Interprovincial bridge crossing discussion

[Mille Sabords]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

ncc board meeting about the bridge is going on right now (live streaming)

http://www.capcan.ca/bins/ncc_web_conten...true&OBMPlayer=true&exPlayer=OBM20090122


there's also some info about the colonel by/sussex/rideau urban design study to come later on

Thanks Warrior, I'm following it now.

[waterloowarrior]

NCC won't decide where to put new bridge until city makes up its mind


JANUARY 22, 2009 6:01 PM

ottawa citizen
OTTAWA • The board of the National Capital Commission on Thursday decided to delay its endorsement of a new bridge route across the Ottawa River until the City of Ottawa has come out with a clear position on the issue.

More to come.

[Rathgrith]

The NCC also said that Council should tour the proposed locations in person. Sounds like a good idea.

[Richard Eade]

Is it any wonder that the City Council isn't any help in this matter? On Jan. 14, 2009, Council decided to include the Lower Duck Island in the second phase of the bridge location evaluation. (I'm not sure they have the authority to do this, but that is another matter.) This passed 12-11. However, Councilor Harder was in a minor traffic accident on the way to work (along with over 140 others!) and missed the vote. Therefore, Councilor Monette asked that the vote be reconcidered at the next meeting. This passed by a vote of 12-11.

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE RECOMENDATION

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED
1. c. That the corridor for the Lower Duck option 6 or 7 be protected and included in Phase 2 for evaluation.

Resolution 1.c. was put to Council and CARRIED on a division of 12 YEAS to 11 NAYS as follows:

YEAS (12): Councillors M. Wilkinson, C. Leadman, R. Chiarelli, P. Feltmate, D. Holmes, M. McRae, D. Deans, P. Hume, G. Brooks, G. Bédard, J. Legendre and C. Doucet.

NAYS (11): Councillors A. Cullen, S. Qadri, D. Thompson, M. Bellemare, S. Desroches, E. El-Chantiry, R. Bloess, G. Hunter, R. Jellett, B. Monette and Mayor O’Brien.


MOTION NO. 54/3
Moved by Councillor B. Monette
Seconded by Councillor R. Jellett

That Resolution 1. c. of Item 1, Transportation Committee Report 24 be RECONSIDERED at the next regular meeting of Council scheduled for 28 January 2009.

Pursuant to Subsection 64 (4) of Procedure By-law 2006-462, notice of reconsideration CARRIED on a division of 11 YEAS to 12 NAYS (8 votes required) as follows:

YEAS (11): Councillors A. Cullen, S. Qadri, D. Thompson, M. Bellemare, S. Desroches, E. El-Chantiry, R. Bloess, G. Hunter, R. Jellett, B. Monette and Mayor O’Brien.

NAYS (12): Councillors M. Wilkinson, C. Leadman, R. Chiarelli, P. Feltmate, D. Holmes, M. McRae, D. Deans, P. Hume, G. Brooks, G. Bédard, J. Legendre and C. Doucet.

Now, as the 'Fig Newton' would say "Here's the tricky part." Notice that it required only 8 votes (1/3 of the Council) to have the decission reconsidered.

I suppose that the thinking is that Councilor Harder would have voted against including Lower Duck and the first motion would have lose in a tie.

Why is the City playing around with this?

[waterloowarrior]

Don't commit to a bridge at Kettle Island, Ontario and Quebec governments ask the NCC


BY JAKE RUPERT, THE OTTAWA CITIZENJANUARY 28, 2009 11:16 AM


OTTAWA — The Quebec and Ontario governments are calling on the National Capital Commission to conduct further studies on options for a new bridge over the Ottawa River on the east side of the city.

The news has delighted opponents of a bridge at the already selected preferred location for the bridge, at Kettle Island. Many residents of Rockcliffe Park and Manor Park say a bridge at Kettle Island would be much to disruptive of their neighbourhoods, bringing heavy truck traffic onto the Aviation Parkway in their backyards.

The deputy transport ministers from both provinces — the top permanent bureaucrats in each department — say the commission, the lead agency representing the federal government on the project, should conduct further study on the top three locations for such a bridge as determined by a year-long process.

These are the Kettle Island location, and others near the Gatineau Airport and Lower Duck Island.

“While a technically preferred corridor has been recommended by the study team, we have heard many in the community express their views that there should be further detailed analysis of the higher-ranked east end alternatives,” wrote Ontario's deputy transportation minister Bruce McCuaig.

“Therefore, Ontario requests that the NCC direct the study team to carry out further analysis on the three highest scoring alternatives. This analysis would include a review of impacts on communities, economic development and transit, including consideration of any new information on these topics.”

A letter from Quebec’s deputy transportation minister Denys Jean says the same thing.

