[Cre47]

Of course of the major issues of transportation here is bridge congestion during the morning and afternoon on the Ottawa River bridges and especially the Gatineau River bridge crossings not to mention the truck traffic in the downtown core causing further congestion at times.

There are 3 bridges only connecting the Gatineau and Hull sectors, one of them where half of it was under fully reconstruction (Lady Aberdeen Bridge), another will need some major refurbishing and structure work (Des Draveurs Bridge) and the third one will eventually have to need repairs soon (Alonzo Wright Bridge). For many and many years there are calls for a sixth bridge which will likely be in the east end as there is almost a unanimous political opposition for a west end crossing and there is no need for a west end crossing now.

The east end crossing is much more important for now as to divert the trucks away. If the bridge is across the Kettle Island, I think it would be another possibility to add a connection between the Rapibus and Transitway with an OC or STO line that would run from the Rapibus to St-Laurent Station (or Hurdman - perhaps downtown) via the Aviation Parkway in a designated bus lane. I think with new crossings, transit should also be considered there.

[lrt's friend]

All new major bridges in the urban area should have a reserved transit lane or a separate transit ROW. All new major bridges should be designed to be architecturally attractive. Make it a positive to have a house with a view of the bridge.

[Deez]

I'm going to have a field day with this one when I get off work.

Until then, consider these O-D numbers for all trips leaving the Quebec side in the morning (taken directly from the O-D survey trip database).

Ottawa Centre 12669
Ottawa Inner Area 5403
Ottawa East 2041
Beacon Hill 1566
Alta Vista 3677
Hunt Club 857
Merivale 2487
Ottawa West 3426
Bayshore 1242
Orleans 860
Rural East 47
Rural Southeast 68
South Gloucester 156
South Nepean 159
Rural Southwest 398
Kanata/Stitts 1112
Rural West 117
Gatineau (internal) 41844

[Acajack]

I guess these figures would include the whole area from Quyon and Luskville in the west to Buckingham in the east.

For the purposes of a new bridge in the east, we’d have to narrow things down to see where people in the old city of Gatineau are going to work, as I suspect most of the people going to Ottawa West, Kanata and Bayshore probably live in Aylmer and the Plateau de la Capitale area instead.

[Deez]

Yeah...(also from the OD survey)

Work Trips from Aylmer and Plateau.

District Total AM Work Trips
Ottawa Centre 2987.443294
Ottawa Inner Area 1347.371181
Ottawa East 342.9849204
Beacon Hill 425.1611223
Alta Vista 1123.956996
Hunt Club 362.5809178
Merivale 774.0538366
Ottawa West 1253.623001
Bayshore 509.5938909
Orleans 178.0614634
Rural East 17.5528886
Rural Southeast 17.97923161
South Gloucester 29.66074405
South Nepean 39.47742006
Rural Southwest 170.1921906
Kanata/Stitts 342.9544667
Rural West 20.21954511
"Quebec Side" 6473.758207

These queries can even be broken down by what bridge was used by the respondent...but that gets a little messy.

I'm starting to question why I'm providing this info when I'm whole-heartedly against the bridge serving as a commuter corridor.

[Cre47]

Considering that few people in Gatineau had interest in the consultation process and that many in Ottawa seems to be against the project because of the NIMBY effect and the fact that it is not real problem to them (at least the suburbs say so). Maybe we should concentrate on the transit bridge from now on.

[d_jeffrey]

Considering that few people in Gatineau had interest in the consultation process and that many in Ottawa seems to be against the project because of the NIMBY effect and the fact that it is not real problem to them (at least the suburbs say so). Maybe we should concentrate on the transit bridge from now on.

Actually, from what I read from Le Droit, the issue from the Ottawa people is that they don't want to pay one cent for this bridge, and it's not their problem if Gatineau people want to work in Ottawa. They can't have both, low mortgage and fast ride.

[jeremy_haak]

It really seems to me that the bridge would primarily benefit Ottawans. Certainly some Gatinois who work in the eastern end of Ottawa at Montfort, for example, would likely take advantage of a new bridge in the east end; however, I have a hard time believing that Quebec commuters would use the 417 to get to downtown Ottawa when there are excellent connections on the Quebec side.

The prime reason to build this bridge seems to be to direct truck traffic off of King Edward. In that respect, the bridge almost entirely benefits Ottawans, or more specifically, those living in Lowertown and Vanier.

[Mille Sabords]

Considering that few people in Gatineau had interest in the consultation process and that many in Ottawa seems to be against the project because of the NIMBY effect and the fact that it is not real problem to them (at least the suburbs say so). Maybe we should concentrate on the transit bridge from now on.

Le Droit and the rest of the media are creating controversies out of non-issues. The people of Ottawa won't be "paying for the bridge" any more or less than the people of Gatineau, Ontario and Quebec, and Canada for that matter, since the NCC is into it.

The francophone media is stirring shit because they want the bridge at Kettle Island and they think they will make their case stronger by shedding light on a supposed anglo anti-Gatinese conspiracy. The anglo media is studiously skirting the issue that the bridge is needed FIRST AND FOREMOST for truck traffic.

Let's all keep our eyes on the ball here. Commuter bridges, transit bridges, all the rest of the philosophical re-invention of the wheel, will only serve to distract, delay, and procrastinate.

WE NEED A BRIDGE AT KETTLE ISLAND, LINKING THE AVIATION PARKWAY TO THE 417, SPECIFICALLY FOR TRUCKS SO THEY CAN BE REROUTED FROM DOWNTOWN.

All other considerations are secondary.

[Acajack]

Actually, from what I read from Le Droit, the issue from the Ottawa people is that they don't want to pay one cent for this bridge, and it's not their problem if Gatineau people want to work in Ottawa. They can't have both, low mortgage and fast ride.

Well, people are going to decide at some point once and for all if we’re going to be one region or not. A lot of people like to talk a good game on “Ottawa-Gatineau” but then when there’s talk of improving links between the two sides of the river, there’s always a big hue and cry in Ontario about people from Gatineau coming over to work in Ottawa. On the other hand, other than from the urban planning crowd, there is interestingly enough very little public controversy when new roads and bridges (that will of course funnel more traffic into downtown Ottawa) are built on the Ontario side.

Last time I checked, people in Gatineau are still Canadian citizens (some of them fiercely loyal in fact) who are fully entitled to work pretty much wherever they wish in Canada, and their needs are no less valid than those of people living in Carleton Place, Manotick and Arnprior, no matter what language either group primarily speaks.

In Gatineau, there is already a buzz about how the “improvements” on King Edward (with fewer, narrower lanes) are actually meant to make life more difficult for people from Quebec coming into Ottawa and, more broadly, how Ottawa cops supposedly take their sweet time cleaning up rush hour accident scenes on any of the interprovincial bridges’ approach roads.

[harls]

The RCMP routinely set up morning checkpoints at Wellington/Portage bridge, nabbing single-occupant scofflaws that fly down the bus lane... but I've never seen cops at the other end in Gatineau doing the same thing in the evening...hmmmmmm....

.. ah, what do I care, I take the bus!

[Acajack]

Hey, you should care! Those bozos who illegally use the bus/HOV lane jam it up for those of us who play by the rules by taking the bus or carpooling!

I’ve never seen any police anywhere patrolling the dedicated lanes in the evening rush. I regularly see Gatineau police enforcing them in the morning rush however, especially along Fournier and Maisonneuve.

[Mille Sabords]

:previous: Good for the RCMP to do this... now if only our city's boys in blue could get serious about enforcing the downtown Transitway. I can't count the number of times I've seen cars trying to turn right from Albert onto Bay, and clogging up the Transitway when they get backed up. Basically, they cancel rapid transit service across the core for the benefit of one or two light cycles' worth of their time. :rant: That, and the frikkin' bike lane on the Laurier Bridge, which apparently is really just a parking lane for people picking up their spouses at DND - and if you happen to be biking across the bridge then that's TMFB for you.

[harls]

Hey, you should care! Those bozos who illegally use the bus/HOV lane jam it up for those of us who play by the rules by taking the bus or carpooling!


Yeah, I was just joking. I like it when they're about halfway down the bridge, then realize there's a roadblock and try to squeeze back into traffic, and other drivers refuse to let them in. Serves 'em right.

Further west, I don't get why the Champlain Bridge HOV lane is only 2 people when it's 3 on Portage. Why is that the case? Maybe because of the alternating lane it's more efficient? I'm trying to think if the Jacques-Cartier and Champlain Bridges in Montreal are 2 person HOV lanes too, they have the same setup.

[Deez]

SPECIFICALLY FOR TRUCKS SO THEY CAN BE REROUTED FROM DOWNTOWN.

All other considerations are secondary.

Too bad the terms of reference doesn't specify that. There's a pretty significant focus on choosing the corridor based on maximizing utility to car traffic. Boo politicians.

[c_speed3108]

Too bad the terms of reference doesn't specify that. There's a pretty significant focus on choosing the corridor based on maximizing utility to car traffic. Boo politicians.

That's not really the worst thing in the world....Kettle would probably still make sense. Too far east or west and the car utility drops so....

[waterloowarrior]

Public consultation round 3 (http://www.ncrcrossings.ca/en/public_consultation_session_no._3.html)

includes more detailed drawings of some of the alternative alignments (http://www.ncrcrossings.ca/en/crossing_alternatives.html)

if you're interested, in the reports (http://www.ncrcrossings.ca/en/pcs_3_reports.html) section there's a memo (http://www.ncrcrossings.ca/en/McDonald-Cartier%20Bridge%20to%20Vanier%20Parkway%20Tunnel%20Alt%20May%205%2008.pdf)regarding a possible downtown tunnel (and why that option was discounted). it also has some alignments/cost info

[YOWetal]

Actually, from what I read from Le Droit, the issue from the Ottawa people is that they don't want to pay one cent for this bridge, and it's not their problem if Gatineau people want to work in Ottawa. They can't have both, low mortgage and fast ride.

Well, people are going to decide at some point once and for all if we’re going to be one region or not. A lot of people like to talk a good game on “Ottawa-Gatineau” but then when there’s talk of improving links between the two sides of the river, there’s always a big hue and cry in Ontario about people from Gatineau coming over to work in Ottawa. On the other hand, other than from the urban planning crowd, there is interestingly enough very little public controversy when new roads and bridges (that will of course funnel more traffic into downtown Ottawa) are built on the Ontario side.

Last time I checked, people in Gatineau are still Canadian citizens (some of them fiercely loyal in fact) who are fully entitled to work pretty much wherever they wish in Canada, and their needs are no less valid than those of people living in Carleton Place, Manotick and Arnprior, no matter what language either group primarily speaks.

In Gatineau, there is already a buzz about how the “improvements” on King Edward (with fewer, narrower lanes) are actually meant to make life more difficult for people from Quebec coming into Ottawa and, more broadly, how Ottawa cops supposedly take their sweet time cleaning up rush hour accident scenes on any of the interprovincial bridges’ approach roads.

No one is claiming that they don't have the right to work in Ottawa the question is should the City of Ottawa and Ontario pay for 1/3 or more of the project. I would argue no, and as someone who lives next to King Edward I would have the most to gain personally by re-routing the trucks. Ottawa's money is better spent on projects that benefit Ottawa/Ontario taxpayers (even thought many of those commuters continue to claim Ontario residency for income tax purposes:)

[Mille Sabords]

No one is claiming that they don't have the right to work in Ottawa the question is should the City of Ottawa and Ontario pay for 1/3 or more of the project. I would argue no, and as someone who lives next to King Edward I would have the most to gain personally by re-routing the trucks. Ottawa's money is better spent on projects that benefit Ottawa/Ontario taxpayers (even thought many of those commuters continue to claim Ontario residency for income tax purposes:)

I live downtown as well and I have a different view. My Ottawa, Ontario tax money will be well spent if we get a new bridge that redirects truck traffic away from the downtown core. The Ottawa interest in this bridge isn't commuters, it's trucking. Specifically, a more efficient truck route so that the goods movement industry can go about its business without being forever stuck in traffic, and the reclaiming of a very central part of the city to accommodate the intensification we so dearly want.

