Kettle Island Bridge | Planning Stage

[dougvdh]

The drilling rig has now moved on to doing boreholes here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/11SBUaKevqysifVy7

Based on that, I'm speculating that new roadway will be to the south of the existing SGEC parkway (overpass closer to Birch). The existing overpass at the SGEC / Aviation could be removed (replace with an roundabout?) and access to the SGEC, Museum, Yacht Club, and Airport provide from Hemlock via a new bidirectional road roughly where the existing northbound ramp from Hemlock to Aviation is located.

If this is the case, the RCMP stables will lose some of their pasture land.

[Ottawacurious]

Is there a minimum height it needs to be over the ottawa river?

[dougvdh]

Originally Posted by Ottawacurious

Is there a minimum height it needs to be over the ottawa river?

The McDonald Cartier bridge has a clearance of 16m, while the Alexandra (slated to be replaced with a higher clearance bridge) is 13.4m. So I don't expect the new bridge will be lower than the McDonald Cartier.

Edit: To add to this. Normal water level at that section of the river is around 41.2m ASL, so that puts the underside of a bridge at 57.2m. So deck would end up somewhere around 62-64m ASL assuming a similar structure to McDonald Cartier. The grade at the parking lot near Birch is about 54m, so that would put a bridge deck at about 10m higher than the parking lot (high point).

[SkeggsEggs]

new Alexandra bridge performance criteria : A navigation channel of 90m wide by 11m high (preliminary dimensions, to be confirmed), measured from the high-water mark, shall be provided mid- river below the new bridge, in order to maintain the navigability of the river.

[dougvdh]

Originally Posted by SkeggsEggs

new Alexandra bridge performance criteria : A navigation channel of 90m wide by 11m high (preliminary dimensions, to be confirmed), measured from the high-water mark, shall be provided mid- river below the new bridge, in order to maintain the navigability of the river.

That puts the U/S of (new) Alexandra at 56.2m.

PS also checked the outer limit elev for the airport: 100.7ASL for 4km from the centre of the airport. So no part of the bridge can be higher than that elevation.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by dougvdh

The drilling rig has now moved on to doing boreholes here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/11SBUaKevqysifVy7

Based on that, I'm speculating that new roadway will be to the south of the existing SGEC parkway (overpass closer to Birch). The existing overpass at the SGEC / Aviation could be removed (replace with an roundabout?) and access to the SGEC, Museum, Yacht Club, and Airport provide from Hemlock via a new bidirectional road roughly where the existing northbound ramp from Hemlock to Aviation is located.

If this is the case, the RCMP stables will lose some of their pasture land.

That jives with the old plans, posted here:

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10366827&postcount=1810
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10367785&postcount=1826

[dougvdh]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

That jives with the old plans, posted here:

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10366827&postcount=1810
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10367785&postcount=1826

Interesting. I've never seen those plans before.

That said, they show a signalized intersection at SGEC (seems less likely based on the latest report), as well a connection to Hemlock (also now under question - although I think the argument against connecting them is very weak). And that connection at 174 / 417 looks like 1970s Montreal.

So I'm curious to see how this evolves.

[golfguy9]

Am I the only one who thinks building a bridge to relieve truck traffic in an urban congested area (Rideau) and put it in a similarly constrained area (Aviation Parkway) to be crazy? Obviously this is for more than just truck traffic but when I think of major thoroughfare, I don't think of the parkway. Unless I'm missing something.

[OTownandDown]

Originally Posted by golfguy9

Am I the only one who thinks building a bridge to relieve truck traffic in an urban congested area (Rideau) and put it in a similarly constrained area (Aviation Parkway) to be crazy? Obviously this is for more than just truck traffic but when I think of major thoroughfare, I don't think of the parkway. Unless I'm missing something.

I understand that its a major residential (low density) zone, but the parkway is always pretty much empty when I drive on it. Is it congested during rush hour? I think the point is to remove the truck traffic from urban high(est) density, including a high volume of pedestrian traffic, and place it where there will be less direct impact. A bridge and highway will ALWAYS affect someone, but in this location, there are fewer people.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by golfguy9

Am I the only one who thinks building a bridge to relieve truck traffic in an urban congested area (Rideau) and put it in a similarly constrained area (Aviation Parkway) to be crazy? Obviously this is for more than just truck traffic but when I think of major thoroughfare, I don't think of the parkway. Unless I'm missing something.

