Interprovincial bridge crossing discussion

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Yeah, that's the between-the-lines message for sure, but... is he "negotiating" from a position of strength?

More like a position of desperation, but you go with what you've got.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Sure but the 50 is probably the biggest bottleneck with the majority of traffic probably coming from Gatineau itself at this point.




Why is Ottawa expected to roll over for something that has minor benefits for Ottawa (Very little truck traffic is going to be re-routed). In fact it probably enables growth that costs Ottawa taxpayers.

Well, AFAIK the City of Ottawa won't be paying for this and all of the land involved is federal and provincial, so given the governance hierarchy, as brutal as this sounds there is not much the mayor can do.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Well, AFAIK the City of Ottawa won't be paying for this and all of the land involved is federal and provincial, so given the governance hierarchy, as brutal as this sounds there is not much the mayor can do.

The province can push through whatever they want but a Conservative premier isn't ramming through a project on a conservative mayor that has very marginal benefits and only for downtown dwellers. Especially one that has strong opposition even if it's not in a key riding. That said if the feds pay for it all it seems possible they just go along with it and at that point the city would have more trouble blocking it.

[dougvdh]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

The truck problem on King Edward/Rideau/Waller/etc. could be more easily and cheaply solved by reviving the Vanier Parkway extension project through New Edinburgh Park to the MC bridge. But that would inconvenience some people.

I suspect there is a big political reason that that corridor has never left on the table and evaluated under the same criteria as the other corridors despite the reality that it would likely score very high, if not highest overall and be much more cost effective.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by dougvdh

I suspect there is a big political reason that that corridor has never left on the table and evaluated under the same criteria as the other corridors despite the reality that it would likely score very high, if not highest overall and be much more cost effective.

You say political like it is nefarious or some secret scam. It would destroy hundreds of homes and make hundreds more irreparably worse. It would also destroy a neighbourhood. For very little benefit for Ottawa residents. It would also need to be paid for by Ontario rather than the feds as even though the residential capacity is all an issue of Quebec residents commuting to Ontario these changes would all be on the Ontario side. It would also not solve the evening congestion (towards QC) as the 50 would still be the bottle neck.

[dougvdh]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

You say political like it is nefarious or some secret scam. It would destroy hundreds of homes and make hundreds more irreparably worse. It would also destroy a neighbourhood. For very little benefit for Ottawa residents. It would also need to be paid for by Ontario rather than the feds as even though the residential capacity is all an issue of Quebec residents commuting to Ontario these changes would all be on the Ontario side. It would also not solve the evening congestion (towards QC) as the 50 would still be the bottle neck.

Impact on existing communities doesn't rate very high in the selection criteria. That's why they prefer a route that cuts through residential neighbourhoods over one that that goes through the edge of an industrial park.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by dougvdh

Impact on existing communities doesn't rate very high in the selection criteria. That's why they prefer a route that cuts through residential neighbourhoods over one that that goes through the edge of an industrial park.

The Ottawa portion of the Kettle Island routing does not require the removal of any homes at all.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

You say political like it is nefarious or some secret scam. It would destroy hundreds of homes and make hundreds more irreparably worse. It would also destroy a neighbourhood. For very little benefit for Ottawa residents. It would also need to be paid for by Ontario rather than the feds as even though the residential capacity is all an issue of Quebec residents commuting to Ontario these changes would all be on the Ontario side. It would also not solve the evening congestion (towards QC) as the 50 would still be the bottle neck.

I actually don't have that much skin in this game though I've always found it weird that (some) Ottawa(ns) would prefer to allow the aberration of so much heavy truck traffic on standard downtown neighbourhood streets to continue indefinitely, simply because an alternative solution would allow some Gatineau commuters an easier commute and some more development on the north side of the river.

Talk about really wanting to stick it to "The Man" (or maybe "L'Homme) at any cost.

