DOCSLIB.ORG

Design Solutions for the Royal Alexandra Bridge

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Design Solutions for the Royal Alexandra Bridge DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR THE ROYAL ALEXANDRA BRIDGE FOR: PUBLIC SERVICES & PROCUREMENT CANADA EXSPAN STRUCTURAL CONSULTING SERVICES CHRISTOPHE CHAN SING HENNY DUONG KINGTON CHU SOFIA AN JUNE 5, 2019 1 Christophe Chan Sing ExSpan Senior Project Manager 200 University Ave West Waterloo, Ontario Canada N2L 3G1 June 9, 2019 Dr. Nadine Ibrahim Senior Project Engineer Public Services and Procurement Canada 140 O'Connor Street Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1A 0S5 Dear Dr. Nadine Ibrahim: As understood from your Request for Proposal, The Royal Alexandra Interprovincial Bridge constructed in 1900 by the Canadian Pacific Railway to connect Ottawa and Gatineau has reached the end of its life cycle. The constant rehabilitation of the bridge over the last decade to extend its life has resulted in multiple lane closures that have been detrimental to the traffic and local community. ExSpan is excited to provide structural and geotechnical engineering services to design a long- term solution for the deteriorating bridge. Our scope of services will include a series of assessments to evaluate several solutions such as the construction of a complimentary bridge to repurpose the existing bridge, a long-term rehabilitation strategy for the current structure, or a complete reconstruction of the Alexandra Bridge. ExSpan will provide an innovative solution that incorporates a modern structural design while still preserving the local heritage and culture of the Alexandra Bridge. Please find enclosed further details of our proposal for the Alexandra Bridge. We look forward to working with Public Services and Procurement Canada in bettering the communities of Ottawa and Gatineau. Yours sincerely, Christophe Chan Sing Senior Project Manager 1.0 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................1 1.2 Project Requirements .........................................................................................................2 1.2.1 Demolition and Reconstruction ...................................................................................3 1.2.2 Repurposing and Complementary Bridge ....................................................................3 1.2.3 Retrofitting and Rehabilitation.....................................................................................3 1.3 Scope of Work ...................................................................................................................3 1.4 Design Phases ....................................................................................................................4 2.0 Design Process Approach ......................................................................................................4 2.1 Design Constraints .............................................................................................................4 2.1.1 Local Heritage and Culture ..........................................................................................5 2.1.2 Material and Labour Cost ............................................................................................5 2.1.3 Environmental Impact .................................................................................................5 2.1.4 Construction Time .......................................................................................................6 2.1.5 Traffic Impact .............................................................................................................6 2.1.2 Environmental Impact .................................................................................................7 2.2 Design Conditions .............................................................................................................7 2.3 Phase I - Preliminary Design ..............................................................................................7 2.3.1 Conceptual Design ......................................................................................................7 2.3.2 Parametric Design .......................................................................................................9 2.3.2.1 Preliminary Assessments and Analyses .................................................................9 2.3.2.1.1 Existing Condition ..........................................................................................9 2.3.2.1.1 Geotechnical Condition ..................................................................................9 2.3.2.1.2 Traffic Flow ................................................................................................. 10 2.3.2.1.3 Environmental Site ....................................................................................... 10 2.3.2.1.4 Bridge Life Cycle Cost Analysis ................................................................... 11 2.3.2.1.5 Miscellaneous ............................................................................................... 11 2.3.2.2 Evaluation and Selection of Alternative .............................................................. 11 2.4 Phase II – Detailed Design ............................................................................................... 12 2.4.1 CADD Schematics .................................................................................................... 12 2.4.2 Construction Plan ...................................................................................................... 12 2.4.3 Life Cycle Cost Analysis ........................................................................................... 12 iv 2.5 Analysis Methodology ..................................................................................................... 12 2.5.1 Technology ............................................................................................................... 13 3.0 Project Team ....................................................................................................................... 13 3.1 ExSpan – A History ......................................................................................................... 13 3.2 Team Members ................................................................................................................ 