Sandy Hill Truck Tunnel

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

I think we should probably exercise little bit of humility here. I'd imagine the team of experts who looked at the subject were probably pretty thorough and looked pretty exhaustively.

The study took 1 year and cost almost $1 million and was conducted by an entire engineering team looking at the geological and infrastructure impediments but we honestly think that in 30 minutes we can come up with an elegant solution that eluded a full-time team of experts on the subject?

They did a pretty good job of describing and depicting the alternative options. This was not one of them.

If this routing was considered, I'd like to know why it was rejected. If it wasn't considered, it should have been.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

It has. You can read the report and all the problems with that alignment here starting at around page 9 and again around page 27.

https://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/do...ibility_en.pdf

I had missed that; Thanks for pointing it out. For reference, here's page 9:

In 2001-2002, Wacker Drive was redesigned and reconstructed between Michigan Avenue and Randolph
Street. The original upper deck was crumbling, and the entire roadway did not meet modern standards for
road widths and clearances. Using a specially-developed "flat-slab, longitudinally post-tensioned,
reinforced, high-performance concrete cast-in-place system", the new road deck was expected to have a
lifespan of 75–100 years. Walkways along the river were meant to make the drive more pedestrianfriendly,
while restoration of historic limestone elements and reproduction lighting evoked the drive's
original 1926 appearance. The 20-month, $200-million project was completed on time and within budget.
In spring of 2010, work commenced on a $300 million rebuilding of the north-south section of Wacker,
from Randolph Street to Congress Parkway, including the upper and lower levels. This is a continuation
of the Revive Wacker Drive project started in 2001.
While a similar scheme can be envisioned for the KERWN corridor, the project would require not only the
reconstruction of the road corridor to excavate and install the lower level (and rebuild of the surface level)
but the removal and reinstatement of the major utilities that use the corridor. Connections to the lower
levels of buildings, which allows for the street level to be free of loading bay facilities in Chicago, would
need to be created for each building, requiring extensive reconfiguration of the buildings. Some buildings
in the corridor do not have a basement level and would not be able to take advantage of the new lower
level.
The street discontinuity at Rideau Street, which causes many of the traffic issues today, would need to be
resolved through the development of an S-curve to connect the south end of King Edward with the north
end of Waller. This would require removal of some existing buildings and would impact development
potential.
To effectively use the two-level road for local and through traffic, a series of connecting ramps would be
required. Along Wacker these are located in the centre of the 6-lane roadway, and would impact local
pedestrian crossings in the ramp zones. The close spacing of cross streets in some segments of the
KERWN Corridor would make the development of the necessary ramps challenging.
The facility would need to be constructed using an open cut or cut and cover construction method, which
would be very disruptive for the duration of construction, and more disruptive than a tunneled route.
As there are a number of significant challenges related to implementation, and substantial costs to
remove and reinstate relatively new infrastructure, this option has been documented for completeness,
but will not be pursued as part of this feasibility study.

However, a lot of the difficulties raised in this study are related to access ramps to either surface streets or underground facilities. I don't know why these features are expected of this option when they're definitely not expected of any of the others. Once you remove that, it seems like its more of an issue of construction disruption. However, by shifting the alignment north to George Street (itself wider than Rideau and very little used east of Dalhousie), I think that you can minimize the effects of construction. I would imagine that the only buildings which would have to be demolished would potentially be the LCBO and the Metro, two buildings which will most likely be demolished anyways for more development anyways. As for the substantial costs, I'd wager that it would be more expensive per km than a bored tunnel, but it'd also be 10% the length, so penny-foolish and pound-wise, if you will.

And Waller is the exit point of the Confederation Line tunnel so it's not at full depth there, it's actually rising out which is one of the many reasons the Waller and Nicholas alignments won't work as easily as people think they will.

You're right, but it only starts to rise south of Daly whereas I would propose a tunnel north of it. At that point, the DOTT is already 20-25m deep in bedrock and is not a factor. And even if it were, the tunnel is already turning by Daly and would therefore not even share an alignment. To reiterate, it's separated on X, Y and Z.

