Stop The Kettle Island Bridge

Open letter to decision makers

Here is a sample letter to give you ideas for your letters to elected representatives and the decision-makers in this project. Feel free to copy and paste shamelessly, but you are also encouraged to edit and change this letter to make it your own.
_____________________

RE: A New Ottawa River Bridge

Dear [elected representative / decision maker],

Most informed observers agree that a new bridge is needed across the Ottawa River, primarily to remove large truck traffic from the downtown Ottawa core, but also to facilitate automobile traffic between Ottawa and Gatineau. A recent technical study has concluded that the new bridge should be in the east end of the city because more of the demand is there and also it would be much cheaper to build because the crossing would not be as long. I and most of my neighbors agree with that assessment.

Unfortunately the technical study also recommended that of six possible east-end bridge sites the preferred site should be Kettle Island because it would “attract” the most trucks and the most Gatineau commuters. It was also claimed that the Kettle Island site would be the cheapest, but that conclusion was reached only by loading the other options with costs such as highway widening that were to occur anyway, and excluding similar costs from their Kettle Island calculations.

The recommendation was based primarily on facilitating the maximum flow of automobile and truck traffic regardless of other consequences. The study gave little or no consideration to the devastating impact of the Kettle Island bridge corridor on established residential communities, businesses, tourist attractions, hospitals, schools or recreational facilities. The cost calculations in the study do not stand up to the most minimal scrutiny. The recommended option is not integrated with future land use plans and longer term urban growth. Perhaps most importantly, the recommended site does not achieve its primary objective of removing truck traffic from downtown. It simply would move some of it and create a second heavy truck congestion point in Ottawa’s core.

Despite the fact that there are much better options, it is now being proposed that the technical study move on to a more detailed examination of the Kettle Island site alone without regard to the serious failings in the first phase of the study. At a minimum the consultants should be directed to re-examine their earlier work, correct the failings and omissions that have occurred, and then select at least two options for more detailed study.

It is very important that our limited infrastructure funds be used wisely and now is the time to get this project back on track. Please join with your fellow elected representatives and decision makers in this project to make sure that this happens before more time and effort is wasted.

Yours truly,

[a concerned citizen]
_____________________

For a list of the elected representatives and decision makers in this project and their contact information, click here.

Share on Facebook

King Edward is the best option…not

When it comes to making any decision, one of the options always available is to ‘do nothing’. Based on the criteria and the logic that the consultants have used to select the best alternative, we thought it would be interesting to see how the current King Edward crossing would stack up in the rankings relative to the other alternatives.

At stopthebridge.org, we don’t have an army of engineers and consultants who we can ask to spend the next ten months compiling data and quantifying utility factors for this option. So I’m afraid that we’ll have to keep our analysis fairly basic.

With this in mind, we’ve made some basic assumptions about how the King Edward option would be assessed. Here are some of the highlights:

• King Edward ranks #1 by a landslide when it comes to attracting cars and trucks to the corridor;
• The King Edward crossing uses existing roadways with good connections to the provincial highway systems;
• You may be concerned about gridlock, but because there are no factors that consider gridlock or the negative impact associated traffic increases in and around the selected corridor, it is not important;
• King Edward would score very high in the Economic Development category, which measures the potential for commercial and industrial development in the area based on the number of cars and trucks drawn to the area;
• Costs are very low, since there is already a bridge there;
• There would be no incremental impact on fish habitat, waterfowl, or wildlife;
• There would be continued negative impacts on the people living downtown, their communities, and their quality of life. But as we have learned from the consultants, these impacts are unimportant and warrant very little weighting in the final score (see note below);
• Residential property values in the area would continue to be suppressed, but there is no factor that considers these impacts;
• The King Edward route accommodates transportation of hazardous materials;
• There would be no impact on archaeological sites.

So, taking these factors into consideration, King Edward is clearly the best choice. But, if another option is absolutely required, then it is important to select the option that would most closely replicate the near-ideal conditions on King Edward today.

As ridiculous as this conclusion sounds, it does sadly reflect the decision-making criteria and logic that has been employed to select Kettle Island as the best choice.

If you have an issue with this:

• Formally submit your comments to the consultants
• Contact your elected representatives and the decision-makers in this project to tell them how you feel about this issue
• Raise as much awareness any way that you can (elevator pitches, talking to your neighbours, community rallies, letters to the editor, blog participation, etc.)
• Convince everyone you can to do the same

Note: Based on the final weightings published by the consultants, the aggregate weighting assigned to all factors relating to negative impacts on Community is 4.4% of the total score for each alternative. One of the most significant of these in my opinion, called Community Cohesion, is calculated by the total length of corridor passing through established residential areas. Community Cohesion accounts for a mere 0.8% of the total score. Traffic and cost factors combined account for 55%.

Share on Facebook

500 litres of Diesel Fuel Spills from Ruptured Truck in East End

Ironically, on the very day that consultants from ROCHE-NCE promised an angry mob at Lansdowne that a new truck highway would be “100% safe”, an eighteen wheeler carrying diesel fuel collided with a van at Boundary Rd. The truck lost control and careened into the ditch, rupturing its fuel tanks and spilling more than 500 litres of toxic diesel fuel. A fire service haz-mat team and clean up crew was called in to contain the spill. The Ministry of the Environment is now investigating the accident.