14 3.3 Project Management ........................................................................................................ 15 4.0 Schedule and Key Deliverables ........................................................................................... 16 5.0 Budget ................................................................................................................................. 16 6.0 References ........................................................................................................................... 17 v 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background The Royal Alexandra Interprovincial Bridge, hereby addressed simply as the Alexandra Bridge, is an approximately 560-metre-long steel truss cantilever bridge originally constructed in 1900 by the Canadian Pacific Railway. The bridge is notably asymmetric and is comprised of four major sections – the ‘North Trestle Span’ comprised of a flat, sloping deck supported by six box trusses, the ‘Truss A Span’ comprised of a Pratt truss, the ‘Truss B Span’ comprised of a modified Bailey and K-truss, and finally the continuous-spanning ‘Main Truss’ designed as a cantilever truss. Spanning across the Ottawa river between the cities of Ottawa, Ontario, and Gatineau, Quebec, the Alexandra Bridge was originally designed for electric trolley and rail use until the closure of the Ottawa Union Station in the late 1960s, where it was rehabilitated to accommodate vehicular and pedestrian traffic. In 1970, the Canadian Pacific Railway turned over ownership of the bridge to the National Capital Commission, and was ultimately taken over by the Government of Canada under the Public Services and Procurement Canada, hereby addressed simply as PSPC. In 1995, after nearly a century of use, the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering designated the bridge as a Canadian National Historic Civil Engineering Site, where it remains as one of Ottawa and Gatineau’s local heritage icons (National History Committee of the CSCE, 2017). Since the start of the 21st century, the Alexandra bridge has been a part of multiple 1- and 2- year- long rehabilitation programs focused on restoring piers, girders, portions of the main deck, and steel members surrounding the piers for the purpose of extending the bridge’s service life. Each rehabilitation project has included traffic management in the form of temporary and/or permanent lane closures. The different rehabilitation projects and length of rehabilitation have been noted below: • 2009 – 2010: Keller Foundations • 2009 – 2010: McCormick Rankin Corporation (Canadian Consulting Engineer, 2010) (Canadian Museum of History, 2010) • 2014 – 2014: Maddison Construction (Maddison Construction, 2016) 1 • 2016 – 2017: Stellaire Construction Inc. (Public Works and Government Services Canada, PSPC, 2018) • 2019 – 2020: WSP (Public Works and Government Services Canada, Acquisitions Branch, 2019) • 2021 – 2022: ExSpan The Alexandra Bridge is currently responsible for approximately 15% of the total vehicular traffic and 40% of the total pedestrian traffic between Ottawa and Gatineau. The pedestrian traffic across the Alexandra Bridge is
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Preliminary Heritage Value Assessment: Prince of Wales Bridge
    – DRAFT DRAFT - PRELIMINARY HERITAGE VALUE ASSESSMENT PRINCE OF WALES BRIDGE, OTTAWA, ON - GATINEAU, QC 2.1. HERITAGE PLANNING ................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2. LAND USE PLANNING ................................................................................................................................... 9 4.1. HERITAGE RESOURCE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 11 4.2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................... 12 4.3. IMPACT OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON IDENTIFIED HERITAGE VALUE: SUMMARY ............................ 13 4.4. OPPORTUNITIES FOR MITIGATION ............................................................................................................. 15 4.5. PRECENDENCE & LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................. 16 4.6. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................. 16 APPENDIX “A” - 125TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE OPENING OF THE POW BRIDGE ...................................................... 18 APPENDIX “B” - PRINCE OF WALES BRIDGE ............................................................................................................ 29 APPENDIX “C” - SLEEPING PRINCE - A
    [Show full text]
  • Solicitation AMD 003 E Final
    1 1 RETURN BIDS TO: Title - Sujet RETOURNER LES SOUMISSIONS À: LaSalle Causeway Bridge Engineering Bid Receiving - PWGSC / Réception des soumissions Solicitation No. - N° de l'invitation Date TPSGC EQ754-201337/A 2019-12-10 10th Floor, 4900 Yonge Street / Client Reference No. - N° de référence du client Amendment No. - N° modif. 10e étage, 4900 rue Yonge EQ754-201337 003 Toronto Ontario File No. - N° de dossier CCC No./N° CCC - FMS No./N° VME M2N 6A6 PWL-9-42060 (034) GETS Reference No. - N° de référence de SEAG PW-$PWL-034-2496 Date of Original Request for Standing Offer 2019-10-21 Revision to a Request for a Standing Offer Date de la demande de l'offre à commandes originale Révision à une demande d'offre à commandes Solicitation Closes - L'invitation prend fin Time Zone Fuseau horaire Departmental Individual Standing Offer (DISO) at - à 02:00 PM on - le 2020-01-07 Eastern Standard Offre à commandes individuelle du département(OCID) Time EST Address Enquiries to: - Adresser toutes questions à: Buyer Id - Id de l'acheteur Somaratna, Chinthaka pwl034 The referenced document is hereby revised; unless otherwise indicated, all other terms and conditions of Telephone No. - N° de téléphone FAX No. - N° de FAX the Offer remain the same. (416) 305-7369 ( ) (416) 952-1257 Delivery Required - Livraison exigée Ce document est par la présente révisé; sauf indication contraire, les modalités de l'offre demeurent les mêmes. Destination - of Goods, Services, and Construction: Destination - des biens, services et construction: Comments - Commentaires Lasalle Causeway Lift Bridge THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS A SECURITY Kingston, ON REQUIREMENT.
