Sandy Hill Truck Tunnel

[daud]

Originally Posted by Horus

I'm not sure what benefits you believe a new bridge provides to Gatineau that is over and above what Ottawa would get out of it.

I've thought about the reasons Ontario would kill a bridge project that would have been 2/3 paid for by other parties. Jim Watson said it yesterday on Radio blankly that a bridge is of benefit to the Quebec side, not the Ontario one. Here's why:

Housing is cheaper on the quebec side, more jobs on the Ontario side. Ontario and Ottawa does not want people moving to Quebec and working in Ontario so they will not do anything that will facilitate or make that easier. Look at the tax implications:

Say 10,000 families decide Quebec is the better option after a bridge is built:

Average Annual Property tax lost per household: $4000
Average Income tax to Ontario lost per household: $ 5000
Average Provincial Tax lost (groceries etc..) $ 3000
Subtotal per household $12000
x10,000 families=120,000,000 per year
x20 years=2.4 billion in tax revenue lost

My numbers may not be totally accurate (actuals may be higher even) but they paint the picture that this is about tax dollars, nothing else, and Ontario is willing to forego a comprehensive transportation network in the region to conserve a revenue stream.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by daud

I've thought about the reasons Ontario would kill a bridge project that would have been 2/3 paid for by other parties. Jim Watson said it yesterday on Radio blankly that a bridge is of benefit to the Quebec side, not the Ontario one. Here's why:

Housing is cheaper on the quebec side, more jobs on the Ontario side. Ontario and Ottawa does not want people moving to Quebec and working in Ontario so they will not do anything that will facilitate or make that easier. Look at the tax implications:

Say 10,000 families decide Quebec is the better option after a bridge is built:

Average Annual Property tax lost per household: $4000
Average Income tax to Ontario lost per household: $ 5000
Average Provincial Tax lost (groceries etc..) $ 3000
Subtotal per household $12000
x10,000 families=120,000,000 per year
x20 years=2.4 billion in tax revenue lost

My numbers may not be totally accurate (actuals may be higher even) but they paint the picture that this is about tax dollars, nothing else, and Ontario is willing to forego a comprehensive transportation network in the region to conserve a revenue stream.

This is why the federal government should take the lead on inter-provincial transportation.

But I think the major assumption you're making is that the cost of providing services to an Ottawa Household is zero. Even if someone decides to live in Quebec instead of Ontario because of a new bridge (and I think ultimately that number would be fairly small, particularly if a new bridge were accompanied by a reduction in capacity on King Edward) Ottawa would also save the cost of providing services to those people, so the net cost would a fraction of the numbers you are estimating.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by daud

I've thought about the reasons Ontario would kill a bridge project that would have been 2/3 paid for by other parties. Jim Watson said it yesterday on Radio blankly that a bridge is of benefit to the Quebec side, not the Ontario one. Here's why:

Housing is cheaper on the quebec side, more jobs on the Ontario side. Ontario and Ottawa does not want people moving to Quebec and working in Ontario so they will not do anything that will facilitate or make that easier. Look at the tax implications:

Say 10,000 families decide Quebec is the better option after a bridge is built:

Average Annual Property tax lost per household: $4000
Average Income tax to Ontario lost per household: $ 5000
Average Provincial Tax lost (groceries etc..) $ 3000
Subtotal per household $12000
x10,000 families=120,000,000 per year
x20 years=2.4 billion in tax revenue lost

My numbers may not be totally accurate (actuals may be higher even) but they paint the picture that this is about tax dollars, nothing else, and Ontario is willing to forego a comprehensive transportation network in the region to conserve a revenue stream.

This is more directed at Jim Watson than at you, but that's such a 1980s and 1990s way of seeing things.

BTW, traffic is not the main reason preventing more people from Ottawa from moving to the Gatineau side. The main reasons are taxes, language, political uncertainty and health care. Maybe education for some people as well. Traffic is pretty far down the list. If you're a smart commuter it's no more difficult to commute to central Ottawa from Gatineau than it is from Orleans, Kanata or Barrhaven. But yeah, if you insist on driving solo along peak routes at peak times, you'll run into problems just like you would commuting from anywhere else on the Ontario side.

It's worth noting that there aren't really any politicians from the Quebec side who are screaming for a new bridge at the moment. Though most are in favour of course if asked, and will talk about the issue with Ottawa, Ontario and the feds as is normal.

