Interprovincial bridge crossing discussion

[Ottawa superman]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

Of course they did. But they didn't really state why with any detail nor provide any potential alternatives to look at. This has been studied for almost 20 years and the provinces only response is "no". If the province believes we don't need another bridge they'll need to provide a more thorough response.

The reason why have already been stated. Community disruption, car focused corridor and increased congestion on Montreal, Hemlock and Highway 417. This will even go against Gatineau BRT system.

The statistic were provided by the NCC themselves. Now when questioned, they will say that the city will ban access to truck on MacDonald Cartier and Chaudiere. Is this ban even enforceable? What about complaints from the truckers? How much will cost the city in police/surveillance cost?

Traffic has been declining on the bridges since the 1990 and congestion isn't on the bridge itself but on the interchanges themselves. Money should go on modifying the highway 5/50 interchange and extension of 50 to highway 5 north of Hull.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by Ottawa superman

The reason why have already been stated. Community disruption, car focused corridor and increased congestion on Montreal, Hemlock and Highway 417. This will even go against Gatineau BRT system.

Then we will never build another bridge anywhere. Someone will always be inconvenienced. The bridge wasn't just for cars. Cyclists like myself would have benefited too.

The statistic were provided by the NCC themselves. Now when questioned, they will say that the city will ban access to truck on MacDonald Cartier and Chaudiere. Is this ban even enforceable? What about complaints from the truckers? How much will cost the city in police/surveillance cost?

Same way we enforce truck bans anywhere else? Poor enforcement is crappy excuse.

Traffic has been declining on the bridges since the 1990 and congestion isn't on the bridge itself but on the interchanges themselves. Money should go on modifying the highway 5/50 interchange and extension of 50 to highway 5 north of Hull.

That's a separate topic but I agree that interchange is big mess that needs improvement.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Ottawa superman

Traffic has been declining on the bridges since the 1990 and congestion isn't on the bridge itself but on the interchanges themselves. Money should go on modifying the highway 5/50 interchange and extension of 50 to highway 5 north of Hull.

This would still leave the issue of the route between the 417 and the M-C bridge, which is an even bigger problem.

[lrt's friend]

It seems a bit disingenuous to suggest that because there are not traffic on existing bridges but we have problems on the roads leading to the bridges that we don't need a new bridge. Whether it is the bridge itself or the connecting roads, we still have a problem and as is the case with Lower Town and King Edward, there are only very expensive alternative solutions.

[Ottawa superman]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

Then we will never build another bridge anywhere. Someone will always be inconvenienced. The bridge wasn't just for cars. Cyclists like myself would have benefited too.

Each bridge proposal is difference. The situation in Orleans is that East-West traffic can't accommodate a North south interprovincial route.

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

Same way we enforce truck bans anywhere else? Poor enforcement is crappy excuse.

So paying 1 billion while making traffic worst for the East-end and not solving the truck issue is not a solution

Originally Posted by Acajack

This would still leave the issue of the route between the 417 and the M-C bridge, which is an even bigger problem.

How would the NCC proposed bridge even fix the connection?

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It seems a bit disingenuous to suggest that because there are not traffic on existing bridges but we have problems on the roads leading to the bridges that we don't need a new bridge. Whether it is the bridge itself or the connecting roads, we still have a problem and as is the case with Lower Town and King Edward, there are only very expensive alternative solutions.

If we have a problem with the road leading to the bridge, those should be answered first, before we begin to build another bridge, that will only reach peak capacity during rush hour. The region doesn't need 3 6-lane bridge to handle traffic flow.

The tunnel would be handled by PPP were the price overrun would be assumed by the private sector. The tunnel itself would cost half a billion, money that the PQ just wasted on a new commission, ironically to a study waste by the feds.

What is also disingenous is that you claim to be a friend of LRT, yet you advocate for a route that has very little chance of becoming a LRT yet canabilize attempt for Gatineau BRT to ever reach LRT ridership.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Ottawa superman

How would the NCC proposed bridge even fix the connection?

Sorry - should have said that Kettle Island would provide an alternative and better link between the 417 and Gatineau highways.

[Acajack]

Good editorial by the Citizen on this:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/editorials/What+plan+downtown+trucks/8543916/story.html

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Ottawa superman

The tunnel would be handled by PPP were the price overrun would be assumed by the private sector. The tunnel itself would cost half a billion, money that the PQ just wasted on a new commission, ironically to a study waste by the feds.

I always wonder why so many "other Canadians" suffer from terminal "mix-up-itis" when it comes to discussing any issue involving Quebec.

How will the Habs do in the playoffs? Well, Quebec gets all this equalization money...

Cirque du Soleil opens a new show in Las Vegas. Did you know they call KFC PFK over there because of the language laws?

A Quebecer is named to lead a federal party. Can you believe their margarine has to be a different colour over there?

