Stop The Kettle Island Bridge

25 Responses to “Your top priority: Submit your comments”

1. Chantale Plante Says:
   
   September 26th, 2008 at 9:45 am

   I am going to mention that they should take a study on the bike route on Hemlock/Beechwood and how it will destroy it. I was riding my bike to work yesterday and as many many cars (and a few trucks) passed me I thought “I am breathing in toxic air while trying to be green. SO trying to be green is going to kill me, as well as some of these vehicles”.
   If anyone else bikes to work, mention this. Trucks aren’t suppose to be on that route yet yesterday to and from work I saw 10! And I only go 3km to work.

   
   
2. Bob Says:
   
   September 26th, 2008 at 6:40 pm

   Don’t forget to post your comments or recommend others on such web sites such as CBC.
   See the comments at the end of the story.

   http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/09/26/ot-bridge-080926.html

   
   
3. Jacques Guèvremont Says:
   
   September 27th, 2008 at 10:44 am

   In addition to all the reasons mentioned at the final public consultation to oppose the Kettle Island bridge, and by many on this site, I would add a couple more.

   A bridge on Kettle Island would bring our education and health institutions such as Cité Collégiale and Hôpital Montfort that much closer to Gatineau residents.

   Gatineau residents already make-up a sizable proportion of Montfort Hospital users. The bridge would increase this number significantly, thus increasing wait times for Ontarians to intolerable levels.

   At Cité Collégiale, a random survey of cars parked in their lots at various times during the school year shows that more than 50% of the cars have Quebec license plates.

   Gatineau residents come to Ottawa to get services and facilities their provincial government does not provide them – including a decent highway to Montreal.

   This is unfornutate, and as a former quebecker this pains me tremendously, but – first and foremost – Ontario health and education institutions are built by Ontarians for Ontarians.

   I will make these points to our political representatives.

   
   
4. Chris Chance Says:
   
   September 27th, 2008 at 12:50 pm

   What I sent to the consultants

   Good Afternoon:

   My name is Christopher Chance, and I would like to provide some feedback on what I have observed during the planning and presentations on the various options for a bridge (or bridges) across the Ottawa River.

   Given that any bridge or combination of bridges is to last (and therefore support future growth in the National Capital Region), why are we not looking further east and west of the current sites, especially since we expect growth in these directions on either side of the Ottawa River? Otherwise, any bridge within the limits considered to date will eventually become congested (as are the current bridges now) and we will see a repetition of this debate in another +/- 20 years. We are taking too short-term a view to this problem. How will these bridges link up with a Ring Road around the NCR?

   What consideration has been given to the cost of having to build new, and rebuild old, infrastructure (roads, bridges, verges, pedestrian crosswalks, traffic control measures) that will be required to support each one of these building options. The costs can not just be the cost of the bridge itself but has to look at where all of this traffic is going to flow, both onto and off these bridges, the aim being to ensure a smooth flow at either end. I would like to see the costs broken out for the bridge(s) themselves and then all of the infrastructure.

   With the choice of Kettle Island, and the calculation that a bridge at this site will only reduce the heavy truck traffic in the King Edward corridor by 30%, how can this be deemed as a satisfactory resolution of the issue of heavy vehicle traffic through that corridor? Also, to expend $400 Million to resolve only 30% of the original problem can not be justified as a good solution, in my opinion. I would deem it to be a waste of our money. Any option will be costly, but I believe that by taking a big picture view of the issue, with a view to linking any infrastructure to a Ring Road system, the citizens of the NCR would be much better served. What has been presented is a piece meal approach.

   It should also be noted that the selection of the Kettle Island location does not take into account the expected development of the formed Canadian Forces Base Rockliffe and the expected 10,000 new residents. The current road infrastructure is currently under pressure just to accommodate those people traveling to and from downtown Ottawa. Even without a bridge, the development of Rockliffe will significantly increase this pressure, and the addition of a bridge at Kettle Island will only serve to compound the congestion.

   Why are we not looking at crossing points that minimize the impact (and cost) on the amount of infrastructure improvement?

   Most importantly, why are we not looking at a solution that minimizes the negative impact on existing residences and businesses, and most importantly people.

   Thank you for considering these comments.

   Yours truly,

   Chris Chance

   
   
5. Elaine Morest Says:
   
   September 29th, 2008 at 1:16 pm

   Votre participation est critique!

   L’île Kettle a été choisi comme étant le passage PRIVILÉGIÉ entre Ottawa et Gatineau! Qu’on ne s’y trompe pas – à moins que nous mobilisions nos communautés et faisons connaître à haute voix à nos politiciens, aux médias et aux consultants que cette sélection a des effets préjudiciables massifs sur des milliers de personnes, ce pont sera construit.

   Si nous ne le faisons pas maintenant, les deux prochaines années seront consacrées à la conception du couloir de passage de l’ile Kettle. . La construction d’une durée de 4 ans pourrait commencer en 2010, et la nouvelle route pourrait être pleinement opérationnelle dès 2014.

   Il est absolument essentiel d’effectuer les opérations suivantes pour empêcher que cela ne se produise:

   * Envoyer vos commentaires aux consultants de l’étude
   http://www.ncrcrossings.ca/en/your_comments.html

   * Contacter vos élus et les décideurs dans ce projet pour leur dire comment vous vous sentez à propos de ce choix

   * Accroître la sensibilisation de la population de toutes les façons possibles, (ascenseur, pancarte dans les quartiers résidentiels, discussion avec vos voisins, rassemblements de quartier , lettres à l’éditeur des grands journaux locaux tels Le Droit et The Citizen, blog de participation sur le site http://www.stopthebridge.org,

   *achat de macaron NON ILE KETTLE, etc

   * Chaque participation est déterminante

   Nous avons besoin de l’implication de la communauté , nous avons besoin des actions concrètes. Ensemble, nous pouvons arrêter ce projet .

   
   
6. Nicole Says:
   
   September 30th, 2008 at 2:04 pm

   Comments left on http://www.ncrcrossings.ca website.

