Interprovincial bridge crossing discussion

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

In addition, King Edward could be narrowed back to the tree lined boulevard it used to be. It would help clean up downtown and reduce noise and pollution levels.

Kettle would also create new cycling and transit links between Ottawa and Gatineau, providing better access to Slush Puppie Arena, Montfort, La Cité and employment nodes on both sides of the river. Kettle Island bridge would be transformational for the region by providing more options for all modes of transportation while maintaining the same amount of car lanes across the river.

The idea you are going to reduce King Edward is fantasy. It still links to the 50 and the 5 so will be the main route for both trucks and vehicles.

Kettle is pretty far out there for transit or cycling. I mean sure they'll be a bus connecting the eastern employment hubs to East Gatineau but a dedicated lane would be crazy. A bike lane combined with pedestrian would be included but very lightly used as well.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The idea you are going to reduce King Edward is fantasy. It still links to the 50 and the 5 so will be the main route for both trucks and vehicles.

Kettle is pretty far out there for transit or cycling. I mean sure they'll be a bus connecting the eastern employment hubs to East Gatineau but a dedicated lane would be crazy. A bike lane combined with pedestrian would be included but very lightly used as well.

I live not too far from Montée Paiement and would definitely cycle across a Kettle Island Bridge on occasion. There are beautiful pathways in the Rockcliffe area and no a new bridge and traffic won't COMPLETELY DESTROY all of it, drama aside.

[Acajack]

I also don't get how this would make things impossible for the Montfort.

The McGill megahospital in Montreal was built right at the Échangeur Turcot interchange between A-15 and A-20 which sees 300,000 vehicles including 30,000 heavy trucks, every single day.

It's one of the busiest highway interchanges in all of Canada.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by CanadaGoose

So,
- build link to Vanier parkway (but that would be cities land)
- can't build kettle island due to houses and mri machine at Montfort (that somehow works at Queensway and also cannot be moved?) and ambulance due to traffic.
- induced demand
- survey that suggests a percentage of around 10-20% of trucks will divert
- not being a priority for city of Ottawa.

I will now add to something that few people in Gatineau will care about:
- so many new trucks will flood the residential streets of Montee Paiement and Route 148 / Maloney.
- how will they add capacity for this induced demand
- we will have one bridge that goes from a highway to king Edward and a new one, that will go from a highway to Montee Paiement

Therefore, I say it cant be built.

As brutal as this sounds, I think most people consider the residential areas along Montée Paiement to be "expendable".

Apparently the project if carried out would see the truck route more closely aligned to the western side of Montée Paiement (where you mostly have businesses), and on the eastern side there would be a local access road for the homes, perhaps with a buffer of some kind.

Maloney is already a provincial highway and a major truck route. If you chose to live there you knew what you were getting into.

In fact, a lot of the trucks that will be on Maloney are already on that road today, only they're coming via King Edward, Macdonald-Cartier and the A-50.

[OTSkyline]

One of the main reasons why the Vanier Parkway would be a better route for trucks over King Edward is that the parkway is built like a parkway - a real thoroughfare with very little (if anything) fronting the actual street. It is literally designed to get traffic flowing, little turns or entrance, etc.

Whereas King Edward has many intersections, many turns, buildings fronting it, etc.. Makes traffic worse, noise & pollution worse for people actually working/living on King Edward and overall more dangerous.

But yes I agree that the main issue would be how to connect the Parkway at St. Patrick to the A5.

