Interprovincial bridge crossing discussion

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Hard to tell. The biggest obstacles (the late MP who lived close to the parkway and the former provincial government) are no longer there.

The proposed Ontario side bridge landings are one Liberal stronghold (Ottawa-Vanier) and a Liberal-Conservative battleground (Ottawa-Orléans).

For Ottawa-Vanier, we could argue that they will vote Liberal regardless and so the Feds (be it a Conservative or Liberal government) can ignore them and their grievances completely and it won't change a thing. We could also theorize that Liberal Feds would want to "reward them" for their loyalty (which is unlikely: in politics, loyalty usually results in neglect. Case-in-point Gatineau and the provincial liberals. The CAQ seems to be more willing to act so far). For Ottawa-Orléans, it's a risky move because a bridge at either Kettle Island or Lower-Duck Island will increase traffic on their end of the 417/174.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The proposed Ontario side bridge landings are one Liberal stronghold (Ottawa-Vanier) and a Liberal-Conservative battleground (Ottawa-Orléans).

For Ottawa-Vanier, we could argue that they will vote Liberal regardless and so the Feds (be it a Conservative or Liberal government) can ignore them and their grievances completely and it won't change a thing. We could also theorize that Liberal Feds would want to "reward them" for their loyalty (which is unlikely: in politics, loyalty usually results in neglect. Case-in-point Gatineau and the provincial liberals. The CAQ seems to be more willing to act so far). For Ottawa-Orléans, it's a risky move because a bridge at either Kettle Island or Lower-Duck Island will increase traffic on their end of the 417/174.

There is zero percent chance Ottawa-Vanier is at risk and the number of people affected in Ottawa-Vanier could be quite small (depending on mitigation measures and whether any of the cross streets have interchanges). On the other hand, a new bridge (even if not at the preferred location from a Gatineau perspective) would be popular on the other side of the river. I agree that people in Orleans might be concerned about more traffic West of the split, but that doesn't seem like an issue that would get most people fired up.

[CityTech]

^ Agreed. The way it looks now, the political calculus for the federal government is in favour of a new bridge. And I doubt the provincial government cares much either way, it's pretty detached from Ottawa, for better and for worse. A change of federal government in October could muck with things, but we shall see.

I am well aware of how politically toxic this is, but I really think we should put tolls on the bridges. Electronic tolls, and tiny ones. Like $1 a crossing. Maybe each license plate gets to cross 10 times a year for free ($0.00 charge for first 10 crossings, then $1.00 after that), to avoid deterring tourists and the like. A 30 year loan against the revenue stream can help pay for a new bridge (I doubt it would fully pay for it, but it could really go a long way).

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by CityTech

^ Agreed. The way it looks now, the political calculus for the federal government is in favour of a new bridge. And I doubt the provincial government cares much either way, it's pretty detached from Ottawa, for better and for worse. A change of federal government in October could muck with things, but we shall see.

I am well aware of how politically toxic this is, but I really think we should put tolls on the bridges. Electronic tolls, and tiny ones. Like $1 a crossing. Maybe each license plate gets to cross 10 times a year for free ($0.00 charge for first 10 crossings, then $1.00 after that), to avoid deterring tourists and the like. A 30 year loan against the revenue stream can help pay for a new bridge (I doubt it would fully pay for it, but it could really go a long way).

Neutral doesn't equal funding a third of it. This serves no purpose for Ontario so likely will never be built. It's not NIMBY, well it is to some extent, but simple cost benefit. Moving trucks out of downtown is of marginal interest but the real purpose to help Gatineau commuters is incompatible with that goal.

[Wooderson]

All the closures this summer may have a (hopefully lasting) impact on public opinion. I heard many comments about needing a new bridge sprinkled into the endless complaining over the past few months at work. Maybe the poor planning was strategic!

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Neutral doesn't equal funding a third of it. This serves no purpose for Ontario so likely will never be built. It's not NIMBY, well it is to some extent, but simple cost benefit. Moving trucks out of downtown is of marginal interest but the real purpose to help Gatineau commuters is incompatible with that goal.

