Stop The Kettle Island Bridge

10 things you should know about the bridge project

1. A bridge at any of the three corridors being considered (Kettle Island, Lower Duck, or Gatineau Airport):

• Will not solve the truck problem on King Edward
• Will deteriorate communities and green space
• Will not integrate well with public transit
• Will encourage urban sprawl
• Will encourage more car commuting, and will increase traffic problems

2. The NCC describes the scope of the current project phase as being to pick “the least worst option” among the three corridors being assessed. No variations beyond those three specifically defined corridors are being considered within this project.

3. The final corridor selection will be made in late Summer 2012, after which all project activity will focus on submission and approval through the Canadian Environment Assessment Act for the selected corridor. This final phase of the project is expected to be completed by January 2013. Upon approval, the bridge will be ready to build, subject to funding and initiation of the required infrastructure project.

4. Based on their approval of the scope of this phase of the project, the funding partners (NCC, Province of Ontario, Province of Quebec) have concluded that any of the three corridors being considered would be suitable for a bridge and trucking route.

5. The Province of Ontario waived the requirement to undertake an Ontario Environment Assessment for this project, thereby eliminating all safeguards to citizens, requirements, and legal protections that this legislation provides to citizens. However, the Province of Ontario has requested that a higher degree of emphasis should be placed on community impacts, public transit, and economic development when making the final selection.

6. The next round of public consultations is planned in February 2012, where the public will be able to see exactly what a bridge and truck route at Kettle Island would look like. Functional designs and mitigation measures for all three options will be presented for comment. Also within the February consultations, the public will have an opportunity to provide input on weighting of the factors that will be used to assess and compare the three potential bridge locations. When applied to the “bridge formula”, these weighting will, ultimately, define which of the three potential bridge locations is selected.

7. In the first phase of the project, Kettle Island ranked as the worst of the 12 corridor options being considered at that time in the categories of factors relating to negative impacts on people and communities along the corridor. However, these factors were assigned a combined weighting of only 13% by the technical oriented committee who assigned weightings behind closed doors. This same committee assigned a combined weighting of 54% to the factors relating to traffic and cost.

8. By increasing the relative importance of Phase 1 factors related to negative community impacts, the “bridge equation” identified other corridors as being more favourable than Kettle Island.

9. We need to ensure that negative impact on communities and people is assigned the weighting it deserves during this final phase of the project, and that it is not overshadowed by technical and cost considerations. Please participate in the upcoming consultation and provide your feedback.

10. The MPCA and the MPCA Bridge Committee are working hard to defend our community against this threat. We have engaged industry consultants, urban planners, and lawyers to strengthen our cause, and there is more to be done as we prepare for the coming months. But we need your financial support.

If you can spare a donation, big or small, towards the bridge fight, please send a cheque to:

Manor Park Community Association (MPCA)
PO Box 74211
5 Beechwood Ave
Ottawa, ON K1M 2H9

Share on Facebook

No integrated transportation plan a testament to NCC’s failure

University of Ottawa professor Gilles Paquet, the former head of the panel that gave the NCC a strong vote of confidence 5 years ago, is now openly criticizing the organization and its actions.

Here are a few excerpts from today’s Ottawa Citizen article:
‘Timid’ NCC could become irrelevant, former review panel head says

“What we need at the NCC is leadership that is going to take the advantage of all the precedents that exist to be a champion for the federal capital region, rather than the timid operator they are now,” said Paquet, senior fellow at the university’s Centre on Governance.
…
“The fact that they are invisible or they indulge in evasive thinking is condemning them to become more and more irrelevant. To my mind this is the kiss of death.”
…
Paquet points to numerous proposals, including rail links to the Ottawa and Gatineau airports and loops around the capital, that have gone nowhere. Waterfront development has been talked to death but nothing has happened. He says the fact the nation’s capital hasn’t been able to create a modern, integrated transportation system is a testament to the NCC’s failure.
…
“Transportation is the key element in this region. If you were able to deal with the transportation issue — not just railroads and bridges but the river as well — this would be a different place,” he said.