Earlier this week, NCC board chairman Russell Mills expressed frustration with the City of Ottawa’s waffling on its support of a bridge at Kettle Island.

City council is expected to debate its position on Kettle Island Wednesday.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[citizen j]

Construction to start in 2034? But no one seems to know where.

[waterloowarrior]

Time to move on a new Ottawa bridge, NCC head says


BY TOM SPEARS, THE OTTAWA CITIZENFEBRUARY 3, 2009 3:04 PM


OTTAWA — Indecision is slowing plans to build a bridge over the Ottawa River, says the president of the National Capital Commission, and it’s time to get moving before delays threaten the project’s completion.

“I think the message getting through to the funding partners is that people are tired of hearing about this issue, and they want to see something happen,” Marie Lemay told the Citizen’s editorial board Tuesday.

“I’ve said a couple of times, if we don’t get it this time, I don’t think we’re going to get a bridge.”

The NCC has proposed to build a bridge at Kettle Island, north of the Aviation Parkway. The City of Ottawa and the Quebec and Ontario governments have asked the NCC to study other possible routes as well.

Tuesday, Ms. Lemay acknowledged that the provinces have a role in deciding how many corridors to study, since they will share in paying for the $500-million project. But she also spoke of the need to make a decision. “As you know, construction costs are not getting less, so we really need to get moving,” she said.

All the trouble over bridged waters to date — all the study and money and angst — that’s only Phase 1 of the environmental assessment (EA), she said.

It lays the groundwork for a second phase, which she calls “the real environmental assessment… the last step before the bridge is built, the real federal EA.”

The NCC would spend three years and $4 million studying one corridor alone — the proposed crossing at Kettle Island, preferred by the NCC’s consultants. Or it would spend $9 million and an extra year to throw in two more options farther east.

The second-ranked route, crossing at Lower Duck Island and going to Boulevard Lorrain in Gatineau, would require at least 79 expropriations in Quebec. The third route would also cross at Lower Duck Island but go toward the Gatineau Airport.

Quebec wants three corridors studied; so does Ontario, and it also wants the study to cover the impact on the communities, transit and economics.

The NCC hasn’t agreed to study all three yet, but its board will discuss the idea.

The whole bridge would cost $500 million, counting everything from Highway 417 to Autoroute 50.

The Kettle Island bridge would be expected to divert some cars and 40 per cent of the trucks currently using King Edward Avenue, Ms. Lemay said — some 1,700 a day, especially the 18-wheelers travelling long distances. The other corridors would divert fewer trucks, she said.

The NCC has received about 1,800 comments from the public so far, she said.

The objections include valid points, she said, “but the consultant feels there are ways we can address this. So we need to get to that phase,” the second phase of the EA.

She said it would be “absolutely inappropriate” not to complete the environmental assessment. “You have to go through that next step to get the answers.”

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Time+move+Ottawa+bridge+head+says/1248927/story.html

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by Deez

Oh god that thing's going to be a monster...

A monster indeed, and notice that there is no provision to widen access to the 174. There are still only 2 lanes in each direction going to and from Orleans in that plan view. The Split is already the single largest traffic bottleneck in the City, and now they want to dump all the new car/truck traffic from the Aviation Pkwy on the 417 at the same point??? Wow. Orleans/Cumberland residents should be up in arms at this proposal!

[rocketphish]

Even if it's not under consideration right now, Ottawa will eventually require a new western crossing over the Ottawa River. In light of this, I have long wondered why a link between the southern end of the Hwy 148 connector and Hwy 417 via the Deschene rapids and the Transitway corridor was never publicly considered as part of the ongoing crossings study?

It appears that it would require a much shorter bridge than Crossing #3 (Moodie) or #4 (Holly Acres), through shallower water, and makes use of existing transportation corridors. It doesn't block sailing on the river, cut across Andy Haydon Park, or require any expropriations, which were all negative points raised by vocal opponents of these other options.

It could follow a route something like this:



Comments?

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Comments?

I would rather see the O-Train corridor having the highway on top of a cut and cover LRT tunnel to the 417 from the 50. It would probably be cheaper and more direct.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

I would rather see the O-Train corridor having the highway on top of a cut and cover LRT tunnel to the 417 from the 50. It would probably be cheaper and more direct.

And how is that supposed to work? A major interchange just west of Preston at the Queensway. How many hundred homes and businesses will have to be expropriated to do that? The PoW bridge has to be replaced. We don't want another expressway in the centre of the city.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We don't want another expressway in the centre of the city.

Unless it's underground, then I would fully support it.