I'd also reiterate that this isn't the first time this has been studied and found to be uneconomical. I hope that this study finally puts any notion of this absurd truck tunnel to bed once and for all. Yes, it seems tempting in theory but $1 million dollars worth of research re-confirms that it just isn't worth it.

I agree with you. My proposal is just a thought exercise (although I truly do think that it would be a good option to explore further). I don't think that $2B for a truck tunnel is a good use of money, especially considering what else we could do with it. That said, I think that something must be done to better marry traffic and the urban environment it slices through. I think that you can do a whole lot without a tunnel (even a short one like I've been proposing) with things as simple as paint, signs and scheduling. I think that the tunnel itself is an unhelpful red herring which risks preventing any short-term progress on the pretense that "we might yet build the tunnel".

[rocketphish]

Tunnel will solve Ottawa's truck problem, only if we don't have to pay, says city
Feasibility study gives thumbs up for a tunnel connecting Macdonald-Cartier Bridge to Highway 417

By Amanda Pfeffer, CBC News Posted: Aug 18, 2016 7:38 AM ET Last Updated: Aug 18, 2016 7:38 AM ET

Every day, a few thousand heavy trucks wind their way off the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge from Gatineau, Que., and pour onto the streets of Ottawa, inching their way through traffic toward the highway laden down with everything from heavy oil to construction material to beer.

They share intersections with cyclists and pedestrians, and over the years a number of tragic accidents bring to the fore why most major cities in Canada don't do this.

But for several decades, efforts to find a solution have been dashed. The last project — an interprovincial bridge over the Ottawa River east of the downtown core — fell apart when communities there didn't want the truck problem shoved into their neighbourhoods.

Now the city is trying something new.

Instead of a bridge, what about a tunnel?

"So if you can't go over, then the next option is to go under," says Coun. Keith Egli, who chairs the city's transportation committee.

Tunnel could accommodate 20-25K vehicles a day

The city commissioned a $750,000 feasibility study, split 50-50 with the Ontario government, to examine whether it's possible to build a tunnel off the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge that would connect traffic to Highway 417.

The preferred option is 3.4-kilometre route leading up to the highway below the Vanier Parkway.

The study suggests the tunnel could accommodate 20,000 to 25,000 vehicles a day, deviating two-thirds of truck traffic from city streets.

"This removes the safety concerns that we had, the pollution concerns, and certainly the economic development challenges that we see along that corridor," says Coun. Mathieu Fleury, adding that his community was "ecstatic" with the prospect.

Who will pay?

But tunnels are pricey, and the study suggests it could cost $1.7 billion to $2 billion.

Keep in mind, that's the estimate if we build it right now.

'We're looking to our federal and provincial partners and we'd like to see them pick up 50 per cent each ...'
- Coun. Keith Egli

In three years, following an environmental assessment, Egli says inflation will force that estimate up, and there isn't $2 billlion available in the city's transportation master plan budget.

So, councillors and the mayor are hoping the province and the federal government warm up to this pitch:

"We're looking to our federal and provincial partners and we'd like to see them pick up 50 per cent each of the project, and that, as a trade-off, perhaps the city would be responsible for the maintenance and operation of the tunnel," Egli says.

Why the city shouldn't pay, according to the city

Steven Boyle, the City of Ottawa's senior project manager of transportation planning, says there is precedent. Consider the federal $4 billion public-private partnership to rebuild the Champlain Bridge into Montreal, and the provincial $1.4 billion public-private partnership to build the Rt. Hon. Herb Gray Parkway project in Windsor, Ont., deviating traffic heading into the United States.

Boyle says the argument for higher levels of government to support the Ottawa tunnel is clear.

"You see that for those large, large projects, and ones not serving the local need. These trucks through King Edward [Avenue] are not there because they're going to King Edward locally," says Boyle. "It's really province to province and we really do need partners for all of this."

In the past, funding has been one of the major obstacles moving toward a resolution to Ottawa's truck problem. Local community associations want to see the city begin lobbying to secure that money now.

