Interprovincial bridge crossing discussion

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

With neither city intersted in another bridge, how is this likely to play out?

Good Day.

DuckIsland plays out as a 5 to 10 year time frame EA and project approval to be built by the time 8 to 12 years have passed, and the Alexandra MUST be replaced.
DI would then be taking a (small, but provides alternatives) chunk of traffic load from the Alexandra for the 3 to 5 years that it takes to build after it's EA and design starting in the next 2 to 4 years.

DuckIsland will get political approval to proceed to an EA and design sometime in the next 2 years, as will the Alexandra replacement, as a fait-accompli to git-'em-dun.

Truck traffic on MC-KE will then be analysed with and from the viewpoint of that set of bridges being parsed out for legally-bound truck routes .vs. car and commuter and transit routes.

FWIW.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

With neither city intersted in another bridge, how is this likely to play out?

Two options; either the Feds shove it down the Cities through or they assign someone to sell the bridge. Steve Mackinnon is absolute garbage when it comes to being champion for the bridge. His only reasoning for the bridge is "we need it". Since it was announced Alexandra needs to be replaced, "we need it more".

We can't just talk about the bridge as it's own project. We have to sell it as an overall benefit to the region. 1. Remove truck traffic from downtown, because Watson is delusional if he still thinks the tunnel will ever get built (what the hell is going on with that anyway?) 2. For Gatineau, provide an Alexandra Bridge exclusive RoW for the Tramway loop. 3. By removing traffic from Alexandra, it clears-up the Market as part of the Public Realm project. 4. For Ottawa, King Edward can be transformed back to a tree lined boulevard. 5 For Gatineau, clear the mega 5/50 interchange to provide more park land and development space. 5. For both, narrow MC to 4 lanes in order to add cycling lanes and wider sidewalks.

Steve Mackinnon is useless and we need someone who can step in and present an overall vision to transform mobility in the centre of our region. That also includes PoW as a pedestrian/cycling/rail bridge.

The NCC has a second study on the go around overall interprovincial mobility. Hopefully, that will help change people's minds.

With all of that said, if the Conservatives come into power at any time over the next 10 years, we'll be back to square 1.

[kwoldtimer]

I’ve been assuming that the tunnel idea was dead and that this was why we were back to another bridge proposal.

[J.OT13]

The tunnel idea isn't officially dead. Like a lot of big projects, they just stopped talking about it. At times, Watson mentions it in passing as a reasoning to oppose the bridge, but he hasn't done that in a while (maybe a year?).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Two options; either the Feds shove it down the Cities through or they assign someone to sell the bridge. Steve Mackinnon is absolute garbage when it comes to being champion for the bridge. His only reasoning for the bridge is "we need it". Since it was announced Alexandra needs to be replaced, "we need it more".

We can't just talk about the bridge as it's own project. We have to sell it as an overall benefit to the region. 1. Remove truck traffic from downtown, because Watson is delusional if he still thinks the tunnel will ever get built (what the hell is going on with that anyway?) 2. For Gatineau, provide an Alexandra Bridge exclusive RoW for the Tramway loop. 3. By removing traffic from Alexandra, it clears-up the Market as part of the Public Realm project. 4. For Ottawa, King Edward can be transformed back to a tree lined boulevard. 5 For Gatineau, clear the mega 5/50 interchange to provide more park land and development space. 5. For both, narrow MC to 4 lanes in order to add cycling lanes and wider sidewalks.

Steve Mackinnon is useless and we need someone who can step in and present an overall vision to transform mobility in the centre of our region. That also includes PoW as a pedestrian/cycling/rail bridge.

The NCC has a second study on the go around overall interprovincial mobility. Hopefully, that will help change people's minds.

With all of that said, if the Conservatives come into power at any time over the next 10 years, we'll be back to square 1.

They don’t need to “shove it down the cities” Watson will do whatever his talking points from Liberal HQ says. The number of people actually affected by this project is in the dozens, with a few hundred more who think they are affected but won’t even notice if the thing is built.

[Dengler Avenue]

What do we do once we reach Gatineau side though? Do we ram it through Lac Beauchamp?? Dumping truck traffic onto the residential streets there will be worse than keeping it on King Edward Street, right?

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

What do we do once we reach Gatineau side though? Do we ram it through Lac Beauchamp?? Dumping truck traffic onto the residential streets there will be worse than keeping it on King Edward Street, right?

Good Day.

Gatineau and Quebec had and have already identified Lorrain 366 as a designated truck route,
and the landing past the treatment plant and transit to the 50 was already well developed, with the 50 intersection set for reconfiguration.

For them, it was going to be a done deal if DuckIsland was chosen.

IIRC.

