[Dado]

:previous:

From that memo:

Conclusions

Roche-NCE agree with the conclusions derived in the King Edward Avenue Renewal Planning and Environmental Study Report and previous OMB decisions. While this option's ability of avoiding a new crossing is appealing, the transportation supply provided by this link is insufficient to address the future demand across the Ottawa River screenline. As such, we recommend this alternative be removed from further consideration.

In addition, although a central trucking link may be attractive to reduce effects in the downtown core (one advantage of a downtown tunnel) it continues to rely on all trucking to be funnelled downtown rather than
distributing this traffic to different crossings locations. Having more truck crossings available supports economic objectives.

It's important to understand the grounds on which a tunnel was rejected... it was rejected because it wouldn't provide much in the way of additional "transportation supply" across the river.

The irony of the study process was that the public thought it was about dealing with truck traffic downtown but it turned out to be about meeting future demand/growth. Truck traffic would remain about the same downtown (and if you look at maps of Hull and Ottawa it's not hard to see why - downtown Ottawa is right on the route between the industrial areas of Hull west of the Gatineau River and that Alta Vista/St. Laurent/Industrial areas of Ottawa).

At any rate, this memo only makes a case against favouring a tunnel instead of a new bridge; it says nothing about building a tunnel to deal with current and anticipated future truck volumes in downtown Ottawa, even with a new bridge. It comes down to which problem we want to deal with first - current problems or anticipated future problems.

[Ottawan]

Two points:

1) I really like Kitchissipi's plan - just because the Vanier Parkway connection was planned in the 1960s doesn't mean its the wrong thing. The King Edward connection is what actually happened, and it has a proven record of having failed. I quite like the concept of the elevated park, and especially of decoupling King Edward completely from MacDonald Cartier.

2) The above option or the tunnel option would NOT replace additional bridges. They MAY replace the truck traffic aspect of other bridge projects, which in turn may affect the design required for roads leading up to bridges. That being said, our bridges are all over capacity currently ignoring future demand, largely based on car traffic. Interprovincial trips will and should increase: we are one economic region and should think like one. It is environmentally friendlier to have more bridges (leading to shorter routes from less doubling back). There is a very current and urgent need for TWO bridges, one East and one West. Obviously considering the way the study has gone, there will be only one and it will be in the east, but as soon as this project is underway we need to reconsider the West end. What we need to realize is that this is about better connections between the two cities, and the integration of the region

The ideal west bridge in fact would also deal with truck traffic quite well - it would connect to the 416 on the Ottawa side, where the traffic would enter a tunnel. The tunnel would proceed under the neighbourhood and park (no expropriations, no NIMBY Andrew Haydon is ruined or traffic on neighbourhood streets complaints). On the Quebec side it would take the Boulevard Deschaines corridor, which would be extended further north to connect to Boulevard Des Allumettieres. Therefore the route would be from one highway system to another - very high capacity in easing traffic on the other bridges and providing a much needed cross-river connection from one of the fastest growing part of the region, Aylmer.

[Acajack]

I don't believe people in this area are particularly organized at the community level.

This refers to people along Paiement north of Maloney.

People south of Maloney (where the new road from the bridge is to go in) apparently are more organized:
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-droit/actualites/gatineau-outaouais/200911/19/01-923338-etude-pour-le-futur-pont-une-plus-grande-place-aux-citoyens-de-gatineau-demandee.php

Note that this area is newer, more affluent and less transient than the area north of Maloney. Note also that everyone here bought their houses when information about a potential bridge was available.

The bridge in dotted lines and the new road alignment have been on maps for 20 years.

[DubberDom]

Personally, I've always been an advocate of the Tunnel under King Edward, I have no idea why they haven't really considered this one... this is a win-win-win for everybody, The infrastructure is already in place on the Quebec Side and Ontario side, It would reduce inter provincial traffic during peak hours on the already busy 174/417 and it would clean up and add beauty to the King Edward corridor.

http://www.peoplefood.org/CCC/NCC/NCC-Jun18_files/image037.jpg

http://www.peoplefood.org/CCC/NCC/NCC-Jun18_files/image038.jpg

source:
http://www.peoplefood.org/CCC/NCC/NCC-Jun18.htm


They should also extend Nicholas to Riverside through Hurdman at the same time

[blackjagger]

To me this is still the best option. I believe that in the future (10-25 years) another bridge in both the east and west ends will be needed but for the purpose of enabling better transportation and unification of the NRC as the east and west ends on both sides of the river grow, (let us hope it is well planned, dense transit oriented development). Sadly the route as shown above will shortly become more difficult with CP3&4 adding a deep structure right in the path of the route. Forward thinking would enable Ottawa to finally get transport trucks off our downtown streets.

Cheers,
Josh

[Kitchissippi]

The Nicholas interchange would never be able to handle the volume with all the traffic being funnelled down one corridor. A King Edward tunnel would be a huge cost at very small and short-lived advantage. It won't be long until back-ups would stretch from the Queensway to the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge.

[eternallyme]

The Nicholas interchange would never be able to handle the volume with all the traffic being funnelled down one corridor. A King Edward tunnel would be a huge cost at very small and short-lived advantage. It won't be long until back-ups would stretch from the Queensway to the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge.

They would indeed have to completely reconstruct that interchange with large flyover ramps to accomodate the traffic, and that is even before any Alta Vista Corridor is built (that should wait for a Hurdman area master plan). It would require third and fourth level ramps for sure. It is feasible but extremely expensive (surely at least $200 million just for the interchange). The tunnel would also be extremely expensive, but it does help that no new bridge would be needed (the Macdonald-Cartier bridge seems to have the capacity needed).

Also any such tunnel has to be deep enough to go below the LRT tunnel.

[lrt's friend]

When you consider that exits will exist at Sussex, St. Patrick and Waller(with a very sharp ramp), are we not going to create enormous congestion at those ramps for downtown commuters? The St. Patrick ramp will also enable heavy traffic to return onto King Edward from that point south including truck traffic.

I also worry about an enormous price tag at a time when we don't even know whether we can afford to build an LRT tunnel.

Let's face it, an east end bridge is needed to shorten trip lengths between east end Gatineau and east end Ottawa and to redirect truck traffic bound for Montreal and suburban industrial parks away from downtown. We can't avoid it, it is a good investment and once we get our acts together, there will be substantial federal funding on an interprovincial bridge.

[DubberDom]

The cost to rebuilt the Nicholas interchange should be about the same coast as rebuild the Aviation Pkwy/417 interchange, plus you need to factor the additional cost to expand the 417 between the split and Nicholas, and likely having to add a lane on the Hurdman bridge. All of a sudden, you will be adding at least 2000 cars on the Ontario side every rush hour. Also, in order for traffic to flow, the Aviation parkway will need to have interchanges built at Ogilvie, Montreal and Rockcliffe parkway to ensure smooth flow.

The simple extension of Nicholas to Riverside would alleviate so many traffic problems on Nicholas and the Hurdman bridge when the bottle neck currently is.

I agree, there needs to be an east end bridge linking Orleans to Gatineau, but there are so many problems with alignments on both side of the river, especially with the projected traffic flow

[Dado]

An east-end bridge isn't going to solve a lot, and the further east it is built, the less of the current problem it solves.

The truck origin-destination studies show that the biggest origins and destinations on the Quebec side is the industrial area north of Hull and west of the Gatineau River. In Ottawa, the corresponding areas are in Alta Vista and secondarily in the Hunt Club-Merivale-Prince of Wales area. Therefore the biggest demand is still more-or-less through downtown Ottawa. That is why the consultants found that even once the Kettle Island Bridge was built that current truck volumes downtown wouldn't change by much.

The Montreal stuff is largely a fiction. To the extent it's true, it's indirect since the trucks are likely stopping in Ottawa as well.

[waterloowarrior]

Councillors meet with Baird to discuss bridge
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Councillors+meet+with+Baird+discuss+bridge/2698940/story.html

BY NECO COCKBURN , THE OTTAWA CITIZENMARCH 18, 2010 7:02 PMBE THE FIRST TO POST A COMMENT


OTTAWA — A group of east-side councillors and community advocates met with Transport Minister John Baird Thursday afternoon to make a clear point about a new interprovincial bridge: Don't build it at Lower Duck Island or McLaurin Bay.

Orléans Councillor Bob Monette, Innes Councillor Rainer Bloess and Cumberland Councillor Rob Jellett wanted to impress upon the Ottawa West-Nepean MP their opposition to the two possible routes that the National Capital Commission added to a detailed study after a consultant made a preliminary recommendation that a new bridge should cross the Ottawa River at Kettle Island.

Although the NCC-hired consultant recommended Kettle Island, north of the Aviation Parkway, as the best site, the commission’s board chose last winter to expand the number of potential routes it would study to include Lower Duck Island and McLaurin Bay, which are farther east.

The councillors say those routes would carve up the Greenbelt and make traffic problems worse. Nor would these routes stop trucks from rolling through downtown Ottawa on their way to and from the Macdonald-Cartier bridge.

“Study after study after study has shown that Kettle Island is the appropriate place to have an interprovincial bridge,” said Bloess, adding the councillors are also concerned that the bridge study is “out of sync” with an ongoing Greenbelt Master Plan review that’s being conducted by the NCC.

Jellett said a bridge across the Greenbelt would be more expensive and would add to traffic problems in east Ottawa and the Highway 417 and 174 split without solving the “city’s truck routing problem.”

The councillors wanted to tell Baird “why it was important for the community of Orléans that the consultation process is done properly, that the options, especially the Kettle Island option, are looked at properly. We believe it is the ideal crossing for the future bridge location,” said Monette.

Ottawa-Orléans MP Royal Galipeau helped the group get its meeting, and the councillors were joined by representatives of Common Sense Crossings, a community group.

Group member Alexa Brewer said they’re concerned about potential destruction of the Greenbelt and believe a decision on a bridge needs to be made in the context of studies that have not yet been completed as well as a “comprehensive integrated regional transit plan” that doesn’t currently exist.

“It’s time to stop, press pause,” Brewer said.

“We’ve got a lot of different pieces of the plan but no one full plan. We need some data, and I think we need to sit down and look at this in the cold light of day.”

A new interprovincial bridge is likely to face criticism from area residents no matter what location is proposed. People living in Rockcliffe and Manor Park oppose the Kettle Island route.

The NCC’s study of the three bridge options is expected to take until 2013.

[kwoldtimer]

Councillors meet with Baird to discuss bridge
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Councillors+meet+with+Baird+discuss+bridge/2698940/story.html

BY NECO COCKBURN , THE OTTAWA CITIZENMARCH 18, 2010 7:02 PMBE THE FIRST TO POST A COMMENT

...... People living in Rockcliffe and Manor Park oppose the Kettle Island route.

The NCC’s study of the three bridge options is expected to take until 2013.

I am sure that Cockburn meant to say that SOME people living in Manor Park oppose the Kettle Island route. Some have no problem with the idea.

[Ottawan]

The NCC’s study of the three bridge options is expected to take until 2013.

Sorry... the STUDY takes until 2013??? Hasn't it already been going on for 2-3 years? When will another much-needed bridge actually get built? Ever???

[waterloowarrior]

Upcoming Public Consultations on the

Interprovincial Crossings Environmental Assessment Study

Canada's Capital Region — On Tuesday, March 30 and Wednesday, March 31, Public Sessions will be held in Ottawa and Gatineau, respectively, as part of Phase 2A of the Interprovincial Crossings Environmental Assessment (EA) Study. Members of the public will be given an opportunity to provide input on the draft Study Design report (process and methodology) that will be used at Phase 2B, the Study's concluding phase, to identify a recommended bridge crossing in the Region's east end.

