General Update/Rumour thread [Urban Ottawa]

[Acajack]

The Kettle Island (Montée Paiement-Aviation Parkway) is also logical because most of the interprovincial heavy truck traffic has two origins:

- intercity truck traffic between Montreal and Gatineau (Réno-Dépôt, Métro, etc. supplying the Outaouais from Montreal-area distribution and warehousing centres) that has to go through Ottawa via the 417 because of the lack of a good highway on the Quebec side

- local Ottawa-Gatineau truck traffic from large distribution and warehousing centres concentrated near the 417 in south-east Ottawa in the Innes/Star Top/Hawthorne/Walkley area supplying locations on the Quebec side

Couple this new bridge with the completion of Autoroute 50 to the Montreal area around 2010, and this will take substantial traffic pressure of the highly-distressed Lowertown/King Edward part of Ottawa.

Although it probably won’t be a main goal of the new bridge (certainly not stated by anybody!), Kettle Island will also alleviate some commuter traffic pressure, as origin/destination studies show that the inner east end of Ottawa is the second work trip generator on the Ontario side (after downtown Ottawa) for residents in the central/eastern part of Gatineau. Most of these people work just across the river from where they live, at places like Montfort, Cité collégiale, RCMP, francophone schools and school board headquarters. But currently they have to drive into what is basically downtown Ottawa (Lowertown) on King Edward when they have no business at all there, and then come back eastbound towards St. Laurent, Montreal Rd, etc. which is a very circuitous routing.

It’s the worst-kept secret in town that Ottawa politicians aren’t keen on new links to Quebec because they fear they’d lose residents and businesses to Gatineau if the traffic wasn’t so bad. But in this case, I think the situation around King Edward is getting so critical that they can no longer put off the logical solution.

[Kitchissippi]

The bad thing about the Kettle Island Bridge is that local commuter traffic would add strain on roads that cannot take more traffic during rush hour, like the Rockcliffe parkway and Montreal Road. On paper, a bridge would work there if there are no exits between Quebec and the 417.

Ottawa would not lose residents and businesses to Gatineau because of improved access because the issues are more than just location. It's about taxes, politics and language.

[Acajack]

The bad thing about the Kettle Island Bridge is that local commuter traffic would add strain on roads that cannot take more traffic during rush hour, like the Rockcliffe parkway and Montreal Road. On paper, a bridge would work there if there are no exits between Quebec and the 417.

If there is any road in this region where traffic could be referred to as “breeze”, it’s the Rockcliffe Parkway. Except in exceptional circumstances (snowstorms, accidents), you can drive the Rockcliffe Parkway at the speed limit between Orleans and the big curve at the lookout during rush hour pretty much any day of the year. I live and work on the Quebec side but often have personal business to attend to in Orleans and use this road all the time.

My only fear now is that the people in Orleans I know will be PO’d at me for giving away their best-kept-secret.

As far as Montreal Road is concerned, it’s no busier than any other comparable arterial in the region.

But in any event, the goal of a bridge at Kettle Island wouldn’t be to send more traffic onto Rockcliffe Parkway (or even that much on Montreal Road), but rather the Aviation Pkwy, which might even be referred to as underutilized. It would be used as a link the 417 to the 50. And commuters going to CMHC, La Cité collégiale, Montfort all end up on Montreal Road anyway at the moment, as do heavy trucks that currently make deliveries to these areas.

So, most of the traffic would be new through traffic (in the case of trucks) and traffic that’s already going through the area anyway (commuters).

Ottawa would not lose residents and businesses to Gatineau because of improved access because the issues are more than just location. It's about taxes, politics and language.

Agree 100% with this comment. I should have said “because of their IRRATIONAL fear they’d lose... etc.”. Warranted or not, the fear is still there.

[Kitchissippi]

It's not the traffic to Orleans I'm worried about it's the traffic from the proposed Kettle Island bridge to downtown Ottawa, which is the bigger flow during rush hour. There is no choice but to use the Rockcliffe Parkway, Hemlock/Beechwood, Montreal Road, or add traffic to the westbound Queensway. It basically will make up for the inadequacies of the des Draveurs and Lady Aberdeen bridges across the Gatineau River and dumps that problem on the Ontario side.