RONA is opening a new store in Listowel, Ontario. Did you know that in France the stop signs say STOP but in Quebec they say ARRÊT?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Ottawa superman

Each bridge proposal is difference. The situation in Orleans is that East-West traffic can't accommodate a North south interprovincial route.




So paying 1 billion while making traffic worst for the East-end and not solving the truck issue is not a solution



How would the NCC proposed bridge even fix the connection?


If we have a problem with the road leading to the bridge, those should be answered first, before we begin to build another bridge, that will only reach peak capacity during rush hour. The region doesn't need 3 6-lane bridge to handle traffic flow.

The tunnel would be handled by PPP were the price overrun would be assumed by the private sector. The tunnel itself would cost half a billion, money that the PQ just wasted on a new commission, ironically to a study waste by the feds.

What is also disingenous is that you claim to be a friend of LRT, yet you advocate for a route that has very little chance of becoming a LRT yet canabilize attempt for Gatineau BRT to ever reach LRT ridership.

This last statement is whole lot of bull. We need to be realistic. If you are not travelling to central Ottawa, LRT is not going to be that useful. For those not travelling there, the lack of a bridge between Lower Town and Hawkesbury is just going to force commuters and travellers in general through downtown. So by your logic, we need to inconvenience everybody forever so that we can avoid ever building another bridge again. If our population doubles and traffic doubles, who cares? All I see are self serving arguments in order to avoid ever building a bridge at all costs to everybody else in this city.

Using LRT and BRT as an excuse is silly when the current plan for LRT and BRT will never serve those who would use the bridge effectively anyways. And at the same time, we are building more direct transit lanes to serve transit riders better as well. The real driver for ridership for BRT and LRT is the scarcity and cost of parking downtown. Inconveniencing the general population in perpetuity is not good transportation or transit planning.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

This last statement is whole lot of bull. We need to be realistic. If you are not travelling to central Ottawa, LRT is not going to be that useful. For those not travelling there, the lack of a bridge between Lower Town and Hawkesbury is just going to force commuters and travellers in general through downtown. So by your logic, we need to inconvenience everybody forever so that we can avoid ever building another bridge again. If our population doubles and traffic doubles, who cares? All I see are self serving arguments in order to avoid ever building a bridge at all costs to everybody else in this city.

Using LRT and BRT as an excuse is silly when the current plan for LRT and BRT will never serve those who would use the bridge effectively anyways. And at the same time, we are building more direct transit lanes to serve transit riders better as well. The real driver for ridership for BRT and LRT is the scarcity and cost of parking downtown. Inconveniencing the general population in perpetuity is not good transportation or transit planning.

I'm in complete agreement with LRT's Friend.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by Ottawa superman

The tunnel would be handled by PPP were the price overrun would be assumed by the private sector. The tunnel itself would cost half a billion, money that the PQ just wasted on a new commission, ironically to a study waste by the feds.

What does the PQ wasting money have to do with a tunnel being built within Ottawa's city limits?

I garantee you Québec and Gatineau will not pay a dime for a tunnel in Ottawa. (And I wouldn't expect them too.)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

What does the PQ wasting money have to do with a tunnel being built within Ottawa's city limits?

Did you know that in Quebec legally when a woman marries she HAS to keep her maiden name? Can you believe that? What a place.

[Ottawa superman]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Sorry - should have said that Kettle Island would provide an alternative and better link between the 417 and Gatineau highways.

How so? The NCC own number showed that King Edward will continue to be used. Beside Kettle Island doesn't connect with Highway 5.

Originally Posted by Acajack

I always wonder why so many "other Canadians" suffer from terminal "mix-up-itis" when it comes to discussing any issue involving Quebec.

How will the Habs do in the playoffs? Well, Quebec gets all this equalization money...

Cirque du Soleil opens a new show in Las Vegas. Did you know they call KFC PFK over there because of the language laws?

A Quebecer is named to lead a federal party. Can you believe their margarine has to be a different colour over there?

RONA is opening a new store in Listowel, Ontario. Did you know that in France the stop signs say STOP but in Quebec they say ARRÊT?

What exactly is your point? Many want Quebec too properly manage it's money and use it to improve it's infrastructure, instead of wasting it.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

This last statement is whole lot of bull. We need to be realistic. If you are not travelling to central Ottawa, LRT is not going to be that useful. For those not travelling there, the lack of a bridge between Lower Town and Hawkesbury is just going to force commuters and travellers in general through downtown. So by your logic, we need to inconvenience everybody forever so that we can avoid ever building another bridge again. If our population doubles and traffic doubles, who cares? All I see are self serving arguments in order to avoid ever building a bridge at all costs to everybody else in this city.