[bartlebooth]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

The truck problem on King Edward/Rideau/Waller/etc. could be more easily and cheaply solved by reviving the Vanier Parkway extension project through New Edinburgh Park to the MC bridge. But that would inconvenience some people.

Inconvenient is an interesting way of putting it. It'd be fairly devastating for thousands of people not only in New Ed but from many surrounding areas (and they're not all powerful and influential folks). To suggest otherwise is pretty callous in my view. Let's fix a problem in one central neighbourhood by destroying another central neighbourhood!

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The Ottawa portion of the Kettle Island routing does not require the removal of any homes at all.

The project itself would have little impact on nearby neighbourhoods, imo. The real problem is the amount of traffic that it could dump onto the Parkway, Hemlock/Beechwood, and Montreal Rd, although that could be addressed in the design.

[harls]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I actually don't have that much skin in this game though I've always found it weird that (some) Ottawa(ns) would prefer to allow the aberration of so much heavy truck traffic on standard downtown neighbourhood streets to continue indefinitely, simply because an alternative solution would allow some Gatineau commuters an easier commute and some more development on the north side of the river.

Talk about really wanting to stick it to "The Man" (or maybe "L'Homme) at any cost.

Mets-en.. can't feel any animosity at all from YOWetal.

[dougvdh]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

The project itself would have little impact on nearby neighbourhoods, imo. The real problem is the amount of traffic that it could dump onto the Parkway, Hemlock/Beechwood, and Montreal Rd, although that could be addressed in the design.

It absolutely will have impact. There's the inevitable traffic you note. There's noise impacts - the corridor is quite close to an elementary school, lots of residential, a hospital. There's a huge increase in air pollution (CO, NOx, and microparticles). There's the division of school catchment areas, loss of recreational space. It will further evidence the development potential of the Cyrville Station TOD (and high density tax base potential). It impact negatively will Monfort hospital operations.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by dougvdh

It absolutely will have impact. There's the inevitable traffic you note. There's noise impacts - the corridor is quite close to an elementary school, lots of residential, a hospital. There's a huge increase in air pollution (CO, NOx, and microparticles). There's the division of school catchment areas, loss of recreational space. It will further evidence the development potential of the Cyrville Station TOD (and high density tax base potential). It impact negatively will Monfort hospital operations.

OK so now we know where you live!

[Marshsparrow]

No new bridge...

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by dougvdh

It absolutely will have impact. There's the inevitable traffic you note. There's noise impacts - the corridor is quite close to an elementary school, lots of residential, a hospital. There's a huge increase in air pollution (CO, NOx, and microparticles). There's the division of school catchment areas, loss of recreational space. It will further evidence the development potential of the Cyrville Station TOD (and high density tax base potential). It impact negatively will Monfort hospital operations.

This seems a bit over the top. It is certainly negative for the whole east side in terms of traffic but mostly it's moving traffic. It will absolutely induce demand though as well.

Originally Posted by Acajack

I actually don't have that much skin in this game though I've always found it weird that (some) Ottawa(ns) would prefer to allow the aberration of so much heavy truck traffic on standard downtown neighbourhood streets to continue indefinitely, simply because an alternative solution would allow some Gatineau commuters an easier commute and some more development on the north side of the river.

Talk about really wanting to stick it to "The Man" (or maybe "L'Homme) at any cost.

If the Feds pay for it all I think opposing it on a city-wide basis is a bit of what you are saying as I think the harm to a few areas are balanced by the reduction in traffic in more central areas. It won't remove trucks but will reduce volume and makes moving around Rideau and King Edward a little easier.

The other thing is it would lower our tax base if we care about such things these are new or maintained anglophone and federalists to the Quebec side which makes the Laurentian crowd happy but does ultimately cities compete for residents and this hurts Ottawa's position.

Finally even if the Feds pay for it that is funds that would be better spent elsewhere in the region and will make the next thing we ask for harder to get.

I say all this as someone lives near King Edward so wouldn't mind less trucks and who gets stuck in afternoon traffic headed to Gatineau.

