Monthly Archives: November 2011

Variable standards

Listen, and I will tell you of one of the secret joys of working with City officials on neighborhood plans, especially transportation plans.

I love hearing the city side telling us “we’d love to do that, but unfortunately, the [insert name of document/policy here] prevents us”. Of course, the same city promptly turns around and does just what you asked, but somewhere else. Community activists learn to like sharing, since our best ideas (eg Bronson road diet) get implemented somewhere else (hello, Scott Street road diet).

Here’s an interesting example. Somerset is being reconstructed to two travel lanes, with two protected parking bays (ie, available 24/7, 52 weeks a year). At the start of each protected parking zone, we want a bulb out. This shortens the crossing distance for pedestrians, and ensures we get to keep the hard fought-for on-street parking.

Except, at some intersections the planners say we cannot have a bulb out, because the if there is a right turn lane before the intersection, that has a bus stop in it * , it is illegal for the bus to merge into traffic whilst it traverses the intersection. Instead there has to be a  receiving lane or merge lane at the far side of the intersection. **

Here’s an example from Somerset Street. The No 2 bus, east bound, has a stop in the turn lane for traffic turning south onto Bayswater Avenue. As it leaves the stop, it enters the receiving lane on the far side of the intersection. Said receiving lane is wider than a parking lane, is rather short, and is divided from the main traffic lane by a solid white line [which in my naivety thought meant one shouldn't cross it].

Now, cross the street, and look at the No 2 bus westbound. It too has a stop in the right turn lane for traffic turning north onto Bayswater/Bayview. From that stop, the bus has to merge into traffic using the … hey, wait a minute, there’s no receiving lane on the far side of the intersection ! There’s a bulb out instead.

looking west, from the bus stop in the turn lane before the intersection

and

looking back at the intersection from the far side...

What am I missing that these two circumstances are so different that different sets of traffic engineering rules apply to each side of the street?

If I get an answer, I’ll post it here.

_____________________

*bus stops are located in turn lanes so as to minimize the amount of curb side space taken up by traffic movements and to maximize the available parking space. In both pic above you can see the effect of a travel lane width compared to a parking lane width to the east of the intersection.

**I don’t think much of the receiving lane rule. I don’t see why merging in an intersection is a problem for buses although we might not want to make a habit of it for motorists, who shouldn’t have been merging anyway since they were in a right turn lane. Indeed, the receiving lane facilitates cars queued up at the intersection behind a left turning car, utilizing the right turn lane as a sort of passing on the right lane. And there are alternatives: for this intersection we suggested an advanced green for buses, like the City has at Richmond/Golden. Alas, I don’t recall that we ever got an answer. Here’s a pic of the Richmond/Golden intersection:

 

when leaving the bus stop located in the right turn lane, buses get an advanced green to merge in the intersection

 

 

Parks Planning (ii)

Chaudiere Park is a well-used large-ish pocket park on Elm Street, between Rochester and Preston. It’s about 140′ along the street, and about 100′ deep. The park is dominated by a very large, very deep wading pool that delivers a freeze-your-bones-it’s-so-cold experience to kiddies for six weeks every summer. There is a large sandbox on the east; a basketball court on the west. The general impression is a sea of pavement.

Existing park with its "Haarlem style" scenic fencing

and

A neighborhood with few parks but lots of on-street parking: should we keep it that way? Just what is the best use for public space?

Chaudiere Park on Elm is a newish location for the former Chaudiere Park on LeBreton Flats, which was relocated to Elm after the “slum clearance” expropriation in the 1960′s. As such, it deserves a proper park sign with a “since 18xx” date on it. Heritage is not the exclusive preserve of the more affluent neighborhoods.

Planners propose installing a much smaller wading pool, and a slightly smaller basketball court with a rubber surface. Here is their first go at a new layout:

Chaudiere Park viewed from the south. Elm runs west>east across the top (north side) of the park

The rubber bball court might mitigate the sound of bouncing balls, which can be annoying to (very close by) neighbours. The existing play structure isn’t bad, but used to be much much larger, but play structures in Ottawa shrink at the same rate as cotton underwear in a too-hot dryer.

Natch, the planners propose a mechanical shade structure in the centre, shown as “sails” in the plan. This might, or might not, work well. But why does the City insist on planting toy trees that will never grow large, and favoring expensive-to-install and even more expensive-to-maintain structures instead? Guys, plant a giant chestnut or oak and in 20 years we won’t need the steel and plastic fake tree, or its successor, or its successor, or its …

I once attended the City’s “parks planning” session (reported here:  http://westsideaction.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/parks-and-parking/ ) which was more frustrating than educational. I had bad vibrations come over me at the public meeting last week as the planners started trotting out the old shibboleths.

