Interprovincial bridge crossing discussion

[Dado]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

One of the candidates running in Orleans has come out in favour of the King Edward Tunnel option.

I think his argument makes a lot of sense.

http://www.fredsherwin.ca/pages/interprovincial.htm

Wow.

I can't recall the last time I read anything from a single candidate that made so much sense. He touched on a whole slew of aspects related to a crossing and all of it made sense. And more than a paragraph - an entire page worth of sense. That's rare.

Even better, he is running against Monette, whose replacement would be a definite improvement.

[lrt's friend]

Come on! I am tired of candidates who are pandering to local issues instead of building a city.

This is not a single issue topic. We have a downtown issue and we have a growing city that needs transportation infrastructure. The city has grown greatly to the east since the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge was opened in the 1960s.

We are not going to come up with one solution to solve all problems. It frustrates me that we are facing paralysis thinking that we can come up with one golden solution. It is simply not going to happen. In the meantime, we go around and around in circles and effectively decide that we are not going to do anything and therefore nothing is solved.

When I see estimates of $150M for a downtown expressway tunnel, I have to fall on the floor screaming in laughter. Have we not just gone through a study for a rail tunnel suggesting a cost of $600M or $700M and that has not gone to tender yet? Let's be realistic.

On the east end bridge, I think it is pathetic that there is no bridge crossing the Ottawa River between downtown Ottawa and Hawkesbury. The only reason why that is the case is because of jurisdiction issues. If the Ottawa River was entirely in Ontario or Quebec, a bridge would have been built long ago. When I hosted a bus tour a month ago, it was ridiculous that I had to backtrack from far east end Ottawa to downtown to travel east on the Quebec side. The time and gas and pollution that could have been saved when you multiply that by thousands.

You know, it is the 21st century, it is time to start doing something. As far as Manor Park residents are concerned, you will be privileged to have a decorative bridge within eyesight of your residences. Is this all bad? As far as traffic is concerned, you live centrally in a city of over 1,000,000 people. That is the price to pay and when you consider that trips for many will be shorter, doesn't that help us all in the long-run? In any event, it is not as if we are funnelling all the traffic through the centre of Manor Park.

Our politicians have a responsibility to develop an efficient transportation network, and that includes both roads and transit. It is time for them to start doing their jobs.

[citizen j]

Originally Posted by Dado

Wow.

I can't recall the last time I read anything from a single candidate that made so much sense. He touched on a whole slew of aspects related to a crossing and all of it made sense. And more than a paragraph - an entire page worth of sense. That's rare.

Even better, he is running against Monette, whose replacement would be a definite improvement.

Hmm, perhaps. But Sherwin, who appears to be gunning for the "Gord Hunter" role on council, makes dear old Gord look like a Kennedy by contrast.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Come on! I am tired of candidates who are pandering to local issues instead of building a city.

He seems less pandering to local issues than is the norm.

Besides, what is the city's interest here, anyway? The likely result of a new bridge is sprawl on the Quebec side and more traffic on the Ottawa side.

This is not a single issue topic. We have a downtown issue and we have a growing city that needs transportation infrastructure. The city has grown greatly to the east since the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge was opened in the 1960s.

The downtown issue is not going to be solved by a new bridge east of downtown. The report is crystal clear on this. They expect downtown truck traffic to be as heavy in 20 years as it is today. The new bridge is to serve growth, not existing traffic on King Edward. They rejected a tunnel not because it was costly or because it wouldn't deal with the problems on King Edward, but because it wouldn't accommodate growth.

There are two distinct issues here but nonetheless related: (1) existing problems on King Edward and serving the traffic across the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge and (2) dealing with recent and projected growth in the east end of the region.

As I have pointed out countless times in this thread, the study the NCC carried out made it seem like they were going to address the downtown issue, (1), but in fact they sought to solve the growth issue, (2). But, given that they weren't going to try to solve (1), they still had to come up with a solution for (2) that drew off as much traffic (or, rather, growth in traffic) as possible from King Edward and they did that by proposing a bridge at Kettle Island.

However, if a tunnel was built under King Edward, issue (1) would be solved and the effect on the location decision for (2) might well change. Or it might not. On top of that, the selection of the location hasn't been optimized for transit potential, either, and definitely not with the LRT project in mind. It might be the best location for transit, or it might not, but we don't know because the primary focus of the study was serving growth in car and truck traffic, not integration of transit.