[Cre47]

According to the Sun, the choice has been made: It's Kettle Island. Maybe not a shocker for most of us here.



Kettle Island picked for new bridge

By AEDAN HELMER, Sun Media

Kettle Island has been chosen as the site of a controversial new interprovincial bridge to span the Ottawa River.

The decision is expected to be made public Thursday morning at a joint news conference held by the National Capital Commission, the ROCHE-NCE consulting firm that performed environmental assessments of each proposed site, and the Ontario and Quebec ministries of transportation.

The location, one of 10 sites shortlisted more than a year ago, was endorsed by east end councillors Rainer Bloess, Rob Jellett and Bob Monette.

But the decision to build at Kettle Island has riled community groups and outraged east end politicians who fought to keep the bridge out of their back yard.

"I just cannot believe it. I'm so upset," said Ottawa-Vanier MPP Madeleine Meilleur, who was informed of the decision during a ministry technical briefing yesterday.


Meilleur said the same site was proposed and rejected back in the 1960s, when the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge was eventually built at King Edward Ave.

"Now look at King Edward," she said. "They're just moving the problem to another built-in community. Instead of building the bridge for the next 50 years, they're building the bridge for the past 50 years. It's so shortsighted, no vision at all."

John Forsey, who heads the Manor Park Community Association, was also shocked and disappointed by the decision. He fought the NCC throughout the public consultation process, arguing that a bridge running through a nature preserve so close to the downtown core would have a "devastating" impact on both sides of the river.

"It would be devastating for the Aviation Museum, for the Rockliffe Flying Club. It would have a huge impact on the Montfort Hospital in terms of trucking, vibrations, noise and air pollution," said Forsey.

An earlier study had recommended the site based on allowing the highest volume of traffic, which Forsey said runs counter to the municipal planning priority of promoting public transit and relieving downtown congestion, not to mention the environmental impact of running a bridge through "a very delicate area" on Kettle Island.

Forsey and Meilleur endorsed an alternative site further east at Lower Duck Island. Meilleur said a bridge there would provide direct access to the Gatineau Airport, and the crossing would land on Greenbelt property already owned by the NCC, with no disturbance of established communities, and with easy access to Hwy. 174 and Hwy. 417.

She said the choice of Kettle Island was purely a "technical solution" concocted by engineers.

"Nobody wants the bridge there," she said. "We'll get back on the warpath and let's hope that we'll be able to have an agreeable solution with a lot of sense and a lot of good planning."

[c_speed3108]

Well the west end locations certainly made no sense...who would build a bridge at the rivers widest point??? :-)


Hope it is Kettle it makes the most sense. The number one truck destination was the industrial park....might as well feed them right in. It just makes good transportation sense.

[Acajack]

Madeleine Meilleur, God bless her heart, appears to be vying for the grand prize for the greatest political overreaction ever. In today’s LeDroit she is quoted as saying that a bridge at Kettle Island would “destroy Manor Park”, or something to that effect.

She is blatantly playing to her electorate, as are others in that part of Ottawa. Fair game, I guess, but anyone who looks at the Kettle Island corridor on a map can see that there is tons of open space in that area to make the bridge land as far away as possible from any established residential areas, and plenty of room for huge buffer and mitigation zones.

Of course, given the history of this file, who knows if a new bridge will even be built in the lifetimes of anyone reading this thread?

[Dado]

Well the west end locations certainly made no sense...who would build a bridge at the rivers widest point??? :-)
How long have you been living here? I can think of plenty of people who would want to build a bridge where the river is widest... engineering companies, concrete suppliers, construction companies, people who do environmental assessments (more to assess), project managers at the City, MTO and NCC (more people to manage). Sheesh. :rolleyes:

As an aside, building a bridge where a river is widest is not always the worst place; often the river is shallowest where it is widest so the footings can be easier to build, or sometimes even a causeway with occasional culverts and a main central span can be used. In the case of the Ottawa River, it's pretty deep at Lac Deschenes, but that's actually rather unusual.


Hope it is Kettle it makes the most sense. The number one truck destination was the industrial park....might as well feed them right in. It just makes good transportation sense.

Which industrial park? There's a factory (a pulp mill I think) at Rue St. Louis and Boul. Maloney but for the most part Gatineau's industrial area is in Hull in the area to the east of Rte 5, north of Rte 50 and west of the Gatineau River. From there, the most direct way into Ottawa is still going to be via the King Edward bridge. Ottawa's industrial area is south of the Queensway and west of the 417 past the split (i.e. straddling the old railway lines). A Kettle Island route certainly makes more sense than the Lower Duck Island route, but one would be hard pressed to say that a Kettle Island route will be the preferred choice of the trucking industry compared to a King Edward route. I can't help but think that eventually we'll find ourselves with a tunnel under one of King Edward, the Rideau River or the Vanier Parkway, in which case we might as well start looking into that now.

The above of course is assuming that the trucks are generally running between places in Ottawa and Gatineau. But if they're not and the purpose of this bridge is to convey trucks from Gatineau to the 417 so they can get to Montreal, then frankly the money would be better spent on a Quebec-side freeway to Montreal. If they're heading to Toronto, then this bridge at Kettle Island really isn't going to do much at all unless its use is mandated.

I fear what will happen is that this bridge will be built in the name of removing trucks from King Edward (that's how it will be "sold" even though the technical reports may say otherwise) but that few trucks will make use of it (at least without sanctions on the use of King Edward) while commuters from Gatineau will flood over the bridge, probably clogging up the Rockcliffe Parkway and turning the already-congested 417-174 'split' into a royal mess.

Meanwhile, the fact that none of the railyards in the region have an intermodal transfer facility goes unremarked (4th largest urban area in the country and we have no way of getting roadtrailers on or off railcars!) while a bridge that could conceivably handle a fair amount of the cross-river freight traffic goes unused. I don't really agree with Ms. Meilleur's solution - a crossing at Lower Duck Island - but I think she's on to something when she says we're designing a solution for the last 50 years and not the next 50. No one seems to have questionned why it is that so much of the freight in the Ottawa-Gatineau region arrives and leaves by truck rather than rail.

[Acajack]

How long have you been living here? I can think of plenty of people who would want to build a bridge where the river is widest... engineering companies, concrete suppliers, construction companies, people who do environmental assessments (more to assess), project managers at the City, MTO and NCC (more people to manage). Sheesh. :rolleyes:



Sure, but these are mostly people who'd make tons of money off an expensive bridge, with someone else footing the bill..

[Mille Sabords]

I can't help but think that eventually we'll find ourselves with a tunnel under one of King Edward, the Rideau River or the Vanier Parkway, in which case we might as well start looking into that now.

Except you can't have dangerous goods on trucks in a tunnel, so the tunnel option is out.

The above of course is assuming that the trucks are generally running between places in Ottawa and Gatineau. But if they're not and the purpose of this bridge is to convey trucks from Gatineau to the 417 so they can get to Montreal, then frankly the money would be better spent on a Quebec-side freeway to Montreal. If they're heading to Toronto, then this bridge at Kettle Island really isn't going to do much at all unless its use is mandated.

One way or the other, both the trucking industry and the rest of the general population would gain from having trucks cross the river somewhere else. Trucks will save time and King Edward can live again.

I fear what will happen is that this bridge will be built in the name of removing trucks from King Edward (that's how it will be "sold" even though the technical reports may say otherwise) but that few trucks will make use of it (at least without sanctions on the use of King Edward) while commuters from Gatineau will flood over the bridge, probably clogging up the Rockcliffe Parkway and turning the already-congested 417-174 'split' into a royal mess.

And what's wrong with having that as the Number One reason to build a new bridge? It's enough of a frikking disgrace to have our downtown core disfigured by the heavy trucking, I can't believe anyone would even legitimize continuing things as they are. When a new bridge is built for the EXPLICIT PURPOSE of ensuring truck crossings, then trucking can be banned from the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge. I'm pretty sure that the eastern crossings all involve a complete interchange between 417 and 174 so capacity will be added there... and as for the kind of congestion we're contemplating, in the big picture I'd rather have it on freeways than at Rideau and King Edward.

Meanwhile, the fact that none of the railyards in the region have an intermodal transfer facility goes unremarked (4th largest urban area in the country and we have no way of getting roadtrailers on or off railcars!) while a bridge that could conceivably handle a fair amount of the cross-river freight traffic goes unused. I don't really agree with Ms. Meilleur's solution - a crossing at Lower Duck Island - but I think she's on to something when she says we're designing a solution for the last 50 years and not the next 50. No one seems to have questionned why it is that so much of the freight in the Ottawa-Gatineau region arrives and leaves by truck rather than rail.

Gatineau is planning an intermodal facility at the Gatineau Airport industrial park. And yes the Highway 50 extension will take some truck traffic out of any bridge crossing, but whatever remains has to go somewhere else. Ultimately, car traffic is not and should not drive this bridge, the reconquest of downtown by removing the truck route is and should.

[Acajack]

Which industrial park? There's a factory (a pulp mill I think) at Rue St. Louis and Boul. Maloney but for the most part Gatineau's industrial area is in Hull in the area to the east of Rte 5, north of Rte 50 and west of the Gatineau River. From there, the most direct way into Ottawa is still going to be via the King Edward bridge. Ottawa's industrial area is south of the Queensway and west of the 417 past the split (i.e. straddling the old railway lines). A Kettle Island route certainly makes more sense than the Lower Duck Island route, but one would be hard pressed to say that a Kettle Island route will be the preferred choice of the trucking industry compared to a King Edward route. I can't help but think that eventually we'll find ourselves with a tunnel under one of King Edward, the Rideau River or the Vanier Parkway, in which case we might as well start looking into that now.

The above of course is assuming that the trucks are generally running between places in Ottawa and Gatineau. But if they're not and the purpose of this bridge is to convey trucks from Gatineau to the 417 so they can get to Montreal, then frankly the money would be better spent on a Quebec-side freeway to Montreal. If they're heading to Toronto, then this bridge at Kettle Island really isn't going to do much at all unless its use is mandated.

I fear what will happen is that this bridge will be built in the name of removing trucks from King Edward (that's how it will be "sold" even though the technical reports may say otherwise) but that few trucks will make use of it (at least without sanctions on the use of King Edward) while commuters from Gatineau will flood over the bridge, probably clogging up the Rockcliffe Parkway and turning the already-congested 417-174 'split' into a royal mess.



We’ve had this discussion on the forum before.

There is a lot of talk of Montreal-Gatineau trucks going through Ottawa but the truth is that between two thirds and three quarters of the truck traffic on the bridges is local Ottawa-Gatineau truck traffic: Sealtest milk from Ottawa to Gatineau supermarkets, Slush Puppie syrup from Gatineau to Ottawa corner stores, printing jobs from St. Joseph Printing in east end Ottawa to government offices at Place du Portage…

It is true that there is a large industrial park off Autoroute 5 in the north of Hull, but it is 100% built up and most future industrial development in Gatineau will be east along the 50. Plus, the industrial area along the 5 is actually not that far from the intersection of Montée Paiement and the 50, which links up to Kettle Island.