Source: Metro News, Sept 26, 2008.  Click here for the full article.

Share on Facebook

Sept 30th, 2008 – Last Day for Transportation Master Plan Comments

Important Message from Councillor Jacques Legendre:

———
Dear Residents,

The City is currently conducting a mandatory revision of its Transportation Master Plan. The draft revision focuses mainly on Mass Transit although some proposals for new or widened road corridors are included.

One disappointing aspect is the absence of any mention of studying an Ottawa By-Pass (Ring Road). The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario has included such a study in its vision of “Future Highway Expansion” needs for the province.

As you all know, the Ring Road Concept is a key element for the removal of unwanted trucks from our communities. Tuesday, September 30th, is the last day to submit comments to staff on your vision of what this next Transportation Master Plan should look like.

It would be very important, if you can, to request to City Staff that the notion/study of a Ring Road be included in this plan. As things currently stand, the ring road is absent from the City’s future plans. It is time to incorporate this ring road concept and your help in accomplishing this would be very welcomed.

You can do so online at https://ottawa.ca/cgi-bin/form.cgi?dir=beyond_2020&form=feedback_tmp_en

or by email at plan@ottawa.ca

Sincerely,

Jacques Legendre
———

For a map of the proposed roadway transportation plan within the report, click here.  Note that there is no current provision for a Ring Road in this plan, although bridge crossing options east of Kettle Island would connect well to a future ring road via the new arterial road proposed between Hunt Club and Innes.

Share on Facebook

Press Clippings

Take a look at our new page that consolidates press clips about Kettle Island. Help us keep this up to date by letting us know if you come across new articles.

Share on Facebook

Strong turnout at the Final Public Consultation

More than 1000 concerned citizens packed the meeting room at Lansdowne for the Final Public Consultation.  It was a great display of community energy.  Photos, videos, and commentary to follow…stay tuned.

We’ll be revamping the website to better accomodate the media attention that this story is sure to attract, but for now, here is a link to the Sept 25 Ottawa Citizen article:  “Hundreds of angry residents tell consultants ‘no’ to proposed bridge at Kettle Island“.

Share on Facebook

Your Participation is Critical!

KETTLE ISLAND HAS BEEN SELECTED AS THE PREFERRED CROSSING ALTERNATIVE!

Make no mistake – unless we mobilize our communities and make it known in a loud voice to our politicians, the media, and the consultants that this is a flawed selection with massive detrimental impacts on thousands of people, this bridge will be built.

If we don’t stop this now, the next two years will be dedicated to refining and designing the Kettle Island corridor and crossing. The 4-year construction project could conceivably begin in 2010, and the new trucking route could be fully functional by as early as 2014.

It is absolutely critical that you do the following to prevent this from happening:

• Formally submit your comments to the consultants
• Contact your elected representatives and the decision-makers in this project to tell them how you feel about this issue
• Raise as much awareness any way that you can (elevator pitches, talking to your neighbours, community rallies, letters to the editor, blog participation, etc.)
• Convince everyone you can to do the same

We need massive community involvement, action, and support. Together, we can stop this.

Share on Facebook

A bridge too close: Residents gird for Kettle Island fight (Ottawa Citizen)

Be sure to read the front page story in the Sept. 23rd Ottawa Citizen, which is very supportive of stopping the Kettle Island bridge.   Click here to see the article.

Share on Facebook

No to Kettle Island!

View Interprovincial Bridge Options in a larger map

The map begs the questions: Why is Kettle Island (in red) the only choice being considered? Shouldn’t other proposed routes such as Lower Duck Island (blue) and Gatineau Airport (green) that are both shorter and impact far fewer residential neighbourhoods be given further consideration as potentially viable options?

For more details on the devastating impact that the Kettle Island bridge would have on communities in and around the proposed corridor, click here.

Share on Facebook

Message from Madeleine Meilleur, M.P.P for Ottawa-Vanier

See below for comments from Madeleine Meilleur, M.P.P. for Ottawa-Vanier, as she articulates her objections to the Kettle Island Bridge for stopthebridge.org.
———-

Kettle Island Bridge – A Back to the Future Option

On September 4th, the National Capital Commission’s Technical Evaluation Committee presented its so-called ‘technically and environmentally preferred alternative’ for the Inter-Provincial River Crossing between Ottawa and Gatineau through the Kettle Island Corridor.  The study, to say the least, is a major disappointment.

The Kettle Island location represents a major safety concern for residents, public transit users, pedestrians and travelers in the core of our beautiful city.  The study itself recognizes that the proposed location would not eliminate heavy truck traffic from King Edward Avenue or the downtown core. The consulting firm that conducted the study states that currently 95% of all trucks crossing the river must circulate through King Edward Avenue in the downtown core in order to connect with Highway 417. The study goes on to suggest, however, that even with the proposed new crossing in place, heavy truck traffic on King Edward Avenue will only be reduced by up to 40%!

I believe this is a senseless option.  It was my understanding that one of the key objectives of this study was to find a location for a new crossing in order to eliminate heavy truck traffic from the downtown area.  This begs the question: Why would we build another bridge downtown when, in fact, we could easily redirect heavy traffic outside of the core and downtown area?