[lrt's friend]

I am seeing every excuse under the sun to not build the Kettle Island bridge or any other interprovincial bridge. Our city is growing and people need to be able to get around. Induced demand can be thrown out the window. We need to build something at some point. The bridge connects the 50 to 417 and 174 . It is why we keep coming back to this location. No where else offers as much. It gives an opportunity to improve all modes of transport, walking, cycling, transit, truck and car traffic. I tire of reasons for never doing something. Of course, it impacts the neighbourhood, but there can be mitigation and community benefits can be offered. The resulting route does not necessarily have to be 100 kph. Plus, we should not rule out a federally funded bridge and road improvements out of hand. There will never be a downtown truck tunnel. Spend that money on a Bank Street subway instead. It is preposterous to use density as an excuse to not improve a road. That corridor can never support a rapid transit alternative without being part of a bridge project. It is time to accept the money and build the best project possible. If we say no, this will just come back again in 10 years and traffic will continue to get worse and transit will also be choked in the same traffic which will continue to be the biggest loser.

[Acajack]

As a regionally-minded Gatineau resident both the Vanier Parkway upgrades and tunnel extension under the Rideau River AND the Kettle Island bridge seem like acceptable options to me.

They both have their advantages and disadvantages.

The truth is we need a new crossing and to get trucks off King Edward.

[lrt's friend]

The anti-Gatineau bias is ridiculous. This is really one city. This is also why it is impossible to build interprovincial rapid transit. Let's look more regionally. This is going to get much worse when we cannot look beyond our own neighbourhood, especially those who live in that area which is so much more privileged than most other neighbourhoods. It makes me sick.

While Gatineau may benefit to some degree, Quebec laws will continue to discourage many Ontario residents from moving there.

[Acajack]

To be perfectly honest I am not optimistic about anything getting done at this point.

There is anti-Gatineau and anti-Quebec bias in Ottawa.

A change in government federally is certain and they will be looking to cut costs and aren't going to be big fans of the capital region.

Nobody in Ottawa really gives a damn about the people who live around King Edward, which is increasingly becoming a zombie 🞵🞵🞵🞵 show anyway.

Traffic in the eastern part of Gatineau isn't really that bad these days.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

To be perfectly honest I am not optimistic about anything getting done at this point.

There is anti-Gatineau and anti-Quebec bias in Ottawa.

A change in government federally is certain and they will be looking to cut costs and aren't going to be big fans of the capital region.

Nobody in Ottawa really gives a damn about the people who live around King Edward, which is increasingly becoming a zombie 🞵🞵🞵🞵 show anyway.

Traffic in the eastern part of Gatineau isn't really that bad these days.

I think you are right. I live near King Edward and am anti this bridge not because I am anti-Quebec. I wouldn't want to build a highway to Rockland that would cause traffic and let Ottawa tax payers flee either. I cross King Edward everyday to a line of trucks turning right. I really don't think less trucks would make any difference.

If you commute to Ottawa I think you would disagree. I go to Costco in that direction and it's just brutal when I forget and go at 4 pm on. That said I guess it looks worse than it is with the typical worst case a 30 minute trip or an extra 15 minutes not horrible in the global or context and I believe it clears soon after that.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Acajack

As a regionally-minded Gatineau resident both the Vanier Parkway upgrades and tunnel extension under the Rideau River AND the Kettle Island bridge seem like acceptable options to me.

They both have their advantages and disadvantages.

The truth is we need a new crossing and to get trucks off King Edward.

I’m going to agree with you (agreeing with me). BOTH, an east-end bridge AND a road link between Vanier and the M-C bridge are needed.

I just find it so silly when people say things like; “Since ALL of the trucks are not going to be moved from King Edward to an eastern bridge, a new bridge there is not needed.”

The goal of an eastern bridge is to make a new connection across an existing barrier. It offers so many benefits – far beyond the limited number of trucks that will switch from the M-C bridge to the new bridge. I can only imagine that people who can not conceive of the myriad benefits of a new bridge would also think that increasing the speed of digital communications beyond a 64kbaud MoDem was completely unnecessary, and ruined their ‘Bulletin-Board Neighbourhood’. Also, the speed increases encouraged the Internet to grow massively, and now it uses so much power that it is threatening the world.

