Sandy Hill Truck Tunnel

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Aubin's proposal to reduce Waller to one lane, hence splitting the truck traffic between Waller and Nicholas, is a bad idea. Turning left onto Nicholas isn't going to be easier. Furthermore, the corner of Nicholas and Rideau will be much busier than Waller and Rideau once the Rideau Centre expansion is complete.

Building a tunnel for both trucks and regular traffic is fine, just as long as it doesn't make the price tag prohibitive.

I'd be OK with making placing tolls in the tunnel; if all interprovincial truck traffic (trucks with hazardous material omitted) is obliged to use the tunnel, we could have a decent revenue stream, though it would never come anywhere near paying off the tunnel. Regular traffic could have cheaper tolls, and it might be advantages for some.

Tolls for all interprovincial crossings should not be implemented at any time. This is no better than the idea of tolling people driving downtown; Ottawa is much too small of a city to support such a system. Montreal doesn't charge people in Laval or Longueil to cross on the island, and neither should we.

Edit due to misunderstanding:

I spoke to Marc Aubin and he said it was an idea to get things started, not necessarily what will happen. However, trucks would turn off of Rideau onto Waller to get to the Queensway, while they would turn off on Besserer/Cumberland, leaving the Waller intersection one-way.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I am very skeptical of a $300M in 2001 dollars for a 2km tunnel. It is hard to get comparable because road tunnels are so rare. The Big Dig in Boston (about 3x length and 3x width) was the most expensive infrastructure project in US history and is far as I know there are no road tunnels under construction anywhere in North America. I.

There are at least a couple recent ones...
Seattle is building a road tunnel http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/Viaduct/
Port of Miami tunnel was just completed http://www.portofmiamitunnel.com/

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The federal government has the power to charge tolls for bridges. There's nothing unconstitutional about tolling Ottawa River crossings. There's tolls on the Confederation Bridge between New Brunswick & PEI.

The Confed. Bridge was, and is, a Public-Private Partnership, for accuracy's sake regarding this discussion. A similar arrangement would be required for an Ottawa crossing I would assume.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

There are at least a couple recent ones...
Seattle is building a road tunnel http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/Viaduct/
Port of Miami tunnel was just completed http://www.portofmiamitunnel.com/

Thanks for the info.

Seattle is $4.8B for a 3.2km tunnel.
Miami is undersea so hard to compare, but $4Bish for a 1 km tunnel

Doesn't bode well for this thing being affordable.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by hwy418

819 got a free ride on Ottawa's taxpayers back for too long. Let the market determine the toll rate - do you think $1.50 per trip at each of the Ottawa River Crossings is too much?

Here are some tolls rates for comparison purposes:

- Sunshine Skyway Bridge (6.6 kms) in St. Petersburg FL. $1.25/trip

Free alternative: I-75 through Tampa and Hillsborough County

- Holland Tunnel in New York, NY $13.00/trip

This is not a fair comparison as this is basically a congestion charge. Every bridge and tunnel from New Jersey to New York is tolled, most inbound only.

- Highway 407 in Toronto at minimum: 19.35 ¢/km + $0.80 toll charge + $3.95 Video toll charge (without a transponder)

Free alternative: Hwy 401

Port Mann Bridge, Greater Vancouver $3.00
Golden Ears Bridge, Greater Vancouver $4.30
Free alternatives: Mission Bridge, Pattullo Bridge

Macdonald Bridge, Halifax $1.00
MacKay Bridge, Halifax $1.00
Free alternatives: Bedford Hwy / Hwy 7

[hwy418]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Free alternative: I-75 through Tampa and Hillsborough County


This is not a fair comparison as this is basically a congestion charge. Every bridge and tunnel from New Jersey to New York is tolled, most inbound only.


Free alternative: Hwy 401

Port Mann Bridge, Greater Vancouver $3.00
Golden Ears Bridge, Greater Vancouver $4.30
Free alternatives: Mission Bridge, Pattullo Bridge

Macdonald Bridge, Halifax $1.00
MacKay Bridge, Halifax $1.00
Free alternatives: Bedford Hwy / Hwy 7

Thanks for providing these.

[Mikeed]

So I spent 30 mins writing out a response only to lose it cause I pressed "preview" and the "token had expired"- blah

So the condensed version is:

Some good sources:
http://www.ssd-ottawa.ca/
http://www.cnu.org/cnu-salons/2013/0...-avenue-ottawa

Also I believe tolls are necessary because I believe in order to get shovels in the ground on this project it needs to be a P3.