The Kettle Island location for a new bridge is also counter to most principles and trends guiding modern urban development.  Cities that thrive economically are cities that attempt to reduce traffic in their downtown core and replace it with alternative public transit, cyclist or pedestrian-friendly options.

Ottawa is a beautiful, environmentally-friendly city.  I urge the NCC and its partners to work towards modern urban development which will enhance our ability to attract businesses, tourists and residents.   Traffic congestion compounded with high-risk heavy vehicles do not achieve this objective

As your current MPP and former city and regional councillor, I have had the opportunity to foster community dialogue on this issue, always in support of residents and local businesses, for well over 15 years.   I have always maintained that the new bridge should be located away from established residential neighbourhoods in order to avoid congestion and pollution in our community.  This is even more relevant now that we know for a fact that the Kettle Island bridge would direct significant heavy truck routes a few hundred yards from the new, expanded Montfort Hospital. This ‘technically preferred’ option might work for engineers, but we need to find a solution that works for people.

I urge all of you to express your concerns by participating in public consultations which will take place in Ottawa on Wednesday, September 24th, 2008 (Salon A, Lansdowne Park, 1015 Bank Street) and in Gatineau on Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008 (Agora, Maison du Citoyen, 25 Laurier Street). The schedule for both consultations is as follows: Open House from 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM, Presentation from 7:00 PM to 7:30 PM, Questions and Comments from 7:30 PM to 9:30 PM.

Please get involved and join me in finding a solution that makes sense for our families, our communities and our beautiful City.

Madeleine Meilleur, M.P.P. for Ottawa-Vanier
———-

Share on Facebook

Kettle Island versus Gatineau Airport – Important Considerations

Please see the following comparison of the Kettle Island and the Gatineau Airport corridors, submitted to stopthebridge.org from Julie Taub and Derek Chase, concerned citizens. Thanks for your contribution!  Note that this post has been updated by the authors to reflect current information, and to align with the crossing location terminology used by the consultants.
———

Length of Corridor
The Kettle Island bridge corridor passing through established residential communities, RCMP stables and fields, Aviation Museum runway and encroaching on the Montfort Hospital Emergency entrance in Ontario and residential communities in Quebec is 7.0 km long. However the MccLaurin Bay / Gatineau Airport corridor passing through established residential communities is 0 km with no expropriation requirements.

Impact on established residential communities
The population impacted by the Kettle Island corridor in Ontario would comprise nearly 100,000 people in 10 communities (Vanier, Overbrook, Manor Park, (Manor Park Hill, Manor Park East), Viscount Alexander, Castle Heights, Carson Grove, Cyrville, New Edinburgh, Lindenlea, Rockcliffe Park, Rockcliffe Mews ) whereas the McLaurin Bay / Gatineau Airport corridor would pass through non-populated undeveloped land.

Ring Road
The main argument for a bridge in the east end, such as one at McLaurin Bay / Gatineau Airport, is that it can be linked to the proposed Ring Road.  It would link the east end directly to highway 417 and on to the Ottawa Airport and to highway 416, and eventually to 417 at the west end.  Residents in the east end will be major beneficiaries of this route since Hwy 174 will have to be widened easing the gridlock at the Queensway Hwy 417 junction when travelling downtown and westward. This corridor will link into the Ring road proposed in the city of Ottawa 20-20 Transportation Master Plan (Map 6 Urban Road Network) eventually providing for a direct link to the Ottawa International Airport and to the Gatineau Airport. The Kettle Island corridor does not fit into Ottawa 20-20 Transportation Master Plan

Commuter traffic
Via the Kettle Island crossing, commuter traffic from Gatineau, excluding trucks, will not necessarily continue the 4 kilometre route from the Ontario shore to the 417 exchange. Gatineau commuters would probably opt for the faster and direct route to downtown Ottawa, turning right at Rockcliffe Parkway or Hemlock. These two arteries are already at gridlock during the peak hours. Truck traffic wanting to head to Ottawa West would still cross at King Edward.

A Kettle Island crossing would result in gridlock and negative impact for far more people than a McLaurin Bay / Gatineau Airport crossing.  It would include not only the directly affected communities but anyone using the resulting, busy intersection of the Queensway-174 and the Aviation Highway-417, and the radiating highways, in future.

The McLaurin Bay / Gatineau Airport corridor would result in the widening of Hwy 174, which would benefit the residents in Orleans, a growing community

Truck Traffic to remain on King Edward
The consultant’s report states the Kettle Island corridor will reduce truck traffic from 3,950 to 2,275 for 2031 daily on King Edward, source – “Kettle Island daily truck volumes” chart in the consultants’ website. Around a 40% reduction by 2031
.
The report states that truck traffic cannot be banned from King Edward. Yet Kettle Island corridor will impact 10 communities with a combined population of nearly 100,000.  Truck Traffic: “the forecast truck traffic attracted to the corridor” is at 1,725 for Kettle Island.