Just get the tunnel done

Peter Ferguson with the Lowertown Community Association has been waiting several decades for the city to find a solution.

"Yeah, it's easy to become frustrated, but that's not going to get you anywhere," he says.

The city shouldn't wait to ask other levels of government to commit to this plan.

"We hope the municipal government isn't waiting for the environmental assessment," says Ferguson, who wants the assessment to be part of an already approved project. "Just get the tunnel done."

The plan for an environmental assessment should come before city council this fall. An assessment could take two or three years, according to Egli.

Ferguson says he's undaunted by the long wait, and he described the community's winning strategy:

"Persist. Absolutely persist."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...ysis-1.3725802

[TheBrain]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Oh geez... let's just move the problem and create a new bottleneck somewhere else. A truck traffic roundabout (with signalized pedestrian crossings?) is an excellent way to just block up the roads in a different neighbourhood.

[IMG]https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8549/2...fd454e1d_b.jpg[IMG]


I agree with those of you who believe that if this tunnel doesn't directly link to Hwy 417, it's a waste of time and a huge waste of money.

The northern end of the proposed alignment looks fine, but why not change the orientation of the southern end and link it directly into the Queensway via Robinson Field? Funny that they didn't even consider this option in the Feasibility Study:

Yes! As soon as I saw the plan I was asking myself why they didn't hook up to the 417 exactly like you show. The flow seems so much better and you would avoid the future hell-hole that will be the Vanier/Coventry/Riverside interchange/roundabout.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by TheBrain

Yes! As soon as I saw the plan I was asking myself why they didn't hook up to the 417 exactly like you show. The flow seems so much better and you would avoid the future hell-hole that will be the Vanier/Coventry/Riverside interchange/roundabout.

Highway exits need ramps and acceleration/deceleration lanes. Tunnels need approaches and Robertson Field is almost certainly on the flood plane (it turns into a lake in the spring).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by TheBrain

Yes! As soon as I saw the plan I was asking myself why they didn't hook up to the 417 exactly like you show. The flow seems so much better and you would avoid the future hell-hole that will be the Vanier/Coventry/Riverside interchange/roundabout.

I actually love roundabouts but with heavy trucks and the anticipated traffic volumes this is really not a good place for one.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

They did a pretty good job of describing and depicting the alternative options. This was not one of them.

If this routing was considered, I'd like to know why it was rejected. If it wasn't considered, it should have been.

My guess is it probably didn't even make it out of the gate due to some problem or impediment we're not aware of so it didn't even make it into the short list that got fully drawn up.

That's just a guess though. I fully admit I could be wrong.

I'm basing this on my understanding of the discrepancy between a full-time team of engineers and geology experts working with a budget of $1 million and full access to all the subterranean infrastructure in the area vs. some people on an internet forum with Microsoft Paint and Google Maps.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

However, a lot of the difficulties raised in this study are related to access ramps to either surface streets or underground facilities. I don't know why these features are expected of this option when they're definitely not expected of any of the others. Once you remove that, it seems like its more of an issue of construction disruption. However, by shifting the alignment north to George Street (itself wider than Rideau and very little used east of Dalhousie), I think that you can minimize the effects of construction. I would imagine that the only buildings which would have to be demolished would potentially be the LCBO and the Metro, two buildings which will most likely be demolished anyways for more development anyways. As for the substantial costs, I'd wager that it would be more expensive per km than a bored tunnel, but it'd also be 10% the length, so penny-foolish and pound-wise, if you will.

Again, I'd be inclined to trust the team of engineers who looked at this thing for a year as to why these options aren't feasible.

Just going from my complete layman's understanding though, I'd imagine there'd be problems with doing a shallow tunnel due to the damage it'd cause to building foundations (and the need for property expropriation, at least expropriation of subterranean rights). I know that a "cross country" alignment with a shallow dig is probably a complete nonstarter from a purely technical perspective. Then we'd get into deeper tunnels but that'd also probably be a non-starter due to the other infrastructure at that depth (including the Combined Sewage Storage Tunnel, which will be at a depth described as "substantial"). Now we're into the realm of ultra-deep tunnels to get under the CSST and by that point the bedrock is almost certainly no longer there, which would make the whole ordeal even worse. Keep in mind, the name of part of this neighbourhood is Sandy Hill and it's called that for a reason.