    [Show full text]
  • Portage Bridge... [PDF]
    Mixing Strength With Satisfaction PORTAGE BRIDGE REHABILITATION, OTTAWA, ON MS-D1 AccelerateD SHotcrete PROJECT: Portage Bridge below. The accelerated set-time and rapid strength gain offered by King’s MS-D1 Accelerated Shotcrete, allowed the National Capital Commission to CONSULTANT: Genivar keep the bridge open, even during the shooting process. CONTRACTOR: David S. Laflamme Construction PRODUCT: MS-D1 Accelerated Shotcrete King MS-D1 Accelerated Shotcrete is a silica fume enhanced, air-entrained mix that provides excellent resistance to salt-scaling and freeze-thaw cycling. 3 3 QUANTITY: 185 m (242 yd ) The silica fume also reduces permeability values and provides added protection COMPLETION: Winter 2011 against any future corrosion of the reinforcing steel. The area repaired exceeded 904 m2, with an average thickness of 120 mm, The Portage Bridge is a busy, six-lane, inter-provincial road that crosses the and resulted in the use of approximately 410 bags (1,000 kg each) of King Ottawa River and joins downtown Ottawa in Ontario to Gatineau in Québec. MS-D1 Accelerated Shotcrete. Built by the National Capital Commission and opened in 1973, this bridge is now a crucial passage way for many commuters who travel between the two provinces. The bridge consists of six traffic lanes, two bicycle lanes and a pedestrian walkway. Genivar, a leading Canadian consulting firm, was hired to verify the extent of structural damage that resulted from years of exposure to de-icing salts and freeze-thaw cycles. The project was released for tender in May of 2010 and awarded in June of 2010, to David S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Canadian
    THE CANADIAN 60 Years of Trans-continental Passenger Service 1955 - 2015 VOLUME 1A: The Canadian Pacific Era 1955 – 1978 Eastern Canada C. van Steenis, Calgary, AB. April 2015 CONTENTS Though by no means complete, this series is a pictorial history of Canadian Pacific Railway’s THE CANADIAN and VIA Rail’s CANADIAN marking 60 years of operation from the inaugural runs on 24 April 1955 to 2015; in four volumes: Vol. 1A: The Canadian Pacific Era 1955-1978 in Eastern Canada Vol. 1B: The Canadian Pacific Era 1955-1978 in Western Canada Vol. 2: The Via Rail Canada Era 1978-2015 Vol. 3: Motive Power & Passenger Equipment This Volume, 1A, focuses on Canadian Pacific’s ‘THE CANADIAN’ in eastern Canada, from the terminals in Montreal and Toronto to Sudbury, Ontario. The author wishes to express thanks to the following individuals who kindly provided photos and/or information for this volume: William Baird, James Brown, Bruce Chapman, Peter Cox, Kevin Day, Peter Layland, Bill Linley, Jim Parker, Doug Phillips, Ron Richie, Robert Sandusky and Dale Wilson. Photo Credits: All photos are used with the permission of the photographers. The photos of the old stations from the early part of the 20th century are in the public domain; the copyright has expired. Cover Photo: The last CPR ‘THE CANADIAN’ departs Renfrew, Ontario, on 28 October 1978 – Bruce Chapman Photo CPR Skyline Dome 517 - 1954 Builder’s Photo THE ORIGINAL ORDER Striving to reverse the trend of declining passenger volumes after World War II and to replace aging equipment, in June of 1953 the Canadian Pacific Railway placed its initial order (of two orders) for 173 stainless steel cars with the Budd Company of Philadelphia, PA.
