[RTWAP]

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

I can't help but wonder whether that is the reason the tunnel isn't discussed more. People know bridge costs would probably be shared with each side of the river paying the same share. But a tunnel completely in Ottawa is tricky.

But I don't think it's actually insurmountable.

Start from a recognition that building a truck tunnel (also other vehicles too) would save both cities and provinces the cost, disruption and local impact of a truck route through another neighbourhood. Then consider that it was primarily Ottawa's fault that the MC bridge never got the connection to the 417 that it was supposed to have.

I'd put the shared costs as follows:
Gatineau+Quebec: 30%
Ottawa+Ontario: 40%
Feds: 30%

And then stipulate that the contract work split between Ontario and Quebec be consistent with the funding split.

RE: Vanier Parkway vs. Nicholas - I'm not sure which would be better. My initial thought is the lack of lights on Nicholas south of Laurier would be appealing, and Vanier Parkway is seeing some higher density development going it. Putting lots of trucks by the base of those buildings would be sub-optimal.

One last point, is the MC bridge really anywhere near capacity? How could it be? The bottleneck is KE with a slower speed and signalled intersections. Adding capacity on the Ontario side will automagically transform the MC bridge into a higher capacity one.

And if it ever does reach capacity then the plan should be to expand it (or replace it with one that has more lanes. It's a good spot for a large bridge, we should take advantage of that instead of paying through the nose to fail at replicating those circumstances elsewhere.

If we absolutely need an east end bridge due to capacity problems or (especially) east to east cross border flows (not much currently I assume) then it could be modelled after the Champlain bridge as a 'parkway' style bridge and not a 'highway' style bridge. Make it truck-free.

[lrt's friend]

Making the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge wider is counterproductive. Where will all this new traffic go? This directly competes with rapid transit initiatives on both sides of river.

As far as funding for a tunnel, why would Gatineau or Quebec participate in funding infrastructure entirely within Ottawa? We can apply this same thinking to expand 174 if we build a bridge across the Greenbelt. Gatineau and Quebec will not pay for this either. This is why Kettle Island is so appealing since the road connections to the south are federal and provincial and costs to improve them will fall on their shoulders.

Also, we cannot fully copy Champlain Bridge in the east because boat traffic has to be accomodated. This will require a higher bridge, not on the scale of the St. Lawrence Seaway, but substantially higher than the Champlain Bridge.

Expanding interprovincial road capacity can best be accomplished by building a new bridge.

[Cre47]

Making the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge wider is counterproductive. Where will all this new traffic go? This directly competes with rapid transit initiatives on both sides of river.



Before they would even think about widening that bridge, they would need to fix the Hwy 5/Hwy 50 junction first.

[RTWAP]

I'm getting the sense that you either didn't get what I wrote, or I really wasn't clear.

Making the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge wider is counterproductive. Where will all this new traffic go? This directly competes with rapid transit initiatives on both sides of river.

The tunnel that I mentioned? What's the capacity of a 4-lane tunnel+KE+Dalhousie+Sussex? If that's more than the MC bridge, and the MC bridge starts being the bottleneck then it's the logical place to add capacity. And I'm not making any presumptions about the traffic growth. Maybe it's buses from the back of beyond in Gatineau.

As far as funding for a tunnel, why would Gatineau or Quebec participate in funding infrastructure entirely within Ottawa? We can apply this same thinking to expand 174 if we build a bridge across the Greenbelt. Gatineau and Quebec will not pay for this either. This is why Kettle Island is so appealing since the road connections to the south are federal and provincial and costs to improve them will fall on their shoulders.

If Quebec gets benefits equivalent to a new bridge (better traffic flow to/from Ottawa) without the cost, disruption and maintenance of a bunch of new infrastructure on their side then that's a significant advantage. I'm not an actuary. I don't know whether the idea would ever fly, or what the exact right split would be, but if it's an alternative to a bridge then why not fund it like a bridge?

Also, we cannot fully copy Champlain Bridge in the east because boat traffic has to be accomnodated. This will require a higher bridge, not on the scale of the St. Lawrence Seaway, but substantially higher than the Champlain Bridge.

That was already mentioned upthread. I'm not talking about the height, I'm talking about the capacity, traffic mix, and visual style.

Expanding interprovincial road capacity can best be accomplished by building a new bridge.

But why add capacity there? Are you convinced there is enough demand to put a bridge in the east end, or are you assuming a bunch of downtown traffic will detour, or be forced to detour. If it's the latter then you're adding capacity in the wrong spot, and put a lot of extra unnecessary load on the road network on both sides to do so.

Before they would even think about widening that bridge, they would need to fix the Hwy 5/Hwy 50 junction first.

That is a bottleneck, but luckily there is space to reconfigure it, and to add lanes if required.

That capacity, and the MC bridge, are the heart of my suggestion. The engineer in me says that we have 2/3rds of a very strong connection between the main highways on each side of the river. The last third was never built and is instead routed through a residential neighbourhood in the heart of the city. Building a new solution from scratch in another location seems really wasteful, both in terms of the cost of doing each third all over again, and in doing it where the demand isn't.

[J.OT13]

I can't help but wonder whether that is the reason the tunnel isn't discussed more. People know bridge costs would probably be shared with each side of the river paying the same share. But a tunnel completely in Ottawa is tricky.

But I don't think it's actually insurmountable.

Start from a recognition that building a truck tunnel (also other vehicles too) would save both cities and provinces the cost, disruption and local impact of a truck route through another neighbourhood. Then consider that it was primarily Ottawa's fault that the MC bridge never got the connection to the 417 that it was supposed to have.

I'd put the shared costs as follows:
Gatineau+Quebec: 30%
Ottawa+Ontario: 40%
Feds: 30%

And then stipulate that the contract work split between Ontario and Quebec be consistent with the funding split.

RE: Vanier Parkway vs. Nicholas - I'm not sure which would be better. My initial thought is the lack of lights on Nicholas south of Laurier would be appealing, and Vanier Parkway is seeing some higher density development going it. Putting lots of trucks by the base of those buildings would be sub-optimal.

One last point, is the MC bridge really anywhere near capacity? How could it be? The bottleneck is KE with a slower speed and signalled intersections. Adding capacity on the Ontario side will automagically transform the MC bridge into a higher capacity one.

And if it ever does reach capacity then the plan should be to expand it (or replace it with one that has more lanes. It's a good spot for a large bridge, we should take advantage of that instead of paying through the nose to fail at replicating those circumstances elsewhere.

If we absolutely need an east end bridge due to capacity problems or (especially) east to east cross border flows (not much currently I assume) then it could be modelled after the Champlain bridge as a 'parkway' style bridge and not a 'highway' style bridge. Make it truck-free.

Major oversight on my part; I didn't think about the fact that the tunnel would be fully in OT (I knew it, I just didn't think it threw).

But ya, your right, it would add capacity since it takes out the KE bottleneck. I also think that Nicholas is the better way forward as opposed to Vanier Prkw for similar reasons as you pointed out.

As for widning/re-building the MC bridge; the only benifit I would see is improving it's asthetics. I still think that if we have to, Aviation is the best option if it has to be/we ever need a new bridge.

[Acajack]

One last point, is the MC bridge really anywhere near capacity? How could it be? The bottleneck is KE with a slower speed and signalled intersections. Adding capacity on the Ontario side will automagically transform the MC bridge into a higher capacity one.


The M-C itself is certainly not at capacity. But its approaches in Ontario definitely are and the ones in Quebec are strained (but in this latter case could be fixed without too much upheaval).

So we are going to build an entirely new bridge when this one is not at capacity basically because we don't want to follow through with the obvious fix that would be a lot cheaper and allow for maximum use of the M-C: extend the Vanier Parkway (as originally planned) and allow trucks to use it.

[RTWAP]

The M-C itself is certainly not at capacity. But its approaches in Ontario definitely are and the ones in Quebec are strained (but in this latter case could be fixed without too much upheaval).

So we are going to build an entirely new bridge when this one is not at capacity basically because we don't want to follow through with the obvious fix that would be a lot cheaper and allow for maximum use of the M-C: extend the Vanier Parkway (as originally planned) and allow trucks to use it.

When you say it like that is sounds ... stupid.

;)

[Acajack]

When you say it like that is sounds ... stupid.

;)

That was the whole idea! If anybody disagrees that this is what this really is all about, please go ahead...

[Hybrid247]

I think the best option would be to build a tunnel from MC to Nicholas. If that doesn't work, then the Aviation is the next best thing.

[Dado]

The M-C itself is certainly not at capacity. But its approaches in Ontario definitely are and the ones in Quebec are strained (but in this latter case could be fixed without too much upheaval).

