Interprovincial bridge crossing discussion

[dougvdh]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

This overall seems very good. Not providing access to the Parkway is a reasonable decision. The parkways weren't meant to be commuter routes, but scenic drives. same with Hemlock, which is a local street. Does seem Hemlock will be accessible to authorized vehicles.

I'm having trouble figuring out if Montreal and Ogilvie will be accessible. La Cité should absolutely be, but it doesn't seem like it. This might be ok if it gets bus stops, which are only shown as "potential".

If we lost access to GEC via Aviation, it might be worth adding one or two new accesses, like Blair, Wanaki or Codd's that could link up with Marina, otherwise there will be no access between Birch and Orleans.
. . .

There's nothing sacred about the parkways. If there was, Aviation Parkway would not have been in the running as the truck corridor. So I don't see why one should be 'protected' and not the other. Same could be said about the west end. This project proves that we could make a west end truck route using Champlain Bridge and Kichi Zibi Mekane if there was political will.

I'm apathetic on access to SGEC, but it does raise the question of how exactly one would get to, say the Aviation Museum, or the Airport. Especially given the the SGEC and this road will be running roughly parallel for something like a km to get around the airport approach path.

My reading of the plans is that Montreal and Ogilvie will have access (since they refer to them as truck routes). This makes the decision to protect Hemlock even more illogical - it's not a truck route, so it would only see passenger vehicle access. And if, as other posters have noted, the area west is already well served by existing bridges, the traffic impacts would be minimal - so no reason to cut it off.

Personally, I'd like to see Montreal Rd grade separated and not connected. That's a constrained point in the corridor and not connecting it would eliminate the need for a bunch of turning lanes. It's already a dangerous intersection and it feeds into a constrained corridor to the west, so adding truck movements will only compound the issue.

The proposed grade separated pedestrian crossing is definitely in the wrong spot. It's much to far south (and too close to Ogilvie) to be of a great benefit to anyone. It makes me wonder if it would be feasible to partly cut the whole section from near the Hospital west entrance to just north of Ogilvie. That would allow make slightly elevated accesses to CMHC and the College from west side of the parkway (Rainsford), without connecting them to the parkway. This would make the new road much less of a divider to the neighbourhoods on either side.

[J.OT13]

Agreed, the grade separated crossing should be at La Cité. All pedestrian crossings should be grade separated really.

[J.OT13]

La CCN approuve la conception du pont de l’Est et évalue un lien avec la 417

Par Lise Denis, Le Droit
25 juin 2026 à 04h03

Le conseil d’administration de la Commission de la capitale nationale (CCN) a approuvé les principes de planification et de conception d’un sixième pont interprovincial entre Ottawa et Gatineau et évalue un lien avec l’autoroute 417.

Ce pont, qui devrait être opérationnel entre 2032 et 2034, relierait la montée Paiement, à Gatineau, à la promenade de l’Aviation, à Ottawa, dans le but de détourner les camions du centre-ville de la capitale fédérale.

«Concrètement, cela permet au gouvernement du Canada de commencer le design détaillé du nouveau pont et de préciser son alignement au dessus de la rivière des Outaouais», a réagi le député de Gatineau et ministre des Transports, Steven MacKinnon.

Dans un document de 80 pages présenté mardi, la CCN divise le corridor de 11 kilomètres en cinq segments :

• La montée Paiement, entre l’autoroute 50 et le boulevard Maloney;
• La montée Paiement, au sud du boulevard Maloney, jusqu’à la rive de la rivière des Outaouais;
• Le pont traversant la rivière des Outaouais, dont le tracé reste à déterminer;
• La promenade de l’Aviation, de la promenade Sir George-Étienne-Cartier jusqu’au nord du chemin Ogilvie;
• Le chemin Ogilvie jusqu’à l’autoroute 417.

Chaque tronçon pourrait être aménagé différemment, partageant les voies selon les besoins, entre la circulation automobile, le transport en commun et lesinstallations pour les vélos et les piétons.

Bretelles vers la 417

On peut lire au fil du document que le pont «devra comporter quatre voies réservées aux véhicules, et accorder la priorité aux véhicules multioccupants et au transport en commun» lors des heures de pointe. «Il devra également accommoder les véhicules commerciaux lourds et offrir des aménagements de haute qualité pour le transport actif.»

Il est par ailleurs souligné que «les prolongements de l’O-Train sont en construction, et un projet de tramway qui relierait l’ouest de Gatineau au centre-ville est à l’étude». Les services de transport en commun «existants et prévus» seront donc pris en compte.