Many would think so, but after decades of Ottawa-style dithering, something needs to get built. The Parkway may not have been intended for heavy trucks but it will do.

[dougvdh]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Many would think so, but after decades of Ottawa-style dithering, something needs to get built. The Parkway may not have been intended for heavy trucks but it will do.

There's a decently likelihood that trying to put the truck route down Aviation will just end up with the project being cancelled yet again. The Greens Creek route (linking the Gatineau Airport Industrial Park with the Sheffield Industrial Park) would have seen significantly less push back since it has much less significant on existing (and developing residential neighbourhoods). And therefore, probably had a much higher chance of success.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by dougvdh

There's a decently likelihood that trying to put the truck route down Aviation will just end up with the project being cancelled yet again. The Greens Creek route (linking the Gatineau Airport Industrial Park with the Sheffield Industrial Park) would have seen significantly less push back since it has much less significant on existing (and developing residential neighbourhoods). And therefore, probably had a much higher chance of success.

Sheffield Road is immediately off the Aviation Parkway-417 corridor. I suppose you are referring to Shefford Road.

Regardless, how are two relatively unimportant locations justification for locating a bridge?

It seems to me that the Aviation corridor gives better access to a bilingual hospital, a French language college, a large federal employment area as well multiple east end industrial parks and connects directly to Highway 417 going east. Why do we want to dump extra traffic onto the already congested section of the 174 between Orleans and the Split?

There is value in locating a transportation corridor where it is more useful despite being more urban, and actually partly because it is more urban. More useful to more people.

[Coho]

Is anyone expecting that all truck traffic will automatically transfer over to the new bridge? I don't think so. But it won't hurt to have another crossing over the river to help better disperse some of the traffic at least.

It's like the traffic backlogs caused by the limited bridges across the Rideau.. more bridges = better traffic flows because they aren't all being funnelled across the handful of crossings at Hogs Back, Hunt Club, Strandherd, etc.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Coho

Is anyone expecting that all truck traffic will automatically transfer over to the new bridge? I don't think so. But it won't hurt to have another crossing over the river to help better disperse some of the traffic at least.

It's like the traffic backlogs caused by the limited bridges across the Rideau.. more bridges = better traffic flows because they aren't all being funnelled across the handful of crossings at Hogs Back, Hunt Club, Strandherd, etc.

All the large rigs, certainly.

[dougvdh]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Sheffield Road is immediately off the Aviation Parkway-417 corridor. I suppose you are referring to Shefford Road.
. . .

Correct, thanks for the correction.

The industrial centre of Gatineau seems to be slowly migrating east from the traditional area around the Casino, so the north end arriving near the airport makes sense. Plus it avoid sending trucks down the long residential hill that is Monte Paiement.

On the south end, the section between the split and downtown is going to be a mess either way. Moving the south highway connection further east would reduce the complexity of the overpass infrastructure. Plus it might also finally provoke some employment land development in the east end of Ottawa.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

All the large rigs, certainly.

Nope that's not the plan. It will end up about what we have now with the growth going to the new route.

The truck diversion is mostly a diversion. The real goal is to knit the region together better and add cross border capacity and since it's really only at rush hour and sure during the marathon that we need more capacity and since it's only Quebec to Ottawa commuters at that this is designed to get more Quebecers to work in Ontario. Good for unity. Bad for Ottawa taxpayers.

I'm not sure of the status of this in reality. Are the feds now paying for it all and Ontario and Ottawa have agreed?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by golfguy9

Am I the only one who thinks building a bridge to relieve truck traffic in an urban congested area (Rideau) and put it in a similarly constrained area (Aviation Parkway) to be crazy? Obviously this is for more than just truck traffic but when I think of major thoroughfare, I don't think of the parkway. Unless I'm missing something.

The current route has semi trucks navigating through narrow urban streets. Thousands of trucks going by tens of thousands of apartment units. That turn from King Edward to Rideau and then Rideau to Waller are insane and have caused several deaths over the years.

The new route is straight (no turns) from A50 to the 417. On the Ottawa side, there's a green buffer between the Aviation Parkway and nearby homes and institutions.