The communities of Ottawa and Gatineau are invited to review information boards, consult with Study experts, and provide comment on the draft Study Design report, anytime between 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the following locations:

Ottawa


Tuesday, March 30, 2010

4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.

Ottawa City Hall - Jean Pigott Hall

110 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa, ON

Gatineau


Wednesday, March 31, 2010

4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.

Maison du Citoyen - Agora

25, rue Laurier, Gatineau, QC

The Study is made up of two phases. Phase 1, which was completed in January 2009, looked at a number of corridors throughout the Region. Now at Phase 2, the Study is looking more closely at the three locations which received the highest ratings at Phase 1. The mandate of Phase 2A, the current stage, is to consult with members of the public and stakeholders to develop a Study Design and a Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Scoping Document. The Study Design will include a process and methodology that will be used at Phase 2B to identify a recommended crossing location. No decision on the bridge location will be taken at Phase 2A.

This Study is being led by the funding partnership of the National Capital Commission (NCC), the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and the ministère des Transports du Québec (MTQ). It is being guided by a Study Team consisting of the funding partners and the cities of Ottawa and Gatineau. A consultant team lead by Co-Enterprise AECOM-Delcan has been retained for Phase 2A.

For more information on the Interprovincial Crossings EA Study, please visit the website at www.ncrcrossings.ca.

[DubberDom]

Sorry... the STUDY takes until 2013??? Hasn't it already been going on for 2-3 years? When will another much-needed bridge actually get built? Ever???

I'm with you on this one... looks like environmental and engineering firms are raking in the dough on all these assessments... as usual...

[cityguy]

Everything takes forever in Canada,it will take several more years and all we'll end up with is a non-decript bridge.

[harls]

At the rate the river is descending this year, maybe it will be dry enough to drive across. Who needs a bridge? :laugh:

[bradnixon]

One of the candidates running in Orleans has come out in favour of the King Edward Tunnel option.

I think his argument makes a lot of sense.

http://www.fredsherwin.ca/pages/interprovincial.htm

[blackjagger]

One of the candidates running in Orleans has come out in favour of the King Edward Tunnel option.

I think his argument makes a lot of sense.

http://www.fredsherwin.ca/pages/interprovincial.htm

If only. Instead we will contiune to have 18 wheelers rubbling down our city streets.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

I like that Fred Sherwin guy. While I wouldn't mind seeing another interprovincial bridge and I still think that Manor Park residents need to shut up with their silly claims, a tunnel under King Edward could work.

[Dado]

One of the candidates running in Orleans has come out in favour of the King Edward Tunnel option.

I think his argument makes a lot of sense.

http://www.fredsherwin.ca/pages/interprovincial.htm

Wow.

I can't recall the last time I read anything from a single candidate that made so much sense. He touched on a whole slew of aspects related to a crossing and all of it made sense. And more than a paragraph - an entire page worth of sense. That's rare.

Even better, he is running against Monette, whose replacement would be a definite improvement.

[lrt's friend]

Come on! I am tired of candidates who are pandering to local issues instead of building a city.

This is not a single issue topic. We have a downtown issue and we have a growing city that needs transportation infrastructure. The city has grown greatly to the east since the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge was opened in the 1960s.

We are not going to come up with one solution to solve all problems. It frustrates me that we are facing paralysis thinking that we can come up with one golden solution. It is simply not going to happen. In the meantime, we go around and around in circles and effectively decide that we are not going to do anything and therefore nothing is solved.

When I see estimates of $150M for a downtown expressway tunnel, I have to fall on the floor screaming in laughter. Have we not just gone through a study for a rail tunnel suggesting a cost of $600M or $700M and that has not gone to tender yet? Let's be realistic.

On the east end bridge, I think it is pathetic that there is no bridge crossing the Ottawa River between downtown Ottawa and Hawkesbury. The only reason why that is the case is because of jurisdiction issues. If the Ottawa River was entirely in Ontario or Quebec, a bridge would have been built long ago. When I hosted a bus tour a month ago, it was ridiculous that I had to backtrack from far east end Ottawa to downtown to travel east on the Quebec side. The time and gas and pollution that could have been saved when you multiply that by thousands.

You know, it is the 21st century, it is time to start doing something. As far as Manor Park residents are concerned, you will be privileged to have a decorative bridge within eyesight of your residences. Is this all bad? As far as traffic is concerned, you live centrally in a city of over 1,000,000 people. That is the price to pay and when you consider that trips for many will be shorter, doesn't that help us all in the long-run? In any event, it is not as if we are funnelling all the traffic through the centre of Manor Park.

Our politicians have a responsibility to develop an efficient transportation network, and that includes both roads and transit. It is time for them to start doing their jobs.

[citizen j]

Wow.

I can't recall the last time I read anything from a single candidate that made so much sense. He touched on a whole slew of aspects related to a crossing and all of it made sense. And more than a paragraph - an entire page worth of sense. That's rare.

Even better, he is running against Monette, whose replacement would be a definite improvement.

Hmm, perhaps. But Sherwin, who appears to be gunning for the "Gord Hunter" role on council, makes dear old Gord look like a Kennedy by contrast.

[Dado]

Come on! I am tired of candidates who are pandering to local issues instead of building a city.

He seems less pandering to local issues than is the norm.

Besides, what is the city's interest here, anyway? The likely result of a new bridge is sprawl on the Quebec side and more traffic on the Ottawa side.


This is not a single issue topic. We have a downtown issue and we have a growing city that needs transportation infrastructure. The city has grown greatly to the east since the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge was opened in the 1960s.

The downtown issue is not going to be solved by a new bridge east of downtown. The report is crystal clear on this. They expect downtown truck traffic to be as heavy in 20 years as it is today. The new bridge is to serve growth, not existing traffic on King Edward. They rejected a tunnel not because it was costly or because it wouldn't deal with the problems on King Edward, but because it wouldn't accommodate growth.

There are two distinct issues here but nonetheless related: (1) existing problems on King Edward and serving the traffic across the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge and (2) dealing with recent and projected growth in the east end of the region.

As I have pointed out countless times in this thread, the study the NCC carried out made it seem like they were going to address the downtown issue, (1), but in fact they sought to solve the growth issue, (2). But, given that they weren't going to try to solve (1), they still had to come up with a solution for (2) that drew off as much traffic (or, rather, growth in traffic) as possible from King Edward and they did that by proposing a bridge at Kettle Island.

However, if a tunnel was built under King Edward, issue (1) would be solved and the effect on the location decision for (2) might well change. Or it might not. On top of that, the selection of the location hasn't been optimized for transit potential, either, and definitely not with the LRT project in mind. It might be the best location for transit, or it might not, but we don't know because the primary focus of the study was serving growth in car and truck traffic, not integration of transit.


We are not going to come up with one solution to solve all problems. It frustrates me that we are facing paralysis thinking that we can come up with one golden solution. It is simply not going to happen. In the meantime, we go around and around in circles and effectively decide that we are not going to do anything and therefore nothing is solved.

An extra bridge is more of a solution in search of a problem; if anything it'll create the problem it seeks to solve. Moreover, any attempt to force trucks to use the new bridge rather than King Edward will be met by more opposition in whatever community the bridgehead is located as well as opposition from the trucking companies themselves.


When I see estimates of $150M for a downtown expressway tunnel, I have to fall on the floor screaming in laughter. Have we not just gone through a study for a rail tunnel suggesting a cost of $600M or $700M and that has not gone to tender yet? Let's be realistic.

Well he can only really quote estimates that have already been published, and he did give the date of when that estimate was released (2002). $150M is certainly on the low side now, but he only goes so far as to say that it's "roughly half" of the cost of a bridge, which is elsewhere stated as $400-500M. At any rate, a shallow cut & cover road tunnel ought to be considerably less expensive than a deep transit tunnel with the complications of stations. A two-lane tunnel would probably do the job since it need only provide capacity for through traffic, not downtown-destined traffic. A single free-flow lane can move about 2000 vehicles per hour, as against 800 or less for a lane on an arterial road with at-grade intersections.

[Mille Sabords]

However, if a tunnel was built under King Edward, issue (1) would be solved and the effect on the location decision for (2) might well change. Or it might not. On top of that, the selection of the location hasn't been optimized for transit potential, either, and definitely not with the LRT project in mind.

An extra bridge is more of a solution in search of a problem; if anything it'll create the problem it seeks to solve. Moreover, any attempt to force trucks to use the new bridge rather than King Edward will be met by more opposition in whatever community the bridgehead is located as well as opposition from the trucking companies themselves.

A tunnel won't be built under King Edward because (1) it won't address the problem of transporting dangerous materials across the river, since those are forbidden from using a tunnel, and (2) it's much costlier than building a bridge.

The Aviation Parkway is surrounded by acres of vegetation that buffers everyone around the corridor from trucks. I was on the Aviation Pkwy this weekend and saw, once again, first hand, how buffered this corridor is. Whining about this corridor from neighbouring residents is a pure and simple selfish tantrum.

[kwoldtimer]

........

The Aviation Parkway is surrounded by acres of vegetation that buffers everyone around the corridor from trucks. I was on the Aviation Pkwy this weekend and saw, once again, first hand, how buffered this corridor is. Whining about this corridor from neighbouring residents is a pure and simple selfish tantrum.

Although it is never stated, I have always assumed that Manor Park opposition is less about the bridge and Aviation Parkway and really about the potential traffic impact on Beechwood.

[Aylmer]

Honestly, we'll have flying trucks before a bridge or a tunnel ever gets built.

:)

[YOWetal]

A tunnel won't be built under King Edward because (1) it won't address the problem of transporting dangerous materials across the river, since those are forbidden from using a tunnel, and (2) it's much costlier than building a bridge.

The Aviation Parkway is surrounded by acres of vegetation that buffers everyone around the corridor from trucks. I was on the Aviation Pkwy this weekend and saw, once again, first hand, how buffered this corridor is. Whining about this corridor from neighbouring residents is a pure and simple selfish tantrum.

A tunnel from Nicholas to the bridge would still allow trucks with explosives, poisonous gas to use surface streets to get to the bridge. This would still eliminate the vast majority of trucks (much more than another bridge would) and would eliminate the congestion caused by Gatineau commuters at every intersection with King Edward. Of course a tunnel wouldn't do much for their commute, as Highway 50 would still be backed up (as it is from every direction).

There is no reason Ottawa should pay for any part of a bridge which encourages more sprawl and exodus to Gatineau, that only costs the city money and routes traffic through a quiet area. I dispute that acres of vegetation buffer the noise. Try getting out of your car and you will hear the cars roaring by from houses all along the Parkway.

[Ottawan]

Although it is never stated, I have always assumed that Manor Park opposition is less about the bridge and Aviation Parkway and really about the potential traffic impact on Beechwood.

It may not be publicly stated, but I have a good friend who lives in Manor Park that I've been arguing with about his participation in opposition to the bridge, and the traffic impact to Hemlock and Beechwood is exactly his primary concern.

[kwoldtimer]

It may not be publicly stated, but I have a good friend who lives in Manor Park that I've been arguing with about his participation in opposition to the bridge, and the traffic impact to Hemlock and Beechwood is exactly his primary concern.