Turning to the old cliché: You can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs – Yes, adding a new east-end bridge will change some neighbourhoods. When the 416 was built, it changed neighbourhoods, too. But I don’t think that there are too many people who would say that it should not have been built, or should now be removed. It has become an indispensable part of the road network, and moves thousands of vehicles each day. Cities are dynamic things. They are ever changing, and thus require adaptations. If a neighbourhood densifies, the sanitary sewer pipes might need to be supplemented with more /larger pipes. Simply allowing ‘congestion’ within the old pipes is not an option. And it shouldn’t be for vehicle movement either. A healthy city needs to ensure smooth flow for all of its core services.

As for the missing link to the M-C bridge; that bridge is not going anywhere soon. It opened in 1965, and the way things are going, even when it eventually gets replaced, there will be a large bridge connecting Quebec’s highways to Ottawa’s residential streets. The south end of it should have been connected to appropriate roads when the bridge was first built. Local public pressure caused one of the biggest mistakes of Ottawa’s road network. That disastrous decision has proven to be fatal. This mistake needs to be corrected. NOW!

And, Yes, the Vanier Parkway is much more suitable as a connector between the 417 and the M-C bridge. It was built with that purpose in mind – except, the last link was abandoned.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I’m going to agree with you (agreeing with me). BOTH, an east-end bridge AND a road link between Vanier and the M-C bridge are needed.

I just find it so silly when people say things like; “Since ALL of the trucks are not going to be moved from King Edward to an eastern bridge, a new bridge there is not needed.”

The goal of an eastern bridge is to make a new connection across an existing barrier. It offers so many benefits – far beyond the limited number of trucks that will switch from the M-C bridge to the new bridge. I can only imagine that people who can not conceive of the myriad benefits of a new bridge would also think that increasing the speed of digital communications beyond a 64kbaud MoDem was completely unnecessary, and ruined their ‘Bulletin-Board Neighbourhood’. Also, the speed increases encouraged the Internet to grow massively, and now it uses so much power that it is threatening the world.

Turning to the old cliché: You can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs – Yes, adding a new east-end bridge will change some neighbourhoods. When the 416 was built, it changed neighbourhoods, too. But I don’t think that there are too many people who would say that it should not have been built, or should now be removed. It has become an indispensable part of the road network, and moves thousands of vehicles each day. Cities are dynamic things. They are ever changing, and thus require adaptations. If a neighbourhood densifies, the sanitary sewer pipes might need to be supplemented with more /larger pipes. Simply allowing ‘congestion’ within the old pipes is not an option. And it shouldn’t be for vehicle movement either. A healthy city needs to ensure smooth flow for all of its core services.

As for the missing link to the M-C bridge; that bridge is not going anywhere soon. It opened in 1965, and the way things are going, even when it eventually gets replaced, there will be a large bridge connecting Quebec’s highways to Ottawa’s residential streets. The south end of it should have been connected to appropriate roads when the bridge was first built. Local public pressure caused one of the biggest mistakes of Ottawa’s road network. That disastrous decision has proven to be fatal. This mistake needs to be corrected. NOW!

And, Yes, the Vanier Parkway is much more suitable as a connector between the 417 and the M-C bridge. It was built with that purpose in mind – except, the last link was abandoned.

You want both? Hey, we can dream. Though Christmas is only five days away.

Santa, baby...

[bartlebooth]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I’m going to agree with you (agreeing with me). BOTH, an east-end bridge AND a road link between Vanier and the M-C bridge are needed.

I just find it so silly when people say things like; “Since ALL of the trucks are not going to be moved from King Edward to an eastern bridge, a new bridge there is not needed.”

The goal of an eastern bridge is to make a new connection across an existing barrier. It offers so many benefits – far beyond the limited number of trucks that will switch from the M-C bridge to the new bridge. I can only imagine that people who can not conceive of the myriad benefits of a new bridge would also think that increasing the speed of digital communications beyond a 64kbaud MoDem was completely unnecessary, and ruined their ‘Bulletin-Board Neighbourhood’. Also, the speed increases encouraged the Internet to grow massively, and now it uses so much power that it is threatening the world.