Besides being extremely expensive, an ultra deep tunnel would also pose simply logistical problems, namely, how steep can you make the grade of the ramp to get the trucks deep enough that they don't impact this other infrastructure? Is that even feasible in the distance available? Etc. These are things that experts look at when doing a million dollar yearlong study that we (I'm including myself here) simply can't possibly speak in educated terms about as amateur joes on the internet.

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I agree with you. My proposal is just a thought exercise (although I truly do think that it would be a good option to explore further). I don't think that $2B for a truck tunnel is a good use of money, especially considering what else we could do with it. That said, I think that something must be done to better marry traffic and the urban environment it slices through. I think that you can do a whole lot without a tunnel (even a short one like I've been proposing) with things as simple as paint, signs and scheduling. I think that the tunnel itself is an unhelpful red herring which risks preventing any short-term progress on the pretense that "we might yet build the tunnel".

I totally agree with you that something must be done. I think it's absurd that we have trucks rumbling around on Montreal Rd. and near the Byward market in our city.

I'm just saying this pipe-dream of a truck tunnel is brought up all the time as a solution to all our problems and it's been studied and re-studied and it simply doesn't work in any world where economic feasibility is something we care about.

I think of this like as if a person had a big oozing sore on his back and is trying to figure out what to do with it. He starts thinking of solutions that might actually fix the problem like going to the doctor or buying an ointment but then some charlatan comes along and instead suggests the person should spend $2 billion on some magic beans that will cure the sore.

Even if our buddy in this analogy isn't stupid enough to spend $2 billion he doesn't have on some magic beans, every year he spends wasting his time contemplating how nice it'd be to have $2 billion worth of magic beans is another year's time he's wasted by not moving toward actual reasonable solutions that might actually solve his problem.

[TheBrain]

Let's just send all the water down the Canal and pave over the Rideau River.



But seriously, coming from the east wouldn't be so bad, you get off the 417 and then endup in the roundabout.
But coming from the west you have to exit to the Tremblay Rd. intersection, cross over the 417. It's going to be a nightmare in that area.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by TheBrain

But seriously, coming from the east wouldn't be so bad, you get off the 417 and then endup in the roundabout.
But coming from the west you have to exit to the Tremblay Rd. intersection, cross over the 417. It's going to be a nightmare in that area.

That's where I have to ask, where are these 65% of trucks coming from and going to? I'm guessing that a large percentage of trucks from Montreal and further east are probably using Hwy 50 currently and thus aren't traveling through downtown Ottawa. My guess is a very large percentage is coming from points to the west and south, which would explain why an eastern bridge would do little to help.

Probably unpopular, but why not convert the PoW bridge to a truck bridge? It wouldn't be difficult to extend Hwy 50 to it and would certainly be easier to make a connection to the 417 from there.

I know the city wants to eventually use it for LRT, but its location isn't really good for that (its too far west). They could probably do a trade and put the LRT on the Chaudière Bridge instead. Its in a much better location as it could connect Pimisi station to Terrasses de la Chaudière

[J.OT13]

I'm a little concerned with the alignment both for security issues (running next to Foreign Affairs, Embassies, including Russia's and right beside the RCMP HQ), feasibility issues (under the Rideau River) and length (possibly the longest alignment possible).

And the roundabout at the Vanier Parkway is just epicly stupid. Direct connection to 417, PLEASE! At that price, they might have to consider leveling the RCMP HQ for a proper highway interchange.

I do believe that a tunnel is the best solution to traffic on King Ed's. It permanently removes the majority of truck traffic (all but those with hazardous materials and the few heading downtown) along with some of the regular traffic. It is clear to me that a 4 lane tunnel to accommodate everyone is better than a 2 lane tunnel exclusively for trucks.

As for truck drivers/companies not wanting to pay tolls, make it simple; ban trucks from all other routes.