[Acajack]

If you look at the area on a map, I doubt that many people would use this bridge to go to downtown Ottawa, even if Des Draveurs and Lady Aberdeen are congested. Traffic may be bad on Aberdeen and Draveurs, but it’s not THAT bad. Sure the Rockcliffe Parkway is an easy drive almost to Rideau Hall, but after that you have to take narrow, busy streets like Sussex down behind the Château Laurier and the cross the canal on Rideau St. which is also something of a nightmare more often than not.

Not worth the hassle. I’d take my chances going directly into downtown Ottawa on Macdonald-Cartier or the Portage Bridge. If it’s going to be congested everywhere, may as well take the direct route.

And certainly, taking Montée Paiement down, across the river, and then Aviation Parkway to the 417 westbound to downtown Ottawa is not going to be an attractive option to almost anybody in Gatineau.

Don’t forget also that the new bridge would take some pressure off Macdonald-Cartier in particular, given that all of the people from Gatineau who work in east end Ottawa won’t have to use it anymore.

Of course, I don’t have many illusions with respect to traffic engineering, and am fully aware that new roads often bring more congestion, but we can’t deny that having thousands of heavy trucks navigating narrow, busy downtown Ottawa streets every day isn’t something that has to be urgently addressed.

[Mille Sabords]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

The bad thing about the Kettle Island Bridge is that local commuter traffic would add strain on roads that cannot take more traffic during rush hour, like the Rockcliffe parkway and Montreal Road. On paper, a bridge would work there if there are no exits between Quebec and the 417.

Avoiding a logical alignment for a trucking bridge for the sole reason of preserving people's God-given right to fly down a road in their car is not a valid planning argument.

The first and most important problem is trucking through the core. The solution must eliminate trucking through the core first and foremost, and relocate the truck route on an alignment that will still be time-efficient for them. Trucking and industry are legitimate concerns. They trump selfish convenience.

More traffic on your road? Take transit. The attitude taken by too many is that we don't want OTHER cars in our way. OTHERS can take transit. OTHERS can be slowed down. Not us.

Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

[Aylmer]

The problem isn't urgent but unsightly...

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by AylmerOptimist

The problem isn't urgent but unsightly...

Wrong. It is quite urgent.

[Aylmer]

It doesn't seem to cause problems but I would like them removed at all costs.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

Avoiding a logical alignment for a trucking bridge for the sole reason of preserving people's God-given right to fly down a road in their car is not a valid planning argument.

The first and most important problem is trucking through the core. The solution must eliminate trucking through the core first and foremost, and relocate the truck route on an alignment that will still be time-efficient for them. Trucking and industry are legitimate concerns. They trump selfish convenience.

More traffic on your road? Take transit. The attitude taken by too many is that we don't want OTHER cars in our way. OTHERS can take transit. OTHERS can be slowed down. Not us.

Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

You're misreading my point, I am not advocating an exitless road, I'm just pointing out the downsides of that route.

We could actually alleviate the problem next week by allowing trucks to use St. Patrick and the Vanier Parkway *in the short term*. This is a far easier route for trucks rather than the narrow dogleg around Rideau Street and tight ramp at Nicholas which has seen quite a few truck spills.

[Acajack]

Aylmer Optimist,

This goes way beyond esthetic issues. There are serious health and quality of life issues related to the truck traffic problem in Lowertown.

Plus, if you spoke to anyone involved in economic development on the Quebec side of the river they would tell you the bottleneck in the King Edward and Rideau area is a serious impediment to attracting business and industries. This partly (but no solely) explains why there are so many Quebec-based companies in the industrial areas off the St Laurent, Innes and Walkley exits of the 417. Many of them serve both their Gatineau and Ottawa locations from the Ontario side of the river.

Easy transportation access is a key economic consideration for many of these businesses, and a huge handicap for Gatineau since almost anything shipped by truck in and out of the city has to negotiate a bunch of 90-degree turns and avoid dozens of cars and pedestrians in a busy urban setting.

Outaouais politicians a long time ago gave up on a solution that involves Ottawa, and that explains their eagerness to see Autoroute 50 completed. Perhaps they’ll eventually end up getting both, and the people of Lowertown can regain some semblance of quality of life, and Gatineau can develop its economy with transportation links that one would normally expect for a city of 250,000 people in 21st century North America.

