[harls]

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.

Right now there is no westbound A50 exit coming from A5 north or South. I'm thinking they couldn't justify it when this junction was built seeing as the end of highway 50 was about a kilometer away (and if you wanted to go in that direction, you can just take another exit and use the streets).

Now that Allumettières is open and connected to the western part of the city, would it make sense to build this westbound approach? I don't think it is possible to do this heading south on A5, but I know there is room for an overpass for NB A5 commuters.. you can see where the ramp merges (right along the Lac de Carrière).

..of course, maybe the MTQ wants to redo the entire A5/ A50 intersection from scratch, I don't know what their plans are..

[Acajack]

Right now there is no westbound A50 exit coming from A5 north or South. I'm thinking they couldn't justify it when this junction was built seeing as the end of highway 50 was about a kilometer away (and if you wanted to go in that direction, you can just take another exit and use the streets).

Now that Allumettières is open and connected to the western part of the city, would it make sense to build this westbound approach? I don't think it is possible to do this heading south on A5, but I know there is room for an overpass for NB A5 commuters.. you can see where the ramp merges (right along the Lac de Carrière).

.

Not sure how much this would help alleviate traffic congestion. Perhaps some people taking the Alexandra Bridge onto Allumettières towards Aylmer might take KE on the way back home and then onto A50 westbound to Allumettières. But the Alexandra-Allumettières-Plateau-Aylmer routing doesn't look too bad at the moment.

The main bottleneck in the evenings is from St-Raymond and St-Joseph southbound on A5 towards the A50 eastbound.

The lack of Gatineau River crossings (and good access to them - think of St-Joseph Nord towards Alonzo Wright) is probably the biggest problem in the evening rush in this area.

[Acajack]

..of course, maybe the MTQ wants to redo the entire A5/ A50 intersection from scratch, I don't know what their plans are..

I have never heard of any plans for this. The transportation priorities for Gatineau and environs are the Rapibus of course, completing the A50 with the missing segments, extending A5 north in the Wakefield area, rebuilding the St-Raymond interchange, twinning the Alonzo Wright Bridge, extending Boulevard de la Vérendrye all the way to Lorrain, and the new interprovincial bridge and its approaches. And maybe twinning Cité-des-Jeunes and extending Boulevard de la Carrière southwards almost to the Ottawa River.

There isn't any talk of rebuilding the A5-A50 interchange at the moment.

[RTWAP]

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.

Is that passengers coming into downtown Ottawa, or passengers coming into a larger area? For example, lots of people commute across the river to Tunney's.

[RTWAP]

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.

Good points.

I was thinking that there would be priority branches and non-priority branches (determined by demand) and they would not equally share the available slots. Also, I wonder if it would be possible to have additional platforms at the stations where the branches merge so that passengers from a branch line can arrive at the station moments before a main-line train. That way their line could operate in a mixed mode with some trains going all the way downtown and others just shuttling riders to the merge point.

I don't know if it would be practical, but it isn't hard to imagine a 6 car train heading downtown that doesn't allow passengers on the last two cars until the merge point, at which time the doors open on one side for the first 4 cars, and on the other side for the last two. The idea being that other side would be a shared platform with the 'shuttle' train. People step out of one car, cross the platform and enter another empty car. If it's done right you might be able to do the whole thing without adding much if any dwell time to the main-line 6-car train.

[jeremy_haak]

I think you'll find that KISS generally applies with transit. I know Toronto experimented with interlining trains on their system when the Bloor-Danforth line opened, but it was a short-lived experiment.

[harls]

Not sure how much this would help alleviate traffic congestion.

No, I know it won't... I am just wondering why that ramp was never built. Probably for the same reason the 50 was never built all the way to the Pontiac.

[Uhuniau]

I think you'll find that KISS generally applies with transit.

Dood, this is Ottawa, where there are about 650 different routes which run on the Transitway, where there are routes where the illuminated bus signs don't match the posted schedules which don't match the online route descriptions, where X doesn't actually mean express (because there are no true expresses), and where some Genius once invented routes called the E84 and C84 that even the drivers couldn't keep straight.

KISS? My ass.

[lrt's friend]

Is that passengers coming into downtown Ottawa, or passengers coming into a larger area? For example, lots of people commute across the river to Tunney's.

Those figures relate to passengers travelling into downtown, in other words, they would be using the tunnel, if we allowed it.

[d_jeffrey]

Those figures relate to passengers travelling into downtown, in other words, they would be using the tunnel, if we allowed it.

What makes me laugh (or cry) in this case, is that the day we started talking about the tunnel, I joked about the planners will not take into consideration Gatineau folks since it probably won't be into the project scope. And there we are again.

When the issue was brought up to the committee, the planners just told us that it would be another project.

The 4 year planning phase has been a big joke so far, the initial route hasn't changed an inch, while people protests about the routing and associated costs.


I also said that there is no way LRT can move out that many people without being automated, and I was right. I also said that operating costs would be at least 50M$ a year if automated, then city planners laughed at me, saying it can't be that much in savings, now they are talking about $100M savings with electricity vs diesel savings taking in account. I mean, if we can figure out better estimates than "professionals" in a weekend, there is something seriously wrong here.

[lrt's friend]

What makes me laugh (or cry) in this case, is that the day we started talking about the tunnel, I joked about the planners will not take into consideration Gatineau folks since it probably won't be into the project scope. And there we are again.

When the issue was brought up to the committee, the planners just told us that it would be another project.

The 4 year planning phase has been a big joke so far, the initial route hasn't changed an inch, while people protests about the routing and associated costs.


I also said that there is no way LRT can move out that many people without being automated, and I was right. I also said that operating costs would be at least 50M$ a year if automated, then city planners laughed at me, saying it can't be that much in savings, now they are talking about $100M savings with electricity vs diesel savings taking in account. I mean, if we can figure out better estimates than "professionals" in a weekend, there is something seriously wrong here.

I have not always agreed with you but I agree with you on this one. The whole process since December 2006 has been: This is what I (Cullen and O'Brien) want. Produce a report that justifies it. It has been a runaway train ever since then. Debate has been cutoff or ignored at every point. Either it was too early or too late to discuss alternatives. The sad thing about it all, is that Cullen's own constituents will not see rail service for a long, long time in or near their own ward.

[waterloowarrior]

Ignatieff promises new Ottawa-Gatineau bridge


BY DON BUTLER, OTTAWA CITIZEN APRIL 15, 2011 4:04 PM


A Liberal government would begin construction of a long-discussed new bridge between Ottawa and Gatineau by 2017, says party leader Michael Ignatieff.

Ignatieff made the commitment this week while campaigning for Steve MacKinnon, the Liberal candidate in Gatineau.

“A Liberal government will advance the project, and it would be a magnificent project for the 150th anniversary of Canada in 2017,” he said.

MacKinnon said Friday he’s “thrilled” by Ignatieff’s support for a new Ottawa River crossing, which he describes as his “number one priority. It’s been 50 years that this bridge has been under discussion, and it’s high time to get on with the job.”

One major stumbling block has been finding a politically acceptable location for a new bridge. The National Capital Commission, the two provincial governments and the cities of Ottawa and Gatineau are currently completing environmental assessments of three possible east-end routes: Kettle Island, Lower Duck Island and McLaurin Bay.

While the Liberal party hasn’t endorsed a location for the bridge yet, MacKinnon said his personal choice is Kettle Island, the location favoured by the cities of Ottawa and Gatineau. “I’ll keep an open mind but I’d have to be persuaded of other routes,” he said.

MacKinnon said it was premature to say how much a Liberal government would contribute toward the cost of building the new bridge.