   The approach you take with respect to the location of the bridge is another example of short-sighted planning. Your objectives should be to remove as much traffic from downtown as well as from our residential communities on a long-term basis. Kettle Island Crossing is not integrated with future land use plans and longer range urban growth. Ottawa’s future transportation needs should include a ring road such as those that exist in other national capitals and major cities.
   Your approach will only create another King Edward nightmare on the Aviation Parkway, where a major hospital is located and where there is some of the last remaining parkland in the east part of the city.
   Sure it is easy to draw a line on a plan and say this is the best route. But the impact of a bridge should require a bit more thought. For example, the Aviation Parkway crosses a very busy road, Montreal Road. Can you imagine just how much noise the trucks will make when they downshift to stop at the street light? Right beside a hospital? What consideration do you have for the patients and what effect will the noise, vibrations and fumes have on the hospital and its equipment?
   And what about the traffic jam our roads will be subject to every day? Did you ever take the time to look at what goes on presently on Vanier Parkway and Sussex Drive through Rockliffe Park at rush hour? Well, it’s already stop and go. You might say that the trucks will not use Sussex Drive but you can be assured that commuters living in east Gatineau and working in downtown Ottawa will. The total congestion experienced every morning and evening on Highway 50 towards downtown Ottawa will be transferred to our Ottawa roads: Rockcliffe Parkway, Sussex Drive, Beechwood Ave and Montreal Road, where by the way, thousands of people commute, walk, bike, live. What consideration do you have for these people?
   How will you explain to my children and grand-children who will be stuck with the fumes, noise and pollution from all that traffic that you picked Kettle Island although there were other sites, undeveloped lands, where no one would have been affected? Moreover, how will you explain that, as residents of Ottawa, they will also have to bear the greater infrastructure and maintenance costs of the Kettle Island proposal compared to others, even though few of them will benefit from it, the proposed bridge being to the benefit of the residents of the other province? Or should we all move to Gatineau where the air will be fresher afterwards?
   How will you explain to my fellow taxpayers that the value of their house went down dramatically because you converted the parkland they had in their backyard into a noisy highway, again mostly for the benefit of people who do not pay tax in either Ottawa or Ontario?
   Or is it that you think you are not accountable?
   What is in your plan for me and my neighbours, our children and grand-children, the very people who will pay for all this?
   Why don’t you develop a solution that will be integrated in a long-term plan, so that our money is not wasted but invested in the long-term better health of our community?

   
   
7. Elaine Morest Says:
   
   October 1st, 2008 at 9:52 am

   Vous pouvez egalement ecrire aux conseillers municipaux concernes de Gatineau :

   Luc Angers (angers.luc@gatineau.ca), conseiller des promenades, c’est a dire le quartier Tecumseh.

   Joseph Desylva (desylva.joseph@gatineau.ca), conseiller du Versant, c’est a dire la Montee Paiement.

   
   
8. Jessie Richards Says:
   
   October 2nd, 2008 at 10:59 am

   Just so you all know there is a Facebook Group that is fighting against the Kettle Island Bridge. It is called ‘Stop the Kettle Island Interprovincial Crossing’

   
   
9. Daniel Farrell Says:
   
   October 4th, 2008 at 11:11 am

   I note in today’s Citizen article that Mr Taylor defends his choice of the Kettle Island route over the Duck Island alternative by stating that more(29) property buy outs would be required by the Green’s Creek/Gatineau airport option. It would be interesting to know just how many are residential properties and where they are located. If the properties are warehouses, shops, golf courses etc. they should surely not take precedence over residential properties that would be affected by the Kettle Island proposal. Also, if the residential properties are on the Quebec side, they have my sympathy but “tant pis.” The bridge provides no benefit to Ontarians but is necessary only because Quebec has failed to build a highway for trucking on the Quebec side of the river.
   It is also worth noting that Mr Taylor’s defence of the Kettle Island proposal’s consideration of socio cultural weighting is vague. One should demand a detailed account of the factors considered and what weighting was placed on the Aviation Museum, the noise disruption to communities, sidestreet traffic etc.

   
   
10. Bob Says:
    
    October 4th, 2008 at 2:55 pm

    That’s not right – Shhhh. Ottawa Citizen Q&A

    Steve Taylor says, “The 25 people who not only did the background and research but also walked each of the corridors..” …. and when someone saw an elementary school right beside the Aviation Parkway (a few feet away) , someone ignored it and said “shhhh” that will look bad building a hazardous goods corridor right beside that (amongst the other places behind the trees.) Ya ya, keep telling the people in the rest of Ottawa that nothing exists behind those trees. That should work. Then we can proceed with what is most important.

    Steve Taylor says, “…the most important objectives of this study which were to provide relief for congestion across the Ottawa River.”

    
    
11. Gisèle Says:
    
    October 5th, 2008 at 10:54 am

    Here is my submission:

    Sunday, October 05, 2008

    Mr. Steve Taylor,

    I oppose a bridge at Kettle Island and the use of the Montée Paiement / Aviation Parkway corridor for heavy trucks and commuter traffic. I can’t imagine anything you can do to mitigate the disastrous effects that your recommendation will have on the many residential communities along the corridor and along the side streets forced to accommodate the additional commuter traffic.

    This is a terrible transportation plan. Your idea that that the side streets will allow traffic to dissipate quickly is not based in reality. Montreal Road and Beechwood Avenue are at capacity now. Adding additional traffic is not possible without widening these streets, and widening these streets is not possible without expropriation. Your transportation plan not only dumps the commuter traffic problem onto city streets, but also the cost of widening these roads and expropriating the businesses along the route. Thank you very much.

    I am very concerned about the public health risks (air quality, noise, spillage of hazardous materials) associated with the high volume of heavy truck traffic that will end up on the Montée Paiement / Aviation Parkway corridor. The level crossing at Aviation Parkway and Montreal Road is particularly vulnerable. When this intersection is clogged with cars and trucks, and resembles King Edward Avenue and Rideau Street at rush hour, how will ambulances get easy access to the Montfort Hospital? The hospital entrance off Aviation Parkway will be jammed with traffic backed-up at the intersection. How will people be evacuated from the hospital, long term care facility and apartment building at the corner of this intersection in the event of a spillage of toxic materials?

    Furthermore, I deplore the degradation of National institutions, such as the Canadian Aviation Museum and airstrip, the National Archives, the RCMP grounds and stables, the RCMP Musical Ride, and the Terry Fox Centre, that will most assuredly result if the Kettle Island recommendation is implemented. I strongly object to the use of NCC parkways for a four lane truck route and to the resulting loss of recreational bike paths and parkland. How can the NCC, as stewards of our beautiful capital city, even consider such an action!

    Mr. Taylor, your recommendation of Kettle Island as the preferred project for an interprovincial crossing will cause more problems than it will solve. It is not a transportation plan for the 21st century. Find something better.