So we are going to build an entirely new bridge when this one is not at capacity basically because we don't want to follow through with the obvious fix that would be a lot cheaper and allow for maximum use of the M-C: extend the Vanier Parkway (as originally planned) and allow trucks to use it.

Tunnelling from somewhere east of St. Patrick, underneath the Rideau River and up to the M-C bridge approaches ought to do the trick and avoid putting a barrier on the shoreline (which I believe was one of the main problems with the original proposed Vanier Parkway - M-C Bridge connection). In an ideal world perhaps the tunnel would extend all the way south to the Queensway; it's likely to be cheaper than an equivalent tunnel under King Edward.

[Kitchissippi]

I think the best option would be to build a tunnel from MC to Nicholas. If that doesn't work, then the Aviation is the next best thing.

This would just funnel more traffic into the Nicholas interchange at the Queensway where there are no alternate routes. The Vanier Parkway is a much better route as it flows into Riverside drive with connections to other arterials such as Industiral/Innes or Coventry/Ogilvie in the event that the Queensway gets shut down by accidents. Nicholas is already backing up to Laurier during afternoon rush hours, I can't imagine a tunnel dumping even more traffic at this point.

[Kitchissippi]

So we are going to build an entirely new bridge when this one is not at capacity basically because we don't want to follow through with the obvious fix that would be a lot cheaper and allow for maximum use of the M-C: extend the Vanier Parkway (as originally planned) and allow trucks to use it.

What puzzles me is that New Edinburgh Park is probably one to the most unremarkable green spaces in the city. Aside from a couple of tennis courts and an underused playing field (all which can easily be moved a few hundred metres), most of it is treeless grassy meadow used as a dog run. Seriously, for this crappy park, people have been dying in Lowertown getting run over by trucks on King Edward?

[RTWAP]

What puzzles me is that New Edinburgh Park is probably one to the most unremarkable green spaces in the city. Aside from a couple of tennis courts and an underused playing field (all which can easily be moved a few hundred metres), most of it is treeless grassy meadow used as a dog run. Seriously, for this crappy park, people have been dying in Lowertown getting run over by trucks on King Edward?

Rich people's dogs >>>> poor people's lives.

[lrt's friend]

Rich people's dogs >>>> poor people's lives.

One Mistake does not correct another. Let's face it. Building a freeway through a park and people's back yards and cutting off the river front will create a worse situation than on King Edward and you would still have a mess on King Edward, because that is where most of the cars and buses are heading.

[harls]

Would a tunnel from MC Bridge to Nicholas have to contend with the LRT Tunnel (eg - go deeper underneath it). I'm pretty sure the LRT tunnel would have priority at this point in time, since it's much further ahead in the "we're probably going to build it eventually" process.

[Dado]

Would a tunnel from MC Bridge to Nicholas have to contend with the LRT Tunnel (eg - go deeper underneath it). I'm pretty sure the LRT tunnel would have priority at this point in time, since it's much further ahead in the "we're probably going to build it eventually" process.

As it happens, I started a thread on this kind of issue a few years ago:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=175699


We just don't do the kind of high level planning that we really need to on issues like this; instead we do transportation planning largely on a project-by-project basis.

[Kitchissippi]

One Mistake does not correct another. Let's face it. Building a freeway through a park and people's back yards and cutting off the river front will create a worse situation than on King Edward and you would still have a mess on King Edward, because that is where most of the cars and buses are heading.

Nobody's advocating a freeway through the park, merely an extension of the Vanier Parkway standard which is more of an urban arterial. A large amount of traffic coming from the bridge doing the detour from King Edward to St Patrick and then the Vanier Parkway contributes a lot to the mess. A parkway extension will allow traffic from the bridge to dissipate more evenly and the only solution that makes the banning of all truck traffic from King Edward possible. Is that parkland so special that it's worth the billions it would cost to build a tunnel that can take the trucks?

Vanier Parkway including the planned extension and the bridge across the Rideau (thus the existing piers) was all formerly a railroad ROW, so there is a precedent for it being a transportation corridor, and the concept really wasn't a "mistake". In my opinion, not going ahead with it and ruining King Edward and Lowertown is a bigger mistake that needs to be mitigated.

As for STO buses using the bridge, it's curious that the original DOTT study area extended all the way to the M-C Bridge. It is possible the bridge could have a transit priority role in the future — maybe widened for LRT and a connection to the DOTT along King Edward or under Dalhousie to replace all the buses?

[Acajack]

One Mistake does not correct another. Let's face it. Building a freeway through a park and people's back yards and cutting off the river front will create a worse situation than on King Edward and you would still have a mess on King Edward, because that is where most of the cars and buses are heading.

Except for STO buses, most traffic on KE is headed for or coming from the 417 via either the Waller-Nicholas or St Patrick and Vanier Pkwy.

[Uhuniau]

I am about the farthest thing from a green-space cultist, but I also think extending the Vanier Parkway anywhere north of where it turns into Crichton would also be a monumental mistake.

The other monumental mistake of late was to re-build King Edward and the feeder tube to/from the bridge to the same damn highway geometry as before, only slightly worse. The solution to King Edward being a traffic funnel is to, um, keep it as a traffic funnel (and actually make it even easier to speed)?

Wierd world Ottawa traffic planners live in.

[McC]

Wouldn't trucks with dangerous goods be excluded from a tunnel? then the worst of them would still have to trundle through neighbourhood streets somewhere (King Ed or Preston/Albert/Booth)

[J.OT13]

Wouldn't trucks with dangerous goods be excluded from a tunnel? then the worst of them would still have to trundle through neighbourhood streets somewhere (King Ed or Preston/Albert/Booth)

Maybe, are they excluded from the Ville Marie tunnel in Montreal or Big Dig in Boston?

[McC]

...are they excluded from the Ville Marie tunnel in Montreal...?
yes, according to MTQ
http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/portal/page/portal/entreprises_en/camionnage/matieres_dangereuses/particularites_quebec

Requirements Applying to the Use of Tunnels
Menu.

Road Sign [edit:it's that black diamond, crossed out in a red circle. - McC

It is prohibited to travel in the Louis-Hippolyte-La Fontaine tunnel, the Ville-Marie and Viger tunnels, the Joseph-Samson tunnel in Québec City and the part of the approach to the Melocheville tunnel that is parallel to the lane reserved for vehicles transporting dangerous substances:

with a road vehicle on which placards must be displayed in accordance with Part 4 of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations unless it is carrying only Class 9 dangerous substances;
with a road vehicle transporting a total or more than 30 litres of a Class 3 flammable liquid;
with a road vehicle transporting or using Class 2.1 flammable gas cylinders or Class 2.3 (2.1), 2.2 (5.1) or 2.3 (5.1) oxidizing gas, unless these substances are contained in at most two cylinders with a water capacity of 46 litres or less each; or
with a road vehicle equipped with working equipment that produces a naked flame.

However, these prohibitions do not apply:

when the fuel is used for the propulsion of the vehicle and is contained in one or more tanks designed for that purpose by the vehicle manufacturer;
when the flammable liquid is used for the air conditioning of the vehicle or the load space and is contained in a tank designed for that purpose by the air conditioning manufacturer;
when the flammable liquid is intended for the operation of equipment that is permanently screwed or bolted to the vehicle whose tank capacity does not exceed 75 litres and the flammable liquid is contained in a tank designed for that purpose by the vehicle or equipment manufacturer;
to emergency vehicles within the meaning of section 4 of the Highway Safety Code;
to cranes equipped with a second diesel fuel tank installed by the crane manufacturer; however, only one propane cylinder with a maximum capacity of 46 litres may be used for the air conditioning of the crane’s cab and the cylinder must be located above the level of the wheels;
to maintenance vehicles used inside tunnels or at the entrances to and exits from tunnels.

[J.OT13]

O.K, well we don't want truck traffic (specialy not hazerdous truck traffic) running on Booth, where is still considered downtown.

I think for now Aviation, which is essetialy in a forest, is the best option. Make Aviation a highway and leave room for the possibility of double tracked lrt/metro.

Make a bylaw stating that all trucks with no business downtown use the new bridge and place a toll (or monthly/annual pass) to encourage Gatineau commuters to use the free dowtown bridges.

[eternallyme]

One issue I heard mentioned a lot is the large number of trucks stopping and starting at Montreal Road near the Montfort being a major problem. Simple solution there - interchange (and a grade separation at Ogilvie). But would that be acceptable to Manor Park and Vanier?

[J.OT13]

As long as they don't pull a Lees Ave, I think it could work without taking up much more room.