I wish I hadn't lost my essay, I'll probably rewrite it later.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by Mikeed

So I spent 30 mins writing out a response only to lose it cause I pressed "preview" and the "token had expired"- blah

So the condensed version is:

Some good sources:
http://www.ssd-ottawa.ca/
http://www.cnu.org/cnu-salons/2013/0...-avenue-ottawa

Also I believe tolls are necessary because I believe in order to get shovels in the ground on this project it needs to be a P3.


I wish I hadn't lost my essay, I'll probably rewrite it later.

If you press your browser's Back button enough times to get back to your previous page, your essay may still be in your cache.

[Mikeed]

After many similar occurrences on reddit I should have learned by now always to write in TextEdit.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

^ Me likes. I'm moving into Sandy Hill on Monday and I've been thinking Aubin for my vote for quite some time. Fleury needs to be punished for his anti-student tirade.

I am very disappointed in Fleury's very timid stance on transit in his ward. All his eggs are in the LRT basket, while OC Transpo keeps downgrading east-end service, and failing to make even the most basic improvements.

Speaking of students, I wonder if there will be enough capacity on the 5 in the mornings this year?

On the tunnel itself - would it be JUST trucks, or would it be general traffic, with trucks mandatory?

[NOWINYOW]

So now as we face the election, JW need only cite the study to deflect from having to answer about traffic in that corridor. Quite convenient. Once the study is done, it will be realized the costs are prohibitive. JW rules again, with no action or plan.

And why should the city of Ottawa carry the costs alone? The vast majority of traffic is Quebec-bound. They receive the benefit without absorbing any cost.

Isn't it convenient that commissions and reports always seem to be announced and advocated for, leading up to election dates.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I understand the politics behind this (allows Wynne/Watson cover for the idiotic decision to cancel planning for a new bridge and gives Watson another announceable before the 60 day window closes), but this is probably a huge waste of time. Road tunnels through urban areas are prohibitively expensive, which is why they hardly ever get built (Toronto goes through the let's bury the Gardiner study every few years) and the likelyhood that anyone will come up with the money in a few years is pretty low.

But it's not a comparison between a road versus a tunnel. Roads always win those. It's a comparison between a big bridge versus a tunnel. The pricing might end up being comparable, and the tunnel much less disruptive to communities. It might also make for a more efficient road network.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I'd be OK with making placing tolls in the tunnel; if all interprovincial truck traffic (trucks with hazardous material omitted) is obliged to use the tunnel, we could have a decent revenue stream, though it would never come anywhere near paying off the tunnel. Regular traffic could have cheaper tolls, and it might be advantages for some.

Tolls for all interprovincial crossings should not be implemented at any time. This is no better than the idea of tolling people driving downtown; Ottawa is much too small of a city to support such a system. Montreal doesn't charge people in Laval or Longueil to cross on the island, and neither should we.

It might be easiest to toll the MC bridge instead of the tunnel. Don't give anyone an incentive to use the bridge but avoid the tunnel. And for the rest of the bridges, if an abnormally high number of trucks seem to be avoiding the tunnel and toll then put in place a hazardous materials charge for those bridges that equals the bridge toll.

Or just avoid a toll completely. That works too.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by RTWAP

But it's not a comparison between a road versus a tunnel. Roads always win those. It's a comparison between a big bridge versus a tunnel. The pricing might end up being comparable, and the tunnel much less disruptive to communities. It might also make for a more efficient road network.

Presumably the study will give a sense of pricing (although as I noted in earlier comments, road tunnels are exceedingly expensive). But even if the truck tunnel is built, it only relieves part of the King Edward problem (trucks), and still dumps them on the busiest part of the Queensway and still maintains the policy of routing nearly 100% of interprovincial traffic on residential streets in Central Ottawa (Island Park, Booth, Kent/Lyon, Rideau/King Edward, Murray/St Patrick) as well as Sussex. A new bridge would relieve a lot of that pressure

The level of disruption to communities depends a lot on engineering (berms, sound barriers, below grade, etc) which are not available to long suffering residents on the currently affected streets.

[Horus]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Thanks for the info.

Seattle is $4.8B for a 3.2km tunnel.
Miami is undersea so hard to compare, but $4Bish for a 1 km tunnel

Doesn't bode well for this thing being affordable.

