Interprovincial bridge crossing discussion

[Ottawa superman]

Originally Posted by Acajack

🞵🞵🞵? The Kettle Island Bridge, if it is ever built, will not be built solely so that francophones working in Ottawa can live in a low-density, predominantly francophone milieu on Quebec territory...

It will also be built:
- to provide a linkage between the eastern parts of Ottawa and Gatineau, and between this part of eastern Ontario and western Quebec (note there is no bridge on the Ottawa River between the Macdonald-Cartier and Hawkesbury, a distance of close to 100 km)

- to reduce drive-through traffic and congestion in central-eastern Ottawa (Lowertown, Vanier) than has no business there

- to reduce heavy trucking pressures on Waller, Rideau and King Edward

None of this is anecdotal, ireelevant or non-factual.

Their is no bridges between Ottawa and Hawkesbury because their is no demand. The Cumberland ferry operator has said he would built a bridge when demand who'd justify it. We also have two other ferry to meet demand. 1 bridge and 3 ferry service is enough for Cumberland and Prescott Russell.

The NCC themselves have said that the majority of traffic would go towards Central Ottawa not toward Eastern Ottawa. Beside, I have pointed out that interprovincial traffic is declining.

The NCC traffic engineer has themselves said that with Kettle island bridge built the number of trucks in 2031 would be the same as today. I don't want Ontario government to pay for a bridge that would only reroute a small amount of truck traffic. This is a non-factual claim that you make that will only be implemented if the city starts a massive policing surveillance along King Edward. Second off, many of the trucks would pass by Chaudiere Bridge if banned from King Edward.

Now unless you have reason to believe that Roche-NCE were wrong, I hope you will enlighten me.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Ottawa superman

Their is no bridges between Ottawa and Hawkesbury because their is no demand. The Cumberland ferry operator has said he would built a bridge when demand who'd justify it. We also have two other ferry to meet demand. 1 bridge and 3 ferry service is enough for Cumberland and Prescott Russell.

The NCC themselves have said that the majority of traffic would go towards Central Ottawa not toward Eastern Ottawa. Beside, I have pointed out that interprovincial traffic is declining.

The NCC traffic engineer has themselves said that with Kettle island bridge built the number of trucks in 2031 would be the same as today. I don't want Ontario government to pay for a bridge that would only reroute a small amount of truck traffic. This is a non-factual claim that you make that will only be implemented if the city starts a massive policing surveillance along King Edward. Second off, many of the trucks would pass by Chaudiere Bridge if banned from King Edward.

Now unless you have reason to believe that Roche-NCE were wrong, I hope you will enlighten me.

If interprovincial traffic is declining when there is an increasing population, this points out something. That perhaps the interprovincial links are now inadequate and a lot people don't want to cross the river because the existing bridges don't meet current needs.

It is a total red herring to start bringing up a ferry operator who doesn't want to build a bridge. Since when does the private sector get involved in building bridges on their own? This is a public decision using public tax dollars. It is very difficult for the private sector to cost justify such a thing without charging onerous tolls and that may still not be feasible with free bridges not too far away. You talk about the lack of a need for a bridge between Ottawa and Hawkesbury and you might be right. However, this would be in rural locations. I cannot imagine there not being sufficient traffic for a crossing within the eastern part of the urban area. I have said it before that this is one of the reasons why Orleans has so much difficulty attracting employment. Who wants to work there when the road infrastructure is inadequate.

The issue of 2031 truck traffic not being reduced is not an excuse for doing nothing, and that is now what is on the table. What is not mentioned is that if we don't do anything, the amount of truck traffic running through downtown Ottawa will have increased significantly by 2031. The situation will have gotten much worse than today. And we do have some say on where trucks will be travelling if a new bridge opens.

[JM1]

LRT's Fiend, this sounds like Rocher Genivar/NCC logic. Let me get your argument straight...

If interprovincial traffic is increasing, then we need a bridge to carry the traffic.

But if interprovincial traffic is declining, then it is because we don't have enough connection points and we need a new bridge to make the connection.

So in all cases we need a new bridge.

Congratulations, you could work for the NCC.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If interprovincial traffic is declining when there is an increasing population, this points out something. That perhaps the interprovincial links are now inadequate and a lot people don't want to cross the river because the existing bridges don't meet current needs.

