Interprovincial bridge crossing discussion

[kwoldtimer]

Geez, even I wouldn't portray les Gatzinois that badly ... They'd be dressed in much brighter colours.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by CityTech

The Aviation/417/174 interchange would need some reconfiguration. Currently the Aviation/417 interchange is partial (only westbound exit and eastbound onramp) and there are no ramps at all from 174 to Aviation. Ogilvie has to be used to reach the St Laurent and Blair interchanges on the 417 and 174 for these movements.

That's fine enough for the 174, but not for the 417, IMO. We need ramps added. And that's probably not cheap.

I don't know how many directions you'd need to build access for (perhaps not all of them) but it's not really that prohibitive. Some of the ramps would need overpasses but not all of them. For example, WB 174 to NB Aviation looks like it could be done with a simple berm ramp up to where the Aviation Parkway starts coming off the 417.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I think some type of scenario similar to this is what is most likely to happen if a bridge is ever built.

We've gone through these people's bogeyman arguments and disproved them a gazillion times before on here.

It's nonetheless interesting how on the one hand it is said the bridge is "useless" and not needed, but in the same breath it will almost certainly lead to traffic armageddon on the streets (especially residential) of east end Ottawa.

So which one is it gonna be?

(BTW I am not really an adamant supporter of this bridge. I'd rather see improvements to access routes to the M-C bridge, either via a tunnel under western Sandy Hill and Lower Town, or a Vanier Parkway extension northward.)

It is needed for Gatineau to Ottawa commuters. Those on the east end of Gatineau commuting to downtown will find it a good route to avoid the 50 westbound. To go to DFAIT, Byward Market, Rideau Centre etc along with points further west for some they will use Hemlock, Montreal Road.

There is no need for extra capacity on any of the bridges for any Ottawa residents commuting to Gatineau. The only traffic of any sort you see in this commute is when you get caught up with regular Ottawa traffic or reverse traffic in Gatineau. coming off the MC bridge and having to fight with those merging off the 50 for example or getting on to the 5 towards Ottawa which is backed up because the 50 is so backed up it is onto the 5 back to Galleries de Hull.

I don't mean to pit one side against the other but when something is proposed that only benefits one side splitting the cost is a bit crazy.

As a de facto start of a ring road it also encourages sprawl and auto-centric development and habits.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

It is needed for Gatineau to Ottawa commuters. Those on the east end of Gatineau commuting to downtown will find it a good route to avoid the 50 westbound. To go to DFAIT, Byward Market, Rideau Centre etc along with points further west for some they will use Hemlock, Montreal Road.

There is no need for extra capacity on any of the bridges for any Ottawa residents commuting to Gatineau. The only traffic of any sort you see in this commute is when you get caught up with regular Ottawa traffic or reverse traffic in Gatineau. coming off the MC bridge and having to fight with those merging off the 50 for example or getting on to the 5 towards Ottawa which is backed up because the 50 is so backed up it is onto the 5 back to Galleries de Hull.

I don't mean to pit one side against the other but when something is proposed that only benefits one side splitting the cost is a bit crazy.

As a de facto start of a ring road it also encourages sprawl and auto-centric development and habits.

The tunnel alternative will almost certainly get 0% funding from Gatineau and Quebec and costs double. Which is the best choice especially for Ottawa taxpayers?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

It is needed for Gatineau to Ottawa commuters. Those on the east end of Gatineau commuting to downtown will find it a good route to avoid the 50 westbound. To go to DFAIT, Byward Market, Rideau Centre etc along with points further west for some they will use Hemlock, Montreal Road.
.

This could be avoided by not having any on or off access points until Montreal and Ogilvie roads, so no access to the Rockcliffe Parkway towards downtown and no access to Hemlock either.

I live not too far from Montée Paiement and looking at a map and knowing what rush hour traffic is like I'd never take a new bridge + Montreal Road and Rideau St. to get to downtown Ottawa. Over the 50, or Maloney or Fournier? Never.