[Acajack]

The St. Patrick/Vanier Pkwy. would certainly improve truck access to Gatineau, but it wouldn’t resolve the main problem (negative effects on people and neighbourhoods) from Ottawa’s perspective, since half of King Edward (between St. Patrick and the bridge) would still have heavy trucks on it. As well, you’d hand a new truck traffic problem off to the people who live St. Patrick, along which there are homes for much of the length between King Edward and the Rideau River.

[Cre47]

I've added a new thread on that in the Transportation section - so the discussion may be easier.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The St. Patrick/Vanier Pkwy. would certainly improve truck access to Gatineau, but it wouldn’t resolve the main problem (negative effects on people and neighbourhoods) from Ottawa’s perspective, since half of King Edward (between St. Patrick and the bridge) would still have heavy trucks on it. As well, you’d hand a new truck traffic problem off to the people who live St. Patrick, along which there are homes for much of the length between King Edward and the Rideau River.

Yes, but you would remove the fact that trucks have to negotiate with buses and pedestrians on the busier and more used area of Rideau Street. Again I am talking short term, just until a new bridge is figured out.

[Deez]

I'm going to have a field day with this one when I get off work.

Until then, consider these O-D numbers for all trips leaving the Quebec side in the morning (taken directly from the O-D survey trip database).

Ottawa Centre 12669
Ottawa Inner Area 5403
Ottawa East 2041
Beacon Hill 1566
Alta Vista 3677
Hunt Club 857
Merivale 2487
Ottawa West 3426
Bayshore 1242
Orleans 860
Rural East 47
Rural Southeast 68
South Gloucester 156
South Nepean 159
Rural Southwest 398
Kanata/Stitts 1112
Rural West 117
Gatineau (internal) 41844

[clynnog]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

More traffic on your road? Take transit. The attitude taken by too many is that we don't want OTHER cars in our way. OTHERS can take transit. OTHERS can be slowed down. Not us.

Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

I was at a community meeting this week for an infill townhouse project in which the developer is proposing 1.5 parking spaces/unit (all underground). When a resident questioned 'why you don't provide 2 spaces/unit + visitor, as everybody has 2 cars these days' and the response given back to the resident was that 'we aren't targetting this development to people with 2 cars (btw 1.5/unit is the bylaw requirement for a stacked townhouse (aka apartment) use), the residents immediate reply was 'what kind of cheap housing will this be in our neighbourhood.

What I'm getting at is that there is a real education needed that infill can work well, it isn't all low income housing and that we can't continue to have 2+ cars and expect no traffic in Ottawa (or any other urban area) anymore.

BTW transit is 50 m away from the site but the nearby people said 'nobody takes the bus these days'.

Some days you just can't win.

[Mille Sabords]

Originally Posted by clynnog

I was at a community meeting this week for an infill townhouse project in which the developer is proposing 1.5 parking spaces/unit (all underground). When a resident questioned 'why you don't provide 2 spaces/unit + visitor, as everybody has 2 cars these days' and the response given back to the resident was that 'we aren't targetting this development to people with 2 cars (btw 1.5/unit is the bylaw requirement for a stacked townhouse (aka apartment) use), the residents immediate reply was 'what kind of cheap housing will this be in our neighbourhood.

What I'm getting at is that there is a real education needed that infill can work well, it isn't all low income housing and that we can't continue to have 2+ cars and expect no traffic in Ottawa (or any other urban area) anymore.

BTW transit is 50 m away from the site but the nearby people said 'nobody takes the bus these days'.

Some days you just can't win.

What a telling story. What part of town was this project? Would I be wrong to guess the west end?

[clynnog]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

What a telling story. What part of town was this project? Would I be wrong to guess the west end?

Got it in 1. It was a classic case of people not wanting change in the neighbourhood (the zoning is in place for up to a 5 storey apartment unit) and suggesting to the Councillor that the City should change the zoning and make it a City park etc.

[waterloowarrior]

heh I have a stack of public comments on my desk I've been going through.... it's amazing what people some people say about issues like converting SF homes to multi-unit rental apartments, and the assumptions that are made about who will be living there and what will happen to their neighbourhood

[Aylmer]

Sorry for the interruption...

Are there any plans to build other condos in the market (proposed/fantasy)?