The Liberals are trying to recapture Gatineau riding, currently held by the Bloc Québécois’s Richard Nadeau. Nadeau won the seat in 2006 and was re-elected in 2008 in a tight three-way battle with the NDP and the Liberals.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen


Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/decision-canada/Ignatieff+promises+Ottawa+Gatineau+bridge/4623814/story.html#ixzz1JdXqnfuh

[eternallyme]

Ignatieff promises new Ottawa-Gatineau bridge


BY DON BUTLER, OTTAWA CITIZEN APRIL 15, 2011 4:04 PM


A Liberal government would begin construction of a long-discussed new bridge between Ottawa and Gatineau by 2017, says party leader Michael Ignatieff.

Ignatieff made the commitment this week while campaigning for Steve MacKinnon, the Liberal candidate in Gatineau.

“A Liberal government will advance the project, and it would be a magnificent project for the 150th anniversary of Canada in 2017,” he said.

MacKinnon said Friday he’s “thrilled” by Ignatieff’s support for a new Ottawa River crossing, which he describes as his “number one priority. It’s been 50 years that this bridge has been under discussion, and it’s high time to get on with the job.”

One major stumbling block has been finding a politically acceptable location for a new bridge. The National Capital Commission, the two provincial governments and the cities of Ottawa and Gatineau are currently completing environmental assessments of three possible east-end routes: Kettle Island, Lower Duck Island and McLaurin Bay.

While the Liberal party hasn’t endorsed a location for the bridge yet, MacKinnon said his personal choice is Kettle Island, the location favoured by the cities of Ottawa and Gatineau. “I’ll keep an open mind but I’d have to be persuaded of other routes,” he said.

MacKinnon said it was premature to say how much a Liberal government would contribute toward the cost of building the new bridge.

The Liberals are trying to recapture Gatineau riding, currently held by the Bloc Québécois’s Richard Nadeau. Nadeau won the seat in 2006 and was re-elected in 2008 in a tight three-way battle with the NDP and the Liberals.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen


Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/decision-canada/Ignatieff+promises+Ottawa+Gatineau+bridge/4623814/story.html#ixzz1JdXqnfuh

Sounds like a desperation ploy for votes.

[Cre47]

Liberal Candidate in Hull-Aylmer is also having the idea of a second crossing from Aylmer. I can they tell you that it this going to happen it will be well west of Moodie and I don't think it will make a huge dent of the traffic on the Champlain, which while heavy is nowhere near the disaster of the A-5/A-50 junction bottleneck

[Dado]

Sounds like a desperation ploy for votes.

Someone was probably paying too much attention to the French language debate in which the three leaders of the national political parties plus the leader of the Bloc spent an inordinate amount of time discussing what to do about Montréal's Champlain Bridge.

[KHOOLE]

Nearly 200 years ago, the Rideau Canal was built as a military measure to safeguard Canadian autonomy on the North American continent. Transportation of goods and troops was vulnerable to American attacks.
Now 200 years later, one has to realize that the only overland route on Canadian soil from the St Lawrence ports to western Canada and Vancouver is north of Lake Superior which is reached by Northern Ontario routes. Apart from the 417, the only major direct route from the port cities of Montreal, Quebec and Halifax to Northern Ontario is through Ottawa. That means that the Quebec-Ontario bridges are not only necessary for transportation of goods and people across the Ottawa River but also for national defense, security and autonomy.
Quite a few years ago, the NCC made a study of ten possible sites for a new bridge between the two provinces. One option, then called option no.10, was a bridge at the narrowest part of the Ottawa river in the area which is just west of Cumberland, where the power lines are, and going by or above a golf club. The Quebec side is close to Highway 50 but there were archeological concerns then that have not yet been addressed.
That would be the cheapest and most utilitarian route.
The bridge on the Ontario side would start on a height of land that would connect directly to the 174 at Orleans. The present 174 along the river could become a scenic route to historical Cumberland and preserve its heritage values. The re-routed 174 would connect from Trim Rd past Orleans to about the Canaan Rd-174 intersection.
One has to consider that most of the truck traffic coming from Quebec Hgy 50 is not coming to Ottawa but traveling through Ottawa. Remove the heavy stuff and car traffic will flow better.
Having the Ottawa owned O-train using the Prince of Wales Bridge that also belongs to the City of Ottawa to pick up and deposit passengers on the Quebec side should greatly reduce car traffic on the present bridges. It is said that 50,000 Quebecers and 25,000 Ontarians cross the bridges twice a day on each and every work day of the year. At an average of 2 passengers per car, that's 37,500 cars a day! That’s an awful lot of cars and parking lots and garages and a lot of real property that could be used more profitably in both cities.
There should be a moratorium on having more and more buildings erected in both downtowns until the transportation problems are solved. The anticipated upcoming federal freeze on the goverment workforce will just be a temporary solution.
Has anyone ever thought what would happen to the Canadian economy if the U.S. borders were closed? It happened before and it can happen again. History is not a predictable science.
A bridge that will allow truck and car traffic to by-pass Ottawa is necessary for time and economical reasons if not for national security and autonomy reasons. Those who talk about an interprovincial bridge only in terms of transit between Ottawa and Gatineau are short-sighted, ignorant or politicians. Whatever!

[waterloowarrior]

^ see the maps below
http://www.liaisonsrcn.ca/upfiles/2031DailyCommercialVolume_9000%20MassonCumberland.pdf
http://www.liaisonsrcn.ca/upfiles/2031DailyCommercialVolume_9050%20KettleIsland%20repdf.pdf

[gjhall]

Sounds like a desperation ploy for votes.

All that was agreed was that once the study was done there would be funding from a Liberal federal government. That's a major issue in the riding. Stuff like this happens all over the country, Ottawans are so in the bubble that it thinks bread and butter issues like bridges are below them, but guess what, people gotta cross rivers and they want stuff like this done.

[harls]

^ see the maps below
http://www.liaisonsrcn.ca/upfiles/2031DailyCommercialVolume_9000%20MassonCumberland.pdf
http://www.liaisonsrcn.ca/upfiles/2031DailyCommercialVolume_9050%20KettleIsland%20repdf.pdf

I wonder if that commercial traffic volume count is valid now for the Kettle Is. bridge.. it shows high numbers on Maloney leading to the Domtar plant near Main St., which I believe has been shut down?

[DubberDom]

Someone was probably paying too much attention to the French language debate in which the three leaders of the national political parties plus the leader of the Bloc spent an inordinate amount of time discussing what to do about Montréal's Champlain Bridge.

Yes but that's because Duceppe wants us Canadians to spend an inordinate amount of money to replace a crappy bridge... wait until Turcot Interchanges come up!!

[Acajack]

One has to consider that most of the truck traffic coming from Quebec Hgy 50 is not coming to Ottawa but traveling through Ottawa. Remove the heavy stuff and car traffic will flow better.
!

On the interprovincial bridges, most of the truck traffic is local. Coke bottles delivered from an Ottawa plant to Gatineau supermarkets, furniture deliveries done on behalf of Sears' Hull store by Ottawa's Fred Guy Moving and Storage, Théo Mineault windows from Gatineau going to Ottawa construction sites, Slush Puppie syrup from Gatineau going to Ottawa convenience stores...

[DarkArconio]

To be fair to Mr. Duceppe, that bridge is the busiest in Canada, owned by the federal government, and has just been declared in such a poor structural state that it is bound to collapse at a major seismic event (not in danger of collapsing, engineers predict it as the most likely outcome.) Additionally, it only has about 15 years before it should be replaced, and any replacement would no doubt take many many years. This is a significant issue for the federal government, and not one that can really wait.

[lrt's friend]

Why would we build a bridge at Cumberland as a first priority? On the Ottawa River corridor, Ottawa and Gatineau are the primary destinations by far. A bridge is necessary to address local traffic and traffic with an origin or destination in Ottawa or Gatineau. It is needed to address urban needs. We do not need a true bypass because so little traffic is actually bypassing Ottawa. How much traffic is going from Montreal to Pembroke or Sudbury? I would say very little. How much traffic doing this would actually cross a bridge in Ottawa? I would say miniscule. How could we justify a bridge at Cumberland when so many road improvements would be needed to connect the bridge to other major highways?

