Sandy Hill Truck Tunnel

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Here are the routes that were studied.


https://www.ash-acs.ca/truck-tunnel-...essment-stage/

For those skeptical about the tunnel, I don't think it's any more or less likely than a 6th road bridge.

I'm not sure why the Vanier Parkway option didn't consider a shorter tunnel, e.g. one terminating south of Beechwood or south of Montreal Rd.

Given that the surface is already an arterial road, why would the tunnel need to be underground all the way to the 417?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

No problem from my perspective. Heck, even build another, vastly less expensive, bridge across the Rideau to facilitate!

You could throw in some money for roadway and intersection improvements, and mitigation measures all along the Vanier Parkway, and it would still come out way cheaper than either the Kettle bridge or the Sandy Hill tunnel.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by DoTheRightThing

Here's another thing that few people realize. They look at a map and say, here's a great line we can draw, extend the aviation parkway across a new Kettle Island bridge and up Montee Paiement and ergo a new connection from the 417 to the 50. Looks like a great route. Fact is, that route is 10km long and along the route there are at least a dozen signalized intersections. I can't imagine why cars/trucks headed between the 50 and 417 would find that preferable to the Macdonald-Cartier bridge.

Well, for starters, the route to the M-C bridge is full of tight twists and turns on the Ontario side. I don't know if you know how hard it is to turn an 18-wheeler on city streets... straight lines are way better, even if there are stoplights.

Plus the route from the 417 to the M-C is full of stoplights too.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by DoTheRightThing

This comment is typical of Ottawa residents who have very limited knowledge of the route proposed through Gatineau from a Kettle Island bridge (Montee Paiement). It is an urban arterial road with lots of commercial/retail and residential dwellings (even private driveway entrances!). During the Kettle Is bridge study the Gatineau City council passed a resolution that said in no uncertain terms that it was unacceptable to close King Edward to trucks and divert them all to Montee Paiement.
.

I may have missed it, but honestly I can't recall any Gatineau officials saying this (about not wanting truck traffic on Montée Paiement).

If Ottawa is game for a bridge at Kettle, Gatineau will be there. Trust me.

[DoTheRightThing]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Well, for starters, the route to the M-C bridge is full of tight twists and turns on the Ontario side. I don't know if you know how hard it is to turn an 18-wheeler on city streets... straight lines are way better, even if there are stoplights.

Plus the route from the 417 to the M-C is full of stoplights too.

My point is the downtown corridor obviously has a lot of problems and so does the Kettle Is bridge corridor. It has just as many traffic lights as the KERWN corridor. It does have 2 less twists and turns than the downtown KERWN corridor but also its length between the 417 and 5 is 4x longer than the KERWN corridor. It also has on the Quebec side one of the larger hills in all of the NCR. Perfect for thousands of heavy transport trucks to climb and descend every day and it is flanked on both sides by a lot of private residences many with back yard swimming pools backing onto the corridor.

Downtown, there is no doubt the truckers hate those turns on KERWN. It is amazing at how good they are at it. They have been doing it for what is approaching now 1 million times per year (300ish days * 2700 trucks per day) for 52 years...and I can tell you from personal experience a lot of them don't slow down one bit as they careen around those corners.

[DoTheRightThing]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I may have missed it, but honestly I can't recall any Gatineau officials saying this (about not wanting truck traffic on Montée Paiement).

If Ottawa is game for a bridge at Kettle, Gatineau will be there. Trust me.

Gatineau said they would support a bridge but they will not accept transferring all of the trucks to it. Here is a link to the resolution passed by Gatineau City council on this topic:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzq...ew?usp=sharing

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I know this sucks for people in Sandy Hill East-Vanier-Montfort-Bathgate-Beacon Hill but my sense is if Ottawa is going to run another line going east they'll take a more southerly routing somewhere along the Industrial/Innes corridor (or maybe hitting the north edge of the hospital complex on Smyth) all the way out of Orleans. There is more bang for your buck there if you look on a map.

What is the bang for that buck?

And why do we keep short-changing the densest and most transit-supportive parts of the city in favour of higher-order transit to, from, and within heavily auto-dependent suburbs with very poor land-use mixtures?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

What is the bang for that buck?

And why do we keep short-changing the densest and most transit-supportive parts of the city in favour of higher-order transit to, from, and within heavily auto-dependent suburbs with very poor land-use mixtures?

lrt's friend provided a good option that might allow for maximal bang for buck:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...&postcount=710

I can see the point of Rideau-Montreal through the densest area, and even some distance east of St. Laurent. But don't see the point of dead-ending a line in Beacon Hill.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by DoTheRightThing

Gatineau said they would support a bridge but they will not accept transferring all of the trucks to it. Here is a link to the resolution passed by Gatineau City council on this topic:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzq...ew?usp=sharing

Thanks for posting this.