Bingo! Assuming Hemlock would be the first off-ramp, Hemlock and Beechwood would need to become four traffic lanes to St Patrick.

[Dado]

A tunnel won't be built under King Edward because (1) it won't address the problem of transporting dangerous materials across the river, since those are forbidden from using a tunnel,

Hogwash.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/22/43/1882046.pdf

3.20 Canada

Of the ten provinces and two territories of Canada, three provinces have road tunnels.

Province of Ontario

Dangerous goods in road transport are defined by the Federal Transportation Regulations which have been adopted at the provincial level. The Federal Regulations are based largely upon the UN Orange book.

In general, there are no restrictions on the transport of dangerous goods through tunnels, except for the private Windsor/Detroit tunnel between Canada and the United States, where dangerous goods are totally banned.


If you want to bore yourself, you can read through the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and try to find anything banning the transport of dangerous goods by truck in tunnels:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/T-19.01/index.html

And even if it was true, we have a rail bridge at our disposal for dangerous goods transport.


and (2) it's much costlier than building a bridge.

We don't know that, one way or the other.


The Aviation Parkway is surrounded by acres of vegetation that buffers everyone around the corridor from trucks. I was on the Aviation Pkwy this weekend and saw, once again, first hand, how buffered this corridor is. Whining about this corridor from neighbouring residents is a pure and simple selfish tantrum.

True, but that fact doesn't mean that the corridor is the best choice, either.

I'm agnostic on where an east-end bridge should go because until a study is carried out to address the downtown problem and solutions recommended to solve that problem, any study on adding additional bridge capacity to the east is inherently flawed. A study could do both, but a study like the one we had on adding capacity without regard to fixing the King Edward problem is nearly pointless.

But that's what we do in Ottawa: study the wrong thing. A light rail system was proposed that failed to solve the downtown bus jam problem, and now we're years behind where we should be if the study and the subsequent project had addressed the actual issue. And now we have a crossings study that studied for future growth rather than addressing long standing issues.

[lrt's friend]

Besides, what is the city's interest here, anyway? The likely result of a new bridge is sprawl on the Quebec side and more traffic on the Ottawa side.

At some point we have to start thinking of this city as one metropolitan area and quit wedging the issue by the 'Quebec side' and 'Ottawa side' and who is better off and worse off. As I pointed out, it is ridiculous that there is no bridge between downtown Ottawa and Hawkesbury and the population in east end Ottawa and eastern Gatineau is already enough to justify a bridge. It is crazy to funnel all the traffic into downtown to cross the river. Ottawa isn't a small town anymore.

Well he can only really quote estimates that have already been published, and he did give the date of when that estimate was released (2002). $150M is certainly on the low side now, but he only goes so far as to say that it's "roughly half" of the cost of a bridge, which is elsewhere stated as $400-500M. At any rate, a shallow cut & cover road tunnel ought to be considerably less expensive than a deep transit tunnel with the complications of stations. A two-lane tunnel would probably do the job since it need only provide capacity for through traffic, not downtown-destined traffic. A single free-flow lane can move about 2000 vehicles per hour, as against 800 or less for a lane on an arterial road with at-grade intersections.

If we are going to expense of building a tunnel, why would we ever consider a two lane tunnel. This seems awfully shortsighted. Also, are we really in a position to consider a shallow cut and cover tunnel to link King Edward with the Nicholas interchange? It seems to me that we have to go cross block somewhere which means going under building foundations. Sound familiar?

Although it is never stated, I have always assumed that Manor Park opposition is less about the bridge and Aviation Parkway and really about the potential traffic impact on Beechwood.

They simply don't want anything near them. Besides, why would traffic use narrow Beechwood with numerous traffic signals when the Rockcliffe Parkway has no traffic signals at all? If use of Beechwood is so objectionable, just don't provide an exit onto Hemlock.

[kwoldtimer]

They simply don't want anything near them. Besides, why would traffic use narrow Beechwood with numerous traffic signals when the Rockcliffe Parkway has no traffic signals at all? If use of Beechwood is so objectionable, just don't provide an exit onto Hemlock.

An exit onto Rockcliffe Parkway westbound would not be possible, in my view, as conditions over the hill through Rockcliffe wouldn't permit the addtional traffic. No exits before Montreal Rd might be an option, but would probably generate other problems for westbound traffic. Exiting westbound onto Hemlock (suitably widened, hence the Manor Park concern) makes the most sense to me. For the record, I own a home two blocks north of Hemlock in sight of the Aviation Parkway. If they put a bridge there, it wouldn't bother me at all. (I used to live one block west of King Edward in Lowertown and never noticed the traffic at all). Whether any new bridge at all makes sense is a debate I will leave to others.

[lrt's friend]

There is no reason Ottawa should pay for any part of a bridge which encourages more sprawl and exodus to Gatineau, that only costs the city money and routes traffic through a quiet area. I dispute that acres of vegetation buffer the noise. Try getting out of your car and you will hear the cars roaring by from houses all along the Parkway.

Ummm, will there not be federal financial support for this project? Why would there be a mass exodus to Gatineau? Quebec language laws have and will limit such an exodus.

On the the noise issue, I weep and weep and weep. I think there are few people in this city priviledged to live next to a busy street or truck route without a significant buffer zone. I am one of them. Plant more trees and/or build noise barriers. It is a fact of life from living in a central location of a growing city, traffic will increase. At the moment, Manor Park is living in a bit of a fantasy land since the Rockcliffe base closed. The time will come when the base will be redeveloped and that could present more traffic woes than a bridge will. In any event, Manor Park will always have a privileged location with the buffer offered by Beechwood Cemetery and the Rockcliffe Parkway and surrounding parkland.

[waterloowarrior]

City eyes diverting trucks from downtown
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ottawa/City+eyes+diverting+trucks+from+downtown/3104393/story.html
Study, if approved would look at impacts of change

BY NECO COCKBURN , THE OTTAWA CITIZEN JUNE 2, 2010 10:02 PM

Council’s transportation committee has approved a motion calling for a study into the potential diversion of trucks away from the King Edward Avenue corridor, as the National Capital Commission continues to examine possible new interprovincial crossings.

For years, governments have planned a new bridge in east Ottawa with the aim of giving interprovincial truck traffic a better route across the Ottawa River than one that sees them rumble through downtown streets.

The city is under pressure both from east-side residents to keep trucks out of their backyards, and from downtown residents who want to make sure that when a new crossing is built, truck drivers will have to change their routes.

The NCC on Wednesday provided the committee with an update on its long consultation process for determining the best place for the new crossing. An NCC-hired consultant has recommended Kettle Island, north of the Aviation Parkway, but the commission’s board chose last winter to expand the number of potential routes it would study to include Lower Duck Island and McLaurin Bay, which are farther east.

A final decision is not expected until the latter half of 2013, although the commission expects the three possible locations will be whittled down to one in about 18 months.

But several public delegations, some from a coalition of community groups representing residents on the east side of the city, called on councillors to push the NCC to look into other solutions to downtown truck and traffic problems, saying a new bridge won’t keep trucks out of Lowertown and will only cause similar problems with noise and safety in other communities.

Some called for a downtown tunnel under the King Edward corridor.

The committee approved a proposal to ask officials to study “the diversion of all trucks” from the King Edward, Rideau Street, Waller Street and Nicholas Street corridor.

The study would include an economic analysis of such a truck diversion, a safety analysis on continuing to have trucks passing through downtown, and a determination of how the crossings being studied would provide a “viable alternative” for inter-city heavy trucks so that the trucks could be removed from the King Edward corridor.

The city’s official plan calls for the King Edward corridor’s truck-route designation to be removed when a new crossing is finished.

The committee also approved a motion to have an interprovincial transit study completed before the selection of a new crossing.

NCC representative Fred Gaspar told the committee that although officials haven’t had time to review in detail all of the committee’s recommendations,

“I don’t see any reason why they would present any sort of a problem and we certainly commit ourselves to working towards these objectives.”

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[Dado]

Just so everyone knows what it is I'm constantly on about and what the issue in trying to divert all present and future truck traffic from the downtown corridor as advocated by City Council is, take a look at the following image of estimated 2031 daily commercial traffic (i.e. truck) volumes with the Kettle Island option:

http://sites.google.com/site/ottawadado/files/NCR_Crossings_2031_truck.jpeg

This is an extract at 300% from the following document:
http://www.liaisonsrcn.ca/upfiles/2031DailyCommercialVolume_9050 KettleIsland repdf.pdf

The Kettle Island bridge gets a bit more truck traffic than the Chaudière Bridge, with the MacDonald Cartier Bridge still taking the bulk.

So if you're going to divert all that traffic from King Edward, it has to go somewhere. If most of it goes to the Kettle Island Bridge, it would amount to more than a doubling in what was anticipated by this study. Moreover, a lot will go by way of Chaudière since one of the major destinations in Gatineau is the area north of Hull west of the Gatineau River. Just look at the distance a truck coming from the west end of Ottawa (or the 417/416) would have to travel if they go by way of Kettle Island. For that matter, even from Alta Vista or 417 East/Montreal, the Kettle Island route represents a significant detour to get to north Hull, and it involves what will surely be a congested crossing of the Gatineau River.

We just can't solve this problem with a new bridge. The travel demand pattern is right through the Byward Market, whether we like it or not.

[RTWAP]

When I see estimates of $150M for a downtown expressway tunnel, I have to fall on the floor screaming in laughter. Have we not just gone through a study for a rail tunnel suggesting a cost of $600M or $700M and that has not gone to tender yet? Let's be realistic.

Don't the LRT stations cost something like $100mil each?

And I measure the distance involved as 2.0km, compared to 3.2km for the transit tunnel.

Plus the transit tunnel is a cross-country route going under deep foundations of tall buildings.

And the city already owns the underground rights to King Edward, I assume.

And the transit tunnel has some minor curves and one major curve in it.

The transit tunnel would be passing under the canal. The truck tunnel wouldn't.

I assume all those things have the potential to result in complications and delay.

On the other hand, the rail tunnels would be twinned, while the truck tunnel would probably make the most sense as one larger tunnel with 2-lanes, and shoulders wide enough to allow traffic to squeeze by a stalled truck in both directions (basically, shoulders a bit more than 1/2 a lane wide). I don't know for sure but I suspect the single wider tunnel might be a bit more costly in that one regard.

[lrt's friend]

As I have said, the downtown problem requires a different solution from the east end bridge. The original plan was to connect the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge to the Vanier Parkway. It is time to seriously consider it again. If a tunnel is required to do this, how long would it be, 1 km? We need to divert as much traffic out of downtown, not just truck traffic, therefore a 4 lane divided connection is needed. It seems that a route right across downtown will be more difficult and more expensive. Building a tunnel under King Edward is not enough. Somehow we have to cross over to Nicholas and this is when it gets more complicated and therefore more expensive.

If we want to find optimal solutions, it is time to stop confusing the two issues.

[Acajack]

Don't the LRT stations cost something like $100mil each?

And I measure the distance involved as 2.0km, compared to 3.2km for the transit tunnel.

Plus the transit tunnel is a cross-country route going under deep foundations of tall buildings.

And the city already owns the underground rights to King Edward, I assume.

And the transit tunnel has some minor curves and one major curve in it.

The transit tunnel would be passing under the canal. The truck tunnel wouldn't.

I assume all those things have the potential to result in complications and delay.