[daud]

Originally Posted by acottawa

This is why the federal government should take the lead on inter-provincial transportation.

But I think the major assumption you're making is that the cost of providing services to an Ottawa Household is zero. Even if someone decides to live in Quebec instead of Ontario because of a new bridge (and I think ultimately that number would be fairly small, particularly if a new bridge were accompanied by a reduction in capacity on King Edward) Ottawa would also save the cost of providing services to those people, so the net cost would a fraction of the numbers you are estimating.

there is a cost side to it for sure, but I am fairly sure, this is what it comes down to. Our economic model (globally, locally, whatever) is based on growth. Its not sustainable in the long run but that's a whole other discussion.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Horus

I'm not sure what benefits you believe a new bridge provides to Gatineau that is over and above what Ottawa would get out of it. Gatineau and Quebec have already provided a solution to interprovincial trucking and driving by directly linking 2 autoroutes to the highest capacity bridge in the region. Ottawa and Ontario failed to provide a suitable link on their side resulting in the current set of problems.

Any new bridge crossing the Ottawa River would require Gatineau and/or Quebec to construct an adequate approach to the new bridge site, which is just as problematic as doing the same on the Ontario side.

Yes. Kettle Island would require an entirely new road to extend Montée Paiement south from Maloney to the river, major upgrades to Montée Paiement on about 3 or 4 km, and a complete reconstruction of the Paiement interchange with A-50.

[lrt's friend]

I don't understand these comments about Quebec benefiting from the construction of a new interprovincial bridge. Doesn't the same thing apply to the tunnel as well?

But there is a difference. By far the most expensive option is the tunnel. And the tunnel is an Ontario only project.

I would assume that Quebec and Gatineau would contribute part of the cost for a new interprovincial bridge. The tunnel? Since it is entirely in Ontario, is Quebec and Gatineau going to contribute anything? I doubt it.

So, financially, how is the tunnel a benefit to Ottawa? Ottawa's share is going to be higher and the overall cost to Ottawa taxpayers is going to be much higher.

I don't understand the logic.

[daud]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I don't understand these comments about Quebec benefiting from the construction of a new interprovincial bridge. Doesn't the same thing apply to the tunnel as well?

But there is a difference. By far the most expensive option is the tunnel. And the tunnel is an Ontario only project.

I would assume that Quebec and Gatineau would contribute part of the cost for a new interprovincial bridge. The tunnel? Since it is entirely in Ontario, is Quebec and Gatineau going to contribute anything? I doubt it.

So, financially, how is the tunnel a benefit to Ottawa? Ottawa's share is going to be higher and the overall cost to Ottawa taxpayers is going to be much higher.

I don't understand the logic.

I see your point about the cost, and you've got to wonder-Ontario will spend 1 billion vs. 400 million to build a tunnel vs a new bridge. But, they are not as dumb as we might think. This is all about tax revenue of residents.

Yesterday Watson said on 1310 "The bridge was really only of benefit to Quebec". My understanding, or thinking is that he does not want to make it easy for Ontario jobs and families to live in Quebec for tax revenue purposes. I see no other reasoning for it. In fact, he said this is a reason himself in a 2012 CTV article:

"Watson also said another bridge might encourage more people to live in Gatineau and commute to Ottawa." http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/watson-oppo...ridge-1.839446

It could be that he supports the tunnel because it solves the truck issue without really improving access of Quebec residents to downtown. Tolls and the exit point also make it an unattractive solution for many commuters. So it solves the truck issue while not really improving things for commuters.

At the end of the day it is clear he believes the bridge benefits Quebec and in some way its to the detriment of Ontario. If you consider about 50% of your wages end up in government coffers in one way shape or form, it adds up. They've done the math I presume.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I don't understand these comments about Quebec benefiting from the construction of a new interprovincial bridge. Doesn't the same thing apply to the tunnel as well?

But there is a difference. By far the most expensive option is the tunnel. And the tunnel is an Ontario only project.

I would assume that Quebec and Gatineau would contribute part of the cost for a new interprovincial bridge. The tunnel? Since it is entirely in Ontario, is Quebec and Gatineau going to contribute anything? I doubt it.

So, financially, how is the tunnel a benefit to Ottawa? Ottawa's share is going to be higher and the overall cost to Ottawa taxpayers is going to be much higher.