That's another reason why tolling is a good idea; it makes things fairer by putting a proper price on interprovincial sprawl. Right now Gatinois basically get a free ride on Ottawa's infrastructure because it's all either city or province owned, so tolling would fix that problem.

[Acajack]

Tolls will be a really tough sell politically. Though this would be a new, extra crossing so maybe...

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Tolls will be a really tough sell politically. Though this would be a new, extra crossing so maybe...

Yeah and pointless unless you add to all the crossings. Better just to congestion charge at then entrance to the city in four directions.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Neutral doesn't equal funding a third of it. This serves no purpose for Ontario so likely will never be built. It's not NIMBY, well it is to some extent, but simple cost benefit. Moving trucks out of downtown is of marginal interest but the real purpose to help Gatineau commuters is incompatible with that goal.

The NCC is now responsible for inter-provincial, so it's likely the Feds would pay the entire cost. I believe the new Champlain Bridge in Montréal was fully funded by the Feds as well, but I was unable to find confirmation online.

The Sandy Hill tunnel would require Provincial financial support and therefore highly improbable it will get off the ground, especially considering it is in an NDP/Liberal battleground.

As for tolls, it is quite hard to justify today with the disconnected transit service we currently have. If/when the Aylmer/Plateau LRT is built, then we could start having that conversation. If the Feds were to one day take over transit for the entire region, bridge tolls would then become much more realistic.

In any case, we could start with a charge to cross the new bridge and force any truck traffic with no business downtown to use said bridge.

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

In any case, we could start with a charge to cross the new bridge and force any truck traffic with no business downtown to use said bridge.

Great idea!

[lrt's friend]

Why would we impose tolls on a new bridge if one of our goals is to re-route traffic away from downtown? Any new bridge within the urban area needs to include exclusive transit lanes.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Why would we impose tolls on a new bridge if one of our goals is to re-route traffic away from downtown? Any new bridge within the urban area needs to include exclusive transit lanes.

Forcing truck traffic with no business downtown is a big part of it. Making the tolls low enough so that the bridge is cheaper than the downtown detour for passenger vehicles is another.

Absolutely, the new bridge should have a transit component. Like the new Champlain, it should have grade-separated transit lanes (only with buses, convertible to rail and not rail from the start like Champlain) as part of a new BRT corridor connecting the RapiBus with the Confederation Line.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Forcing truck traffic with no business downtown is a big part of it. Making the tolls low enough so that the bridge is cheaper than the downtown detour for passenger vehicles is another.

Absolutely, the new bridge should have a transit component. Like the new Champlain, it should have grade-separated transit lanes (only with buses, convertible to rail and not rail from the start like Champlain) as part of a new BRT corridor connecting the RapiBus with the Confederation Line.

It really depends on the alignment of new bridge. The REM tracks on Montreal's Champlain bridge (I assume you weren't talking about Ottawa's Champlain bridge) will head straight downtown to Central Station. I can't imagine any aliment for a new bridge in Ottawa that would allow direct access to either downtown Ottawa or Hull. As a result, it will end up being a suburb to suburb bridge, which should have some bus service, but I can't imagine it being frequent enough to justify bus only lanes.

Having said that, there is a strong argument for HOV lanes, which can also be used by buses.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by CityTech

I am well aware of how politically toxic this is, but I really think we should put tolls on the bridges. Electronic tolls, and tiny ones. Like $1 a crossing. Maybe each license plate gets to cross 10 times a year for free ($0.00 charge for first 10 crossings, then $1.00 after that), to avoid deterring tourists and the like. A 30 year loan against the revenue stream can help pay for a new bridge (I doubt it would fully pay for it, but it could really go a long way).

