Interprovincial bridge crossing discussion

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by phil235

What on earth is he talking about? How would trucks end up rumbling around the neighbourhood streets of Manor Park? This is about through truck traffic, and the Aviation Parkway offers a straight shot from the highway to the bridge. To suggest that it is a neighbourhood street in Manor Park is disinformation at best.

Yeah, this is just bizarre, and not up to his usual calibre of work.

[Acajack]

What a crappy commentary. I know opinion is opinion, but at least it should rest on some basic facts.

I'd expect better especially since he is a journalist first and foremost, and didn't just jump into commentary.

Does anyone know where he lives? Betcha it's Manor Park or somewhere in the vicinity.

(Not really asking to doxx his address BTW.)

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

There is a lot of hyperbole here for sure but what's the plan will Aviation have all access removed between the bridge and 417? So a truck delivery to Mcdonalds or the other businesses at Aviation and Montreal Road will have to take the current route the long way around?

I know they will close Beechwood access in both directions but traffic seems likely to spill onto Montreal Road. If you can't get to Montfort, La Cite and RCMP what's the point of this whole enterprise?

For local deliveries I don't see how much would change. Trucks would use the arterials (not neighbourhood streets) to get to their destinations. If anything, the opening of a truck route on Aviation would require less distance for local deliveries. But this is about through traffic, not unavoidable deliveries to local businesses.

[acottawa]

Part of the problem is the lack of a preliminary design and an indication of what sort of mitigation for local communities and existing users of the road will be implemented.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by phil235

For local deliveries I don't see how much would change. Trucks would use the arterials (not neighbourhood streets) to get to their destinations. If anything, the opening of a truck route on Aviation would require less distance for local deliveries. But this is about through traffic, not unavoidable deliveries to local businesses.

Yeah it would create some new patterns but it's really minor. I was I guess just trying to give him the benefit of the doubt but yeah saying streetS is pretty disingenuous when it's really just Aviation that would see truck traffic changes. General traffic would be a different story for sure.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by phil235

What on earth is he talking about? How would trucks end up rumbling around the neighbourhood streets of Manor Park? This is about through truck traffic, and the Aviation Parkway offers a straight shot from the highway to the bridge. To suggest that it is a neighbourhood street in Manor Park is disinformation at best.

If there were no off ramps at the Parkway or Hemlock, there would be less of a problem.

[ponyboycurtis]

As much as I like this plan at face value, there is definitely an issue with truck connections at the split. Right now you can only go EB 417. WB 417 is more or less an impossibility after modifying the St.Laurent exit some years ago. EB 174 would require a ridiculous flyover ramp that is probably impossible to build with the current configuration, and likely impossible to ever build.

WB 174 at Blair is a disaster of a ramp. There is no space to realistically send trucks that way without massive disruption at the best of times. If you have ever turned left from Ogilvie to go WB 174 or turn into Gloucester center you would know what I mean. Rush hour is a lot of cars crossing over into and out of the same turning lane the trucks would try to use.

That would leave St. Laurent blvd. which has a very tight bend and then an uphill ramp.

I think I support all of these ideas more so than the current setup of King Edward to St. Nicholas but its not like these trucks are going to be heading to a full interchange.

I feel like I haven't seen a single mention of this issue. Never mind Manor Park and Beechwood. What the hell are the trucks going to do when they get to Ogilvie. I would imagine a majority of the trucks would want to head WB 417 which would push them over to St.Laurent, which is less than ideal.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

If there were no off ramps at the Parkway or Hemlock, there would be less of a problem.

Those aren't a truck problem, as neither would be a truck route.

If you are talking about general traffic, there would definitely be ways to mitigate that, either by closing the ramps or restricting access by bridge traffic. Pretty sure the local communities would oppose a full closure if it cost them access to their preferred routes downtown.

[Marshsparrow]

The entire thing is 1/2 baked...

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by ponyboycurtis

As much as I like this plan at face value, there is definitely an issue with truck connections at the split. Right now you can only go EB 417. WB 417 is more or less an impossibility after modifying the St.Laurent exit some years ago. EB 174 would require a ridiculous flyover ramp that is probably impossible to build with the current configuration, and likely impossible to ever build.

WB 174 at Blair is a disaster of a ramp. There is no space to realistically send trucks that way without massive disruption at the best of times. If you have ever turned left from Ogilvie to go WB 174 or turn into Gloucester center you would know what I mean. Rush hour is a lot of cars crossing over into and out of the same turning lane the trucks would try to use.

That would leave St. Laurent blvd. which has a very tight bend and then an uphill ramp.

I think I support all of these ideas more so than the current setup of King Edward to St. Nicholas but its not like these trucks are going to be heading to a full interchange.