La CCN propose aussi de construire «de nouvelles bretelles reliant la promenade de l’Aviation à l’autoroute 417». Il est toutefois précisé que «ce tronçon se trouve dans la zone de gestion du corridor du ministère des Transports de l’Ontario».

Trop tard pour remplacer Alexandra

Bien que la CCN aimerait qu’un tel pont permette d’améliorer «la résilience du réseau» lors de «travaux de réfection majeurs sur les autres liens interprovinciaux», le pont dans l’Est ne devrait pas être opérationnel avant 2034.

Le corridor et une partie de la conception préliminaire doivent d’abord être approuvés l’an prochain. Puis la conception finale doit être complétée d’ici 2029, date à laquelle pourra débuter la construction.

Ces travaux sont donc prévus en même temps que la construction du nouveau pont Alexandra, qui doit débuter en 2028 et se terminer qu’en 2032.

https://www.ledroit.com/actualites/actua...nt-dans-lest-ABCE5PWZQJB5FFMZUDRUK3FP6I/

[FrostyMug]

I can't speak to the section of this on the Quebec side as I am totally unfamiliar with it. However on the Ontario Aviation parkway side I firmly believe it should be modeled on the Herb Gray Parkway in Windsor. Below grade, covered over by sections of greenspace above and limited access. This would keep the character of the existing parkway above, reduce noise and help keep or improve existing greenspace and public access.

[dougvdh]

There was a drill rig set up in Parking Lot 5 along the SGEC yesterday (https://maps.app.goo.gl/nBFVMbKPb4d2sdEt8). I presume it was related to geo-tech work for the new bridge. If so, it aligns with my expectation that the new bridge will be located quite far west.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by dougvdh

There was a drill rig set up in Parking Lot 5 along the SGEC yesterday (https://maps.app.goo.gl/nBFVMbKPb4d2sdEt8). I presume it was related to geo-tech work for the new bridge. If so, it aligns with my expectation that the new bridge will be located quite far west.

That seems right. Montée Paiement and Aviation are offside by about 1.5km, so the bridge has to do a hard turn left. Also want to avoid Kettle Island as much as possible.

[OTownandDown]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

That seems right. Montée Paiement and Aviation are offside by about 1.5km, so the bridge has to do a hard turn left. Also want to avoid Kettle Island as much as possible.

I kind of assumed a two-part bridge. Part 1 gets you across the 1km or so to the westernmost point of Kettle island. Part 2 gets you across the 500m(?) span to the base of Paiement.

That said, if it is to be a suspension bridge, you'd need the road to be up quite high by the time it reached that parking lot.

[dougvdh]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

I kind of assumed a two-part bridge. Part 1 gets you across the 1km or so to the westernmost point of Kettle island. Part 2 gets you across the 500m(?) span to the base of Paiement.

That said, if it is to be a suspension bridge, you'd need the road to be up quite high by the time it reached that parking lot.

I'm not really expecting a suspension bridge (or cable stayed) because of the promixity to the Rockcliffe Airport. They've got a pretty narrow horizontal plane to work with, finding the sweet spot between navigation on the river (will need to be as high was McDonald Cartier), and being low enough to not impact the operations of the airport. Plus it looks like there will be grade separation of the SGEC and the new road since the consultation report suggests there will be no connection between the two.

Unless they sink the Parkway down, this probably means a fair significant overpass near Birch. The alternate approach would be to keep the new road on the north side of the parkway until closer to the museum, but this could create more issues with the western approach to the runway. Either way, the new bridge will have a pretty big impact to the views from the RCMP campus and Sandridge.

[dougvdh]

The drilling rig has now moved on to doing boreholes here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/11SBUaKevqysifVy7

Based on that, I'm speculating that new roadway will be to the south of the existing SGEC parkway (overpass closer to Birch). The existing overpass at the SGEC / Aviation could be removed (replace with an roundabout?) and access to the SGEC, Museum, Yacht Club, and Airport provide from Hemlock via a new bidirectional road roughly where the existing northbound ramp from Hemlock to Aviation is located.

If this is the case, the RCMP stables will lose some of their pasture land.

[Ottawacurious]

Is there a minimum height it needs to be over the ottawa river?

[dougvdh]

Originally Posted by Ottawacurious

Is there a minimum height it needs to be over the ottawa river?

The McDonald Cartier bridge has a clearance of 16m, while the Alexandra (slated to be replaced with a higher clearance bridge) is 13.4m. So I don't expect the new bridge will be lower than the McDonald Cartier.

Edit: To add to this. Normal water level at that section of the river is around 41.2m ASL, so that puts the underside of a bridge at 57.2m. So deck would end up somewhere around 62-64m ASL assuming a similar structure to McDonald Cartier. The grade at the parking lot near Birch is about 54m, so that would put a bridge deck at about 10m higher than the parking lot (high point).