Ancillary costs to Ottawa
Although the construction costs of any bridge will be borne equally by Quebec, Ontario and the Federal government, the ancillary costs on the Ontario side, including the 4 kilometre Kettle Island corridor on the Ontario side, displacement of the RCMP stables and musical ride, relocation of the runaway at the Rockcliffe airport .5 km east, widening the Aviation parkway, redesign and reconstruction of the 174 / 417 intersection and necessary mitigating measures for Montfort Hospital will be paid for entirely by Ottawa taxpayers. Yet it is estimated that only about 10% of Ottawa commuters will benefit from Kettle Island as opposed to 90% of Gatineau commuters.

Weightings
The consultants only gave 9% weight to the impact on residential communities, institutions and national heritage sites (misleadingly labelled “cultural” in the study) whereas they gave 29% weight to an insignificant (25%) reduction of truck traffic on King Edward.

The consultants only gave the natural environment 17% weight versus 26% to costs, completely unacceptable in 2008.

Previous reports
Interestingly the 1999 Cartier / Totten Sims Hubicki Associates consultants’ report concluded that construction costs at Kettle Island to be the most expensive of the sites considered, more expensive than the McLaurin Bay / Gatineau Airport site.

The JACPAT study of 1995 concluded that Kettle Island would be the preferred site only if built within 10 years.  The Cartier / Totten Sims Hubicki  Associates consultants’ report of 1999 concluded that Kettle Island was the least preferred site regarding costs and traffic reduction whereas Masson-Angers / Cumberland was the best choice.  McLaurin Bay was second.

Curiously, the current consultants’ report reverses the order; Kettle Island is selected as the best site and Masson-Anger / Cumberland the least preferred site. Even more interesting is the fact that Steve Taylor was the project manager of the bridge study for both the 1999 and 2007/8 reports.
———

Share on Facebook

Numbers Do Matter – Another Weightings Discussion

Numbers do matter. With different weightings applied to the main categories considered by the consultants, the results change and Kettle Island drops out of the #1 position. If you’re interested to hear more, keep reading.

In simple terms, weightings define how important each factor (or category) is when determining the overall project recommendations. Within their findings and recommendations, the consultants have presented a Sensitivity Analysis (slide 15) of weightings and results. The intent of this slide is to deflect any criticism around the weightings assigned to the factors that were considered for the analysis.

This slide depicts the overall results of varying weightings for every major category. For example, within the current analysis, where Kettle Island is ranked #1, Traffic and Transportation is assigned a weighting of 29%. This slide attempts to answer the question: “How does the overall ranking of alternatives change when the weighting of Traffic and Transportation is changed from as low as 15% to as high as 40%? ” This same process is done for every major factor, with the range of values tested varying for each factor.

According to this slide, through every high / low variation tested for each major factor, Kettle Island ranks as the overall #1 selection every time (I’ve read and heard others misinterpret this slide to mean that Kettle Island ranked #1 in every category analyzed – this is not the case, nor is it the intent of this slide).

This doesn’t sit very well with me.

Let me assure you that the results most definitely are sensitive to the weightings assigned to each category. For argument’s sake, let’s consider these weightings, which I believe to be sensible, and see how this impacts Kettle Island’s overall ranking.  I haven’t changed any of the data provided by the consultants other than the weightings applied to the major categories.  For comparative purposes, the consultants’ weightings are in shown brackets.

Traffic and Transportation: 20% weighting (29%)
Natural Environment: 20% weighting (17%)
Cultural Environment: 20% weighting (9%)
Water Use and Resources: 10% weighting (5%)
Socio Economic Environment: 7% weighting (7%)
Land Use and Policy: 8% weighting (8%)
Cost: 15% weighting (26%)

With these weightings, the results are very different. The 10th Line crossing becomes the #1 choice, and Kettle Island ranks in a virtual 3-way tie for second place with Gatineau Airport and Lower Duck. In another scenario, with equal weightings applied to all major categories, 10th Line again comes out on top, with Kettle Island in 2nd place.

The main point I’m trying to make here is that the numbers do matter. Don’t let slide 15 fool you. With different weightings applied to the major categories, the results change.

But most of all, don’t forget that these are just numbers. At the end of the day, the numbers should be inputs into the final decision, but they should not be the sole basis of the final decision.

They need to be balanced with some common sense.

For more information about the categories and weightings, please refer to these earlier postings:  Who determined the evaluation weightings? and Selection Process – Flawed Analysis?

Share on Facebook

Montfort Hospital – How important is it?

There is a very high degree of likelihood that the MRI machines at the Montfort Hospital would be seriously impacted by the proximity of the proposed Kettle Island trucking route, which would pass within just a few metres of the hospital walls.

From an article on the subject:

Additionally, many MRIs are highly sensitive to vibration. Disruptive or crippling vibrations can be transmitted through the ground from cars, trucks and trains, sometimes from distances over 1,000 feet away. Similarly, vibrations from pumps, fans or motors that are commonly used throughout buildings can be transmitted across a building’s structural frame. Regardless of the origin, vibrations can impair an MRI’s image quality, particularly for many of the latest magnet systems, including 3.0 Tesla models and new high-field open MRIs. At the extreme end, harmonic or high-amplitude vibrations can cause quenches, running the risk of permanently crippling a $1 million magnet.

Click here for the complete article.

The good news is that the consultants have recognized this and have created a sub-factor specific to the MRI impacts at Montfort. The bad news is that this factor counts for only 0.09% (less than 1/1000) of the total score, ranking it tied for 84th place of the 91 factors considered.