    Gisèle Forsey

    
    
12. Daniel Lacroix Says:
    
    October 5th, 2008 at 7:12 pm

    I sent my comments to the various decision makers, using the addresses provided on this site. For some reason, the one I sent to Russell Mills’ email address (rmills@ncc-ccn.ca) came back undeliverable. Am I the only one who’s having this problem?

    
    
13. ccredico Says:
    
    October 6th, 2008 at 5:17 pm

    As far as we know, that is the right address. You could try the general NCC email address (info@ncc-ccn.ca) and address ATTN: Russell Mills.

    
    
14. Eli Simova Says:
    
    October 7th, 2008 at 2:10 pm

    These are few additional reasons why the proposed interprovincial bridge at Kettle Island is a bad decision:

    · Like most urban centres around the world and in the developed countries, Ottawa needs a ring road and the new proposal fails to address this need and hence, it fails to provide a long-term solution to improving the city’s infrastructure.

    · The reason for building a new interprovincial bridge comes from the need to reduce the heavy track traffic trough the densely populated area in the Ottawa core. The proposed bridge at Kettle Island will not solve this problem, and instead Ottawa will end up with heavy track traffic in two densely populated areas in the Ottawa core. This is not the long-term solution to the existing problem.

    · According to the consultants, the route chosen would divert most of the traffic from downtown Ottawa; have the smallest environmental impact; and be cheapest. None of those objectives are achieved with the proposed interprovincial bridge at Kettle Island. Thousands of trucks will still continue to clog King Edward Avenue even with the inter-provincial bridge at Kettle Island. Moreover, this is the longest route and could not possibly provide the cheapest solution. Previous studies have recommended other routes, but they were not taken into consideration for reasons not disclosed.

    · The Kettle Island proposal includes transformation of Aviation Parkway and Rockcliffe Parkway into highways. This will mean that the street in front of the Prime-Minister residence and Governor-General residence will become highways with heavy traffic in both directions. No comments were solicited from the federal government, which is completely unacceptable, taking into account the importance of both residences.

    · The proposed interprovincial bridge at Kettle Island is definitely a wrong choice, because this is a bridge from nowhere to nowhere; it will not serve either the current Ontario needs or the Quebec needs, and it will not reduce the heavy truck traffic in the downtown area. This is definitely not a long-term solution. Not to mention that the City of Ottawa’s bylaw prohibits tracks on parkways.

    · The proposed bridge is practically in downtown Ottawa, so this will be repetition of the mistakes the City of Ottawa made in 1960s. This is the slowest and the longest route, which will create traffic congestion during peak hours, especially at the already congested Montreal Road and Ogilvie Road.

    · The Environmental Assessment Study by ROCHE-NCE completely ignores the problem which has to be solved, i.e. heavy track traffic trough the densely populated area in the Ottawa. The four-year, $4.5-million environmental assessment study, is a complete failure and waste of taxpayers money. The published documents from the study do not present the necessary information for making an informed decision. There are no estimates (no actual numbers) for the projected noise and pollution levels along the proposed routes, and there is no reference to the existing federal, provincial and municipal regulations and standards. No assessment is done on the health effects from the increased traffic and pollution. This study only creates a very strong legal case for future lawsuit against the City of Ottawa and the other levels of the Government.

    · Even before the completion of the study, several suburban politicians characterised the Kettle Island Corridor as ‘the obvious choice’. This seems as conflict of interest and pressure on the consultants, and will be used as a legal cause for lawsuit against the City of Ottawa and the other levels of the Government which support this partisan and selfish decision and political posturing.

    · The proposed bridge at Kettle Island would have a big negative impact on the Montfort Hospital, which has now undergone big renovations and expansion, in terms of trucking, vibrations, noise and air pollution, and will also impact the work of the emergency vehicles.

    · The proposed route is trough a densely populated area, it will destroy parks and conservation area, and it will harm the quality of life in many well-established residential communities. It will be devastating for the Aviation Museum and for the airport near the Aviation Museum.

    · The proposed bridge at Kettle Island will have a very negative environmental impact including destruction of wildlife and birds, which was not accounted for in the Environmental Assessment Study by ROCHE-NCE.

    · Many communities in Ottawa and Gatineau are opposing this decision, because this will reduce significantly the value of the residential properties in these well-established old and quiet neighbourhoods. This will again lead to lawsuits against the City of Ottawa and the other levels of the Government.

    · A bridge at Lower Duck Island is the best long-term solutions because it is outside the developed areas and will minimise the residential disturbances. It is also one of the shortest routes and it can be easily integrated into a future ring-road around Ottawa, with bridges on both sides, east and west, as in the most of the European capitals. The ring-road will be best located in the greenbelt around Ottawa.

    Regards

    Eli Simova

    
    
15. Magdalena Says:
    
    October 7th, 2008 at 7:12 pm

    I would like to express my strong opposition against the proposed interprovincial bridge at Kettle Island.

    Here are some problems with the “Interprovincial Crossing Environmental Assessment Study”, (as published at http://www.ncrcrossings.ca/en/home.html), which I would like to present for your consideration.

    1. These recommendations are taken directly from “SUMMARY OF THE 1999 JOINT INTERPROVINCIAL TRANSPORTATION INITIATIVE IN THE NCR”:
     Based on the growth in the NCR it will be prudent to plan and protect new interprovincial transportation corridors in both the east and west in advance of future development. Three corridors in the east (Kettle Island, Duck Island and Petrie Island corridors) ranked high in providing a new transportation link and relief to travel demand from existing bridges. They all provide significant travel time and fuel savings which exceed the cost of construction.
     A new bridge to the east would permit truckers and commuters to bypass downtown Ottawa and thereby reduce commercial vehicle traffic over the Chaudières and MacDonald-Cartier crossings by about 25%.
     In the west an interprovincial link in the Aylmer-Kanata corridor could in 2021 accommodate a 24-hour traffic volume of slightly over 15,000 cars and trucks in both directions
     Defining both east and west links for crossings could develop a ring road system that could allow regional trips to avoid using the downtown bridge crossings
     By defining new crossing locations farther from the central business district can allow central transit initiatives to achieve the aggressive transit targets across the Ottawa River screenline
    Conclusions from above recommendations are:
    - A ring road system with bridges on both sides is the best solution
    - The farther the bridges are from the downtown area, the better it will be for the transit system
    - This means that the bridge at the Aylmer-Kanata corridor in the West end, and Duck Island or Petrie Island corridors in the East end, are the best options.

