Interprovincial bridge crossing discussion

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by AylmerOptimist

Linky

How about this?

Yeah, I think it’s been studied but was excluded because it’s too far out. Before the megamerger of Ottawa, the former municipality of Cumberland actually upgraded Frank Kenny Road substantially (for most of the distance between the 174 and 417), largely in anticipation of this.

Frank Kenny is actually a pretty good rural road, but would have to be extended from Innes to the river (in what is currently farmland) in order to avoid all sorts of fiery “proximity” issues that would arise if the existing Trim Road were used. This area is very built-up now and has seen explosive growth in recent years.

The Quebec side of the route is mostly farmland, and lies between the built-up areas of east (former) Gatineau and Angers.

But once again, it has been deemed too far from the centre of the urban area by every study they’ve done.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by AylmerOptimist

Linky

How about this?

Perfect! What else can we screw up with the newly developed Petrie Island beach?

[Kitchissippi]

That would practically obliterate Petrie Island, which is one of the most popular recreational sites in Orleans. Haven't you been to the beach there?

from the Friends of Petrie Island:

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

That would practically obliterate Petrie Island, which is one of the most popular recreational site in Orleans. Haven't you been to the beach there?

I had forgotten about that as well. Mess with Petrie Island and you won’t be making any friends in Orleans.

[harls]

Hey, I don't see any errant turds on that beach.. what gives?

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I had forgotten about that as well. Mess with Petrie Island and you won’t be making any friends in Orleans.

Yup, you don't mess around with the melon slings and nut huggers of Orleans!

[Rathgrith]

There is nothing I like to go to more in the summer than a beach that is down river from a sewage treatment plant!

[harls]

So what do we call it then?

Kettle Island Bridge shouldn't touch Kettle Island, Ottawa Riverkeeper advises

The Ottawa Citizen
January 16, 2009 2:02 PM

OTTAWA • A new bridge across the Ottawa River shouldn't touch down on Kettle Island or run salt and road dust into the river, says Ottawa Riverkeeper.


The non-profit agency monitors and defends the river's water quality. Its executive director Meredith Brown says in a statement to be released Tuesday that the route the National Capital Commission's consultants have identified for a new bridge is a problem for the river environment


"We're facing a difficult reality, however, and that's the fact that there are NO good locations for a bridge over our river," Ms. Brown writes. "The environmental impacts and consequences for each of the proposed sites are significant for the health of the river."


A route across Kettle Island is better than the immediate alternatives of Lower Duck Island and Petrie Island, which are downstream to the east, she writes.


The consultants, ROCHE-NCE, have found that a route across Kettle Island, north of Aviation Parkway on Ottawa's east side, is the best of 10 they studied. They're now planning to begin a years-long examination of the best way to design and build a bridge there so as to minimize the impact on the environment and surrounding communities.


Ms. Brown's statement says all the islands in the chain are sensitive and ecologically diverse and need protecting, and on strictly environmental grounds the best place for a new bridge would be between Cumberland and Masson, well downstream.


If the bridge must be at Kettle Island, she says, she'll recommend several steps to limit the harm:


• Building no piers on Kettle Island itself


• If possible, running the bridge near to the island but not directly over it


• Including a system to capture stormwater from the surface of the bridge, so dirty rain and snowmelt don't run off into the water or onto the island


• Conducting a comprehensive ecological assessment of the whole of Kettle Island, not just the western tip


• Devising a strategy to protect all the sensitive islands in the Ottawa River


The selection of Kettle Island has been controversial, especially among residents of Rockcliffe Park and Manor Park, who say the extra traffic and the construction needed to support the new bridge will harm their neighbourhoods irreparably.


The goal of the bridge is to take traffic, especially truck traffic, off the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge north of King Edward Avenue in Lowertown. Cars and trucks crossing between Highway 417 and highways in Quebec would use Aviation Parkway instead of snaking through downtown streets.


The consultants' recommendation of Kettle Island is awaiting approval from the NCC's board of directors. If the board approves, the second phase of study for the bridge is expected to take up to 40 months.


After that, construction is expected to cost $400 million to $500 million, and the money has not yet been committed by any level of government.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[Richard Eade]

I'm just always astounded by the $400-500M price tag for the bridge and approaches. Any idea how much the bridge itself is estimated at?

4-Lane tunnels can be bored at about $50M per Km. The cost of the approaches would be similar for bridge or tunnel. I believe the reason the consultant used to rule out tunnels was that there were no good approach paths. Does this make sense? It might be that the tunnel would need to be quite deep and thus have very long portal ramps. Does anyone have any ideas about this?

