Interprovincial bridge crossing discussion

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by acottawa

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

https://goo.gl/maps/gr3TzhPnTs5P96Lj9

It's a tighter right of way than Labrosse, and way tighter than Montée Paiement.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Watson will do whatever his talking points from Liberal HQ says.

I think you have misread the political reality here. Ask around.

[J.OT13]

Labrosse is a no-go as well from my perspective. Numerous intersections, significant residential, a high school. The more I look at the option, the more Montée Paiement seems to be the only viable option.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by 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.

Montée Paiement has already been built by Gatineau to to be the connector road to a Kettle Island bridge. Except for the interchange with the A-50 (which is planned for reconstruction and expansion) the entire length of the road is similar to the Hunt Club Road corridor in south Ottawa.

Boulevard Lorrain may be designated as a truck route due to being provincial highway QC-366 but there is no way it would be designated as a truck route for traffic coming off a bridge.

In the event that a bridge was built at Duck Island, there would likely be a new road built in the area from the river to A-50.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by gjhall

I think you have misread the political reality here. Ask around.

I can’t find any polling either way. My sense from asking around is that most Ottawa residents don’t care, although there is widespread concern about the truckway and a bridge is the only viable solution to this.

Watson supported the bridge until Kathleen Wynne told him to oppose it (Mcguinty had supported it) and he hasn’t received new orders yet.

There are people who oppose it with three routes on the table and nobody knows what the access would look like. Once people see an actual proposal, opposition will likely drop when people realize it doesn’t affect them.

[J.OT13]

NCC presentation. Stats at 56:35 mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITipxU1ID7w

Here's the full report:

https://ncc-website-2.s3.amazonaws.com/d...ncial-Crossings.pdf?mtime=20200625105750

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by 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.

Personally, the hospital/noise issue never struck me as a real thing or, at most, something that upgraded glazing could address. Lots of hospitals are located near busy streets and anyone who has ever been in hospital will know that they are just about the noisiest places going! The real hurdle to overcome will be the opposition of Manor Park/Rockcliffe/New Edinburgh/Linden Lea. There's a fair bit of "pull" there at all levels of government (and internal messaging has already started, today).

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Personally, the hospital/noise issue never struck me as a real thing or, at most, something that upgraded glazing could address. Lots of hospitals are located near busy streets and anyone who has ever been in hospital will know that they are just about the noisiest places going! The real hurdle to overcome will be the opposition of Manor Park/Rockcliffe/New Edinburgh/Linden Lea. There's a fair bit of "pull" there at all levels of government (and internal messaging has already started, today).

You might be right. The University of Ottawa (with sensitive research equipment) and the Hospital (with sensitive medical equipment) might have similar concerns around noise and vibrations, and at the moment, the University lives with both truck traffic and a rail line.

As for the residents of Manor Park/Rockcliffe/New Edinburgh/Linden Lea, it doesn't really matter because they will vote Liberal no matter what happens.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

You might be right. The University of Ottawa (with sensitive research equipment) and the Hospital (with sensitive medical equipment) might have similar concerns around noise and vibrations, and at the moment, the University lives with both truck traffic and a rail line.

As for the residents of Manor Park/Rockcliffe/New Edinburgh/Linden Lea, it doesn't really matter because they will vote Liberal no matter what happens.

Those neighbourhoods would only be affected if there is a Hemlock interchange, which seems unlikely.

Lots of hospitals are adjacent to highways. Maybe there is something specific about the Montfort, but one would assume mitigation would be possible.

[J.OT13]

Hemlock has an interchange at the moment. I would support removing it.

The G.E.C. and Aviation Parkway interchange would need to be completely rebuilt. Traffic lights would need to be added at the rear access to the Montfort, the CMHC access and La Cité Private. Montreal at Aviation, I would remove the right-turn slip lanes, but maintain the rest pretty much as it is. At the intersection of Aviation and Ogilvie, I might also remove the slip right-turning lanes, but it's not as important as Montreal.

I would imagine that the 417/174 interchange would need to be rebuilt in order to allow cars and trucks to access all directions.