[citizen j]

They've been proposing and studying this thing since before most of us were born and now, instead of building it, ... more studies. Not trying to be a prophet of doom but at this point it seems that nothing is going to be built until there's some sort of structural failure (here's hoping it's not a catastrophic one) on the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge that necessitates shutting it down for repairs. Suddenly, the the support/demand for a new bridge will be overwhelming and something will (might?) happen.

[lrt's friend]

Being the cynic that I am, the politicians love this. The longer we study, the longer it appears that we are appeasing everybody and the longer that the politicians do not really have to do anything or spend any money. Well, the millions for the consultants don't count.

[J.OT13]

Not trying to be a prophet of doom but at this point it seems that nothing is going to be built until there's some sort of structural failure (here's hoping it's not a catastrophic one) on the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge that necessitates shutting it down for repairs. Suddenly, the the support/demand for a new bridge will be overwhelming and something will (might?) happen.

Depends who built it; if it was Quebec contractors, we might be in "luck". Look how bad the highways look in Gatineau and Montreal (chicken wire anyone?).

If it was Ontario contractors (Queensway looks pretty good), it's probably fine for a while.

[RTWAP]

Wouldn't trucks with dangerous goods be excluded from a tunnel? then the worst of them would still have to trundle through neighbourhood streets somewhere (King Ed or Preston/Albert/Booth)

I wonder how many such trucks there are. We don't have a lot of specialized chemical industries in Ottawa or Gatineau.

[Harley613]

I think it's pretty obvious at this point after reading all of your observations and following the news for years...extend the aviation parkway over kettle island, and force trucks to take it to the 50. i feel like people think this is impossible because if truck traffic went down one of our precious parkways the sun would implode and the solar system would die....however, it's not that big a deal. the aviation parkway is hidden from view from pretty much ALL residences in the neighbourhood, well insulated for noise, and a perfect option.

[McC]

I wonder how many such trucks there are. We don't have a lot of specialized chemical industries in Ottawa or Gatineau.
I dont know. A fuel truck is a dangerous good, and I've seen lots of those on King Ed, and pulp mills use nasty stuff (sulphuric acid, i think) that probably comes from MTL; in any event, the horror story scenario that gets retold in arguments to get trucks out of there is always about a truck with flammable or dangerous chemicals knocking over, spilling and who knows what else. You have to make your risk assessment based on that two by two matrix: likelihood and severity of an incident, and to do so, you'd need to know the frequency of dangerous trucks.

[jaydog0212]

I wonder how many such trucks there are. We don't have a lot of specialized chemical industries in Ottawa or Gatineau.

If you take swimming pool stores there is around 20 in Ottawa-Gatineau many of there items are hazardous.

[Uhuniau]

I think it's pretty obvious at this point after reading all of your observations and following the news for years...extend the aviation parkway over kettle island, and force trucks to take it to the 50. i feel like people think this is impossible because if truck traffic went down one of our precious parkways the sun would implode and the solar system would die....

It would! (Also: the children!!!!)

[Dado]

I think it's pretty obvious at this point after reading all of your observations and following the news for years...extend the aviation parkway over kettle island, and force trucks to take it to the 50.

And are you going to force them not to use the Chaudière Bridge as well?

The discussion keeps going in circles. The consultants found that the major interprovincial truck traffic demand desire line was smack through downtown Ottawa and Hull. Even with a new bridge at Kettle Island but without closing off King Edward, a lot of truck traffic would keep using it. Close it off and a lot of it goes to Chaudière, not Kettle Island.

[Acajack]

My wife, from the old days when she used to commute from Gatineau to Ottawa, has this theory that when a rush-hour accident (no injuries of course) happens on one of the Ottawa approach roads from Gatineau, that Ottawa police take their sweet time to clean up the scene.

I have always wondered if this was really true - never saw any actual evidence of this myself.

Anyway, this morning at around 6:20 a minor accident occurred at the Ottawa exit of the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge, which is the main bridge between Gatineau and Ottawa.

On local radio stations, a guy who was actually involved in the crash told the hosts that Ottawa police were called within a minute or two of the accident, and that they only showed up around 8:20, or about two hours later!

As you all can see today is a beautiful November morning in Ottawa-Gatineau: mix of sun and clouds, no precipitation, temperature above freezing so no icing on the roads. Everything is in place for a quiet, run-of-the-mill rush hour.


Note also that although this seems to have led to massive traffic jams this morning, none of it affected Acajack and family since we all live, work and (mostly) play in the old city of Gatineau, poetically (sic) known as Gatineau (secteur Gatineau).

[todspe67]

At the risk of sounding to simplistic, build a tunnel.

[gjhall]

At the risk of sounding to simplistic, build a tunnel.

Where would you locate said tunnel?

[rocketphish]

Where would you locate said tunnel?

The tunnel begins with a portal entrance near Sussex Dr., then dives under lowertown at Boteler St. making a wide curve and then runs under the length of King Edward, emerging near Mann Ave. before joining the Queensway. Parts could be cut&cover and parts would be bored. A great idea in it's simplest form. Probably a little more complex to implement.

Haven't we had this discussion before?

[Uhuniau]

Where would you locate said tunnel?

Personally, I like my tunnels to be under the ground. :)

[Acajack]

Sort of related to this topic: the last segment of Autoroute 50 opened at 11 am this morning. So the entire highway is now open from Gatineau to the A-15 junction at Mirabel.

[J.OT13]

The tunnel begins with a portal entrance near Sussex Dr., then dives under lowertown at Boteler St. making a wide curve and then runs under the length of King Edward, emerging near Mann Ave. before joining the Queensway. Parts could be cut&cover and parts would be bored. A great idea in it's simplest form. Probably a little more complex to implement.

Haven't we had this discussion before?

I agree.

-Opposition would be much less fierce (I believe the Lowertown associations actually want a tunnel);
-it would take out all truck traffic;
-It would greatly reduce traffic in Lowertown ;
-By having a continuous 80ish km/h zone with 6 lanes and no traffic lights from the 50, over the bridge to the Queensway would, despite what people think, increase capacity significantly;
-it would not affect Gatineau in any negative way (the conversation is always about who gets screwed in OT, but never Gatineau);
-It would give us a chance to make a Grand Boulevard out of King Ed's.

And I doubt it would be much more expensive than the Aviation Bridge and have a lesser environmental impact; the tunnel would be roughly 2 km with a few on/off ramps and a redo of King Eds (what, third in 20 years, at least it would be final) as opposed to Aviation where it's a 2 km bridge over a natural island thru neighbourhoods (on the Gat side) and near neighbourhoods on the OT side. It would also require a complete revisit of the role of la Monte Paiment and the Aviation Parkway that would now act like expressways.

Oh, and of course the screw up that is the 417/174 split.

But I wager that the reason the Feds and the NCC are hell bent on a bridge in the east end is that they love conflict. God forbid we build a tunnel under King Eds that would be much less controversial.

[Dado]

:previous:

I don't think any tunnel would be more than 4 continuous lanes. The two extra lanes on the bridge would continue to go to King Edward (you would probably have a 3-to-4 split coming off the bridge with the left lane heading into the tunnel, the right lane up to King Edward and the middle lane splitting into both a tunnel lane and a King Edward lane; the right lane may even end up being a transit-only lane too).


The powers-that-be are intent on a new bridge because they see it as serving "growth" rather than fixing an existing problem. The current problem is only used as a cover to justify the Airport Parkway location rather than a location further east.

A Vanier-Byward tunnel (I'm agnostic on a Vanier Pkwy routing versus a King Edward routing at this point) would also change the debate on where an eventual east end bridge would go - it would almost certainly have the effect of removing the Airport Parkway location in favour of one further east.

[lrt's friend]

A downtown truck tunnel will be horrendously expensive. I chuckle at the suggestion after all the comments that a bus tunnel would have been too expensive. This will be much more expensive. I'd rather invest this money into LRT.

If we want our city to prosper in the long term, we need an east end crossing. You should not have to go right downtown to cross over. Given existing infrastructure and easy connections to the Queensway and the 417, the only sensible solution is to build at Kettle Island. Being relatively central, there is an opportunity to incorporate rapid transit that would have no value if the bridge was built too far east.

A downtown tunnel is not cost justifiable and there is no perfect solution to the King Edward problem. Building an expressway into downtown was poor 1960s planning that unfortunately cannot be corrected when governments are trying to scale back budgets.

[Dado]

A bus tunnel is bad idea not just because of expense but because it wouldn't work. Instead of surface bus jams, we'd have underground bus jams.

A truck tunnel also doesn't need stations, and you can slap a toll on it too.

The traffic study we do have on truck traffic indicates that Kettle Island won't solve King Edward. The truck travel demand desire lines go right through downtown Ottawa.