On the other hand, the rail tunnels would be twinned, while the truck tunnel would probably make the most sense as one larger tunnel with 2-lanes, and shoulders wide enough to allow traffic to squeeze by a stalled truck in both directions (basically, shoulders a bit more than 1/2 a lane wide). I don't know for sure but I suspect the single wider tunnel might be a bit more costly in that one regard.


How much did the Big Dig cost in Boston?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig

[Acajack]

It may not be publicly stated, but I have a good friend who lives in Manor Park that I've been arguing with about his participation in opposition to the bridge, and the traffic impact to Hemlock and Beechwood is exactly his primary concern.

So if I get this straight, their fear is that Gatineau commuters will use Hemlock and Beechwood and then St. Patrick as a way to get into downtown Ottawa?

I live not too far from Montée Paiement and I don't think most people in the area would use this route to get to downtown Ottawa. Too many lights and St Patrick is already a nightmare at rush hour in both directions as it is. Eliminate the exit at Hemlock as some have suggested and you will even further reduce the chances many people from eastern Gatineau would use a Kettle Island bridge as a way to get downtown Ottawa.

In spite of popular lore, the 50 into downtown Ottawa 9 days out of 10 isn't really as bad as it is made out to be. But ssssh, keep that tidbit to yourselves please. ;)

Where you would get traffic increases from the new bridge will be roads leading from Aviation Parkway to major employment centres in this part of Ottawa. For Gatineau residents, the main employment centres in the area would be the Montfort Hospital, La Cité collégiale, federal goverment and agency offices located along the Vanier Pkwy between Montreal Rd and the 417, also in the Ogilvie and Blair area (CSIS, NRC, etc.), the industrial areas at the 417 and Innes, and the area around St. Laurent Shopping Centre.

People from Gatineau working in the vast area of east end Ottawa all use King Edward to get to work at the moment.

[c_speed3108]

Although it is never stated, I have always assumed that Manor Park opposition is less about the bridge and Aviation Parkway and really about the potential traffic impact on Beechwood.

Living myself Manor Park, I would say personally I have no problem with a bridge at that point if it can be done in way to keep the threw traffic out of the neighbourhood. Removing access ramps to Hemlock would certainly be a good option. There is really little to no issue if the traffic wants to use the Rockcliffe parkway into downtown or stay on Aviation and head up to the Queensway.

At the moment it is already very difficult to cross St Laurent and someone was actually recently killed doing it. Through traffic does not respect speed limits plus the fact that there generally is too much of it.

[Dado]

As I have said, the downtown problem requires a different solution from the east end bridge. The original plan was to connect the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge to the Vanier Parkway. It is time to seriously consider it again. If a tunnel is required to do this, how long would it be, 1 km? We need to divert as much traffic out of downtown, not just truck traffic, therefore a 4 lane divided connection is needed. It seems that a route right across downtown will be more difficult and more expensive. Building a tunnel under King Edward is not enough. Somehow we have to cross over to Nicholas and this is when it gets more complicated and therefore more expensive.

If we want to find optimal solutions, it is time to stop confusing the two issues.

Well we're in agreement on what the issues are then, though not so much on the solutions.

It has to be appreciated though that the confusion is understandable. The City did an EA in the early 2000s on the reconstruction of King Edward. Naturally people wanted the truck problem addressed and King Edward tamed. The City's consultants looked into it briefly, came up with a tunnel and a cost of $150M and concluded the City couldn't afford it, pointing out that this was an interprovincial problem, but went ahead and planned for King Edward to remain as 6-lane road anyway. People were told the issue would be addressed in a subsequent NCC study on new interprovincial crossings. When this study came along, its terms of reference clearly indicated the purpose was to handle future growth in traffic (which is why it also looked at the possibility of a new west end bridge); addressing King Edward was not one of the study's purposes - even though the average person had long been led to believe that it was.

We've just had buck-passing on the King Edward issue because no one wants to bite the bullet and admit that either something expensive (a tunnel) or something controversial (following through with the original Vanier Parkway plan) will have to be done about it.

[lrt's friend]

So if I get this straight, their fear is that Gatineau commuters will use Hemlock and Beechwood and then St. Patrick as a way to get into downtown Ottawa?

I live not too far from Montée Paiement and I don't think most people in the area would use this route to get to downtown Ottawa. Too many lights and St Patrick is already a nightmare at rush hour in both directions as it is. Eliminate the exit at Hemlock as some have suggested and you will even further reduce the chances many people from eastern Gatineau would use a Kettle Island bridge as a way to get downtown Ottawa.

In spite of popular lore, the 50 into downtown Ottawa 9 days out of 10 isn't really as bad as it is made out to be. But ssssh, keep that tidbit to yourselves please. ;)

Where you would get traffic increases from the new bridge will be roads leading from Aviation Parkway to major employment centres in this part of Ottawa. For Gatineau residents, the main employment centres in the area would be the Montfort Hospital, La Cité collégiale, federal goverment and agency offices located along the Vanier Pkwy between Montreal Rd and the 417, also in the Ogilvie and Blair area (CSIS, NRC, etc.), the industrial areas at the 417 and Innes, and the area around St. Laurent Shopping Centre.

People from Gatineau working in the vast area of east end Ottawa all use King Edward to get to work at the moment.

Shorter trips mean less traffic! Everybody benefits. And it becomes feasible for STO to offer a direct bus route to Montfort/NRC/CSIS, which would be much faster than forcing them downtown first. By all means, put a bus lane on the bridge. This is the way of the future.

[RTWAP]

How much did the Big Dig cost in Boston?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig

Lots and lots. But 10 lanes under a river is quite a bit different than a few lanes under an existing road.

Living myself Manor Park, I would say personally I have no problem with a bridge at that point if it can be done in way to keep the threw traffic out of the neighbourhood. Removing access ramps to Hemlock would certainly be a good option. There is really little to no issue if the traffic wants to use the Rockcliffe parkway into downtown or stay on Aviation and head up to the Queensway.

At the moment it is already very difficult to cross St Laurent and someone was actually recently killed doing it. Through traffic does not respect speed limits plus the fact that there generally is too much of it.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Manor Park opposition to a bridge would abate somewhat if it wasn't presented as a way to divert trucks. Nobody wants to accept a plan that moves someone else's truck problem into their neighbourhood.

[c_speed3108]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Manor Park opposition to a bridge would abate somewhat if it wasn't presented as a way to divert trucks. Nobody wants to accept a plan that moves someone else's truck problem into their neighbourhood.


Perhaps somewhat. Personally I think the trucks would most just stay on the parkway up to the Queensway...similar to what they do with Nicholas. Truck route rules might restrict them to this anyway...

I fear car traffic more since private vehicle drivers are far more likely to look for short-cuts (I see people heading for the King Edward bridge cutting through private parking lots between Besserer and Rideau now).

The other difference is that truck drivers (particularly the large transports) tend to be better drivers and less likely to drive around with the "big hurry going nowhere" mentality. You do have to be careful around big trucks as they are blindspot city. Given them lots of room, don't walk to close to them, between them, etc. They don't however do as many stupid things, they don't accelerate quickly, feel the need to pass everyone traveling 5km/h slower than them. They don't act like the commute home is race. They tend to get in line and get where they are going.

[eternallyme]

Lots and lots. But 10 lanes under a river is quite a bit different than a few lanes under an existing road.



I wouldn't be surprised if the Manor Park opposition to a bridge would abate somewhat if it wasn't presented as a way to divert trucks. Nobody wants to accept a plan that moves someone else's truck problem into their neighbourhood.

It would need to be a 4-lane tunnel. There would presumably be NO interchanges within the tunnel as it would be designed for through traffic - there would be no way to exit downtown once inside the tunnel except for frequent emergency walkways. I don't think any upgrades are needed on the Macdonald Cartier Bridge itself though.

I'd run it directly under King Edward until just north of Mann, then shift it slightly east so that it can elevate above Lees and the Transitway/LRT corridor (there would otherwise be no conflict with the LRT tunnel). After that, 4 new ramps would be necessary at the Nicholas interchange. The two direct ramps from Lees would probably have to go since there would be major weaving otherwise.

It should entirely be federally funded as it is an interprovincial project.

[YOWetal]

So if I get this straight, their fear is that Gatineau commuters will use Hemlock and Beechwood and then St. Patrick as a way to get into downtown Ottawa?

I live not too far from Montée Paiement and I don't think most people in the area would use this route to get to downtown Ottawa. Too many lights and St Patrick is already a nightmare at rush hour in both directions as it is. Eliminate the exit at Hemlock as some have suggested and you will even further reduce the chances many people from eastern Gatineau would use a Kettle Island bridge as a way to get downtown Ottawa.

In spite of popular lore, the 50 into downtown Ottawa 9 days out of 10 isn't really as bad as it is made out to be. But ssssh, keep that tidbit to yourselves please. ;)

Where you would get traffic increases from the new bridge will be roads leading from Aviation Parkway to major employment centres in this part of Ottawa. For Gatineau residents, the main employment centres in the area would be the Montfort Hospital, La Cité collégiale, federal goverment and agency offices located along the Vanier Pkwy between Montreal Rd and the 417, also in the Ogilvie and Blair area (CSIS, NRC, etc.), the industrial areas at the 417 and Innes, and the area around St. Laurent Shopping Centre.

People from Gatineau working in the vast area of east end Ottawa all use King Edward to get to work at the moment.

hmm not sure what time you use the 50. Most days when I drive past as early as 4 the traffic entrance to the 50 is already backed up onto the King Edward bridge and backs up traffic several kilometers on the 5 as well. It may not be unbearable, but the point is it is nearing capacity, and does limit growth to some extent. I would think a new bridge would be a great alternative route for those who work not only east of King Edward but also points west along the 417.

[YOWetal]

At some point we have to start thinking of this city as one metropolitan area and quit wedging the issue by the 'Quebec side' and 'Ottawa side' and who is better off and worse off. As I pointed out, it is ridiculous that there is no bridge between downtown Ottawa and Hawkesbury and the population in east end Ottawa and eastern Gatineau is already enough to justify a bridge. It is crazy to funnel all the traffic into downtown to cross the river. Ottawa isn't a small town anymore.







They simply don't want anything near them. Besides, why would traffic use narrow Beechwood with numerous traffic signals when the Rockcliffe Parkway has no traffic signals at all? If use of Beechwood is so objectionable, just don't provide an exit onto Hemlock.

Gatineau doesnt consider Ottawa when planning and unless they want to start sending taxes to pay for their use of the Ottawa side, there is no reason Ottawa should pay for something not in residents interests.

Rockcliffe Parkway is a large detour for most routes and Hemlock/Beechwood moves quickly even in the worst rush hour until the Vanier parkway, which is the first major intersection from the aviation parkway. There is no exit right now from the North bound Aviation parkway, but with an illegal U-turn it is a great route from the 174 to the Market or the King Edward Bridge.

[Acajack]

Lots and lots. But 10 lanes under a river is quite a bit different than a few lanes under an existing road.



.

My point wasn`t to suggest that a KE tunnel would be anywhere near as expensive as the Boston tunnel, but it certainly would come in around a billion or two. Certainly a lot more than a few hundred million which is what has been suggested by some.

[Acajack]

Gatineau doesnt consider Ottawa when planning and unless they want to start sending taxes to pay for their use of the Ottawa side, there is no reason Ottawa should pay for something not in residents interests.

.


I believe the plan is for the project to be largely funded by the federal and provincial governments, as it is an interprovincial trade route.