I really have to wonder why a downtown Ottawa tunnel was never properly considered as part of the current interprovincial crossings study, given that tunnels were considered in Options #2 (Ridell) and #7 (Gatineau airport). OK, OK, I realize that it is not technically an interprovincial crossing, but it does resolve a large part of the goal of the study, namely to get truck traffic off King Edward Avenue.

Since the most heavily used highway in western Quebec (Hwy 5) dumps its load of trucking and commuting traffic onto Ottawa's doorstep at King Edward Avenue, and the majority of this traffic then simply snakes its way to Hwy 417, primarily via King Edward/Nicholas or the Vanier Parkway, because they are the shortest routes between point A and point B, then why not simply join points A and B with the shortest possible route, in this case a tunnel? This has the potential to create a very safe and efficient non-stop route without intersections, joining the two highways.

Think of it... drive from Gatineau to the Queensway (or vice versa) in a couple of minutes without stopping! Montreal has the Ville-Marie expressway, which is routed through a downtown tunnel. Part of the Trans-Canada Highway in Vancouver also runs through a tunnel. And of course, there are many American examples as well.

When this issue was raised by the public, the consultants simply wrote a memo referencing some older studies (http://www.ncrcrossings.ca/en/5%20McDona...Tunnel%20Coarse%20Screening%20FINAL.pdf). These studies, however, were conducted in a different context using different criteria and so can't be compared fairly with all the bridge options. Additionally, they didn't consider that some surface land will now likely be freed-up due to the tunnelization of the transitway. This land, currently part of the surface transitway corridor adjacent to the University of Ottawa, has potential to be used as the southern portal for a tunnel. The location of the southern tunnel portal was a major issue in the older studies, but these new developments merit reconsideration.

As already pointed out, this route is relatively short (1.5 - 2 km) compared to the various bridge options, and so may not even cost as much, even with higher tunnelling costs.

That all said, even though this tunnel route might be the best solution to Ottawa's never-ending King Edward traffic problem, the City of Ottawa would likely never be bold enough to for it, for one key reason: it's not an interprovincial crossing, and so would not receive a provincial funding contribution from the province of Quebec, nor be managed by the NCC (although this would probably be a good thing), though it would probably still qualify for federal infrastructure funding.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

A monster indeed, and notice that there is no provision to widen access to the 174. There are still only 2 lanes in each direction going to and from Orleans in that plan view. The Split is already the single largest traffic bottleneck in the City, and now they want to dump all the new car/truck traffic from the Aviation Pkwy on the 417 at the same point??? Wow. Orleans/Cumberland residents should be up in arms at this proposal!

I think the general presumption is that most of the traffic to and from the bridge will be going straight through the junction with the 174, either north towards Gatineau and the 50, or east towards the 417 East and the Innes industrial and Montreal.

The expectation is that relatively few vehicles (trucks or commuters) will be taking the 174 westbound towards the 417 and go towards downtown Ottawa via this route.

BTW, currently there is only one lane westbound on the 174 coming into Ottawa from Orleans. The second lane on 174 shown on the plans is actually an addition that will be part of the upcoming massive Queensway widening/refurbishment project.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

And how is that supposed to work? A major interchange just west of Preston at the Queensway. How many hundred homes and businesses will have to be expropriated to do that? The PoW bridge has to be replaced. We don't want another expressway in the centre of the city.

It was still in the NCC's plan up to a decade ago, that's why the ROW is wide enough for a 4 lane highway. I'm not for a new bridge and highway, just stating that it's feasible. I don't know where you get your hundred home and businesses being expropriated.

http://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.405832,-75.715971&spn=0.007081,0.013733&t=h&z=16

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by Acajack

BTW, currently there is only one lane westbound on the 174 coming into Ottawa from Orleans. The second lane on 174 shown on the plans is actually an addition that will be part of the upcoming massive Queensway widening/refurbishment project.

No, there's currently 2 lanes in each direction.
http://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.423154,-75.621471&spn=0.003946,0.012209&t=k&z=17

But they are two very busy lanes during rushhour. And if even a bit of additional traffic comes from the Aviation Pkwy onto the westbound 417 during the morning commute, it will add to the existing blockage (truck traffic from eastern Gatineau headed for western Ottawa, for example)

Likewise any people who work in Gatineau and use the new bridge to head home to Orleans during the afternoon commute, joining eastbound 174 at the Split, will cause additional blockages.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

No, there's currently 2 lanes in each direction.
http://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.423154,-75.621471&spn=0.003946,0.012209&t=k&z=17.

I've driven there a million times as I lived in Orleans for much of my life. The right-hand lane you see exits at St. Laurent. It is not a through lane towards the westbound 417 (Queensway). If you are in the right lane at this point you have to either exit at St. Laurent or make a dangerous manoeuvre across a solid line to merge with traffic going west. It's actually a long-standing grievance of people east of St. Laurent that they actually only have a single freeway lane going into downtown.