It is a total red herring to start bringing up a ferry operator who doesn't want to build a bridge. Since when does the private sector get involved in building bridges on their own? This is a public decision using public tax dollars. It is very difficult for the private sector to cost justify such a thing without charging onerous tolls and that may still not be feasible with free bridges not too far away. You talk about the lack of a need for a bridge between Ottawa and Hawkesbury and you might be right. However, this would be in rural locations. I cannot imagine there not being sufficient traffic for a crossing within the eastern part of the urban area. I have said it before that this is one of the reasons why Orleans has so much difficulty attracting employment. Who wants to work there when the road infrastructure is inadequate.

The issue of 2031 truck traffic not being reduced is not an excuse for doing nothing, and that is now what is on the table. What is not mentioned is that if we don't do anything, the amount of truck traffic running through downtown Ottawa will have increased significantly by 2031. The situation will have gotten much worse than today. And we do have some say on where trucks will be travelling if a new bridge opens.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by JM1

LRT's Fiend, this sounds like Rocher Genivar/NCC logic. Let me get your argument straight...

If interprovincial traffic is increasing, then we need a bridge to carry the traffic.

But if interprovincial traffic is declining, then it is because we don't have enough connection points and we need a new bridge to make the connection.

So in all cases we need a new bridge.

Congratulations, you could work for the NCC.

It is nice of you to take my comment out of context. I did say that declining traffic does not make sense considering that the population is growing. There has to be an explanation for this. Poor cross river accessibility could be one of those reasons.

[Capital Shaun]

Looks like the bridge is dead. The NCC has backed out.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/sto...vincial-ncc-new-study-kettle-island.html

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

Looks the bridge is dead. The NCC has back out.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/sto...vincial-ncc-new-study-kettle-island.html

Too bad they didn't back down in the early 90s before spending millions on studies.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Too bad they didn't back down in the early 90s before spending millions on studies.

The city and province could have also said no earlier too.

[rocketphish]

‘We don’t know how to proceed,’ NCC admits after province nixes Kettle Island bridge

By Teresa Smith, OTTAWA CITIZEN June 27, 2013 12:46 PM

OTTAWA — When Ontario’s Ministry of Transport said it could not support any plan to build an interprovincial bridge to divert truck traffic away from the MacDonald Cartier corridor, it left a huge problem on the table and a big bill for taxpayers.

The problem: trucks will continue to travel between Quebec and Ontario and the region needs to address the inevitable growth in both traffic and population.

The bill: $7 million.

But with no partner at Queen’s Park for a new bridge, the National Capital Commission decided Thursday it had no choice but to halt its work on a new interprovincial crossing, 80 per cent of the way through.

“We don’t know how to proceed,” Fred Gaspar, the NCC’s director of federal approvals told an NCC board meeting Thursday. The reason, he said, was that as soon as Ontario pulled out, Quebec’s Ministry of Transport said there was no point in going forward given that the project requires all three partners.

With six months left in a two-year process, Gaspar said that he was “very surprised that, not only was MTO not going to support the Kettle Island proposal, but that they weren’t going to support any of the options.”

The $7-million project — of which $6.98 million has already been spent — was about to move into the preliminary design phase when Ontario’s Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, Glen Murray, announced on June 17 the province was no longer interested.

He said instead that, given the significant public opposition to the plan, the province favours a tunnel under King Edward Avenue and the use of public transit.

But, Gaspar said, during phase one of the project between 2006 and 2009, the group had already considered building a tunnel. That option was rejected because of the high cost and the fact that many trucks cannot use tunnels if they are carrying toxic or dangerous substances. It also would not solve the problem of trucks driving through downtown Ottawa, he said.

“The whole idea of doing a dispassionate study like this is to take it out of the hands of politicians who can’t look past the next election,” said NCC chair Russell Mills.

He said the researchers had done their due diligence and that, not only was the Kettle Island plan the least disruptive option, but it was also imperative the project go forward.

“If a bridge is not built, traffic will still increase over the next two decades by 66 per cent,” he said.

“I’m disappointed for people in the area because it’s just going to continue to get worse for them,” said Mills.

“Growth is going to happen and obviously every partner has an obligation to take part in a solution,” said Gaspar, not only because they signed a binding agreement to take part but also because “we are all in this together.”