[Dengler Avenue]

“ I would imagine that the 417/174 interchange would need to be rebuilt in order to allow cars and trucks to access all directions.”

And it sure looks difficult with all the constraints on the north side. Should there be an interchange with Ogilvie Road? If yes, it’s bad... If no, it may be easier.

[AuxTown]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Those neighbourhoods would only be affected if there is a Hemlock interchange, which seems unlikely.

Lots of hospitals are adjacent to highways. Maybe there is something specific about the Montfort, but one would assume mitigation would be possible.

As history has shown us there is always something "special" about the Montfort. If one of the Ottawa Hospitals could be labelled a Karen it would be them. It's a very nice and built up facility now but it really should have been closed 25 years ago in favour of an earlier build-up of TOH. Some would make the language argument but, at the time, the General was almost as French as the Montfort is now and would have remained so if the Montfort never expanded. All that to say that the Montfort is the hospital equivalent of a NIMBY and I suspect will put up a fight even though they actually might stand to benefit from this project.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Hemlock has an interchange at the moment. I would support removing it.

The G.E.C. and Aviation Parkway interchange would need to be completely rebuilt. Traffic lights would need to be added at the rear access to the Montfort, the CMHC access and La Cité Private. Montreal at Aviation, I would remove the right-turn slip lanes, but maintain the rest pretty much as it is. At the intersection of Aviation and Ogilvie, I might also remove the slip right-turning lanes, but it's not as important as Montreal.

I would imagine that the 417/174 interchange would need to be rebuilt in order to allow cars and trucks to access all directions.

The current interchange is really for SGEC, you can’t get on or off aviation. That could continue.

To me it is only practical if they grade separate the whole route (which should not be too hard as it is really only SGEC, Hemlock, Montreal a pedestrian crossing at Cité and Ogilve, maybe continuing with a 2 lane parkway from Ogilve to the hospital to provide local service. The ROW is 100+ m wide in most places, so lots of flexibility.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by AuxTown

As history has shown us there is always something "special" about the Montfort. If one of the Ottawa Hospitals could be labelled a Karen it would be them. It's a very nice and built up facility now but it really should have been closed 25 years ago in favour of an earlier build-up of TOH. Some would make the language argument but, at the time, the General was almost as French as the Montfort is now and would have remained so if the Montfort never expanded. All that to say that the Montfort is the hospital equivalent of a NIMBY and I suspect will put up a fight even though they actually might stand to benefit from this project.

Mike Harris' draconian cuts to the health care system should not be defended. Mike Harris is the architect of the failed long-term care system that has killed thousands in the last few months, all in the name of profit for himself and his friends. Mike Harris attempted to shutter 3 Ottawa hospitals, but only succeeded in closing 2. Had the Montfort closed, the remaining 3 hospitals would have been overwhelmed.

Fighting to keep a hospital open should not be considered "special" or NIMBYism. Any sane person should fight to maintain health care access and I for one am glad the francophone community won. Montfort is not only important to the francophone community, but to the thousands of low income residents who live nearby, residents who without the Montfort would have to take one long, shitty bus trip down to the General. McGuinty's attempt to rebuild the health care system would have been far harder had the Montfort closed.

Now Montfort's concerns may be legitimate or may just be perceived. Montfort's management are not urban planning experts, so they cannot know for sure. That is why planers and engineers who would be working on the project will have to explain how Montfort's concerns can be mitigated and addressed. This has never happened up until now. Once it does, I'm sure the hospital's opposition will be withdrawn.

Originally Posted by acottawa

The current interchange is really for SGEC, you can’t get on or off aviation. That could continue.

To me it is only practical if they grade separate the whole route (which should not be too hard as it is really only SGEC, Hemlock, Montreal a pedestrian crossing at Cité and Ogilve, maybe continuing with a 2 lane parkway from Ogilve to the hospital to provide local service. The ROW is 100+ m wide in most places, so lots of flexibility.

A two lane parkway to service the Montfort, CMHC and Cité lane-ways seems like a reasonable solution to minimize the number of intersections/interchanges. G.E.C and Montreal are the only two that should absolutely have on/off ramps. I would argue the same for Ogilvie to service CSIS/CSEC.