There are significant industrial areas in west end Ottawa but they are generally turned towards southern Ontario and the U.S.

Economic links between Gatineau and Ottawa are more focused on points east, and thus are concentrated in the Innes/Star Top/Hawthorne area in the east end. Once again, the Kettle Island bridge route leads directly there.

Regarding commuters from Gatineau… not sure that many would opt to cross at Kettle Island to jam up the Queensway. The 174/417 split is probably worse than the 50, so it’s not really a logical route to get into downtown Ottawa. Sure, some Gatineau commuters would take the new bridge if they work at Montfort or La Cité collégiale, but if you compare the 50/Maisonneuve/Portage Bridge route into downtown Ottawa to a hypothetical Montée Paiement/Kettle Island/Aviation Parkway/Ogilvie/St. Laurent/Queensway route to the same destination, you’ll see that it would make no sense at all.

Oh, and there will be a direct, pseudo-freeway route through Quebec territory between Gatineau and Montreal as of 2010 or 2011. Though a major segment of it will be a super-2, I expect that much of the truck traffic between the Outaouais and Montreal will take the 50 once completed.

Finally, I agree 100% that as many goods as possible should be moved by rail.

[Kitchissippi]

Regarding commuters from Gatineau… not sure that many would opt to cross at Kettle Island to jam up the Queensway. The 174/417 split is probably worse than the 50, so it’s not really a logical route to get into downtown Ottawa. Sure, some Gatineau commuters would take the new bridge if they work at Montfort or La Cité collégiale, but if you compare the 50/Maisonneuve/Portage Bridge route into downtown Ottawa to a hypothetical Montée Paiement/Kettle Island/Aviation Parkway/Ogilvie/St. Laurent/Queensway route to the same destination, you’ll see that it would make no sense at all.

But enough commuters WILL use that route to make it unbearable, guaranteed.

On the Gatineau side, Montée Paiement is such a monument to poor planning. About 50 homes have driveways onto this road, and turning this into THE trucking route between the 50 and 417 would be a horror to them. I can't see how such a case would pass an environmental assessment without massive mitigation (or expropriation) if it were in Ontario.

[Acajack]

But enough commuters WILL use that route to make it unbearable, guaranteed.

On the Gatineau side, Montée Paiement is such a monument to poor planning. About 50 homes have driveways onto this road, and turning this into THE trucking route between the 50 and 417 would be a horror to them. I can't see how such a case would pass an environmental assessment without massive mitigation (or expropriation) if it were in Ontario.

Well, King Edward Avenue between Rideau St. and the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge, which is a designated interprovincial/intercity heavy truck route, has much more than 50 homes along it. And the last time I checked, it was located in Ontario.

Regarding Montée Paiement, though I don’t think that it is perfect, I do believe that it is already designated as a heavy truck route, so building a bridge at one end of it won’t necessarily require any additional approvals.

[Kitchissippi]

Well, King Edward Avenue between Rideau St. and the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge, which is a designated interprovincial/intercity heavy truck route, has much more than 50 homes along it. And the last time I checked, it was located in Ontario.

That was before environmental assessments were done, and King Edward was a temporary solution. If environmental assessments were conducted, either the Macdonald-Cartier bridge would have never been built, or the case for the Vanier Parkway completion would have won out because the sacrificing of a bit of greenspace in New Edinburgh far outweighs the impact of trucks on Lowertown the ByWard Market and Sandy Hill.

King Edward is a trucking route by accident, not by design. Because the Kettle Island bridge is being sold as a way to get trucks out of downtown, in essence a truck route is being deliberately designed as a permanent solution.

[kwoldtimer]

:previous: Let the games begin! Just build it, already!!!

[Suzie]

We’ve had this discussion on the forum before.

There is a lot of talk of Montreal-Gatineau trucks going through Ottawa but the truth is that between two thirds and three quarters of the truck traffic on the bridges is local Ottawa-Gatineau truck traffic: Sealtest milk from Ottawa to Gatineau supermarkets, Slush Puppie syrup from Gatineau to Ottawa corner stores, printing jobs from St. Joseph Printing in east end Ottawa to government offices at Place du Portage…

It is true that there is a large industrial park off Autoroute 5 in the north of Hull, but it is 100% built up and most future industrial development in Gatineau will be east along the 50. Plus, the industrial area along the 5 is actually not that far from the intersection of Montée Paiement and the 50, which links up to Kettle Island.

There are significant industrial areas in west end Ottawa but they are generally turned towards southern Ontario and the U.S.

Economic links between Gatineau and Ottawa are more focused on points east, and thus are concentrated in the Innes/Star Top/Hawthorne area in the east end. Once again, the Kettle Island bridge route leads directly there.

Regarding commuters from Gatineau… not sure that many would opt to cross at Kettle Island to jam up the Queensway. The 174/417 split is probably worse than the 50, so it’s not really a logical route to get into downtown Ottawa. Sure, some Gatineau commuters would take the new bridge if they work at Montfort or La Cité collégiale, but if you compare the 50/Maisonneuve/Portage Bridge route into downtown Ottawa to a hypothetical Montée Paiement/Kettle Island/Aviation Parkway/Ogilvie/St. Laurent/Queensway route to the same destination, you’ll see that it would make no sense at all.

Oh, and there will be a direct, pseudo-freeway route through Quebec territory between Gatineau and Montreal as of 2010 or 2011. Though a major segment of it will be a super-2, I expect that much of the truck traffic between the Outaouais and Montreal will take the 50 once completed.

Finally, I agree 100% that as many goods as possible should be moved by rail.

http://www.ncrcrossings.ca/en/2031DailyCommercialVolume_9050%20KettleIsland%20repdf.pdf

I found this map on the study’s website.

I support the Kettle Island option. However, even with a new bridge there, King Edward would remain the most attractive route for many trucks crossing the River. If trucks were banned from that street, there is a danger that some of them would divert to the Chaudiere Bridge, instead of Kettle Island. This would result in some negative community impacts. To prevent that, you'd need to impose even more restrictions on truck movements. This could result in some pretty circuitous truck movements.

Regarding rail as an alternative, I don't think CP or CN has shown any interest in providing intermodal rail service to/from the Ottawa region.

[Mille Sabords]

There is another eastern option than Kettle Island that will address trucking and will not recreate another King Edward along Montée Paiement: Lower Duck. Goes through the Greenbelt in Ottawa - so I hope the health of downtown and King Edward, and of Montée Paiement, can win the day over the little flowers and grasses.

[Acajack]

I just think that at the very least another bridge in the east end (wherever it is) will at a minimum give the option of doing something to restrict heavy truck traffic (maybe not all of it) on King Edward. At the moment, there is no such option.

Montée Paiement was recently upgraded to four divided lanes with significant setbacks and only has a handful of houses close to the road with driveways backing onto it. Think of Baseline Road where it is lined with townhouses east of Woodroffe, but way less dense and nowhere near for as long a distance.

Regarding Lower Duck Island, the area on the Gatineau side is initially undeveloped when you first reach the Quebec shore, but things then get tricky when you try and link up with the 50 north of Maloney. The road link to the 50 is boulevard Lorrain, a narrow two lane street which is actually the heart of an old village and resembles typical small town Quebec with houses very close to the road with little or no front lawns. Much more disruptive than routing via Paiement.

On the other hand, maps show there is enough open space in the area north of Maloney to build an entirely new road link to the 50 that would completely avoid any built-up areas. Not sure who owns the land, though.

Lower Duck Island is also quite a bit further out of the city core, and when compared to Paiement/Kettle wouldn’t provide as easy a link to the Hull industrial area off the 5, central areas of Gatineau, and the Plateau and Aylmer areas further west.

[Kitchissippi]

There is another eastern option than Kettle Island that will address trucking and will not recreate another King Edward along Montée Paiement: Lower Duck. Goes through the Greenbelt in Ottawa - so I hope the health of downtown and King Edward, and of Montée Paiement, can win the day over the little flowers and grasses.

Except that the consultants already picked Kettle Island from the options.

Kettle Island and the Duck Islands are pretty neat places if you ever get a chance to get to them. They are riddled with blind channels full of turtles and fish, sheltered from the river's current. I took these photos earlier this year:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3205/2829081308_f744b1cba0_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3280/2829081154_c83a882a6b_o.jpg

The river is surprisingly shallow in parts, and with some other very low islands in between like this one, with plants that do a great job of cleaning the river:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3051/2828242201_d7291b0c3c_o.jpg

[Dado]

Except you can't have dangerous goods on trucks in a tunnel, so the tunnel option is out.
Is that an actual fact? What's the rationale for not having dangerous goods trucks in a tunnel? That they might spontaneously blow up? (Ok, bad example considering we just had a bus do just that, but I digress). After all, the likelihood of an accident involving a dangerous goods truck (or anything for that matter) is far more likely on a road with many intersections and entrances than it is in a tunnel without any. Tunnels also now have all sorts of safety features (cameras, sprinklers, ventilation, shelters) to minimize the dangers. At any rate, even if they are banned from using a tunnel, what fraction of the truck traffic on King Edward do dangerous goods trucks represent? Whatever fraction it is could be diverted to the Chaudiere bridge or the Prince of Wales bridge on the back of a train.


One way or the other, both the trucking industry and the rest of the general population would gain from having trucks cross the river somewhere else. Trucks will save time and King Edward can live again.
I don't think the trucking industry is necessarily going to agree with you. It depends on where they're coming from and where they're going. Detours of 10 km are possible with the Kettle Island crossing. For some trips, the time taken by a Kettle Island routing will be more than by the McDonald-Cartier routing, and if the difference is enough the downtown route will be chosen by the driver.


And what's wrong with having that as the Number One reason to build a new bridge?
There's nothing wrong with it, but that's not exclusively why a bridge is being built, though it is being "sold" that way. The downtown truck issue is just one of many reasons that a bridge is being considered.


It's enough of a frikking disgrace to have our downtown core disfigured by the heavy trucking, I can't believe anyone would even legitimize continuing things as they are.
I hope you're not implying that that's what I'm doing. I simply looked at the possible sources and destinations of truck traffic and figured that a lot of truck traffic would continue to use King Edward if it could, hence my conclusion that a tunnel in that corridor might be worth examining. Anything heading to points west from Hull for example would be very unlikely to use the Kettle Island bridge.


When a new bridge is built for the EXPLICIT PURPOSE of ensuring truck crossings, then trucking can be banned from the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge.
Well that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? It's not being built explicitly for that purpose nor is there any mention of banning trucking from the McD-C Bridge.


Gatineau is planning an intermodal facility at the Gatineau Airport industrial park.
That's encouraging; now we need one on the Ottawa side as well (Walkley Yard being the logical place for one).


And yes the Highway 50 extension will take some truck traffic out of any bridge crossing, but whatever remains has to go somewhere else. Ultimately, car traffic is not and should not drive this bridge, the reconquest of downtown by removing the truck route is and should.
It should, but it isn't. And that's the point I keep trying to drive home.

From http://www.ncrcrossings.ca/en/background.html :

The different levels of government responsible for planning and managing the National Capital Region (NCR) have long been aware of the interprovincial transportation challenges. Previous planning studies (see links below) have identified the Region’s lack of sufficient interprovincial crossing capacity during peak hours as a key constraint to an integrated and efficient interprovincial transportation network.