[email protected]

twitter.com/tsmithjourno
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/know+procee...+bridge/8587317/story.html#ixzz2XR87ceYz

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

...not only was MTO not going to support the Kettle Island proposal, but that they weren’t going to support any of the options.

This is why I hate most politicians. They always think short term (ie. the next election or two). So they don't want Kettle Island for XYZ reasons. OK, then which option(s) is Ottawa & Ontario recommending? Apparently none. Glad I don't live in Lower Town.

[NOWINYOW]

On one hand, the city and province don't support a bridge that would alleviate heavy vehicle traffic from the market area. Then the city supports funding studies to figure out how to make the byward market more viable and sustainable. What if those studies include getting heavy vehicles, and traffic volumes in general, out of the area?
Another waste of money.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by NOWINYOW

On one hand, the city and province don't support a bridge that would alleviate heavy vehicle traffic from the market area. Then the city supports funding studies to figure out how to make the byward market more viable and sustainable. What if those studies include getting heavy vehicles, and traffic volumes in general, out of the area?
Another waste of money.

I'm sorry, what was your point?

[1overcosc]

Whenever I have to drive to Hull I always take the Vanier Parkway and get the bridge from the end of that. Why can't we require trucks to use that route instead? Lots less people live along that route.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Whenever I have to drive to Hull I always take the Vanier Parkway and get the bridge from the end of that. Why can't we require trucks to use that route instead? Lots less people live along that route.

The NIMBYS in New Edingburgh (who don't live on the Vanier pkwy but close to it) might not go for that.

[JM1]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Whenever I have to drive to Hull I always take the Vanier Parkway and get the bridge from the end of that. Why can't we require trucks to use that route instead? Lots less people live along that route.

I believe there is an OMB ruling that prohibits the Vanier parkway from being used for truck traffic (someone correct me if I am wrong).

That said, if it were not for the OMB ruling, the problem with that routing is that there are still right angle turns at both ends of St. Patrick.

If you want to use this route, my suggestion would be to
(1) re-align the St-Patrick bridge on the Rideau so that traffic moved directly from Vanier Parkway onto St-Patrick. This would reduce parkspace south of Beechwood but increase it north of Beechwood. Beechwood would no longer be directly connected to St Patrick, but would meet it at a T-junction (this would increase wait times for those using Beechwood, but would decrease it for those traveling from Vanier Parkway onto St-Patrick.

Rather than have the weird greater than 90 degree turn from St-Patrick onto King Edwards and the hard turn on the MacDonald Cartier approach, you could tunnel under the Chinese Embassy. This tunnel could be quite short and could emerge in what is now Bordeleau Park. Bordeleau Park could be saved by raising it up ontop of a covered approach to the bridge which would only emerge from under an enhanced Bordelau Park near Dalhousie. The top end of King Edward could be closed off and changed into parkland (or could become a two lane connection to Sussex). Lowertown and New Edinburgh would hear less noise because traffic would be tunnelled or buried between the Chinese Embassy and Dalhousie.

Beechwood residents might suffer minor traffic delays, but the benefits would accrue to those traveling interprovincially.

Lowertown wins.
No new bridge is built.
Traffic is buried through neighbourhoods.
Parkland may actually be increased.
Vanier/St Patrick traffic is pushed further away from New Edinburgh.
KERWYN has fewer trucks.

And this route is upgradeable (possibly through a cut and cover operation all along Vanier Parkway and possibly by the addition of a future tunnel (instead of a re-aligned bride) under the Rideau.

Now there are some homes that border Vanier Parkway and they may not agree, but there are increasingly few as they get torn down for apartments and office buildings. There are also those with homes on North River between Montreal Rd and Beechwood that may complain. Otherwise, this would be a pretty solid and inexpensive plan.

[eternallyme]

Seriously, NCC? Maybe 2 to 4% of trucks carry hazardous goods. That is the excuse for not building it? Plus I can't see how it is more expensive than a new bridge + corridor.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by JM1

I believe there is an OMB ruling that prohibits the Vanier parkway from being used for truck traffic (someone correct me if I am wrong).

That said, if it were not for the OMB ruling, the problem with that routing is that there are still right angle turns at both ends of St. Patrick.

