Interprovincial bridge crossing discussion

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by 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:


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.

In a typical cycle of lights there might be 4 trucks waiting to turn right and 2-3 waiting to turn left. If in 2031 there will be 3 and 2 instead of 5 and 4 I really don't see how that changes much. It's only worthwhile if it removes all but a few trucks a day. It might make driving a bit easier as you often get stuck boxed in by trucks but for the neighbours and pedestrians it's largely irrelevant.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

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.

Heavy truck pressure on A-50 is not really one of the issues. (Though arguably commuter traffic on the A-50 is.)

Industry on the Quebec side is concentrated in Gatineau east of Montée Paiement and also in central Hull north of the casino. There is also a bit along Pink going towards Aylmer.

I would assume though that the Pink sector probably has more "Quebec only" industries given that even now it's not easy to get to Ottawa from there.

As for the other two industrial zones, I'd expect a lot of that traffic to go east or west on Maloney when coming off the bridge. The ones bound for Hull will probably roll down Maloney westbound to where that boulevard merges with the A-50 (not that far away), as opposed to going all the way up Montée Paiement.

A smaller number of trucks will probably roll up Montée Paiement to take the A-50 east or west bound to various other points but that is not where most of the traffic will go.

[Kelnoz]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

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.

That's interesting, tho in that case I'm sure it would make more sense to upgrade Paiement and force it as the truck route. It would only be a small detour if the destination is the airport zone, and the 148 East of Paiement is far from a good truck route.

[TheBrain]

I found this file from 2022 on my computer called
"Étude d'évaluation environnementale des liasons interprovinciales"

And it has some plans showing an overpass on Ogilvie and what Paiement could look like:






An underpass for Maloney:

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

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

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.

My apologies, that was my mistake. I thought that was St. Joseph for some reason. In any case, better to plug it directly to the 417/174 split as most truck traffic is probably going south towards the 401, that way the 174 itself won't need upgrades.

Thanks for adding that image.

Originally Posted by TheBrain

I found this file from 2022 on my computer called
"Étude d'évaluation environnementale des liasons interprovinciales"

And it has some plans showing an overpass on Ogilvie and what Paiement could look like:

Thanks for these. Since they are more recent, they are probably more accurate. Did you happen to see the Montreal Road intersection?

[TheBrain]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Thanks for these. Since they are more recent, they are probably more accurate. Did you happen to see the Montreal Road intersection?

Sure, I'll try and find a way to share the file itself...

Looks like a normal intersection:


And at the beginning of the bridge...

[Dengler Avenue]

It’s insane that there is only 1 lane each direction going under Boulevard Maloney.

Comme d’habitude on construit n’importe quoi au côté québécois.

[zzptichka]

Didn't realize they want that monstrosity to have 3 lanes in each direction. Yikes.

[FrostyMug]

So a 6 lane surface street plus turning lanes? Yikes! How do you create congestion in Ottawa! We don't need more stroads and there are better solutions.

If the objective is to remove heavy truck traffic from King Edward then the alternative needs to be an improvement from the current situation. I think we can all agree that the Ontario truck traffic that is Quebec bound is not being generated locally or at minimum not in the immediate vicinity of downtown Ottawa. Same for Ontario bound truck traffic from Quebec. 99% is likely headed to the 417.

I'd propose for discussion a controlled access freeway (417Q?) that has zero access from the 417 split to the bridge over the river. A straight run northbound with zero access from Ogilvie, Montreal Rd or Hemlock. Southbound I'd allow access towards the 417 for local Ottawa traffic which would then allow closing St Laurent access to 417 East if so desired. This also would eliminate any commuters from Gatineau clogging up already congested Ottawa surface streets that any upgrades to would fall on Ottawa taxpayers.

As for the highway itself I'd model it on the Herb Grey Parkway in Windsor which is the 401 extension to the new Gordie Howe bridge. This might be a solution to satisfy the surrounding Ottawa neighbourhoods. The entire Herb Grey Parkway through the built up areas in Windsor is below grade and covered for several sections to allow connectivity between neighbourhoods as well as providing green space which could replace what is being lost by building a 6 lane road.

It probably should be the same principal on the Quebec side though I'm not familiar with the road network there.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by FrostyMug

So a 6 lane surface street plus turning lanes? Yikes! How do you create congestion in Ottawa! We don't need more stroads and there are better solutions.

If the objective is to remove heavy truck traffic from King Edward then the alternative needs to be an improvement from the current situation. I think we can all agree that the Ontario truck traffic that is Quebec bound is not being generated locally or at minimum not in the immediate vicinity of downtown Ottawa. Same for Ontario bound truck traffic from Quebec. 99% is likely headed to the 417.

