[ericmacm]

I am bringing this discussion forward from the SSP Ottawa forum - the NCC, Government of Ontario and Government of Quebec are moving forward on the process to design/implement a new bridge crossing east of Ottawa. The intended purpose is to divert truck traffic from downtown Ottawa, as Autoroute 5 currently feeds truck traffic directly into Byward Market/UOttawa area. A previous study alternative included a tunnel underneath Byward Market, but this option has not been pursued.

The bridge is proposed to cross from the intersection of Aviation Parkway/Sir George-Etienne Cartier Parkway over Kettle Island and connect with Montee Paiment in Gatineau. The study for this route from 2013 shows Aviation Parkway fully twinned and upgraded with some additional interchanges, and Montee Paiment upgraded to a wide boulevard with a couple of grade separations and interchanges, but mostly remains at-grade. IMO I am not the biggest fan of having so many at-grade intersections as this is just effectively shifting the truck traffic congestion (there will still be plenty of congestion with so many access points) from downtown Ottawa to suburban Gatineau, but this study was from over 10 years ago so hopefully it has been refined since then. I do like what is being done on the Ottawa side (the upgrading of Aviation Parkway into something more useful than its current state is welcome as opposed to building a new greenfield freeway alignment), but the Gatineau side is indisputably a mess.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Our Plan

Our Plan

ontariopc.ca

PC Platform is out - not too much new highways-wise we haven't already seen, but a few nuggets that are new to me:

Not sure what I think about this. I feel like you may as well remove HOVs entirely if they are only going to apply during rush hour.

Another one:

Not sure what this means. I've long been critical of the provincial framework for speed cameras requiring them to be in "community safety zones" - which before the speed camera legislation was implemented, were primarily only designated around certain sensitive uses like schools. The problem is that municipalities can designate any street they want as a CSZ - leading many to designate major arterials with no real community sensitivity as such to allow for a speed camera to be installed. If you read through municipal agendas, they often introduce new CSZs literally in the same report approving the speed camera locations - clearly only being implemented to enable the speed camera.

I assume the province is indicating an intent to refocus speed cameras to be permitted more explicitly only around sensitive uses like schools, which was largely the original intent of the legislation. I would also argue that they should be prohibited on all roads with speed limits 60km/h or greater, not 80km/h or greater. If the road is safe for a 60km/h speed limit, it cannot be a major pedestrian corridor as it is. At the very least require that cameras can only be located on streets with sidewalks (there are examples of rural highways without sidewalks having speed cameras - I.e. Bloomington Rd in York Region).

Also not sure about the reference to red light cameras. I don't really see any issues with the current red light camera legal framework.

I also wouldn't be opposed to the province doing something about municipal speed limit reductions in rural areas - many municipalities have removed most of their 80km/h roads in the last decade and reduced speed limits on roads which are generally very safe to drive on at the previous speed with little resulting change in safety (i.e. highway 20 in Hamilton, among many many others)

 

[ShonTron]

HOV lanes are already a joke without proper enforcement, the exemption for PHEVs and EVs, and with the annual paid permits for single users driving ICE cars and light trucks. When the Liberals were building new HOV lanes, I saw it as greenwashing highway expansion back then. Furthermore, on some highways like the QEW through Oakville and Burlington, the worst congestion is not necessarily on weekday rush hours, but on weekends May through October.

 

[2323]

The complete list for those who want it. I don’t know if it was brought up before but it seems like the province uploading the Queensway is on the table.

 

[nfitz]

Not sure what I think about this. I feel like you may as well remove HOVs entirely if they are only going to apply during rush hour.

It does seem an odd thing to do - make the HOV lanes accessible to all when you don't need them. What's the point? Why confuse people?

The complete list for those who want it. I don’t know if it was brought up before but it seems like the province uploading the Queensway is on the table.

Highway 7 from Markham to Pickering? Why is that even provincial?

 

[ShonTron]

View attachment 632775
The complete list for those who want it. I don’t know if it was brought up before but it seems like the province uploading the Queensway is on the table.