    Why were these recommendations not taken into account in the current EA study? What has changed since 1999?

    2. As per Interprovincial Crossing Environmental Assessment Study ” Terms of Reference” and “Supporting Documentation”, the expected growth and transportation needs are in the west end, not in the east end. As per Fig. 2 in ” Terms of Reference”, west sectors (Aylmer, Kanata and Barrhaven) will grow by 261,900 from 2001 to 2021; the central sectors (Hull, Ottawa Downtown) will grow by 84,800; and the east sectors (rest) by 65,900. Building an interprovincial bridge in the east end cannot be justified by the study’s own documents. The need for a bridge is in the west end! The bridge at Kettle Island is a political decision, not technical, practical decision.

    3. As per Interprovincial Crossing Environmental Assessment Study, “Supporting Documentation” and ” Terms of Reference” documents, the priorities of the EA study will be to “… identify and prioritize for protection of east and west corridors that would serve growth in the NCR over a 50 year planning horizon … “. The proposed bridge at Kettle Island does not meet this mandatory and major requirement to the EA, because it is not the optimal choice even as per the old 1999 study.

    4. As per Interprovincial Crossing Environmental Assessment Study, “Analysis of Potential Transit Impacts” document, “… The establishment of a new interprovincial crossing has the effect of significantly reducing the use of transit, with gains in use of the car. This effect is strongest for central crossings (5, 6 and 7, that is, Kettle, Lower Duck and East Lower Duck), since these crossings are surrounded by more densely developed areas, better served by transit. This negative effect can be only very slightly mitigated by allowing use of that crossing by bus transit, without accompanying priority measures on or around that crossing. These preliminary results indicate the need to proceed with an in-depth analysis of the recommended interprovincial crossings, independently of the corridor in question … According to representative criteria CT3 and CT4, Crossing 10 Masson-Angers-Cumberland-50/417 results in the least negative effects on transit and Crossing 5, Kettle Island-50/417 results in the most negative effects”. Obviously, as per this part of the study, Kettle Island is the least favorable choice for an interprovincial bridge.

    5. In document Interprovincial Crossing Environmental Assessment (file “Session4-2006-029 PCS 4 Boards English rev 1.pdf”), no explanation and justification of the used weighting factors is presented. It is only mentioned that “The evaluation committee completed a weighting exercise … “. It is obvious that the weight factors were selected in such a manner so as to insure that all crossings in the west end obtain a lower score than any of the crossings in the east end. No references are given from where most of the data is taken to calculate the rankings in this document and in the supporting “Evaluation Table” (file “06029 PCS3 Evaluation Tables En AUG 22 08.pdf”). Without references for the data sources, both of these documents resemble a collection of randomly selected numbers. There are also discrepancies between the tables in the above mentioned two documents. For example, according to “Sensitivity Analysis” in Interprovincial Crossing Environmental Assessment (file “Session4-2006-029 PCS 4 Boards English rev 1.pdf”), Kettle Island (Alternative 5) is “the best choice” for factor “Natural Environment”, but according to the data presented in file “06029 PCS3 Evaluation Tables En AUG 22 08.pdf” (after summing all weighted scores for factor “Natural Environment”), the four best choices are Alternatives 1, 2, 2T and 10. The same is true also for “Cultural Environment”, “Water Use and Environment”, and “Land Use and Property” factors. Again, Kettle Island is not the “best choice” as per file “06029 PCS3 Evaluation Tables En AUG 22 08.pdf”. This indicates a lack of professionalism as well as questions the value of the assessments.

    6. This is list of the Sub-Factors, for which Kettle Island is the WORST choice (or among the worst choices), as per file “06029 PCS3 Evaluation Tables En AUG 22 08.pdf”:
    - 1.10. Transit Ridership
    - 1.12. Transit Ridership
    - 2.1.2. Fish SAR Potential
    - 2.1.3.SAR (SARA, SARO, Québec designated)
    - 2.1.5.Regionally Significant Species
    - 2.2.1. Total Emission Burden for Criteria Contaminants
    - 2.2.2.Total Emission Burden for GHG Contaminants
    - 2.3.6.Off-channel fish habitat – Number (length) of tributaries crossings
    - 2.3.8.Shoreline Disturbance
    - 2.4.1.River Hydraulics
    - 2.4.2. Water Quality (Surface).
    - 2.5.7.Interior forest
    - 3.1.2.Historic Archaeological potential areas impacted
    - 3.1.3.Cultural landscape features
    - 3.1.5.Aboriginal Archaeological potential – Medium (Federal Lands only)
    - 3.1.6.Aboriginal Archaeological potential – Low (Federal Lands only)
    - 3.2.1. Noise impacts
    - 3.2.3.Community Cohesion
    - 3.2.6.Visual Intrusion Roadway
    - 3.2.8. Magnetic Field Impact on Monfort Hospital MRI
    - 3.3.1.Cycling Facilities.
    - 3.3.5. Scenic Parkways
    - 3.3.6.Multi Use Pathways
    - 4.1.Impacts on water purification plants
    - 4.2. Views or vistas Impacted
    - 4.4. Sailing Activities
    - 5.6.Vehicles operating cost savings personal cars
    - 6.2.Loss of Future Development
    - 6.6 Loss of Institutional Property
    - 6.16. Potentially Contaminated Sites

    It is not clear how the Kettle Island bridge can be among the worst choices according to so many criteria, and yet, be the best choice overall.

    7. File “2006-029 Air Quality memo Jan 10 08.pdf” – Air Quality Assessment, specifies that “Air contaminant levels from vehicular emissions, based on future traffic volumes, will be assessed for the short-listed alignments of each design alternative carried forward.” There is no data presented (or available at the http://www.ncrcrossings.ca/en/home.html site) about the results from the air quality assessment.

    8. There are no references in the Interprovincial Crossing Environmental Assessment Study as to the existing federal, provincial and municipal environmental regulations and standards, and no assessment is done on the possible health effects due to increased traffic and pollution. Without such information, using words such as “Environmental Assessment” in the title of this study is questionable.

    All referred documents are available at (http://www.ncrcrossings.ca/en/home.html).

    Once again, please, stop this wrong decision to build an interprovincial bridge at Kettle Island.