"Crossing capacity during peak hours". Read it and weep. This bridge is for commuters' cars. If it was for trucks alone, a simple two-lane bridge would do it, but somehow I think it'll be much wider than that. And it gets worse... one of those 'previous planning studies' says this:


A new bridge to the east would permit truckers and commuters to bypass
downtown Ottawa and thereby reduce commercial vehicle traffic over the
Chaudières and MacDonald-Cartier crossings by about 25%.
http://www.ncrcrossings.ca/Documents/SUMMARYOFTHE1999_en.pdf

Even if truck traffic is reduced disproportionately on the MacDonald-Cartier crossing, you're still not looking at 100% diversion or anything close to 100%.

[Dado]

Regarding rail as an alternative, I don't think CP or CN has shown any interest in providing intermodal rail service to/from the Ottawa region.
Have you looked at their rail networks in the Ottawa region recently? Right, they don't have any.

From the Toronto side, CN has no easy way of getting here ever since they abandonned the line from Smiths Falls to Napanee (and the only reason the line from Ottawa to Smiths Falls still exists is because of VIA). For its part, CP can get to Smiths Falls from Toronto (and Brockville), but can no longer get to Ottawa, having abandonned both the line from Carleton Place and from Kemptville.

From Western Canada CN has no way in at all; they abandonned their lines through Algonquin Park in the 90s (bet they're teed off at themselves now that Chicago is one big congested railyard). CP can get to Pembroke and interchange with OCR there (which they do) or to Arnprior, except there's 250 m of missing track that no one has seen fit to build and now that the oh-so-rail-friendly City of Ottawa owns the line from there to Kanata via Carp it's probably a lost cause.

From Montreal, CN can (and does) interchange with OCR, but they no longer have a direct way in. CP's abandonment and selling of its corridors has had the same effect.

In other words, neither CN nor CP have a direct rail connection with the nation's capital and neither can secure good connections from all directions without using some of the other's trackage. So it's not too surprising that neither has an interest in doing anything.

In reality it would be up to the two (or rather five...) railway companies that exist here: the Ottawa Central and the Quebec Gatineau Railway. I say five because the NCC is also a railway and so is the City of Ottawa (Capital Railway), and VIA would have to be involved as well. In some ways this is fortunate because all the companies that would have to be involved to make both intermodal service to the NCR work and carry freight across the river are 'local' or are ultimately controlled from here. A little chatting up of some local federal ministers by the City of Ottawa to get some intermodal facilities constructed along with some track upgrading where needed could go a long way. Once that's done CP and CN would be quite willing to drop off intermodal cars at their current transfer points. But that's the kind of vision frequently lacking here in bus-and-road loving Ottawa - we'd just as soon carry on watching trucks rumble through downtown than work with a few private and public sector partners to address the issue.

[waterloowarrior]

all the info, including maps (confirms that kettle island is the recommended route)
http://www.ncrcrossings.ca/en/public_consultation_session_no._4.html

the new 'split' looks interesting.... (figure 3)

[Kitchissippi]

Good points, Dado.

I've always thought that if the Vanier Parkway had been connected to the M-C bridge, trucking through downtown would be a non-issue today. And instead of talking about a new bridge which will probably cost over half a billion, we could be considering investing in better inter-provincial public transportation instead to relieve peak hour congestion.

It is not just trucking that is ruining King Edward and Lowertown, it is the sheer number of cars, which won't go away even if a new bridge were built. That avenue seriously needs to be decoupled from the bridge. The best solution would be a bridge across the Rideau and a partial cut-and-cover to the Vanier Parkway. Any new inter-provincial crossings should be attempted by LRT before anything else. I bet if someone dared to open a can of worms and do a proper big-picture analysis, that would end up being the cheapest and most logical approach.

[Deez]

all the info, including maps (confirms that kettle island is the recommended route)
http://www.ncrcrossings.ca/en/public_consultation_session_no._4.html

the new 'split' looks interesting.... (figure 3)

Oh god that thing's going to be a monster. I count at least 3 spots where there will be 3 levels of traffic (EB-NB over the WB-NB and the Transitway, NB-EB over the NB-WB and EB 174 and EB-NB over the SB Aviation and WB 174). MTO must be juicing. Blegh.

Also, how on earth is traffic NOT going to back up into the non-grade-separated Ogilvie intersection. The WB split can already be a crawl in the AM...what's going to happen when you throw in X-thousand Gatineau commuters eager to shave off 5 minutes from their commute? In my mind, this is the biggest reason why Kettle Island is the wrong choice...it offers far too much convenience for Gatinois who are looking for a new way to get downtown. It will invariable lead to more congestion on the queensway and more car dependence and the sprawl that goes along with it (and vice versa). In a perfect world the bridge would be tolled and/or be limited to truck traffic, but I'm telling you right now it's not going to happen.

[Suzie]

Have you looked at their rail networks in the Ottawa region recently? Right, they don't have any.

From the Toronto side, CN has no easy way of getting here ever since they abandonned the line from Smiths Falls to Napanee (and the only reason the line from Ottawa to Smiths Falls still exists is because of VIA). For its part, CP can get to Smiths Falls from Toronto (and Brockville), but can no longer get to Ottawa, having abandonned both the line from Carleton Place and from Kemptville.

From Western Canada CN has no way in at all; they abandonned their lines through Algonquin Park in the 90s (bet they're teed off at themselves now that Chicago is one big congested railyard). CP can get to Pembroke and interchange with OCR there (which they do) or to Arnprior, except there's 250 m of missing track that no one has seen fit to build and now that the oh-so-rail-friendly City of Ottawa owns the line from there to Kanata via Carp it's probably a lost cause.

From Montreal, CN can (and does) interchange with OCR, but they no longer have a direct way in. CP's abandonment and selling of its corridors has had the same effect.

In other words, neither CN nor CP have a direct rail connection with the nation's capital and neither can secure good connections from all directions without using some of the other's trackage. So it's not too surprising that neither has an interest in doing anything.

In reality it would be up to the two (or rather five...) railway companies that exist here: the Ottawa Central and the Quebec Gatineau Railway. I say five because the NCC is also a railway and so is the City of Ottawa (Capital Railway), and VIA would have to be involved as well. In some ways this is fortunate because all the companies that would have to be involved to make both intermodal service to the NCR work and carry freight across the river are 'local' or are ultimately controlled from here. A little chatting up of some local federal ministers by the City of Ottawa to get some intermodal facilities constructed along with some track upgrading where needed could go a long way. Once that's done CP and CN would be quite willing to drop off intermodal cars at their current transfer points. But that's the kind of vision frequently lacking here in bus-and-road loving Ottawa - we'd just as soon carry on watching trucks rumble through downtown than work with a few private and public sector partners to address the issue.

Hi Dado,

CN and CP are the ones that offer domestic inter-modal services in Canada and they know the business better than anybody. If they saw real potential here, I’m sure they’d be cutting deals with the area’s shortlines to gain access. But they are not.

The only type of service that would be remotely practical for Ottawa would be one like CP’s Expressway. It can accept normal trailers (unlike RoadRailer) and the terminal could be pretty basic (as compared to what is required to handle containers). CP currently runs Expressway in the Montreal-Toronto-Windsor-Detroit corridor (i.e., Canada’s most heavily used and congested truck corridor by far). The twice-daily service has been able to capture a small fraction of the trailers that travel down this corridor every day.

The economics of a service to/from Ottawa with even Expressway would be extremely poor. The overall traffic levels and density are a small fraction of those in the Montreal-Toronto-Windsor-Detroit corridor so it would not be sufficient to support daily service. Without regular and convenient service, few if any truckers would use it. Further, the distance between Ottawa and Montreal is way too short to make any sort of inter-modal service viable (especially if you take drayage costs into account). Ottawa-Toronto is somewhat longer, but still shorter than Montreal-Toronto.

I, like most people, would like to see fewer trucks on our roads and highways. However, I don’t think inter-modal service to Ottawa is a realistic option. Even it were, based on the experience in the Highway 401 corridor, it would only capture a small fraction of the traffic.

[jeremy_haak]

I think the fact that Ottawa has very little manufacturing makes it far more difficult to justify expansion for rail freight in the Ottawa area.

[c_speed3108]

Trucks to remain on King Edward after new bridge built

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"That is not what they are recommending."

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

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

:tantrum:

[Acajack]

Except that the consultants already picked Kettle Island from the options.

Kettle Island and the Duck Islands are pretty neat places if you ever get a chance to get to them. They are riddled with blind channels full of turtles and fish, sheltered from the river's current.



Interestingly enough, Kettle Island was the scene of quite a bit of human activity in the early part of the 20th century. I have heard that there might have been cottages there at one point.

What I do know is that it was once the site of a miniature amusement park called Parc Belle Isle, with a restaurant, vaudeville theatre, and fun rides of some sort.

Not sure if there are any vestiges of this left on Kettle Island today.

[Acajack]

The WB split can already be a crawl in the AM...what's going to happen when you throw in X-thousand Gatineau commuters eager to shave off 5 minutes from their commute? In my mind, this is the biggest reason why Kettle Island is the wrong choice...it offers far too much convenience for Gatinois who are looking for a new way to get downtown. .

This is the bogeyman on this file. I did a quick distance calculation and from the Montée Paiement exit of the 50, going down Paiement to the new bridge, then down Rockcliffe Parkway, Aviation Parkway, through the split and then down the 417 to downtown Ottawa is close to 25 km. Staying on the 50, then taking the 5 down to the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge is around 15 km.

Plus, although busy, the 50-5 route has no stoplights. The so-called short cut across the new bridge is as busy (if not busier at the split and along the 417), plus has stoplights all along Montée Paiement (at least 8 at the moment if my memory serves me right), plus stoplights on the parkway at Montreal Road and Ogilvie Road.

As I mentioned previously, those Gatineau residents who work in east end Ottawa will commute via the new bridge (they’re already using Macdonald-Cartier/St. Patrick/Vanier Pkwy to get to work now, BTW), that’s for sure. But almost no one from Gatineau will be jockeying for space with people from Orleans, Cumberland and Rockland heading downtown on the 174-417.

[Kitchissippi]

all the info, including maps (confirms that kettle island is the recommended route)
http://www.ncrcrossings.ca/en/public_consultation_session_no._4.html

the new 'split' looks interesting.... (figure 3)

I find it inconceivable that there was absolutely no consideration for public transit in this concept — the route goes from the Transitway to the Rapibus ROW!

[Dado]

.

:tantrum:

I think that sums it up very well.


What I can't stand about all this is the circular buck-passing that's gone on between the various studies. Basically, the City of Ottawa's own studies on King Edward say that improvements to the general environment of King Edward will have to wait for the outcome of the bridges study while the bridges study basically says that it will be up to the City of Ottawa to improve King Edward and that diverting truck traffic from King Edward is not the primary purpose of the bridges study.

If you don't mind getting your blood boiling (I'm talking to you, Mille Sabords...), go read this from July 2002:

http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2002/07-24/ttc/ACS2002-TUP-INF-0016.htm

Take, for example, these gems from near the end of the above report:


GENERAL ISSUES

The following is a summary of the most significant issues raised during the study process and how they were responded to.

Truck Traffic: Many area residents expressed concern about the volume and effects of truck traffic on this corridor and want it removed.

Addressing interprovincial truck traffic is not within this Study's mandate. Until an alternative bridge crossing of the Ottawa River and truck route is provided, King Edward Avenue will have to accommodate trucks.

Traffic Volume: Many area residents expressed concern about traffic volume and the effect of all traffic in this corridor and want both the traffic and the number of lanes reduced.