Here is what the modelling shows for truck traffic in 2031 assuming a Kettle Island bridge and NO ban on truck traffic on King Edward:

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

Take that and ban truck traffic on King Edward and most of it will end up on the Chaudière Bridge, not the Kettle Island bridge. Note in particular that much of it is coming from the west and is headed to Hull (i.e. west of the Gatineau River). The only other fix I can think of is to go ahead with the old Champagne Arterial plan to build another bridge next to the Prince of Wales Bridge to siphon off truck traffic from the west along with building a Kettle Island bridge.

A few years ago I would have said (Ok, did) that we should do something about improving our intermodal capabilities on both sides of the river to reduce the sheer quantity of truck traffic travel demand, but now that a combination of shortsightedness on the parts of CP, CN, the federal government, the Ontario government and the City of Ottawa has resulted in the Chalk River Sub being ripped up and the probable demise of most of the Beachburg Sub, that option has left the station.

[J.OT13]

I still think the King Ed tunnel is the best solution, from what I have seen over the years, the bridge capacities have not reached anything close to a critical point, especially the MacDonald-Cartier; every time I use it, even in rush hour, it’s smooth sailing. The fail points are the arterial roads and their traffic lights (often not synchronized) such as Maisonneuve and King Eds.

My second choice would be Kettle Island, as long as the Aviation Parkway is transformed into something similar to an expressway, with 6 lanes and no traffic lights (grade separated from Montreal Road and Ogilvie Road, but with on/off ramps). They would also need to reconfigure the split and leave room for double tracked rapid transit along the route (so no trams/streetcars or shared carpool/train lanes, fully independent grade separated rapid transit).

As for the Champagne expressway, I'm not sure how it would work; wouldn’t it require taking out the O-Train? What would be the exact route? City Centre Ave and over the O-Train? I just need some clarification on the idea.

[lrt's friend]

A bus tunnel is bad idea not just because of expense but because it wouldn't work. Instead of surface bus jams, we'd have underground bus jams.

That assumes that every bus on the surface would be moved underground. That would not have to occur.

[J.OT13]

That assumes that every bus on the surface would be moved underground. That would not have to occur.

Which bus tunnel are we talking about?

[eternallyme]

A bus tunnel is bad idea not just because of expense but because it wouldn't work. Instead of surface bus jams, we'd have underground bus jams.

A truck tunnel also doesn't need stations, and you can slap a toll on it too.

The traffic study we do have on truck traffic indicates that Kettle Island won't solve King Edward. The truck travel demand desire lines go right through downtown Ottawa.

Here is what the modelling shows for truck traffic in 2031 assuming a Kettle Island bridge and NO ban on truck traffic on King Edward:

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

Take that and ban truck traffic on King Edward and most of it will end up on the Chaudière Bridge, not the Kettle Island bridge. Note in particular that much of it is coming from the west and is headed to Hull (i.e. west of the Gatineau River). The only other fix I can think of is to go ahead with the old Champagne Arterial plan to build another bridge next to the Prince of Wales Bridge to siphon off truck traffic from the west along with building a Kettle Island bridge.

A few years ago I would have said (Ok, did) that we should do something about improving our intermodal capabilities on both sides of the river to reduce the sheer quantity of truck traffic travel demand, but now that a combination of shortsightedness on the parts of CP, CN, the federal government, the Ontario government and the City of Ottawa has resulted in the Chalk River Sub being ripped up and the probable demise of most of the Beachburg Sub, that option has left the station.

If the Champagne Arterial is built, there would be one major problem: connecting to the Queensway. It is virtually impossible without community disruption or traffic issues.

[Harley613]

I just had a sudden epiphany...by the time this bridge is completed we will all have flying cars!

[eternallyme]

The NCC needs to get its head out of municipal affairs. It should be between Ottawa and Gatineau (or the provinces of Ontario and Quebec if on provincial highways).

[Dado]

As for the Champagne expressway, I'm not sure how it would work; wouldn’t it require taking out the O-Train? What would be the exact route? City Centre Ave and over the O-Train? I just need some clarification on the idea.

Eric Darwin wrote a post on it recently:

http://www.westsideaction.com/the-late-unlamented-champagne-freeway/

Essentially, it would have straddled what is now the O-Train trench.

The Queensway Bridge was given enough clearance to accommodate extra carriageways in the corridor. The Transitway overpass at Bayview Station also has extra height over the railway to allow for elevated ramps to be built.

As noted elsewhere, the biggest problem from an transportation engineering perspective is the difficulty of fitting in ramps to/from the Queensway.

[JM1]

It is ridiculous that the NCC seems so keen on the Kettle Island option. Just look at a map and you will see that this route is absolutely the longest possible connection between freeways on the Quebec and Ontario sides. It cuts communities on both sides in half and will have the same effect that running the Queensway between Centretown and the Glebe had (with all of the ensuing traffic issues aorund the Queensway).

This is the worst route because it severs communities and will cause the most traffic complications for East-West traffic at the largest possible number of intersections.

I am all for a tunnel -- either connect the Nicholas street exit directly to the MacDonald Cartier bridge by tunnel, or connect Vanier Parkway by tunnel to the bridge (under the river and the Chinese embassy).

If the NCC absolutely needs to build a triumphal bridge (named after John Baird perhaps), let it be between Orleans (Trim Road) and Gatineau or along Corridor 7 (connecting to the Gatineau Airport industrial park).

[Acajack]

It is ridiculous that the NCC seems so keen on the Kettle Island option. Just look at a map and you will see that this route is absolutely the longest possible connection between freeways on the Quebec and Ontario sides. It cuts communities on both sides in half and will have the same effect that running the Queensway between Centretown and the Glebe had (with all of the ensuing traffic issues aorund the Queensway).

This is the worst route because it severs communities and will cause the most traffic complications for East-West traffic at the largest possible number of intersections.

I am all for a tunnel -- either connect the Nicholas street exit directly to the MacDonald Cartier bridge by tunnel, or connect Vanier Parkway by tunnel to the bridge (under the river and the Chinese embassy).

If the NCC absolutely needs to build a triumphal bridge (named after John Baird perhaps), let it be between Orleans (Trim Road) and Gatineau or along Corridor 7 (connecting to the Gatineau Airport industrial park).

Sounds like you live along the Aviation Parkway route or in Manor Park. Because if you do look at map, the Kettle Island route is probably the least disruptive place to put a bridge in urban Ottawa. By far.

[Harley613]

The Kettle Island route looks like a near-perfect solution to me. It's barely off from the current route but without the downtown snafu. The right of way already exists in the Aviation Parkway, so it will cause minimal disruption to the surrounding environs. I don't think it would have any real effect on the Nimby's day to day life. I also like how it is a natural extension of the 417 at the junction of the 174....The split could be eliminated in favour of a proper high volume cloverleaf.

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

[JM1]

Sounds like you live along the Aviation Parkway route or in Manor Park. Because if you do look at map, the Kettle Island route is probably the least disruptive place to put a bridge in urban Ottawa. By far.

I live just off of Bathgate. So you are wrong.

Have you read the transportation report that was prepared and available on the ncrcrossings.ca website? I dont think you have. If you had, you would realize the traffic problems that Kettle Island will cause for East-West commuters in Ottawa.

I urge everyone interested in Ottawa transit to go read the report. The intersections of Aviation Parkway and Montreal Road and Ogilvie will be clogged and the arteries east from there (whether it is Montreal, Ogilvie/Coventry, or even Hemlock and the Rockcliffe Parkway) will cause untold problems for the whole of the East end.

Check the loss of service that is anticipated at the intersections.

[Capital Shaun]

It cuts communities on both sides in half and will have the same effect that running the Queensway between Centretown and the Glebe had (with all of the ensuing traffic issues aorund the Queensway).

The Aviation Parkway already cuts the community in half.

[Acajack]

I live just off of Bathgate. So you are wrong..

Close enough!

Have you read the transportation report that was prepared and available on the ncrcrossings.ca website? I dont think you have. If you had, you would realize the traffic problems that Kettle Island will cause for East-West commuters in Ottawa.

I urge everyone interested in Ottawa transit to go read the report. The intersections of Aviation Parkway and Montreal Road and Ogilvie will be clogged and the arteries east from there (whether it is Montreal, Ogilvie/Coventry, or even Hemlock and the Rockcliffe Parkway) will cause untold problems for the whole of the East end.

Check the loss of service that is anticipated at the intersections.

There is not much in there that could be categorized as catastrophic. Sure there will be traffic, but there will be traffic at either end of any new bridge. There is an indication that along that corridor the busier signalized intersections could be grade-separated if a bridge is built.

Anyway Kettle Island appears to offer the best balance between manageable traffic levels and where people and goods seem to want to go to and from.