[rocketphish]

In case there's anything different, here's the CBC article:

NCC steers clear of picking location for 6th interprovincial span
Technical studies complete, but as for where, they'll cross that bridge when they come to it

Kate Porter · CBC News
Posted: Jun 25, 2020 4:44 PM ET | Last Updated: June 25

The National Capital Commission (NCC) is steering clear of recommending a location for a sixth interprovincial crossing, at least for now.

Instead, the NCC told its board Thursday that it will look for government direction before it wades further into the controversial issue.

In its 2019 budget, the federal government asked the NCC to refresh its technical studies on the project. The directive came as a surprise to many who thought the idea of another span between Ottawa and Gatineau was dead in the water.

The NCC updated eight technical studies as directed, but said it wasn't tasked with choosing any one location. The technical studies do rank the Lower Duck site slightly higher than the Kettle Island site, which proved controversial when it emerged as top choice in 2013.

The Lower Duck site would require less land and attract more traffic away from other bridges, according to the studies.



"A billion-dollar bridge is not a priority for us. There's very little support amongst elected officials on the Ottawa side for a bridge," said Mayor Jim Watson, is a non-voting member of the NCC board.

"We're dealing with significant challenges in public transit funding and alternative modes of transportation. Those dollars could be better invested and better spent."

The NCC will now embark on a long-term plan to improve transportation between the two cities. The plan will take into account travel patterns and the impact of COVID-19, including the possibility that more people in the region will be working from home in the future.

<snip>

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ncc-board-lebreton-bridge-gatineau-transit-1.5626930

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day.

Gatineau and Quebec had and have already identified Lorrain 366 as a designated truck route,
and the landing past the treatment plant and transit to the 50 was already well developed, with the 50 intersection set for reconfiguration.

For them, it was going to be a done deal if DuckIsland was chosen.

IIRC.

Lorrain would be pretty tight for this level of truck traffic though. It has several curves plus for much of it houses are very close to the narrow two lane roadway, the former main street of an old village.

Paiement is much better suited.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Lorrain would be pretty tight for this level of truck traffic though. It has several curves plus for much of it houses are very close to the narrow two lane roadway, the former main street of an old village.

Paiement is much better suited.

I tend to agree. Regardless of designation, Boulevard Lorrain is a 2 lane residential street, where as Montée Paiement is already a 4 lane highway between the 148 and the A-50.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I tend to agree. Regardless of designation, Boulevard Lorrain is a 2 lane residential street, where as Montée Paiement is already a 4 lane highway between the 148 and the A-50.

That was my concern too: Putting it through Boulevard Lorrain will be worse than through King Edward Boulevard.

[acottawa]

Lorain seems to be the corridor for option 6, kettle island is still the preferred route, AFAIK.

[acottawa]

But Lorain is mostly 1950s, low density bungalows. A proper corridor could be fairly easily expropriated.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by acottawa

But Lorain is mostly 1950s, low density bungalows. A proper corridor could be fairly easily expropriated.

This describes Labrosse way more than Lorrain.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This describes Labrosse way more than Lorrain.

The street mostly looks like this? I think I drove on it once, so I am relying in google.

https://goo.gl/maps/gr3TzhPnTs5P96Lj9

[roger1818]

And here it is from the horse's mouth (I find the media will often misinterpret things or omits critical details):

Interprovincial Crossings: Refresh of Technical Studies

News Release

Published on June 25, 2020


The National Capital Commission (NCC) today presented its Board of Directors the technical findings from the refresh of the 2013 technical studies on three potential corridors for a sixth interprovincial crossing between the cities of Ottawa and Gatineau.

As mandated in the 2019 federal budget, the purpose of the work was to refresh technical studies previously undertaken by the NCC to address new transportation data, updated air quality modelling techniques, land use and property plans, and other socio-economic data. It does not include a recommendation for a specific corridor.

The refresh of the 2013 studies considered only technical elements of a potential sixth interprovincial crossing. It pertained to eight technical reports on the following three interprovincial crossing locations that were previously identified as having the most potential:

• Kettle Island (Corridor 5), which extends from Highway 50 and along Montée Paiement in Gatineau, connects at the Aviation Parkway in Ottawa, and extends to Highway 417.
• Lower Duck Island (Corridor 6), which extends from Highway 50 and along Lorrain Boulevard in Gatineau, and connects at Highway 174 at the Montreal Road ramp.
• McLaurin Bay (Corridor 7), which extends from Highway 50 and along a new road located east of the Gatineau airport, and meets the Corridor 6 alignment for the Ottawa side.

These refreshed technical studies will inform any future considerations of this project. Further planning work would include an impact assessment that provides for comprehensive consultation with the public and stakeholders, as well as leveraging the results of the long-term integrated interprovincial crossing plan.