    [Show full text]
  • Canada Day Street Closures – July 1 Fermetures De Rues De La Fête Du Canada – 1Er Juillet
    e B th o in ul c Sa ev a c a y ré- rd H Cœ de - ur s int Marston All a i um S r t y in Edgar-Chénier n n u rt in C et e e g e r ha ti H r i u o rl èr t- lo t e M ev e n F s -G n oix s i - O r lè G a t - u u é a S in re a h rne a o e rt -H l Ve au S id rd A e a rd s t v u P I la in La n ap a a in F Sa P Rideau Falls eau S in le ON t- in l’Î T Éti la - Chutes Rideau r en p e M u n -d A e c e am e C t u h m D p d l C a O m e a N e L v D A n d u e- LD lo é D tr l R - o -C x ri - y e N A e a t d n ss n d è R u C i E l TI S e a é ux E D S s H a R e e B u m R q Or ID c t s G Ja n e N E - Fr e D Él t on K d- is in ten r ab a ac la et S ol h-B CANADA DAY Va D ruy Wr Hô ud in ère igh tel reu la t -de il l p STREET CLOSURES – JULY 1 P -V a m O ille v a N La h T C C W H el FERMETURES DE RUES A Alexandre-Taché lin M gt V on ve ic r P u to ie L ria r P DE LA FÊTE DU CANADA – A VERS LE / TO e O I n u N N PARC DE LA GATINEAU PARK n a T ER JUILLET L A Boteler B so L R tage i E 1 I or a X D P M A G N E D R Bolton A B R ID Cathcart Closed to Motor Vehicles / G E Fermé aux 6 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Longitudinal Profile of the Lower Ottawa River
    Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS i LIST OF FIGURES iii LIST OF MAPS iv RIVER NOMINATION 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 3 1.1 The Ottawa River Heritage Designation Initiative 3 1.1.1 Ottawa River Heritage Designat ion Commi t tee S tructure 3 1.1.2 Community Support and Involvement 4 1.1.3 Methodology 5 1.2 The Canadian Heritage Rivers System 5 1.3 Location and Description of the Ottawa River 6 1.4 Role of the Ottawa River in the Canadian Heritage Rivers System 6 CHAPTER 2 CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUES 14 2.1 Description of Cultural Heritage Values 14 2.1.1 Resource Harvesting 14 2.1.2 Water Transport 15 2.1.3 Riparian Settlement 18 2.1.4 Culture and Recreation 20 2.1.5 Jurisdictional Use 22 2.2 Assessment of Cultural Heritage Values 23 2.2.1 Se lection Guide lines: Cultura l V a lues 23 2.2.2 Integrity Guidelines: Cultural Integrity Values 24 CHAPTER 3 NATURAL HERITAGE VALUES 28 3.1 Description of Natural Heritage Values 28 3.1.1 Hydrology 28 3.1.2 Physiography 29 3.1.3 River Morphology 32 3.1.4 Biotic Environments 33 3.1.5 Vegetation 33 3.1.6 Fauna 34 3.2 Assessment of Natural Heritage Values 35 3.2.1 Se lection Guide l ines: Na tura l Heri t age Va lues 35 3.2.2 Integri ty Guide l ines: Na tura l Integri ty V a lues 36 CHAPTER 4 RECREATIONAL VALUES 38 4.1 Description of Recreational Values 38 4.1.1 Boating 38 4.1.2 Swimming 38 4.1.3 Fishing 39 4.1.4 Water Related Activities 39 4.1.5 Winter Activities 40 4.1.6 Natural Heritage Appreciation 40 4.1.7 Cultural Heritage Appreciation 40 Ottawa River Nomination Document i 4.2 Assessment of Recreational Values 41 4.2.1 Selection Guidelines: Recreational Va lues 41 4.2.2 Integrity Guidelines: Recreational Integrity Values 41 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION 44 THE OTTAWA RIVER BY NIGHT (POEM BY MARGARET ATWOOD) 45 REFERENCES 46 APPENDICES 47 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Document 2 – Summary of Crossing Locations Examined Sources: STO Website ( and the May 15Th Technical Briefing to C
    Document 2 – Summary of Crossing Locations Examined Sources: STO website (www.sto.ca) and the May 15th Technical Briefing to City Councillors Analysis of Current Crossings For the interprovincial link, the dedicated transit system would have to cross the Ottawa River. The six bridges connecting Gatineau and Ottawa were assessed based on the projected destinations of Gatineau riders. The Portage Bridge has been selected as the preferred link between the two cities. The Champlain Bridge This bridge is too far to the west and would mean a significant detour for riders in the Hull sector going to downtown Ottawa. Nonetheless, the Champlain Bridge will always be used for regular STO buses heading to Tunney's Pasture. The Prince of Wales Bridge This bridge would not serve the primary function of this specific study. It is also too far to the west and would mean a significant detour for riders going to either downtown Gatineau or downtown Ottawa. This option is not feasible as it would require that riders heading to downtown Ottawa would have to transfer to the O-Train system at the Bayview station. Over the longer term, Ottawa's O-Train line 1 would not have capacity to carry everyone from Gatineau as well as everyone from the western parts of Ottawa. The Prince of Wales Bridge however remains a potential future secondary transportation link between Ottawa and Gatineau. The Chaudière Bridge Surrounded by several buildings, some of which are heritage buildings, the bridge is not large enough to insert a dedicated public transit corridor. The Macdonald-Cartier Bridge This bridge is too far to the east and would mean a significant detour for riders between the Aylmer/Taché and Allumettières corridors, and downtown Ottawa.