I feel like I haven't seen a single mention of this issue. Never mind Manor Park and Beechwood. What the hell are the trucks going to do when they get to Ogilvie. I would imagine a majority of the trucks would want to head WB 417 which would push them over to St.Laurent, which is less than ideal.

There used to be a wealth of resources here, but many of the links are dead now: http://www.ncrcrossings.ca/resources/

This document shows the Corridor 5 (Kettle Island) bridge and approach alignments, but without great detail: http://www.ncrcrossings.ca/upfiles/Phase2BStudyDesignReportENFINAL.pdf

The following detailed versions are from links I can no longer find :-(, but they're useful for this discussion. Granted they are from the Phase 2A Study Design Report, May 2010, but in them you can see that at one point they were indeed planning for bridge access from the Parkway as well as Hemlock, both northbound and southbound. At the Aviation Parkway/Hwy 417/174 Split you can see that they were contemplating the addition of 6 new overpasses. Crazy!

The partial cloverleaf design of the Corridor 6 bridge (Lower Duck Island) proposal's Hwy 174 connection looks much less complicated, and probably far cheaper, with its single span over the highway (plus a span over Green's Creek).

EDIT: I found the source of the higher-res route imagery: https://app06.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/...%20Report%20January%205%2009%20FINAL.pdf , p.100

[Acajack]

The total redesign of the interchange of 174-417-Aviation to allow full access in all directions will certainly be part of the broader project.

[J.OT13]

Lower Duck would be easier, but it just doesn't have the same impact as Kettle in terms of connecting key destinations. It also doesn't directly connect to an highway on the Ottawa side, so it would still require some wonky turns from the 18 wheelers.

Looking at the Kettle concepts, I'd remove the light at the Rockcliffe Parkway, replace it with an overpass and ramps. I'd delete Hemlock (or make it strict local traffic only). Too bad we're not seeing Montreal Road or La Cité (Collégiale) in these concepts. Ogilvy I'd make grade separated with ramps as well, although normal intersections at Montreal and Ogilvy might not be such a bad thing to keep a semi-urban form to ensure a safe and environment for peds and cyclists. It would still be far better for trucks and cars alike that the current mess at King Edward.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

normal intersections at Montreal and Ogilvy might not be such a bad thing to keep a semi-urban form to ensure a safe and environment for peds and cyclists. It would still be far better for trucks and cars alike that the current mess at King Edward.

How would normal intersections be safer than underpasses/overpasses for cyclists and pedestrians?

Sure, it might look a bit nicer and more urban, but for safety?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Acajack

How would normal intersections be safer than underpasses/overpasses for cyclists and pedestrians?

Sure, it might look a bit nicer and more urban, but for safety?

Car infra would take more space. Ramps would also add more intersections. You'd need a light cycle for each two sets of rams (on/off North bound, on/off South bound). But I guess with the ramps, only those getting off would cross Montreal and Ogilvie, so volumes would be lower. I don't know what the answer is.

[Kelnoz]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Lower Duck would be easier, but it just doesn't have the same impact as Kettle in terms of connecting key destinations. It also doesn't directly connect to an highway on the Ottawa side, so it would still require some wonky turns from the 18 wheelers.

Lower Duck is also a mess on the Québec side, Lorrain is a narrow residential street with 2 and sometimes 3 lanes at most. There's much fewer driveways and intersections on Paiement, as well as close to double the width. A service road could be provided to cut the driveways off Paiement entirely, and it's a lot more space for potential grade separations.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Kelnoz

Lower Duck is also a mess on the Québec side, Lorrain is a narrow residential street with 2 and sometimes 3 lanes at most. There's much fewer driveways and intersections on Paiement, as well as close to double the width. A service road could be provided to cut the driveways off Paiement entirely, and it's a lot more space for potential grade separations.

Correct, and that service road along the east side of Montée Paiement for the residences is already there in plans I've seen.

There is quite a bit of room along much of the west side of Paiement where you have businesses with wide greenspace in front of their buildings that might possibly be used for a new roadway alignment.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.4847365,-..._ep=EgoyMDI1MDIwNC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.4910056,-..._ep=EgoyMDI1MDIwNC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Whereas on Boulevard Lorrain, the roadway tends to be lined on both sides with houses very close to the road:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.4935419,-..._ep=EgoyMDI1MDIwNC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Of course, if you used Lower Duck you could build a dedicaded road through greenspace corridors that are relatively uninterrupted from the river to the A-50, but this brings with it other complications and costs.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by Kelnoz

Lower Duck is also a mess on the Québec side, Lorrain is a narrow residential street with 2 and sometimes 3 lanes at most. There's much fewer driveways and intersections on Paiement, as well as close to double the width. A service road could be provided to cut the driveways off Paiement entirely, and it's a lot more space for potential grade separations.

