10 facts about the consultant’s selection process
A great contribution to the website from Christine, a concerned citizen and resident of Rockcliffe Mews:
———–
10 Facts About the Process and the ROCHE-NCE Consultant’s Study
1. City Council endorsed Kettle Island as the preferred location for a bridge on June 27th, 2007. This was 18 MONTHS BEFORE the consultant released his Final Summary Report (Jan 09); 4 months BEFORE the Evaluation of Alternatives was scheduled to begin (Nov 07); and 3 months BEFORE the Study Terms of Reference were finalized (Oct 07). One might ask why the NCC and the MTO/MTQ felt compelled to pay the consultants $2.8M (before taxes) to complete a study to determine the best location for a bridge when City Council could make that same decision WITHOUT any information and 18 months sooner?
2. Our Lady of Mount Carmel Elementary School backs directly onto the Aviation Parkway (south of Montreal Rd.) and is less than 1 BLOCK away(~15 meters) from the traffic. The children’s basketball court and play area backs directly onto the parkway. These are Kindergarten to Gr. 6 kids that will be totally exposed to the truck traffic & pollution if abridge is built at Kettle Island. There are also 10 other schools located within a 3 km radius of the Aviation Parkway corridor.
3. Montfort Hospital and its Long-term Care Facility (Retirement Home) backs directly onto the Aviation Parkway (north of Montreal Rd.) and is about 25 meters away from the existing 2 lane road (NB: the Parkway will need to be expanded to 4 lanes).
4. The Aviation Parkway is the MOST DENSELY populated corridor of all the 10 crossing locations considered with over 100,000 people living in the surrounding area. South of Montreal Rd., many houses in the Rockcliffe Mews community back right onto the Aviation Parkway, a few of which are only about 25 meters from their backyards — WITHOUT anything to buffer the traffic.
5. The most vulnerable people to pollution exposure are the sick,elderly, and children — all of which are less than 25 meters away from the proposed truck highway. This was OMITTED as a factor and did not receive any relevant weighting in the consultant’s study.
6. The narrowest part of the Aviation Parkway (north of Montreal Rd.and south of Hemlock Rd.) is flanked on either side by ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE and URBAN NATURAL FEATURES Protected Areas by the City of Ottawa (the Montfort Woods and the Aviation Parkway Woods). These Environmentally Protected Areas are supposedly, “to receive the highest level of natural area protection afforded by the City of Ottawa Official Plan and Zoning By-Law.” This was completely disregarded by the consultant’s study and its protection status was not even mentioned anywhere in the report or the 17 appendices.
7. Supposedly the Montfort Hospital’s MRI capability was included as a sub-element in the consultant’s study. Technically it was. HOWEVER, it was given a final weighting of less than a tenth of 1% (i.e less than 0.1%). The impact of vibration to the MRI capability had virtually no impact on the study at all.
8. Supposedly the RCMP Musical Ride will not be affected by a bridge at Kettle Island because the consultant carried out noise tests on the horses. However, the impact of vibration or pollution was not tested or factored into the study at all. We all know that’s because pollution only impacts people, not horses right?
9. The consultant’s sensitivity analysis completely manipulates the results because the analysis does not show the variability (or sensitivity) of results due to changes in assumptions or factor group weightings, which is the purpose of a sensitivity analysis. The consultant’s formula is so complicated that he can’t even explain it to anyone in PLAIN LANGUAGE. He also didn’t perform any simple or straight-forward sensitivity analysis on any logical, pragmatic, or practical scenarios.
For example:
(a) What happens if all 7 factor groups are weighted equally (instead of the consultant’s convoluted formula)? Kettle Island comes in 6th.
(b) What happens if you weight the 7 factor groups by order of Public Importance? Kettle Island comes in 9th.
(c) What happens if you switch the weightings for cultural environment with traffic & transportation? Kettle Island comes in 6th.
(d) What happens if you switch the weightings for water use and traffic& transportation? Kettle Island comes in 8th.
10. The effect of building a Kettle Island bridge to the 417/174 Split on existing commuter traffic coming from the East end (e.g. Orleans) was not factored into the consultant’s study. Current planning documents from the ROCHE-NCE consultants show that the Split will undergo a major expansion if the Kettle Island crossing is selected. Many new ramps and bridges will be built to handle the traffic that will enter the Queensway at the Split from the Aviation Parkway. However, there is currently no plan to widen Highway 174 at the Split and the impact to east-end commuter traffic was omitted from the study.
———–
For more critique of the process employed by the ROCHE-NCE consultants, click on the Project Critique category on this website.
Loading ...
February 1st, 2009 at 10:29 am
If we are successful in convincing the powers that be that 2 or God forbid 3 options be carried forward in the phase II study does anyone believe this consultant can approach the assignment objectively and impartiality? The NCC should retain the services of a new consultant with a comprehensive and balanced approach for phase II.
February 1st, 2009 at 12:02 pm
In response to Gerry,
First, our aim is to prevent Kettle Island from moving forward into Phase 2 of the EA.
The Province of Ontario has recommended extending Phase 1 to provide further study of the top three corridors with respect to transit, impact on communities and economic benefit. In so recommending, they are indicating that they do not have sufficient information to go on for choosing the best interprovincial crossing at this time. We hope the NCC will agree with the recommendation this funding partner.
Second, when the study moves forward into Phase 2 (with or without KI)the contract for Phase 2 will be put to tender. NCE-Roche may presumably bid for the contract, but they do not automatically have it.
February 1st, 2009 at 9:28 pm
I think the obvious answer to your question:
One might ask why the NCC and the MTO/MTQ felt compelled to pay the consultants $2.8M (before taxes) to complete a study to determine the best location for a bridge when City Council could make that same decision WITHOUT any information and 18 months sooner?
.. is that this consultants report was designed to favour a Kettle Island bridge from the beginning, by weighting factors in a way that favoured this option. You are right that their support of this route has biased the findings, especially the way they have chosen to weigh the judging criteria.
You have also illustrated that when one looks at other factors, including existing urban and environmental plans, a Kettle Island bridge option runs counter to these plans. In essence, a patch work of plans overlay one another and will not make any sense when stitched together.
February 2nd, 2009 at 12:07 pm
In response to John Savage’s comment.
Yes, the answer to my question is extremely obvious. I just don’t understand why the people against Kettle Island are the only ones that seem to get it!
February 6th, 2009 at 7:37 am
We must not forget how the Gatineau mayor mentioned (I can’t find the direct quote right now) how they have already spent money developing their side of the Kettle Island corridor. It is worrisome that the selection phase may have been intended to be a formality. I also worry that the head of the NCC used to be a planning engineer for the City of Gatineau.
I am getting so mad about this issue, that I will reiterate my opinion (as technical as city council’s original decision) that we build no bridge for car or trucks. Let Gatineau work with the City of Ottawa to improve their transit and let the Province of Quebec finish their highway to Montreal.