Unless of course a tractor trailer overturned and completely blocked all three lanes of the 50 and everything was at a standstill. But how often does that happen?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't know how many directions you'd need to build access for (perhaps not all of them) but it's not really that prohibitive. Some of the ramps would need overpasses but not all of them. For example, WB 174 to NB Aviation looks like it could be done with a simple berm ramp up to where the Aviation Parkway starts coming off the 417.

You would definitely want access to/from the 417 East and 174. Access to the 417 West would be nice, but would be difficult. A bypass from the 417 to the 416 would probably be cheaper and provide other benefits.

Originally Posted by Acajack

This could be avoided by not having any on or off access points until Montreal and Ogilvie roads, so no access to the Rockcliffe Parkway towards downtown and no access to Hemlock either.

But the NIMBYs would also oppose the closure of the ramps to Hemlock, because they will want easy access to the SGÉC Pkwy (and the new bridge).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by roger1818

But the NIMBYs would also oppose the closure of the ramps to Hemlock, because they will want easy access to the SGÉC Pkwy (and the new bridge).

Well they can't have it both ways (literally)!

[lrt's friend]

But the NIMBYs would also oppose the closure of the ramps to Hemlock, because they will want easy access to the SGÉC Pkwy (and the new bridge).

Nothing like a double standard. It is not impossible to have on ramps without off ramps and an alternate local access to the parkway.

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

So you live in Eastern Ottawa and frequently go to eastern Gatineau? There must be like 20 people fitting this description.

Destroyed is of course hyperbole but Manor Park will be swamped by traffic from this proposal. The Rockcliffe Parkway will become total gridlock. It will certainly hurt more peoples commutes than vice versa. I commuted to Gatineau for several years and there certainly isn't a need for more capacity in that direction. Even from Rockland to almost anywhere in Gatineau where there is employment you would be better off continuing to the 5. Well after this it might make sense as the west bound routes will be so much worse in Ottawa.

If we are going to spend a $Billion linking Gatineau and Ottawa let's link their rapid transit systems.

I frequently travel between Gatineau and Orleans. A lot of people do, especially French people traveling between the two French population centres in the region.

'Manor Park will be swamped by traffic from this proposal.'. How would Manor Park even be affected aside from a little noise?!? You can barely even see the neighbourhood from the raised Aviation Parkway that is completely separated from the neighbourhood by grading and a forest. Also, presumably, they would install noise barriers if it became a major thoroughfare. The Rockcliffe Parkway would not be the main source of leadup traffic to the bridge, the 417/Current Aviation Parkway would be the desirable route coming from anywhere but the local neighbourhoods. A long straight leadup with only four roads crossing it between the 417 and the bridge. We don't have a better more practical leadup to a bridge in this city, not even close.

'I commuted to Gatineau for several years and there certainly isn't a need for more capacity in that direction.' The waits to get on the 50 Eastbound and Fournier from the Macdonald Cartier bridge in rush hour are some of the worst waits in the city. There is nothing BUT need for more capacity in that direction.

'Even from Rockland to almost anywhere in Gatineau where there is employment you would be better off continuing to the 5'. I travel between the Ottawa and Gatineau side at least twice every day and 'continuing to the 5' is hardly ever a 'better off' option. I spend more time getting from the 417 to the Macdonald Cartier bridge than anywhere else on the roads in this city. It's a disaster. I would bypass that mess when coming from anywhere East of the Rideau by taking the new bridge.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Harley613

I frequently travel between Gatineau and Orleans. A lot of people do, especially French people traveling between the two French population centres in the region.

'Manor Park will be swamped by traffic from this proposal.'. How would Manor Park even be affected aside from a little noise?!? You can barely even see the neighbourhood from the raised Aviation Parkway that is completely separated from the neighbourhood by grading and a forest. Also, presumably, they would install noise barriers if it became a major thoroughfare. The Rockcliffe Parkway would not be the main source of leadup traffic to the bridge, the 417/Current Aviation Parkway would be the desirable coming from anywhere but the local neighbourhoods. A long straight leadup with only four roads crossing it between the 417 and the bridge. We don't have a better more practical leadup to a bridge in this city, not even close.