My sense is that if it came down to bridge or no bridge depending on trucks on King Edward, they (Gatineau) would still go for a new bridge.

In any event, I've never understood the ultimatum of "100% of all interprovincial trucks on Kettle Island, otherwise no bridge at Kettle Island".

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by DoTheRightThing

In my opinion some of these are remarkably analogous. For example here's a bit about 2 of the dozen or so tunnels on that list:

1. Port of Miami Tunnel

Nearly 16,000 vehicles travel to and from the PortMiami (POM) through downtown streets each weekday. Truck traffic makes up 28% (or 4,480) of this number (Source: 2009 PB Americas Traffic Study). Existing truck and bus routes restrict the port’s ability to grow, drive up costs for port users and present safety hazards. They also congest and limit redevelopment of the northern portion of Miami’s Central Business District.
The benefits of the PortMiami Tunnel include:
- Providing a direct connection from the PortMiami to highways via Watson Island to I-395
- Keeping the PortMiami, the County’s second largest economic generator, competitive
- Making downtown streets safer by reducing congestion on downtown streets

http://www.portofmiamitunnel.com/pro...ct-overview-1/

2. Sydney North Connex

NorthConnex will allow motorists to bypass 21 sets of traffic lights along Pennant Hills Road, providing more reliable and safer travel conditions, while also returning local streets to local communities.
NorthConnex will redirect around 5,000 heavy vehicles each day off Pennant Hills Road into the tunnel, improving local air quality and reducing traffic noise.
A tunnel is the lowest impact solution to improve the journey for motorists between the M1 and M2 motorways. The construction and operational impacts are less than the impacts caused by other types of road projects, such as bridges and overpasses.
A tunnel will ensure a smooth transition between the M1 and M2 motorways without negatively impacting surface properties and traffic.

http://northconnex.com.au/community/faqs#ip-anchor-03

The Port of Miami Tunnel is 1300m long, and only has 7000 vehicles per day. It is basically an access road for the port and does provide interstate transportation or a significant commuter route. It does not run under any residential areas.

Northconnex is not done yet, so results are hard to determine. It required the expropriation of 50 properties. As the link I posted earlier noted, there are significant concerns about the air quality and has large ventilation smokestacks.

Some of the key elements of the proposed tunnel in Ottawa are:

Ends in a major bottleneck at the Coventry/VP roundabout, which will a) require vehicles to sit in the tunnel for an extended period of time (ventilation and safety features need to take this into account) and b) will eat into any time savings, discouraging people from taking it.

Goes through very soft geology. Much of the route has glacial till or sand below the surface. I don't know how far they would have to dig to reach consistent bedrock (LRT tunnel certainly did not get deep enough for that) but it is probably a good distance down.

Principally goes under residential neighbourhoods, including many historic buildings with masonry construction.

It would be nice to see some international examples that are more similar to Ottawa's proposal.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The Montreal Road subway/LRT corridor also kinda deadheads at Beacon Hill with no real opportunity to extend to serviceable areas beyond that.

I know this sucks for people in Sandy Hill East-Vanier-Montfort-Bathgate-Beacon Hill but my sense is if Ottawa is going to run another line going east they'll take a more southerly routing somewhere along the Industrial/Innes corridor (or maybe hitting the north edge of the hospital complex on Smyth) all the way out of Orleans. There is more bang for your buck there if you look on a map.

My reasoning for Rideau-Montreal is to serve one of the densest areas populated by citizens who are poorly served by transit, who are for the most part in a lower socio-economic class and where improvements are impossible using surface solution due to the existing congestion.

By having one line serve the college and terminate at Blair, we're alleviating Line 1 trains that will be full of suburbanites by the time they get across the greenbelt. It's sort of a natural terminus. Second branch could serve Waterridge to make it a ore sustainable development.

In terms of what you are talking about, a more southern route, that is in the plans as the Cumberland BRT. A candidate in Innes ward (Trépanier) is calling for it to be built as LRT in Stage 4. I believe that once the suburbs are all served, we should focus on the dense Bank-Rideau-Montreal. The Cumberland corridor is already built up with fairly low-density (see Avalon).

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You would make a Rideau-Montreal route cross at Blair station to serve south Orleans. It is very common to have crossing routes to provide additional connectivity. The Innes route west of Blair is very low density.

That could work. Eventually extend from Blair through to the Cumberland Transitway.

[Nowhere]

Ridership forecast map for 2031 [1] :
https://www.flickr.com/photos/164486...in/dateposted/

That's the problem with a Montréal/Rideau/Bank subway.


The 12 had a daily ridership of 14,500 and the former 1 on Bank had a daily ridership of 11,300 in 2015 [2]. The Sheppard line in Toronto has a daily ridership of 47,680 over a far shorter distance and it's still considered a massive failure. I totally support a better bus service around downtown but we have to remain realistic about what can be done. We also have to consider that Sandy Hill and Centretown have poor soil conditions that would make tunneling very expansive [3].





