Sandy Hill Truck Tunnel

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Ambulance slowing seems like an incredibly easy problem to solve relative to the overall expense of the project, for instance with extra-wide shoulders that ambulances can drive on.

For Kettle Island, yes. Bus+emergency vehicle lane. For the monster roundabout at the end of a tunnel, not so much.

[OTSkyline]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Really we should get Feds to pay for a strong rapid transit link between our two systems. A Gatineau tram with a free loop from Lyon to Rideau to Alexandria bridge.

Listen, I'm all for improving transit (and interprovincial transit at that) but this loop idea will do nothing to solve either the truck problem downtown, improve the pedestrian environment or the issue of funnelling all east-end interprovincial traffic through downtown.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

Listen, I'm all for improving transit (and interprovincial transit at that) but this loop idea will do nothing to solve either the truck problem downtown, improve the pedestrian environment or the issue of funnelling all east-end interprovincial traffic through downtown.

As someone who has lived on the truck route. Actually twice. I think that a bus is just as bad as a truck so removing them is a win. That said, I also don't think 50 trucks (or busses) an an hour or 20 makes much difference.

The route is full so sure there will be less looping around to the Rockcliffe Parkway but a drop in traffic on King Edward seems unlikely.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Ambulance slowing seems like an incredibly easy problem to solve relative to the overall expense of the project, for instance with extra-wide shoulders that ambulances can drive on.

Yes. It is peak Ottawa. A completely bogus claim from an authority that goes unchallenged.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Not that I know of. Nobody thinks this is a viable idea.

That is because it most likely is a pipe dream no one has plans of funding.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Sutcliffe supports the tunnel, but did not provide a good reasoning why a tunnel over a bridge.

In a way, that is surprising and removes my doubt that it will never happen.

I will now say that there is a very very slim chance of it happening.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

wish the streetcars would not have been removed, but spending Billions to re-implement them would be foolish. Streetcars would be stuck in the same traffic as cars and buses. What can a streetcar do that a bus can't?

Well, when I said that, I more meant of reserve lane streetcars.
Imagine if Ottawa had the streetcars like King in Toronto where the cars cannot legally drive on the tracks.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Ambulance slowing seems like an incredibly easy problem to solve relative to the overall expense of the project, for instance with extra-wide shoulders that ambulances can drive on.

So, either you do not drive, you you are one of the many who drive but should not.
Legally, when you see an emergency vehicle, what are you to do?
Move to the right of the road, and onto the -- Shoulder.
So, now you would have everyone break the law to solve a problem that does not need to exist.

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

Listen, I'm all for improving transit (and interprovincial transit at that) but this loop idea will do nothing to solve either the truck problem downtown, improve the pedestrian environment or the issue of funnelling all east-end interprovincial traffic through downtown.

That is what some people cannot see. So long as trucks have to go through downtown to get to Gatineau, there will always be that issue.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

What can a streetcar do that a bus can't?

Run smoothly. Induce new development.

[citizen j]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Run smoothly. Induce new development.

Yes. And move more people.

[lrt's friend]

Rail transit will only deliver if it provides faster, more convenient service. If it results in less frequent, slower transit, it is not a good investment. We need to start assessing billion dollar transit projects through this lens.

We could have quadruple benefits with a Kettle Island bridge. Redirect at least some truck traffic from downtown, hopefully most non-downtown truck traffic, improve east-end traffic and transit connections, and provide a new segregated cycle link. Can you even cycle across the MacDonald-Cartier bridge?

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Rail transit will only deliver if it provides faster, more convenient service. If it results in less frequent, slower transit, it is not a good investment. We need to start assessing billion dollar transit projects through this lens.

We could have quadruple benefits with a Kettle Island bridge. Redirect at least some truck traffic from downtown, hopefully most non-downtown truck traffic, improve east-end traffic and transit connections, and provide a new segregated cycle link. Can you even cycle across the MacDonald-Cartier bridge?

It will be a car and truck route. Let's not pretend otherwise.

MC is a good cycle route and it links to paths on both sides. I guess Buckingham to Montfort or something could use a new bike path.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

It will be a car and truck route. Let's not pretend otherwise.

MC is a good cycle route and it links to paths on both sides. I guess Buckingham to Montfort or something could use a new bike path.

I don't doubt it, but any new bridge will do the same thing. The problem is our modal share and we are not doing a good job to sway it towards transit and cycling. I will argue that we are doing an absolutely terrible job.

Unless we also improve transit and cycling routes to make them more efficient, any new road in this city will mainly benefit the 90% who use private vehicles. Is that entirely a bad thing if it benefits the 90% majority (who are also voters and taxpayers)?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Unless we also improve transit and cycling routes to make them more efficient, any new road in this city will mainly benefit the 90% who use private vehicles. Is that entirely a bad thing if it benefits the 90% majority (who are also voters and taxpayers)?

It is entirely a bad thing if we are serious about any single one of our planning or transportation policy goals.