[Harley613]

So here we are again full circle. In the city with four levels of government that spends more time and money on studying infrastructure options than building them in a sensible and timely fashion (taking into account inflation), we have rediscovered (again) that the original option is the best option. Too bad about the residents of those 11 houses on Chelsea Drive and Plumtree Crescent that MIGHT be able to hear the trucks from inside their house a little bit as they cruise by 100 feet away on the flat road behind the sound barrier that would be built. We could take the trucks out of the Byward Market where they are clogging the roads and killing people, but think about the deeeeeeecibals on the paaaaaarkway.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Harley613

So here we are again full circle. In the city with four levels of government that spends more time and money on studying infrastructure options than building them in a sensible and timely fashion (taking into account inflation), we have rediscovered (again) that the original option is the best option. Too bad about the residents of those 11 houses on Chelsea Drive and Plumtree Crescent that MIGHT be able to hear the trucks from inside their house a little bit as they cruise by 100 feet away on the flat road behind the sound barrier that would be built. We could take the trucks out of the Byward Market where they are clogging the roads and killing people, but think about the deeeeeeecibals on the paaaaaarkway.

It’s not about the 11 houses. It’s anyone who lives anywhere near the route for starters. But probably more importantly it won’t fix the truck problem and is a huge expense mainly to facilitie new urban sprawl in Eastern Gatineau. If there was a bag of money it would be one thing and only the NIMBYs but more of us city wide don’t see the purpose in spending a fortune on another road link.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

It’s not about the 11 houses. It’s anyone who lives anywhere near the route for starters. But probably more importantly it won’t fix the truck problem and is a huge expense mainly to facilitie new urban sprawl in Eastern Gatineau. If there was a bag of money it would be one thing and only the NIMBYs but more of us city wide don’t see the purpose in spending a fortune on another road link.

If those other houses didn't want to hear any cars from their front porches, they shouldn't have bought right next to a major mid-century motorway/parkway. I've dug deep and I'm sorry but I just have a hard time mustering enough sympathy to care.

I'm uninterested in causing sprawl in eastern Gatineau or anywhere else. However I do think it's legitimate and reasonable for urbanites to be interested in getting truck traffic out of the byward market and off downtown streets. Those streets will never be welcoming and oriented toward active means of transportation so long as those trucks are out there killing people left and right and creating a hostile environment for cyclists and pedestrians. We've had 10 years of studies showing that the Kettle Island Bridge *will* help divert truck traffic. Period. If we ban non-local truck traffic through the downtown core, the bridge would divert even more truck traffic.

We don't need another 10 years of pointless studies to keep proving this point. Build the damn thing already.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

If those other houses didn't want to hear any cars from their front porches, they shouldn't have bought right next to a major mid-century motorway/parkway. I've dug deep and I'm sorry but I just have a hard time mustering enough sympathy to care.

I'm uninterested in causing sprawl in eastern Gatineau or anywhere else. However I do think it's legitimate and reasonable for urbanites to be interested in getting truck traffic out of the byward market and off downtown streets. Those streets will never be welcoming and oriented toward active means of transportation so long as those trucks are out there killing people left and right and creating a hostile environment for cyclists and pedestrians. We've had 10 years of studies showing that the Kettle Island Bridge *will* help divert truck traffic. Period. If we ban non-local truck traffic through the downtown core, the bridge would divert even more truck traffic.

We don't need another 10 years of pointless studies to keep proving this point. Build the damn thing already.

Umm, too late on that one, no?

I'm sure it has been asked and answered a hundred times, but is there anything that prevents heavy truck traffic from being limited to whatever new bridge were eventually built? I could see smaller truck continuing to use King Edward, but it's the big rigs that cause the heartburn, no?

[CityTech]

I would support building Kettle Island as long as we close Alexandra and/or reduce the lanes on the MC. Basically I want to make sure that we don't have any net increase in crossriver capacity, so as to prevent sprawl growth on the Quebec side.

[kwoldtimer]

Someone would have to walk me through how advocating the closure/lane reduction for existing bridges doesn't undercut the argument that a new bridge is needed.