Tolls on the bridge are only justifiable as part of a broader congestion control effort that has tolling for entry either into the greenbelt or just the downtown core. Any plan that doesn't have tolls elsewhere in Ottawa will be seen as an attack on Gatineau residents.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by roger1818

It really depends on the alignment of new bridge. The REM tracks on Montreal's Champlain bridge (I assume you weren't talking about Ottawa's Champlain bridge) will head straight downtown to Central Station. I can't imagine any aliment for a new bridge in Ottawa that would allow direct access to either downtown Ottawa or Hull. As a result, it will end up being a suburb to suburb bridge, which should have some bus service, but I can't imagine it being frequent enough to justify bus only lanes.

Having said that, there is a strong argument for HOV lanes, which can also be used by buses.

Yup! I was referring to the new Champlain in Montréal.

The new BRT line would not connect to downtown however, if we end up building the preferred Kettle Island route, a few major destinations could be served:

• Secteur La Cité in Gatineau and RapiBus;
• Canadian Space and Aviation Museum;
• Water Ridge Village;
• Montfort Hospital;
• CMHC;
• Collège La Cité;
• Blair Station.

Don't know how we would solve the "de la Cité" and "La Cité" conundrum, but we could figure it out.

Should we ever build a Montreal Road subway, we could look into possible conversion and inter-lining.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Tolls on the bridge are only justifiable as part of a broader congestion control effort that has tolling for entry either into the greenbelt or just the downtown core. Any plan that doesn't have tolls elsewhere in Ottawa will be seen as an attack on Gatineau residents.

I would support a peak period downtown congestion charge for all incoming traffic to the core but I think a toll applied to the interprovincial border only is justifiable for the following reasons:
1) The border is a significant traffic choke point that is both expensive and difficult to expand because of geography
2) because Gatinois are not Ontario residents they are not paying provincial taxes that support infrastructure in Ottawa

On point 2 a toll for non Ottawans in Ontario coming in from Rockland, Arnprior, etc would make sense, but at least those residents pay provincial taxes.

[Acajack]

The feds would likely object to interprovincial tolls at a minimum, citing the need for unimpeded access for employees to workplaces on either side of the river.

I don't work in Ottawa but if tolls were put on all the bridges when arriving in Ontario I would support equally high or higher tolls when arriving in Québec. I would even agitate for that.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The feds would likely object to interprovincial tolls at a minimum, citing the need for unimpeded access for employees to workplaces on either side of the river.

I don't work in Ottawa but if tolls were put on all the bridges when arriving in Ontario I would support equally high or higher tolls when arriving in Québec. I would even agitate for that.

Needless to say. Same toll should apply when crossing the bridge(s) in either direction.

If we ever implement a full congestion charge for the central area, the entire Island of Hull would be within the charge zone in Québec while the limits in Ottawa would be the Ottawa River, the Trillium Line and the Rideau River around Lowertown Island (Ottawa South, East, Sandy Hill and Lowertown). That said, congestion charges should not be considered until we have a complete rapid transit system, which is likely 50 years down the line.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Neutral doesn't equal funding a third of it. This serves no purpose for Ontario so likely will never be built. It's not NIMBY, well it is to some extent, but simple cost benefit. Moving trucks out of downtown is of marginal interest but the real purpose to help Gatineau commuters is incompatible with that goal.

Most inter-provincial bridges are owned and operated by the federal government. The provinces would normally be expected to jointly fund the access road.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The new BRT line would not connect to downtown however, if we end up building the preferred Kettle Island route, a few major destinations could be served:

• Secteur La Cité in Gatineau and RapiBus;
• Canadian Space and Aviation Museum;
• Water Ridge Village;
• Montfort Hospital;
• CMHC;
• Collège La Cité;
• Blair Station.

Don't know how we would solve the "de la Cité" and "La Cité" conundrum, but we could figure it out.

Should we ever build a Montreal Road subway, we could look into possible conversion and inter-lining.

I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be bus service, just that I don't see the demand (and thus frequency) being high enough to warrant dedicated bus lanes. As I said, there is a much stronger argument for HOV lanes, which could also be used by buses.