    Regards

    Magdalena Stoeva
    Ottawa

    
    
16. Ursula Williams Says:
    
    October 8th, 2008 at 12:56 am

    The other day I was crossing King Edward Street at St. Patrick Street. My friend and I could not understand each other; the noise and the stench from several enormous trucks, going in both directions, was overwhelming.
    Imagine this scene, the noise and the stench at the foot steps of a Hospital!! Would you want to be a patient in a Hospital located beside a four lane truck thoroughfare .
    The Montfort Hospital would be exactly in this kind of situation. The four(or 6)lane Parkway leading to the proposed Kettle Island Bridge would go right beside that Hospital, without any buffer zone.
    About 13 years ago the Montfort Hospital was almost closed down; hospital workers and patients (and not only the francophone community) rallied and protested loud and forcefully. Thanks to this very strong voice, the Hospital was not only saved, but it is in the process of being substantially extended and modernized; it will be a first class Hospital, serving all of Ottawa.To build a a Highway for intended for heavy truck traffic is absolutely insane.
    What happens to the RCMP Musical Ride, which attracts thousands of spectators every year. The Aviation Museum and the Rockcliffe Airport would be cut off from the community; no more walks or bike rides to visit the Museum or watch the airplanes.
    It is obvious, that the NCC and the bridge planning comity do not care about the quality of life for the citizens of this city.
    It is clear, that the traffic problems on King Edward needs to be solved. It was a huge mistake to build that road in the first place, lets not make the same mistake a second time. It was would make much more sense to build a new bridge further east, in the area where the HWY 174 and HWY 417 come together.
    LAST BUT NOT LEAST, WHEN THE AVIATION PARKWAY WAS BUILT, THE NCC PROMISED THAT IT WOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO BECOME A HIGHWAY!! So much for politicians and promises!!

    
    
17. Peter Wilson Says:
    
    October 8th, 2008 at 8:51 pm

    Please watch the video at

    http://invigeo.com/BattleOfKettleIsland

    
    
18. Andrea Says:
    
    October 9th, 2008 at 5:07 pm

    I grew up on one of the small dead-end streets that give on to the RCMP field. When we were young, my brothers, friends and I would play for countless hours in fields; we would take our dog for walks, and go cross-country skiing and tobogganing in the winter. It was also a great area to go biking and walking since it was such a short distance to the river. Even today, I often see people out walking, running, biking and roller blading along the bike paths near the museum. I also have very fond memories of going to see the RCMP’s Musical Ride each summer. We always knew when the show had started because we could hear the announcer and music in our backyard. A bridge being built at Kettle Island would affect all these things.

    I cannot imagine what it would be like if they took away the peace and tranquility that surrounds the area and replaced it with a busy, noisy bridge. There has to be a better place to put the bridge. Why would anyone build a bridge that is so close to a residential area, that goes right by a hospital, an airport and a national museum, when there are other areas just up the river that would not have as much of an impact on humans, and would be a quarter of the distance to reach the highway? If the bridge were built at Kettle Island, it would link up with the highway right at the split between HWY 417 and HWY 174. Anyone who has driven that stretch of highway during rush hour knows how busy it is. Now imagine if they added all the truck traffic that currently goes through downtown! I understand that something has to be done about the traffic going through downtown, but I don’t understand how the decision makers came up with Kettle Island as the best option. I strongly urge them to reconsider other options, keeping in mind the effect their decision will have on the people who live in and around the area.

    
    
19. Jim Smith Says:
    
    October 10th, 2008 at 10:22 am

    URGENT!!! OCT 10 DEADLINE – PLEASE HELP

    The website says that the number one priority is to submit our comments by today, October 10, but nowhere does it give the address to which we need to send these comments .( presumably it’s a website – but I cannot find anywhere on the StoptheBridge website any explicit directions as to how or where to submit them.)

    Help!!! time is running out!

    Jim

    
    
20. Charles Siegel Says:
    
    October 10th, 2008 at 12:33 pm

    Below are the comments I submitted to the ICEA consultants today:

    I have organized my comments into sections, ranging from the general (methodology and procedure) to the specific (specific impacts and cost). The specific comments pertain to Ottawa portion of the Aviation Parkway-Kettle Island Bridge Corridor (alternative 5).

    1. Methodology and Procedure

    (a) The multicriteria process presented in Public Consultation No. 4 was said to be impartial and unbiased. This representation mischaracterizes multicriteria analysis (MCA), which is meant to provide a means to compare, combine and, if possible, reconcile divergent opinions and preferences. MCA, at least the kind used in this study, is not meant as an impartial methodology. It is way of reconciling different points of view.

    As far as those who represent their views in factor weightings are concerned, their individual opinions can be said to represent their “structure of preferences”. But this method is valid only insofar as the factors they are asked to weight are complete and adequately represented: if people are not provided with factors or subfactors representing certain impacts, for example, then they cannot rate or rank them.

    Concretely, if a green space is not recognized in the subfactors (because it does not have the name ‘park’ on the map?), then it has no weight and thus no influence. If the impact of traffic on cross-street transit is not recognized in a factor, then those who do the weighting cannot take the factor into account – it doesn’t exist as far as the MCA is concerned! Such holes in analysis bias the study.

    (b) In MCA, bias also arises from the way that subfactors and factors are combined. That is, it is easy to bury important elements by dispersing them among different factors, or by using elements specific to particular sites (for example ‘Andrew Haydon Park’, ‘Riverfront Park’, ‘Petrie Island Stumer Park’) instead of generics (“surface area of public parkland” or “park of category x”). It is also possible for political interests to use this kind of subfactor to highjack the process.

    Furthermore, as applied in the ICEA, multicriteria analysis has been used to equalize subfactors of completely different importance and measurement types: for example, kilometres of scenic parkways versus the “yes/no” impact (unspecified) on “Waterfront Park” in Nepean (which is irrelevant to any of the eastern crossings).

    (c) Weighting in MCA should not be substituted for policy: for example, if our public policy is to preserve green space within the inner region of Ottawa, or to preserve residential liveability, then that policy should take precedence over the synthetic factors of the consultants’ analysis by acting as a constraint. If people don’t agree, they should work to change policy; however, we can’t let projects subvert policy.

    2. Misconducted Environmental Impact Analysis

    The errors and omissions in the assessment phase of the project would be less serious if there were the opportunity to repair them during the phase of environmental impact analysis (EIA). It is normal at the end of the assessment phase to carry forward several different alternatives for detailed analysis, and indeed the terms of reference (TOR) for the ICEA appear to require that multiple corridors be carried into the next phase for analysis.