Turning to the old cliché: You can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs – Yes, adding a new east-end bridge will change some neighbourhoods. When the 416 was built, it changed neighbourhoods, too. But I don’t think that there are too many people who would say that it should not have been built, or should now be removed. It has become an indispensable part of the road network, and moves thousands of vehicles each day. Cities are dynamic things. They are ever changing, and thus require adaptations. If a neighbourhood densifies, the sanitary sewer pipes might need to be supplemented with more /larger pipes. Simply allowing ‘congestion’ within the old pipes is not an option. And it shouldn’t be for vehicle movement either. A healthy city needs to ensure smooth flow for all of its core services.

As for the missing link to the M-C bridge; that bridge is not going anywhere soon. It opened in 1965, and the way things are going, even when it eventually gets replaced, there will be a large bridge connecting Quebec’s highways to Ottawa’s residential streets. The south end of it should have been connected to appropriate roads when the bridge was first built. Local public pressure caused one of the biggest mistakes of Ottawa’s road network. That disastrous decision has proven to be fatal. This mistake needs to be corrected. NOW!

And, Yes, the Vanier Parkway is much more suitable as a connector between the 417 and the M-C bridge. It was built with that purpose in mind – except, the last link was abandoned.

You see it as a "disaster", I don't. Locals took ownership of their neighbourhood and they won. Good for them. We continue to see increases in residential density along the corridor and it's already struggling with traffic most nights, weekends, etc (speaking from experience, I use the corridor daily). You're advocating to make efficiency worse while dumping enormous sums of money on a corridor that continues to become increasingly dense and has welcomed thousands of new residents in the last 5 years. You also forget that the Rideau is blasted in winter. A tunnel was also recently built under it for the CSST. Can these issues be solved, sure, but I suspect they're not cheap issues to solve. Parkway dream is dead, get over it.

[Richard Eade]

Perhaps you should think of the people who have literally lost their lives due to the huge volume of traffic that is forced to take residential King Edward, and then compare that to the people who saved a park so that they could continue to walk their dogs there. Yes, I see the decision to dump the traffic onto King Edward, instead of linking it to a major transportation corridor that has no homes facing it, as a VERY BAD choice. I do not think that ‘disaster’ is too strong a word, and I don’t think that it would be strong enough a word for those who have lost loved ones so that a park could be maintained.

And those ‘Locals” that you refer to were not saving their own homes. They were stopping a road from going through a nearby riverfront area. Yes, it was a close-by open space, but it was not ‘their’ park to claim.

One of the issues that you seem to be overlooking is that this is a CITY. In a city, you can own your little patch of ground, but you can not control what happens around it – legally, that is. There is no guarantee of sunshine. If a neighbour decides to build a three-story tri-plex beside your property, and block the sun from hitting your prize tomatoes, then, assuming zoning allows it, they are free to build that tri-plex.

Within a city, there is no ability for a neighbourhood to, legally, build up walls around an arbitrary area – including land that they do not own – to deny others the ability to make changes on that unowned land. If the neighbourhood wants to do so, then it would need to buy all of the land in question and separate itself from the city in every way. I doubt that that could happen, legally.

‘NIMBY’s have been given far too much sway over good planning. They should certainly be heard so that bad ideas can be caught, but ‘NIMBY’s should not have veto power.

I agree with you on this; “Parkway dream is dead”. A Parkway, as defined by the NCC, does not allow trucks. This needs to change for Vanier. Let’s call it what it is; a major transportation corridor – the Vanier TC.

Absolutely the traffic volume on the Vanier TC has increased over the years. I expect that in-fill accounts for part of that increase, but I would like you to take some time one afternoon to watch what percent of the vehicles on the Vanier TC are destined for the M-C Bridge, and what percentage is ‘Local’ traffic. If you could provide those figures, it might strengthen your claim that in-fill is responsible for the added congestion, and not bridge traffic.

