Greatest negative impact on the greatest number of people
In very simple terms, I find the Kettle Island alternative to be a completely inappropriate choice for a new interprovincial crossing because it has the greatest negative impact on the greatest number of people in the National Capital region. This has been recognized by the consultants, but because of the weightings assigned to factors analyzed in the study, it has little impact on the final results.
Of the 12 crossing options considered, Kettle Island ranks decidedly last with respect to what has been called Cultural Environment. It is within Cultural Environment that many key factors associated with the negative impacts on communities, institutions, health and safety, and quality of life in the crossing area are included.
Consider the Cultural Environment sub-factor called Community Cohesion, which measures the total length of corridor passing through established residential areas. Given that the primary objective of the study is to migrate truck traffic through the new corridor, it would seem that Community Cohesion should be given serious consideration. Trucking routes through communities, as we have seen on King Edward, simply don’t work.
As determined by the consultants, the Kettle Island corridor passes through 7 km of established residential areas, across both sides of the river. The east end corridor with the next longest distance through residential areas is Lower Duck, of which 2.5 kms passes through residential areas. The Gatineau Airport crossing, the most attractive option if community impacts are given adequate consideration, has a distance of 0 km passing through existing communities.
Community Cohesion, as important as it may seem, represents a mere 0.8% of the total score calculated for each crossing alternative and as such, has essentially no bearing on the outcome.
I am not arguing against the need for a bridge. But I am arguing that trucks and people don’t mix.
The people negatively impacted by the new corridor, unquestionably key stakeholders in this study, need more effective representation and consideration in the final selection process.
Don’t let the consultants’ recommendation fool you into thinking Kettle Island is the right choice. Better east end options exist with far less impact on existing communities.
And if appropriate weightings were assigned to the analysis to better reflect the negative impact on communities near the corridor, the consultants would have no choice but to agree.
Loading ...