    With just one crossing site (at the end of a narrow corridor) retained in the assessment phase, only mitigation measures remain to be suggested, no matter what impacts may be discovered during detailed study: there are no alternative routings possible. This study violates both the basic principles of environmental impact studies and its own TOR. In essence, it will only be an impact mitigation study, not a full-fledged EIA. The methods of the study, along with its conclusions, will almost certainly be challenged at the provincial and federal levels, either by ministries of environment, the BAPE in Québec, or in court.

    3. Using Urban Public Green Space for Major Highways: How 1960s!

    In North America, from the 1950s into the 1970s, publicly owned green spaces and environmental reserves were often used to build major highways through the middle of cities. These spaces were easy to take for roads because, after all, they were “empty”. However, cities later came to regret these decisions because of their effect on quality of life, community cohesion and environment.

    Devoting urban public green space to a major regional road is now considered to be retrograde. If the National Capital converts the Aviation Parkway – Kettle Island corridor into a truck and commuter transit route, it will seem rather, well, provincial.
    We should note that the Aviation Parkway corridor is one just a few large public green areas on the east side of the city core. Using it as a route for large trucks will certainly diminish its quality. The proposed route will cut across one important NCC multi-use pathway (Ottawa River) and will completely destroy another (Aviation). All three of the of the main east-west bicycle routes identified by Ottawa cross the this route at grade.

    Nor was Aviation Parkway designed or built for heavy trucks. It is a light-to-medium-duty route with narrow lanes (12 feet, I think) and no shoulders or breakdown lanes. Despite the consultants’ assertions, the Parkway and its corridor will not look or function in the same way after it is upgraded for heavy trucks!

    4. Impact on Local Transportation

    The environmental assessment only takes into account the effect that the Kettle Island route would have on one crossing road, the Rockcliffe Parkway. The consultants’ models of traffic volume predict traffic on Rockcliffe rising to saturation levels. Curiously, where there is currently an interchange at the junction of Aviation and Rockcliffe, the consultants propose an at-grade crossing. I suppose they are trying to make the Kettle Island crossing seem as cheap as possible.

    But there are also three other important grade-level intersections along the route that have not been taken into consideration in the environmental assessment: Montreal Road, the entrance to the Cité Collégiale, and Ogilvie Road. What will be the impact on these already-congested east-west routes? When , at the beginning and end of classes, students are entering and leaving the parking lots at the new campus of Cité Collégiale, what will traffic back-ups look like?

    5. Unacknowledged Costs

    From what has been presented to us so far, I can’t tell if cost of the major reconfiguration of the Highway 416/Aviation Parkway interchange and the complete rebuild of the northern segment (Rockcliffe to Montreal Road) of the Aviation Parkway are included in the estimated cost of the crossing. I suspect they have not.

    In any case, additional costs will certainly be incurred in the southern segment between Montreal Road and Highway 416 (more than three kilometres). The 50s or 60s-era roadbed will have to be upgraded to support 21st century heavy trucks, lanes widened and breakdown lanes provided. In addition, the grade-level crossings will all have to be reconfigured. In essence, this section of the road will also have to be completely rebuilt.

    6. Incoherent Land-Use Planning by the National Capital Commission (NCC)

    In the last 15 years, several new housing areas and the campus of the Cité Collégiale (community college) have been built just to the east of the Aviation Parkway. A link to the Aviation Parkway is the principal access to several parking lots at the college. All of this development was done with the collaboration of the NCC, taking into consideration the status of the Aviation Parkway as a non-commercial route. Were I a home owner in one of these new areas, or a student, worker, teacher or administrator of the college (which I am not), I would feel betrayed.

    
    
21. ccredico Says:
    
    October 10th, 2008 at 1:22 pm

    To send your comments to the consultants, click the ’submit your comments’ link in this posting, and it will take you to this page: http://www.ncrcrossings.ca/en/your_comments.html You can submit your comments there.

    
    
22. ccredico Says:
    
    October 10th, 2008 at 2:06 pm

    My comments as submitted to the consultants:
    ——
    I formally object to the selection of Kettle Island as the location for the next interprovincial crossing. This decision is subjective, biased, irresponsible, and does not align with the broader interests of the national capital region.

    With respect to the decision-making model that has been employed to select Kettle Island, there are serious flaws that materially impact the results:

    1)Factor Flaws: The project team should be commended in their rigour to define a total of 90 subfactors upon which the measurement and quantification of the selection process is based. The factors span a wide range of areas of interest. However, there are flaws and omissions that need to be addressed.

    • Traffic: Each and every traffic factor portrays more traffic within the new corridor as a positive. There are no traffic factors to consider the negative impacts of truck and vehicular traffic on residential roads in the vicinity of the new corridor.
    • Socio-Economic Environment: Three of the seven factors considered in this category are quantified by traffic volume diverted through the new corridor. These are essentially the same numbers already accounted for within the Traffic category. The result is that the already heavily weighted traffic flow factors are double counted. Furthermore, there are no socio-economic factors to quantify the negative impact on businesses on St. Laurent Blvd. associated with the proposed closure of the east-bound 417 off-ramp. Closure of this off-ramp would inhibit access to those businesses from consumers in Ottawa East and Orleans.
    • Diesel Emissions: Diesel fuel emissions from trucks represent a serious health threat, and contribute to increased instances of cancer and asthma. Children are particularly susceptible. I am amazed and confounded that the Kettle Island corridor has been assigned a utility score of 1.0 for the Air Quality – Impact on Residents factor. This implies that of all the corridors considered, Kettle Island poses the least impact on residents in and around the corridor with respect to air quality. Given the proximity of the corridor to existing homes along the 7.0 km stretch that passes through established residential areas, and given the number of traffic lights and hills along that stretch, I call into question the conclusion that the Kettle Island corridor is the ideal corridor with respect to emissions impacts on residents.
    • Vibrations: Similar to Diesel Emissions, I am perplexed that no vibration impacts have been identified for homes and institutions near the Kettle Island corridor. I believe this to be an incorrect assessment.
    • Land Use and Property: Although expropriation requirements have been identified and quantified, there is no consideration given to property value reductions of homes near the corridor. This is unacceptable, particularly given the substantial number of homes and properties that would be impacted by the Kettle Island corridor.
    • Recreation: It is unclear why specific parks and recreational facilities have been included, while others have been excluded. For example, there are no measured impacts on the RCMP stables of the Musical Ride; there are no measured impacts on the lower Ottawa River pathway below the Rockliffe Parkway, a tranquil and peaceful oasis that truly feels like country in the city; there are no measured impacts on the Rockliffe Airport and the Aviation Museum. However, impacts to Andrew Haydon Park and Petrie Island Stumer Park have been specifically identified. Why?
    • Costs: Given that the expansion of Highway 174 is embedded within current City of Ottawa transportation plans, I do not believe that these costs should be borne by crossing options that require this expansion. This artificially inflates the costs for those options, and as result, makes them appear less attractive.
    • Margin of Error: Every number presented to support the current recommendation is presented as being 100% accurate. There is no margin of error for any factor that acknowledges that many of the numbers are based on approximations. Traffic models project car and truck volume in the year 2031 to the individual vehicle. Capital costs at this relatively early stage in the process are presented to the nearest million dollars, operating costs to the nearest hundred thousand dollars. Given the sensitivity of the selection model to these factors in particular, the assessment needs to include confidence limits (e.g. plus or minus 15%) for modeled and estimated figures.