For example, this park is small. Why not move the fence out flush with the sidewalk, so that about 6-8′ x 140′ more space could be incorporated into the park (about an 8% enlargement). Oh no, say the planners, that’s city road allowance, not city parkland. It is needed to dump snow on. We only plan people spaces on “official park land”.

At other times in the meeting, planners were asked about getting new parks. Nope. Too expensive. Can’t compete with Claridge and their 28 million storey condo towers. But what is wrong with landscaping the dead street allowances? There is one at the top of Primrose staircase that is quite large, has nice views, and is well used? Nope, it’s a street allowance and must stay that way. What about dead ends (like the west stub end of Primrose) or the turning circles of Walnut or Rochester? Nope, those are streets, we can’t encourage kids to play on the street. Someone might sue us. (the original neighborhood plans had both turning circles identified as semi-park space for kids on bikes, etc but the cars took over both spaces so thoroughly we cannot imagine anymore that we could reclaim this public space for our kids. Steel wins over flesh every time in Ottawa).

And in front of Chaudiere Park, why not push out the sidewalk onto a bulb out, and convert those parking spaces into the park? Heavens, shock from public attendees, where would the Bluesfest parkers park? We can’t take away any of their parking spaces! (I hear this argument all the time against anything proposed for the neighborhood: build a condo? No! Bluesfest people need parking. Build a wider sidewalk? No! where will the Bluesfest people find parking? Honestly, Dalhousie residents are so damn polite and considerate for Bluesfest parkers I’m surprised they didn’t suggest paving over parts of both parks for Bluesfest parking [oops, shouldn't have suggested that ...].

Here’s an example of what Centretowner’s used to do to improve their streets: 

landscaped bulb out shelter the sidewalk and apt building. Alas, we have lost the will to build these to protect a park or visually expand it.

Alas, I don’t see much of the imaginative thinking that got us the wonerf on Cambridge Street or the street closures of the 1980′s and 90′s. Instead, we are back to catering to car movement and car storage as the primary claimant on public space. We don’t seem to have the drive anymore to want to experiment with multi-use borderless streets, or to displace a few parking spaces for parks. Instead, we moan that we lack the $2 million dollars to compete with Claridge or Starwood to buy land on the market. Or pray for the replacement of the nasty Conservative government with someone more “progressive” who will shower us with buckets of money for parks and museums and transit. Who says cargo cults are extinct? And heavens help anyone who suggests building over the OTrain or LRT cuts to provide parkland above … definitely too expensive [for this neighborhood; I fully expect to see just that in McKellar Park].

In sum, Chaudiere Park is on its way to a decent rebuild. It is fortunate in having an articulate and energetic lobby group of neighbours and parents who will fight for what they want. Provided they stay within the official parks silo that planners inhabit. Imaginative solutions are reserved for expensive conferences, and are not to be implemented at the neighborhood level.

___________________

thanks to readeer Richard Thomas for the park diagram.

 
 

Park planning (i)

Last week, the City and Councilor held a public meeting regarding the upcoming renewal / rebuilding of Primrose and Chaudiere Parks (Chaudiere is on Elm Street, is an oversized pocket park). Today: Primrose Park.

view from the west slope, looking east, trees with their toboggan pads on, drainage pond to the left, daycare > rotary home > sheltered residence to the east, world's tiniest playstructure (tm) just visible on the far right

A number of residents had heard the project was coming, and had already submitted some comments to get the hired planners’ juices going. Unfortunately, some people at the meeting thought this meant that the “fix” was in. A great deal of the divide was between the proponents of the “dog park” and the “kid park”.

Primrose Park is a popular dog park. Has been for years. Many years. After so many dog parkers spoke up, I spoke up at the meeting to point out that when my kids were young, I gave up going to the Primrose dog park because there were so many dogs, they dominated the park and rendered it unpleasant for me and my family. Some people agreed, others were vocal in the contrary position.

The Primrose Park (corner of Primrose and Rochester) is quite large, and unusual in design for the City. I recall the original planner, (Hough??) outlining why it was to be so hilly, with concealed areas around the perimeter for kids to hide in, and play privately, on their own, without formal play tools delivered by the city.

And the unique water catchment area on the north side, which collected rain runoff from adjacent townhouses and the park itself, into large paved “play basins”. Yup, back then we believed rain water would be clean enough to play in. Alas, it was delivered to the ponds full of cat and dog shit. The ponds have largely been derelict ever since.

no water to float your raft in at this storage pond

what will archeologist's think of this drainage swale?

The perimeter areas were to be unmowed, allowed to grow wild, on the giant hillocks made of the contaminated soil removed from the City Living site to the north. Alas, the “private areas” were contentious then, and still are.