Long-term integrated interprovincial crossing plan

As per Budget 2019, the NCC is developing a long-term integrated interprovincial crossing plan that will confirm the vision, policies and infrastructure priorities for sustainable interprovincial travel for the 2050 planning horizon.

This plan will be a comprehensive blueprint to support integrated and coordinated multi-modal interprovincial transportation decision making by the City of Ottawa and Ville de Gatineau, the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and the federal government. This work is therefore being undertaken in collaboration with these partners.

The plan will consider major mobility trends, long-term transportation needs and the plans of municipal partners, as well as major societal trends such as climate change and types of future mobility. The impacts of COVID-19 on regional transportation behaviour will also be considered in its development.

The NCC recognizes the importance of the role that key stakeholders and the public play in interprovincial transportation, and is committed to develop and conduct comprehensive engagement and consultations. A first round of public consultations is expected to begin in September 2020.

More information will be available soon.

Backgrounder – Summary of Findings
Interprovincial Crossings – Refresh of Technical Studies

The goal of the refresh was to update eight environmental and technical reports from 2013. The studies that were refreshed pertain to three corridors found to have the highest potential for a crossing prior to 2013.

The following is a summary of the findings.

Transportation Study

• Major findings remain largely unchanged from previous analysis
  
• C5 found to attract the most transit trips
• C6 found to attract the most traffic to new bridge as well as away from existing bridges
• C5 found to attract the most truck trips

Noise and Vibration Report

• Consistent with 2013 findings
• C7 to have the least impact

Air Quality Report

• Consistent with 2013 findings
• C5 expected to have the lowest concentration of pollutants, followed by C7 then C6

Land Use and Property Report

• C6 found to impact the least area, marginally followed by C5 and C7
• 2013 report C5 had the smallest area of impact

Economic Development Potential Study

• Consistent with 2013 findings
• C7 has the most potential for new jobs

Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Report

• Relatively unchanged

Natural Environment Report and Addendum

• C5 and C6 found to have the least constraints
• Both present moderate constraints

Indigenous History Report

• No constraints with any corridor

Media Information:
Mario Tremblay
NCC Media Relations
613-859-9596
[email protected]

https://ncc-ccn.gc.ca/news/interprovincial-crossings-refresh-of-technical-studies

[YOWetal]

With the twinning of the 50 being accelareted does a bridge, especially the ones further east, become the main route from Ottawa to Montreal and points east?

Didn't the studies show all these bridges absorb only a tiny fraction of truck traffic. Unless you are closing all the other bridges to trucks and for many routes this would be a large bordering on unacceptable detour.

It's all a distraction to try and build support in Ottawa for largely a commuter driven crossing. The tunnel was also never going anywhere but was meant to delay.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

With the twinning of the 50 being accelareted does a bridge, especially the ones further east, become the main route from Ottawa to Montreal and points east?

Didn't the studies show all these bridges absorb only a tiny fraction of truck traffic. Unless you are closing all the other bridges to trucks and for many routes this would be a large bordering on unacceptable detour.

It's all a distraction to try and build support in Ottawa for largely a commuter driven crossing. The tunnel was also never going anywhere but was meant to delay.

That was always my impression. Time to swing the discussion back to "bridge" for a few years ...

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

With the twinning of the 50 being accelareted does a bridge, especially the ones further east, become the main route from Ottawa to Montreal and points east?

Didn't the studies show all these bridges absorb only a tiny fraction of truck traffic. Unless you are closing all the other bridges to trucks and for many routes this would be a large bordering on unacceptable detour.

It's all a distraction to try and build support in Ottawa for largely a commuter driven crossing. The tunnel was also never going anywhere but was meant to delay.

I think restricting trucks on other routes would be key.

[J.OT13]

I would not support a route that uses Lorrain. Re-routing trucks down a quiet, low-density village and residential area is not acceptable. Expropriating the route to allow for a 4 lane highway, not to mention plowing through the village area would be extremely expensive and destructive. The route is also too far east.

Montée Paiement/Aviation is the far better route. Already 4 lanes on the Gatineau side, very few residential properties, it would serve big box stores and a downtown type area (La Cité in Gatineau). On the Ottawa side, trucks would run on the Parkway. Only the Montfort Hospital might have legitimate concerns (NIMBY not legitimate). It would be far easier to answer the legitimate concerns of one institution than thousands of residence.

Montée Paiement/Aviation also arguably effects the least amount of sensitive green space.

The best part of the Montée Paiement/Aviation is the potential for transit connections outside of downtown, yet another way to sell the bridge to the Cities and residents. Serving the La Cité area in Gatineau, the Montfort and La Cité Collégiale. At both ends, we already have large transit stations ready to serve.