Phil McNeely's promises to fix the split apply only to the provincial portion. And the business community has realized that without sufficient road networks in Orleans, nobody can get to work, which is why unlike Kanata the Orleans Business Park remains an empty field of weeds.
But there's more to it than that. It's not like the split is preventing people from driving east to Orleans in the morning. A lot of Kanata's employment is of people living in Kanata as well. Barrhaven is at least as devoid of employment as Orleans, and doesn't even have a decent-sized shopping centre, either. It just seems to me that Kanata managed to capture the imagination of the business community in a way that none of the other suburbs have managed to.
__________________
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 > SSP: Local Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:34 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.