[Acajack]

hmm not sure what time you use the 50. Most days when I drive past as early as 4 the traffic entrance to the 50 is already backed up onto the King Edward bridge and backs up traffic several kilometers on the 5 as well. It may not be unbearable, but the point is it is nearing capacity, and does limit growth to some extent. I would think a new bridge would be a great alternative route for those who work not only east of King Edward but also points west along the 417.


I am not suggesting that it is a breeze, but some people talk about it as if it is far worse than the Queensway in from or out to Orleans or Kanata. This is certainly not true.

Having driven all over the region at rush hour, I can't believe that many people would leave downtown at rush hour via Nicholas or O'Connor, getting on the 417 all the way to the split, then taking a new exit to the Aviation Parkway, then the bridge across the river, to get to Labrosse or somewhere in that vicinity of Gatineau. Especially not when you can take any of the downtown bridges that are a short distance from the 50 which is pretty much a straight line going home.

Take a look at it on a map. The route makes no sense whatsoever and is twice or three times the distance, with as much if not more traffic all along it as there is on the current route via downtown Hull and the 50.

[waterloowarrior]

My point wasn`t to suggest that a KE tunnel would be anywhere near as expensive as the Boston tunnel, but it certainly would come in around a billion or two. Certainly a lot more than a few hundred million which is what has been suggested by some.


the hundreds of millions is based on technical memo from earlier in the EA
http://www.liaisonsrcn.ca/upfiles/5%20McDonald-Cartier%20Bridge%20Tunnel%20Coarse%20Screening%20FINAL.pdf

[YOWetal]

I believe the plan is for the project to be largely funded by the federal and provincial governments, as it is an interprovincial trade route.
Largely funded but the cities will be expected to contribute. But replace Ottawa with Ontario and my argument stands.

[Acajack]

Largely funded but the cities will be expected to contribute. But replace Ottawa with Ontario and my argument stands.

I am going to resist scratching the scab here in order to avoid revealing what I suspect might be under it...

[Acajack]

the hundreds of millions is based on technical memo from earlier in the EA
http://www.liaisonsrcn.ca/upfiles/5%20McDonald-Cartier%20Bridge%20Tunnel%20Coarse%20Screening%20FINAL.pdf

Respectfully, I think they are way off the mark.

Three-mile highway tunnel in downtown Seattle: 2 billion US dollars

http://www.tunneltalk.com/Alaskan-Way-Oct09-Bored-tunnel-agreement-between-Washington-State-and-Seattle.php

[DarkArconio]

I think the main reason the cost was so low is that they assumed a cut and cover tunnel under dal. Not sure how feasible a strategy that is though, since a 4 lane tunnel would probably be wider than dal.

[bradnixon]

Respectfully, I think they are way off the mark.

Three-mile highway tunnel in downtown Seattle: 2 billion US dollars

http://www.tunneltalk.com/Alaskan-Way-Oct09-Bored-tunnel-agreement-between-Washington-State-and-Seattle.php

That is for a double-decker tunnel with four lanes total.

All of the options proposed for a King Edward tunnel are for 2 lanes only. (See page 4 here: http://www.liaisonsrcn.ca/upfiles/5%20McDonald-Cartier%20Bridge%20Tunnel%20Coarse%20Screening%20FINAL.pdf)

There are numerous statements in that document that make no sense or are unsupported. From page 2:

The tunnel portal should be located north of either the Laurier/Nicholas or the King Edward/Mann
intersections, however neither intersection could accommodate the resultant combined tunnel and nontunnel
traffic at an acceptable level of service
Why should it be north of Laurier/Nicholas? It could easily be south.

The tunnel portals completely disrupt the existing traffic operations on adjacent streets ~ system gridlock
would likely occur
Where is the documentation for this?

Only three northbound lanes can be accommodated on the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge; there is an
irresolvable lane balance issue due to the tunnel alternatives resulting in four approach lanes
2 northbound lanes from a 4-lane King Edward + 1 tunnel lane = 3 lanes. I don't see any lane imbalance.

Pedestrian and cycling mobility in the east-west direction across Nicholas and Mann Avenue would be
compromised
Huh?

The cost to construct would be prohibitively high at between $110 to $250 Million
If this cost is so "prohibitive", then why is the cost for the new crossing even higher, yet acceptable?

While these options ability of avoiding a new crossing is appealing, the transportation supply provided by this link is insufficient to address the future demand across the Ottawa River
screenline. As such, we recommend this alternative be removed from further consideration.
What problem are we trying to solve here?

[eternallyme]

Another thing about the Alaskan Way Viaduct: it needs to be protected against a much stronger earthquake (maximum around 8.3) than anything in Ottawa would require (maximum about 6.7).

[lrt's friend]

What problem are we trying to solve here?

That has been my point. We have more than one problem and our politicians think there is one magic solution that will solve all our cross-river traffic issues. What is the priority? The supply problem? The downtown truck problem?

The east end bridge will help solve the supply problem but will not be effective in dealing with downtown truck issue.

The downtown tunnel will solve the downtown truck issue but not the supply problem.

We will be much further ahead to just admit it and set a priority. We can then examine the possibilities based on that priority.

[bradnixon]

That has been my point. We have more than one problem and our politicians think there is one magic solution that will solve all our cross-river traffic issues. What is the priority? The supply problem? The downtown truck problem?

I agree and I think it's obvious that the downtown truck problem is the priority.

Nobody (except for maybe these consultants) is asking, "how can we get more vehicles across the river?". They're saying, "why the hell can't we get these trucks off Rideau Street?"

[jeremy_haak]

Is it possible to construct a 4-lane tunnel and address both supply and downtown trucks at a greater cost, but less then building both a bridge and tunnel?

2 northbound lanes from a 4-lane King Edward + 1 tunnel lane = 3 lanes. I don't see any lane imbalance.

Right now there are 2 northbound lanes from King Edward and 1 lane from Sussex. With a tunnel, I don't see why King Edward would continue to need two lanes connecting to the bridge; they could just make the right lane exit onto Sussex.

[Acajack]

That is for a double-decker tunnel with four lanes total.




True, there are many differences. But I still don't see how an Ottawa tunnel could come in at only 15% of the cost of a similar tunnel in Seattle. These things cost what they cost. You can say that your brand-new BMW will cost less than mine because yours won't have heated seats, a sunroof and air conditioning, but don't tell me a brand-new BMW, even a bare-bones model, is only going to cost you $8,900. I just don't buy it.

BTW, I am all in favour of a downtown Ottawa tunnel for truck and commuter traffic linking up with the bridge and the A-5. Unfortunately, I don't think there is much of a chance of this happening.

[Acajack]

I agree and I think it's obvious that the downtown truck problem is the priority.

Nobody (except for maybe these consultants) is asking, "how can we get more vehicles across the river?". They're saying, "why the hell can't we get these trucks off Rideau Street?"

Voilà. But you will never address the problem as long as you have a significant segment of the population in Ottawa that, as soon as there is talk of a new river crossings, reacts in one of the following ways:

"A new crossing? No way! That'll just make it easier for more Ottawans to move into sprawlsville in Gatineau."

or

"A new crossing? No way! That'll just make it easier for even more Frenchies from Quebec to cross over here and steal our Ontario jobs!"


And all those trucks just keep rolling down Rideau and King Edward...

[bradnixon]

True, there are many differences. But I still don't see how an Ottawa tunnel could come in at only 15% of the cost of a similar tunnel in Seattle. These things cost what they cost. You can say that your brand-new BMW will cost less than mine because yours won't have heated seats, a sunroof and air conditioning, but don't tell me a brand-new BMW, even a bare-bones model, is only going to cost you $8,900. I just don't buy it.

BTW, I am all in favour of a downtown Ottawa tunnel for truck and commuter traffic linking up with the bridge and the A-5. Unfortunately, I don't think there is much of a chance of this happening.

I'm not an engineer, but I assume that the people who came up with those cost estimates were. I can only take them at face value. Even the Roche-NCE consultants didn't dispute them.

Part of the difference could be:
-price difference of deep bored tunnel vs. shallow cut-and-cover tunnel;
-addition of underground exit ramps, etc (as in the Big Dig) vs. no exit ramps- just 2 portals.

Unless you're an engineer who can point significant specific flaws in the original estimates, I don't think there's any point in debating those numbers.

My argument for a tunnel isn't based on cost, it's based on solving the problem vs. not solving the problem.

[Acajack]

I'm not an engineer, but I assume that the people who came up with those cost estimates were. I can only take them at face value. Even the Roche-NCE consultants didn't dispute them.

Part of the difference could be:
-price difference of deep bored tunnel vs. shallow cut-and-cover tunnel;
-addition of underground exit ramps, etc (as in the Big Dig) vs. no exit ramps- just 2 portals.

Unless you're an engineer who can point significant specific flaws in the original estimates, I don't think there's any point in debating those numbers.

My argument for a tunnel isn't based on cost, it's based on solving the problem vs. not solving the problem.

I sincerely hope they are right about the cost - then maybe we can get a tunnel.

[Dado]

The April 2008 background document to the transit TMP update includes estimates for two BRT tunnels elsewhere in the rapid transit network. These are 10 m wide tunnels for two lanes plus narrow sidewalk-sized shoulders.

These are the West Transitway tunnel south of Lincoln Fields at the Pinecrest OC Transpo garage and tunnel under Woodroffe south of Knoxdale for the Southwest Transitway.

The first of these comes in at about $65M/km for the cut and the tunnel, but excluding the roadbed and associated drainage works as well as approaches.

The second comes in around $50M/km, including utility relocations and the reconstruction of Woodroffe but excluding roadbed and drainage.

Subsequent to the TMP update, someone had the bright idea of adding a massive tunnelized section to the works at Baseline Station/Algonquin College. This sucker is on the order of 8 lanes wide over a distance of about 225 m between College Ave and Navaho Dr. The cost of this, including excavation, two overpasses, utility relocations and stormwater facilities (beats me since it's a tunnel that's going to be grassed over...), was estimated at just over $40M. It doesn't include the station infrastructure.


King Edward is approximately 2 km from Cathcart to Mann. Applying the first two costs from above gets a range of $100-130M. Now do the only thing I actually applaud Andy Haydon for and double it: $200-260M.

Even if you take the Baseline extravaganza and multiply it by 10 (approximately 10 times the distance), the cost runs out into the $400M range.

So these are not unaffordable options, even though they are pricey. Using Nicholas up to about Laurier could possibly cut the costs, but we'll have tunnels crossing tunnels complicating the issue - wouldn't it be nice if someone planned all these things in one go? Whatever else you think of Gréber et al, at least they looked at more than one thing at a time.

[d_jeffrey]

So these are not unaffordable options, even though they are pricey. Using Nicholas up to about Laurier could possibly cut the costs, but we'll have tunnels crossing tunnels complicating the issue - wouldn't it be nice if someone planned all these things in one go? Whatever else you think of Gréber et al, at least they looked at more than one thing at a time.

Again something I just don't understand about the planners in Ottawa is why they don't use cut and cover double stacked tunnels. This is what they did to keep the costs down for the Ville-Marie Autoroute. I mean, you're already digging a tunnel, just dig deeper!

[acottawa]

I know nothing about tunnel engineering or construction cost estimates, but I would point out a few things.

I think a lot of the comparisons are not actually tunnels, they're below grade but open and don't need complicated ventilation systems. An 6 lane open cut highway might be possible North of Rideau (but would make an already bad area even worse and probably couldn't get approved) but south of Rideau there isn't even room in the right of way and such a project would require a lot of demolition/expropriation.