Originally Posted by rocketphish

But they are two very busy lanes during rushhour. And if even a bit of additional traffic comes from the Aviation Pkwy onto the westbound 417 during the morning commute, it will add to the existing blockage (truck traffic from eastern Gatineau headed for western Ottawa, for example)

Most truck traffic from east end Gatineau headed for west end Ottawa won't go through here anyway. It just doesn't make sense when they can take the (relatively) less-congested 50 all the way to the end, then cross over the Chaudière.

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Likewise any people who work in Gatineau and use the new bridge to head home to Orleans during the afternoon commute, joining eastbound 174 at the Split, will cause additional blockages)

Yeah, but even if these Gatineau-Orleans commuters take existing bridges downtown (Macdonald-Cartier or Alexandra) like they do at the moment, don't they end up on the Queensway or the Rockcliffe Parkway anyway? Unless you think that large numbers of people who work in Gatineau are going to take up residence in Orleans because of this new bridge?

It's also quite busy going into eastern Gatineau in the evenings (on the 50, and also on Fournier-Gréber), so I don't see what the advantage would be to fight that traffic all the way to Montée Paiement then cross the bridge.

BTW, I actually live relatively close to Montée Paiement and although I don’t work in Ottawa and am a bus commuter, when driving I would never take the Paiement-Kettle-Aviation-174-417 routing to go to downtown Ottawa when the 50 to Macdonald-Cartier is much more direct. It just doesn’t make sense. I’d take the new bridge if I were going to St. Laurent Shopping Centre, or Orleans, or the 417 eastbound, but that’s about it.

Look at it on a map and you will see that it’s just too much of a indirect routing with too many potential stoplights and traffic to be a logical alternate route to downtown Ottawa for most residents of eastern Gatineau.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I've driven there a million times as I lived in Orleans for much of my life. The right-hand lane you see exits at St. Laurent. It is not a through lane towards the westbound 417 (Queensway). If you are in the right lane at this point you have to either exit at St. Laurent or make a dangerous manoeuvre across a solid line to merge with traffic going west. It's actually a long-standing grievance of people east of St. Laurent that they actually only have a single freeway lane going into downtown.

OK, I see what you mean, and yes, that's a problem. I was referring more to the fact that there are 2 lanes passing under the Split in each direction, regardless of where they end up going once they join the 417.

So are you saying that you think that there would be no negative affect on Orleans commuters due to all the new Kettle Island bridge traffic joining 417/174 at the Split? I would have thought that it would be better for that traffic to join at Nicholas or Vanier Parkway and be fully merged by the time it gets to the Split, than to have it merging AT the Split.

[Acajack]

So are you saying that you think that there would be no negative affect on Orleans commuters due to all the new Kettle Island bridge traffic joining 417/174 at the Split? .[/QUOTE]

Relatively minimal I would say.

Originally Posted by rocketphish

I would have thought that it would be better for that traffic to join at Nicholas or Vanier Parkway and be fully merged by the time it gets to the Split, than to have it merging AT the Split.

Presumably, the split will have been improved/widened once already (during the coming Queensway project) way before the new bridge will be built 20-some years from now, and the bridge project itself if/when it does happen should also include significant improvements to the 174/417/Aviation junction.

[Aylmer]

Woah!

Rocketphish has hit the ground running! You seem to have many interesting things to get out there!

Welcome!

[rocketphish]

On this page, you can read the Province's plan for widening Hwy 417:
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/engineering/417ea/index.shtml#pic2

and here's the direct link to the segment that includes the Split:
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/engineering/417ea/pic2/pdf/TPA9.pdf

Your issue with the right-hand lane actually being a St. Laurent offramp is resolved by adding a new dedicated exit lane on 417 and making it inaccessible to traffic coming from Hwy 417 westbound. (Note that this plan is contradicted by the Kettle Island bridge study plan, in which the St. Laurent exit will be closed: http://www.ncrcrossings.ca/en/2006-029%20kettle%20EN%20-%203.pdf, but in both cases you'll get your two dedicated lanes).

However, there are no plans to widen Hwy 174 itself to 3 lanes in each direction, and that's because the Province doesn't own or have responsibility for Hwy 174. They downloaded that to the City of Ottawa some time ago.

The Federal Kettle Island bridge study plan surmizes that this will indeed be a problem, and so it makes a recommendation for the 6-laning of 174 through the Split:
http://www.ncrcrossings.ca/en/4%20MEM%20...20Split%20IC%20Apr%2028%2008%20FINAL.pdf

The bottom line is that it's up to Ottawa to fix 174 because they own it, but where are the plans for that to happen?