Vehicle reduction would only be accomplished through significant modal split changes or the provision of a new interprovincial bridge. Investigation of improved interprovincial transit and of new interprovincial bridges are not within this Study's mandate. All existing bridge corridor's primary intersections are currently operating at, or over capacity. Until a new corridor is provided there is no place for displaced traffic to go if King Edward Avenue were reduced to four lanes. The Recommended Design for the Renewal of King Edward Avenue can easily be converted from six lanes to four lanes with minimum cost and without affecting the integrity of the recommended plan.


Except, of course, the study that was commissioned allegedly to address interprovincial truck traffic decided that it was going to focus on traffic growth and not existing traffic. Similarly, it didn't consider interprovincial transit either, because, yes, you guessed it, that will be handled by yet another study, which has conveniently started well after STO worked up their Rapibus project that rejected using rail on the grounds that - yes, you guessed it - there was no interprovincial transit study allowing for rail transit into downtown Ottawa.

The above report also considered ~$250M tunnelling options (as of 2002, so inflate a bit) to improve King Edward but these were rejected as being too costly, yet now we're looking at a $400-500M bridge that won't even achieve what a tunnel would achieve.

[nerox3]

I think if there was a 10 dollar charge for trucks to use the current bridges a fair amount of the truck traffic would disappear by simple changes in behavior. Once there is an alternate truck route that doesn't go through the downtown the effect of a small toll would be even mre dramatic in reducing the truck impacts on the core. Was a toll ever considered as a way of reducing truck traffic?

[kwoldtimer]

all the info, including maps (confirms that kettle island is the recommended route)
http://www.ncrcrossings.ca/en/public_consultation_session_no._4.html

the new 'split' looks interesting.... (figure 3)

I am a bit surprised by figure 2, which seems to show a proposed routing just to the west of the current roadway from the river until it joins the Aviation Parkway at Hemlock. I wonder why they wouldn't just use the existing roads? I see that it also seems to incorporate an exit westbound onto Hemlock - if anything is going to send Manor Park ballistic, it will be the prospect of big increases in traffic on Hemlock/Beechwood.

[Deez]

This is the bogeyman on this file. I did a quick distance calculation and from the Montée Paiement exit of the 50, going down Paiement to the new bridge, then down Rockcliffe Parkway, Aviation Parkway, through the split and then down the 417 to downtown Ottawa is close to 25 km. Staying on the 50, then taking the 5 down to the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge is around 15 km.

Plus, although busy, the 50-5 route has no stoplights. The so-called short cut across the new bridge is as busy (if not busier at the split and along the 417), plus has stoplights all along Montée Paiement (at least 8 at the moment if my memory serves me right), plus stoplights on the parkway at Montreal Road and Ogilvie Road.

As I mentioned previously, those Gatineau residents who work in east end Ottawa will commute via the new bridge (they’re already using Macdonald-Cartier/St. Patrick/Vanier Pkwy to get to work now, BTW), that’s for sure. But almost no one from Gatineau will be jockeying for space with people from Orleans, Cumberland and Rockland heading downtown on the 174-417.

I'll concede that going down all the way to the 417 would be an unlikely route for drivers from Gatineau to take to reach downtown, but there are a few problems with your assumptions.

- Assuming trips are coming from the 50/Montee Paiement interchange is pretty unreasonable considering that everything north of the 50 is off-limits to development.

- Trip-makers would still be free to use Montreal Rd. or Ogilvie to reach their destinations downtown, which would significantly cut down on distance.

- Workers along the Heron/Baseline "strip" of government sprawl would also likely use the new bridge due to much more convenient access to the Vanier Parkway/Riverside Dr.

I did two of my own distance calcs.

First, assuming workers are travelling from the fringe of Gatineau suburbia (the eastern terminus of La Verendrye) to downtown gives 19km via Labrosse, A50, Montcalm and the Chaudiere Bridge and 16km via La Verendrye, Montee Paiement, Aviation, Montreal, and Rideau. Granted traffic on Montreal is an issue, but Chaudiere Bridge isn't a walk in the park either.

If you assume trips are coming from downtown Gatineau, the trip is 12km via Maloney, Montee Paiement and over the bridge and 10km via Maloney, A50 and Chaudiere. So basically anything east of Montee Paiement ends up being shorter over existing bridges if you're heading downtown.

[Acajack]

- Assuming trips are coming from the 50/Montee Paiement interchange is pretty unreasonable considering that everything north of the 50 is off-limits to development.

True, but everyone in the densely-populated area of Gatineau south of the 50 and points east uses the highway to get into the city. Think of all the areas off Paiment, Labrosse, Lorrain, Aéroport and then Masson-Angers and Buckingham. As well, the development freeze north of the 50 only applies to Gatineau territory. There is lots of development (Ottawans would call it Greeley-style I guess) taking place north of the 50 once you get into municipalities like Cantley, Val-des-Monts and L'Ange-Gardien. I believe Cantley may be the fastest-growing municipality in the Ottawa-Gatineau metro area.

- Trip-makers would still be free to use Montreal Rd. or Ogilvie to reach their destinations downtown, which would significantly cut down on distance.

There are 67,573 stoplights along these routes and 67,573 little old ladies living nearby pushing their buttons to cross the street. Not exactly an interesting alternative to a freeway like the 50, even if it is congested.

- Workers along the Heron/Baseline "strip" of government sprawl would also likely use the new bridge due to much more convenient access to the Vanier Parkway/Riverside Dr.

I will agree with you that this new routing might make sense for people working in these areas.

I did two of my own distance calcs.

First, assuming workers are travelling from the fringe of Gatineau suburbia (the eastern terminus of La Verendrye) to downtown gives 19km via Labrosse, A50, Montcalm and the Chaudiere Bridge and 16km via La Verendrye, Montee Paiement, Aviation, Montreal, and Rideau. Granted traffic on Montreal is an issue, but Chaudiere Bridge isn't a walk in the park either.

Pretty much no one in the eastern parts of Gatineau (say, east of the Gatineau River) who works in the downtown core of Ottawa takes the Chaudière across the river. It’s too big a hassle on Montcalm and Taché and you end up west of downtown Ottawa anyway. Chaudière commuters from Gatineau are mostly people going to NRCan on Booth or Tunney’s Pasture, or to jobs in the inner west end.

The downtown-bound take either Macdonald-Cartier off the 5 or take Maisonneuve off the 50 and then cross the Portage.

If you assume trips are coming from downtown Gatineau, the trip is 12km via Maloney, Montee Paiement and over the bridge and 10km via Maloney, A50 and Chaudiere. So basically anything east of Montee Paiement ends up being shorter over existing bridges if you're heading downtown.

Is this proving my point or yours? I am not being snarky, I just don’t understand.

On the whole, I think people here might be overestimating how bad everyday traffic really is on the 50. Except for maybe 10 or 15 days a year, there is no congestion westbound in the AM until the LaVérendrye exit. Now, consider that LaVérendrye is exit number 141. The exit for the 5 near the Casino is number 135, so it’s about 6 km away. Exit 135 of the 50 is also exit number 2 of Autoroute 5, which means at that point you’re only about 2 km away from the provincial boundary in the middle of the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge, and for all intents and purposes already at your destination or very close to it.

So although this 10-km stretch can be slow, it’s not really worth it to make a big detour to avoid it, especially if the detour is twice as long and when the detour area could be every bit as busy if not busier as the one you left behind.

[Deez]

There are 67,573 stoplights along these routes and 67,573 little old ladies living nearby pushing their buttons to cross the street. Not exactly an interesting alternative to a freeway like the 50, even if it is congested.

True enough, but there are government offices in those corridors...CSIS, McArthur & River, DND, etc.

Pretty much no one in the eastern parts of Gatineau (say, east of the Gatineau River) who works in the downtown core of Ottawa takes the Chaudière across the river. It’s too big a hassle on Montcalm and Taché and you end up west of downtown Ottawa anyway. Chaudière commuters from Gatineau are mostly people going to NRCan on Booth or Tunney’s Pasture, or to jobs in the inner west end.

The downtown-bound take either Macdonald-Cartier off the 5 or take Maisonneuve off the 50 and then cross the Portage.

Is this not roughly the same distance though?

Is this proving my point or yours? I am not being snarky, I just don’t understand.

Yours...I was just presenting all the distance calcs that I came up with.

On the whole, I think people here might be overestimating how bad everyday traffic really is on the 50. Except for maybe 10 or 15 days a year, there is no congestion westbound in the AM until the LaVérendrye exit. Now, consider that LaVérendrye is exit number 141. The exit for the 5 near the Casino is number 135, so it’s about 6 km away. Exit 135 of the 50 is also exit number 2 of Autoroute 5, which means at that point you’re only about 2 km away from the provincial boundary in the middle of the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge, and for all intents and purposes already at your destination or very close to it.

So although this 10-km stretch can be slow, it’s not really worth it to make a big detour to avoid it, especially if the detour is twice as long and when the detour area could be every bit as busy if not busier as the one you left behind.

This will likely not be the case 25 years from now when this bridge is actually built. Gatineau is a very high growth area and you're likely to see the effects of that growth on the 50 and 5 relatively soon.

[Acajack]

This will likely not be the case 25 years from now when this bridge is actually built. Gatineau is a very high growth area and you're likely to see the effects of that growth on the 50 and 5 relatively soon.

You may indeed be right. However long-term transportation planning related to population projections is tricky guesswork. Just look at the City of Ottawa’s population projections from five or ten years ago and see how the forecast was found to be quite a ways off the mark (too high).

Also consider the impact of an aging population which will definitely have way more retirees (if the doom and gloom is right, pretty much everyone in Quebec will be retired within 25 years!), and also the impact of telework and other new technological and work-related developments.

Many transportation planners actually foresee that peak period traffic will become less intense in the future, but that there will be more people on the roads at all times of the day, though never with the same intensity as the rush hours of yore.

[harls]

Letter by Fred Ryan in today's citizen...

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/city/story.html?id=502546ae-9424-414e-a691-d3554e68eba4&p=1



No bridge? There's a positive side
Fred Ryan, Citizen Special
Published: Thursday, September 11, 2008

When the National Capital Commission announced Sept. 4 that there would be no bridge linking west Ottawa to Aylmer and lower Pontiac, many Aylmerites felt they just had a brick shatter the front window with a clear message attached: take the truck traffic, and stay away.

It's an accurate perception. Ottawa wants only to rid itself of big rigs in its downtown, but as messages go, this is only one of several wrapped around the NCC's brick. The starkness of the announcement woke West Quebecers, who have been expecting a west-end bridge since the early '60s. Gatineau knew the benefits of more bridges; now the task is to see the benefits of no bridge.

A bridge is more than an engineering and environmental challenge, more than a span in the air. Bridges are links, joining two neighbourhoods, two cities, two provinces, two countries, and, across the Bosporus, for example, two continents. A bridge is also a clasp, two brotherly peoples reaching across the divide. Or a bridge can be a different grasp, an imperialist, colonialist, exploitive grasp, a grab.

It is this last view of a bridge which might motivate Gatineau Mayor Marc Bureau's curious disinterest in the question of a new bridge, and it is most certainly this negative view of a bridge that encourages the Gatineau MP Richard Nadeau to say he'd rather the money be spent on Autoroute 50 to Montreal. Perhaps Nadeau expects commuters to head out from the Gatineau suburbs every day toward Montreal.

Modern colonialism, says Nadeau's theory, means the metropolis sucking the wealth, the arts, the everyday culture out of the regions and suburbs surrounding it, that metropolis accumulates the wealth to build entertainment and cultural hotspots. Add a Quebec dimension to this, where Quebec's language and culture are what's being sucked away, replaced by a hostile language and culture, and there you have grounds for distrust of anything that strengthens links, trade, and mobility such as a bridge. The mayor of Gatineau, to be fair, seems more concerned about increased air pollution, than cultural dilution.