It's less ideal on the Gatineau side since some homes are on Monte Paiement, but it's far less problematic than the Ottawa situation now and easier to mitigate (one option seems to give existing housing their own minor street running parallel to Monte Paiement).

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

I understand that its a major residential (low density) zone, but the parkway is always pretty much empty when I drive on it. Is it congested during rush hour? I think the point is to remove the truck traffic from urban high(est) density, including a high volume of pedestrian traffic, and place it where there will be less direct impact. A bridge and highway will ALWAYS affect someone, but in this location, there are fewer people.

Some congestion at the southern end as you approach the 417 split, but that's it.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It seems to me that the Aviation corridor gives better access to a bilingual hospital, a French language college, a large federal employment area as well multiple east end industrial parks and connects directly to Highway 417 going east. Why do we want to dump extra traffic onto the already congested section of the 174 between Orleans and the Split?

There is value in locating a transportation corridor where it is more useful despite being more urban, and actually partly because it is more urban. More useful to more people.

That's my thought as well. It's a far better corridor if the goal is to also improve transit connections between key nodes on both sides of the river.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I'm not sure of the status of this in reality. Are the feds now paying for it all and Ontario and Ottawa have agreed?

Doug Ford was giddy about the prospect of a new highway, cause it's Doug Ford. I don't think he knew about the project before or really knows much about it even now, but he won't stop it, unlike the previous Provincial Liberal Government who pulled their support to back the NIMBYs.

Ultimately, I assume the Feds will pay for it all. They paid everything for Gordie Howe and I believe they paid everything for the new Champlain Bridge in Montreal.

[Richard Eade]

Except, according the U.S.A. ambassador to Canada, Hoekstra, The Canadian Government didn’t PAY for the Gordie Howe Bridge – it just acts as the bank that put up the money for the construction. In his view, since the Canadian Government will retrieve the money through tolls, it is the people crossing the bridge which will wind up paying for the bridge, not the Canadian Government.

The Champlain Bridge in Montreal is different. Although the Harper Government was planning to charge a toll to recoup the cost, the Trudeau Government removed the idea of a toll. Thus, the Canadian Government did pay the entire cost of the new Champlain Bridge.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Except, according the U.S.A. ambassador to Canada, Hoekstra, The Canadian Government didn’t PAY for the Gordie Howe Bridge – it just acts as the bank that put up the money for the construction. In his view, since the Canadian Government will retrieve the money through tolls, it is the people crossing the bridge which will wind up paying for the bridge, not the Canadian Government.

Really twisted way of saying that. That's the entire basis of capitalism; someone pays to build something to be able to provide a product or service to eventually recoup the investment and make a profit. When Canada does that though, it's bad.

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

The Champlain Bridge in Montreal is different. Although the Harper Government was planning to charge a toll to recoup the cost, the Trudeau Government removed the idea of a toll. Thus, the Canadian Government did pay the entire cost of the new Champlain Bridge.

Yeah, if you toll one bridge, you kind of have to toll all bridges. Unless you have an amazing transit system, it's hard to justify. Wonder if the Feds could toll just the semis, charge a higher toll on Macdonald Cartier and Chaudière to encourage the use of Kettle. Chaudière though should really be removed a trucking route since it now goes through an urban neighborhood. I mean, so does Macdonald Cartier, but at least the bridge isn't part of the urban neighbourhood. That King Edward tunnel should still be built eventually.

[Kitchissippi]

I think the federal government paid for the Champlain bridge because it goes over the St Lawrence Seaway, which in a sense is an international facility.

I personally think this Kettle Island bridge will create more problems than it will "solve". They'll have to limit access to Montreal Road (maybe just exit from northbound and enter to southbound) and no access to GEC parkway, otherwise, these roads will just get clogged up with Gatineau commuters taking shortcuts. Basically the Airport Parkway corridor becomes a 10km traffic sewer between Quebec and the 417 with very little use to the surrounding area.

If trucks are truly the issue here, my radical solution would be A) Build a link between A5 and A50 (this could actually address some traffic issues in Gatineau in general), and B) Build a bridge out in the east past Petrie island where the gap between the A50 and 174 is narrow, and link it to Frank Kenny Road which is a proper truck route with wide shoulders all the way to the 417.



Insert Ottawa Bypass/Ring Road and Bob's your uncle.