The rest of the bad news is that there are no other factors that directly consider the negative impacts on the hospital, such as traffic congestion hindering ambulance access, costs of modifying access routes to the hospital, or disruption to patients and their healing process resulting from traffic noise and poor air quality.

Given the state of our current health care system and the importance of Montfort Hospital to the community, this doesn’t seem quite right.

What can you do about this? Post your comments and feedback on this website for others to see. Attend the Final Public Consultation to express your concerns and spread the word to encourage others to attend. Contact your local federal, provincial and city representatives who have been elected to act in your best interests.

Share on Facebook

Diesel Fuel Health Issues

The proposed Kettle Island corridor will be a major trucking route that passes through many established communities. Trucks burn diesel fuel, which has particularly hazardous health effects on people. According to the American Lung Association:

• Diesel exhaust is a mixture containing over 450 different components, including vapors and fine particles. Over 40 chemicals in diesel exhaust are considered toxic air contaminants by the State of California. Exposure to this mixture may result in cancer, exacerbation of asthma, and other health problems.
• The health risk from diesel exposure is greatest for children, the elderly, people who have respiratory problems or who smoke, people who regularly strenuously exercise in diesel-polluted areas, and people who work or live near diesel exhaust sources.
• Studies have shown that the proximity of a child’s residence to major roads is linked to hospital admissions for asthma, and there is a positive relationship between school proximity to freeways and asthma occurrence.

Click here for the full article.

To what extent were facts like these considered by the consultants in their recommendation of the Kettle Island corridor as the preferred location? How much emphasis did they put on the negative health impacts on the people and their children living in the vicinity of the corridor?

Very little.

What can you do about this? Post your comments and feedback on this website for others to see. Attend the Final Public Consultation to express your concerns and spread the word to encourage others to attend. Contact your local federal, provincial and city representatives who have been elected to act in your best interests.

Share on Facebook

21 Reasons not to build the Kettle Island Bridge

Walking the Montee Paiement/Aviation Parkway corridor from the Queensway to Boulevard Maloney and beyond:

1. Connection with Queensway/417: A total rebuild of this intersection would be required to accommodate the increase in car and truck traffic and would result in a partial closure of the St. Laurent interchange. How much will this cost? Was it included in the total cost estimate and weighted appropriately in the selection process for the technically preferred route?

2. Wetland at Ogilvie and Aviation: This sensitive wetland would likely be destroyed.

3. Residential areas of Castle Heights and Rockcliffe Mews: These neighbourhoods are adjacent to the route. The area includes Cite Collegiale and Our Lady of Mount Carmel School on Cummings Avenue. People living, working and going to school in this area would be forced to endure all the negative impacts and hazards of truck traffic on a daily basis.

4. Montreal/Aviation intersection: This intersection is already dangerous and complicated due to the entrance to Montfort Hospital immediately to the east and heavy traffic from CMHC. Montreal Rd. is at already at capacity further west. Where will the traffic go?

5. Montfort Hospital: The hospital is now 15 m from the existing 2-lane Aviation Parkway. It would be even closer when the Parkway is widened to 4 lanes. The entrance off Aviation is only 2 years old and was created because of too much delay for ambulances to enter from Montreal Rd. This entrance won’t be effective off an expressway and there would be significant costs to redesigning access. Were these costs included in the total cost estimate and weighted appropriately in the selection process for the technically preferred route?

6. Destruction of Montfort Woods: This is a unique area of mature forest close to downtown. It was preserved from development in a land swap deal that resulted in the development of a farm on Mooney’s Bay. Now the City would lose both areas to development.

7. Residential area of Manor Park Hill: This area is immediately adjacent to the Aviation Parkway. Some properties come within 3m of the existing 2 lane right of way. Residents would be forced to endure the negative impacts of truck traffic—noise, pollution, hazardous cargo—on a daily basis.

8. Development of Rockcliffe base: There is a huge new residential development planned for the Rockcliffe base. A truck route will make this development far less attractive for families. Would you choose to live next to a truck route?

9. The Hemlock interchange: This interchange would need to be completely rebuilt. Will there be access from the truck route to existing regional roads? The Hemlock/St. Laurent intersection is already dangerous. Beechwood/ Vanier Parkway is a “failed intersection” and the existing traffic already exceeds design capacity. If the bridge is built at Kettle Island commuters will spend even more time stuck in grid lock to and from work every day.

10. London Terrace Park: This park, used as soccer grounds for very young children, may become unusable.

11. Manor Park Marsh: Adjacent to the park is a wetland and a stream which will be destroyed by the development of the corridor. The Ottawa Stewardship Council has recently cleaned up the marsh and planted trees. The area is used by schools and youth groups in the neighbourhood for educational field trips and teaching about environmental protection.

12. Manor Park East residential community: The proposed truck route skirts Manor Park East and runs immediately beside the Terry Fox Centre. Each year 5000 kids from all over Canada stay there while visiting Ottawa. The impact of the truck traffic (noise, pollution, hazardous cargo) on families living in Manor Park East will be devastating.

