Stop The Kettle Island Bridge

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