The idea of an interprovicial bridge is dead and buried. The new MP for Gatineau (Steve McKinnon) tried to make it a priority of the Liberal Party and it was voted down, by a huge majority. The tunnel is the final option.

[khabibulin]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Heck, with Madeleine Meilleur gone the provincial government is a lot more neutral on this issue.

I don't think the federal government really cares about it all.

At this point, it would be the City government, which has firmly rejected any plans for a bridge, that would be the main bottleneck with going back.

The provincial government, through its new candidate, will have to clearly state a party position during the byelection, whenever Wynn decides to call it and ensure that the residents are democratically represented.

The late MP was also a very vocal opponent of the bridge. The federal byelection will raise the issue again, forcing the parties to state their positions on the bridge.

From the Ottawa Citizen on August 3, 2016:
Meilleur waited to resign her seat until the legislature broke for the summer, but it’s due to return Sept. 12 with no Ottawa-Vanier MPP in her place.

Coun. Mathieu Fleury was a favourite to succeed Meilleur in what’s considered a very safe Liberal seat, but he decided not to run, leaving the party casting about a bit. It’s tricky, with the severe illness of MP Mauril Bélanger meaning a more appealing job closer to home could be in the offing soon.

But aside from not having an obvious candidate for Ottawa-Vanier, the Liberals would have to divide their attention between it and Scarborough if they called both elections at once. Ottawa-Vanier might be pretty friendly Liberal territory, but it wouldn’t do to be seen taking it for granted. Wynne and other top Liberals would have to make a few swings through Ottawa just for the look of it, when they’d much rather be defending Scarborough.

[J.OT13]

My guess is that Fleury might have given a pass to the opportunity to replace Mrs. Meilleur in anticipation of the inevitable demise of Mr. Bélanger. If I was a betting man, I'd say he'll be running Federally.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

I think we should probably exercise little bit of humility here. I'd imagine the team of experts who looked at the subject were probably pretty thorough and looked pretty exhaustively.

The study took 1 year and cost almost $1 million and was conducted by an entire engineering team looking at the geological and infrastructure impediments but we honestly think that in 30 minutes we can come up with an elegant solution that eluded a full-time team of experts on the subject?

Remember the criss-crossing LRT tunnel that cost ten of millions more that was changed to a cheaper one when the mayor asked if the city would save money by having a straighter tunnel? Yes, the same engineers.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Remember the criss-crossing LRT tunnel that cost ten of millions more that was changed to a cheaper one when the mayor asked if the city would save money by having a straighter tunnel? Yes, the same engineers.

I gather initially they were constrained by an overly narrow route requirement. Once it was made clear that the exact route was flexible, a cheaper option became available. It would be like this feasibility study being constrained to only look at the route under King Edward and connecting to Nicolas under the assumption that it would be the cheapest route, without anyone knowing the limitations of this route and comparing it to other routes.

Could they have missed an option? Quite possibly, but I do expect that they will have considered most routes that conform to their design parameters.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

This makes no sense whatsoever. Hopefully with new provincial and federal representation the bridge will be back on the table.

Not as long as there are two by-elections on in Ottawa—Vanier.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

A few points:

-I think this exercise has been worth it,

Especially for those whose end goal was to throw a wet blanket over the whole "truck tunnel" nonsense idea in the first place.

Mission accomplished. Yay?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Horus

As suggested by a friend, I think we should refer to the project as the Sandy Hill Interprovincial Truck Tunnel, or SHITT for short.

Everyone pack up and go home; Horus wins.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Mikeed

It was suppose to across the Rideau river and link up with the Vanier Parkway and the 417, but this was canceled when it would have destroyed most of New Edinburgh Park - you can still see the half constructed bridge spans in the water and can clearly imagine the routing in Google Earth.

No, you can't - those are the remnants of the former "Black Bridge", a railway bridge that was removed as part of the Gréberization of Ottawa more than half a century ago.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

This makes no sense whatsoever. Hopefully with new provincial and federal representation the bridge will be back on the table.

The new federal and provincial reps will campaign and promise in accordance with the Manor Park NIMBY Society's wishes.