Paquet has co-edited a new book:  The Unimagined Canadian Capital.

Challenges for the Federal Capital Region
Too many stakeholders have neglected their duty of imagining an inspiring federal capital region for Canada. Under the auspices of the Forum of Federations, a number of persons interested in the fate of Canada’s federal capital region came together to examine the challenges facing the region and to put forward suggestions to deal with them.

In this report on the brainstorming exercise conducted in January 2011, professionals, academics and elected officials take stock of the vast array of assets on which the federal capital region can build; probe the many sources of failures in coping as effectively and creatively as one would expect with the diversity, trans-border, financial and governance challenges; and make suggestions to ensure that the federal capital region does not remain “unimagined” in the future.

Share on Facebook

Smart Growth, Dumb Bridge

As submitted for publication in the November Manor Park Chronicle:
————-
Smart Growth, Dumb Bridge
Christophe Credico,
Chair – Manor Park Bridge Committee

As the Interprovincial Crossings project keeps stubbornly rolling along, recurring themes are emerging. Despite National Capital Commission (NCC) claims to the contrary, the fundamental framework of the project is flawed, and its execution is laughable; though this is no laughing matter.

The NCC prides itself on being progressive with a focus on ensuring sustainability for the National Capital Region. Visionary initiatives such as the NCC’s Horizon 2067: The Plan for Canada’s Capital are high profile and have the right intent. But, ironically, while this is going on, the NCC is also pushing forward the bridge project, founded upon 1950’s transportation planning principles.

Smart Growth planning principles define global best practices for sustainable urban development, livable communities, and integrated transportation planning. The Ontario Smart Growth Network believes:

“that there are three basic requirements with respect to achieving the principles of smart growth in Ontario: stopping urban sprawl, fostering healthy communities, and supporting community involvement in planning”.

As the Nation’s Capital, the region must be held to a high standard. We have aspirations to define ourselves as one of the great cities in the world. It is the role of the NCC to lead by example, to make Canadians proud, and to showcase progressive, sustainable stewardship of the region.

But if this truly is the case, why is the current bridge project violating many basic Smart Growth principles? Instead of truly isolating and defining the problem, assessing a broad range of innovative options that may best provide a solution, and doing so with a regional Smart Growth perspective within the context of an integrated transportation plan with a strong emphasis on public transit, the NCC has instead decided to simply build a bridge.

This bridge will create urban sprawl, will encourage more people to car commute from Gatineau suburbs, will deteriorate communities in and around the selected corridor, and could blemish the region for generations to come, without solving the main problem of removing the truck traffic on King Edward.

Something is seriously wrong.

Granted, the problem on King Edward is terrible. But let’s not be dumb about trying to fix it. And, let’s make sure the attempted fix doesn’t create other, bigger problems for the National Capital Region down the road.
————-
For more information, please refer to other postings on this website.
For information in French, please visit http://www.pourunmeilleurpont.org.

Share on Facebook

Sustainable Solutions launches new website against an east-end bridge

Sustainable Solutions recently launched a new website in their fight against an east end bridge:

http://www.ssd-ottawa.ca

The website contains great information about the project. In addition to the latest developments, it presents compelling arguments as to how the process if flawed, while recommending ways in which the process could be fixed.

As stated on their website, here is the Sustainable Solutions mission statement:

Our Mission
Sustainable Solutions/Solutions durables believes that none of the currently proposed bridge corridors provide a real solution to the long standing and unacceptable situation of 2500+ heavy trucks per day transiting downtown Ottawa. Furthermore it is our position that it will be unacceptable to build a bridge costing $500M or more (initial estimates from Phase 1) which does not provide a solution to this truck problem.