Seattle's project also includes replacement/reconstruction of a seawall. That's not to say that an Ottawa project would not have unique challenges of its own, but it makes it difficult to benchmark a comparative project for cost assessment purposes.

[Horus]

Originally Posted by NOWINYOW

And why should the city of Ottawa carry the costs alone? The vast majority of traffic is Quebec-bound. They receive the benefit without absorbing any cost.

It is an Ottawa problem. Any benefits derived from the project are Ottawa's. To say that Quebec will be receiving benefit from this proposal is speculative at best. Some Quebec residents/businesses will individually benefit from a tunnel, but that is not a valid reason to pass the bill to the other province. That would be like an airport in Cancun billing the Canadian government for improvements to their terminal as it would benefit Canadian travelers, or the Senators billing arena renovation costs to the Leafs as it is making the seats more comfortable for Leaf fans.

Quebec constructed the A-5 and A-50 to the M-C bridge based on the understanding that it was to be the efficient and de facto truck route between not only Gatineau and Ottawa, but also Western Quebec and Eastern Ontario. Ottawa elected to not provide an adequate link between its expressway and the interprovincial bridge. Ever since, Ottawa has had to live with the consequences.

Ultimately, this tunnel proposal is a solution to a problem that is Ottawa's with the direct beneficiary being Ottawa.

[ars]

Originally Posted by Horus

It is an Ottawa problem. Any benefits derived from the project are Ottawa's. To say that Quebec will be receiving benefit from this proposal is speculative at best. Some Quebec residents/businesses will individually benefit from a tunnel, but that is not a valid reason to pass the bill to the other province. That would be like an airport in Cancun billing the Canadian government for improvements to their terminal as it would benefit Canadian travelers, or the Senators billing arena renovation costs to the Leafs as it is making the seats more comfortable for Leaf fans.

Quebec constructed the A-5 and A-50 to the M-C bridge based on the understanding that it was to be the efficient and de facto truck route between not only Gatineau and Ottawa, but also Western Quebec and Eastern Ontario. Ottawa elected to not provide an adequate link between its expressway and the interprovincial bridge. Ever since, Ottawa has had to live with the consequences.

Ultimately, this tunnel proposal is a solution to a problem that is Ottawa's with the direct beneficiary being Ottawa.

I agree with this. In the end, trucks are going to go over to Gatineau with or without a tunnel. The main reasons for building a tunnel in the first place would be pedestrian safety and to clear up congestion on King Edward, both of which would benefit Ottawa and only Ottawa.

[eternallyme]

Quebec would have to solve the bottleneck at 5/50 through interchange upgrades, but the tunnel should be entirely funded by Ottawa and Ontario, and any tolls should go to the City of Ottawa (who would presumably own it).

The tunnel should be at least 4 lanes wide (2 in each direction) and at least 5.0 m tall to allow over-height trucks through, with electronic tolling. Only hazardous goods would be prohibited (and they are a small proportion of trucks); they should be escorted through downtown.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Quebec would have to solve the bottleneck at 5/50 through interchange upgrades, but the tunnel should be entirely funded by Ottawa and Ontario, and any tolls should go to the City of Ottawa (who would presumably own it).

Why? The interchange is perfectly fluid more than 21 hours out of 24 on weekdays and 24/24 on weekends, so trucks can zip through roughly 90% of the time.

If it's for private cars, then induced demand will gobble up your new lanes faster than you can say "exercise in futility". More accurately, increased VMT will match the increased capacity in about 4 years, including an immediate 30% jump.

The tunnel should be at least 4 lanes wide (2 in each direction)

For what purpose? How many people take the 50 to the Queensway during rush hour and vice-versa? How many of them would be willing to dish out a toll for the priviledge? If the number isn't close to 20 000 people every rush hour (2.5h x 2000 vphpd x 4 lanes), then it isn't worth almost doubling the capital cost.

[Buggys]

"The tunnel should be at least 4 lanes wide (2 in each direction)"

"For what purpose? How many people take the 50 to the Queensway during rush hour and vice-versa? How many of them would be willing to dish out a toll for the priviledge? If the number isn't close to 20 000 people every rush hour (2.5h x 2000 vphpd x 4 lanes), then it isn't worth almost doubling the capital cost."

In case of an accident.... So that traffic is not completely blocked, and emergency vehicles can go to the scene.