You bring up other points that would need to be looked at, of course. (The CCST is at least 5m below the river bottom, so there would be room for a 5m tall structure above it, sunk into the river bed. However, there is other infrastructure under the river that might be an issue.) It might be that an under-river tunnel is impractical. (I suggested it because it was a short route that negatively affected existing neighbourhood the least. And the technology for sinking tunnel segments into water-beds is well known.) It might be that a surface connection will need to be made, instead. That needs to be studied.

But for all of the (non-issue) issues that are brought up as ‘reasons’ that nothing can be done, the fact remains that the status quo is the worst option. The M-C Bridge is not going anywhere. The traffic volume on it will continue to increase. Something needs to be done. Not connecting the M-C Bridge to the Vanier TC in order to not make that road any more crowded is really a poor excuse.

[ponyboycurtis]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiUb-IH1YTA&ab_channel=ponyboycurtis007

This is your average day. It's ridiculous.

[Tesladom]

If we could have a clean slate rebuild of Ottawa, we would likely have 2 downtown crossings, plus one in the east and one in the west

Arguments against this are nonsensical

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Tesladom

If we could have a clean slate rebuild of Ottawa, we would likely have 2 downtown crossings, plus one in the east and one in the west

Arguments against this are nonsensical

Yes but if we are rebuilding the NCC half the population should be on that side of the river given the location of downtown at the river.

. If the Federal government wants to pay for it we shouldn't let those that live near the route stop it but it provides very little benefit to Ontario residents. Let's build rapid transit across the river that links to the LRT if we have billions of dollars the feds want to give us


This is a very expensive suburban transport project. For Ontario we are better off with other such projects. Expanding the 174, widening Bronson, better access from 417 on Nicholas etc.

[lrt's friend]

Widening Bronson? That would be horribly destructive to the urban fabric of Ottawa. We need to invest in effective rapid transit instead.

As someone living in the south and looking at the city as a whole, we need an east end crossing instead of funneling all traffic through downtown including transit. This is no longer 1940 when the city ended in Vanier.

[MarkR]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Widening Bronson? That would be horribly destructive to the urban fabric of Ottawa. We need to invest in effective rapid transit instead.

As someone living in the south and looking at the city as a whole, we need an east end crossing instead of funneling all traffic through downtown including transit. This is no longer 1940 when the city ended in Vanier.

Indeed, Bronson has long been a traffic sewer, and those enthused by such things lament that this street hasn't fulfilled its destiny by being expanded to six lanes all the way to Albert.

The old Regional Municipality certainly had it in the plans. This was revealed a few decades back when the Dunbar Bridge was rebuilt to six lanes. Some asked "why is four-lane Bronson being connected to two-lane Airport Parkway by a six-lane bridge?" So some digging ensued and sure enough the plan to widen Bronson all the way north was revealed.

(This is also why the Portage Bridge at that north end is six lanes...)

[FrostyMug]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

This is a very expensive suburban transport project. For Ontario we are better off with other such projects. Expanding the 174, widening Bronson, better access from 417 on Nicholas etc.

If expanding the 174 means widening then I'd have to disagree and I live in Orleans. Why induce demand when the LRT should handle a great deal of that traffic. Connections to the south end of Ottawa remains a far bigger priority from Orleans than another lane to downtown.

The opportunity to turn Bronson into a stroad passed probably 20 years ago. It's well understood that those types of projects divide neighbourhoods and benefit only those who live far away. The whole purpose of extending line 2 out to the current boondocks was to ensure that this was not going to be necessary.

It's not totally a suburban transport project. On the Gatineau side certainly but on the Ottawa side King Edward is problematic and that is more or less downtown and as urban as it gets. The only way if a new bridge is built to get those inter-provincial trucks out of the area is to no longer have King Edward as a truck route. Even then that won't stop all the trucks as you can go on a non truck route if your destination is within that area and it is the most direct way to go.