Regarding the Prince of Wales Bridge, we have already been told that a downtown tunnel cannot handle Gatineau passengers in the long-term. Why would we extend the O-Train across Gatineau, if we cannot move these passengers into downtown? Ottawa taxpayers will be funding the tunnel and therefore Ottawa passengers must be given priority.

[KHOOLE]

"How much traffic is going from Montreal to Pembroke or Sudbury? I would say very little".

That's pretty short-sighted. As I wrote on April 16th, the only overland route from Halifax to Vancouver on Canadian soil is Hgy 17 north of Lake Superior. The only way to get there from Toronto and WIndsor is Hgy 69 and Hgy 11. Ottawa is the hub of Que Hgy 50 and Ont Hgy 417 that connects to Hgy 17. What would happen if American borders become closed to Canadian vehicles?

This is not only a matter of Canadian autonomy but also Canadian economic survival. Shiploads of Canadian export goods to Asia and to Europe and Canadian imports from the same leave and arrive either at Canadian ports or at American ports and are mostly transported overland through U.S. routes. In case of an American "blockade", then Ottawa becomes a very necessary channel route.

Also, I don't buy the "no need for gatineau rapid transit" argument. With 75,000 people crossing the provincial border every day, rapid transit with an extension of the O-train to the other side of the river (they are getting close to completing their Rapibus network to their downtown) would greatly reduce the present need for a new bridge between the two downtowns. The NCC's three options are already in the east end and do not solve in any way the present car congestion downtown. It would merely shuffle some cars further east. And, if you say that there isn't any traffic congestion downtown, then you have no argument for a $2B tunnel to nowhere.

[waterloowarrior]

If the US border shut down trucks could use the Kettle Island bridge or the existing bridges or just take the 417 from Montreal...

[DarkArconio]

If the border closed, Canada would probably have a depression no matter how many bridges we had...

[Kitchissippi]

:previous: The USA being the destination of 80% of our exports and Canada being America's biggest supplier of oil (more than twice the amount from Saudi Arabia), the world economy will have to crash before the border is shut down. Our electricity grids are tied, we share rivers and airspace — basically we have our hands down each others' pants. Talking about a 2012 doomsday scenario is just about as plausible as the border being completely closed.

[eternallyme]

According to a recent Ottawa Citizen article (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/todays-paper/Controversial+bridge+back+under+discussion/4929393/story.html), more consultations are coming.

Any thoughts about maybe putting tolls on the existing bridges to help pay for this?

[Acajack]

According to a recent Ottawa Citizen article (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/todays-paper/Controversial+bridge+back+under+discussion/4929393/story.html), more consultations are coming.

Any thoughts about maybe putting tolls on the existing bridges to help pay for this?

Tolls on existing infrastructure like the current bridges would be a highly unusual (for North America anyway) and controversial move. Tolls on the new bridge might be possible though....

[eternallyme]

Tolls on existing infrastructure like the current bridges would be a highly unusual (for North America anyway) and controversial move. Tolls on the new bridge might be possible though....

That is true, but it would avoid the need to increase taxes, take out loans or use federal dollars that would be seen as unfair elsewhere.

[Kitchissippi]

Putting tolls on bridges across the Ottawa River would be viewed as bias against Quebec. Why not put tolls on the 417 and 416, or on bridges across the Rideau? Those highways and bridges were built with federal money as well.

[S-Man]

Maybe McGuinty can shell out some infrastructure money for Ottawa from the 8% more we've been paying the province for gas for the last year.

[waterloowarrior]

phase 2B update at NCC Board meeting on Wednesday
http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/sites/default/files/pubs/c-201201--2012-01-25_public_web_agenda.pdf

[YOWetal]

Putting tolls on bridges across the Ottawa River would be viewed as bias against Quebec. Why not put tolls on the 417 and 416, or on bridges across the Rideau? Those highways and bridges were built with federal money as well.

Bias? Either its a joint project or it isn't? You have proved the point that the beneficiaries of a new bridge would be entirely Quebec taxpayers. Which is why I say the city of Ottawa and Ontario should contribute nothing.

[Acajack]

Bias? Either its a joint project or it isn't? You have proved the point that the beneficiaries of a new bridge would be entirely Quebec taxpayers. Which is why I say the city of Ottawa and Ontario should contribute nothing.

Umm... sounds like you are mixing up the project funding arrangement with the toll issue.

It *is* a joint project. Look at the funding partners:
http://www.ncrcrossings.ca/

As for a new bridge being only for the benefit of Quebec taxpayers, that is borderline laughable. A slight majority of jobs in downtown Gatineau (Vieux-Hull) are held down by Ontario residents, almost all of them Ottawans. They have to get across the river somehow, don't they?

[YOWetal]

Umm... sounds like you are mixing up the project funding arrangement with the toll issue.

It *is* a joint project. Look at the funding partners:
http://www.ncrcrossings.ca/

As for a new bridge being only for the benefit of Quebec taxpayers, that is borderline laughable. A slight majority of jobs in downtown Gatineau (Vieux-Hull) are held down by Ontario residents, almost all of them Ottawans. They have to get across the river somehow, don't they?

Ironically commute to Quebec so for selfish reasons would also like to avoid the addition of a toll. However, there is no capacity issue entering Gatineau so a new bridge is needed to serve the growth in residential development on the QC side.

My point was when you say a toll between two provinces in descriminatory
against one province's residents you are saying that a new bridge is needed by one side more than another.

[Acajack]

Ironically commute to Quebec so for selfish reasons would also like to avoid the addition of a toll. However, there is no capacity issue entering Gatineau so a new bridge is needed to serve the growth in residential development on the QC side.

My point was when you say a toll between two provinces in descriminatory
against one province's residents you are saying that a new bridge is needed by one side more than another.

I (at least) never said tolls would be discriminatory, just impractical on political and a few other levels.

A new bridge that would allow heavy trucks would also be indirectly beneficial for Ottawa in that it would rid its downtown core of much heavy truck traffic.

[YOWetal]

I (at least) never said tolls would be discriminatory, just impractical on political and a few other levels.

A new bridge that would allow heavy trucks would also be indirectly beneficial for Ottawa in that it would rid its downtown core of much heavy truck traffic.

I live in the Market so would directly benefit from this (well if I still live there in 10 years) but they are not talking about banning trucks on any of the current bridges and the new bridge is projected to take only a small amount of this truck traffic. This is a Gatineau commuter bridge first and foremost. G

[Acajack]

I live in the Market so would directly benefit from this (well if I still live there in 10 years) but they are not talking about banning trucks on any of the current bridges and the new bridge is projected to take only a small amount of this truck traffic. This is a Gatineau commuter bridge first and foremost. G

I have heard this before (that trucks might still be allowed on King Edward) and if this is the final decision it would be a serious mistake I agree.

[BusReader]

On the interprovincial bridges, most of the truck traffic is local. Coke bottles delivered from an Ottawa plant to Gatineau supermarkets, furniture deliveries done on behalf of Sears' Hull store by Ottawa's Fred Guy Moving and Storage, Théo Mineault windows from Gatineau going to Ottawa construction sites, Slush Puppie syrup from Gatineau going to Ottawa convenience stores...

Nope, according to the NCC reports just out, most of the truck traffic is non-local so the politicians can happily ban it from King Edward and send it to Kettle Island or Orleans while creating a beautiful tree-lined KE.

But the way they get that is by narrowly defining "local" as only those trucks originating in the KERWN corridor. (ie. You're moving from an apartment in the Market to one in Gatineau) If a truck enters the KERWN corridor by running over the rubber tube they stuck on the Nicholas off-ramp during their study period, it's non-local. So Acajack, all those examples you gave would be labelled non-local and be banned from KE once a new bridge is built. Has anyone bothered to inform the truckers of that?

http://www.ncrcrossings.ca/index.php/resources
Draft Transporation Report
pgs 19-23 and pg 68

[Dado]

Nope, according to the NCC reports just out, most of the truck traffic is non-local so the politicians can happily ban it from King Edward and send it to Kettle Island or Orleans while creating a beautiful tree-lined KE.