I'm not sure that really matters. The images posted near the bottom of this page, http://www.ncrcrossings.ca/faq/ , indicate that very little commercial traffic is predicted to use Montee Paiement or Blvd Lorrain. The bulk of it is traveling to and from the east, probably the commercial zone near the Gatineau Airport, and will use Hwy 148 to get to any bridge.

It's the Lower Duck Island route that appears to take the most pressure off Hwy 50.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Lower Duck would be easier, but it just doesn't have the same impact as Kettle in terms of connecting key destinations. It also doesn't directly connect to an highway on the Ottawa side, so it would still require some wonky turns from the 18 wheelers.

I'm not following you. As the image shows, the Lower Duck route would connect directly to Hwy 174 using a standard highway interchange.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Looking at the Kettle concepts, I'd remove the light at the Rockcliffe Parkway, replace it with an overpass and ramps. I'd delete Hemlock (or make it strict local traffic only). Too bad we're not seeing Montreal Road or La Cité (Collégiale) in these concepts. Ogilvy I'd make grade separated with ramps as well, although normal intersections at Montreal and Ogilvy might not be such a bad thing to keep a semi-urban form to ensure a safe and environment for peds and cyclists. It would still be far better for trucks and cars alike that the current mess at King Edward.

I didn't include the image showing the Montreal Rd and Oglivie Rd intersections because they are proposing no changes to them. But I have now added it, above, to complete the picture.

[ponyboycurtis]

Wowie. Thanks so much for that resource Rocketphish.

Certainly some big changes to the 417/174. I looks as though WB 174 to EB 417 and the EB 417 to NB Aviation would be a 3 level ramp. Given Ottawas relatedly modest highway infrastructure that would certainly be a big change. The split not being a proper interchange will have to be addressed at some point in the future but I'm not sure if that's needed yet aside from this project in question.

Two ramps would be removed at St. Laurent to remove conflict points. This all seems logical but Corridor 6 seems to be by far the easiest and cheapest while largely providing the same solutions.

I think the trucks should be banned from King Edward unless doing local deliveries. Removing half of them doesn't seem like much of a solution.

In my mind, Aviation and the interchange makes no sense if we keep allowing trucks on King Edward. Duck Island and keeping the trucks split is a better compromise if that's the case.

Banning trucks altogether on KE might require some type of re-routing on the other side. I am trying to imagine trucks coming from the west and north trying to make their way over and it doesn't look pretty. Actually.. this entire project seems like dumping our problems onto the Quebec side but something has to change in this scenario eventually. Mnt Paiement seems like the lesser of two evils. The lack overall planning is astounding. We will just be trading them a King Edward while probably keeping our own.

Trucks aside, a bridge at Aviation is probably more useful to the city at large and if the 174/417 interchange can be upgraded at the same time that might be the better long term play for the city.

Either way we should spend 20 years studying the problem amirite?

[Richard Eade]

Thanks for posting the TRANS projections for 2031. They are a great counter argument to those saying that it is a waste of money to build an eastern bridge because ALL the trucks won’t be removed from King Edward.

In fact, in his opinion piece (see the text of Mohammed Adam’s piece from the Ottawa Citizen, on page 90 of this thread), Mr. Adam says:

The question needs asking because in 2021, an NCC-commissioned report by the IBI Group said a Kettle Island bridge would divert only 15 per cent of King Edward truck traffic by 2050. A significant heavy truck volume would remain downtown.

I have not looked into the IBI report, but I am assuming that what Mr. Adam is saying is that the volume of commercial traffic predicted to be on King Edward in 2050 will be 85% of what the current volume of commercial traffic is – or was, in 2021, when the study was done.

Getting back to the TRANS images, look at the width of the line crossing the M-C Bridge in the ‘Do Nothing’ version, as predicted for 2031. That is a heavy line, indicating a LOT of truck traffic. I expect that that line represents a fair amount more traffic than is crossing today. (Too bad that the NCC didn’t provide a similar image of the traffic at the time of the survey. Leave it to the NCC to skip crucial information and not show how things will differ from today.) Traffic, especially truck traffic, will continue to grow, year after year. Thus, in 2050, the year that Mr. Adam picked, I expect that the line would be considerably wider still, than the one that the 2031 image shows.

That is, of course, unless an eastern bridge is added. In the TRANS images with bridges, the width of the line crossing the M-C Bridge is narrower, since trucks have an alternate path to take.

It might be that, with an eastern bridge, the volume of trucks driving along King Edward in 2050 is only 15% less than today’s volume. But if the new bridge is not added, that volume of trucks will be considerably increased from what it is now.