'I commuted to Gatineau for several years and there certainly isn't a need for more capacity in that direction.' The waits to get on the 50 Eastbound and Fournier from the Mackenzie King bridge in rush hour are some of the worst waits in the city. There is nothing BUT need for more capacity in that direction.

'Even from Rockland to almost anywhere in Gatineau where there is employment you would be better off continuing to the 5'. I travel between the Ottawa and Gatineau side at least twice every day and 'continuing to the 5' is hardly ever a 'better off' option. I spend more time getting from the 417 to the Mackenzie King bridge than anywhere else on the roads in this city. It's a disaster. I would bypass that mess when coming from anywhere East of the Rideau by taking the new bridge.

I think you mean the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge, but I get your points.

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I think you mean the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge, but I get your points.

I did mean Macdonald-Cartier. Mackenzie King...haha what was I thinking?!

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by roger1818

You would definitely want access to/from the 417 East and 174. Access to the 417 West would be nice, but would be difficult. A bypass from the 417 to the 416 would probably be cheaper and provide other benefits.



But the NIMBYs would also oppose the closure of the ramps to Hemlock, because they will want easy access to the SGÉC Pkwy (and the new bridge).

I don't recall any objections from the community during the last go-round.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Perhaps the proper word is mitigation?

That is a better word.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

This is not soley a nimby issue. The $billion plus dollars can be used a lot better elsewhere. The truck issue is a distraction to try and make it look like this bridge has any benefit to the Ottawa side. It would divert only essentially the growth in truck traffic. A truck a minute or every 3 won't make much difference. No trucks to a truck every 5 will impact Aviation Parkway residents. If it was free, and I don't mean the feds paying, sure let's not let one area loudly protest and block the project. But we get almost no benefit, destroy one neighbourhood and within a few years the additional growth in eastern Gatineau will make the whole east end worse off than it is now.

We need to remove all trucks that have no business downtown. It is absolutely ridiculous, and dangerous, to have all these trucks snake through downtown as they are today. I support one new bridge, not two as has been floated around recently, mainly to remove truck traffic from downtown and restore King Edward to a 4 lane boulevard. I could alternatively support a tunnel, if it is deemed the best option (but no roundabout at Vanier and the Queensway).

I do understand your point, that the money should instead go to transit, but as it stands we only have the Hull-Aylmer Tram and O-Train Stage 3 which are likely to happen regardless.

Originally Posted by Harley613

Total bull. As a driver I would use this bridge frequently, in fact I would have used it twice today. I don't see any neighbourhoods that would be 'destroyed' by the bridge and Gatineau is in the process of building a 'downtown' right at the end of the bridge. The Alexandra bridge will take years to replace as they can't build the new bridge next to it. There has never been a better time to start constructing a new crossing, we will be in a tough jam with only four bridges in a few years when that happens.

And that is another very compelling reason to get going on this new bridge: the Alexandra is an essential link that will be lost for years and this new bridge can compensate, at least partially. The cycling and pedestrian improvements to Chaudière, along with the PoW MUP plan can help on the active transportation side of things.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Ironically the M-C bridge itself is not at capacity. It's the approaches to it on either side of the river that are performing sub-optimally.

Agreed. I have said it before, but the M-C bridge is overbuilt. It is a 6 lane bridge with a 4 lane highway on one side and city streets on the other. Even if a tunnel was built, the A-5 would need to be widened to 6 lanes to meet the capacity of the bridge. Is that what we really want in our downtowns? Personally, I would like to see the M-C bridge narrowed to 4 lanes (finding a good alternate use for the other lanes) and move the traffic that isn't destined to either downtown Ottawa or Hull to another bridge.

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I don't recall any objections from the community during the last go-round.

Did they propose closing the Hemlock interchange last time around? An honest question, as I don't know.