But the way they get that is by narrowly defining "local" as only those trucks originating in the KERWN corridor. (ie. You're moving from an apartment in the Market to one in Gatineau) If a truck enters the KERWN corridor by running over the rubber tube they stuck on the Nicholas off-ramp during their study period, it's non-local. So Acajack, all those examples you gave would be labelled non-local and be banned from KE once a new bridge is built. Has anyone bothered to inform the truckers of that?

http://www.ncrcrossings.ca/index.php/resources
Draft Transporation Report
pgs 19-23 and pg 68

From that I don't see how you can draw any conclusions on "local". The previous study defined local as truck traffic whose origin and destination were both in the Ottawa-Gatineau region. This is because there is a belief that a lot of the truck traffic on King Edward is to/from Montreal, so they did a traffic survey. I have some issues with their survey methodology, but nevertheless the results they had showed most truck traffic across the bridges was local. In particular, there was a large volume heading between the Alta Vista area in Ottawa and North Hull in Gatineau, traffic that would be out of its way with Kettle and even worse with the Duck Islands. For this reason, the consultants concluded that the current levels of truck traffic on King Edward would largely remain after a new bridge was built.

[Acajack]

The local vs. non-local truck traffic issue is relevant to the debate because of the eventual completion of Autoroute 50. If it is mostly non-local on King Edward, then the 50 will take most of the Montreal-Gatineau truck traffic and this will reduce the number of trucks on King Edward. If the traffic is mostly local, then the 50 will only have a minor effect on King Edward.

[lrt's friend]

Traffic will find its way to its destination in the fastest way possible. With the amount of congestion and traffic signals on King Edward and Rideau, I believe that a certain percentage of traffic (trucks and cars) will automatically move to the new bridge. No doubt a large number of trucks going to Alta Vista will find it faster to move to a Kettle Island bridge as that traffic will be mostly moving to the industrial areas adjacent to the 417. With convenient interchanges at St. Laurent, Innes, Walkley and soon Hunt Club, why would they continue to use a slow route through the city?

I am not a fan of too much traffic manipulation as the most direct route leads to the least amount of overall congestion.

The benefits identified are only achieved by a Kettle Island bridge. As soon as we move to the eastern Greenbelt we are creating a longer alternate route and another major new interchange at the 174 and another potential bottleneck in the east end.

[eternallyme]

If there was a total ban on trucks on ALL bridges, and no new bridge, what would happen?

[J.OT13]

Re-open the POW bridge for freight trains at night? Well I'll be damned, trains were the answer 100 years ago and still are today. Or not...

[McC]

Re-open the POW bridge for freight trains at night? Well I'll be damned, trains were the answer 100 years ago and still are today. Or not...

where would the intermodal yards go? (there are locations, e.g., Sheffield/Lancaster, but this has to be carefully considered, especially the potential for unintended consequences); also, adding extra handling at each end of this interprovincial freight shortline would add time and cost to every shipment, that has ripple effects on the price of living and doing business in the region. The road network and freight sector has changed a lot since the Bayview yards were operational for freight (Midcentury Modernist had some great photos here: http://urbsite.blogspot.ca/2012/05/cpr-ottawa-west-roundhouse-remembered.html btw), these aren't insurmountable obstacles by any stretch, but as I said, would need careful consideration.

[eternallyme]

First of all, trucks from Gatineau headed to Montreal should use Autoroute 50. But for interprovincial trucks?

The only way to avoid the NIMBYs (or minimize them) is to put the bridges at the fringes of the urban area - and two bridges would be required then, and most likely an outer ring road. That is not a desirable solution because:

* An outer ring road in the rural area would not make any noticeable impact in traffic on Highway 417. Very little traffic is headed through Ottawa without stopping, even from outside the City. Traffic counts on the highways at the boundary range from 15,000 to 30,000. Of that, most is headed for Ottawa.

* It would be very difficult to control urban sprawl, since land values would rise substantially and landowners would be very likely to at least want to sell the land to developers. Attempting to implement the Greenbelt Act there would be seen as a declaration of war for them.

* The cost of such would be much better spent on much more pressing needs outside the City of Ottawa, such as Highway 17.

[Dado]

where would the intermodal yards go? (there are locations, e.g., Sheffield/Lancaster, but this has to be carefully considered, especially the potential for unintended consequences); also, adding extra handling at each end of this interprovincial freight shortline would add time and cost to every shipment, that has ripple effects on the price of living and doing business in the region. The road network and freight sector has changed a lot since the Bayview yards were operational for freight (Midcentury Modernist had some great photos here: http://urbsite.blogspot.ca/2012/05/cpr-ottawa-west-roundhouse-remembered.html btw), these aren't insurmountable obstacles by any stretch, but as I said, would need careful consideration.

You're thinking a little too limited, here. As far as I'm concerned, one of Ottawa's biggest single transportation problems is that virtually all our goods arrive in the region by truck. Yes, taking goods off a truck, loading them on a train for a run across the river and offloading them to other trucks is wasteful*, but the more general problem is that the goods are arriving in the city by truck in the first place. Most of these goods arrived in Toronto or Montreal by train and only then came here by truck.

If we had intermodal yards on both sides of the river, goods could arrive by train in the respective city and be offloaded once in this region.

Ottawa-Gatineau is about the only one of Canada's ten largest urban regions not to have an intermodal yard. It is an absurd situation that even Saskatoon has two yards and we have none.


*You could have a truck rail ferry service in which trucks drove onto the train on one side and drove off on the other, and this is probably what we would get at first in the event of any complete ban on interprovincial trucking.

[McC]

It is an absurd situation that even Saskatoon has two yards and we have none.

that's not absurd at all, Saskatoon is a secondary hub on the CN mainline (Edmonton and Winnipeg being primary hubs) with 3 other CN lines and a smaller CP line intersecting, all in a region that produces major commodities exports, with some value-added transformation done in the region (drying and packaging peas and pulses, e.g., in addition to the more "raw" export of potash and grains, etc.); of course there will be intermodal yards to serve these industries.

Ottawa is on a branch line with few specifically rail-oriented sectors active in its regional economy. Rail is more efficient than truck in general, but you really accrue these savings over longer hauls, once you've built longer trains. If it was worthwhile, you can bet CN would be running goods here by rail from Montreal, but the fact is that it would not be much more costly to run goods here by truck once they are unpacked at a rail yard in Montreal than it is to run those same goods elsewhere in the Montreal region. Montreal to Ottawa would be essentially a shortline, and shortlines work best when you are hauling something real simple and consistent like ore out of mine straight to the bulk terminal at a port (and occasionally backhauling equipment to the mine)

[Acajack]

in the event of any complete ban on interprovincial trucking.

I assume that this is being raised only for the sake of the discussion. There is no way interprovincial trucking would ever be banned in Ottawa-Gatineau.

[eternallyme]

About the lack of intramodal yards in Ottawa, it is actually somewhat understandable. There isn't much of an industrial (i.e. manufacturing or resource-based) economy in Ottawa to begin with, and hasn't been for many years (and that isn't a bad thing given the recent recessions), hence little demand for freight rail.

One major mistake made by the railways, however, was to focus all traffic east-west through Toronto (a political move?) and abandon all movements through the Ottawa Valley.

A bridge is definitely needed SOMEWHERE though, the problem is where?

[eternallyme]

Here's a possible solution:

2 new bridges - one in the east end (east of Petrie Island), one in the west end (at Riddell Drive).

Both new bridges would be TOLL, charging $3.00 per crossing for cars and $2.00 per axle for trucks. The tolls would be removed once the cost of the bridges are paid off.

Trucks over 3 axles would be prohibited from all the existing bridges, except for legitimate local deliveries (i.e. either to or from central Ottawa or central Hull). Those would only be permitted weekdays between 10:00 am and 3:00 pm and between 7:00 pm and 11:00 pm (trucks would be prohibited during rush hour, overnight and all day on weekends and holidays).