    [Show full text]
  • Portage Bridge
    Public Submission No. 2018-P150 To Board of Directors For DECISION Date 2018-04-19/20 Subject/Title Portage Bridge – Roadway Surface Repairs Summary To seek the Board of Directors’ authorization of budget for implementation of bridge repairs and cycle track improvements. Risk Summary • Meeting public expectations as a result of pedestrian and vehicular traffic restrictions during construction. • Meeting public and stakeholder expectations of the proposed cycle track improvements. • Low to medium probability of exceeding project budget. • Medium probability of schedule delay. Recommendation That the Board of Directors approve a total budget of $9.162 million for the Portage Bridge repairs and cycle track improvements. Submitted by: Submitted by: Daniel Champagne, Gary Lacey, Executive Director, Capital Planning Branch Executive Director, Capital Stewardship Branch _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ Signature Signature Submission: 2018-P150 Page 1 of 11 Public Submission 1. Strategic Priorities Corporate priority 6 to demonstrate corporate excellence such that the NCC is recognized as an exemplary federal Crown corporation and steward of federal lands and assets by undertaking priority capital investments and rehabilitation projects identified in the Multi- Year Capital Program to address aging infrastructure, life cycle management, and health and safety issues. 2. Authority NCC By-laws, paragraph 3.2.5 3. Context The Portage Bridge is a major transportation route over the Ottawa River for interprovincial travel between Ontario and Quebec. The traffic on the bridge includes motorized vehicles, buses, bicycles and pedestrians. The volume of traffic on the bridge is high and steady throughout the week during business hours and moderate at all other times. The crossing carries six lanes of vehicular traffic, three in each direction (northbound and southbound).
    [Show full text]
  • Alexandra Bridge FEATURED PROFILE Snapshot Safway's Quikdeck® Suspended Access System Means More Space to Work and Less Installation Time
    Alexandra Bridge FEATURED PROFILE Snapshot Safway's QuikDeck® Suspended Access System means more space to work and less installation time. Project Name: Alexandra Bridge Working under a bridge doesn’t mean you Approximately 15,000 vehicles, 1,300 cyclists Rehabilitation should be working overtime. and 2,000 pedestrians cross the bridge per day: the highest use of all interprovincial When contractor Pomerleau needed a bridges by cyclists and pedestrians. lightweight, reliable access system to Contractor: rehabilitate the fragile Alexandra Bridge, they Pomerleau chose Safway’s QuikDeck® Suspended Access “We estimate that we cut the System. installation time in half by using “We needed a fast and reliable system the QuikDeck® system.” Job Location: that could be versatile to suit the different Ottawa, Ontario, and Philippe Goulet conditions of the existing bridge structure,” said Gatineau, Quebec Project Manager, Pomerleau Philippe Goulet, Pomerleau Project Manager. QuikDeck® could tackle the access challenges, After onsite training provided by Safway’s Safway Branch Support: as well as provide a flat, open workspace that Training Department, Pomerleau’s installation Hamilton, Ontario branch was easy to install. crew of eight erected the equipment 100% Bridge Division The crews using the scaffold considered the below the bridge deck. No special traffic or open work area to be extremely beneficial, as pedestrian control measures were necessary. Project Completion Date: it allowed for easy movement of personnel and Gaining good access to the piers’ stepped March 2011 (projected) materials. truss required a “stepped” QuikDeck® “Workers do not have to work in a confined (see photo, above). Stepping the platform to match the slope of the truss yielded Products/Services Used: space, which allows a safer workplace and less loss of time due to material movement on the a safer, more productive worksite.