Our goal is to raise awareness of this issue and build consensus among the affected communities to lobby the study proponents (NCC, MTO, & MTQ along with the Cities of Ottawa and Gatineau) to widen the scope of the study to include a proper evaluation of additional options that could provide a better solution to this truck problem.

Such options had been screened out early in the Phase 1 process without sufficient study or consultation. As a result, important information comparing and contrasting these options to the currently proposed bridge corridors is unavailable to the public and future decision makers.

The success of any proposed project must take into account what communities want. Your involvement in this process will make an important contribution. This site has been created to educate and provide well thought out comment on this study process. Add your voice to ours. Together we can influence decision making in the National Capital Region.

Sustainable Solutions represents a strong collaboration of east end communities, as noted in the About US Section of the website:

The following community groups/organizations have been signatories of the Joint Statement:

1. Action Sandy Hill
2. Beacon Hill Community Association
3. Blackburn Hamlet Community Association
4. Cardinal Glen Community Association
5. City Centre Coalition
6. Common Sense Crossings
7. CREDDO – Conseil régional de l’environnement et du développement durable de l’Outaouais
8. Fairhaven Community Association
9. The Friends of the Greenspace Alliance
10. The Greenbelt Coalition
11. Local Eco-Action Families (LEAF)
12. Manor Park Community Association
13. Queenswood Heights Community Association
14. Rockliffe Mews/Carson Grove Residents Association
15. Rockcliffe Park Residents Association
16. Transport Action Canada

Please visit http://www.ssd-ottawa.ca regularly.

Share on Facebook

NCC approves Phase 2A report; next steps contingent upon provincial funding

The NCC Board of Directors unanimously approved the Phase 2A report last week, with only three options to be considered. The flexibility to look at other options beyond the three identified corridors is not currently within the scope of the next phase of the project, where a final determination of the crossing location will be made.

As noted in an earlier posting, none of the three options currently being considered will sufficiently address the problems.

Although the NCC has approved the Phase 2A report and funding for the next phase, the project is effectively on hold until the Provinces provide their approval and associated funding.

Read more:
July 2, Ottawa Citizen, No word yet on provincial funding for bridge

If you have concerns, now is the time to voice them to the Province:

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur
MPP for Ottawa-Vanier
Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs
Minister of Community and Social Services
237 Montreal Rd Vanier, ON K1L 6C7
Telephone: (613) 744-4484 Fax: (613) 744-0889
E-mail: mmeilleur.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org

Yasir Naqvi, MPP
MPP for Ottawa-Centre
204- 411 Roosevelt Ave.
Ottawa ON K2A 3X9
Tel: 613-722-6414
Fax: 613-722-6703
ynaqvi.mpp@liberal.ola.org

Phil McNeely, MPP
MPP for Ottawa-Orléans
6- 110 Bearbrook Rd
Gloucester ON K1B 5R2
Tel 613-834-8679
Fax 613-834-7647
pmcneely.mpp@liberal.ola.org

Dalton McGuinty, Premier
Legislative Building
Queen’s Park
Toronto ON M7A 1A1
Fax:(416) 325-3745.
dmcguinty.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org

Kathleen Wynne
Minister of Transportation
Click here to send a message to the Minister

Margarett Best
Minister of Health
777 Bay Street- 18th Floor
Toronto, On
M7A 1S5
Tel: 416-326-8500
Fax:416-326-8520
www.mhp.gov.on.ca/english/contact/minister.asp

John Gerretsen
Minister of the Environment
12th Floor, 135 St. Clair Avenue West
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1P5
Telephone: (416) 314-6790
Fax: (416) 314-7337
jgerretsen.mpp@liberal.ola.org

Share on Facebook

Phase 2B scope must be expanded to include other options

The three alignments currently under consideration are inadequate to effectively solve the problems.

The Kettle Island corridor is a bad choice for all of the reasons detailed on this website; the Lower Duck Island corridor has severe limitations on the Gatineau side; and the Gatineau Airport corridor would have negative impacts on Convent Glen and could have detrimental environmental impacts.