The city has just spent tens of millions of dollars reconstructing King Edward, this took several construction seasons. Excavating King Edward again (and moving the underground infrastructure they just buried) would take years.

Perhaps the Windsor Essex Parkway would be a better cost comparison, which is about $2B for 11 kilometres.

Even if a tunnel were built, I'm not sure the Queensway would be able to handle the extra traffic where it meets King Edward, which would mean more construction.

Anyway, I'm agnostic on the issue - if a tunnel and access roads can be built cheaper than a new bridge (and access roads) then I hope that's what the city does, but in my view they would need to be close in cost and have similar capacity.

[bradnixon]

I think a lot of the comparisons are not actually tunnels, they're below grade but open and don't need complicated ventilation systems.


Negative. Page 4 of this document (http://www.liaisonsrcn.ca/upfiles/5%20McDonald-Cartier%20Bridge%20Tunnel%20Coarse%20Screening%20FINAL.pdf) clearly shows tunnels, not open cuts.


The city has just spent tens of millions of dollars reconstructing King Edward, this took several construction seasons. Excavating King Edward again (and moving the underground infrastructure they just buried) would take years.


The cheapest option shown on page 4 of the above link that includes a tunnel all the way from the M-C Bridge to Laurier is along the Dalhousie St. corridor. Given the direction the King Edward renewal took, this is probably the only realistic option at this point.


Anyway, I'm agnostic on the issue - if a tunnel and access roads can be built cheaper than a new bridge (and access roads) then I hope that's what the city does, but in my view they would need to be close in cost and have similar capacity.


Again, I don't think capacity is the immediate problem we should be worrying about- it is downtown trucks.

[Ottawan]

I think what we need to worry about is:

a) the trucks in downtown
b) currnet capacity
c) future capacity
d) increasing the connectiveness of the region, thus increasing economic efficiency and decreasing costs to the environment

These are all CURRENT considerations.

This requires:

A) The King Edward Tunnel or the connection to the Vanier Parkway (my preference)
B) A new East End bridge
C) A new West End bridge

All to be completed in the next 10 years.

Anything less will not be sufficient to address Ottawa's needs, and sadly, something less is what will get done. But lets not fool ourselves into thinking any one of these options will be adequate.

[MaxHeadroom]

I worked in the Byward Market for three years along Dalhousie, and when the new waterworks were being installed under St. Patrick, it was open cuts using a pnematic jack hammer and dynamite. And that was just digging down 10-20 feet!

Anyone that ignores this fact has their fingers in their ears singing la-la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you.

Cutting a tunnel through solid rock is not cheap or fast! Although it can be done.

[lrt's friend]

Is it possible to construct a 4-lane tunnel and address both supply and downtown trucks at a greater cost, but less then building both a bridge and tunnel?

I don't know how this addresses the supply problem unless you are extending the tunnel across the river as well.

[lrt's friend]

I think what we need to worry about is:

a) the trucks in downtown
b) currnet capacity
c) future capacity
d) increasing the connectiveness of the region, thus increasing economic efficiency and decreasing costs to the environment

These are all CURRENT considerations.

This requires:

A) The King Edward Tunnel or the connection to the Vanier Parkway (my preference)
B) A new East End bridge
C) A new West End bridge

All to be completed in the next 10 years.

Anything less will not be sufficient to address Ottawa's needs, and sadly, something less is what will get done. But lets not fool ourselves into thinking any one of these options will be adequate.

I more or less agree. The city has grown by probably 50% since the last bridge across the Ottawa River, the Portage Bridge, opened. It is not healthy for the economy of this city to strangle itself on the lack of bridges. I think we need to move on both issues and yes, I support the Vanier Parkway connection preferably by tunnel and a Kettle Island bridge. The planned MacDonald-Cartier Bridge connection was the reason why the Vanier Parkway was built in the first place, and a lot of traffic heads that way even now. The more urbanized the location of the tunnel, the more complications there will be and the more costs. I really don't think you can compare a suburban tunnel with something being built downtown.

[Dado]

Looks like the Citizen's editorial board (which means Ken Gray and David Reevely) are confused about the purpose of a new bridge, too...

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Killer+trucks/3116536/story.html

Killer trucks

THE OTTAWA CITIZEN JUNE 5, 2010 6:04 AM

There's been talk about building a tunnel under King Edward Avenue to divert traffic, but it's not going to happen. It's too expensive, problematic in construction, and it doesn't get trucks out of downtown.

The last point, getting trucks out of downtown, is the raison d'être for calls to build an east-end bridge. Trucks simply have no business moving about in the city core. An accident involving, say, a giant petroleum truck would be most undesirable in the densely-populated downtown. Yet the proposal for an east-end bridge has long been a hot potato, which is why Orléans Councillor Bob Monette -- in whose ward the bridge would be -- would like a King Edward tunnel to be discussed.

Frankly, we ourselves are no fans of interprovincial bridges. They promote urban sprawl in the Outaouais. One reason more people don't take advantage of lower home prices in Quebec is they know that commuting bridges into Ottawa are always clogged. Building new bridges only encourages more people to make those ugly commutes. Further, new bridges lead to encroaching development on precious Gatineau Park.

The argument for a new east-end bridge is not to improve the Gatineau-Ottawa commute. People who work in Gatineau should live in Gatineau, and same with Ottawa. Bridges are expensive -- tens of millions of dollars -- and that shouldn't be seen as a subsidy for urban sprawl.

The reason to build an east-end bridge is to get the trucks out of the downtown core. With the right planning and architecture, such a bridge would not spoil the quality of life of east-end residents. The environmental assessment isn't expected to be completed before 2013, so you can assume it will be well-planned, excruciatingly so.

The weather is lovely, and the bicycles and pedestrians are once again crowding downtown. It is probable that this summer, as in years' past, someone will be killed or injured by a truck. These are sad accidents, but entirely predictable.

--


Here's a reminder:

.

Trucks to remain on King Edward after new bridge built

Last Updated: Friday, September 5, 2008 | 10:06 AM ET
CBC News

Thousands of trucks will likely continue to clog King Edward Avenue in downtown Ottawa even after a new interprovincial bridge is built at Kettle Island in the city's east end, says the National Capital Commission.

The NCC announced the proposed location Thursday for the new bridge across the Ottawa River between Ottawa and Gatineau, following a study of 10 potential routes over more than a year and a half.

Steve Taylor, project manager for the bridge study said one of the goals of the study was to find an alternative route for trucking because right now there are only two:

* The MacDonald-Cartier bridge, which feeds traffic to and from King Edward Avenue and is the most direct route between Highway 417, which is part of the Trans-Canada Highway in Ontario, and the Quebec side of the region.
* The Chaudière Bridge, just west of downtown near the Canadian War Museum.

But Taylor said by 2031, after the Kettle Island bridge is built, there will still be an estimated 2,500 trucks using the MacDonald-Cartier bridge and King Edward Avenue daily — about the same number that use it now.

However, due to the expected increase in truck traffic over the next two decades, another 1,700 trucks, including most of the city's tractor-trailers, will probably cross the Kettle Island bridge each day, Taylor estimated.

Innes Ward Coun. Rainer Bloess said people are mistaken if they believe King Edward will no longer be used as a truck route once the Kettle Island Bridge is built.

"That is not what they are recommending."

He added that in the future, city councils in Ottawa and Gatineau could opt to ban truck traffic from the MacDonald-Cartier bridge.

However, he suggested it would be best to wait until the Kettle Island Bridge is built before considering that.

:tantrum:

[YOWetal]

I am going to resist scratching the scab here in order to avoid revealing what I suspect might be under it...

? I am not sure what this means.

To clarify I am not against people moving to Gatineau, I have considered it myself. I just think it is stupid for a city or province to pay to make it easier for its residents to move and pay taxes somewhere else.

It is not one city, maybe it should be, but that is a whole other discussion. Ottawa is broke and we shouldnt waste a singe cent on an extra bridge. I reverse commute right now, and even with the Alexandria bridge closed (well for Ottawa to Hull commuters) the only time I get caught in traffic is crossing Gatineau traffic.

[eternallyme]

I don't know how this addresses the supply problem unless you are extending the tunnel across the river as well.

The 6-lane freeway bridge seems to have adequate capacity. Remember a freeway has a higher capacity per lane than an urban arterial (which King Edward is). A 4-lane arterial (King Edward) and a 4-lane freeway tunnel probably could suitably merge into the bridge, especially considering some King Edward traffic is likely local.

[Acajack]

? I am not sure what this means.

To clarify I am not against people moving to Gatineau, I have considered it myself. I just think it is stupid for a city or province to pay to make it easier for its residents to move and pay taxes somewhere else.

It is not one city, maybe it should be, but that is a whole other discussion. Ottawa is broke and we shouldnt waste a singe cent on an extra bridge. I reverse commute right now, and even with the Alexandria bridge closed (well for Ottawa to Hull commuters) the only time I get caught in traffic is crossing Gatineau traffic.

It just seemed to me that almost all of your posts on the bridge seem to suggest that there are ZERO benefits to Ottawa related to having better links with Gatineau. I sincerely hope that you and others don't think it is a one-way relationship (people in Gatineau work in Ottawa, then take all that money across to Quebec). Just as an example, probably 80% of the delivery trucks I see parked outside my local grocery store have Ontario plates. Probably 25% of the business/market for the Coca-Cola bottling plant on Belfast Rd. in Ottawa's east end is located on the Quebec side. How many other Ottawa-based business are in the same situation?

Personally, I don't really have a stake in the bridge debate since I live and work in Gatineau and commute by bus anyway.

And 99% of people in Ottawa wouldn't move to Gatineau even if the road were paved in gold. The only significant demographic from Ottawa that is moving to Gatineau in decent numbers is the Franco-Ontarian minority community.

[Uhuniau]

"A new crossing? No way! That'll just make it easier for more Ottawans to move into sprawlsville in Gatineau."

or

"A new crossing? No way! That'll just make it easier for even more Frenchies from Quebec to cross over here and steal our Ontario jobs!"

No. More like: A new bridge? Won't someone think of:

A) Property values!

B) The turtles!

C) Our children!

D) The traffic!

All of which, of course, are good reasons to eliminate the routing that happens to be in your neighbourhood (but only that routing).

[Acajack]

No. More like: A new bridge? Won't someone think of:

A) Property values!

B) The turtles!

C) Our children!

D) The traffic!

All of which, of course, are good reasons to eliminate the routing that happens to be in your neighbourhood (but only that routing).


Yeah, all of those too. I still like the job-stealing Frenchies image best though. It's the one that seems to do best on CFRA and on the letters page of the Sun... ;)

[DoTheRightThing]

Hi...a friend just put me onto this list and I am impressed to see that many writers here have figured out what the NCC and City of Ottawa don't want to admit.

An east end bridge is highly unlikely to solve the truck problem downtown. It will divert some trucks out of downtown who will find this new route 'more attractive' but that is probably only about 40% of the trucks currently downtown.

The consultant in phase 1 of the study estimated, that after allowing for growth to 2031 the number of trucks downtown would be back to the same number as today.

So what will we have accomplished with 400-500m$ investment in this new bridge? Taken some trucks out of downtown (by spreading them into other neighbourhoods), and then created lots of new capacity for cars.

In fact in 2031, the consultant projected that with the new bridge in place there would be spare capacity in place, in aggregate across all the bridges large enough to accommodate another 1500 cars per hour. Good luck in implementing any kind of a successful inter-provincial transit solution with that kind of spare capacity for cars in place!

