Sandy Hill Truck Tunnel

[OTSkyline]

To me the best solution would be to connect the Vanier Parkway with the MacDonald-Cartier bridge and do some minor reconfigurations on the Vanier Parkway to make it a bit more of a "parkway" - meaning remove some intersections to get the cross-street to "dip" under the parkway and have some on/off ramp to access it, rather than have cars and trucks backed up on the parkway waiting for red lights. It's already a "central" route, the two roads already come close to connecting and I'm sure the costs would be very minimal compared to a truck tunnel. Also, there's not very many buildings or addresses actually fronting the Parkway so it shouldn't disrupt as much.

Anyway, that's my opinion...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

To me the best solution would be to connect the Vanier Parkway with the MacDonald-Cartier bridge and do some minor reconfigurations on the Vanier Parkway to make it a bit more of a "parkway" - meaning remove some intersections to get the cross-street to "dip" under the parkway and have some on/off ramp to access it, rather than have cars and trucks backed up on the parkway waiting for red lights. It's already a "central" route, the two roads already come close to connecting and I'm sure the costs would be very minimal compared to a truck tunnel. Also, there's not very many buildings or addresses actually fronting the Parkway so it shouldn't disrupt as much.

Anyway, that's my opinion...

That was more or less the original plan way back when. You can still see the footings for the bridge on the Rideau River that was never built near the park at the north end of King Edward (just before Foreign Affairs).

But the river shore park just beyond the St. Patrick/Beechwood intersection west of Crichton was deemed a sacred cow as it is used by posh New Edinburghers.

That neighbourhood succeded in scuttling two parts of the Vanier Parkway plan (that would have made it a direct link to Macdonald-Cartier):

- the final leg through the greenspace across the Rideau River as I mentioned

and

- no heavy trucks allowed on the parkway


People in Vanier and Overbrook were not so lucky/organized and houses were expropriated for the road and neighbourhoods were chopped in half all along the route.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by McC

You're forgetting that some trucks have their destinations downtown. The truck tunnel does not solve those, or, as I keep saying, dangerous goods such as gasoline, propane and (scariest of all) chlorine, that would require a surface route. There would still be a significant number of big trucks on this route even after the big bucks are spent on a tunnel.

That's true but in that sense Ottawa under such a scenario wouldn't be any different from any other city. Trucks go to downtown Toronto and Montreal to make deliveries all the time. But intercity truck traffic doesn't travel on downtown streets in either city.

Intercity truck traffic on downtown streets reminds me of places like, I dunno... Campbellton, New Brunswick.

Any largish city except Ottawa at this point in history has removed intercity truck traffic from its downtown core.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

A billion dollars (and probably double that before it is all said and done) so a bunch of liberal donors in Rockliffe don't have to see a bridge in the distance.

Also PC donors.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Also PC donors.

True, but they aren't in office.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

True, but they aren't in office.

Yet, anyway.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by McC

You're forgetting that some trucks have their destinations downtown. The truck tunnel does not solve those, or, as I keep saying, dangerous goods such as gasoline, propane and (scariest of all) chlorine, that would require a surface route. There would still be a significant number of big trucks on this route even after the big bucks are spent on a tunnel.

Aren't dangerous goods shipments only a small fraction of the truck traffic on the King Edward/Rideau route? For some reason 9% is in my head.

I'd like to see the tunnel and the bridge studied at the same time. Like lrt's friend I think both should ultimately be built, and with a study looking at both, we could get a sense of which one makes sense to prioritize.

A tunnel would almost certainly be more expensive to build; but toll revenue would probably be higher for the tunnel option.

But without a comparative study... we'll never know.

[lrt's friend]

The question of tolls is a touchy one. If tolls are applied, how much truck traffic would be pushed back onto surface streets? This will depend on the amount of the toll. We better be careful about this.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The question of tolls is a touchy one. If tolls are applied, how much truck traffic would be pushed back onto surface streets? This will depend on the amount of the toll. We better be careful about this.

This problem could be avoided by banning truck traffic (special permits for hazardous goods or local deliveries excepted) on the surface route, forcing them to use the tunnel and pay the toll.

If the toll is fairly low (something in the neighbourhood of $2 a trip or $40 for a monthly pass), a reasonable number of commuters will use it too owing to the convenience of being in the city centre and being a fast link between two freeways.

With a Kettle Island bridge, I don't think nearly as many commuters would be willing to pay a toll. The question is, would the increased revenue potential offset the higher cost of the tunnel option? I don't know, and we won't know without a proper study of both options.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

This problem could be avoided by banning truck traffic (special permits for hazardous goods or local deliveries excepted) on the surface route, forcing them to use the tunnel and pay the toll.