[c_speed3108]

The Kettle Island route looks like a near-perfect solution to me. It's barely off from the current route but without the downtown snafu. The right of way already exists in the Aviation Parkway, so it will cause minimal disruption to the surrounding environs. I don't think it would have any real effect on the Nimby's day to day life. I also like how it is a natural extension of the 417 at the junction of the 174....The split could be eliminated in favour of a proper high volume cloverleaf.

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


The problem with that map is most traffic is not going to follow the red line. It will exit at Hemlock or perhaps Montreal and dump tons of traffic into the neighbourhood.

[J.OT13]

I urge everyone interested in Ottawa transit to go read the report. The intersections of Aviation Parkway and Montreal Road and Ogilvie will be clogged and the arteries east from there (whether it is Montreal, Ogilvie/Coventry, or even Hemlock and the Rockcliffe Parkway) will cause untold problems for the whole of the East end.



Why they would need to convert Aviation into an expressway and leave room along the whole corridor/bridge for double tracked rapid transit.

[Capital Shaun]

Why they would need to convert Aviation into an expressway and leave room along the whole corridor/bridge for double tracked rapid transit.

I don't think there's enough demand for rapid transit between Ottawa-Gatineau in that corridor. I can easily envision an STO or OCT bus route connecting the Rapibus, Aviation museum, the Montfort hospital, La Cité collgiale, and the Transitway.

I'd rather see a Montreal rd subway built first.

[Acajack]

The problem with that map is most traffic is not going to follow the red line. It will exit at Hemlock or perhaps Montreal and dump tons of traffic into the neighbourhood.

Montreal Road I would understand to a degree but where would people all these people be going off of Hemlock?

[rocketphish]

Montreal Road I would understand to a degree but where would people all these people be going off of Hemlock?

Downtown. It becomes the new shortest route. Hemlock > Beechwood > St. Patrick... mostly 2-lane roads.

[Acajack]

Downtown. It becomes the new shortest route. Hemlock > Beechwood > St. Patrick... mostly 2-lane roads.

From eastern Gatineau? Really? Sounds like a bit of a bogeyman.

[Capital Shaun]

Downtown. It becomes the new shortest route. Hemlock > Beechwood > St. Patrick... mostly 2-lane roads.

I assuming your talking about commuters from Gatineau?

[rocketphish]

I assuming your talking about commuters from Gatineau?

Actually I was thinking about truck traffic, once it's banned from the big bridge. But yes, any traffic, commuting or otherwise, that originates on the Quebec side east of the new bridge will have this new route downtown available to them.

[Harley613]

with bridges and long ramps over ogilvie and montreal road the disruption would be minimal, no?

[J.OT13]

I don't think there's enough demand for rapid transit between Ottawa-Gatineau in that corridor. I can easily envision an STO or OCT bus route connecting the Rapibus, Aviation museum, the Montfort hospital, La Cité collgiale, and the Transitway.

I'd rather see a Montreal rd subway built first.

I agree, but I still think we should leave room for future needs. A bus lane to be converted to rapid transit in 40 years (on the bridge/Aviation, Montreal road should get a subway ASAP) would work just as well.

[Capital Shaun]

Actually I was thinking about truck traffic, once it's banned from the big bridge. But yes, any traffic, commuting or otherwise, that originates on the Quebec side east of the new bridge will have this new route downtown available to them.

I occasionally bike by there and rarely see trucks on Hemlock.
Is truck traffic even currently allowed there? We could easily just ban trucks from Hemlock/Beechwood.

[c_speed3108]

I occasionally bike by there and rarely see trucks on Hemlock.
Is truck traffic even currently allowed there? We could easily just ban trucks from Hemlock/Beechwood.

I believe they already are, but trucks do still need local access. For instance there is a Metro store on Beechwood that requires transports on a daily basis.

Not many roads around that area are on the truck route map. I think just Montreal and St. Laurent. The biggest traffic problem are caused by cars/suvs/vans/light trucks.

Even on King Edward, as much as trucks are big, load, ugly and need a generous amount of space due to huge blindspots and wide turns, most of the problems (congestion, speeding, etc..) are still caused by private cars/suvs/vans/light trucks. The community in lowertown bought a radar gun and did several studies of speed on Kind Edward and found lots of speeding, but almost none from trucks.

[Acajack]

Actually I was thinking about truck traffic, once it's banned from the big bridge. But yes, any traffic, commuting or otherwise, that originates on the Quebec side east of the new bridge will have this new route downtown available to them.

Trucks don't go downtown unless they have deliveries to make there. There are more trucks than normal in downtown Ottawa at present because they are forced to go through there to get to Gatineau, in the absence of non-downtown links like you would have in any other metro.

[JM1]

Trucks don't go downtown unless they have deliveries to make there. There are more trucks than normal in downtown Ottawa at present because they are forced to go through there to get to Gatineau, in the absence of non-downtown links like you would have in any other metro.

I spoke to a local trucking association representative at the bridge open house in Gatineau. He said that most of his members' trucks would continue to use Chaudiere or MacDonald-Cartier even if trucks were banned regardless of the location of an east-end bridge. He said they would pay the fine and it would still be financially tenable. The issue is that the east end bridges being considered by the NCC (a known authority on trucking) don't solve the problem of trucks downtown. A tunnel would solve it. Problem is, the tunnel would be in Ottawa only and so would not draw Quebec or federal funding (even if it would be mainly Quebec that would benefit).

[Acajack]

I spoke to a local trucking association representative at the bridge open house in Gatineau. He said that most of his members' trucks would continue to use Chaudiere or MacDonald-Cartier even if trucks were banned regardless of the location of an east-end bridge. He said they would pay the fine and it would still be financially tenable.

Makes it sound like they can just do whatever they want. Rest assured that if ever there was such a situation the police would crack down and put a stop to it.

[McC]

As I said a few pages ago on this thread, dangerous goods would be likely banned from a tunnel, that means that fuel trucks and chemicals headed for Thurso etc., i.e. the ones that people are most worried about getting in a collision or tipping over and spilling at the corner of Rideau and King Ed, would excluded. To me, this means that a tunnel is not a solution.

[Harley613]

As I said a few pages ago on this thread, dangerous goods would be likely banned from a tunnel, that means that fuel trucks and chemicals headed for Thurso etc., i.e. the ones that people are most worried about getting in a collision or tipping over and spilling at the corner of Rideau and King Ed, would excluded. To me, this means that a tunnel is not a solution.

exactly what i was thinking.

as for what the trucker said about paying the fine to use the existing bridges i'm sure that's just banter and resistance to change. we're not talking about a 100km detour here.

[JM1]

exactly what i was thinking.

as for what the trucker said about paying the fine to use the existing bridges i'm sure that's just banter and resistance to change. we're not talking about a 100km detour here.

If you are going from the west end, the south end or the airport to aylmer or even downtown gatineau or up autoroute 5, it is a serious delay (and extra fuel to go around through an east end bridge. Time + fuel costs justify the ticket. That is the point. And if you are paying the ticket anyway, you might as well use the Champlain bridge, which is what he told me. Now trucks in the East end become a West end problem too.

Well done planners!

[Acajack]

If you are going from the west end, the south end or the airport to aylmer or even downtown gatineau or up autoroute 5, it is a serious delay (and extra fuel to go around through an east end bridge. Time + fuel costs justify the ticket. That is the point. And if you are paying the ticket anyway, you might as well use the Champlain bridge, which is what he told me. Now trucks in the East end become a West end problem too.

Well done planners!

You don't want a bridge at Kettle Island because you live less than 1 km from Aviation Parkway. We get it.

But aside from this fact, what is the solution?

Ideally they would build two bridges - one in the east and one in the west - as part of a ring road around Ottawa-Gatineau.

I don't think two bridges are in the cards at the moment. So the plan is to build one in the best location to alleviate the problems that are most acute.

Hence the plan for Kettle to relieve King Edward where the problem is most critical.

The other proposed bridges are even further out east and therefore would have even less of a lessening impact on truck traffic in central Ottawa.

[Ottawan]

If you are going from the west end, the south end or the airport to aylmer or even downtown gatineau or up autoroute 5, it is a serious delay (and extra fuel to go around through an east end bridge. Time + fuel costs justify the ticket. That is the point. And if you are paying the ticket anyway, you might as well use the Champlain bridge, which is what he told me. Now trucks in the East end become a West end problem too.

Well done planners!

A quick check of the Highway Traffic Act confirms that a license to operate a commercial vehicle can be revoked if there is reason to believe that an operator will not comply with any traffic related law. If trucks started habitually crossing banned bridges and paying fines as a matter of course, their license could be revoked. Driving a commercial vehicle without a license would invoke a penalty of up to $2,000 and 6 months imprisonment.