The assurance that no bridge is crossing Britannia towards Aylmer forces everyone to acknowledge that those Britannia residents, with their NIMBY attitudes which are so easy to criticize, are, in fact, right. They have a right to their lives, however they define it, as much as commuters have a right to drive their smelly cars and buses wherever they wish.

This assurance of no bridge also opens the question of what will be done with the millions saved by not building a bridge. That may be a funny way of looking at it, but had the bridge been built, we would be asking if that was a wise use of $200 million. Wouldn't it be smarter to use the money to move jobs over to Quebec and attain Trudeau's 75:25 federal job ratio? Or wiser to use the millions to aid businesses start or expand and thus create jobs in Gatineau so people don't have drive across any hypothetical bridges?

Isn't it wiser to move jobs one time rather than move thousands of people every day of the week, year after year?

Won't this promise of no western bridge be a reassurance to those who already feel urban sprawl is out of control in Gatineau? A new bridge would stimulate more home building, eating up the last of the fields and green spaces of Aylmer. Gatineau's remarkable Boucher Forest would fall to market pressures. With the bridges grouped in central Gatineau, including the only new bridge the NCC will apparently support, across Kettle Island onto the Aviation Parkway, the pressure will be on developers to densify, to infill, and to build skywards within the city's core. A dense core is the place where people and wealth exist in volumes large enough to support a local culture.

And will all this discussion of bridges lead us into pondering the dominance of the automobile in our society? Will it stimulate us to consider not only the pollution and the sheer cost of using and repairing so many cars, but lead us also to consider if we have to be a society always on wheels, always backing up somewhere, pulling in somewhere else, and always driving by ourselves, our windows rolled up, our own music playing, as if we are each the only person in the world?

Fred Ryan is the publisher of the Bulletin d'Aylmer, the West Quebec Post, and the Pontiac Journal.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2008

[jeremy_haak]

Also consider the impact of an aging population which will definitely have way more retirees (if the doom and gloom is right, pretty much everyone in Quebec will be retired within 25 years!), and also the impact of telework and other new technological and work-related developments.

Many transportation planners actually foresee that peak period traffic will become less intense in the future, but that there will be more people on the roads at all times of the day, though never with the same intensity as the rush hours of yore.

I'm not sure telecommuting is going to catch on anymore in the future than it already has (which is to say, not really all that much). That said, I do think the trend toward more flexible work structures will have an impact and broaden the peak hours over more of the day. We already see that happening.

[waterloowarrior]

http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/beyond_2020/tmp/transit/phase3/recommendations_en.html

King Edward Avenue
Based solely on traffic analysis and even with the construction of a new Interprovincial crossing in the east, a 6-lane King Edward continues to be required to satisfy existing and future travel demand. This recommendation is subject to further review through the King Edward Avenue Lane Reduction Impact Study that will consider the impact of traffic on surrounding communities

[waterloowarrior]

Hundreds of angry residents tell consultants 'no' to proposed bridge at Kettle Island

Maria Cook
The Ottawa Citizen

Thursday, September 25, 2008

OTTAWA - An angry crowd of about 700 people last night greeted consultants trying to explain the choice of Kettle Island for a new interprovincial bridge on the east side of the city with a resounding "No."

There were cries of "What about the people?" when consultant Steve Taylor was making his presentation at a public meeting at Lansdowne Park. When Mr. Taylor said the selection committee was unbiased, someone shouted "bull----" and the audience, many wearing buttons and carrying signs that said "Kettle Island -- No," burst into applause.

"There is no magical solution to find a corridor that has no effects," he said, to loud boos and "nos!" "It's a good location."

Two weeks ago, the NCC announced that Kettle Island was the recommended site out of 10 studied by consultants Roche-NCE.

The group analysed 10 possible routes using a mathematical model. When it came time to announce the choice, all potential crossings on the west side of the city were ruled out.

"Our members have been very polite ... to date," Jane Brammer, head of a coalition of 15 community associations, said.

"We've submitted comments and community position papers," Ms. Brammer said. "We've been expecting and hoping for reasonable analyses and decision. But now we think we've been bamboozled." She received thunderous applause for her remarks.

She said the objectives of a bridge project are not addressed: to remove trucks from downtown, and to direct regional traffic to a regional ring-road system.

"We're told these objectives weren't even part of the consultants' mandate. Our coalition members are outraged. We demand that established neighbourhoods be protected from intrusion by highways and bridges."

The audience shouted and clapped when Rideau-Rockcliffe Councillor Jacques Legendre loudly insisted on speaking when the moderator tried to cut him off. Person after person approached him to donate their two minutes so he could continue.

"We have to build a bridge in a place where it will serve society best. The value system of those assigning weights to various criteria must be called into question. How is it possible in 2008 for a study to consider that habitat for fish is more important than habitat for people?

"Waterfowl are judged to be 10 times more important than Montfort's diagnostic capabilities. This is too serious a matter to be entrusted to the technocrats."

He received a standing ovation from the audience while some members of the selection committee sitting at reserved tables on the side smiled.

Ottawa-Vanier MP Mauril Bélanger and MPP Madeleine Meilleur spoke out against the site as well.

"We're concerned that the selection criteria were biased to come out with the result they came out with," said Ronald Burrows, a retired scientist who has lived in Manor Park for 45 years. "I don't think they gave sufficient weight to existing settlements."

Patrick Glémaud, the Tory candidate in Ottawa-Vanier, said yesterday fighting the Kettle Island bridge has been a priority for him since the first day of his election campaign.

He also said the NCC should have presented several options for the bridge and then let politicians -- and the public -- consider the choices.

"You always prepare two to three options, and you let people decide the one they want," Mr. Glémaud said.

Bill McCarten, a 58-year-old consultant who lives in Manor Park, said he is familiar with the weighting system. "The spirit is that ultimate stakeholders, residents, be included on the committee. In this case, we don't have that. There's little weighting of the residents who will pay the costs in taxes."

People cried "Shame!" when Judy Lishman, head of the bridge committee of the Manor Park community association, said that, according to the consultants, the corridor was 100-per-cent safe for the transport of hazardous materials near a hospital and 100,000 residents.

"Look around the room," she said. "This is the just the beginning of our opposition. Make no mistake. We will win this fight. We've done it twice in the past."

Keeping a low profile were Carole and Tony Yantha, who have just bought a condo facing Petrie Island. They want the bridge at Kettle Island because a bridge at Petrie Island means "I would have a bridge in front of my window," Mrs. Yantha said.

Her husband said Kettle Island is "the ideal place. The Aviation Parkway takes you right to the river. You don't have to build a new road, just widen it. It would reach Montée Paiement (in Gatineau) where they've just widened the road. It's perfect."

The Kettle Island route would be approached via Highway 50 and Montée Paiement on the Quebec side, link with the Aviation Parkway in Ottawa, then loop into the Queensway at "the Split," where the highway meets Highway 174.

Area resident Natalie Belovic said many people are concerned about political influence in the decision.

"Could the city staff on the selection committee ignore the fact that city council supported Kettle Island?" she asked. "MP John Baird took a lot of credit for avoiding a west-end bridge."

Mr. Taylor said "no political intervention took place."

- - -

Read more about the Kettle Island bridge affair

ottawacitizen.com/See Editor's Picks

© The Ottawa Citizen 2008

[clynnog]

OTTAWA - An angry crowd of about 700 people last night greeted consultants trying to explain the choice of Kettle Island for a new interprovincial bridge on the east side of the city with a resounding "No."

There were cries of "What about the people?" when consultant Steve Taylor was making his presentation at a public meeting at Lansdowne Park. When Mr. Taylor said the selection committee was unbiased, someone shouted "bull----" and the audience, many wearing buttons and carrying signs that said "Kettle Island -- No," burst into applause.

"There is no magical solution to find a corridor that has no effects," he said, to loud boos and "nos!" "It's a good location."



I think I can speak for many people on this board, that the transportation consultant who presented at this meeting had a thankless job. His statement about no magical solution is spot on, but in an atmosphere like that the mob with pitchforks weren't wanting to listen to reason.

[Mille Sabords]

I wouldn't mind organizing an angry mob of residents living on or near King Edward and living with dangerous goods and all the other goodies under their noses every day. How about a road blockade? They did that in Paris in '68 and a few other times, methinks it could apply here as well...

[lrt's friend]

It is so sad that people are only looking at their own self interests, instead of what is best for the city as a whole. We live in a growing city and we need to allow the city's transportation system to continue to work. Thousands of people have faced road widenings in their neighbourhoods and have been forced to accept the results. We are again facing paralysis on this matter, with some community assocition or another objecting to pretty well all possible bridge crossing locations. We have had suggestions that the bridge be pushed all the way out to Cumberland, where it will feed into a two lane road and be of very limited value. We are all helping overall traffic conditions if we allow people to get to their destinations on the shortest and fastest routes. The Kettle Island route provides direct connections to both the Queensway and the 417, something that cannot be accomplished by any of the other possible bridge locations. It will use an existing boulevard that will likely suffice with some moderate improvements. It also provides the most direct access to many east end employment areas. We talk about the patients at the Montfont Hospital but what about the staff, which in many cases are travelling from Gatineau. For the most part, the Aviation Parkway corridor is wider than the Queensway corridor and there will be all kinds of ways to mediate noice and it is not necessary to destroy the park landscape. I also believe it is not necessary to turn this route into 100 kph expressway and if we invest in the design of the bridge, it could actually become a highlight of neighbouring communities.

[Acajack]

Seems like a classic case of NIMBYism mixed in with perhaps some latent anti-Quebec sentiment. Sorry to bring this up but it seems like road projects and widenings that are Ontario-to-Ontario (eg Hwy. 7 from Carleton Place, Queensway widening across Ottawa) generate far less opposition... Think of the opposition to the third lane on the Champlain Bridge.

[waterloowarrior]

.

[Kitchissippi]

But it is hard to have a meaningful discussion when the choices have already been narrowed down to one. It then becomes a referendum of whether you are for it or against it.

Personally I feel that there is something wrong with processes where the result is derived by some mathematical formula. Especially if the figures are based on present-day factors that are a result of poor planning in the first place and analyzed in isolation from the bigger picture. The whole transportation issue should be approached from a holistic ideal and all the parts should work towards that ideal. In most large cities, trucking through- routes are usually achieved via a freeway-to-freeway link without having to pass busy intersections with traffic lights. I actually think the Quebec side of this plan is worse and less sustainable than having to sacrifice the Aviation Parkway.

[Kitchissippi]

By the way, speaking of mobs with pitchforks, if anyone is interested in seeing Kettle Island and volunteer some time in cleaning up, check out the Ottawa Riverkeeper event (http://ottawariverkeeper.ca/events/fall_paddle_and_garbage_pick_up_2) this Saturday, September 27. There will be boat shuttles leaving from both Ottawa and Gatineau.

[Acajack]

If the rumours are true, Ottawa West-Nepean MP John Baird will named Minister of Transport later today, in addition to being given responsbility for the NCC.

As was widely reported in the media recently, he is a supporter of a new bridge at Kettle Island (mainly because he doesn't want a new bridge in his own riding!).

[Cre47]

Looks like another pedestrian-truck fatal collision in the Rideau/King Edward area

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/features/blotter/story.html?id=b1d2f500-a612-4ee1-9c93-c1bc300937c8

Full article

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=756a9747-614d-4c27-966f-239e9c7eb0e5

[Cre47]

Now with the problems regarding the Chaudiere Bridge and indications that the weight restrictions will be applied (until further notice) that means all trucks will have to use the McDonald-Cartier Bridge and thus King Edward Avenue. That means more safety risks in that area.