[Harley613]

What an interprovincial bridge looks like:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3099/2911311023_041367929f.jpg

What the residents of Rockcliffe and Manor Park think an interprovincial bridge looks like:

http://a4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/146/0ee4967604204479aaa00833953496ed/l.jpg

Why the hell do they think this bridge is going to DESTROYYYYYYY THE NEIGHBOURHOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!! Courtesy of the aviation parkway there is already a huge buffer zone between the neighbourhood and the lead-in road, and as far as environmental impact, just look how DESTROYYYYYYYYED Bate Island is on the Champlain Bridge....poor Kettle Island, just imagine if it became an urban wasteland of concrete and pollution like this!

http://i.imgur.com/pff3w.jpg

[harls]

In a different world, we'd have the 416 continue across the widest part of the Ottawa river into Aylmer, cut through the Boucher forest and Gatineau Park, loop just south of Old Chelsea and across the Gatineau river to meet up with the bend in A-50. If this were in place today, you'd probably see crazy big box development all along the corridor, much to the chagrin to local residents.

[Harley613]

I'd also like to note how DESTROYED these Ottawa neighbourhoods are by having ugly crumbling old bridges next to them....now I'm starting to feel for the NIMBY's....look at all those million dollar + homes near these bridges...if there were no bridges, these would surely be TEN million dollar homes!
http://i.imgur.com/awoWB.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/aUE8W.jpg

[harls]

What an interprovincial bridge looks like:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3099/2911311023_041367929f.jpg

What the residents of Rockcliffe and Manor Park think an interprovincial bridge looks like:

http://a4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/146/0ee4967604204479aaa00833953496ed/l.jpg

Why the hell do they think this bridge is going to DESTROYYYYYYY THE NEIGHBOURHOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!! Courtesy of the aviation parkway there is already a huge buffer zone between the neighbourhood and the lead-in road, and as far as environmental impact, just look how DESTROYYYYYYYYED Bate Island is on the Champlain Bridge....poor Kettle Island, just imagine if it became an urban wasteland of concrete and pollution like this!

http://i.imgur.com/pff3w.jpg

I see what you're trying to portray, and I agree that the Champlain Bridge is far from an eyesore (I quite like it, actually).. but have you been on Island Park during rush hour or on the weekend? Usually it's bumper to bumper traffic from Scott to the bridge approach (sometimes up to Byron). Those homes on Island Park drive are magnificent and beautiful, but I'll bet the steady flow of cars hurts their resale value a bit..

[Acajack]

I see what you're trying to portray, and I agree that the Champlain Bridge is far from an eyesore (I quite like it, actually).. but have you been on Island Park during rush hour or on the weekend? Usually it's bumper to bumper traffic from Scott to the bridge approach (sometimes up to Byron). Those homes on Island Park drive are magnificent and beautiful, but I'll bet the steady flow of cars hurts their resale value a bit..

Indeed. Although the Ottawa roads that lead to the Kettle Island crossing wouldn't be like this since they have fewer stoplights and, most importantly, no residences along them.

Montée Paiement in Gatineau would probably be very much like this though.

[Acajack]

Another thing I was wondering about: has the NCC ever clearly or officially indicated that it would allow heavy truck traffic on its sacred parkways (Aviation/Rockcliffe) if ever Kettle Island is built?

[Kitchissippi]

Bridge or no bridge, I still think they should build the Vanier Parkway link and completely rid King Edward of trucks once and for all, taming it back to a 4 lane urban boulevard that knits Lowertown together instead of dividing it.

[KHOOLE]

Within the next two years, Quebec Hy 50 will be completed and will dump traffic straight unto Blvd Maisonneuve in downtown Gatineau. Chances are that trucks will take the Portage Bridge (can they?)
There was option 10 for a bridge at Cumberland where the Hydro lines are and where the Ottawa River is quite narrow. However, Ontario Hy 417 is far away and Regional Rd 174 would have to be built to the top of the ridge at Cumberland (Old Montreal Rd).
One option is to have a bridge further downstream.
Hgy 50 is now close to Hawkesbury at Grenville Qc. and Hgy 417 is not really that far away near Vankleek Hill (Beau's Heaven). Also, the 417 is close to the river at Chute a Blondeau.
Are these worth considering or would the trucking industry balk at the extra mileage on the 417? Maybe the Province of Ontario could give financial incentives?

[waterloowarrior]

Within the next two years, Quebec Hy 50 will be completed and will dump traffic straight unto Blvd Maisonneuve in downtown Gatineau. Chances are that trucks will take the Portage Bridge (can they?)
There was option 10 for a bridge at Cumberland where the Hydro lines are and where the Ottawa River is quite narrow. However, Ontario Hy 417 is far away and Regional Rd 174 would have to be built to the top of the ridge at Cumberland (Old Montreal Rd).
One option is to have a bridge further downstream.
Hgy 50 is now close to Hawkesbury at Grenville Qc. and Hgy 417 is not really that far away near Vankleek Hill (Beau's Heaven). Also, the 417 is close to the river at Chute a Blondeau.
Are these worth considering or would the trucking industry balk at the extra mileage on the 417? Maybe the Province of Ontario could give financial incentives?

The problem identified in the Terms of Reference is not just reducing truck traffic in the core, but that the existing National Capital Region bridges have reached peak capacity, creating congestion and delays for existing communities. Building a bridge near Hawkesbury (where there is an existing bridge likely not even close to capacity) won't do much to solve any of Ottawa-Gatineau's transportation problems.

[Harley613]

how many trucks will choose to use the 50 when it's single lane for most of it's run? the risk of a backup would probably outweigh any fuel/distance advantages the road has. i think the 50 will remain more of a commuter link between towns and ottawa/montreal, not a viable transport link.

[harls]

Sorry, Acajack.. I tried to quote your post and actually edited it. I need more coffee..

[harls]

how many trucks will choose to use the 50 when it's single lane for most of it's run? the risk of a backup would probably outweigh any fuel/distance advantages the road has. i think the 50 will remain more of a commuter link between towns and ottawa/montreal, not a viable transport link.

There are passing lanes, but yeah.. I can see truckers choosing a four-lane highway rather than being stuck behind some senior in a crown victoria going 80 km/h with an entourage of 50 road raging people behind her..

[McC]

There are passing lanes, but yeah.. I can see truckers choosing a four-lane highway rather than being stuck behind some senior in a crown victoria going 80 km/h with an entourage of 50 road raging people behind her..
isn't the gas tax lower in Ontario, too? that would make a difference as well. Trucking companies pay the gas tax based on where they drive rather than where they fuel up (which the rest of us do), so Ontario kilometres would be somewhat cheaper than Quebec kilometres, then factor in a higher average speed/better flow and it might be more efficient to take the longer route on the 417.

[Acajack]

There are passing lanes, but yeah.. I can see truckers choosing a four-lane highway rather than being stuck behind some senior in a crown victoria going 80 km/h with an entourage of 50 road raging people behind her..

I don't think it is a no brainer either way. Sure the 50 is a super-2 much of the way, but on the other hand if you are going to Gatineau you don't have to navigate the Queensway traffic in Ottawa (depending on time of day), plus the whole Nicholas/Waller/Rideau/King Edward route which is very fun for an 18-wheeler.

Also, I would assume that many Quebec trucking companies will modify their shipping routes (if they have not done so already) and group Gatineau in with the far northern Montreal suburbs and places like Lachute, etc. on the north shore of the Ottawa River, and serve all of that via the 50.

[harls]

Trucking companies pay the gas tax based on where they drive rather than where they fuel up (which the rest of us do)

Really? I did not know this.

I would imagine time / efficiency would come into play and negate the savings though, with a modernized Quebec alternative. The accountants at the trucking companies would be crunching the numbers for the best results!