Some of what the planners said struck me as just plain silly. The park has a thriving bunch of trees at the SE corner, throwing dappled shade on the entrance courtyard and kiddy play pit. This, to planners, is “dank” and threatening. Instead, they suggested closing off this entrance (to what new purpose was never made clear) and moving the tot lot to the sunny spot in the centre of the park. They then proposed a hundred foot long shade structure made of steel posts holding up a all-weather steel canopy capable of holding up winter snow loads. Duh, the audience pointed out, the current spot has dappled shade, why not figure out how expand it rather than moving it?

Now one good reason to move it was to locate the play structure (and people want a much much bigger one) beside the spray pad. Except, the dog owners felt kids should get off their ass and hike three blocks south to the Plant Pool spray pad instead. Did every park really need kid attractions?

The planners propose to leave about 40% of the park to the dogs. Being a pet owner (sorry, companion animal guardian) myself, and well aware of the neighborhood security aspects of dogs walking their owners every morning early, and afternoon, and evening, in all weathers, I fully appreciate their health benefits (to the humans) who otherwise may never manifest their bipedal nature.

The planners propose two dog areas, both off-leash. One on the north (top, in the drawing) side of the park, on a hillock and using the converted drainage pond filled-in with gravel as a dog run ideal for rainy or spring weather; and the other on the hillock to the west (left) side of the park. Not enough, grumbled some in the crowd, let the kids play on the far perimeter of the park where they do now. And keep the dogs away from the Ottawa Community Housing yards because those people will poison the dogs or throw garbage over their fences into the dog run (seriously, it was said thus!).

Back in the early 80′s when Primrose Park was being designed, several of the steeper hills were obviously attractive as toboggan slopes. Alas, the planners back then sounded like a broken vinyl record, replying in frustrated monotone: the park is closed in the winter (because the city doesn’t plow the paths) therefore no one can get to the slopes, and they will not be used for sliding, which the city does not approve of, and therefore we will plant trees and benches and garbage cans and large decorative rocks at the base of every hill because it is important for you to realize there is no sliding, because the park is closed in the winter, as evidenced by the unplowed paths… 

My, how things have changed. Today, the planners say we know you are going to slide there, because everyone at the meeting said so, but it is not an approved activity, so just don’t tell us about it, and OK we will relocate that bench… (in the plan, above, they fenced off the west hill to be part of the dog run, I guess that fence is now gone before it got there).

The planners seemed genuinely puzzled by people saying they liked the park, they liked the existing front stairs off Primrose [no ramp!], they liked the paths diagonally through the park, they liked the big trees, and please give us more trees that will grow big.
Instead, the planners want to give us a regrading of the site (hundreds of thousands of dollars) and remove stairs (not frost heaved or broken in any way) and give us new pavers (as if the old ones had worn out in 30 years of use — they just gained a patina, that’s all). New, for the sake of new, did not sell well to any in the crowd.

People wanted improvements we could use, not something that just looked new. Thumbs up to the spray pad, to dog play zones, and paths suitable for kids on bikes. And thumbs down on the picnic bench on the northwest edge, which was frequently identified as the drug dealing den of iniquity. Alas, removing that bench won’t end drug dealing and drug demand, it will just move it along. To someone’s driveway or side yard.

There was also miscommunication on the idea of entertainment in the park. At the mere suggestion of a stage, some residents bristled that we don’t need another noisefest-Bluesfest venue. I suspect the planners were picturing a more modest stage, suitable for intimate shows like the successful Company of Fools presentation of Tony and Cleo during the summer. The subject got dropped quickly. Too quickly; a little stage might be useful and fun.

The tentative plan, shown in the accompanying illustration, doesn’t really address the Primrose street frontage, the SE entrance corner, or the NW den of iniquity. But was a good first talking point, and the community conversation was good to have.

Tomorrow: Chaudiere (Elm) Park.

_________________

Earlier post: www.westsideaction.wordpress.com/2011/08.07/waterparks-in-the-city

Thanks to Richard Thomas for the pic of the plan

Bronson pleas fall on deaf ears

 

 

woman enjoying the pedestrian environment along Bronson today. Will tomorrow bring anything better?

 

The City held its only public meeting on the reconstruction and widening of Bronson Avenue last night. Over 200 citizens attended. Only 130 chairs had been set out.

The crowd was not hostile, but was suspicious of the City and harshly critical. City staff have intimated that they agree the street should not have been widened back in the 60′s, but now we are stuck with it. That doesn’t explain why they insist it needs to be widened another 2′.