If the toll is fairly low (something in the neighbourhood of $2 a trip or $40 for a monthly pass), a reasonable number of commuters will use it too owing to the convenience of being in the city centre and being a fast link between two freeways.

With a Kettle Island bridge, I don't think nearly as many commuters would be willing to pay a toll. The question is, would the increased revenue potential offset the higher cost of the tunnel option? I don't know, and we won't know without a proper study of both options.

How would this be policed? It has to be low cost and effective otherwise there is next to no control. We don't want to waste police time pulling trucks over for special permits.

But as acottawa pointed out, we want to reroute intercity truck traffic away from downtown entirely. So a free and a convenient alternative route will encourage that. I am talking about Kettle Island. A route that is too far east will fail to reroute intercity truck traffic unless it is originating from the far east of Gatineau.

[1overcosc]

We already have these sorts of systems for trucks. Many shipments have to get routes approved by the MTO. It's common for the MTO to require trucks to use Highway 407 through the GTA in place of the 401, so we already have a precedent for regulations requiring truck traffic to use toll routes.

[eemy]

The driver would also be exposing themselves and their company to potentially enormous fines and liabilities.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

We already have these sorts of systems for trucks. Many shipments have to get routes approved by the MTO. It's common for the MTO to require trucks to use Highway 407 through the GTA in place of the 401, so we already have a precedent for regulations requiring truck traffic to use toll routes.

I only take the 407 a few times a year, but trucks are quite rare, whereas the 401 is packed with trucks.

I couldn't find any Ontario regulations banning the transport of dangerous goods in tunnels. BC bans dangerous goods in two tunnels unless the truck has a permit.

http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/...de/14_275_2006

Either way it would be a pretty awkward to sort all of this out under the Sussex Bridge.

[MoreTrains]

Originally Posted by Acajack

That was more or less the original plan way back when. You can still see the footings for the bridge on the Rideau River that was never built near the park at the north end of King Edward (just before Foreign Affairs).

But the river shore park just beyond the St. Patrick/Beechwood intersection west of Crichton was deemed a sacred cow as it is used by posh New Edinburghers.

I would just like to point out that the footings seen in the river are from the old railway bridge, nothing to do with a parkway connection to King Edward.

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by MoreTrains

I would just like to point out that the footings seen in the river are from the old railway bridge, nothing to do with a parkway connection to King Edward.

I actually thought the "planned" route was through the retirement homes on Porter Island, on the way to Vanier Parkway.. ??

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MoreTrains

I would just like to point out that the footings seen in the river are from the old railway bridge, nothing to do with a parkway connection to King Edward.

Hey, thanks for pointing that out! I stand corrected.

What I described was still the plan at one point, though.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Hey, thanks for pointing that out! I stand corrected.

What I described was still the plan at one point, though.

Yes, the Vanier Parkway extension was originally to follow the old CPR right of way. I expect that is why we have a pretty sharp turn onto King Edward. That was not the original intent.

[hwy418]

Originally Posted by Acajack

That was more or less the original plan way back when. You can still see the footings for the bridge on the Rideau River that was never built near the park at the north end of King Edward (just before Foreign Affairs).

But the river shore park just beyond the St. Patrick/Beechwood intersection west of Crichton was deemed a sacred cow as it is used by posh New Edinburghers.

That neighbourhood succeded in scuttling two parts of the Vanier Parkway plan (that would have made it a direct link to Macdonald-Cartier):

- the final leg through the greenspace across the Rideau River as I mentioned

and

- no heavy trucks allowed on the parkway


People in Vanier and Overbrook were not so lucky/organized and houses were expropriated for the road and neighbourhoods were chopped in half all along the route.

I am willing to bet the reason for the delay in releasing the report is because the recommendation will be to build the tunnel at the end of the Vanier Parkway and link to the MC bridge as originally intended.

[Norman Bates]

Originally Posted by hwy418

I am willing to bet the reason for the delay in releasing the report is because the recommendation will be to build the tunnel at the end of the Vanier Parkway and link to the MC bridge as originally intended.

Absolutely brilliant solution!

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by hwy418

I am willing to bet the reason for the delay in releasing the report is because the recommendation will be to build the tunnel at the end of the Vanier Parkway and link to the MC bridge as originally intended.

Now that seems to solve everything! Does anybody official know about this or is it just your idea?

If they would sink the Vanier Parkway (a la the Décarie in Montreal) then it would be perfect