I don't understand the logic.

Bridge adds more interprovincial traffic. Tunnel does not, it only moves some of it from King Edward into Tunnel.

[roger1818]

When you come down to it there are basically only 2 reasons to build a new bridge: convenience and capacity.

For continence, it is a no brainier. The next bridge east of downtown Ottawa is in Hawkesbury. That is a large gap between bridges (about 88 km as the crow flies). For that argument, Kettle island doesn't help much as it only reduces the distance by about 5km, so other options might be better (though that opens up a whole new can of worms).

From a capacity perspective, I would argue that we are using the bridges we do have very ineffectively. Other than the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge, they all have traffic lights close to either end of the bridge, so when the light is red, traffic is stopped on the bridge. Not very effective use of an expensive piece of infrastructure. Optimally you want to have traffic flowing continuously on the bridge to maximize throughput. Until we can get the bridges we do have working effectively (and I'm not just talking about the M-C Bridge), we can't justify another one from a capacity perspective.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This is more directed at Jim Watson than at you, but that's such a 1980s and 1990s way of seeing things.

BTW, traffic is not the main reason preventing more people from Ottawa from moving to the Gatineau side. The main reasons are taxes, language, political uncertainty and health care. Maybe education for some people as well. Traffic is pretty far down the list. If you're a smart commuter it's no more difficult to commute to central Ottawa from Gatineau than it is from Orleans, Kanata or Barrhaven. But yeah, if you insist on driving solo along peak routes at peak times, you'll run into problems just like you would commuting from anywhere else on the Ontario side. .

This. A thousand times this.

This is the reason why housing is cheaper on the Quebec side in the first place--fewer people in the metro region want to live there, for exactly these reasons.

[lrt's friend]

It all seems very small-minded when we are so afraid of tax money fleeing across the river.

So, what does this mean? We can never improve transport across the river? Never have interprovincial rapid transit? We might as well just go and dynamite the Prince of Wales Bridge tomorrow. With the attitude on display, it will never be used for anything productive.

Shakes head! We need better politicians.

[daud]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It all seems very small-minded when we are so afraid of tax money fleeing across the river.

So, what does this mean? We can never improve transport across the river? Never have interprovincial rapid transit? We might as well just go and dynamite the Prince of Wales Bridge tomorrow. With the attitude on display, it will never be used for anything productive.

Shakes head! We need better politicians.

I share your frustration...I really wanted to see a kettle island bridge. And I would like to have politicians that see the big picture. It frustrates me to no end to hear watson say "look, no matter what, the bridge is not happening" because after this tunnel study, it really stands out now as an even better option at half the price to taxpayers.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by daud

I see your point about the cost, and you've got to wonder-Ontario will spend 1 billion vs. 400 million to build a tunnel vs a new bridge. But, they are not as dumb as we might think. This is all about tax revenue of residents.

Yesterday Watson said on 1310 "The bridge was really only of benefit to Quebec". My understanding, or thinking is that he does not want to make it easy for Ontario jobs and families to live in Quebec for tax revenue purposes. I see no other reasoning for it. In fact, he said this is a reason himself in a 2012 CTV article:

"Watson also said another bridge might encourage more people to live in Gatineau and commute to Ottawa." http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/watson-oppo...ridge-1.839446

It could be that he supports the tunnel because it solves the truck issue without really improving access of Quebec residents to downtown. Tolls and the exit point also make it an unattractive solution for many commuters. So it solves the truck issue while not really improving things for commuters.

At the end of the day it is clear he believes the bridge benefits Quebec and in some way its to the detriment of Ontario. If you consider about 50% of your wages end up in government coffers in one way shape or form, it adds up. They've done the math I presume.

Or it could just be that he is playing to a certain clientele that likes to drive around workplace parking lots in Ottawa and count the number of vehicles with Quebec plates.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by roger1818

When you come down to it there are basically only 2 reasons to build a new bridge: convenience and capacity.

For continence, it is a no brainier. The next bridge east of downtown Ottawa is in Hawkesbury. That is a large gap between bridges (about 88 km as the crow flies). For that argument, Kettle island doesn't help much as it only reduces the distance by about 5km, so other options might be better (though that opens up a whole new can of worms).