We are not going to come up with one solution to solve all problems. It frustrates me that we are facing paralysis thinking that we can come up with one golden solution. It is simply not going to happen. In the meantime, we go around and around in circles and effectively decide that we are not going to do anything and therefore nothing is solved.

An extra bridge is more of a solution in search of a problem; if anything it'll create the problem it seeks to solve. Moreover, any attempt to force trucks to use the new bridge rather than King Edward will be met by more opposition in whatever community the bridgehead is located as well as opposition from the trucking companies themselves.

When I see estimates of $150M for a downtown expressway tunnel, I have to fall on the floor screaming in laughter. Have we not just gone through a study for a rail tunnel suggesting a cost of $600M or $700M and that has not gone to tender yet? Let's be realistic.

Well he can only really quote estimates that have already been published, and he did give the date of when that estimate was released (2002). $150M is certainly on the low side now, but he only goes so far as to say that it's "roughly half" of the cost of a bridge, which is elsewhere stated as $400-500M. At any rate, a shallow cut & cover road tunnel ought to be considerably less expensive than a deep transit tunnel with the complications of stations. A two-lane tunnel would probably do the job since it need only provide capacity for through traffic, not downtown-destined traffic. A single free-flow lane can move about 2000 vehicles per hour, as against 800 or less for a lane on an arterial road with at-grade intersections.

[Mille Sabords]

Originally Posted by Dado

However, if a tunnel was built under King Edward, issue (1) would be solved and the effect on the location decision for (2) might well change. Or it might not. On top of that, the selection of the location hasn't been optimized for transit potential, either, and definitely not with the LRT project in mind.

An extra bridge is more of a solution in search of a problem; if anything it'll create the problem it seeks to solve. Moreover, any attempt to force trucks to use the new bridge rather than King Edward will be met by more opposition in whatever community the bridgehead is located as well as opposition from the trucking companies themselves.

A tunnel won't be built under King Edward because (1) it won't address the problem of transporting dangerous materials across the river, since those are forbidden from using a tunnel, and (2) it's much costlier than building a bridge.

The Aviation Parkway is surrounded by acres of vegetation that buffers everyone around the corridor from trucks. I was on the Aviation Pkwy this weekend and saw, once again, first hand, how buffered this corridor is. Whining about this corridor from neighbouring residents is a pure and simple selfish tantrum.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

........

The Aviation Parkway is surrounded by acres of vegetation that buffers everyone around the corridor from trucks. I was on the Aviation Pkwy this weekend and saw, once again, first hand, how buffered this corridor is. Whining about this corridor from neighbouring residents is a pure and simple selfish tantrum.

Although it is never stated, I have always assumed that Manor Park opposition is less about the bridge and Aviation Parkway and really about the potential traffic impact on Beechwood.

[Aylmer]

Honestly, we'll have flying trucks before a bridge or a tunnel ever gets built.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

A tunnel won't be built under King Edward because (1) it won't address the problem of transporting dangerous materials across the river, since those are forbidden from using a tunnel, and (2) it's much costlier than building a bridge.

The Aviation Parkway is surrounded by acres of vegetation that buffers everyone around the corridor from trucks. I was on the Aviation Pkwy this weekend and saw, once again, first hand, how buffered this corridor is. Whining about this corridor from neighbouring residents is a pure and simple selfish tantrum.

A tunnel from Nicholas to the bridge would still allow trucks with explosives, poisonous gas to use surface streets to get to the bridge. This would still eliminate the vast majority of trucks (much more than another bridge would) and would eliminate the congestion caused by Gatineau commuters at every intersection with King Edward. Of course a tunnel wouldn't do much for their commute, as Highway 50 would still be backed up (as it is from every direction).

There is no reason Ottawa should pay for any part of a bridge which encourages more sprawl and exodus to Gatineau, that only costs the city money and routes traffic through a quiet area. I dispute that acres of vegetation buffer the noise. Try getting out of your car and you will hear the cars roaring by from houses all along the Parkway.

[Ottawan]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Although it is never stated, I have always assumed that Manor Park opposition is less about the bridge and Aviation Parkway and really about the potential traffic impact on Beechwood.

It may not be publicly stated, but I have a good friend who lives in Manor Park that I've been arguing with about his participation in opposition to the bridge, and the traffic impact to Hemlock and Beechwood is exactly his primary concern.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Ottawan

It may not be publicly stated, but I have a good friend who lives in Manor Park that I've been arguing with about his participation in opposition to the bridge, and the traffic impact to Hemlock and Beechwood is exactly his primary concern.