[DubberDom]

Come on people, get over it, Kettle Island is the only logical choice

[Harley613]

Come on people, get over it, Kettle Island is the only logical choice

exactly. it WILL be built at Kettle Island....after more money is spent on environmental & feasibility studies + lawsuits then the bridge itself will cost.

[McC]

The accountants at the trucking companies would be crunching the numbers for the best results!
exactly; the best money in trucking is made with good accounting and scheduling systems (I guess it's the same in a lot of industries)

[eternallyme]

I think it is the truck traffic, not the bridges, that the communities hate.

The 416-Deschenes connection is a great idea in theory, except for the fact it would require an extremely expensive tunnel in the widest part of the river (and dangerous goods would be forbidden).

Any in-town truck route should require it to be a full freeway throughout. Trucks stopping and starting are a major safety hazard in city traffic.

[rocketphish]

What an interprovincial bridge looks like:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3099/2911311023_041367929f.jpg

What the residents of Rockcliffe and Manor Park think an interprovincial bridge looks like:

http://a4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/146/0ee4967604204479aaa00833953496ed/l.jpg

Why the hell do they think this bridge is going to DESTROYYYYYYY THE NEIGHBOURHOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!! Courtesy of the aviation parkway there is already a huge buffer zone between the neighbourhood and the lead-in road, and as far as environmental impact, just look how DESTROYYYYYYYYED Bate Island is on the Champlain Bridge....poor Kettle Island, just imagine if it became an urban wasteland of concrete and pollution like this!

http://i.imgur.com/pff3w.jpg

Wow, that's quite a stretch! You can't compare the 3-lane no-trucks-allowed Champlain bridge to the proposed 6-lane designated-trucking-route East End Bridge.

I'd be willing to bet that if a 3-lane no-trucks-allowed Kettle Island bridge were proposed and built, there wouldn't be nearly the opposition. The opposition is all about trucks and volume.

Oh, and Kettle Island is largely a swamp... not exactly ripe for development.

[lrt's friend]

To be fair, an east end bridge will not look like the Champlain Bridge. The Ottawa River is not navigatible at the Champlain Bridge and therefore can be very low. In the east end, the river is used for boating and must be high enough to allow boat traffic underneath. Furthermore, we know it will be a boulevard, likely 6 lanes wide including bus lanes. But on the other hand, it is not feeding traffic directly onto a street like Island Park Drive. It is a shame, that Island Park Drive has been turned into, for all intents and purposes, an arterial road minus the trucks but there is nothing we can do about it, short of closing off the north end of Island Park Drive, with no good alternative streets to handle the traffic.

[eternallyme]

http://www.ncrcrossings.ca/upfiles/Summary%20Report%20January%205%2009%20FINAL.pdf

Page 17 had all the long-listed corridors (WARNING: huge file)

Corridors 1 and 2 were north Kanata to north Aylmer, 3 and 4 were Rivermead to Bayshore area, 8 and 9 Orleans to Angers and 10 was on the current ferry route.

[eternallyme]

Based on all that, maybe it is worth trying to keep trucks out of the urban area? Unfortunately, there is no place inside the urban area that can accomodate everything, hence two bridges would be needed in the suburbs.

If that is the case (and such needs a long, hard look), a 2-lane bridge from Riddell to Allumetieres should be built. It would not draw a lot of traffic, but it would help significantly with west-end movements. Such would necessitate an upgrade of Riddell Drive to a 2-lane arterial standard (instead of a 2-lane rural collector), and a new 2-lane road from Allumetieres to the bridge.

Also, a 4-lane bridge from a point 1.9 km east of Trim Road to just east of the Angers built-up area would need to be built concurrently. Other improvements necessary:

* Extension of the RR174 freeway eastward, on a new alignment (not easy!) as no interchange is possible at the current link, and it would go under the bridge as a parkway on the same alignment - how to reconnect it towards Rockland is a question mark as well, perhaps a wholesale redrawing with a connection to the Innes Road corridor
* Upgrading of Frank Kenny Road, depending on traffic volumes
* New freeway link to Autoroute 50 east of Angers with a new directional interchange

[McC]

.... Other improvements necessary...

I do love the way you never think small. But no offense, I'm also pretty glad you don't have your hands on the levers and funding taps! ;-)

[Acajack]

Based on all that, maybe it is worth trying to keep trucks out of the urban area? Unfortunately, there is no place inside the urban area that can accomodate everything, hence two bridges would be needed in the suburbs.

If that is the case (and such needs a long, hard look), a 2-lane bridge from Riddell to Allumetieres should be built. It would not draw a lot of traffic,

Initially at least...

[eternallyme]

Building the bridges while funnelling onto the existing network would create downstream traffic jams.

Yes, that is true re: initially. That is why it is probably not the most desirable solution - but if the downtown and urban area residents don't want them, the trucks have to go to the suburbs...and building only one bridge in Orleans would not solve the truck problem, as trucks going to the west end have to go all the way across...

All assumptions are that trucks, for the most part, become banned on all existing bridges.

[KHOOLE]

how many trucks will choose to use the 50 when it's single lane for most of it's run? the risk of a backup would probably outweigh any fuel/distance advantages the road has. i think the 50 will remain more of a commuter link between towns and ottawa/montreal, not a viable transport link.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the 50 has 4 lanes and has reached Montebello and closing in on Buckingham/Thurso and Gatineau within the next two years. It will be shorter than the 417 and the time saving to Montreal will be about 30 minutes.

From the 417, I often pick up the 50 off Maisonneuve just past the BDT brewery by taking Kent or Preston north for the Portage or Chaudiere bridges. Very easy going in the evening.

[Cre47]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the 50 has 4 lanes and has reached Montebello and closing in on Buckingham/Thurso and Gatineau within the next two years. It will be shorter than the 417 and the time saving to Montreal will be about 30 minutes.

From the 417, I often pick up the 50 off Maisonneuve just past the BDT brewery by taking Kent or Preston north for the Portage or Chaudiere bridges. Very easy going in the evening.

Most of the new stretches are Super-2 with occasional passing lanes, but apparently there some at-grade rail crossings as well. There have already several fatalities in the newer stretches.

And to top it off they will repave portions of the road between Buckingham and Thurso - quite bumpy apparently or just plain shody work.

And the Mayor confirming again as before being against the bridge.

Any options in Prescott-Russell maybe just east of the city? One area would be just outside Masson-Angers to east of Cannan Road just past the Ottawa-Rockland boundary, but it might be too far east as it would serve only Buckingham and Masson-Angers

[Acajack]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the 50 has 4 lanes and has reached Montebello and closing in on Buckingham/Thurso and Gatineau within the next two years. It will be shorter than the 417 and the time saving to Montreal will be about 30 minutes.

From the 417, I often pick up the 50 off Maisonneuve just past the BDT brewery by taking Kent or Preston north for the Portage or Chaudiere bridges. Very easy going in the evening.

It is six or four lanes in the Gatineau city limits all the way to the other side of Buckingham.

Then it is a super 2 with passing lanes from Buckingham to between Plaisance and Montebello.

Then it is four lanes again for a short bit to the other side of Montebello.

Then it is super 2 with passing lanes to Lachute

Then four lanes for a bit in the Lachute area

Then there is a short super 2 bit again in the municipality of Mirabel, which changes to 4 lanes on the final stretch between Mirabel airport and the A-15.

All in all my estimation is that about 65 km of the highway will be 4 lanes or more, and about 135 km will be super 2.

All sections are open at the moment, except for the section between Thurso and Montebello (22 km approx.) which is almost finished and will open this fall, probably November.

Some sections are not open and I have not yet driven but I know how it has been built.

[BusReader]

One area would be just outside Masson-Angers to east of Cannan Road just past the Ottawa-Rockland boundary, but it might be too far east as it would serve only Buckingham and Masson-Angers

Yes, the study already shows that the further east the corridor (of the three remaining), the fewer trucks would be removed from King Edward. I can't see how anything even further east than the three do much good. Maybe it's Hwy 50for the trucks from the east and find a spot in the west end for a bridge for trucks from the west. The local trucks are going to continue to rumble across the MacDonald Cartier and Chaudiere, no matter how many other bridges are built. The city would face a backlash from the business community if they tried to ban local trucks from the core.