One way to keep the Hemlock interchange open but not close the interchange would be to build a new road to directly connect (without any interchanges) the bridge to the aviation parkway, just south of the Hemlock merge point.

There would still be the issue of Montreal Rd, but that would be a significant detour for those headed downtown, and unlikely a viable route option. If it was a concern, they could keep the traffic to/from the bridge barricaded in separate lanes and build an overpass.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by roger1818

There would still be the issue of Montreal Rd, but that would be a significant detour for those headed downtown, and unlikely a viable route option. If it was a concern, they could keep the traffic to/from the bridge barricaded in separate lanes and build an overpass.

I definitely think they'd want to have good access in all directions at Montreal Road. I think the main rationale for the bridge is to get Gatineau industrial area to Ottawa industrial area traffic off KE, but it's foolish to think there won't be commuter usage and that means at least some passenger vehicles leaving Aviation at Montreal Road to go to Montfort, Cité collégiale, NRC, CMHC, etc.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I definitely think they'd want to have good access in all directions at Montreal Road. I think the main rationale for the bridge is to get Gatineau industrial area to Ottawa industrial area traffic off KE, but it's foolish to think there won't be commuter usage and that means at least some passenger vehicles leaving Aviation at Montreal Road to go to Montfort, Cité collégiale, NRC, CMHC, etc.

The Montfort and La Cité collégiale have direct connections to the Aviation Parkway, so no need to use Montreal Rd. I do agree that there should be access to Montreal Rd though. For people going to any of the destination you listed from the Quebec side, having a Kettle Island bridge would actually reduce traffic on local streets in nearby communities as it would get them much closer to their destination before switching to city streets.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Agreed. I have said it before, but the M-C bridge is overbuilt. It is a 6 lane bridge with a 4 lane highway on one side and city streets on the other. Even if a tunnel was built, the A-5 would need to be widened to 6 lanes to meet the capacity of the bridge. Is that what we really want in our downtowns? Personally, I would like to see the M-C bridge narrowed to 4 lanes (finding a good alternate use for the other lanes) and move the traffic that isn't destined to either downtown Ottawa or Hull to another bridge.



Did they propose closing the Hemlock interchange last time around? An honest question, as I don't know.

One way to keep the Hemlock interchange open but not close the interchange would be to build a new road to directly connect (without any interchanges) the bridge to the aviation parkway, just south of the Hemlock merge point.

There would still be the issue of Montreal Rd, but that would be a significant detour for those headed downtown, and unlikely a viable route option. If it was a concern, they could keep the traffic to/from the bridge barricaded in separate lanes and build an overpass.

Iirc, it was more "Plan B" discussion within the neighbourhood than anything formal, as the "official" position was no bridge.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I definitely think they'd want to have good access in all directions at Montreal Road. I think the main rationale for the bridge is to get Gatineau industrial area to Ottawa industrial area traffic off KE, but it's foolish to think there won't be commuter usage and that means at least some passenger vehicles leaving Aviation at Montreal Road to go to Montfort, Cité collégiale, NRC, CMHC, etc.

The problem would be with westbound traffic rather than eastbound, no?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

The problem would be with westbound traffic rather than eastbound, no?

That's what is being argued but I think that's a bogeyman. I'd say hardly anyone is going to take this new bridge from Gatineau to Aviation to Montreal Road westbound, to access anywhere that's west of the Rideau River.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

That's what is being argued but I think that's a bogeyman. I'd say hardly anyone is going to take this new bridge from Gatineau to Aviation to Montreal Road westbound, to access anywhere that's west of the Rideau River.

I may be mis-remembering but I believe the traffic study used to choose the location said otherwise. East of the bridge or even just west of it would save time over lots of routes. Carleton and points south for sure, DFAIT and Byward Market and I would argue even Centretown which is a very quick drive from points on Hemlock right now. You could argue it would be the fastest route to Portage though of course the increase in traffic might negate that route. I had a girlfriend who lived in Manor Park and I could make it to the side streets this side of Portage usually in 15 minutes.