1. http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...14%20April.pdf

2. http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=232121

3. http://geo-outaouais.blogspot.com/20...-sensible.html

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Nowhere

Ridership forecast map for 2031 [1] :
https://www.flickr.com/photos/164486...in/dateposted/

That's the problem with a Montréal/Rideau/Bank subway.


The 12 had a daily ridership of 14,500 and the former 1 on Bank had a daily ridership of 11,300 in 2015 [2]. The Sheppard line in Toronto has a daily ridership of 47,680 over a far shorter distance and it's still considered a massive failure. I totally support a better bus service around downtown but we have to remain realistic about what can be done. We also have to consider that Sandy Hill and Centretown have poor soil conditions that would make tunneling very expansive [3].





1. http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...14%20April.pdf

2. http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=232121

3. http://geo-outaouais.blogspot.com/20...-sensible.html

Thats why a light Metro tunnel is needed, the density and ridership is there but because of politics it hasn't been done yet. Anyway we are talking beyond 2031 and only by then will line 1 be at capacity and then the city has to make a decision what to do next.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Thats why a light Metro tunnel is needed, the density and ridership is there but because of politics it hasn't been done yet. Anyway we are talking beyond 2031 and only by then will line 1 be at capacity and then the city has to make a decision what to do next.

But the density and ridership are not there. The ridership is a fraction what is needed to justify higher-order transit. There are a few pockets of density along Montreal, but it is mostly low density, car centric suburbs.

[acottawa]

Don’t we have several threads discussing dream transit plans? Could those posts be moved to another thread?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Nowhere

Ridership forecast map for 2031 [1] :
https://www.flickr.com/photos/164486...in/dateposted/

That's the problem with a Montréal/Rideau/Bank subway.

What that map is showing is that we are funneling the vast majority of our transit along a single east/west corridor. Having a second fast, frequent, reliable route would split that traffic. I am not suggesting it should be done in the next 10 or 15 years, but 30 years from now we will probably want it.

The 12 had a daily ridership of 14,500 and the former 1 on Bank had a daily ridership of 11,300 in 2015 [2]. The Sheppard line in Toronto has a daily ridership of 47,680 over a far shorter distance and it's still considered a massive failure.

First of all, I would consider Bank and Montreal as separate routes that could be connected. The Sheppard line is 5.5 km but it is only 4.2 km from the Rideau Centre to St. Laurant Bvd (the point at which many here agree it could run above ground) along Rideau/Montreal. Similarly it is about 4.5 km from Queen to Billings Bridge (where it could follow the southern Transitway) depending on the route. Connecting the routes (if desired) would require an extra kilometer of tunneling.

Secondly, you can't compare the ridership of a slow and unreliable bus with a subway. Having fast, frequent, reliable service will share the load with the Confederation line for those better served by the new line. I don't know what the ratio would be, but that is because no one (AFAIK) has studied it.

I totally support a better bus service around downtown but we have to remain realistic about what can be done. We also have to consider that Sandy Hill and Centretown have poor soil conditions that would make tunneling very expansive [3].

The sandy conditions don't make tunneling expensive. They mean that cut and cover (the cheaper option anyway) becomes the preferred option. Yes it is very disruptive for those along the route, but other cities have done it and survived. I am of the strong opinion that Rideau Station should have been built with cut and cover (for many reasons), but hindsight is 20/20.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by acottawa

But the density and ridership are not there. The ridership is a fraction what is needed to justify higher-order transit. There are a few pockets of density along Montreal, but it is mostly low density, car centric suburbs.

im very sure uhuniau would disagree with your statement

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

im very sure uhuniau would disagree with your statement

I don’t doubt that.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Don’t we have several threads discussing dream transit plans? Could those posts be moved to another thread?

I'm fairly certain the entire onus of a truck tunnel would also fall under being a dream transit plan.

[dougvdh]

Originally Posted by Nowhere

Ridership forecast map for 2031 [1] :
https://www.flickr.com/photos/164486...in/dateposted/

That's the problem with a Montréal/Rideau/Bank subway.


The 12 had a daily ridership of 14,500 and the former 1 on Bank had a daily ridership of 11,300 in 2015 [2]. The Sheppard line in Toronto has a daily ridership of 47,680 over a far shorter distance and it's still considered a massive failure. I totally support a better bus service around downtown but we have to remain realistic about what can be done. We also have to consider that Sandy Hill and Centretown have poor soil conditions that would make tunneling very expansive [3].

Right, and there's only 10k transit riders coming from Barrhaven (to all destinations), but they need an LRT? http://www.ncr-trans-rcn.ca/wp-conte...epean-2011.pdf