[citizen j]

I used to live a block from King Edward. After years of studying, discussing, planning, more discussion, more planning, another study, some superficial urban cosmetic surgery, and mounting pedestrian deaths/injuries, nothing has been done to get the trucks off that street. Nor will the truck traffic be removed entirely even after the new Interprovincial Bridge opens according to the latest study. I'd be about ready to build some DIY barricades if I still lived in Lowertown. If one bridge isn't enough to get ALL the trucks off King Edward and Rideau, etc., then build two (or three -- since Chaudiere looks like it's ready to fall down). By the time they actually open, they'll already be at capacity.

[waterloowarrior]

final report (http://www.ncrcrossings.ca/en/final_documentation.html)

Kettle Island best place for a new Ottawa River bridge, NCC says
by Patrick DareJanuary 5, 2009 12:05 PM
OTTAWA — The National Capital Commission’s consultants have confirmed that Kettle Island is the preferred location for a new bridge linking Ontario and Quebec.

The NCC’s consultants, ROCHE-NCE, in September said Kettle Island was the preliminary choice for a bridge aimed at easing inter-provincial traffic and diverting trucks from downtown Ottawa. Today the NCC released the consultant’s final report in the first phase of the bridge project.

This report goes to the board of the NCC in the third week of January for approval.

The commission generated a storm of opposition in the fall when its consultants proposed Kettle Island as the preferred route, since it would be a major disruption to Ottawa residents in the Manor Park-Rockcliffe Park neighbourhoods.

The report includes proposals to widen the roads approaching the bridge in both Gatineau and Ottawa, and building a bridge with long spans of 200 metres over the navigational channel.

The report says the Kettle Island site is the “best balanced” of 12 alternative routes examined. Ottawa politicians in the city’s east end have urged the NCC and its consultants to look at a route farther east, via Lower Duck Island.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[Richard Eade]

A presentation about the bridge report is to be given to a 'Special' meeting of the City's Transportation Committee on January 12, 2009, at 9:30.
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/trc/2009/01-12/agendaindex26.htm

[Cre47]

It's so laughable the complaints from Manor Park. I think the biggest issue about the bridge should be for residents along the Mtee Paiement corridor where they should have a better reason to complain then Manor Park. By looking at the article from Le Droit, there is a potential that the homes located on the eastern side of the roadway might have to be expropriated between Maloney and La Verendrye should the bridge gets build at Kettle Island due to the forecast of heavier traffic. I think there is also a vet clinic at Maloney, a strip mall or small commercial building at St-Rene corridor as well and some condos at the La Verendrye intersection as well all on the eastern side of the road. There might be some issues also for commercial space near Highway 50 such aas an Ultramar station. The Home Depot, Wal-Mart, Petro-Canada, Shell and IGA on the western side should be spared.

At the least the people in Manor Park should consider lucky that their homes will not face expropriation unlike what might happen to resident along Mtee Paiement.

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-droit/actualites/ottawa-est-ontarien/200901/13/01-817358-risques-dexpropriations-sur-la-montee-paiement.php

[Acajack]

It's so laughable the complaints from Manor Park. I think the biggest issue about the bridge should be for residents along the Mtee Paiement corridor where they should have a better reason to complain then Manor Park. By looking at the article from Le Droit, there is a potential that the homes located on the eastern side of the roadway might have to be expropriated between Maloney and La Verendrye should the bridge gets build at Kettle Island due to the forecast of heavier traffic. I think there is also a vet clinic at Maloney, a strip mall or small commercial building at St-Rene corridor as well and some condos at the La Verendrye intersection as well all on the eastern side of the road. There might be some issues also for commercial space near Highway 50 such aas an Ultramar station. The Home Depot, Wal-Mart, Petro-Canada, Shell and IGA on the western side should be spared.

At the least the people in Manor Park should consider lucky that their homes will not face expropriation unlike what might happen to resident along Mtee Paiement.

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-droit/actualites/ottawa-est-ontarien/200901/13/01-817358-risques-dexpropriations-sur-la-montee-paiement.php


Not to be insensitive but most of the houses along the east side of Montée Paiement between Maloney and La Vérendrye wouldn’t be much of an architectural loss. Many (especially between the hydro lines and Maloney) are relatively run-down semi-detached homes built cheaply in the 60s or 70s and most of their owners would probably jump at an opportunity to get some money for them and move into better digs.

Note that De Sylva is only talking about 20 houses or so, which are basically the ones I talked about above.

The housing at the corner of La Vérendrye and Paiement is actually a housing coop rather than a condo area.

In any event, his real concern is about having all that traffic running right outside these people’s front doors. But as I said, this would only be the case for a limited number of houses. Even the housing coop is set back from the road at least *a little* and is an unlikely candidate for expropriation.

And there is next to no chance the businesses on the ast side would be expropriated. In fact, most would probably be pleased would the added business traffic a bridge would bring.

Keep in mind that expropriation here is a quality of life issue, not a road alignment issue. Most of the road as it appears now was only upgraded a year or two ago, precisely with the bridge scenario in mind. So, aside from perhaps the narrow two-lane overpass at the interchange with the 50 that will almost certainly have to be widened, this entire stretch is ready to go from a traffic engineering perspective.

[waterloowarrior]

Council urges NCC to consider Lower Duck Island bridge


BY JAKE RUPERT, THE OTTAWA CITIZENJANUARY 14, 2009 1:01 PM


OTTAWA — City council narrowly voted Wednesday to ask the National Capital Commission to include a possible interprovincial bridge at Lower Duck Island in the next phase of its project aimed at getting another Ottawa River crossing in the city.

However, immediately after the 12 to 11 vote, Orleans Councillor Bob Monette successfully moved to have the decision reconsidered at the next council meeting.

It’s a small victory for people opposed to building a bridge at Kettle Island, which is the NCC’s preferred option, because the city has little control over the project.

ROCHE-NCE, consultants hired by the NCC, recommended Kettle Island for a new bridge after an initial studying of 10 possible crossing points. But after a storm of protest, Lower Duck has become the city’s alternative site for the bridge despite an earlier vote endorsing the Kettle Island option.

Kettle Island is in the Ottawa River north of the Aviation Parkway; Lower Duck Island is further east, north of the Robert O. Pickard sewage-treatment plant. According to the original study plan, the first phase of the consultant's work was meant to choose a single corridor for a new crossing, and then the second phase is supposed to decide how best to build it.

The city’s request, if not overturned, is to have the same detailed work done for both corridors.

The fight, typical of all the efforts over the last 30 years to build a new bridge across the Ottawa River, is a political battle that pits one group against another. Usually it is Ottawa against Gatineau or west end against east end. But this time west-end councillors managed to kill off any attempt to build a new bridge in their backyard for at least 20 years, forcing divided representatives of Ottawa's eastern neighbourhoods to fight it out over which part of the east is the best location for the link.

More than a year ago, a majority of east-end councillors persuaded council to support a bridge at Kettle Island even before the NCC consultant began a study.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[m0nkyman]

The city’s request, if not overturned, is to have the same detailed work done for both corridors.
Can this city council make any decision and stick to it? You'd almost think they were spending money that wasn't theirs...

[harls]

So, aside from perhaps the narrow two-lane overpass at the interchange with the 50 that will almost certainly have to be widened, this entire stretch is ready to go from a traffic engineering perspective.

I wonder if they plan to build an underpass at Maloney with that rail crossing/future Rapibus line.. with the truck traffic the bridge will generate I can imagine a lot of fists on horns at this intersection.

[waterloowarrior]

they are revisting the vote because jan harder missed the vote (in a car accident, but OK)

[Cre47]

Lower Duck has no chance at all because it will affect even more people then Kettle. The Lorrain Boulevard/Notre Dame Street area is very unsuitable for handling the extra traffic load as Lorrain has two lanes along most of the length with many homes between Notre Dame and Highway 50 including some newly built ones at the intersection of the eastern segment of La Verendrye which will eventually itself be connected to the rest of the route. We are probably talking about hundreds of homes that could be at risk of being torn off because of that. If another option is to widen Maloney Blvd near de l'Aeroprt which could be part of a corridor, it would also affect plenty of residences too and some small businesses because of the widening.

In addition the connection to Hwy 417 would be very poor even if the Ottawa connector would be Blair Road - and then expect an uproar from the very upscale community there north of MTL road. And there is no way they would tore up parts of the Greenbelt for that without fierce opposition if they want to connect with the 417 directly. Otherwise, Orleans commuters might expect mayhem as they would not only have downtown commuters but motorists heading for the 417 east including plenty of trucks.

The second best choice would be Montee Mineault with Tenth Line though an interchange with A-50 would be needed. Tenth Line, at least the portion north of Innes, is ready to accommodate the extra traffic with little if any disruption to resident on both sides. It is still two lanes south of Innes with plenty of new homes being built but plenty of space for widening. There is a slight gap between the end of Tenth Line near Navan and Carlsbad Road which dead ends at the 417 without an interchange and overpass (one is located about less then 1 km on Boundary Road). A new interchange would be needed likely despite the proximity of the other intersection since Carlsbad Springs people would certainly give a thumbs down to an increase of traffic there on their local roads.

You could see a bit of a corridor between Tenth Line and Carlsbad which is I believe the eastern boundary of the Mer Bleue Conservation area. Maybe pass the corridor about 200 m or so east of the conservation's eastern limits. Now there will be some expropriation though on Carlsbad Road and probably a few on Tenth Line though it would be the same then Kettle and certainly much less then Lower Duck though parts of a golf course at the 417 would be affected.

But in conclusion, some homes will likely go at the end but I expect a fierce no from the city of Gatineau for Lower Duck.

[Mille Sabords]

Not to be insensitive but most of the houses along the east side of Montée Paiement between Maloney and La Vérendrye wouldn’t be much of an architectural loss. Many (especially between the hydro lines and Maloney) are relatively run-down semi-detached homes built cheaply in the 60s or 70s and most of their owners would probably jump at an opportunity to get some money for them and move into better digs.

Note that De Sylva is only talking about 20 houses or so, which are basically the ones I talked about above.

The housing at the corner of La Vérendrye and Paiement is actually a housing coop rather than a condo area.

In any event, his real concern is about having all that traffic running right outside these people’s front doors. But as I said, this would only be the case for a limited number of houses. Even the housing coop is set back from the road at least *a little* and is an unlikely candidate for expropriation.

And there is next to no chance the businesses on the ast side would be expropriated. In fact, most would probably be pleased would the added business traffic a bridge would bring.

Keep in mind that expropriation here is a quality of life issue, not a road alignment issue. Most of the road as it appears now was only upgraded a year or two ago, precisely with the bridge scenario in mind. So, aside from perhaps the narrow two-lane overpass at the interchange with the 50 that will almost certainly have to be widened, this entire stretch is ready to go from a traffic engineering perspective.

You're totally right Acajack. Not only that, but let's also keep in mind that Gatineau has been reserving the Kettle Island corridor in its planning documents for well over two decades. They even chided Ottawa when other alignments were considered, for Gatineau a Kettle Island bridge has been "in the books" as a done deal for quite some time. While no one wants to repeat another King Edward, I would daresay that I expect Gatineau, in their wisdom, looked at Montée Paiement in its entirety when they chose to designate the Kettle corridor for a bridge and deems it to be the best route. I happen to agree and so it seems does the consultant and a growing majority of Council.