Bingo! Assuming Hemlock would be the first off-ramp, Hemlock and Beechwood would need to become four traffic lanes to St Patrick.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

A tunnel won't be built under King Edward because (1) it won't address the problem of transporting dangerous materials across the river, since those are forbidden from using a tunnel,

Hogwash.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/22/43/1882046.pdf

3.20 Canada

Of the ten provinces and two territories of Canada, three provinces have road tunnels.

Province of Ontario

Dangerous goods in road transport are defined by the Federal Transportation Regulations which have been adopted at the provincial level. The Federal Regulations are based largely upon the UN Orange book.

In general, there are no restrictions on the transport of dangerous goods through tunnels, except for the private Windsor/Detroit tunnel between Canada and the United States, where dangerous goods are totally banned.

If you want to bore yourself, you can read through the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and try to find anything banning the transport of dangerous goods by truck in tunnels:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/T-19.01/index.html

And even if it was true, we have a rail bridge at our disposal for dangerous goods transport.

and (2) it's much costlier than building a bridge.

We don't know that, one way or the other.

The Aviation Parkway is surrounded by acres of vegetation that buffers everyone around the corridor from trucks. I was on the Aviation Pkwy this weekend and saw, once again, first hand, how buffered this corridor is. Whining about this corridor from neighbouring residents is a pure and simple selfish tantrum.

True, but that fact doesn't mean that the corridor is the best choice, either.

I'm agnostic on where an east-end bridge should go because until a study is carried out to address the downtown problem and solutions recommended to solve that problem, any study on adding additional bridge capacity to the east is inherently flawed. A study could do both, but a study like the one we had on adding capacity without regard to fixing the King Edward problem is nearly pointless.

But that's what we do in Ottawa: study the wrong thing. A light rail system was proposed that failed to solve the downtown bus jam problem, and now we're years behind where we should be if the study and the subsequent project had addressed the actual issue. And now we have a crossings study that studied for future growth rather than addressing long standing issues.

[lrt's friend]

Besides, what is the city's interest here, anyway? The likely result of a new bridge is sprawl on the Quebec side and more traffic on the Ottawa side.

At some point we have to start thinking of this city as one metropolitan area and quit wedging the issue by the 'Quebec side' and 'Ottawa side' and who is better off and worse off. As I pointed out, it is ridiculous that there is no bridge between downtown Ottawa and Hawkesbury and the population in east end Ottawa and eastern Gatineau is already enough to justify a bridge. It is crazy to funnel all the traffic into downtown to cross the river. Ottawa isn't a small town anymore.

Well he can only really quote estimates that have already been published, and he did give the date of when that estimate was released (2002). $150M is certainly on the low side now, but he only goes so far as to say that it's "roughly half" of the cost of a bridge, which is elsewhere stated as $400-500M. At any rate, a shallow cut & cover road tunnel ought to be considerably less expensive than a deep transit tunnel with the complications of stations. A two-lane tunnel would probably do the job since it need only provide capacity for through traffic, not downtown-destined traffic. A single free-flow lane can move about 2000 vehicles per hour, as against 800 or less for a lane on an arterial road with at-grade intersections.

If we are going to expense of building a tunnel, why would we ever consider a two lane tunnel. This seems awfully shortsighted. Also, are we really in a position to consider a shallow cut and cover tunnel to link King Edward with the Nicholas interchange? It seems to me that we have to go cross block somewhere which means going under building foundations. Sound familiar?

Although it is never stated, I have always assumed that Manor Park opposition is less about the bridge and Aviation Parkway and really about the potential traffic impact on Beechwood.

They simply don't want anything near them. Besides, why would traffic use narrow Beechwood with numerous traffic signals when the Rockcliffe Parkway has no traffic signals at all? If use of Beechwood is so objectionable, just don't provide an exit onto Hemlock.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

They simply don't want anything near them. Besides, why would traffic use narrow Beechwood with numerous traffic signals when the Rockcliffe Parkway has no traffic signals at all? If use of Beechwood is so objectionable, just don't provide an exit onto Hemlock.

An exit onto Rockcliffe Parkway westbound would not be possible, in my view, as conditions over the hill through Rockcliffe wouldn't permit the addtional traffic. No exits before Montreal Rd might be an option, but would probably generate other problems for westbound traffic. Exiting westbound onto Hemlock (suitably widened, hence the Manor Park concern) makes the most sense to me. For the record, I own a home two blocks north of Hemlock in sight of the Aviation Parkway. If they put a bridge there, it wouldn't bother me at all. (I used to live one block west of King Edward in Lowertown and never noticed the traffic at all). Whether any new bridge at all makes sense is a debate I will leave to others.

