Interprovincial bridge crossing discussion

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The only legitimate complaint comes from the Montfort Hospital, but I'm sure an agreement could be reached.

An agreement to do what? All trucks must stop making noise, vibrations and spewing hydrocarbons within 500m of the hospital?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

An agreement to do what? All trucks must stop making noise, vibrations and spewing hydrocarbons within 500m of the hospital?

Perhaps the proper word is mitigation?

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Even if we look exclusively at the people affected by the truck traffic, the few hundred along the Monté Paiement (who don't seem to complain, maybe because they are completely unaware) and Aviation corridor pale in comparison to the thousands who live along King Edward and Rideau. The irony is, both locations are in the same provincial and federal riding. The move of the truck traffic would be beneficial to a high proportion of voters and detrimental to a very low proportion of non-voters.

The only legitimate complaint comes from the Montfort Hospital, but I'm sure an agreement could be reached.

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.

[YOWflier]

Yes, to all the above.

[Acajack]

Posting live from Borealis Crescent are we?

Which neighbourhood do people think will be destroyed?

[Harley613]

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.

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.

[YOWetal]

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.

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.

[AuxTown]

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.

Yes, while transit has to be given some priority, we still live in a very car-oriented city. I think there are very easy ways to reduce the number of cars coming off the Aviation Parkway or the bridge and "swamping" Manor Park. It is in nobody's best interest to have traffic coming off this inter-provincial bridge and right into a residential neighbourhood. To suggest that it is going to ruin more people's commutes than it will benefit is based on what real data? There is a reason that this was the recommended location for a crossing. The current bridges carry 150000 cars and 9000 bikes/pedestrians every day so I'm sure the new bridge would benefit more commuters than it inconveniences. It all depends on who these commuters are and how much they are willing to complain.

[kwoldtimer]

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 don't see anything that would overcome the opposition in Manor Park and Rockcliffe, not that that opposition need be decisive. At a minimum, the Parkway, Hemlock/Beechwood, and Montreal Road would all need to be widened, istm (if they were accesible by off-ramps).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Destroyed is of course hyperbole but Manor Park will be swamped by traffic from this proposal. .

I don't really know where all of these people will be going via Hemlock/Beechwood...

[DogsWithJobs]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I don't see anything that would overcome the opposition in Manor Park and Rockcliffe, not that that opposition need be decisive. At a minimum, the Parkway, Hemlock/Beechwood, and Montreal Road would all need to be widened, istm (if they were accesible by off-ramps).

Well they are in the process of removing a lane from montreal road so that is unlikely.

Can they not just prohibit any right turns while travelling southbound during rush hour to force cars to the 417? As well as build a westbound ramp since one does not currently exist.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by DogsWithJobs

Well they are in the process of removing a lane from montreal road so that is unlikely.

Can they not just prohibit any right turns while travelling southbound during rush hour to force cars to the 417? As well as build a westbound ramp since one does not currently exist.

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.)

[kwoldtimer]

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.)

If you build it, they will come?
Personally, I'm not opposed to the location of the Kettle Island bridge (I'd be living within sight/earshot of it). However, I would prefer it if no new bridges were built at all and people were encouraged to arrange their lives/commutes accordingly.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

If you build it, they will come?
Personally, I'm not opposed to the location of the Kettle Island bridge (I'd be living within sight/earshot of it). However, I would prefer it if no new bridges were built at all and people were encouraged to arrange their lives/commutes accordingly.

In terms of moving around the region (including river crossings) for work and other personal activities, I think mobility requirements aren't going anywhere but up for the foreseeable future. So if you're talking about people living closer to where they work, study, play, shop, dine, etc. I think you might be disappointed.

The main (only?) hope for decongestion is modal shifts and to some degree creative scheduling, telework, etc.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

In terms of moving around the region (including river crossings) for work and other personal activities, I think mobility requirements aren't going anywhere but up for the foreseeable future. So if you're talking about people living closer to where they work, study, play, shop, dine, etc. I think you might be disappointed.

The main (only?) hope for decongestion is modal shifts and to some degree creative scheduling, telework, etc.

That would be my expectation as well. No new bridges is my ideal, not what I actually expect to happen.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

That would be my expectation as well. No new bridges is my ideal, not what I actually expect to happen.

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.

[daud]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

If you build it, they will come?
Personally, I'm not opposed to the location of the Kettle Island bridge (I'd be living within sight/earshot of it). However, I would prefer it if no new bridges were built at all and people were encouraged to arrange their lives/commutes accordingly.

This isn't always realistic. Having lived in the GTA for many years, I came across so many people that commuted all the way across town on the 401 or gardiner and the reasoning was always the same..."I used to live very close to work but I changed careers/lost my job/got laid off etc..."

You are not going to buy and sell a home every time your job moves. Its not realistic. And lots of people do not have the luxury of working in the same place for 20+ years.

I drove back on the 50 yesterday from North Montreal. The traffic on that road is insane and it should have been twinned from the start. You could put a bridge anywhere from Hawkesbury to Kettle Island and it would immediately get lots of use. The road is needed for a variety of reasons and creating a wall between ontario and quebec in our region is very short sighted. The reason this thing hasn't been built yet simply comes down to tax dollars and Ontario not wanting to lose any. Nothing more..

I support the bridge-my preference is Kettle Island, because I'd like to see King Edward restored to its former glory and don't feel the current trucking route through downtown is acceptable. But also because I want closer ties with the quebec side-culturally, economically and socially.

[lrt's friend]

We cannot continue to put our heads in the sand about interprovincial bridges. If at least one of our existing bridges will be taken off line for a major renovation if not a complete replacement, we need to prepare now for doing so.

I see no need to have a Kettle Island bridge cause traffic chaos in Manor Park. Simply don't create an exit to the Rockcliffe Parkway or Hemlock Road. That would not be a high priority anyways. The value of the bridge would reduce commutes to the employment hub between the Aviation Parkway and Blair Road and other commercial and industrial businesses in east Ottawa. Any reduction in commute distances will benefit all of us in reducing overall congestion. Furthermore, by creating bus lanes on the bridge, we can make transit more viable between east Gatineau and east Ottawa. I highly doubt that it is viable today.

Also, we will finally create an efficient connection between Highway 50 and Highway 417. There is no need for the bridge to be an eyesore either. Design excellence should be a top priority.

Yes, there will be induced demand, but getting some traffic off of downtown streets particularly trucks will benefit downtown Ottawa and make the area around King Edward Avenue more attractive. If we can reduce the number of traffic lanes there, we can return it to being a grand boulevard at least somewhat like it was in the old days and finally make King Edward a viable location for redevelopment.

I see a Kettle Island bridge as a potential win-win-win. Yes, there will be some noise issues, but by keeping speed limits reasonably low we can retain this as a reasonably attractive corridor. I say no to turning this into an expressway corridor so that the parkland surrounding it can still be an asset to the community and not to solely be used for noise mitigation.

[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.

[Acajack]

Manor Park/Rockcliffe the day of the opening of the new Kettle Island Bridge:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo1fNO6bx48