So we will have 'over-solved' our single occupancy vehicle needs and not really solved the truck problem at all.

Also, note that the single-occupancy vehicle need is in the Gatineau to Ottawa direction only. Gatineau scores gold out of this bridge project and Ottawa gets a bronze...or maybe worse depending on how you look at it.

Folks...this bridge is an ill-conceived solution that has arisen from a wrong characterization of the problem. The truck problem is immediate, has been there for decades and will continue to get worse. An east end bridge picks away at it without solving it. The peak car demand problem is future and there are many tools available to help solve it (transit and more transit, car pooling, stc). If all these fail to solve it, then we can build a bridge later.

PS. I am not writing because I live in the east end and think a bridge should be stopped. I live downtown and I want a solution that solves the downtown truck problem.

If you can begin to get the above picture of the scenario before us...and against this backdrop start to consider a downtown bypass tunnel from the 417 to the foot of the Macdonald-Cartier bridge then some interesting contrasts begin to appear... the subject of the next post....

[DoTheRightThing]

Even if the City of Ottawa follows through, after a new bridge is built and removes King Edward as a truck route.....

Reason #1: Let's just say for an example..hypothetically..that the new bridge is built Aviation Parkway-Kettle Is-Montee Paiment (as the consulted recommended in their ph1 final report). So Ottawa bans the trucks from KingE and the # of trucks goes overnight from 2500 per day to 0. Yeah! Now Montee Paiment, an arterial road in Quebec goes overnight from 0 inter-provincial through trucks per day to 2500. I don't think they will find this acceptable or fair. In fact, the City of Gatineau already passed a motion shortly after the consultant made this recommendation that called on the City of Ottawa to keep King Edward open to trucks.

If it comes to this...the City of Gatineau will simply do as Ottawa does...excercise their municipal rights over their own streets and ban trucks from Montee Paiment. Now that will look pretty stupid. 2 municipalities putting up a big "NO ENTRY" sign to trucks on their sides of the bridges. So clearly, in reality it will never come to that because the the federal government/NCC will hold a hammer over their heads and force them both to open up their roads and 'share the trucks'.

..and like the consultant estimated in phase 1...under this kind of scenario, 60% of the trucks will prefer to use the downtown route as it will be more optimal for them.

Reason #2. Removing the truck route designation from King Edward vs Banning trucks from King Edward.

The City of Ottawa official plan states that after a new bridge is built that the truck route designation will be removed from King Edward. Whoopee...so what? A truck must follow a truck route (the 417) until it reaches the point where it is as close as possible to it's destination at which point it may depart from the truck route and proceed on the most direct route to its destination.

If you're a truck coming from south or west of Ottawa, or from southern On/USA and are destined for points in central, west, or north of Gatineau once you reach Nicholas on the 417 what is your shortest route? King Edward!!!. And how many trucks will be in this situation?... approx 60% of today's trucks.

OK, so removing the truck route designation then won't do the trick...Ottawa will have to ban trucks. Good luck with that, as described in Reason #1 above.

There is only 1 solution that will get the trucks off of downtown Ottawa streets and will not add trucks to Ottawa or Gatineau's east end.

....a downtown bypass tunnel from 417 to the foot of the Macdonald-Cartier bridge.

yeah, but isn't a tunnel a wacky idea and crazy expensive? Time for the next post.

[DoTheRightThing]

There are other similar tunnel projects going on / recently completed around the world.

1. Dublin Harbour: a 4.5km 4-lane tunnel primarily for getting trucks out of downtown which are destined for the Dublin Harbour. Cars may use the tunnel as well. In operation in 2006

2. Miami Port Tunnel: a 1.1 km, 4-lane tunnel primarily for getting trucks destined for Miami Port out of downtown Miami. Also carries car traffic bound for the cruise boat terminal. Construction has just started in 2010

3. Auckland: a .5 km 3-lane tunnel under downtown to improve access and throughput onto the Harbour bridge. Construction started in 2009

4. Brisbane: a 4.7 km, 4-lane tunnel under downtown that started operation in March 2010.

These tunnels on average came in at a cost of 150m$ per lane per km. A bypass tunnel in Ottawa's downtown would come in at 2 kms and be 2-lanes (one in each direction) = 600m$

The estimated cost of the proposed bridge? 400-500m$

But perhaps the more interesting cost comparison of all would be a comparison to the bus tunnel that was considered in Ottawa in 2009 when Ottawa was trying to decide on a rail vs bus based tunnel. The consultant costed this bus tunnel (at 2.5km) at 400m$ (including asphalt & ventilation, etc).

A 417 to Macdonald-Cartier tunnel would have the following characteristics:
- get 100% of inter-provincial through-trucks out of downtown
- and not simply shift them to other neighbourhoods.
- shunt up to 20,000 cars per day shuttling between Macdonald-Cartier bridge and 417 out of downtown
- provide a short 2km path eliminating 11 stop lights speeding up the passage for those 20,000 drivers per day
- provide opportunities to use air-scrubbing technology in the ventilation shafts that removes particulate matter pollutants from the exhausts of those 2500 trucks and 20,000 cars per day
- connects to the 417 and Nicholas Ave in the opposite direction of rush-hour flows (ie. morning southbound cars hit the 417 travelling in the opposite direction of Ottawa's rush hour flow)
- probably makes it practical to remove the Chaudiere bridge as a truck route, taking 500 trucks per day out of those neighbourhoods as well
- adds new inter-provincial peak commuting capacity. Right now the Macdonald-Cartier bridge is under-utilized...the phase 1 consultants estimated that there is enough spare capacity on that bridge to accomodate another 600 cars (15%) per hour in the peak. The tunnel makes it possible for even more cars to cross the bridge and get through downtown Ottawa.
- will probably lead to far less public opposition delaying the process than any of the bridges being contemplated in the east end.

In my mind, this is a pretty reasonable alternative that hasn't been given it's due in the process that is currently being driven by the NCC.

In fact, the primary reason the NCC did not give it any more than just a cursory glance before dismissing it was that it did not add enough additional peak car capacity to meet their requirements. Ie. they were looking for something on the order of 2500 more cars in the peak hour vs 600 or so additional cars that the tunnel could enable.

Another way to interpret that decision is this. In 2031, it is not acceptable that a Gatineau car-based commuter might have to wait an extra 15mins or so to cross the river (so we must build a bridge), but with that bridge it is ok for 2500+ trucks per day to continue to roll through downtown ottawa time without end.

[DoTheRightThing]

I'll try here to paste an image which is an excerpt from the consultant's report estimated the cost of a 2.5km bus tunnel under downtown Ottawa. This would be similar in many ways to a car/truck tunnel from 417 to Macdonald-Cartier bridge. Except the car/truck tunnel would be shorter (and presumably less expensive). Their estimate comes to 400m$ for a 2.5km tunnel that consists of 2 tunnel bores each 10m wide.

This compares to an estimate of 400-500M$ for the proposed bridge at Aviation Parkway-Kettle Island-Montee Paiment.

http://doc-10-c8-docs.googleusercontent.com/docs/secure/ha0ro937gcuc7l7deffksulhg5h7mbp1/v6dsglpjd8gvn7ot9duu6dl4o0mk30gr/1275955200000/08847282446812654034/*/0BzqNBi3Cm6vzOGM0NGY1MjUtMGEwZS00ODYxLWJjMTEtYmU0N2RjMmVkZDdm

[DoTheRightThing]

Now 1 other thing about the inter-provincial bridge issue. The ever controversial topic of growth projections for cars. The NCC is projecting an increase of 1200 cars per hour in the peak hour that need to be accomodated across bridges by 2031.

Well we could argue forever about that...but how about looking back at recent history. Following is an image taken from a document on the TRANS website which shows traffic counts changes over the 07:00 to 09:30 time period between 2002 and 2006 on the Macdonald-Cartier+Alexandra bridge pair and the Chaudiere+Portage pair.

There was no increase in traffic (in fact a decrease in the case of Chaudiere+Portage) over that time period. This was during a time of good economic growth.

http://doc-00-c8-docs.googleusercontent.com/docs/secure/ha0ro937gcuc7l7deffksulhg5h7mbp1/909cpt421u6foo641dvpvnephtilf7tq/1275955200000/08847282446812654034/*/0BzqNBi3Cm6vzYWY5Njc4YzMtYmQ5NC00MTc3LWFjNTAtN2E1MWYxYmNjMzBl

To me the case for extrapolations to large increases in inter-provincial car traffic are a bit weak..esp when Ottawa is about to invest 2B$ in a transit plan and further plans are in the works for inter-provincial transit projects.

[DoTheRightThing]

Here's another chart, this one produced by the consultants who have been engaged over 2009 in the study commissioned to determine what would be the impacts of reducing travel lanes on KingEdward Ave.

In that report appears this chart showing the traffic counts in the AM over the 2.5hr peak period on the Macdonald-Cartier bridge between 1996 and 2006. Once again, no evidence of rising levels of traffic. There was actually a slight decrease in traffic over that time.

In my mind, this kind of information reinforces the need to first direct attention first to solving the problem of thousands of heavy trucks per day rumbling through downtown City streets.

http://doc-0s-c8-docs.googleusercontent.com/docs/secure/ha0ro937gcuc7l7deffksulhg5h7mbp1/ffr9u2etejda5v1kdi7vkn5kaksdsp83/1275955200000/08847282446812654034/*/0BzqNBi3Cm6vzMGNhZWYyNzctYjE2OC00MjFiLTgxMWMtYmU1YTcxMzZlOTYw

[RTWAP]

Good points.

Thanks DTRT.

[lrt's friend]

I wouldn't take the $400M Delcan estimate for a bus tunnel as gospel. We already know that the LRT tunnel price from that report is substantially underestimated.

The $2 Billion LRT plan does nothing to address cross river transportation needs. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for inter-provincial transit projects. How many decades are we away from a shovel in the ground on any of those projects? The most clear proposal is a downtown LRT loop, which may not be much more than a tourist train linking all the attractions. In general, transit is not going to address all travel needs especially away from downtown. Employment is increasingly dispersing across the city and we need to offer a way for people to get to their jobs. Transit is not the entire answer. The current transit plan particularly emphasizes downtown requirements and therefore roads and cars will remain the principle way to get to suburban employment areas on both sides of the river.

[Cre47]

Another reason to built the bridge at Kettle and I'm not sure if I already pointed this out, is the fact, it might remove more people off of the nasty A-5/A-50 poorly organized (and incomplete) junction. While many are talking about the bridges, the junction is actually the biggest traffic headache of the city of Gatineau and perhaps of all the NCR area. It jams all the way to the middle of the Portage Bridge, it jams on Montcalm to almost the Chaudiere Bridge, it jams quite deep onto the roundabouts of Hwy 148, it jams all the way to St-Raymond (and on St-Raymond as well) on and onto almost les Galeries de Hull on St-Joseph in the worst case and it jams on Fournier Blvd and on the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge in the worst cases I've heard it was well into St-Patrick and even up near to the 417 on King Edward.

Building a bridge too far east will do nothing to ease the pain of this malfunction junction. Even with the bridge at Kettle, there might be quite some backups although it might not go as far as the roundabouts or the Chaudiere Bridge.

I'm talking only about the PM rush here. AM rush it is jammed to Mtee Paiement and even Labrosse (12 kilometers away) during many rush hours because of this junction. With the bridge it might maybe jam only at the Draveurs Bridge which is almost 10 km shorter line-up which is very good.