Unless we close the MC bridge entirely I don't see it making a huge difference it is a highway of traffic either wa

[CanadaGoose]

Originally Posted by dougvdh

It absolutely will have impact. There's the inevitable traffic you note. There's noise impacts - the corridor is quite close to an elementary school, lots of residential, a hospital. There's a huge increase in air pollution (CO, NOx, and microparticles). There's the division of school catchment areas, loss of recreational space. It will further evidence the development potential of the Cyrville Station TOD (and high density tax base potential). It impact negatively will Monfort hospital operations.

Yes, absolutely, that's why we should divert all this air pollution and noise impacts to a different neighbourhood. Specifically, the one with lower incomes that are more focused on surviving than protesting a bridge.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The other thing is it would lower our tax base if we care about such things these are new or maintained anglophone and federalists to the Quebec side which makes the Laurentian crowd happy but does ultimately cities compete for residents and this hurts Ottawa's position.

Finally even if the Feds pay for it that is funds that would be better spent elsewhere in the region and will make the next thing we ask for harder to get.

I say all this as someone lives near King Edward so wouldn't mind less trucks and who gets stuck in afternoon traffic headed to Gatineau.

Unless we close the MC bridge entirely I don't see it making a huge difference it is a highway of traffic either wa

I'm really struggling to understand what you mean about the tax base being lowered. How would a bridge lower the tax base? Surely Ottawa isn't going to empty out because there is an east end bridge.

One thing that I don't understand is why the city can't just change its truck routes to make a new bridge more viable, and the downtown route less viable. I understand the political challenges of changing a truck route, but surely it is doable.

[CanadaGoose]

I am no traffic engineer.

I assume a lot of traffic on King Edward bridge goes towards the east end of Gatineau A-50, and very little goes up A-5 (disclosure: this is where I commute from).

From Montee Paiement A-50 interchange to Parliament Hill would be 14.4km (A-50 Montee Paiement, King Edward Bridge, Sussex, Wellington, etc).

With new bridge, I assume:
- 4km from Montee Paiement A-50 to Saint Louis (bridge start)
- 3km approx bridge length using google maps measure tool
Via:
- Sussex Drive to Parliament (that's no good) - 8.1km
- Aviation Parkway / 417 / Nicholas Drive - 10.6km

Proposed travel pattern via new bridge: 15.1km to 17.6km (versus 14.4km existing)

---
I can only guess that majority of king Edward traffic would use this new crossing as a secondary alternative, if the primary is congested.

But with the city, not really putting any effort on finishing Vanier Parkway, and proposing a tunnel that would cost more than a bridge (that could handle maybe 2-3 times the traffic), handle one lane of traffic and has many complexities. What choice does the Feds have?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by phil235

I'm really struggling to understand what you mean about the tax base being lowered. How would a bridge lower the tax base? Surely Ottawa isn't going to empty out because there is an east end bridge.

One thing that I don't understand is why the city can't just change its truck routes to make a new bridge more viable, and the downtown route less viable. I understand the political challenges of changing a truck route, but surely it is doable.

I was just going to ask the same thing.

On here for years we've been saying that even with Kettle Island almost all of the trucks will still remain on King Edward.

Why is that a foregone conclusion? There are authorities in place that can and do force trucks onto certain roads and off others.

I mean, with Kettle Island, if it happens we are going to changing the roadway designation of two long-established scenic parkway segments (all of Aviation and a short segment of Rockcliffe) to accommodate heavy truck traffic.

If we could do that, surely we can get most trucks off King Edward.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by CanadaGoose

I am no traffic engineer.

I assume a lot of traffic on King Edward bridge goes towards the east end of Gatineau A-50, and very little goes up A-5 (disclosure: this is where I commute from).

There is actually a pretty large industrial area in the area of Boulevard de la Carrière in north Hull. Not too far from the Casino.

There is also some industrial along Chemin Pink between Hull and Aylmer.