Nothing there is new. Ottawa has been lobbying to upload the eastern Queensway (part of Highway 17 before Harris downloaded it and now known as 174) for a while, matching the uploading of the DVP and Gardiner.

 

[ericmacm]

I thought the HWY 174/Queensway upload was announced last year?

 

[2323]

Highway 7 from Markham to Pickering? Why is that even provincial?

I believe it’s referring to this short stretch here that is bookended by 4 lane sections on either side but currently is 2 lanes, and is provincially owned. I have no idea why this minor of a project even appears on their campaign.

 

[innsertnamehere]

View attachment 632780

I believe it’s referring to this short stretch here that is bookended by 4 lane sections on either side but currently is 2 lanes, and is provincially owned. I have no idea why this minor of a project even appears on their campaign.

yes, they announced this a while ago. I believe it's actually 4-laning it from Donald Cousens to Brock Road in Pickering further east- but small potatoes really.

The PCs have pledged a $15 billion fund for "key capital projects", and announced a widening of the QEW of undetermined scope in that fund, but nothing else is new within their campaign other than projects previously announced before the writ drop.

The QEW widening will be more like a $1 billion project though (if not less, depending on scope), so who knows where the other ~$14 billion will go.

 

[Coolibop]

View attachment 632780

I believe it’s referring to this short stretch here that is bookended by 4 lane sections on either side but currently is 2 lanes, and is provincially owned. I have no idea why this minor of a project even appears on their campaign.

I believe it's a project already announced sometime ago which was a pain point for those travelling through...easy win.

 

[Steve X]

Our Plan

Our Plan

ontariopc.ca

PC Platform is out - not too much new highways-wise we haven't already seen, but a few nuggets that are new to me:

View attachment 632743

Not sure what I think about this. I feel like you may as well remove HOVs entirely if they are only going to apply during rush hour.

The HOV lanes would be even more difficult to enforce if they are part-time. It also means people would disrespect the lane marking if they become general traffic lanes during off peak. For roads like QEW, families would be stuck in traffic with commercial traffic on weekends.

 

[bearcat]

So during off peak hours the HOV lanes become the new leftmost general lane? Isn't the point of the leftmost lane for passing? The HOV lanes are specifically designed to only enter and exit them at certain locations, and that's not how passing works. I don't like this idea at all. Either keep things as is or just completely remove the HOV lanes and change the road markings to just make them a regular lane. This will just create confusion.

 

[afransen]

So during off peak hours the HOV lanes become the new leftmost general lane? Isn't the point of the leftmost lane for passing? The HOV lanes are specifically designed to only enter and exit them at certain locations, and that's not how passing works. I don't like this idea at all. Either keep things as is or just completely remove the HOV lanes and change the road markings to just make them a regular lane. This will just create confusion.

It's almost as if the Ford government has no regard for technocrats and just does things that sound good to lowest common denominator who don't think about things for more than half a second.

 

[innsertnamehere]

It's almost as if the Ford government has no regard for technocrats and just does things that sound good to lowest common denominator who don't think about things for more than half a second.

I mean not necessarily. HOVs are ultimately "underutilized" compared to regular lanes and theoretically could be removed to see slight improvements in traffic.

Along the QEW in Halton, MTO originally built the corridor for 10 lanes, IIRC, but the decision to implement HOVs meant they could only do 8 lanes as the HOVs were wider. In that case, MTO could relatively inexpensively eliminate the HOVs and convert the highway to a 10-lane cross section, substantially improving capacity.

 

[afransen]

I mean not necessarily. HOVs are ultimately "underutilized" compared to regular lanes and theoretically could be removed to see slight improvements in traffic.

Along the QEW in Halton, MTO originally built the corridor for 10 lanes, IIRC, but the decision to implement HOVs meant they could only do 8 lanes as the HOVs were wider. In that case, MTO could relatively inexpensively eliminate the HOVs and convert the highway to a 10-lane cross section, substantially improving capacity.

Only they are not proposing to remove HOV lanes.