[lrt's friend]

There is no reason Ottawa should pay for any part of a bridge which encourages more sprawl and exodus to Gatineau, that only costs the city money and routes traffic through a quiet area. I dispute that acres of vegetation buffer the noise. Try getting out of your car and you will hear the cars roaring by from houses all along the Parkway

.

Ummm, will there not be federal financial support for this project? Why would there be a mass exodus to Gatineau? Quebec language laws have and will limit such an exodus.

On the the noise issue, I weep and weep and weep. I think there are few people in this city priviledged to live next to a busy street or truck route without a significant buffer zone. I am one of them. Plant more trees and/or build noise barriers. It is a fact of life from living in a central location of a growing city, traffic will increase. At the moment, Manor Park is living in a bit of a fantasy land since the Rockcliffe base closed. The time will come when the base will be redeveloped and that could present more traffic woes than a bridge will. In any event, Manor Park will always have a privileged location with the buffer offered by Beechwood Cemetery and the Rockcliffe Parkway and surrounding parkland.

[waterloowarrior]

City eyes diverting trucks from downtown
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ottawa...+trucks+from+downtown/3104393/story.html
Study, if approved would look at impacts of change

BY NECO COCKBURN , THE OTTAWA CITIZEN JUNE 2, 2010 10:02 PM

Council’s transportation committee has approved a motion calling for a study into the potential diversion of trucks away from the King Edward Avenue corridor, as the National Capital Commission continues to examine possible new interprovincial crossings.

For years, governments have planned a new bridge in east Ottawa with the aim of giving interprovincial truck traffic a better route across the Ottawa River than one that sees them rumble through downtown streets.

The city is under pressure both from east-side residents to keep trucks out of their backyards, and from downtown residents who want to make sure that when a new crossing is built, truck drivers will have to change their routes.

The NCC on Wednesday provided the committee with an update on its long consultation process for determining the best place for the new crossing. An NCC-hired consultant has recommended Kettle Island, north of the Aviation Parkway, but the commission’s board chose last winter to expand the number of potential routes it would study to include Lower Duck Island and McLaurin Bay, which are farther east.

A final decision is not expected until the latter half of 2013, although the commission expects the three possible locations will be whittled down to one in about 18 months.

But several public delegations, some from a coalition of community groups representing residents on the east side of the city, called on councillors to push the NCC to look into other solutions to downtown truck and traffic problems, saying a new bridge won’t keep trucks out of Lowertown and will only cause similar problems with noise and safety in other communities.

Some called for a downtown tunnel under the King Edward corridor.

The committee approved a proposal to ask officials to study “the diversion of all trucks” from the King Edward, Rideau Street, Waller Street and Nicholas Street corridor.

The study would include an economic analysis of such a truck diversion, a safety analysis on continuing to have trucks passing through downtown, and a determination of how the crossings being studied would provide a “viable alternative” for inter-city heavy trucks so that the trucks could be removed from the King Edward corridor.

The city’s official plan calls for the King Edward corridor’s truck-route designation to be removed when a new crossing is finished.

The committee also approved a motion to have an interprovincial transit study completed before the selection of a new crossing.

NCC representative Fred Gaspar told the committee that although officials haven’t had time to review in detail all of the committee’s recommendations,

“I don’t see any reason why they would present any sort of a problem and we certainly commit ourselves to working towards these objectives.”

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[Dado]

Just so everyone knows what it is I'm constantly on about and what the issue in trying to divert all present and future truck traffic from the downtown corridor as advocated by City Council is, take a look at the following image of estimated 2031 daily commercial traffic (i.e. truck) volumes with the Kettle Island option:



This is an extract at 300% from the following document:
http://www.liaisonsrcn.ca/upfiles/2031DailyCommercialVolume_9050 KettleIsland repdf.pdf

The Kettle Island bridge gets a bit more truck traffic than the Chaudière Bridge, with the MacDonald Cartier Bridge still taking the bulk.