Although thinking about a west end bridge, it would end up with the same issues facing an east end bridge -- encouraging Quebec car commuters to hop over to the Ottawa side early and do most of their commute on 174 / 417. Whatever the solution is, it should look after the trucks well, without becoming an enabler for single occupant vehicles -- a location that would smoothly connect to a transit hub.

[Acajack]

Regarding the idea of bypass bridges in the east and west, most places where they have been built, city bypasses were initially for through traffic and especially trucks, but always end up being primarily used by local commuters and generating more urban sprawl.

But most people here already know that.

[eternallyme]

It's a real problem.

The route of least resistance inside the Greenbelt - with least community damage - would be the 416 to Deschenes corridor (south portal at Aero Drive, under Carling Avenue and Andrew Haydon Park, north portal at Boul. Lucerne). But that would be the costliest of all, requiring a tunnel under the widest part of the Ottawa River. The tunnel would be about 4 km in length, and would need to be 6 lanes, even though hazardous goods would be prohibited.

That would likely cost over $4 billion (a conservative estimate), which would require tolls on all bridges to finance.

[Dado]

There's a letter in the Citizen today which I think really gets to the crux of the matter at hand:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/News/Ottawa/Build+trucks+only+tunnel/6785316/story.html

It occurred to us why the consult-ants for the Interprovincial Crossings Study are having such a problem coming up with an acceptable solution to the trucks in the down-town core. They don't understand the problem.

They seem to think that it is a capacity problem rather than an environmental and safety problem for the people who live and work in the King Edward corridor.

The consultants' answer is to build a new bridge in order to en-sure that 18 years from now there are no more trucks along King Ed-ward Avenue than there are today. This does not solve the problem. If they understood the real problem they would not be proposing to destroy another neighbourhood by moving the trucks there.

The answer to the truck problem is to build a three-lane, trucks only tunnel from the Macdonald-Car-tier Bridge to Nicholas Street south of Laurier Avenue: two lanes for trucks and one emergency lane. Ottawa can mandate that all heavy trucks use this tunnel and the Chaudière Bridge could be used as a backup crossing during emergencies and repairs. The city can man-date that deliveries downtown be made by six-wheel trucks or smaller - a bylaw in many major Canadian cities. Gatineau would be happy to keep the trucks on the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge and Ottawa residents would be happy to have all the trucks off our downtown streets.

The truckers would be happy to avoid the intersections, local traffic, pedestrians and cyclists. A win-win for everyone.

JUDY AND DON LISHMAN, Ottawa

---

They're bang on with respect to the definition of the problem: the NCC and the consultants are studying the wrong problem.

As to the solution, I agree in principle about a tunnel but I'm not even sure such a tunnel needs to be made trucks-only, and the third lane could be reversible (as on the Champlain Bridge), but fundamentally, I think they've got it.

Building a bridge anywhere east of downtown just does not address the major truck travel demand desire line, which heads right through downtown. The further east the bridge is built, the fewer trucks it attracts. If trucks are banned on King Edward after an eastern bridge is built, then a lot will go to the Chaudière Bridge instead, and the further east the bridge is built, the more will use Chaudière.

But a tunnel connecting the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge with Hwy 417 (it need not be via Nicholas; the Vanier Parkway interchange would work too, especially given the fact that the Alta Vista area is a major source/destination of truck traffic) would sort out the current truck problem and address a lot of truck traffic growth into the future.


The interesting thing to my mind is what happens to all these analyses of where to put a new bridge once we redo them assuming a downtown tunnel is in place: suddenly, Kettle Island both becomes less of a problem to locals (though I doubt they'd agree) but also a lot less attractive as a location, too. Lower Duck Island really starts to look a lot more favourable, especially if we start considering implications for rapid transit connectivity.

[J.OT13]

I am not totally opposed to the idea of a new bridge, but it needs to be done properly. One problem is traffic in the east end; Rockcliffe Parkway is only 2 lanes, Montreal road is blocked at rush hour and the 417/174 doesn’t need any more traffic. Here are my personal thoughts on how it should be done;

-Tolls; No matter if we were to end up with 1 or 2 new bridges, they should have tolls (to pay off bridge and once payments are cleared, tolls would continue to fund public transit projects) to encourage the people from Gatineau to use the existing downtown bridges therefore minimizing the traffic problems wherever it might be built.

-Location; Aviation Prkw, no off ramp (or limited access at rush hour) at Rockcliffe Prkw west bound since at 2 lanes and winding ways, it was not designed for heavy traffic. Aviation Prkw would become more of a highway going under (or over) Montreal road and Ogilvy (with on/off ramps). Would also provide the most direct connection to the 417 south to the City of Montreal for truck traffic and people from Gatineau. It could also provide more exposure for the Aviation Museum and future transit connection between OT and Gatineau (provided they build the bridge with room for double track/grade separated rapid transit). + to relieve traffice congestion on the Queensway (Gatineau+ Orleans traffic), we would need LRT to Orleans before the bridge opens.

-Truck traffic; bylaw stating that truck traffic with no business downtown can only use the new bridge(s).

-King Edward Tunnel; despite what people say, it would provide extra capacity, although not as much as a new bridge, since it would bypass the King Edward traffic lights. It would also give us the opportunity to narrow KE to 4 lanes and make a sort of a grand boulevard. Zone KE for 10-20 storeys (I do believe in protecting the sightlines to a point) mixed use adding more office capacity to the downtown (few million sq ft) once the CBD is full. I envision something similar to Square Victoria in Montreal. The new KE office district would also help the business case for a Rideau street subway.

[harls]

Sorry, this is unrelated, totally.. and I apologize (we are still talking about bridges, right?)

Coming back from Quebec City to Ottawa last weekend, I decided to take the 20 and the 25 (tunnel), just for the amusement of my five and two year old sons.. I thought I would have to pay for the A-25 toll bridge (and was totally prepared to do so) coming from the south to the 440 in Laval. I didn't see any booths or nothing.. is it only one way (southbound?) Anyway, my kids liked the Lafontaine tunnel and the span, who knows if they'll remember it.

[KHOOLE]

Here's an idea, for what's it's worth:

How about a bridge for heavy vehicles only at Cumberland to connect the 50 with a newer 174 on the cliff above the village, about where the hydro lines are?

Such a bridge could also have a Rideau Centre to just-past Orleans LRT line that would pick up passengers on the Quebec side, thus increasing OTC ridership and making a Orleans LRT line more financially viable and built sooner.

And the Kettle Island and Lower Duck Island opponents would be satisfied.

There is land on the cliff above Cumberland along the Old Montreal Rd that is planned to be developed. I think it's to be called Cardinal Village (?). Why not plan to have a LRT go to that area now, before it gets fully developed and urban planning and transportation gets f-upped?

With an O-Train extension also on the Prince of Wales Bridge to a Rapibus connection and this trucks-only bridge at Cumberland, vehicular traffic on the Mackenzie King Bridge would be greatly reduced and King Edward Ave could re-become a respectable city boulevard instead of a hideous car and truck mayhem.

Bridges like the Bluewater between Sarnia and Port Huron have trucks-dedicated lanes. Why not have a trucks-dedicated bridge on the Ottawa River?

[J.OT13]

Here's an idea, for what's it's worth:

How about a bridge for heavy vehicles only at Cumberland to connect the 50 with a newer 174 on the cliff above the village, about where the hydro lines are?

Such a bridge could also have a Rideau Centre to just-past Orleans LRT line that would pick up passengers on the Quebec side, thus increasing OTC ridership and making a Orleans LRT line more financially viable and built sooner.

And the Kettle Island and Lower Duck Island opponents would be satisfied.