If you want to use this route, my suggestion would be to
(1) re-align the St-Patrick bridge on the Rideau so that traffic moved directly from Vanier Parkway onto St-Patrick. This would reduce parkspace south of Beechwood but increase it north of Beechwood. Beechwood would no longer be directly connected to St Patrick, but would meet it at a T-junction (this would increase wait times for those using Beechwood, but would decrease it for those traveling from Vanier Parkway onto St-Patrick.

Rather than have the weird greater than 90 degree turn from St-Patrick onto King Edwards and the hard turn on the MacDonald Cartier approach, you could tunnel under the Chinese Embassy. This tunnel could be quite short and could emerge in what is now Bordeleau Park. Bordeleau Park could be saved by raising it up ontop of a covered approach to the bridge which would only emerge from under an enhanced Bordelau Park near Dalhousie. The top end of King Edward could be closed off and changed into parkland (or could become a two lane connection to Sussex). Lowertown and New Edinburgh would hear less noise because traffic would be tunnelled or buried between the Chinese Embassy and Dalhousie.

Beechwood residents might suffer minor traffic delays, but the benefits would accrue to those traveling interprovincially.

Lowertown wins.
No new bridge is built.
Traffic is buried through neighbourhoods.
Parkland may actually be increased.
Vanier/St Patrick traffic is pushed further away from New Edinburgh.
KERWYN has fewer trucks.

And this route is upgradeable (possibly through a cut and cover operation all along Vanier Parkway and possibly by the addition of a future tunnel (instead of a re-aligned bride) under the Rideau.

Now there are some homes that border Vanier Parkway and they may not agree, but there are increasingly few as they get torn down for apartments and office buildings. There are also those with homes on North River between Montreal Rd and Beechwood that may complain. Otherwise, this would be a pretty solid and inexpensive plan.

Vanier pkwy has less buffer space and more intersections then Aviation pkwy does and you're recommending we run trucks that way instead?

And if the whole road is burried then the local residents will lose their main north-south artery through the area which also connects to the 174/417. There isn't much room, if any to start adding on/off ramps to a burried 4 lane road in that corridor.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Seriously, NCC? Maybe 2 to 4% of trucks carry hazardous goods. That is the excuse for not building it? Plus I can't see how it is more expensive than a new bridge + corridor.

This is the NCC were talking about. If they pegged a bridge at $1B I'd expect the NCC to peg a car/truck tunnel through lowertown at $2B.

And the city of Ottawa isn't gonna spend that kind of money while at the same time spending billions on LRT expansions.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

The city and province could have also said no earlier too.

You're right. It's a three way screw up.

As for the ‘We don’t know how to proceed’ comment, seems to me that the tunnel is the last available option. As far as I can tell, there is no NIMBY opposition and it would permanently solve the truck problem everywhere. There is still the question of trucks with hazardous goods, but those are likely a very small proportion.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

You're right. It's a three way screw up.

As for the ‘We don’t know how to proceed’ comment, seems to me that the tunnel is the last available option. As far as I can tell, there is no NIMBY opposition and it would permanently solve the truck problem everywhere. There is still the question of trucks with hazardous goods, but those are likely a very small proportion.

I haven't really commented on the tunnel in Lower Town option yet.

It doesn't add any connection in the east end but it would help alleviate the truck problem. May as well allow cars through it and you've got an uninterrupted connection between the 174/417 and the A5/A50.

Question now is who would pay for that tunnel?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

I haven't really commented on the tunnel in Lower Town option yet.

It doesn't add any connection in the east end but it would help alleviate the truck problem. May as well allow cars through it and you've got an uninterrupted connection between the 174/417 and the A5/A50.

Question now is who would pay for that tunnel?

Agreed, I too would prefer allowing cars along with the main purpose of getting trucks off the street.

How would we pay for it? Well, the tunnel is an Ottawa solution to an Ottawa problem, so obviously, Québec would not have to contribute. I figure it would cost about the same as the bridge, more $ per km, but much shorter.

The feds and province could split on the tunnel portion with the City paying to rebuilt King Eds as a grand boulevard. I would recommend some sort of fee for truck companies to use the tunnel; buy a year round permit, cost varying according too number of trucks, size and frequency they would use the tunnel.