On the ground these sorts of harsh penalties are probably rarely enforced. But in an extreme situation, there is always a way to enforce compliance with the law. This threat is quite an empty one.

[JM1]

The point is not the I live less than 1km from aviation parkway, it is that a lot of people live in the area and the Kettle Island/Montee Paiement route is the longest route through developed area. The transportation report already proves that it will create a traffic problem across the whole East End of Ottawa.

I am all for getting trucks off Kind Edward, but unless you ban trucks on all other bridges (and see my comments on the effectiveness of this), any east end bridge will only pile trucks onto chaudiere instead of macdonald cartier.

The price of trying to get trucks off king edward with an east end bridge is too high. And if there is such a demand for commuter routes, then build light rail in gatineau east and the montreal road area. We don't need more cars.

You don't want a bridge at Kettle Island because you live less than 1 km from Aviation Parkway. We get it.

But aside from this fact, what is the solution?

Ideally they would build two bridges - one in the east and one in the west - as part of a ring road around Ottawa-Gatineau.

I don't think two bridges are in the cards at the moment. So the plan is to build one in the best location to alleviate the problems that are most acute.

Hence the plan for Kettle to relieve King Edward where the problem is most critical.

The other proposed bridges are even further out east and therefore would have even less of a lessening impact on truck traffic in central Ottawa.

[Dado]

I was just doing a bit of searching on this topic and came across this website:

http://www.ssd-ottawa.ca/home

I don't know who set this up (it wasn't me, though I almost wish it was), but it is seriously well put together and avoids the rantiness usually found in activist group websites.



Anyway, they also note that there are no regulations of general application on dangerous goods in tunnels.

[Acajack]

The point is not the I live less than 1km from aviation parkway, it is that a lot of people live in the area and the Kettle Island/Montee Paiement route is the longest route through developed area. The transportation report already proves that it will create a traffic problem across the whole East End of Ottawa.

I am all for getting trucks off Kind Edward, but unless you ban trucks on all other bridges (and see my comments on the effectiveness of this), any east end bridge will only pile trucks onto chaudiere instead of macdonald cartier.

The price of trying to get trucks off king edward with an east end bridge is too high. And if there is such a demand for commuter routes, then build light rail in gatineau east and the montreal road area. We don't need more cars.

Our solution will admittedly be imperfect because a) opportunities were missed in the past and b) there is no political will to do what other cities have done to address this issue.

So the best we can hope for is a decent amount of mitigation.

That said, a few things should be considered:

- First of all, the corridor along Aviation Parkway is not inhabited in any significant way. At least not compared to any other corridor in central Ottawa. The Gatineau side is another story, but I assume it is Ottawa side you and others here are most concerned with. For the record, I live pretty close to the Gatineau segment of the corridor.

- It is not uncommon nor unreasonable in North America and elsewhere in the world for heavy truck traffic to be compelled to take more circuitous routes within an urbanized area, and to not be allowed to simply barrel through the central part of the city unencumbered. If you look at trucking routes in most cities (and where city bypasses tend to run) you will see that it is almost never a Pythagoric point A to point B straight line.

[JM1]

I wouldn't say that the area around Aviation in not inhabited. There is a thin buffer of trees, but when the leaves are off, you see the neighbourhoods on both sides.

Second the issue is about the wider traffic problems that would be generated for East-West traffic in Ottawa. I don't think that trucks would generate that much traffic, but cars and commuters would.

Third, I still don't know what problem we are solving. If it is trucks and they are willing to go a circuitous route, then send them around the whole city, not through the East end (or better yet build a truck tunnel or a direct connection for trucks across the Prince of Wales ROW to the end of Autoroute 50 (notice that Autoroute 50 is aimed in this direction anyway). If it is the need to satisfy more commuters, then improve mass transit (note that Gatineau decided against an LRT and for a BRT though).

Finally, Aviation Parkway is a parkway. Corridor 5 would ruin cultural institutions that we have -- the RCMP musical ride grounds, the Aviation Museum and its grounds, and the grounds of the yet to be built cultural centre planned by the NCC at the corner of Hemlock and Aviation.

My guess, Acajack, is that you live in East Gatineau and are looking for a shorter route downtown. Get out of your car and take your BRT! Oh wait, the planners for that catastrophe didn't realize that you need a fast connection across into Ottawa. They assumed that all those folks in East Gatineau work in Gatineau. Hmmm.... Maybe try to find a job at Montcalm?



Our solution will admittedly be imperfect because a) opportunities were missed in the past and b) there is no political will to do what other cities have done to address this issue.

So the best we can hope for is a decent amount of mitigation.

That said, a few things should be considered:

- First of all, the corridor along Aviation Parkway is not inhabited in any significant way. At least not compared to any other corridor in central Ottawa. The Gatineau side is another story, but I assume it is Ottawa side you and others here are most concerned with. For the record, I live pretty close to the Gatineau segment of the corridor.

- It is not uncommon nor unreasonable in North America and elsewhere in the world for heavy truck traffic to be compelled to take more circuitous routes within an urbanized area, and to not be allowed to simply barrel through the central part of the city unencumbered. If you look at trucking routes in most cities (and where city bypasses tend to run) you will see that it is almost never a Pythagoric point A to point B straight line.

[Capital Shaun]

I wouldn't say that the area around Aviation in not inhabited. There is a thin buffer of trees, but when the leaves are off, you see the neighbourhoods on both sides.

Second the issue is about the wider traffic problems that would be generated for East-West traffic in Ottawa. I don't think that trucks would generate that much traffic, but cars and commuters would.

Third, I still don't know what problem we are solving. If it is trucks and they are willing to go a circuitous route, then send them around the whole city, not through the East end (or better yet build a truck tunnel or a direct connection for trucks across the Prince of Wales ROW to the end of Autoroute 50 (notice that Autoroute 50 is aimed in this direction anyway). If it is the need to satisfy more commuters, then improve mass transit (note that Gatineau decided against an LRT and for a BRT though).

Finally, Aviation Parkway is a parkway. Corridor 5 would ruin cultural institutions that we have -- the RCMP musical ride grounds, the Aviation Museum and its grounds, and the grounds of the yet to be built cultural centre planned by the NCC at the corner of Hemlock and Aviation.

My guess, Acajack, is that you live in East Gatineau and are looking for a shorter route downtown. Get out of your car and take your BRT! Oh wait, the planners for that catastrophe didn't realize that you need a fast connection across into Ottawa. They assumed that all those folks in East Gatineau work in Gatineau. Hmmm.... Maybe try to find a job at Montcalm?

So what solution do you propose that would help both the movement of people and the movement of goods between both cities?

We can't have all the cars, buses, trucks, pedestrians and bicycles forced to funnel through downtown forever. Especially if their destination isn't close to downtown.

Building a tunnel under King Edward and an LRT line between the cities are nice ideas but lets be realistic here, those won't happen any time soon.

[lrt's friend]

First of all, just remember the recent 'can't do' newspaper article. Ottawa is so d**m timid and always compromises to the point of less than mediocrity.

I think the idea presented that light rail should run up the Aviation Parkway corridor is outstanding. It would be a very cheap corridor to build on. It does so much. It could connect directly into our east-west light rail. It would enable us to build the Rockcliffe project to full density. We could provide service within walking distance of the Montfort Hospital, Cite Collegiale, and the NRC campus by running light rail through the Rockcliffe project and turning it around in the NRC campus. North of the Rockcliffe Project and across the proposed bridge, we could design for LRT but initially have it serve as a busway. STO buses could cross the bridge and terminate at a transfer station where LRT turned to run through the Rockcliffe project.

Just imagine STO service from east Gatineau that could run across the bridge with fast service via LRT to all parts of east Ottawa and even downtown.

To me this is a no brainer.

As far as the website mentioned, how many times do we have to take proposals off the table and put them back on? Again, a downtown tunnel does not solve all problems. It does not improve east end interprovincial connections. Since the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge opened in the 1960s, at least 300,000 new residents have moved into areas east of that bridge on both sides of the river. We need to address the needs to cross the river east of downtown.

Sure, there will be impacts on traffic but are we arguing that we will never build an east end bridge because of that. That argument is not rational. At some point in a growing city, we need to build critical transportation links.

As far as bridges dividing communities, this is only happening because of the NIMBY hyperbole. There is a lack of rational decision making going on here and letting studies pile on other studies is just increasing the divide. The longer this goes on, the more one community tries to impose a bridge on another. But it shouldn't be about this. It should be about making the best choice and that is it. From there, we try to mitigate the impact on the neighbouring communities.

Regarding, the Kettle Island alternative being the more circuitous route possible. Look at the other reasonable possibilities discounting those that have been discarded on more than one occasion. And if we are talking about costs. It may be that a Kettle Island bridge may cost $500M. But a turnnel? We are looking at $1B+++. This has to be a concern to taxpayers.