The City had the usual poster display with glamorous statements about putting pedestrians first. The cognitive dissonance between the professed objectives and the reality on the street and the current plans only served to annoy attendees. The meeting opened with a Powerpoint presentation projected on a wavy curtain. It was like trying to read text on the bottom of a rippling pond.

None of the presenters came across with any personality. They droned on reading the text waving on the wall while the audience fidgeted. Mutters of “stop condescending”, “bafflegab”, “unreal!” could be heard through the crowd all evening.

The City had supplied a moderator to separate the engineers from the crowd. A good attempt, but not well executed. She talked too much. The City also supplied a handsome gent to stand conspicuously near the front to “take notes” of expressed concerns.

Once the mike was opened, a long line of residents expressed annoyance and frustration with the planning process and the City’s result.

Q:How could the City come up with selected course of action that went against the public wish, the PAC, the Councillor, the landlords, the business owners, the residents, the school councils, and the cyclists? A: the City plan is in the public interest, because we say so.

Q: what about school children trying to get to school, or the park, what about the number of residents who, by raising their hands, said they had had too “close calls” using the crosswalks? A: wider car lanes are the in the public interest.

Q: what about the wall of slush and muck dragged along the slipstream from the cars and trucks and buses travelling so fast so close to the sidewalk? A: the wider lane etc etc.

Q: What about the loss of the few mature trees along the street, just so cars can go faster…  A: we will plant new mini-trees on the residential side streets.

Q: What about contentious issues like the Somerset, Gladstone and Arlington intersections? A: after approving the plan, we will look at those intersections again to see if something can be done, maybe.

Q: the sidewalks are too narrow now. A: the new sidewalk will be a “minimum” of 2m wide “where possible”. (Sorry, no details as to where it will be substandard). Oh yes, that new 2m sidewalk will have utility poles, traffic signs, lampposts, etc all in that 2m width, and oh yeah, the new posts will be mounted further into the sidewalk that currently, “to promote safety” [for cars]. And the new sidewalk will sandwich people between the curb and the walls of the buildings, because “the houses are too close to the street”.

Q: how well does this plan fulfill the lofty statements and visions of those experts the City flies in to provide seminars at City hall, on “livable cities” etc? Do any of them recommend wider roads? A: mumble mumble mumble.

And so on it went. The City came across as dull and boring and having stone ears. Their protests that wider lanes won’t result in traffic going faster were risible if they weren’t so pathetic.

Sometime during the meeting, I heard a loud thump elsewhere in the building. I think it was some engineer’s framed certificate of professional conduct leaping off the wall in despair.

Mayor Watson’s email is Jim.watson@ottawa.ca.

 

Avenue of Lights

Work crews are rushing to finish up the Somerset Street reconstruction projects.

The section west of Preston, to Bayswater, has its final coat of pavement, the sidewalks are down, and the work crews are putting up the light fixtures:

In the above picture, the concrete base for the fixture has been erroneously installed too low. Instead of being 4″ above the finished sidewalk, in which case the concrete protects the base of the light fixture from being dinged by the sidewalk plows, a few of these were installed flush with the sidewalk. Here’s the row of lights installed (on their raised base):

The astute west sider will notice that these are a new light fixture design. It all comes down to jurisdiction. The O-train line is the ward boundary. West of it, is Kitchissippi Ward, and the Wellington BIA, with its black lamp posts à la Narnia. East of the rail line, but starting a short block over, is the turf of the Preston BIA, which has their own light fixtures, silver with curls. And starting east of Preston is Chinatown BIA, with their new red light fixtures, that transition two blocks further east into the yet-again different  30 year old light fixtures in Chinatown (except at the Arch, which has the new light fixtures).

So, for the bridge, the “solution” was to have a totally different light fixture from all the others. Riders on the No 2 bus can play spot the jurisdiction by reading the light post clues. The bridge also has eight fancy paperclip-styled wooden benches at the summit, for watching the O-train. In case of litter, there’s nifty new ultra-mod garbage cans and bollards.

In the pic below note the small section of sidewalk inlaid with brick. This is temporary, just for the winter. In the spring, a series of sixteen foot long planters will be placed on the bridge, each with two trees and ground covers. At that time, the bricks will be removed and irrigation pipes brought up into the planters from underneath. Somerset viaduct will go from bleak to cool.

Meanwhile, Somerset east of Preston will be first-coat paved and brick sidewalks will be laid (provided the weather holds up) by 5 December, all the way up to Rochester. The area from Rochester to Booth will, if lucky, get one coat of pavement and temporary asphalt sidewalks. As shown in the picture, if you squint, you can see Mayor Watson inspecting the street and handing out $300,000 cheques to the Chinatown BIA and the Preston BIA to make up for the inconvenience. Oops, sorry, that was a miscopy from the Bank Street photo-op. This place aint the Glebe.