Stop The Kettle Island Bridge

4 Responses to “NCC CEO interview with the Citizen Editorial Board”

1. Gisèle Says:
   
   February 6th, 2009 at 11:57 am

   Here is the letter I sent in to the Citizen in response to the article on the editorial board meeting with Marie Lemay:

   I find it appalling that the idea of turning a national capital scenic parkway into a designated truck corridor for 18 wheelers is still on the table—worse still, the idea of building a truck route that would skirt past the front driveways and back yards of several densely populated residential neighbourhoods and come within 25 metres of the Montfort Hospital and 15 metres of Our Lady of Mont Carmel Elementary School.

   Why is the NCC still considering this preposterous proposal? Their consultant has promised to find ways to mitigate the harm in Phase 2 of the EA.

   Opponents of the Kettle Island corridor are quite aware of the consultant’s mitigation measures, and we don’t need to waste $4 million dollars on Phase 2 to find out that they won’t work.

   A case in point is the solution proposed to reduce the safety hazards at the corridor’s intersections. There would be 15 level crossings along the Kettle Island corridor where heavy commercial vehicles would have to gear down and mix with commuter traffic, taxis, cyclists and pedestrians all trying to reach their destination as fast as possible. The consultant’s proposed answer to this problem is to construct roundabouts.

   Tell me, how will tourists to our beautiful capital feel about sharing a roundabout with 1700 heavy commercial vehicles per day—or up to 4,000 big trucks a day, should the City act on its resolution to ban trucks from King Edward Avenue.

   Furthermore, there is no known way to mitigate the harmful effects to air quality caused by the high levels of particulate matter in diesel exhaust, and there is no known way to reduce the harm caused by the spillage of toxic materials that might be transported by these trucks.

   Ms Lemay, we know we need a bridge. The current deplorable situation in Lowertown must be fixed. But there are better corridors that don’t route trucks through densely populated established communities.

   
   
2. Peder Jakobsen Says:
   
   February 7th, 2009 at 12:04 pm

   Interesting interview.

   A valuable post for this site would focus on the expropriation requirements for other proposed locations, given that it’s zero for Kettle island. Does anyone have the details on this?

   
   
3. Gisèle Says:
   
   February 7th, 2009 at 1:43 pm

   Peder,
   The consultant’s report may say that there will be zero expropriations, but it is clear to residents in this area that there won’t be zero.
   We alsready know that there are at least two houses in Manor Park Hill that would need to be demolished and one for sure on the Quebec side. But that’s not all. Residents along Montée Paiement are very upset with the truck route along their street. They are asking to be expropriated because it would be better than living next to a truck corridor.

   To make the process fair, these factors should have been brought into the selection criteria. Instead, the problems were left to be dealt with in the mitigation phase of the EA.

   A mitigation expropriation is still an expropriation and should be counted as such.

   
   
4. ccredico Says:
   
   February 7th, 2009 at 5:34 pm

   The consultants have identified over 70 homes requiring expropriation for the Duck Island route. And as Gisele has pointed out, there would almost certainly be at least a few expropriations required for Kettle Island (despite what the consultants have claimed).

   For Gatineau Airport no expropriations would be required, and this is not in dispute.

   Given a choice between expropriation with fair compensation; or reduced property values (not to mention health risks, community impacts, noise, etc.) with no compensation…I know which one I would choose.

   Fortunately, this can be avoided entirely with the Gatineau Airport route.

   
   

Leave a Reply