13. The RCMP Musical Ride: The proposed truck route slices right through the middle of the RCMP grounds and stables. This national treasure and a part of Manor Park heritage would have to move to a rural area. What is the cost of relocating the grounds and stables? Should this not be factored into the total cost of using the Montee Paiement/ Aviation Parkway corridor for the bridge at Kettle Island?

14. The Aviation Museum: This museum will be essentially cut-off, with major roads on two sides of the museum and the Ottawa river on a third. Youth programs conducted there regularly will be disrupted by noise.

The Rockcliffe airport runway, used to fly in exhibits, will either have to be closed or moved further east at great expense. The Rockcliffe Flying Club may have to close.

15. Rockcliffe Parkway: A truck route at the proposed site will cause irreparable destruction of green space and loss of picnic grounds along the Ottawa river and will destroy one of the prettiest scenic drives into the city.

16. ONEC: The Ottawa New Edinburgh sailing and rowing club would suffer and its historic building will be threatened.

17. Rockcliffe Yacht Club: A bridge crossing at Kettle Island would destroy the only portion of the eastern Ottawa River suitable for sailing.

18. Kettle Island: A bridge at Kettle Island would destroy the Kettle Island Nature Reserve. The island is almost entirely owned by the Nature Conservancy.

19. Gatineau water plant: There would undoubtedly be significant risk to the Gatineau water plant immediately downstream of the proposed crossing.

20. Montee Paiement residential area: Montee Paiement, north of Maloney Blvd., is primarily residential. Some driveways are accessed directly off Montee Paiement. What will happen to these properties if a truck route cuts through the area?

21. The grade ascending to Hwy. 50 along Montee Paiement: The grade along Montee Paiement is very steep. This is very dangerous as there is significant risk of runaway trucks. In addition to the noise of truck traffic, there will also be screeching airbrakes and the sound of trucks gearing down. Are there plans to change the grade for the truck route and if so what is the cost?

These 21 reasons show just some of the hidden costs, both financial and human, of building a bridge at Kettle Island.  Surely there is an alternative corridor for routing cars and trucks that would have less negative impact on people and our quality of life.

What can you do about this? Post your comments and feedback on this website for others to see.  Attend the Final Public Consultation to express your concerns and spread the word to encourage others to attend.  Contact your local federal, provincial and city representatives who have been elected to act in your best interests.

Share on Facebook

Bridge Choices; Troubled Waters

Read the eloquent words of Max Finkelstein as he calls for Kettle Island to be protected from impacts that may alter the ecological, recreational and spiritual values of this unique island.

“Can we have a bridge at Kettle Island, and a nature reserve too? Do we have to say good-bye to the undeveloped shoreline, as continually shifting alluvial islands by their very nature do not make good “bridge supports”? Do we have to say good-bye to the efforts of Ottawa Riverkeeper to clean up decades of accumulated garbage on the island? Do we have to say good-bye to the good intentions of Bowater, who donated most of the land with the intention of doing something good for the environment and the good efforts of the Nature Conservancy to protect our natural heritage? Do we have to say good-bye to the peace and quiet and beauty? Will this bridge leave a legacy of impaired ecosystems and recreational opportunities for a city defined by these very elements as much as it is by Parliament Hill.”

“When people in Ottawa seek beauty, they go to the river.“

Read the complete posting here: Kettle Island Opinion Max Finkelstein [pdf file: 0.02mb]

Courtesy of the Ottawa Riverkeeper.

Share on Facebook

Trucks Before People

Questions for your consideration and action:

• Why eliminate all crossing options except the one with the most significant negative impact on communities at this stage of the process?
• Shouldn’t further consideration be given to crossings that better serve the overall needs of society, as opposed to satisfying the objectives of a technically-skewed project?
• Should a committee with primary interests in trucking and fisheries be solely responsible for determining which factors are the most important?
• Why were community interests effectively neglected in the process?

Keep reading to learn more.

It is becoming increasingly evident that the consultants on this project are putting trucks before the welfare of people. By selecting Kettle Island, which ranks 12th out of the 12 sites considered in the Cultural Environment analysis (which essentially measures the negative impact on the quality of life for residents and communities in and around the crossing area), the project team has willingly and knowingly chosen the location that has the greatest negative community impact.

But, given the funding partners in this project, this in not entirely surprising. The project is being funded by the NCC, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, and the ministere des Transports du Quebec (Quebec Ministry of Transportation). Of these organizations, the NCC may have some interest in protecting community interests, but I somehow don’t feel this is their primary objective in this project.

An ‘unbiased and objective’ team of key stakeholders in the project were responsible for determining the weightings for each factor to evaluate the crossing alternatives. These weightings defined the significance of each aspect of the study analyzed by the project team (e.g. truck traffic diversion out of the downtown core, impact on parks and green space, conformity to planned land use, cost, etc.). Factors deemed to have low importance by this team would have little impact on the results, whereas factors deemed to have high importance would have great impact on the results. These weightings are therefore critically important.

This 25-member weightings committee was heavily skewed towards transportation and fisheries, and included no community representation.

Based on the composition of this committee and the interests represented, it is not surprising that traffic considerations specific to trucks were given high consideration. Environmental considerations (primarily the impacts on fish, river hydrology, and wildlife) were also given significant weighting.