Using LRT and BRT as an excuse is silly when the current plan for LRT and BRT will never serve those who would use the bridge effectively anyways. And at the same time, we are building more direct transit lanes to serve transit riders better as well. The real driver for ridership for BRT and LRT is the scarcity and cost of parking downtown. Inconveniencing the general population in perpetuity is not good transportation or transit planning.

Their has been no support of the bridge by anybody in East end Ottawa. East enders want the the split, which the province is doing, by the way. Also, East enders want LRT to Trim not an expansive bridge that will not even fix the trucks problem. Truckers don't mind to pay tolls for fast and reliable infrastructure. The Bridge in the east end isn't fast and brings trucks in residential neighbourhood in Gatineau, something not reliable. No business group has supported the bridge.
Beside, your growth targets for the city are way off tracks. I no way will traffic double on the bridges. Since the 1990's traffic is declining with federal governments effort to have more building in Quebec. The Conference Board of Canada predicts that slow growth for the city. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2012/09/18/ottawa-conference-board-study.html

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

What does the PQ wasting money have to do with a tunnel being built within Ottawa's city limits?

I garantee you Québec and Gatineau will not pay a dime for a tunnel in Ottawa. (And I wouldn't expect them too.)

Yes, the little secret that those opposed to a bridge forget to mention. An all Ottawa solution (tunnel) to an interprovincial traffic problem will have an all Ottawa price tag. Quebec taxpayers will get off scott free.

The use of tolls to build a tunnel could also be applied to a bridge. And another way to give transit a little advantage. Doesn't that blow up the argument of Quebecers flooding the Queensway if they have to pay a $5.00 toll each way every day?

[lrt's friend]

Their has been no support of the bridge by anybody in East end Ottawa. East enders want the the split, which the province is doing, by the way. Also, East enders want LRT to Trim not an expansive bridge that will not even fix the trucks problem. Truckers don't mind to pay tolls for fast and reliable infrastructure. The Bridge in the east end isn't fast and brings trucks in residential neighbourhood in Gatineau, something not reliable. No business group has supported the bridge.
Beside, your growth targets for the city are way off tracks. I no way will traffic double on the bridges. Since the 1990's traffic is declining with federal governments effort to have more building in Quebec. The Conference Board of Canada predicts that slow growth for the city. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...ard-study.html

Again, all self serving arguments. Yes, of course east enders want LRT to Trim Road tomorrow. At whose expense? Everybody else in the city and on both sides of the river? I have heard this before, ad nauseum. It is very selfish that my tax money is to fund only the transportation issues affecting Orleans. You already have effective rapid transit in the east end and the Queensway but that is not good enough. You want the double cadillac service that no other suburb will get in a generation. Yes, go ahead and spend the $1B ++ to extend LRT to Orleans while we rot away downtown with a traffic sewer that once was a beautiful tree lined boulevard right next to our best tourist district.

My statement about growth was not a prediction within a specific time period but if Ottawa doubles in size at some point whether 50 years or 100 years, we are today making decisions where we can never address interprovincial travel and never build a bridge within the city limits east of downtown. At least two studies have already chosen the same location. An idiot like me by looking at a city map can see the logic of it all. Let me make it clear, I have no vested interest in this since I live in the south end but I am a firm believer in looking at the of the city as a whole.

[JM1]

The point is, a bridge will not stop Kind Edward from being a traffic sewer. Its sewership is by virtue of its location. A tunnel would reduce the sewer's stink tremendously. A Kettle Island bridge will only create a new sewer.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Again, all self serving arguments. Yes, of course east enders want LRT to Trim Road tomorrow. At whose expense? Everybody else in the city and on both sides of the river? I have heard this before, ad nauseum. It is very selfish that my tax money is to fund only the transportation issues affecting Orleans. You already have effective rapid transit in the east end and the Queensway but that is not good enough. You want the double cadillac service that no other suburb will get in a generation. Yes, go ahead and spend the $1B ++ to extend LRT to Orleans while we rot away downtown with a traffic sewer that once was a beautiful tree lined boulevard right next to our best tourist district.

My statement about growth was not a prediction within a specific time period but if Ottawa doubles in size at some point whether 50 years or 100 years, we are today making decisions where we can never address interprovincial travel and never build a bridge within the city limits east of downtown. At least two studies have already chosen the same location. An idiot like me by looking at a city map can see the logic of it all. Let me make it clear, I have no vested interest in this since I live in the south end but I am a firm believer in looking at the of the city as a whole.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Yes, the little secret that those opposed to a bridge forget to mention. An all Ottawa solution (tunnel) to an interprovincial traffic problem will have an all Ottawa price tag. Quebec taxpayers will get off scott free.

The use of tolls to build a tunnel could also be applied to a bridge. And another way to give transit a little advantage. Doesn't that blow up the argument of Quebecers flooding the Queensway if they have to pay a $5.00 toll each way every day?