    2)Weightings: While it has been repeatedly stated by the consultants that the members of the 25-member committee that determined the relative importance and associated weighting assigned to each factor and sub-factor, there was no representation from community-oriented organizations on that committee. This is a serious omission, given that community members are one of the primary stakeholders in this project. We know from comments presented at Public Consultation #4 by one of the members of that committee that his weightings assessment was biased towards his public transportation background, and he indicated that each member of the committee was biased towards his or her background.

    Given the organizations represented (National Capital Commission (NCC), Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO), Ministry of Transportation Quebec (MTQ), City of Ottawa, City of Gatineau, Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA), Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), STO, CREDDO, Transport Canada, Ministry of Natural Resources) it is not surprising that the top 3 factors were weighted as follows: Traffic (29%), Cost (26), Environment (17%). This is a direct reflection of the organizations represented on the committee.

    People and community factors that focus on negative impacts in and around the new corridor were dispersed throughout several major categories. As a result, there has been little transparency with respect to the consideration given to people and community.

    One of the primary sub-categories that address the negative impact on people, the Community sub-category of Cultural Environment, has been assigned a total weighting of only 4.3%. Included within the sub-category is Community Cohesion, which quantifies the total length of corridor that passes through established residential areas. For Kettle Island, this length is 7.0 km, almost three times longer than any other east end option. For the Gatineau Airport crossing, this distance is 0 km. Surely this factor is a key indicator of the damage to communities that 1700 trucks per day will cause. But, the members of the weightings committee assigned Community Cohesion a weighting of only 0.77%.

    Had there been a balanced perspective of technical and community interests represented on the weightings committee, the weightings would be more representative of the broader interests of the national capital region, and selection of the preferred alternative would change.

    3)Sensitivity Analysis: Despite the flaws, shortcomings, and omissions previously noted, it is important to understand the sensitivity analysis of the current model. The consultants have indicated that by increasing and decreasing the weightings over a wide range for each of the major categories, Kettle Island ranks as the best option every time.

    However, based on the analysis presented in Analysis and Recommendations Appendix D – Sensitivity Tests, it appears that major variations in only one major factor at a time were considered for this analysis. When weightings for a major factor are varied, residual weightings appear to be proportionally distributed among the six other major factors. The result is that for each sensitivity scenario, weightings for six of the seven categories remain largely unchanged. This is only a cursory sensitivity analysis, and presents a false impression that Kettle Island is the best choice across virtually any variation of weightings applied to each major category.

    Based on the data presented in Analysis and Recommendations Appendix C – Evaluation of Short Listed Corridors (Sept. 17th, 2008), I have recreated the decision model. I have transposed all of the utility factor data, and I have built a spreadsheet that allows me to see the impact that changes to assigned weightings has on the ranking of alternatives.

    By changing only the weightings for the major categories (all sub-category weightings remain unchanged from the weightings assigned by the project weightings committee), I can clearly demonstrate several scenarios where the results drastically change. A few of these scenarios are presented in the table below. (I submitted a detailed appendix in my formal submission)

    Table 1: Weightings Scenario Analysis

    (Formatting gets lost in this online comment, but imagine a table with the following headings and scenarios below)

    Traffic, Natural Enviro, Cultural Enviro, Water Use, Socio Economic, Land Use, Cost, Kettle Island Rank, Top Ranking Alternative

    Current State: 28.52%, 17.32%, 9.10%, 4.54%, 6.82%, 8.22%, 25.48%, 1st, Kettle Island

    Scenario 1. 19.25%, 19.25%, 19.25%, 8.00%, 6.82%, 8.22% 19.25%, 2nd, Gatineau Airport

    Scenario 2. 20.00%, 20.00%, 20.00%, 10.00%, 6.82%, 8.22%, 15.00%, 3rd, Gatineau Airport

    Scenario 3. 18.85%, 17.32%, 18.85%, 11.10%, 6.82%, 8.22%, 18.85%, 4th, Gatineau Airport

    Scenario 4. 14.29%, 14.29%, 14.29%, 14.29%, 14.29%, 14.29%, 14.29%, 5th, Gatineau Airport

    The attractiveness of Kettle Island based on the current model is highly sensitive to the weightings assigned to each major category. It is therefore absolutely critical that you take into account variations in the weightings beyond those which were completed as part of your sensitivity analysis, and that you factor these into your presentations and recommendations. You must not continue to propagate the false impression that Kettle Island is the best alternative across all sensitivity analysis scenarios.

    In addition to the points raised above, I am very concerned that the proposed crossing does nothing to reduce or eliminate truck and vehicular traffic from the city’s core. The Kettle Island corridor would moderately disperse traffic from King Edward to another centrally located, highly populated area, without addressing the broader traffic and transportation objectives of providing viable alternatives that bypass central areas of the city altogether.

    Even though I believe there to be flaws and omissions in the decision-making model that is currently being employed, it is reassuring to know that assigning reasonable weights to the major factors in this model results in very different recommendations.

    I trust that you will take these comments into consideration, and that you will reconsider your recommendation of Kettle Island as the preferred alternative.