    [Show full text]
  • STO Public Transit System
    Federal Land Use, Design, and Transaction Public Approval Submission No. 2020-P218 To Board of Directors For INFORMATION Date 2020-06-25 Subject/Title Société de transport de l’Outaouais (STO) public transit system linking Gatineau ’s West End to Ottawa – Scenarios under review Purpose of the Submission Inform the members of the Board of Directors on the proposed alignment scenarios under study for the public transit system that will connect Gatineau’s West End to the downtown areas of Gatineau and Ottawa. Recommendation • N/A Submitted by: Pierre Vaillancourt, Acting Vice President, Capital Planning Branch_ Name _____________________________________________________ Signature Submission: 2020-P218 Page 1 of 6 Federal Land Use, Design, and Transaction Public Approval Submission 1. Authority National Capital Act, Section 12 2. Project Description The Société de transport de l’Outaouais (STO) is conducting a study to support the implementation of a rapid transit system linking Gatineau’s West End (Aylmer) to downtown Gatineau and downtown Ottawa in the next 8 to 10 years (2028 to 2030). The project also aims at looking to connect to the City of Ottawa Light Rail (O-Train) system and the existing Rapibus system which links Gatineau’s East End to downtown Ottawa. The proposed alignments and scenarios impact NCC properties and assets in certain areas of Gatineau Park and the Capital Core Area Lands, including Confederation Boulevard. The STO Draft Planning Study will identify and confirm the preferred corridor(s) within City of Gatineau boundaries, along with the preferred bridge crossing(s) over the Ottawa River and the proposed transit system route in downtown Ottawa.
    [Show full text]
  • The West End Team Société De Transport De L’Outaouais Tel : 819 770-3242
    ------------------ Email no. 1 and response ----------------- De : etudedelouest Envoyé : 25 juin 2020 12:17 À : Cc : '[email protected]' Objet : RE: STO Proposal Dear , We thank you for your message that received our full attention. 1. The STO project will not entail any shut down or impact on Line 1. However, it might require some construction work at the existing Line 1 stations if the final recommendations include the construction of pedestrian tunnels between the tram of Gatineau and Line 1 stations. Of course mitigation measures will need to be developed fully to reduce the impact as much as possible. Finally traffic studies are currently being carried out to measure the impacts of the proposed modifications. The integration of a tram would attract more users to public transit and therefore reduce the number of vehicles coming to downtown Ottawa, which in turn limits the traffic pressure exerted on several other corridors in the city center, as compared to not having a tram. Thus, traffic analyzes show that, in general, each scenario with a tram would improve future traffic conditions compared to the status quo. 2. The design of a tram on Wellington Street would have to be in line with the functional and security constraints of the area. A pedestrian tunnel at Lyon Station would be designed including the most stringent safety requirements. We noted also that integrating a tram on Wellington Street will likely significantly impact many of accesses to Parliament Hill in order for the tram to run efficiently and safely. Concerning the possible transit service disruptions due to demonstrations and other special events on Wellington Street, alternative arrangements would be required to ensure service continuity.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rotting Heart of Gatineau Park: How and Why the Kingsmere-Meech Lake Privatopia Prevented a National Park Near Canada's Ca
    The rotting heart of Gatineau Park: How and why the Kingsmere-Meech Lake privatopia prevented a national park near Canada’s capital by Michael Christopher Lait A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology in Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario © 2017 Michael Christopher Lait Lait (draft do not cite) I Abstract First proposed in 1913, Gatineau Park could have been the first national park east of the Rocky Mountains, the first in Quebec, and the first near-urban national park in Canada. Ultimately, the Quebec government proved unwilling to cede territory to the federal government, and the park proposal was shelved. In 1938, the Mackenzie King government responded to a public campaign organized by local cottagers and the Ottawa Ski Club by establishing the “Gatineau Park.” Newspapers announced the creation of a national park, and the first expropriations were carried out under this pretense. Gatineau Park is a failed national park. This study shows that federal authorities not only proceeded to establish a park without the consent of the Quebec government, they also failed to consolidate territorial control. My analysis addresses the question of how and why this national park failed, and documents the influence of the Meech Lake Association (MLA) and Kingsmere Property Owners’ Association (KPOA) on the park’s creation, development, and management. I argue that the park’s status as a “mixed- use/ownership area” represents a provisional achievement of these property owners’ associations.
    [Show full text]