To the detriment of the people living in the impacted area, factors contributing to the negative impact on communities in the impacted areas were given low priority.

Overall weightings as assigned by the committee are presented in an earlier posting.

Changes to these weightings change the results of the study. As the weighting of community and people-oriented factors increases, Kettle Island is quickly surpassed by other crossing alternatives.

Weightings were determined only after the bulk of the analysis had been completed, and most of the associated data had been compiled. Therefore, as weightings were being determined, the project team and the weighting committee would have had the ability to potentially manipulate weightings to immediately assess the impact on the final results.

The consultants were directed to select the best technically viable crossing alternative. Based on their assessment and their weightings, Kettle Island was narrowly identified as the best technical alternative. The Lower Duck Island location ranked second, with other options following closely behind.

The consultants are recommending that only the Kettle Island option be taken forward for the next phase of assessment. If this recommendation were to be accepted, all other crossing alternatives would be eliminated and the next two years would be spent refining and finalizing plans and designs for the Kettle Island crossing.

While it could be argued that further analysis of the Kettle Island crossing should cease immediately, within the project mandate, there is room for more than one option to be considered in the next phase of the analysis.

What can you do about this? Post your comments and feedback on this website for others to see. Attend the Final Public Consultation to express your concerns and spread the word to encourage others to attend. Contact your local federal, provincial and city representatives who have been elected to act in your best interests.

Share on Facebook

Who determined the evaluation weightings?

Seven major factors were considered by the project team in their evaluation of crossing alternatives and their selection of the preferred alternative. Each factor was given a weighting to determine the extent to which that factor influences the final results (i.e. identification of the preferred crossing location).

The factors and their weightings as presented by the project team are as follow:

• Traffic and Transportation: 29%
  (primarily, maximizing traffic flow through the new corridor)
• Natural Environment: 17%
  (impact on fisheries, forestry, hydrogeology, etc.)
• Cultural Environment: 9%
  (negative impact on the quality of life for residents in the crossing area)
• Water Use and Resources: 5%
  (impact on sailing, canoe clubs, water purification, and waterfront views)
• Socio Economic Environment: 7%
  (commercial benefits of diverting traffic from downtown into the crossing area)
• Land Use and Property: 8%
  (alignment with existing land use and plans)
• Cost 26%
  (estimated capital and ongoing costs)

As discussed in an earlier post, we do know that an online survey was conducted and that a closed-door committee with undisclosed particpants was involved in determining the final weightings. There has been concern and speculation about who was on this committee, and what interests they represent. In particular, questions and concerns have been raised about community representation (or lack thereof) on the committee.

From a conversation with Steve Taylor, project manager for this analysis, we now know a bit more about this committee and the process they went through to determine the weightings.

The objective in assembling the committee was to achieve impartial, unbiased results. In total, there were 25 people on the committee. The committee went through a lengthy process, including review and assessment of each individual utility factor, site visits, and lengthy debates. It sounds like a rigourous, defensible process…but the process is only as impartial and unbiased as the people making up the committee.

We do not know details of the individuals, but here are the interest groups that were represented on the committee:

• Ministry of Transportation (Ontario)
• Ministry of Transportation (Quebec)
• City of Ottawa
• City of Gatineau
• Transport Canada
• Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans
• Ministry of Natural Resources
• Creddo
• Transport 2000
• Rideau Valley Conservation Authority

Were community impacts adequately represented by these interest groups? How much consideration was given by these interest groups to detrimental impacts to quality of life in and around the crossing area? The answer, as we know, is that they gave it enough consideration to make it worth only 9% of the total evaluation criteria.

For the record, Kettle Island ranked 12th out of the 12 crossing locations considered in this analysis with respect to the Cultural Environment (i.e. quality of life) factor.

For a description of the factors and their sub-factors, and a summary of the analysis that was completed for each crossing location, click here.

Share on Facebook

Trucks to Remain on King Edward after new bridge built

The currently proposed plan does not ban trucks from King Edward.  In fact, it is expected that there would still be significant truck volume in the downtown core if a new bridge were to be built.  So not only would existing residential areas be devastated by the Kettle Island bridge, but the downtown problem would not be solved.  See the CBC news story for more details, and watch the video below where it is suggested that the bridge could be built within 6 years:

Share on Facebook

50+ comments on CBC News Article

More than 50 people have left comments under the CBC website article  on the Kettle Island announcement.  Reading these  provides an excellent cross section of opinion on this matter.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2008/09/04/ot-bridge-080904.html    Scroll to the bottom to read the comments.

Share on Facebook

Ottawa Citizen Article – “Kettle Island chosen as site for new bridge”

From Sept 4, 2008:  Kettle Island chosen as site for new bridge.  The NCC’s announcement prompted an immediate uproar from the politicians who represent neighbourhoods that would be affected by the project.   Read the full article here:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=514b131f-9c93-48f5-a759-c48e5183ee0b

Share on Facebook

Selection Process – Flawed Analysis?

The results are in…and they are flawed. Keep reading to find out more:

Weightings:

In a very simple online survey, citizens were asked to prioritize the weighting factors for a new bridge / crossing. Based on these results and discussions amongst a closed-door committee, weightings determined for the final analysis were:

Traffic and Transportation 29%

Natural Environment 17%

Cultural Environment 9%

Water Use and Resources 5%

Socio Economic Environment 7%

Land Use and Property 8%

Cost 26%

There was no description within the survey of the factors or how they were measured. There was also no real explanation as to how giving high priority to any given factor would impact the final results.