Mauril Bélanger, MP Ottawa-Vanier, continues his arguments that the Canotek-Gatineau Airport corridor (Option 6A), a variation of Option 6 (Lower Duck Island) is the best option. It proposes using Maloney Blvd / Highway 148 on the Gatineau side as opposed to Lorrain Blvd. However, this has not been recognized by the NCC or the consultants as a viable option.

Consider these striking visuals.

Here’s a street-level view of Maloney Blvd, a four-lane commercial route, near Lorraine Blvd. The NCC and the consultants have deemed this to be INAPPROPRIATE as a commercial trucking route, and not worthy of further consideration. Within Option 6A, trucks would be directed along this route.

View Canotek – Gatineau Airport in a larger map

By contrast, here’s a street level view of Lorraine Blvd. The project team and the NCC believe that this IS A VIABLE OPTION option for a trucking route. This will be considered within the next phase of the project as part of the Lower Duck Island corridor (Option 6).

View Canotek – Gatineau Airport in a larger map

This simply makes no sense.

In addition, Sustainable Solutions continues to advocate for a downtown street bypass tunnel to be considered in the next phase of the study. This tunnel would run from the MacDonald Cartier bridge to south of Laurier on Nicholas, providing a non-stop route to the Queensway for bridge traffic – including trucks. Further analysis is required, but this may be a viable option to remove 100% of truck traffic from King Edward.

Limiting the solution options to the three corridors currently being considered is irresponsible. This approach will not solve the problems, and would have devastating impacts on the residents and communities within the selected corridor.

If the NCC is true to its mandate to do what’s best for the National Capital Region, the scope of Phase 2B must be expanded to included other options.

Share on Facebook

‘Sustainable Solutions – Solutions Durables’ formed to press for a real cure for the downtown truck problem

On June 2 at Ottawa Transportation Committee, the NCC’s consultant will table a report on the Phase 2A consultation process which is moving towards the selection of a location for an east end bridge.

12 Community Associations have come together under the name “Sustainable Solutions” to sign a joint statement and will attend the meeting to make presentations to the committee regarding the common position they have adopted in response to the current process.

Please see the attached media advisory and a copy of the joint statement. Members of Sustainable Solutions will have at the meeting the signed versions of the joint statement.

Sustainable Solutions will be calling on the NCC, the MTO, and the City of Ottawa to clarify how the proposed project will deliver a solution to the problem of inter-provincial heavy through trucks on the streets of Ottawa. Details can be found in the attached joint statement.

Sustainable Solutions – Solutions Durables is composed of the following associations:

Action Sandy Hill
Manor Park Community Association
Rockcliffe Park Residents Association
New Edinburgh Community Association
Rockcliffe Mews/Carson Grove Community Association
Beacon Hill Community Association
Common Sense Crossings (Convent Glen Community Association)
City Centre Coalition
The Friends of the Greenspace Alliance
The Greenbelt Coalition
Queenswood Heights Community Association
Blackburn Hamlet Community Association

—————————–
Media Advisory:  ‘Sustainable Solutions – Solutions Durables’ formed to press for a real cure for the downtown truck problem

OTTAWA, May 30, 2010 – Communities and organizations with an interest in the future of the National Capital Region have united to press the National Capital Commission (NCC), the Province of Ontario and the City of Ottawa to work with communities to find a solution to the ongoing problem of through-traffic of heavy trucks through Ottawa’s historic downtown area. This initiative is supported by prominent MPs, MPPs and City Councillors.

For decades, the heavy truck problem has plagued residents and businesses of the historic downtown. The problem is particularly acute along the King Edward-Rideau-Waller-Nicholas (KERWN) corridor. It has negatively impacted the livability and economic health of the district, and detracts seriously from the experience of visitors to the National Capital. Solving this problem should be a top priority of all levels of government.