A tunnel would have a far lighter environmental impact (in operation) than a bridge over the river.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I'm just always astounded by the $400-500M price tag for the bridge and approaches. Any idea how much the bridge itself is estimated at?

4-Lane tunnels can be bored at about $50M per Km. The cost of the approaches would be similar for bridge or tunnel. I believe the reason the consultant used to rule out tunnels was that there were no good approach paths. Does this make sense? It might be that the tunnel would need to be quite deep and thus have very long portal ramps. Does anyone have any ideas about this?

A tunnel would have a far lighter environmental impact (in operation) than a bridge over the river.

If you can get a version of the study, tunnels were included and dismissed as too expensive.

[eemy]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

If you can get a version of the study, tunnels were included and dismissed as too expensive.

Did they actually get an estimate, or did they just figure a tunnel would be too expensive?

Originally Posted by harls

So what do we call it then?

The Almost Kettle Island Bridge?

[Kitchissippi]

The depths in the river around Kettle Island are not particularly deep, 5 to 6 metres on average. by comparison, depths around the M-C bridge or Alex can reach 17 to 20 metres:


Around Lower Duck, it is even shallower:


I wonder if they would consider Sunk Tunnels (immersed tube)

[Luker]

too innovative for north america.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

Did they actually get an estimate, or did they just figure a tunnel would be too expensive?

They got an estimate, it was about twice the price. Now where did I see that document...

[Rathgrith]

I think the tunnel was put down because of the issues involving trunks and spills. The Ottawa River should have a tunnel in the future, but not for a trunk route. Mille Sabords mentioned that in another discussion thread.

[Deez]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I'm just always astounded by the $400-500M price tag for the bridge and approaches. Any idea how much the bridge itself is estimated at?

4-Lane tunnels can be bored at about $50M per Km. The cost of the approaches would be similar for bridge or tunnel. I believe the reason the consultant used to rule out tunnels was that there were no good approach paths. Does this make sense? It might be that the tunnel would need to be quite deep and thus have very long portal ramps. Does anyone have any ideas about this?

A tunnel would have a far lighter environmental impact (in operation) than a bridge over the river.

Is the 50M$/km dollar tag just for boring, or does it include all components?

As an example of some of the extra goodies that go along with highway tunnels, here's a satellite shot of a multi-million dollar ventilation building that circulates air in Boston's "Big Dig" tunnels (this is one of 7).

http://www.satellite-sightseer.com/id/12698

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Deez

Is the 50M$/km dollar tag just for boring, or does it include all components?

As an example of some of the extra goodies that go along with highway tunnels, here's a satellite shot of a multi-million dollar ventilation building that circulates air in Boston's "Big Dig" tunnels (this is one of 7).

http://www.satellite-sightseer.com/id/12698

Yeah, sorry about that. I have been thinking about trains too much lately. A 4-lane tunnel with road surface and ventilation should run about $150M per Km.

I have no idea how the study calculated $500M for a bridge and then calculated over $1,500M for a tunnel! At there rates, the DOTT would be about $2,000M! It looks to me as if the tunnel idea was being discarded through any means.

SUNK TUNNELS are anything but revolutionary and have been used for decades in North America for under water tunnels. The problem with them is that, generally, a trench is dredged for the tunnel to sit in. This would not be acceptable to the environmentalists. Although it would result in an in-expensive tunnel link, the idea will not be pursued.

[eemy]

I wonder how the bridge might affect the Rockliffe Airport. The approach passes right in front of the runway and I imagine it would have to have a fairly significant elevation by that point. Any thoughts?

[Mille Sabords]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

SUNK TUNNELS are anything but revolutionary and have been used for decades in North America for under water tunnels. The problem with them is that, generally, a trench is dredged for the tunnel to sit in. This would not be acceptable to the environmentalists. Although it would result in an in-expensive tunnel link, the idea will not be pursued.

A tunnel was discarded because federal regulations prohibit dangerous goods from being transported through a tunnel. Since there are dangerous goods transiting on King Edward, any new crossing must be able to take those materials. It wasn't a case of, "oh, let's just screw the little ducks and turtles" - it's (finally, one hopes) a case of putting first things first. Human habitation along King Edward is at daily risk. That must end. And that overrides other environmental concerns.

[waterloowarrior]

ncc board meeting about the bridge is going on right now (live streaming)

http://www.capcan.ca/bins/ncc_web_co...er=OBM20090122


there's also some info about the colonel by/sussex/rideau urban design study to come later on