[YOWetal]

It just seemed to me that almost all of your posts on the bridge seem to suggest that there are ZERO benefits to Ottawa related to having better links with Gatineau. I sincerely hope that you and others don't think it is a one-way relationship (people in Gatineau work in Ottawa, then take all that money across to Quebec). Just as an example, probably 80% of the delivery trucks I see parked outside my local grocery store have Ontario plates. Probably 25% of the business/market for the Coca-Cola bottling plant on Belfast Rd. in Ottawa's east end is located on the Quebec side. How many other Ottawa-based business are in the same situation?

Personally, I don't really have a stake in the bridge debate since I live and work in Gatineau and commute by bus anyway.

And 99% of people in Ottawa wouldn't move to Gatineau even if the road were paved in gold. The only significant demographic from Ottawa that is moving to Gatineau in decent numbers is the Franco-Ontarian minority community.

I don't really care about who works more where, and I would support a smart link eg if all 5 governments built a rail link between downtowns.

[lrt's friend]

I don't really care about who works more where, and I would support a smart link eg if all 5 governments built a rail link between downtowns.

I like the idea of a downtown rail loop, but to be honest, I don't see this solving our most serious problems. It does not solve the downtown truck problem. It does not improve connectivity in the east half of the city. I have my doubts that it would significantly improve the commutes for most Gatineau residents into downtown Ottawa.

[Acajack]

Another reason to built the bridge at Kettle and I'm not sure if I already pointed this out, is the fact, it might remove more people off of the nasty A-5/A-50 poorly organized (and incomplete) junction. While many are talking about the bridges, the junction is actually the biggest traffic headache of the city of Gatineau and perhaps of all the NCR area. It jams all the way to the middle of the Portage Bridge, it jams on Montcalm to almost the Chaudiere Bridge, it jams quite deep onto the roundabouts of Hwy 148, it jams all the way to St-Raymond (and on St-Raymond as well) on and onto almost les Galeries de Hull on St-Joseph in the worst case and it jams on Fournier Blvd and on the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge in the worst cases I've heard it was well into St-Patrick and even up near to the 417 on King Edward.

Building a bridge too far east will do nothing to ease the pain of this malfunction junction. Even with the bridge at Kettle, there might be quite some backups although it might not go as far as the roundabouts or the Chaudiere Bridge.

I'm talking only about the PM rush here. AM rush it is jammed to Mtee Paiement and even Labrosse (12 kilometers away) during many rush hours because of this junction. With the bridge it might maybe jam only at the Draveurs Bridge which is almost 10 km shorter line-up which is very good.

A new bridge at Kettle would only partly alleviate some of the problems. For some it would change nothing.

The only Gatineau commuters who will come off Macdonald-Cartier because of a new bridge will be those going into east end Ottawa (Vanier, St. Laurent, Ogilvie, Innes, etc.)

Those going to downtown Ottawa and points west (which is to say most people) will still use the same routings (A50, A5, Macdonald-Cartier, Maisonneuve, Portage, Chaudière, etc.) as they do today

People working in downtown Hull will still use the same routings

The big jam at the St-Raymond/A5 interchange in the evenings will remain

BTW, you may be overstating that length of the jams on A50 in the mornings and how frequently they occur. I can actually see the 50 in the distance from my house. Mornings when the 50 jams to Montée Paiement you can count on your two hands in an entire year. It typically jams just after La Vérendrye, and often only at La Gappe or Maloney. This may not be fun for the people caught in the jams, but it also not realistic to live in a metropolitan area of 1.3 million and expect to be able to fly down a freeway at 120 km/h right into the middle of downtown every single work day of the year.

[DoTheRightThing]

I wouldn't take the $400M Delcan estimate for a bus tunnel as gospel. We already know that the LRT tunnel price from that report is substantially underestimated.

The $2 Billion LRT plan does nothing to address cross river transportation needs. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for inter-provincial transit projects. How many decades are we away from a shovel in the ground on any of those projects? The most clear proposal is a downtown LRT loop, which may not be much more than a tourist train linking all the attractions. In general, transit is not going to address all travel needs especially away from downtown. Employment is increasingly dispersing across the city and we need to offer a way for people to get to their jobs. Transit is not the entire answer. The current transit plan particularly emphasizes downtown requirements and therefore roads and cars will remain the principle way to get to suburban employment areas on both sides of the river.

I'm not taking the cost quote of the Bus tunnel as gospel...the point is to note that this kind of a tunnel is in the same ball park as costs for the projected new bridge (which incidentally is also just a swag of a cost quote and no where near gospel either).

In fact the Ottawa LRT could well be part of the inter-provincial transit solution. Most of the inter-provincial transit options being considered involve bringing Gatineau commuters onto the LRT at Bayview where they transfer onto the Ottawa LRT to get to points east-west ... and south. In fact one of the reasons why Ottawa chose to spend all their money up front on a very expensive tunnel is so that the system would have the capacity to carry all those additional Gatineau commuters on top of the Ottawa commuters.

[DoTheRightThing]

Another reason to built the bridge at Kettle and I'm not sure if I already pointed this out, is the fact, it might remove more people off of the nasty A-5/A-50 poorly organized (and incomplete) junction. While many are talking about the bridges, the junction is actually the biggest traffic headache of the city of Gatineau and perhaps of all the NCR area.

Maybe the MTQ should think about fixing this mess at the A5/A50 then?...as well as getting a little more motivated at finding transit-centric solutions to their suburban sprawl? These are alternative ways of dealing with that problem.

[lrt's friend]

I'm not taking the cost quote of the Bus tunnel as gospel...the point is to note that this kind of a tunnel is in the same ball park as costs for the projected new bridge (which incidentally is also just a swag of a cost quote and no where near gospel either).

In fact the Ottawa LRT could well be part of the inter-provincial transit solution. Most of the inter-provincial transit options being considered involve bringing Gatineau commuters onto the LRT at Bayview where they transfer onto the Ottawa LRT to get to points east-west ... and south. In fact one of the reasons why Ottawa chose to spend all their money up front on a very expensive tunnel is so that the system would have the capacity to carry all those additional Gatineau commuters on top of the Ottawa commuters.

Yes, but I seem to recall the tunnel reports indicating that the tunnel could not handle all the passengers from Gatineau as well as Ottawa. Why would you want to transfer thousands of passengers at Bayview anyways? The extra passenger load at that location would mean that extra trains would have to be waiting there for the trip downtown otherwise we would be running surplus capacity on the rest of the network.

[RTWAP]

Yes, but I seem to recall the tunnel reports indicating that the tunnel could not handle all the passengers from Gatineau as well as Ottawa. Why would you want to transfer thousands of passengers at Bayview anyways? The extra passenger load at that location would mean that extra trains would have to be waiting there for the trip downtown otherwise we would be running surplus capacity on the rest of the network.

I thought one of the advantages of automated sections is that they allow you to interleave trains from different branches of the network.

I'd like to see the system eventually branch north and south at Bayview, and then south again at the Queensway (Kanata and Barrhaven branches).

On the eastern section, I'd like to see branches onto the SE transitway between Lees and Train, and perhaps again further east.

Does anyone have a spare $8billion to lend me?

[DoTheRightThing]

Yes, but I seem to recall the tunnel reports indicating that the tunnel could not handle all the passengers from Gatineau as well as Ottawa.

What I understood from the Delcan report was that the LRT solution that has been selected would max out at a capacity of around 22000 passengers per hour. The 2031 projections for ridership on the LRT coming from the west were between 12000-15000 passengers per hour. The projected volume of passengers entering Ottawa from Gatineau in the morning peak was projected to be 8500.

[lrt's friend]

I thought one of the advantages of automated sections is that they allow you to interleave trains from different branches of the network.

I'd like to see the system eventually branch north and south at Bayview, and then south again at the Queensway (Kanata and Barrhaven branches).

On the eastern section, I'd like to see branches onto the SE transitway between Lees and Train, and perhaps again further east.

Does anyone have a spare $8billion to lend me?

Just remember for each branch you add to the downtown tunnel, you reduce the frequency on each branch. The value of the rail system is frequency to minimize transfer wait times when you eliminate direct bus service to downtown.

I keep bringing up Calgary because of their success and they only have two lines sharing the same track downtown. This allows each line to run at about 5 minute (or maybe a wee bit better) frequency during peak hours. When a third line is built to the southeast, they will be building a new right of way through downtown in a tunnel.

If we eventually build out our network and have branches to Gatineau, Aylmer, Barrhaven, Kanata, Carling, and Riverside South, you will need at least two downtown corridors. Because of this, Alex Cullen's comments about ripping up surface rail in a few years is nonsense. We will need it eventually anyways so why rip it up?

I wish Alex Cullen would be a little more forthright about this project. Some of the comments he makes are simply propaganda and have little basis in fact. I would like to see some confirmation about his latest comment that there will be an 15 minute saving on the average commute. What backs this assertion up? I frankly do not believe it at all.

[lrt's friend]

What I understood from the Delcan report was that the LRT solution that has been selected would max out at a capacity of around 22000 passengers per hour. The 2031 projections for ridership on the LRT coming from the west were between 12000-15000 passengers per hour. The projected volume of passengers entering Ottawa from Gatineau in the morning peak was projected to be 8500.

Then that confirms my comment, that you have reached the wall in 2031. The point of the building the tunnel was to provide a long-term solution and that only applies if we limit the tunnel for use by Ottawa passengers. The Delcan report planned to leave Gatineau passengers accessing downtown by bus on the surface.

I guess my comments are getting off topic. Sorry.

[Dado]

Transferring all Gatineauois at Bayview doesn't make a lot of sense. It creates a severely unbalanced system downtown, in addition to the imbalance they've already built-in by bringing passenger traffic from South Keys and beyond into downtown via the O-Train corridor rather than by converting the Southeast Transitway. The only people who should be transferring at Bayview from north of the river are those from Aylmer, Hull proper, points north like Chelsea and anyone headed to points west and south in Ottawa. People from Gatineau sector heading downtown ought to be crossing elsewhere to the east.

So getting back on topic, some sort of transit facility across the river to Gatineau will be required east of the Rideau Canal. That could be from adding a span to the M-C Bridge, converting lanes on the M-C Bridge to transit, or adding provisions for transit onto any new bridge, in which case someone had better figure out where it makes the most sense to interface with the eastern leg of the LRT system and choose a bridge location accordingly.

[Acajack]

Transferring all Gatineauois at Bayview doesn't make a lot of sense. It creates a severely unbalanced system downtown, in addition to the imbalance they've already built-in by bringing passenger traffic from South Keys and beyond into downtown via the O-Train corridor rather than by converting the Southeast Transitway. The only people who should be transferring at Bayview from north of the river are those from Aylmer, Hull proper, points north like Chelsea and anyone headed to points west and south in Ottawa. People from Gatineau sector heading downtown ought to be crossing elsewhere to the east.

So getting back on topic, some sort of transit facility across the river to Gatineau will be required east of the Rideau Canal. That could be from adding a span to the M-C Bridge, converting lanes on the M-C Bridge to transit, or adding provisions for transit onto any new bridge, in which case someone had better figure out where it makes the most sense to interface with the eastern leg of the LRT system and choose a bridge location accordingly.

Good points. The problem with this is that the Rapibus as planned doesn't end up anywhere near the area east of the canal or in the vicinity of King Edward and the M-C Bridge:

http://www.rapibus.sto.ca/index.php?id=92