The motivation for forming Sustainable Solutions – Solutions Durables has been the frustation felt by residents in having meaningful input into an NCC-led process focused on the narrow goal of constructing a new vehicular bridge across the Ottawa River. The NCC now proposes to study three potential bridge locations, ultimately selecting one that will be the subject of a federal environmental assessment.

One of the originally expressed goals of the NCC initiative was to substantially alleviate the downtown truck problem. However, the confusing information that has emanated from the process to date strongly suggests that a bridge would not solve the truck problem. Indeed, the figures presented indicate that the majority of trucks would continue to use the downtown corridor rather than a new bridge corridor. Information about the origins, destinations and purposes of the truck traffic across the Ottawa River is lacking, and the NCC has yet to initiate the commercial vehicle planning study that was requested by the NCC Board

The bridges under consideration would give rise to a host of very serious problems, such as urban sprawl; further community disruption on both sides of the river; loss of enjoyment of the NCC parkways and cycling paths in the east end; and serious impairment of ecologically significant areas (e.g. the NCC Greenbelt, Kettle Island, Greens Creek, McLaurin Bay). In spite of the virtually insurmountable problems associated with all three proposed bridge options, the NCC has shown little inclination to look seriously at options that would substantively address the pressing problem of heavy trucks in the downtown area.

On June 2, the consultants for the NCC will be presenting their Phase 2a study report to the City of Ottawa Transportation Committee. That report will outline their recommended study design and public consultation approach for Phase 2b, when the NCC proposes to select its preferred bridge option and conduct a federal environmental assessment of that option.

Members of Sustainable Solutions – Solutions Durables will be making representations to the Transportation Committee along with others affected by NCC proposals. Expect a lively and newsworthy discussion.

Contact:
Hugh Carter
Sustainable Solutions – Solutions Durables
Tel.: 613-830-3393
—————————–
Joint Statement (to be signed by all member Community Associations and presented to Transportation Committee)

The Interprovincial Crossings Study is led jointly by the National Capital Commission (NCC), the Ontario Ministry of Transportation and the Québec Ministry of Transportation, with technical support from the cities of Ottawa and Gatineau. The Study as currently envisaged is focused on selecting one out of three potential corridors for building a new bridge east of the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge.

One of the most critical issues facing the Region is the passage of about 2,500 heavy trucks per day between Highway 417 and the Macdonald – Cartier bridge, through residential streets in Ottawa’s downtown. The consequences in terms of health, safety and degradation of the surrounding areas are well-known and unacceptable. An environmentally sustainable solution must be found, one that does not simply spread the problem to even more neighbourhoods.

Phase 1 of the Study has recommended that heavy trucks be permitted on both the new corridor and the current approaches to the Macdonald – Cartier bridge, with the majority of the trucks remaining in the downtown core. The City of Ottawa Official Plan states that heavy trucks should be removed from the current King Edward, Rideau, Waller, Nicholas (KERWN) corridor once a new bridge is constructed. Meanwhile, the City of Gatineau has passed a motion that requests that heavy trucks remain on the King Edward corridor.

Significant uncertainty exists as to what will happen with heavy trucks if a new bridge is built. Will all heavy trucks be removed from Ottawa’s downtown? Will trucks be diffused between the new bridge and downtown? Will all heavy trucks be forced to use the new crossing? Who has the legal authority to ban heavy trucks on the KERWN corridor (since it serves as an interconnection between the Quebec and Ontario highway systems)? Would this decision be subject to legal appeal and potential negation?

Our organizations believe that these questions must be clearly answered in order to engage in meaningful public consultations in Phase 2B of the Study, and to enable a clear focus on the critical truck issue. We urge the Interprovincial Crossings Study Team to recognize the solidarity and determination of the public, as represented by our organizations, and to resolve this critical issue.