I'm sure I've mentioned it once or twice. The problem with a toll would be that either a. people would start using the other bridges or b. we charge a toll on all bridges in which case it would be a two way street (ON pays to enter QC and QC pays to enter ON). Forget the fact that we are in two provinces, because first, we are one free flowing metropolitan area.

The tunnel should be paid for by the feds who are responsible for the initial screw up, the province of Ontario who backed out of a bridge and Ottawa could be responsible for the costs of redoing King Ed in the aftermath.

My point of view is that a tunnel is more about building a presentable world capital more than anything else. Which other G8 capital has thousands of buses and semi trailer trucks running through the middle of their respective central areas?

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Good editorial by the Citizen on this:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/editorials/What+plan+downtown+trucks/8543916/story.html

What’s the plan for downtown trucks?

Ottawa Citizen June 18, 2013

The City of Ottawa and its counterparts in Gatineau have been trying without any success to build a new interprovincial bridge for at least 20 years. Proposals are made only to be jettisoned for lack of community backing. When one side supports a location, the other side promptly rejects it.

“If you want to build a bridge at Cumberland-Masson, Gatineau will veto it, maybe; if you want to build a bridge at Kettle Island, Ottawa will veto it, maybe; if you want to build a bridge far west, Kanata or Nepean will veto it, maybe,” then regional chair Bob Chiarelli said in exasperation in 1998.

“We can’t responsibly let that situation continue to exist.”

Seven years ago, the National Capital Commission made another try, which culminated in the choice of Kettle Island as the recommended location of a new $1.16-billion bridge. It would connect the Aviation Parkway with Autoroute 50, and would reduce truck traffic in downtown Ottawa by as much as 30 per cent by 2031. It was the best choice and there was actually a glimmer of hope that the bridge would be built because not only did Gatineau support it, then Ottawa mayor Larry O’Brien was also supportive.

It was not to be, however. Residents around Aviation Parkway and their political leaders mounted a fierce campaign to kill it, and Monday, they got their wish. Ontario’s Transport Minister announced that the provincial government would not support the bridge, saying it would not only undermine local communities, but do little to address the trucking problem downtown. Madeleine Meilleur, the Ottawa-Vanier MPP and Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, who led the campaign, said the Kettle Island proposal would merely shift the problem from one community to another.

Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson opposes a new bridge, period. He doesn’t see why $1 billion should be spent on a new bridge to facilitate car and truck travel when the city is making transit the linchpin of its transportation planning.

We appreciate the concerns of the community and the laudable aspirations of the city. Kettle Island was not a perfect solution, because there are no perfect solutions in urban planning, especially when one is contemplating building a bridge. But the location was a good compromise and the decision to kill it is a lost opportunity.

In any case, with Ontario’s decision it’s clear a bridge is unlikely to be built for a generation.

“The NCC should read the writing on the wall. There’s no government support and there’s no community support,” Watson says, emphasizing the futility of another bridge debate.

So what’s the alternative? The city can’t simply ignore the truck problem downtown.

A new bridge could be built far east for trucks, but Gatineau will likely not be interested, since its objective for them is easing car congestion, not trucks. Does the federal government care? Not likely. Watson says the solution lies in an idea that has so far failed to gain traction: a tunnel for trucks under King Edward all the way to the 417, to be paid for with tolls. With a ready stream of revenue from tolls, Watson says there’s a good chance the private sector would be interested in such a project, which he believes would be much cheaper than the $1 billion for the bridge. And he says the trucking companies will come aboard, because the nearest access to the 417 would be Hawkesbury.

Is this a realistic proposal or merely a pie-in-the-sky? Watson has not seriously articulated this proposal anywhere, and if it is not a diversionary tactic, he needs to bring it to council for a proper debate and study. This is the nation’s capital, after all, and city politicians cannot just say “we don’t want a bridge” and that would be the end of it.

Ottawa Citizen
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/What+plan+downtown+trucks/8543916/story.html#ixzz2WgSP6GD1

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by JM1

The point is, a bridge will not stop Kind Edward from being a traffic sewer. Its sewership is by virtue of its location. A tunnel would reduce the sewer's stink tremendously. A Kettle Island bridge will only create a new sewer.

Of course you are right, but at least it has a buffer zone and sooner or later it will be needed. It seems to me that the local residents think that they have some special privilege that others in this city are never entitled to. We have created a number of transportation corridors in this city and the chosen few believe that this becomes their local parkland. Hmmm, paralells with Lansdowne? Alta Vista Parkway corridor? Yet, when no buffer zone exists, roads get widened willy nilly in every part of the city. I don't understand this sense of special privilege and the politicians who support this.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by Ottawa superman

Their has been no support of the bridge by anybody in East end Ottawa.

Well, I live in the East end or Ottawa of Ottawa and I support the new bridge.