From a capacity perspective, I would argue that we are using the bridges we do have very ineffectively. Other than the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge, they all have traffic lights close to either end of the bridge, so when the light is red, traffic is stopped on the bridge. Not very effective use of an expensive piece of infrastructure. Optimally you want to have traffic flowing continuously on the bridge to maximize throughput. Until we can get the bridges we do have working effectively (and I'm not just talking about the M-C Bridge), we can't justify another one from a capacity perspective.

The M-C bridge was opened in 1965 and half a century later it is not even operating at capacity in spite of being the main interprovincial link in the region. When you consider how congested the approaches are, it tells you the problem isn't with the bridge itself.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

This. A thousand times this.

This is the reason why housing is cheaper on the Quebec side in the first place--fewer people in the metro region want to live there, for exactly these reasons.

Yeah. Transportation-related reasons are no more common a reason to not choose the Outaouais than they are for a person who works at the RCMP in Barrhaven who will rule out Orleans and Rockland because of the commute.

In peak periods it's arguably as easy or maybe easier to access employment in downtown Ottawa from Aylmer, Hull, Chelsea and the part of old Gatineau west of Lorrain or Labrosse, than it is from Orleans, Kanata or Barrhaven.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Yeah. Transportation-related reasons are no more common a reason to not choose the Outaouais than they are for a person who works at the RCMP in Barrhaven who will rule out Orleans and Rockland because of the commute.

In peak periods it's arguably as easy or maybe easier to access employment in downtown Ottawa from Aylmer, Hull, Chelsea and the part of old Gatineau west of Lorrain or Labrosse, than it is from Orleans, Kanata or Barrhaven.

Umm that is actually a really common reason for someone to not want to live in Orleans or especially Rockland. Sure people do it but every minute closer you can make a place makes it more desireable. There is a huge amount of farmland east along the 50 that would be a lot better as housing 20 minutes from Montfort instead of 40.

[khabibulin]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Yeah. Transportation-related reasons are no more common a reason to not choose the Outaouais than they are for a person who works at the RCMP in Barrhaven who will rule out Orleans and Rockland because of the commute.

In peak periods it's arguably as easy or maybe easier to access employment in downtown Ottawa from Aylmer, Hull, Chelsea and the part of old Gatineau west of Lorrain or Labrosse, than it is from Orleans, Kanata or Barrhaven.

MC bridge is a parking lot during the morning rush hour from Gatineau to Ottawa, while traffic flows smoothly the other way.

MC bridge is a parking lot during the evening rush hour from Ottawa to Gatineau (and backs up all the way to the Beechwood Cemetery, and also Coventry), while traffic flows smoothly the other way.

Portage bridge seems to have the same issues.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by khabibulin

MC bridge is a parking lot during the morning rush hour from Gatineau to Ottawa, while traffic flows smoothly the other way.

MC bridge is a parking lot during the evening rush hour from Ottawa to Gatineau (and backs up all the way to the Beechwood Cemetery, and also Coventry), while traffic flows smoothly the other way.

Portage bridge seems to have the same issues.

I am not talking about Ottawa-Gatineau rush hour commuting vs. Gatineau-Ottawa rush-hour commuting.

I am talking about commuting to *downtown Ottawa* from anywhere in the Ottawa-Gatineau region.

And as I said, I don't think it's any worse going to downtown Ottawa from the Gatineau side.

Equivalent roads from Orleans, Barrhaven and Kanata are just as jammed as the MC bridge and its approaches, and the distances to travel and length of traffic jams as a result, are often longer too.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Umm that is actually a really common reason for someone to not want to live in Orleans or especially Rockland. .

That's exactly what I said. I guess I wasn't sufficiently clear.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

There is a huge amount of farmland east along the 50 that would be a lot better as housing 20 minutes from Montfort instead of 40.

There might be an impact but I don't see it as significant.

There is a suburban type area off the Hautes-Plaines exit of the A-5 in Hull that is 8 km from King Edward Ave. Traffic on the A-5 is rarely jammed until you get right to the bridge (when hundreds cars arrive from the much more congested A-50).

Anyway, commuting to downtown Ottawa from this area is about as tough as just getting out of Orleans and onto the 174 in the morning.

Housing prices there are on the high end for Gatineau but still lower than Orleans, Kanata, Barrhaven.

Why? Because it's in Quebec.