Interprovincial bridge crossing discussion

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by 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.

It's another one of those 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 Ottawa excuses that is used as a fig-leaf to hide basic knee-jerk NIMBYism.

We have a lot of those.

[dougvdh]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

It's another one of those 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 Ottawa excuses that is used as a fig-leaf to hide basic knee-jerk NIMBYism.

We have a lot of those.

No, it's a real issue. See Building Vibration in the following guidelines: https://hga.com/designing-mri-suites-navigating-structural-design-considerations-for-success/

If the traffic vibration is an existing condition, there's probably vibration isolation measures that can be taken in new construction (likely used in Montreal).

[Harley613]

I checked the soil maps, and the Montfort is built on good ol' granite, which is extremely dense and nearly vibration proof. The entire section between the 417 and the bridge would be a combination of Limestone and Granite, both excellent insulators for vibration, with the exception of the area around the Aviation museum which has some 'soft rock or very dense soil'.

[dougvdh]

Originally Posted by Harley613

I checked the soil maps, and the Montfort is built on good ol' granite, which is extremely dense and nearly vibration proof. The entire section between the 417 and the bridge would be a combination of Limestone and Granite, both excellent insulators for vibration, with the exception of the area around the Aviation museum which has some 'soft rock or very dense soil'.

Rock is more effective at transmitting vibration than soils. If you've been in a building half a km or so from a blasting site, both on rock, you'd note that the vibration travels far. If the rock is more fractured, it tends to provide slightly more attenuation than if it's more contiguous.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by dougvdh

Rock is more effective at transmitting vibration than soils. If you've been in a building half a km or so from a blasting site, both on rock, you'd note that the vibration travels far. If the rock is more fractured, it tends to provide slightly more attenuation than if it's more contiguous.

Surely there are known best practices for construction within the vicinity of a hospital. I don't see most hospitals isolated in the middle of nowhere.

[hwy418]

This hospital thing is completely irrelevant.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Surely there are known best practices for construction within the vicinity of a hospital. I don't see most hospitals isolated in the middle of nowhere.

No Ottawa hospitals need to be located very near highways but near no cars.

It's peak Ottawa for sure.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

No Ottawa hospitals need to be located very near highways but near no cars.

It's peak Ottawa for sure.

Agnes Skinner: You tell 'im, Jumbo! And you, start over. I want everything in one bag.

Squeaky-voiced teen: Yes ma'am.

Agnes: But I don't want the bag to be heavy.

[DTcrawler]

Yeah I think I'm gonna need to see some tangible proof that this would actually mess with Monfort's expensive equipment (beyond reasonable mitigation efforts). Because right now this is sounding a lot like Montfort's execs (who probably also just happen to own expensive property in the area) are playing NIMBY.

It's kind of like when the CEF put up a fuss about that development on Baseline casting shadows - I'd guess some of those scientists who swore their argument was based off very scientific rationale were actually just local CA members.

That being said, I was under the impression this bridge would largely solve the King Edward - Rideau truck problem. If that's not going to be the case, I'm very indifferent on whether it gets built.

[hwy418]

Regardless if the bridge takes little or most of the traffic off King Edward, it needs to be built to provide redundancy to the regional road network. Both cities are growing and the capacity will be required. Once built, the City can remove King Edward from the Truck Route Network. Heavy trucks will naturally seek to cross at a much more convenient location.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by dougvdh

No, it's a real issue. See Building Vibration in the following guidelines: https://hga.com/designing-mri-suites-navigating-structural-design-considerations-for-success/

If the traffic vibration is an existing condition, there's probably vibration isolation measures that can be taken in new construction (likely used in Montreal).

Yes, building vibration is a real issue.

No, building vibration is not a serious enough issue to justify opposition to the proposed bridge.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by DTcrawler

Yeah I think I'm gonna need to see some tangible proof that this would actually mess with Monfort's expensive equipment (beyond reasonable mitigation efforts). Because right now this is sounding a lot like Montfort's execs (who probably also just happen to own expensive property in the area) are playing NIMBY.

It's kind of like when the CEF put up a fuss about that development on Baseline casting shadows - I'd guess some of those scientists who swore their argument was based off very scientific rationale were actually just local CA members.

That being said, I was under the impression this bridge would largely solve the King Edward - Rideau truck problem. If that's not going to be the case, I'm very indifferent on whether it gets built.

Or Jim Watson claiming the LRT would cause problems for the NAC.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by hwy418

Regardless if the bridge takes little or most of the traffic off King Edward, it needs to be built to provide redundancy to the regional road network. Both cities are growing and the capacity will be required. Once built, the City can remove King Edward from the Truck Route Network. Heavy trucks will naturally seek to cross at a much more convenient location.

The plan isn't to re-route all trucks. That's a big detour for those coming from and/or headed to the west.

There is a lot of capacity across the river. I find it interesting so many urbanists here think adding more suburban ring road type routes makes sense in this case but every other road project is a waste of time. I get the King Edward Trucks are a scar on the city but this doesn't fix it. Basically if it's finished in 2045 and takes 30% of the trucks there will be the same amount of trucks as today on King Edward. Of course electric and autonomous trucks may negate this whole issue anyway.

[AuxTown]

I am sorry Montfort Hospital, rich people of Manor Park, Tecumseh Golf Course and the 20 houses on Rue de Fontanelle in Gatineau but the Kettle Island Bridge is a no-brainer. Geographically and economically there is no better option. The tunnel may happen someday (for cars) but we need the trucks out of downtown Ottawa before 2050.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Or Jim Watson claiming the LRT would cause problems for the NAC.

My favourite was Jim Watson cloaking his early opposition to a downtown tunnel in the crazypants fiction that the tunnel could be used to blow up PMO.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Of course electric and autonomous trucks may negate this whole issue anyway.

Electric trucks don't negate the issue of trucks, it merely electrifies the issue of trucks.

[kwoldtimer]

One must be careful not to confuse advocacy arguments with reality.

[Acajack]

Expect some potential news on this file today.

[Horus]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Expect some potential news on this file today.

There'll be a 1pm press conference / announcement at the National Archives centre in Gatineau.

[Horus]

More about the announcement

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/2136380/pont-ottawa-gatineau-est-montee-paiement

Nouveau pont interprovincial : le fédéral vise entre 2032 et 2034
Charles Lalande
Publié à 8 h 00 HNE
Mis à jour à 13 h 00 HNE


Le « premier pont dans l’est de la région » pourrait être opérationnel entre 2032 et 2034. Le ministre Steven MacKinnon doit annoncer jeudi après-midi un échéancier précis pour la construction du futur tracé entre Ottawa et Gatineau, a appris Radio-Canada.

Ledit pont relierait le boulevard Montée Paiement, à Gatineau, à la promenade de l’Aviation, à Ottawa. Le tracé est aussi connu sous le nom de corridor de l’île Kettle. Il s’agirait d’un sixième lien entre les deux rives.

À plusieurs reprises, les libéraux ont soutenu que le but du projet est de réduire le nombre de camions lourds au centre-ville d’Ottawa, estimé à 13 000 par semaine, et d’améliorer la mobilité entre Gatineau et la capitale.

Le plan de mise en œuvre :
2019 à 2026 : Planification préliminaire
2026 à 2028 : Planification et conception
2027 à 2028 : Approvisionnement
2029 à 2034 : Conception progressive et construction
2034 : Pont opérationnel
Source : Gouvernement du Canada

Les voitures pourraient même rouler sur le pont dès 2032 si certains éléments, comme le processus d’évaluation des impacts et l’approche à l’égard du programme de construction, sont un succès.

...