I'd propose for discussion a controlled access freeway (417Q?) that has zero access from the 417 split to the bridge over the river. A straight run northbound with zero access from Ogilvie, Montreal Rd or Hemlock. Southbound I'd allow access towards the 417 for local Ottawa traffic which would then allow closing St Laurent access to 417 East if so desired. This also would eliminate any commuters from Gatineau clogging up already congested Ottawa surface streets that any upgrades to would fall on Ottawa taxpayers.


It probably should be the same principal on the Quebec side though I'm not familiar with the road network there.

The objective is not to remove trucks the objective is to allow for greater connectivity between Gatineau and Ottawa which capacity wise means Gatineau commuters though it also provides another crossing point. The talk of trucks is just to pretend it has any benefit to Ottawa residents which of course it doesn't. I think the hyperbole about it destroying neighborhoods or the vibration ruining the hospital are a bit ridiculous but so are claims this is about trucks even a little bit.

[DTcrawler]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The objective is not to remove trucks the objective is to allow for greater connectivity between Gatineau and Ottawa which capacity wise means Gatineau commuters though it also provides another crossing point. The talk of trucks is just to pretend it has any benefit to Ottawa residents which of course it doesn't. I think the hyperbole about it destroying neighborhoods or the vibration ruining the hospital are a bit ridiculous but so are claims this is about trucks even a little bit.

You could theoretically ban trucks except for local traffic from the King Edward/Rideau/Waller corridor once the new bridge is built, but that'd require the political will to improve quality of life for non- kanata/barrhaven/orleans residents which means it's unlikely.

[Acajack]

Who has the ultimate authority to ban all heavy trucks (except local deliveries) from King Edward?

I assume the City of Ottawa can do that on its own but it would be subject to challenges under interprovincial trade rules.

That is why you couldn’t do it now but if there was another suitable crossing nearby like Kettle my guess is they definitely could.

[AuxTown]

I don't see why banning local trucks downtown/lowertown would be such a monumental challenge?

Not only does it make 100% sense (as long as there is another option) but it will make things safer/quieter in those neighbourhoods. A truck driver can be on a run anywhere from 45 minutes to 2 days. This bridge could actually safe time depending on where their destination is. And, even if it adds a half hour to their trip, this is not unheard of. Many cities force trucks to use certain highways and bypass interstates that can take them quite far from their desired route. Truckers/companies will adapt.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Who has the ultimate authority to ban all heavy trucks (except local deliveries) from King Edward?

I assume the City of Ottawa can do that on its own but it would be subject to challenges under interprovincial trade rules.

That is why you couldn’t do it now but if there was another suitable crossing nearby like Kettle my guess is they definitely could.

What interprovincial trade rules would be challenged? If that were possible the. island Park would be a truck route.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by acottawa

What interprovincial trade rules would be challenged? If that were possible the. island Park would be a truck route.

It’s in the Constitution that interprovincial trade cannot be impeded by deliberate barriers to stuff like transportation links. As such Ottawa has some degree of responsibility to keep road links open with Québec. Maybe not to build new ones but certainly not to block those that are already there.

This is all theoretical of course but it’s been discussed before that banning trucks on King Edward without having another route would likely bring legal challenges based on this.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It’s in the Constitution that interprovincial trade cannot be impeded by deliberate barriers to stuff like transportation links. As such Ottawa has some degree of responsibility to keep road links open with Québec. Maybe not to build new ones but certainly not to block those that are already there.

This is all theoretical of course but it’s been discussed before that banning trucks on King Edward without having another route would likely bring legal challenges based on this.

I have never heard of such a provision in the constitution. Section 121 says provinces can't put tariffs on goods coming from another province, but it doesn't guarantee access to a specific road. If no other route were available the feds could presumably use its power over trade and commerce or the declaratory power, but if Ottawa told truckers they can't use King Edward and instead to use a road a few km away I don't think there would be a constitutional issue. The NCC already makes interprovincial commerce more challenging by banning trucks from the most convenient routes to the bridges.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by AuxTown

I don't see why banning local trucks downtown/lowertown would be such a monumental challenge?

Not only does it make 100% sense (as long as there is another option) but it will make things safer/quieter in those neighbourhoods. A truck driver can be on a run anywhere from 45 minutes to 2 days. This bridge could actually safe time depending on where their destination is. And, even if it adds a half hour to their trip, this is not unheard of. Many cities force trucks to use certain highways and bypass interstates that can take them quite far from their desired route. Truckers/companies will adapt.

There is no plan to ban them from King Edward. For a truck coming from Bayshore to central Hull sending them all the way to a new bridge might double their trip time.

If there was any will to ban trucks they could have done it for non local trucks. Certainly the trucks coming from Montreal to Gatineau could be made to take Autoroute 50.