[lrt's friend]

Finally, Aviation Parkway is a parkway. Corridor 5 would ruin cultural institutions that we have -- the RCMP musical ride grounds, the Aviation Museum and its grounds, and the grounds of the yet to be built cultural centre planned by the NCC at the corner of Hemlock and Aviation.

The Aviation Parkway was originally designed as part of a ring road that was called a parkway. It was to run from the Rockcliffe Airport to Lincoln Fields via South Keys and Nepean. Unlike the parkways following the rivers and the canal, it is not a particularly scenic location and as result of the connection with the 417, it is mostly serving as an arterial road. The NCC long abandoned the concept of building the full parkway and parts of the corridor have now been built upon. Just as the Airport Parkway is no longer really a 'parkway', likewise is the case with the Aviation Parkway. There is a critical need for a new bridge and this location is the least disruptive while being reasonably central to the population. I do not favour it being converted into a full expressway with high traffic speeds. I also believe that a rapid transit option should be included in order to increase the number of people who leave their cars at home.

As far as destroying existing cultural institutions in the area, isn't this again hyperbole? We are not going to be destroying or even significantly damaging these facilities.

I think that every effort should be made to make sure that what is built is of the highest design possible and includes public amenities that will offset the impacts that will be imposed on neighbours.

[eternallyme]

with bridges and long ramps over ogilvie and montreal road the disruption would be minimal, no?

The most recent plan (foolishly IMO) calls for at-grade intersections at Ogilvie and Montreal Roads; those need interchanges.

[eternallyme]

You don't want a bridge at Kettle Island because you live less than 1 km from Aviation Parkway. We get it.

But aside from this fact, what is the solution?

Ideally they would build two bridges - one in the east and one in the west - as part of a ring road around Ottawa-Gatineau.

I don't think two bridges are in the cards at the moment. So the plan is to build one in the best location to alleviate the problems that are most acute.

Hence the plan for Kettle to relieve King Edward where the problem is most critical.

The other proposed bridges are even further out east and therefore would have even less of a lessening impact on truck traffic in central Ottawa.

Good plan there, but the west end bridge would have to go all the way up past Kanata at Riddell Drive, otherwise it would cross Shirley's Bay which would be REALLY expensive. That would likely only warrant a 2-lane bridge for the foreseeable future; likewise a bridge at Cumberland would only need 2 lanes.

Could all the bridges be tolled to help pay for construction?

[lrt's friend]

The most recent plan (foolishly IMO) calls for at-grade intersections at Ogilvie and Montreal Roads; those need interchanges.

No, at grade intersections will keep speeds at a reasonable level. Interchanges will have a much greater impact on the community.

As I said before, this should not be turned into a full fledged expressway.

[Dado]

- It is not uncommon nor unreasonable in North America and elsewhere in the world for heavy truck traffic to be compelled to take more circuitous routes within an urbanized area, and to not be allowed to simply barrel through the central part of the city unencumbered. If you look at trucking routes in most cities (and where city bypasses tend to run) you will see that it is almost never a Pythagoric point A to point B straight line.

It is not just King Edward that would have to be locked down, though. It is also the Chaudière crossing because that crossing would become the first choice for a lot of truck traffic.

In the end, you'd be talking about sending all truck traffic currently using both bridges to a Kettle Island crossing.


As far as the website mentioned, how many times do we have to take proposals off the table and put them back on? Again, a downtown tunnel does not solve all problems. It does not improve east end interprovincial connections. Since the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge opened in the 1960s, at least 300,000 new residents have moved into areas east of that bridge on both sides of the river. We need to address the needs to cross the river east of downtown.

Sure, there will be impacts on traffic but are we arguing that we will never build an east end bridge because of that. That argument is not rational. At some point in a growing city, we need to build critical transportation links.


Fair enough, but if you read through the website they're not arguing entirely against an east end bridge, either.

What they're arguing against is a study process that is going to result in a compromised solution that addresses nothing particularly well. The need to sort-of-but-not-really address the truck problem is leading to the Kettle Island routing, but it doesn't address the need for an east end bridge for all other uses particularly well either.

Once a downtown truck tunnel is in place dealing with the truck problem and a significant amount of the current interprovincial car traffic, the outcome of any study on where to put another bridge will likely come up with a very different result. Moreover, the very nature of such a bridge could be quite different too. Instead of being a freeway-to-freeway solution with multiple lanes in each direction, it can be more of an arterial-to-arterial solution (quite possibly just a two or three lane bridge like the Chaudière or Champlain Bridges) with a rapid transit component.



As far as bridges dividing communities, this is only happening because of the NIMBY hyperbole. There is a lack of rational decision making going on here and letting studies pile on other studies is just increasing the divide. The longer this goes on, the more one community tries to impose a bridge on another. But it shouldn't be about this. It should be about making the best choice and that is it. From there, we try to mitigate the impact on the neighbouring communities.

That's in part because the studies frequently don't study the right thing. Spending millions of dollars on a study to address mainly future transportation needs while completely ignoring the actual problem on the ground today is bound to cause problems. People show up for the 'consultations' with a general expectation that known existing problems will be addressed only to find out that they won't be.

Who in their right mind would carry out a study on interprovincial transportation and come to a recommendation which includes leaving King Edward Avenue EXACTLY the way it is today? Yet that is precisely what has happened.

And it is not the first time something exactly like that has happened here in Ottawa. In the last decade, we came up with a plan to build a light rail line to Riverside South and Barrhaven for future growth while completely and utterly ignoring the present-day bus problem downtown and proposed a plan that would actually make things worse than they already were.

Until the various powers-that-be and their friends in the transportation engineering consultancy stop making plans that ignore actual current problems no one is going to believe that they are even capable of coming up with the best choice.


Regarding, the Kettle Island alternative being the more circuitous route possible. Look at the other reasonable possibilities discounting those that have been discarded on more than one occasion. And if we are talking about costs. It may be that a Kettle Island bridge may cost $500M. But a turnnel? We are looking at $1B+++. This has to be a concern to taxpayers.

I doubt it would be quite that much for a ~2 km cut-and-cover 2-or-3 lane tunnel, and since a Byward tunnel would actually save time (rather than adding time to a journey), tolls can be used to partially or even fully cover the cost.

This page has a decent overview of the interprovincial trucking situation:

http://www.ssd-ottawa.ca/interprovincial-truck-studies

Given the relatively high number of local truck trips, making journeys extra long would result in quite an economic cost. That strongly suggests that there is considerable room for tolling in a tunnel since a tolled tunnel could still end up being the most economic option compared to either slogging away through downtown or diverting to a more distant bridge.

[c_speed3108]

No, at grade intersections will keep speeds at a reasonable level. Interchanges will have a much greater impact on the community.

As I said before, this should not be turned into a full fledged expressway.

It depends. If they did bridges, but not interchanges with would serve to shield the community from the effects of traffic (at the expense of parkway access), as the traffic would be funneled down to Queensway/417/174. But then I suppose at that point the beside water-filtration plant corridor would work just as well, at probably lower cost.

[Acajack]

My guess, Acajack, is that you live in East Gatineau and are looking for a shorter route downtown. Get out of your car and take your BRT! Oh wait, the planners for that catastrophe didn't realize that you need a fast connection across into Ottawa. They assumed that all those folks in East Gatineau work in Gatineau. Hmmm.... Maybe try to find a job at Montcalm?

Thank you for your concern about my commuting life. I do live not too far from montée Paiement but don't have any commuting requirements to downtown. If I go downtown it's for leisure and shopping - and that's always off peak.

But... merci quand même mon ami! ;)

[Aylmer]

Have the trucking companies actually been consulted at all? It would be interesting to actually see what would get trucks out of Downtown instead of blindly going about it.

[lrt's friend]

It depends. If they did bridges, but not interchanges with would serve to shield the community from the effects of traffic (at the expense of parkway access), as the traffic would be funneled down to Queensway/417/174. But then I suppose at that point the beside water-filtration plant corridor would work just as well, at probably lower cost.

I think a bridge with no local access really limits the value of the bridge. Is traffic just wanting to go to the 417 and the Queensway? I doubt it. It is a recipe for creating a true expressway which will highly divisive to the community around it.

If we build a bridge at the sewage treatment plant, we are going to have all sorts of impacts on the Queensway where it is the full responsibility of the city when expansion is needed. The value of the Kettle Island proposal is that it feeds into a federal roadway that then feeds into a provincial highway and this minimizes the impact on property taxpayers. It is also the most direct route to the 417. After all, some comment about Montreal bound truck traffic wanting quick access to the 417.