There is land on the cliff above Cumberland along the Old Montreal Rd that is planned to be developed. I think it's to be called Cardinal Village (?). Why not plan to have a LRT go to that area now, before it gets fully developed and urban planning and transportation gets f-upped?

With an O-Train extension also on the Prince of Wales Bridge to a Rapibus connection and this trucks-only bridge at Cumberland, vehicular traffic on the Mackenzie King Bridge would be greatly reduced and King Edward Ave could re-become a respectable city boulevard instead of a hideous car and truck mayhem.

Bridges like the Bluewater between Sarnia and Port Huron have trucks-dedicated lanes. Why not have a trucks-dedicated bridge on the Ottawa River?

Your idea has it's has its merits, but having STO crossing to Cumberland would only bring people from Masson-Anger and Buckingham which would'nt releive downtown congestion all that much since they have a pretty small population. As for extending the O-Train to Quebec, they don't want it anyway and we can't force em'. Besides, it would just add an extra transfer (to work dowtown OT) putting them off transit.

As for dedicaed truck bridge; I could possibly agree on dedicated truck lanes. Even if the bridge were to be built in Cumberland, the fairy is well used so I think it would be better to close down the ferry and open the bridge to all traffic.

[Acajack]

I like the idea of the tunnel downtown, but as for a bridge or bridges on the edges, I believe these have all been studied already, and opening up the debate again would just start the whole process over again.

Pressure points for traffic are more centrally located, and so Cumberland-Masson or Constance Bay-Aylmer (or whatever) doesn't resolve anything when you look at where industry is located in Ottawa and Gatineau (Hull).

So a truck going from the Hawthorne and Walkley in Ottawa that is bound for the Boulevard de la Carrière area in Hull would have to go all the way out to Cumberland to cross the river, and then drive all the way back in? Makes no sense.

Plus the outer bridges would generate more urban sprawl on either side of the river. Not a good thing either.

Anyway you slice it... best solution is a tunnel but that's not on the table.

So if we need a bridge it is going to be Kettle. Second place goes to Duck but it is probably well behind Kettle as an option.

[lrt's friend]

I shiver as soon as I hear talk about another downtown tunnel. We haven't got the first one even started. Who will finance this? I don't know if it is really practical, but the shortest would connect to the Vanier Parkway. A tunnel crossing to Nicholas then opens the thought of making use of it for transit or even a connection to the LRT tunnel for a Gatineau LRT line. But this is all seems pie in the sky to me.

As far as a bridge, it needs to be in the urban area to take real pressure off the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge. I see very limited value in building beyond the urban area at Cumberland and I just think of the enormous cost of tying it in with the 174 and 417.

[eternallyme]

I shiver as soon as I hear talk about another downtown tunnel. We haven't got the first one even started. Who will finance this? I don't know if it is really practical, but the shortest would connect to the Vanier Parkway. A tunnel crossing to Nicholas then opens the thought of making use of it for transit or even a connection to the LRT tunnel for a Gatineau LRT line. But this is all seems pie in the sky to me.

As far as a bridge, it needs to be in the urban area to take real pressure off the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge. I see very limited value in building beyond the urban area at Cumberland and I just think of the enormous cost of tying it in with the 174 and 417.

Agreed it would be, from a traffic point of view, not desirable at all. Still, if trucks were banned from all the existing bridges, they would be forced out there...

The problem we have is NIMBYism going into overdrive in the inner city areas, such as Vanier, Manor Park, Overbrook, New Edinburgh and Rockcliffe Park. With so much opposition to any in-town bridge, the more distant options might be the only way out...

[rocketphish]

The problem we have is NIMBYism going into overdrive in the inner city areas, such as Vanier, Manor Park, Overbrook, New Edinburgh and Rockcliffe Park.

I think that just goes to show how large a swath of Ottawa will be affected by this proposal. Remember, the current problem of high trucking volume affecting one downtown neighbourhood isn't being solved, it's just being relocated.

[J.OT13]

Who will finance this? A tunnel crossing to Nicholas then opens the thought of making use of it for transit or even a connection to the LRT tunnel for a Gatineau LRT line

Who will finance this (tunnel)? Well, who's financing the bridge?

As for Gatineau LRT line, if it ever happens in our lifetime, it will likely be a conversion of their Rapibus. Having LRT crossing the McDonald-Cartier would be pretty much a waste since it would then run on or alongside the 50/5 that aren't anywhere near existing or potential developments for a few kms.

But I could see LRT potential on a Kettle Island bridge (straight towards the Rapibus on the Gat side, serving Aviation museum, Monfort hospital, connection to a potential (30-50 years) Montreal road subway going west to Rideau, downtown and then south serving La Cité Collégiale and eventually connecting to the current planned LRT (Blair, Cyrville or St-Laurent).

As it stands, I would prefer the KE tunnel followed in 20ish years by the Kettle Island Bridge.

[citizen j]

Perhaps it might be pointed out to those opposing the Lower Duck route that the bridge is not 'in' their backyard nor even in their neighbourhood -- or anyone's neighbourhood for that matter -- and certainly not on their front doorsteps (Cf. King Edward). Having lived in Beacon Hill, Orleans, Lindenlea, and Lowertown over the years, and knowing just how destructive 2700 trucks/day in addition to all those cars roaring down King Edward, Rideau, St. Patrick, Murray, and the Vanier Parkway are to central neighbourhoods (not isolated corridors in the Greenbelt), I think those in the far East End that don't want bridge traffic within 5km of their homes need to get a firmer grip on reality.

[Uhuniau]

What the residents of Rockcliffe and Manor Park think an interprovincial bridge looks like:

But that picture hardly does justice to the CHILD-KILLING features of most modern bridges.

[YOWetal]

I think that just goes to show how large a swath of Ottawa will be affected by this proposal. Remember, the current problem of high trucking volume affecting one downtown neighbourhood isn't being solved, it's just being relocated.

It's not even being relocated. Truck traffic is estimated to be at current levels when the new bridge is completed. (granted without a new bridge levels would be higher than now)

This bridge will make Gatineau developers rich, shorten the Gatineau commute a bit until the sprawl fills the new capacity and do almost nothing for Ottawa or Ontario.

[lrt's friend]

It's not even being relocated. Truck traffic is estimated to be at current levels when the new bridge is completed. (granted without a new bridge levels would be higher than now)

This bridge will make Gatineau developers rich, shorten the Gatineau commute a bit until the sprawl fills the new capacity and do almost nothing for Ottawa or Ontario.

We can say this about any transportation project whether a bridge, road expansion or new rapid transit. Remember the comments about the North-South LRT being a means to make certain developers rich. We can argue the same thing about an East-West route and the people who happen to own property around the proposed stations where rezoning will provide a financial windfall. Funny how this hasn't come up this time. It is all a matter of convenience that this issue comes up for certain projects but not others, when it applies to all.

It is also really an excuse for inaction. Inaction means that all transportation problems just get worse and worse. Sure, you always fill capacity eventually but that is a fact of life in a growing city.

We also seem to forget that the chief benefactors of a new bridge are average taxpayers who will have a more direct route for many trips in this city. We also have to remember that this will be a federally funded project and therefore at least a substantial portion of the cost will not come from local property tax payers. So why are we stalling? We have an obvious solution to a problem. It isn't perfect but no solution is and I don't believe that a tunnel is even under consideration and I doubt that it would be financially viable.

[lrt's friend]

Let's suppose we move the bridge east. This immediately adds costs to local taxpayers because bridge traffic will be funnelled onto a municipal road, the 174 and this will put pressure on the city to expand the 174 to handle most of the additional traffic.

A Kettle Island bridge however has the least impact on local taxpayers, at least on the Ontario side. A federal bridge would connect to a federal parkway, which will connect to a provincial highway. Of course, traffic will also flow onto municipal roads, as it does today, but the impact is minimized by the direct road connections keeping through traffic off of municipal roads.

[gjhall]

But that picture hardly does justice to the CHILD-KILLING features of most modern bridges.

This might be your best yet. I LOL'ed.