The truck re-routing is all a ruse it's all about commuters and getting knitting the region together. Legitimate goals for the Feds less so for Ontario.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I have never heard of such a provision in the constitution. Section 121 says provinces can't put tariffs on goods coming from another province, but it doesn't guarantee access to a specific road. If no other route were available the feds could presumably use its power over trade and commerce or the declaratory power, but if Ottawa told truckers they can't use King Edward and instead to use a road a few km away I don't think there would be a constitutional issue. The NCC already makes interprovincial commerce more challenging by banning trucks from the most convenient routes to the bridges.

I think we are kind of saying the same thing.

The federal government has the authority to enable interprovincial trade and would have the authority to step in if it felt that the City of Ottawa (or even the Province of Ontario) was unreasonably hindering transportation between two provinces with its policies on truck travel to bridge approaches to Gatineau.

This does not necessarily mean that heavy trucks are automatically allowed to use any bridge they wish.

Ottawa could force all heavy truck traffic onto the Chaudière Bridge (where they are still permitted) and this might be deemed OK.

But banning trucks on all bridges in Ottawa and saying they can just cross at Hawkesbury or Pembroke would not be OK and get challenged.

I am not sure that the City of Ottawa would or will ban non-local trucks from King Edward if Kettle Island is built, but I think if they did it would meet the interprovincial trade reasonableness threshold, since the new route would have a direct link to two major expressways in Ottawa (417 and 174) a direct link to a main Quebec trunk highway (148) and fairly easy access to a Quebec autoroute (50).

[TheBrain]

Here's a link to the full PDF, I just realized the date of the file is 2013 so it's pretty old but it gives some idea of what they are thinking of...

Link is good for 7 days.
https://limewire.com/d/c55d00b1-fa13-460...NFEe7UKwZv6hFaNYZc4n_LfFdJef5CgYObC_BL9g

[rocketphish]

Feds select 'technical adviser' for new Ottawa-Gatineau bridge in waning hours of Trudeau government
The federal government has awarded a $10.6-million contract for conceptual design and other work on the Kettle Island bridge project.

Matteo Cimellaro, Ottawa Citizen
Published Mar 13, 2025 • Last updated 27 minutes ago • 2 minute read

The federal government has taken the next step to build a controversial new bridge linking Ottawa and Gatineau as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau prepares to leave office.

Procurement Minister Jean-Yves Duclos announced the government was awarding a $10.6-million contract to Parsons Inc. and Stantec Consulting Ltd. to serve as technical advisors on the bridge, which is set to be built over Kettle Island in the city’s east end. The announcement came on March 13, Trudeau’s last full day in office as Mark Carney was set to be sworn in as prime minister at Rideau Hall the following day.

“Our government is committed to improving interprovincial mobility in the National Capital Region,” Duclos said in a press release. “The Eastern Bridge will not only help improve transportation on both sides of the Ottawa River, but it will also stimulate economic growth for generations to come.”

Parsons and Stantec Consulting will develop conceptual designs of the new bridge. They’ll also provide “specialized expertise in technical areas, economic and environmental studies (and) impact assessments” the release said.

The project is proposed as a “multi-modal” bridge that will support pedestrian, cycling, and motor-vehicle traffic and the federal government has said it will reduce heavy vehicle traffic in Ottawa’s downtown core.

Data provided by the federal government show that the five current interprovincial bridges are at near capacity, with 70,000 vehicles crossing the Macdonald-Cartier bridge daily. Morning rush hour on the bridges is also expected to balloon by 53 per cent by 2050.

The federal government also points to the new bridge as connecting major industrial parks on both sides of the Ottawa River. This will be a major corridor for truck traffic whose routes cross downtown Ottawa-Gatineau to reach their destination on the east end of the two cities.

But the project is not without its critics, as citizens from eastern Ottawa have voiced concerns over it in the past. The bridge has been floated for decades, with some community groups furiously opposing the idea. Community groups downtown, such as the Lowertown Community Association, have supported the project.

In 2012, the NCC shelved a proposal for a sixth bridge after local politicians and residents opposed the project, and Ontario withdrew its support. But in the last fall economic statement, the government announced it would be moving forward on the new bridge.

“There will be people who think it shouldn’t go here or that it should go there, but we need to reassure people that it will solve many many more problems than it will create,” Gatineau MP Steve MacKinnon said in a previous interview with the Ottawa Citizen. “It will be done with the greatest possible sensitivity to neighbourhoods and it will have an incredibly positive impact on the economy of the region, the Gatineau economy and the Ottawa economy.”

The federal government expects the new bridge will be completed sometime between 2032 and 2034.

With files from Blair Crawford.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/ottawa-gatineau-bridge-kettle-island