    
    
23. Tonya Says:
    
    October 10th, 2008 at 10:40 pm

    Submitted to the consultants today:
    —–
    I have severe concerns over the lack of consideration given to the negative impacts on people and communities in and around the Kettle Island corridor. The study and recommendations seem very biased towards traffic engineering, and seem to marginalize people factors.

    I am also very concerned that the proposed corridor does not remove truck traffic from the city centre. By making the Aviation Parkway a trucking route, this simply encourages more truck traffic through central Ottawa and Gatineau, with immeasurable negative impacts on the established residential areas through which this route would pass. Truck should be routed out of the city’s core, ideally through a ring road system.

    The negative impact on the green space, parks, the Montfort Hospital, and cultural institutions such as the RCMP Stables and Musical Ride, is tragic, especially for those living in higher density, lower income areas such as Vanier.

    As the nation’s capital, Ottawa has a responsibility to protect its natural and cultural environments, particularly those within the city’s core. The City of Ottawa has an opportunity to set an example for the rest of the country, and to showcase Ottawa global role model. Building a new trucking route through the Kettle Island corridor would be an embarrassment that would scar the city for generations to come.

    I am very concerned about the health impact on our children associated with construction of the corridor, and of truck traffic and diesel fumes.

    I am also concerned that no consideration has been given to reduced property values in and around the corridor.

    And I am very disturbed that there are no factors that consider the negative impact of traffic flow, including trucks, through residential areas.

    Weightings need to be reassessed by a committee that better represents the broader interests of our society. People and communities in the corridor area need to be recognized as key stakeholders in this study, and their interests and concerns need to be given far greater consideration.

    Overall, I strongly object to the selection of Kettle Island. This is the wrong choice, particularly given that there are other options with far less impact on people and communities.

    
    
24. Hélène Arsenault Says:
    
    October 10th, 2008 at 11:35 pm

    À titre de nouvelle résidente d’Ottawa, je commence à peine à suivre ce dossier. Je ne veux pas revenir sur tout ce qui a été dit lors de la dernière consultation publique, bien que j’estime que la plupart des interventions étaient très pertinentes et méritent grandement d’être considérées. Le temps me manque pour lire toute la documentation présentée sur votre site et ailleurs. J’ai cependant pris la peine d’examiner chacun des critères, leur unité de mesure, les pointages et la pondération accordée à chaque secteur d’intérêt.

    Avec plus de 90 critères pour un total de 7 facteurs ((?) circulation et transport, milieu naturel, etc.), lorsque je vois que le corridor de l’Île Kettle affiche le plus haut pointage pour TOUS les tests, je ne peux m’empêcher de penser que le choix du corridor a été arrêté avant la sélection ou l’ordonnancement de ces fameux 90 critères. Lorsqu’il est déterminé que les facteurs de coûts et de transport compteront pour 55%, avec un pointage de 1 pour 10 des 14 critères de ces 2 catégories, le résultat est assez prévisible, indépendamment du pointage pour les autres facteurs. Et je me demande également pourquoi une telle étude porte le nom “Évaluation environnementale”. Je serais aussi curieuse de savoir ce qui est inclus dans l’estimation des coûts; par exemple est-ce que l’aménagement/construction de routes de liaison aux autoroutes est considérée?

    Quant à la multitude d’autres critères, je m’interroge sur la pertinence de certains, la façon de les mesurer et leur influence sur le résultat. Par exemple, pourquoi avoir 3 critères de potentiel archéologique autochtone (élevé, moyen et faible) qui possède une même valeur de pointage? Je comprends mal le pointage pour les critères des aires naturelles d’intérêt régional ou provincial pour la liaison de Kettle Island; on donne l’exemple de Kettle Island et de l’aéroport de Rockcliffe et ces 2 critères ont chacun 1 point avec 0 ha. Pour le socio-économique, n’est -il pas un peu simpliste d’évaluer le potentiel économique à partir de données de circulation anticipées? Ces mêmes chiffres servent pour au moins 5 critères.

    Enfin, le mal aimé: l’environnement culturel. Les pointages absolus sont remarquablement bas pour Kettle Island. Et ce, sans considérer les nombreux biais dans le choix des critères de cette catégorie (archéologie X 5, traversier de Cumberland et champ magnétique à Montfort qui sont des éléments spécifiques). Inutile d’en rajouter.

    À mon avis, cet exercice est loin d’être crédible. Je trouverais même inacceptable de sélectionner quelques alternatives à partir de cette évaluation en vue d’une étude d’impact en bonne et due forme, ce qui par surcroît a été exclus.

    Malheureusement, le temps me manque.

    
    
25. Jeanne Gratton Says:
    
    October 11th, 2008 at 2:33 pm

    The New Bridge Should Be Way Out

    Of course we need another bridge across the Ottawa River. Maybe two, or three, or four. But let’s be realistic, we can only afford one in the foreseeable future and it must be one that will meet our greatest need which is to remove as many trucks as possible from our Ottawa-Gatineau urban area. Especially the big trucks –some with dangerous cargos.

    While the Chaudière and MacDonald-Cartier bridges can continue to handle trucks that actually deliver to homes and businesses in the urban area, all other trucks having no delivery or work to do in Ottawa-Gatineau could be required to use a bridge located outside the built-up area. For example, trucks from points east of Ottawa with, say, Maniwaki or Fort Coulonge as a destination, could easily cross over to Masson, Que. So could trucks from points west of Ottawa delivering, say, automobiles to towns along Quebec’s Highway 50. Likewise, Quebec trucks having business in towns along our 417. And many more such itineraries could thus be diverted to everyone’s advantage.

    The name of the game would be to have our existing urban bridges used (a) by trucks operated by Ottawa-Gatineau businesses, and (b) by heavy transports from other cities, provided delivery is made in our urban area. Controls can be enforced.

    And then, there are all those Ontario and Quebec travellers who are heading for Quebec and Ontario destinations respectively who would rather avoid Ottawa-Gatineau when going to their ski resort, condo, cottage . .

    And this works out just fine with the idea (which must come to pass) to have this bridge on a distant ring road because the traffic just mentioned will do just fine crossing on a bridge that is well outside the urban area’s outskirts. Any extra-mileage costs will be offset by the brake/accelerate cost of driving via an urban bridge.

    So let’s stop the current nonsense about a bridge in Ottawa’s East-end or West-end. And, for Heaven’s sake, let the deeply-traumatized Ottawa communities finally rest in peace!

    Jeanne Gratton

    
    

Leave a Reply