One thing that must be rectified from some of the media on the issue, is that King Edward will somehow continue to have trucks. Not so. The Ottawa Official Plan has a policy that says black on white that as soon as a new trucking bridge is built, Rideau and King Edward will be removed from the interprovincial truck route map. All the consultant has said is that they did not have the mandate to redraw the regional trucking network and their traffic projections assumed no change in the existing routes.

Kettle Island will not only have trucks, it will replace King Edward, make no mistake.

[Acajack]

I wonder if they plan to build an underpass at Maloney with that rail crossing/future Rapibus line.. with the truck traffic the bridge will generate I can imagine a lot of fists on horns at this intersection.

You're right of course, but I've never, ever heard of this being in the cards. Note that the rail line hasn't been used for many months (since the closing of the Domtar plant at the Chaudière Bridge I think), as evidenced by the snow on the tracks that has remained totally undisturbed since late November.

The Rapibus will complicate matters somewhat as you said.

[Acajack]

One thing that must be rectified from some of the media on the issue, is that King Edward will somehow continue to have trucks. Not so. The Ottawa Official Plan has a policy that says black on white that as soon as a new trucking bridge is built, Rideau and King Edward will be removed from the interprovincial truck route map. All the consultant has said is that they did not have the mandate to redraw the regional trucking network and their traffic projections assumed no change in the existing routes.

Kettle Island will not only have trucks, it will replace King Edward, make no mistake.

Thanks for raising this. So either there has been

1) some media manipulation, which is not entirely impossible since many media outlets in Ottawa are opposed to any new crossing to Gatineau, no matter how bad things get on King Edward

OR

2) a mistake by some reporters who got it wrong and the mistake has taken on a life of its own everywhere, including on this forum

[Aylmer]

Linky (http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&ll=45.496692,-75.487447&spn=0.01847,0.038452&t=h&z=15&msid=115695304482472230742.0004608918757cfec69e3)

How about this?

:)

[Acajack]

Linky (http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&ll=45.496692,-75.487447&spn=0.01847,0.038452&t=h&z=15&msid=115695304482472230742.0004608918757cfec69e3)

How about this?

:)

Yeah, I think it’s been studied but was excluded because it’s too far out. Before the megamerger of Ottawa, the former municipality of Cumberland actually upgraded Frank Kenny Road substantially (for most of the distance between the 174 and 417), largely in anticipation of this.

Frank Kenny is actually a pretty good rural road, but would have to be extended from Innes to the river (in what is currently farmland) in order to avoid all sorts of fiery “proximity” issues that would arise if the existing Trim Road were used. This area is very built-up now and has seen explosive growth in recent years.

The Quebec side of the route is mostly farmland, and lies between the built-up areas of east (former) Gatineau and Angers.

But once again, it has been deemed too far from the centre of the urban area by every study they’ve done.

[lrt's friend]

Linky (http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&ll=45.496692,-75.487447&spn=0.01847,0.038452&t=h&z=15&msid=115695304482472230742.0004608918757cfec69e3)

How about this?

:)

Perfect! What else can we screw up with the newly developed Petrie Island beach?

[Kitchissippi]

That would practically obliterate Petrie Island, which is one of the most popular recreational sites in Orleans. Haven't you been to the beach there?

from the Friends of Petrie Island:
http://www.fallingbrook.com/petrieisland/images/beach20050710.jpg

http://www.fallingbrook.com/petrieisland/images/picnic20050710.jpg

http://www.fallingbrook.com/petrieisland/images/villeneuvebeach.jpg

[Acajack]

That would practically obliterate Petrie Island, which is one of the most popular recreational site in Orleans. Haven't you been to the beach there?

I had forgotten about that as well. Mess with Petrie Island and you won’t be making any friends in Orleans.

[harls]

Hey, I don't see any errant turds on that beach.. what gives?

[Kitchissippi]

I had forgotten about that as well. Mess with Petrie Island and you won’t be making any friends in Orleans.

Yup, you don't mess around with the melon slings and nut huggers of Orleans!

[Rathgrith]

There is nothing I like to go to more in the summer than a beach that is down river from a sewage treatment plant!

[harls]

So what do we call it then?


Kettle Island Bridge shouldn't touch Kettle Island, Ottawa Riverkeeper advises

The Ottawa Citizen
January 16, 2009 2:02 PM

OTTAWA • A new bridge across the Ottawa River shouldn't touch down on Kettle Island or run salt and road dust into the river, says Ottawa Riverkeeper.


The non-profit agency monitors and defends the river's water quality. Its executive director Meredith Brown says in a statement to be released Tuesday that the route the National Capital Commission's consultants have identified for a new bridge is a problem for the river environment


"We're facing a difficult reality, however, and that's the fact that there are NO good locations for a bridge over our river," Ms. Brown writes. "The environmental impacts and consequences for each of the proposed sites are significant for the health of the river."


A route across Kettle Island is better than the immediate alternatives of Lower Duck Island and Petrie Island, which are downstream to the east, she writes.


The consultants, ROCHE-NCE, have found that a route across Kettle Island, north of Aviation Parkway on Ottawa's east side, is the best of 10 they studied. They're now planning to begin a years-long examination of the best way to design and build a bridge there so as to minimize the impact on the environment and surrounding communities.


Ms. Brown's statement says all the islands in the chain are sensitive and ecologically diverse and need protecting, and on strictly environmental grounds the best place for a new bridge would be between Cumberland and Masson, well downstream.


If the bridge must be at Kettle Island, she says, she'll recommend several steps to limit the harm:


• Building no piers on Kettle Island itself


• If possible, running the bridge near to the island but not directly over it


• Including a system to capture stormwater from the surface of the bridge, so dirty rain and snowmelt don't run off into the water or onto the island


• Conducting a comprehensive ecological assessment of the whole of Kettle Island, not just the western tip


• Devising a strategy to protect all the sensitive islands in the Ottawa River


The selection of Kettle Island has been controversial, especially among residents of Rockcliffe Park and Manor Park, who say the extra traffic and the construction needed to support the new bridge will harm their neighbourhoods irreparably.


The goal of the bridge is to take traffic, especially truck traffic, off the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge north of King Edward Avenue in Lowertown. Cars and trucks crossing between Highway 417 and highways in Quebec would use Aviation Parkway instead of snaking through downtown streets.


The consultants' recommendation of Kettle Island is awaiting approval from the NCC's board of directors. If the board approves, the second phase of study for the bridge is expected to take up to 40 months.


After that, construction is expected to cost $400 million to $500 million, and the money has not yet been committed by any level of government.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[Richard Eade]

I'm just always astounded by the $400-500M price tag for the bridge and approaches. Any idea how much the bridge itself is estimated at?

4-Lane tunnels can be bored at about $50M per Km. The cost of the approaches would be similar for bridge or tunnel. I believe the reason the consultant used to rule out tunnels was that there were no good approach paths. Does this make sense? It might be that the tunnel would need to be quite deep and thus have very long portal ramps. Does anyone have any ideas about this?

A tunnel would have a far lighter environmental impact (in operation) than a bridge over the river.

[d_jeffrey]

I'm just always astounded by the $400-500M price tag for the bridge and approaches. Any idea how much the bridge itself is estimated at?

4-Lane tunnels can be bored at about $50M per Km. The cost of the approaches would be similar for bridge or tunnel. I believe the reason the consultant used to rule out tunnels was that there were no good approach paths. Does this make sense? It might be that the tunnel would need to be quite deep and thus have very long portal ramps. Does anyone have any ideas about this?

A tunnel would have a far lighter environmental impact (in operation) than a bridge over the river.

If you can get a version of the study, tunnels were included and dismissed as too expensive.

[jeremy_haak]

If you can get a version of the study, tunnels were included and dismissed as too expensive.

Did they actually get an estimate, or did they just figure a tunnel would be too expensive?

So what do we call it then?

The Almost Kettle Island Bridge?

[Kitchissippi]

The depths in the river around Kettle Island are not particularly deep, 5 to 6 metres on average. by comparison, depths around the M-C bridge or Alex can reach 17 to 20 metres:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3408/3207294848_e4ee6dc10a_o.png
Around Lower Duck, it is even shallower:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3117/3206448861_0e02fc9727_o.png

I wonder if they would consider Sunk Tunnels (immersed tube) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersed_tube)

[Luker]

too innovative for north america.

[d_jeffrey]

Did they actually get an estimate, or did they just figure a tunnel would be too expensive?



They got an estimate, it was about twice the price. Now where did I see that document...

[Rathgrith]

I think the tunnel was put down because of the issues involving trunks and spills. The Ottawa River should have a tunnel in the future, but not for a trunk route. Mille Sabords mentioned that in another discussion thread.

[Deez]

I'm just always astounded by the $400-500M price tag for the bridge and approaches. Any idea how much the bridge itself is estimated at?

4-Lane tunnels can be bored at about $50M per Km. The cost of the approaches would be similar for bridge or tunnel. I believe the reason the consultant used to rule out tunnels was that there were no good approach paths. Does this make sense? It might be that the tunnel would need to be quite deep and thus have very long portal ramps. Does anyone have any ideas about this?

A tunnel would have a far lighter environmental impact (in operation) than a bridge over the river.

Is the 50M$/km dollar tag just for boring, or does it include all components?

As an example of some of the extra goodies that go along with highway tunnels, here's a satellite shot of a multi-million dollar ventilation building that circulates air in Boston's "Big Dig" tunnels (this is one of 7).

http://www.satellite-sightseer.com/id/12698

[Richard Eade]

Is the 50M$/km dollar tag just for boring, or does it include all components?

As an example of some of the extra goodies that go along with highway tunnels, here's a satellite shot of a multi-million dollar ventilation building that circulates air in Boston's "Big Dig" tunnels (this is one of 7).

http://www.satellite-sightseer.com/id/12698
Yeah, sorry about that. I have been thinking about trains too much lately. A 4-lane tunnel with road surface and ventilation should run about $150M per Km.

I have no idea how the study calculated $500M for a bridge and then calculated over $1,500M for a tunnel! At there rates, the DOTT would be about $2,000M! It looks to me as if the tunnel idea was being discarded through any means.

SUNK TUNNELS are anything but revolutionary and have been used for decades in North America for under water tunnels. The problem with them is that, generally, a trench is dredged for the tunnel to sit in. This would not be acceptable to the environmentalists. Although it would result in an in-expensive tunnel link, the idea will not be pursued.

[jeremy_haak]

I wonder how the bridge might affect the Rockliffe Airport. The approach passes right in front of the runway and I imagine it would have to have a fairly significant elevation by that point. Any thoughts?

[Mille Sabords]

SUNK TUNNELS are anything but revolutionary and have been used for decades in North America for under water tunnels. The problem with them is that, generally, a trench is dredged for the tunnel to sit in. This would not be acceptable to the environmentalists. Although it would result in an in-expensive tunnel link, the idea will not be pursued.

A tunnel was discarded because federal regulations prohibit dangerous goods from being transported through a tunnel. Since there are dangerous goods transiting on King Edward, any new crossing must be able to take those materials. It wasn't a case of, "oh, let's just screw the little ducks and turtles" - it's (finally, one hopes) a case of putting first things first. Human habitation along King Edward is at daily risk. That must end. And that overrides other environmental concerns.

[waterloowarrior]

ncc board meeting about the bridge is going on right now (live streaming)

http://www.capcan.ca/bins/ncc_web_content_page.asp?cid=16302-103085-95025&lang=1&showPlayer=true&OBMPlayer=true&exPlayer=OBM20090122


there's also some info about the colonel by/sussex/rideau urban design study to come later on