[lrt's friend]

What they're arguing against is a study process that is going to result in a compromised solution that addresses nothing particularly well. The need to sort-of-but-not-really address the truck problem is leading to the Kettle Island routing, but it doesn't address the need for an east end bridge for all other uses particularly well either.

Once a downtown truck tunnel is in place dealing with the truck problem and a significant amount of the current interprovincial car traffic, the outcome of any study on where to put another bridge will likely come up with a very different result. Moreover, the very nature of such a bridge could be quite different too. Instead of being a freeway-to-freeway solution with multiple lanes in each direction, it can be more of an arterial-to-arterial solution (quite possibly just a two or three lane bridge like the Chaudière or Champlain Bridges) with a rapid transit component.

First of all, we cannot afford a downtown truck tunnel and a east end bridge. Also, is it really feasible to have a 6 lane bridge feeding into a 2 or 3 lane tunnel?

Unfortanately, compromise on this issue is a necessity. We can only spend so much money. There will not a perfect solution to eliminate all downtown truck traffic. I said it before that the mistake made in the 1960s cannot be undone.

We have to assume that only one bridge will be built and no tunnel and therefore, come up with the best solution on that basis. In my opinion, Kettle Island is the best choice based on this realistic set of parameters.

[Acajack]

I think a bridge with no local access really limits the value of the bridge. Is traffic just wanting to go to the 417 and the Queensway? I doubt it. It is a recipe for creating a true expressway which will highly divisive to the community around it.

If we build a bridge at the sewage treatment plant, we are going to have all sorts of impacts on the Queensway where it is the full responsibility of the city when expansion is needed. The value of the Kettle Island proposal is that it feeds into a federal roadway that then feeds into a provincial highway and this minimizes the impact on property taxpayers. It is also the most direct route to the 417. After all, some comment about Montreal bound truck traffic wanting quick access to the 417.

If you look at a Google Earth view of Ottawa the biggest industrial areas and truck traffic generators are around the 417 East and Innes, Walkley, Hawthorne, Industrial, etc.

The Kettle Island corridor leads right there.

As for Gatineau there is a primary industrial area north of the casino that would not be directly off the Montée Paiement bridge exit. It would be a 10-km drive away - not next door but not too bad either. The road links to it are pretty good (Maloney to the 50 or Paiement to the 50).

That said, while this industrial area is not being phased out, Gatineau is now concentrating this type of development in the east end of the city, around the airport in particular. Once again this is about 10 km from where the Kettle Island bridge would be.

[Acajack]

I

My guess, Acajack, is that you live in East Gatineau and are looking for a shorter route downtown. Get out of your car and take your BRT! Oh wait, the planners for that catastrophe didn't realize that you need a fast connection across into Ottawa. They assumed that all those folks in East Gatineau work in Gatineau. Hmmm.... Maybe try to find a job at Montcalm?

Oh yeah - I hear this all the time from people in Ottawa and I don't get how people seriously think that going to downtown Ottawa (talking CBD) from here via Kettle Island is going to be that alluring for people who live east of the Gatineau River!

Look at the routes and you will see that it makes no sense.

The 50 is very busy but is still an expressway and leads directly to the CBD via Maisonneuve where there are maybe five stoplights.

Maloney and Gréber are alternate routes that are much more free-flowing than east-west routes like Montreal Road are in east end Ottawa.

Rockcliffe Parkway would be the first route you could take to go towards downtown coming off the bridge. It is a winding two lane road with no passing opportunities and you have stoplights at every corner starting at Rideau Hall and you have to get around the mess at the Château Laurier.

The other options are... Hemlock? Seriously?

Or staying on Aviation to Ogilvie, then around Coventry to Vanier Pkwy, then up to Montreal Rd, then... geez.

Or staying on Aviation to the split which has an AADT of about 125-130,000 with fewer lanes than the 50 which has an AADT of 100,000 at its busiest point.

Bottom line - this argument is a bogeyman.

[JM1]

I think a bridge with no local access really limits the value of the bridge. Is traffic just wanting to go to the 417 and the Queensway? I doubt it. It is a recipe for creating a true expressway which will highly divisive to the community around it.

If we build a bridge at the sewage treatment plant, we are going to have all sorts of impacts on the Queensway where it is the full responsibility of the city when expansion is needed. The value of the Kettle Island proposal is that it feeds into a federal roadway that then feeds into a provincial highway and this minimizes the impact on property taxpayers. It is also the most direct route to the 417. After all, some comment about Montreal bound truck traffic wanting quick access to the 417.

I think your last paragraph shows the difficulty here. If there were a pool of funds created for this project, then a downtown Ottawa tunnel would be built. Unfortunately, that would require Ottawa to foot the bill. Since it is Quebec, Ontario and feds that have the money (maybe?) the project has to connect the 417 to th 50 by crossing the River.

If we had a federal district (like they do in the US) this would not happen because it would be easier to build appropriate infrastructure rather than infrastructure that can be funded because of accidents of jurisdiction.

This is why I think the east end bridge is so dumb. It is being driven by politics at great cost. It is not being driven by any identified requirement.

[JM1]

Oh yeah - I hear this all the time from people in Ottawa and I don't get how people seriously think that going to downtown Ottawa (talking CBD) from here via Kettle Island is going to be that alluring for people who live east of the Gatineau River!

Look at the routes and you will see that it makes no sense.

The 50 is very busy but is still an expressway and leads directly to the CBD via Maisonneuve where there are maybe five stoplights.

Maloney and Gréber are alternate routes that are much more free-flowing than east-west routes like Montreal Road are in east end Ottawa.

Rockcliffe Parkway would be the first route you could take to go towards downtown coming off the bridge. It is a winding two lane road with no passing opportunities and you have stoplights at every corner starting at Rideau Hall and you have to get around the mess at the Château Laurier.

The other options are... Hemlock? Seriously?

Or staying on Aviation to Ogilvie, then around Coventry to Vanier Pkwy, then up to Montreal Rd, then... geez.

Or staying on Aviation to the split which has an AADT of about 125-130,000 with fewer lanes than the 50 which has an AADT of 100,000 at its busiest point.

Bottom line - this argument is a bogeyman.

Acajack,

You really do need to read the transportation report and understand it. You can deny the reality all you want, but even the traffic engineers responsible for the project that I spoke to admit quietly that it won't work. But that won't stop the NCC in its single minded pursuit of a triumphal bridge from getting the thing built.

[JM1]

If you look at a Google Earth view of Ottawa the biggest industrial areas and truck traffic generators are around the 417 East and Innes, Walkley, Hawthorne, Industrial, etc.

The Kettle Island corridor leads right there.

As for Gatineau there is a primary industrial area north of the casino that would not be directly off the Montée Paiement bridge exit. It would be a 10-km drive away - not next door but not too bad either. The road links to it are pretty good (Maloney to the 50 or Paiement to the 50).

That said, while this industrial area is not being phased out, Gatineau is now concentrating this type of development in the east end of the city, around the airport in particular. Once again this is about 10 km from where the Kettle Island bridge would be.

Again Acajack,
Read the traffic report. While I don't take everything in there as truth by any means, they do demonstrate that what you perceive as the truck traffic routes of interest are not those of reality. And besides. In twenty years, much of the area at Innes and the 417 may have been converted from warehouses to condos, with the industrial area being shifted further out to take advantage of the Hunt Club bypass.

[Acajack]

Acajack,

You really do need to read the transportation report and understand it. You can deny the reality all you want, but even the traffic engineers responsible for the project that I spoke to admit quietly that it won't work. But that won't stop the NCC in its single minded pursuit of a triumphal bridge from getting the thing built.

It will not work if people are looking for a magical solution that will resolve everything perfectly, you are right.

But we are not in the realm of perfection here. We are just looking at making things better. Kettle Island will make things better.

FYI - as far as my personal benefit and interests are concerned, the two eastern bridges are actually quite a bit more advantageous, so my support of Kettle Island is because I see it as the best feasible solution we have for the entire region and its transportation needs.

[Acajack]

Again Acajack,
Read the traffic report. While I don't take everything in there as truth by any means, they do demonstrate that what you perceive as the truck traffic routes of interest are not those of reality. And besides. In twenty years, much of the area at Innes and the 417 may have been converted from warehouses to condos, with the industrial area being shifted further out to take advantage of the Hunt Club bypass.

I don't see this contradicts anything I am saying:

http://www.ncrcrossings.ca/upfiles/2031DailyCommercialVolume_2031%20DoNothing.pdf

As for Hunt Club East, industries are already in that area along Hawthorne. It's basically an extension of the Innes-Sheffield-Lancaster industrial zone anyway. And it also happens to be right next to the 417 and lead to Kettle!