So if you're going to divert all that traffic from King Edward, it has to go somewhere. If most of it goes to the Kettle Island Bridge, it would amount to more than a doubling in what was anticipated by this study. Moreover, a lot will go by way of Chaudière since one of the major destinations in Gatineau is the area north of Hull west of the Gatineau River. Just look at the distance a truck coming from the west end of Ottawa (or the 417/416) would have to travel if they go by way of Kettle Island. For that matter, even from Alta Vista or 417 East/Montreal, the Kettle Island route represents a significant detour to get to north Hull, and it involves what will surely be a congested crossing of the Gatineau River.

We just can't solve this problem with a new bridge. The travel demand pattern is right through the Byward Market, whether we like it or not.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

When I see estimates of $150M for a downtown expressway tunnel, I have to fall on the floor screaming in laughter. Have we not just gone through a study for a rail tunnel suggesting a cost of $600M or $700M and that has not gone to tender yet? Let's be realistic.

Don't the LRT stations cost something like $100mil each?

And I measure the distance involved as 2.0km, compared to 3.2km for the transit tunnel.

Plus the transit tunnel is a cross-country route going under deep foundations of tall buildings.

And the city already owns the underground rights to King Edward, I assume.

And the transit tunnel has some minor curves and one major curve in it.

The transit tunnel would be passing under the canal. The truck tunnel wouldn't.

I assume all those things have the potential to result in complications and delay.

On the other hand, the rail tunnels would be twinned, while the truck tunnel would probably make the most sense as one larger tunnel with 2-lanes, and shoulders wide enough to allow traffic to squeeze by a stalled truck in both directions (basically, shoulders a bit more than 1/2 a lane wide). I don't know for sure but I suspect the single wider tunnel might be a bit more costly in that one regard.

[lrt's friend]

As I have said, the downtown problem requires a different solution from the east end bridge. The original plan was to connect the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge to the Vanier Parkway. It is time to seriously consider it again. If a tunnel is required to do this, how long would it be, 1 km? We need to divert as much traffic out of downtown, not just truck traffic, therefore a 4 lane divided connection is needed. It seems that a route right across downtown will be more difficult and more expensive. Building a tunnel under King Edward is not enough. Somehow we have to cross over to Nicholas and this is when it gets more complicated and therefore more expensive.

If we want to find optimal solutions, it is time to stop confusing the two issues.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by RTWAP

Don't the LRT stations cost something like $100mil each?

And I measure the distance involved as 2.0km, compared to 3.2km for the transit tunnel.

Plus the transit tunnel is a cross-country route going under deep foundations of tall buildings.

And the city already owns the underground rights to King Edward, I assume.

And the transit tunnel has some minor curves and one major curve in it.

The transit tunnel would be passing under the canal. The truck tunnel wouldn't.

I assume all those things have the potential to result in complications and delay.

On the other hand, the rail tunnels would be twinned, while the truck tunnel would probably make the most sense as one larger tunnel with 2-lanes, and shoulders wide enough to allow traffic to squeeze by a stalled truck in both directions (basically, shoulders a bit more than 1/2 a lane wide). I don't know for sure but I suspect the single wider tunnel might be a bit more costly in that one regard.

How much did the Big Dig cost in Boston?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Ottawan

It may not be publicly stated, but I have a good friend who lives in Manor Park that I've been arguing with about his participation in opposition to the bridge, and the traffic impact to Hemlock and Beechwood is exactly his primary concern.

So if I get this straight, their fear is that Gatineau commuters will use Hemlock and Beechwood and then St. Patrick as a way to get into downtown Ottawa?

I live not too far from Montée Paiement and I don't think most people in the area would use this route to get to downtown Ottawa. Too many lights and St Patrick is already a nightmare at rush hour in both directions as it is. Eliminate the exit at Hemlock as some have suggested and you will even further reduce the chances many people from eastern Gatineau would use a Kettle Island bridge as a way to get downtown Ottawa.

In spite of popular lore, the 50 into downtown Ottawa 9 days out of 10 isn't really as bad as it is made out to be. But ssssh, keep that tidbit to yourselves please.

Where you would get traffic increases from the new bridge will be roads leading from Aviation Parkway to major employment centres in this part of Ottawa. For Gatineau residents, the main employment centres in the area would be the Montfort Hospital, La Cité collégiale, federal goverment and agency offices located along the Vanier Pkwy between Montreal Rd and the 417, also in the Ogilvie and Blair area (CSIS, NRC, etc.), the industrial areas at the 417 and Innes, and the area around St. Laurent Shopping Centre.

People from Gatineau working in the vast area of east end Ottawa all use King Edward to get to work at the moment.