These weightings heavily skew the preferred location to those that rank the highest in Traffic and Transportation and Cost.

But…the results and accompanying weightings are flawed for the following reasons:

1. Traffic and Transportation:

In the analysis conducted by the project team, these factors are based on maximizing usage of the new crossing, among both commercial and personal vehicles. More clearly defined (my words, not theirs), Traffic and Transportation factors measure this:

The number of cars and trucks that are diverted out of the downtown core and INTO the areas within and around the crossing area. The more traffic that is diverted to the new crossing, the better.

Any reasonable citizen living in an area where increased traffic would directly result from a new crossing in their area would likely identify Traffic and Transportation as high priority – with the understanding that this would be measured as a NEGATIVE impact on their community. BUT…this isn’t the case for this study. More traffic in the new area is seen as a good thing in this assessment.

Anyone who feels that alleviating downtown traffic congestion is a high priority would ALSO rank Traffic and Transportation as high priority. Therefore, survey results would artificially inflate the Traffic and Transportation weighting, since results would include virtually everyone – with diametrically opposed opinions and concerns.

2. Cultural Environment:

What’s comes to mind if you are asked about Cultural Environment? The ballet, the opera, cinema, the arts? Seems reasonable, and this is likely what survey respondents had in mind when they submitted their ranking….but Cultural Environment means something very different to the project team.

In the context of this project and the associated analysis, this factor really measures:

The negative impacts on quality of life (e.g. neighbourhoods, communities, parks, green space, bike paths, tourist attractions, health care facilities, noise, etc) in and around the crossing area resulting from a massive influx of commercial and personal vehicle traffic.

Should the communities in the impacted areas be condemned by ranking quality of life at only 9% importance? Did survey respondents really understand what this factor represented? In the nation’s capital where aesthetic beauty, preservation of green space in and around the city core, and quality of life are so highly regarded and cherished, I can’t imagine that this would be the case.

3. Socio Economic:

Most of the sub-factors within the Socio Economic factor are directly correlated to traffic. For example, there is a sub-factor for that considers improving the downtown economy…and this is measured by the number of trucks that are diverted away from downtown and across the new bridge. By no coincidence, this is virtually the same measurement that is used within Traffic and Transportation factor to quantify the truck traffic across the new bridge.

Same thing goes for a Socio Economic sub factor that addresses increased opportunities for industrial development in and around the crossing area. Take a wild guess how this is measured. You guessed it…truck traffic in and around the area of the new crossing. Commercial development opportunities is measured by…the number of personal vehicles that travel through the crossing area! Again, this measurement is already accounted for in the Traffic and Transportation section.

There are other sub-factors that are also tied to Traffic and Transportation, all of which paint the picture that more traffic (both commercial and personal) in and around the crossing area is a good thing. And effectively, this represents double counting of many of the factors already accounted for in the Traffic and Transportation section. And they are all based on the fundamental assumption that more traffic into the new crossing area is a good thing for socio economic development. Double counting aside, I think a good case can be made to the contrary.

What Does This All Mean?

• The project team’s identification of the preferred alternative is flawed.
• Based on the data that the project team has published (www.ncrcrossings.ca) to support their findings, selection of the preferred alternative is highly sensitive to the weightings assigned to each of the factors.
• There are flaws in the derivation of the assigned weightings, and the factors themselves have serious shortcomings that materially impact the final results.
• Kettle Island is NOT the best choice

Share on Facebook

Kettle Island selected as preferred option

After much anticipation, to the dismay of some and to the the elation of others, Kettle Island was selected as the technically preferred option for the next bridge between Ottawa and Gatineau.

TECHNICALLY AND ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED INTERPROVINCIAL CORRIDOR IDENTIFIED

Canada’s Capital Region Today, the National Capital Commission (NCC), the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO), the Ministère des Transports du Québec (MTQ), and the consultants, ROCHE-NCE, released the Consultants’ preliminary findings from the Environmental Assessment of Interprovincial Crossings in the National Capital Region. These draft findings are presented for public consideration and consultation during the fourth round of public consultation scheduled on September 23 and 24, in Ottawa and Gatineau respectively.

The draft findings are the result of technical studies, analysis and community input that began in January 2007. A total of ten interprovincial corridors were evaluated and ranked by a technical evaluation committee comprised of a diverse group of representatives from all levels of government, technical stakeholders and the consultants.All alternatives within the ten corridors were evaluated using almost 100 criteria from transportation, natural environment, social environment, and cost perspectives, and results identify the Kettle Island corridor as a first priority project for implementation and for more detailed assessment in the subsequent phase two environmental assessment.

The public will have opportunities to comment on the draft findings during the fourth round of public consultation to be convened as follows:

Following the public consultation, the consultants will present their technical conclusions and recommendations to study partners for consideration and decision before proceeding to phase two of the environmental assessment study. During phase two, social, economic, heritage and transportation effects and mitigation measures of the technically preferred priority corridor will be assessed in detail.

Share on Facebook