[SkeggsEggs]

new Alexandra bridge performance criteria : A navigation channel of 90m wide by 11m high (preliminary dimensions, to be confirmed), measured from the high-water mark, shall be provided mid- river below the new bridge, in order to maintain the navigability of the river.

[dougvdh]

Originally Posted by SkeggsEggs

new Alexandra bridge performance criteria : A navigation channel of 90m wide by 11m high (preliminary dimensions, to be confirmed), measured from the high-water mark, shall be provided mid- river below the new bridge, in order to maintain the navigability of the river.

That puts the U/S of (new) Alexandra at 56.2m.

PS also checked the outer limit elev for the airport: 100.7ASL for 4km from the centre of the airport. So no part of the bridge can be higher than that elevation.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by dougvdh

The drilling rig has now moved on to doing boreholes here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/11SBUaKevqysifVy7

Based on that, I'm speculating that new roadway will be to the south of the existing SGEC parkway (overpass closer to Birch). The existing overpass at the SGEC / Aviation could be removed (replace with an roundabout?) and access to the SGEC, Museum, Yacht Club, and Airport provide from Hemlock via a new bidirectional road roughly where the existing northbound ramp from Hemlock to Aviation is located.

If this is the case, the RCMP stables will lose some of their pasture land.

That jives with the old plans, posted here:

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10366827&postcount=1810
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10367785&postcount=1826

[dougvdh]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

That jives with the old plans, posted here:

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10366827&postcount=1810
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10367785&postcount=1826

Interesting. I've never seen those plans before.

That said, they show a signalized intersection at SGEC (seems less likely based on the latest report), as well a connection to Hemlock (also now under question - although I think the argument against connecting them is very weak). And that connection at 174 / 417 looks like 1970s Montreal.

So I'm curious to see how this evolves.

[golfguy9]

Am I the only one who thinks building a bridge to relieve truck traffic in an urban congested area (Rideau) and put it in a similarly constrained area (Aviation Parkway) to be crazy? Obviously this is for more than just truck traffic but when I think of major thoroughfare, I don't think of the parkway. Unless I'm missing something.

[OTownandDown]

Originally Posted by golfguy9

Am I the only one who thinks building a bridge to relieve truck traffic in an urban congested area (Rideau) and put it in a similarly constrained area (Aviation Parkway) to be crazy? Obviously this is for more than just truck traffic but when I think of major thoroughfare, I don't think of the parkway. Unless I'm missing something.

I understand that its a major residential (low density) zone, but the parkway is always pretty much empty when I drive on it. Is it congested during rush hour? I think the point is to remove the truck traffic from urban high(est) density, including a high volume of pedestrian traffic, and place it where there will be less direct impact. A bridge and highway will ALWAYS affect someone, but in this location, there are fewer people.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by golfguy9

Am I the only one who thinks building a bridge to relieve truck traffic in an urban congested area (Rideau) and put it in a similarly constrained area (Aviation Parkway) to be crazy? Obviously this is for more than just truck traffic but when I think of major thoroughfare, I don't think of the parkway. Unless I'm missing something.

Many would think so, but after decades of Ottawa-style dithering, something needs to get built. The Parkway may not have been intended for heavy trucks but it will do.

[dougvdh]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Many would think so, but after decades of Ottawa-style dithering, something needs to get built. The Parkway may not have been intended for heavy trucks but it will do.

There's a decently likelihood that trying to put the truck route down Aviation will just end up with the project being cancelled yet again. The Greens Creek route (linking the Gatineau Airport Industrial Park with the Sheffield Industrial Park) would have seen significantly less push back since it has much less significant on existing (and developing residential neighbourhoods). And therefore, probably had a much higher chance of success.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by dougvdh

There's a decently likelihood that trying to put the truck route down Aviation will just end up with the project being cancelled yet again. The Greens Creek route (linking the Gatineau Airport Industrial Park with the Sheffield Industrial Park) would have seen significantly less push back since it has much less significant on existing (and developing residential neighbourhoods). And therefore, probably had a much higher chance of success.

Sheffield Road is immediately off the Aviation Parkway-417 corridor. I suppose you are referring to Shefford Road.

Regardless, how are two relatively unimportant locations justification for locating a bridge?

It seems to me that the Aviation corridor gives better access to a bilingual hospital, a French language college, a large federal employment area as well multiple east end industrial parks and connects directly to Highway 417 going east. Why do we want to dump extra traffic onto the already congested section of the 174 between Orleans and the Split?

There is value in locating a transportation corridor where it is more useful despite being more urban, and actually partly because it is more urban. More useful to more people.