………………………………………………………..
Name and Position

………………………………………………………..
Organization
2nd June 2010
—————————–

Share on Facebook

NCC says there is no flexibility in corridor alignments

Since the end of Phase I of the Interprovincial Bridge Environmental Assessment in February 2009, developments have been slow. Phase 2A, with a mandate to define the process for the final selection of one corridor and the associated Environment Impact Assessment, was initiated on Oct 14th, 2009, with the selection of AECOM-Delcan as the consultant. Phase 2A is scheduled for completion in June 2010.

In Phase 2B, the final corridor will be selected based on the process defined in Phase 2A. The project will then focus on preparing an Environmental Assessment for that corridor alone. Phase 2B is scheduled for completion by December 2012, with all required approvals obtained by December 2013. Construction could conceivably begin by mid 2014.

The first meeting of the Public Consultation Group (PCG) was held on December 15, 2009. The PCG provides a forum for dialogue between the Phase 2A consultants and about 25 member organizations representing communities, environmental groups and other interested parties.

The NCC-led Study Team has taken the position that its mandate allows study of only corridors 5 (Kettle Island), 6 (Lower Duck) and 7(Gatineau Airport) as defined in Phase 1. This would exclude the study of any variation of those corridors or potentially better alternatives put forward by community associations, Hon. Mauril Belanger and others. This is important, because there are serious problems with all three corridors as specifically defined in Phase 1.

Community groups represented at the PCG strongly opposed the NCC position and were in agreement that the issue is critical to a successful outcome of Phase 2. These groups will be working to remove the strict definition of the corridor options in order to ensure that Phase 2 results in a recommendation for the crossing at the best possible location in the general vicinity of the three corridors. The decision needs to take into account community concerns and the requirement that the study put emphasis on community impacts, transit and economic development, as cited in the letter sent by the Province of Ontario to the NCC following release of the Phase 1 recommendation.

Share on Facebook

CBC Ottawa Morning – Bridge Debate

Listen to a bridge debate aired this morning on CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/ottawamorning/archives.html

Here’s a summary of the main points made by Judy Lishman, Chair of the Manor Park Bridge Committee:

• Council has missed an opportunity to have a say in the matter. Besides, it is not a funding partner.
• Out of the studies done in the past, Kettle was in fact not chosen as the top option.
• The Phase I study didn’t look at mitigation issues. That will come later.
• Both provinces have decided that three choices deserve a second look.
• Kettle would take traffic through the longest and most heavily populated corridor.

Share on Facebook

An analysis of the ROCHE-NCE study

Christine, a concerned citizen and author of 10 facts about the consultant’s selection process, has prepared a compelling analysis and critique of the ROCHE-NCE study.

This is an excellent piece of work that very convincingly highlights and summarizes the flaws and shortcomings of the Kettle Island recommendation. Christine has distributed this report to our elected representatives and decision-makers for their consideration.
————————-
Click on the icon below to download the full report:


SYNOPSIS

While most parties agree that a bridge between the Ottawa and Gatineau regions is necessary, local history has taught us that continuing to pursue an incorrect option will result in years of litigation, and eventually, the need to once again commission a properly conducted site selection study.

The selection of Kettle Island as a location for a new bridge between Ottawa and Gatineau is based on incomplete and insufficient information and clearly goes against the best interests of our communities, the region, municipalities and provincial governments.

The City of Ottawa Council’s probable decision to continue with the next phase of execution of the Kettle Island bridge site is based almost entirely on a misleading and one‐sided environmental assessment report conducted by the consulting firm, Roche‐NCE.

In the interest of providing clarity and transparency to the ongoing dialogue on Kettle Island, this report was prepared in consultation with a small group of concerned professionals, consisting of Accountants, Auditors, Consultants, Financial and Systems Analysts to provide decision‐makers and the public with a thorough analysis of the Roche‐NCE consulting report.

The findings from this analysis are that the consultant’s report is highly suspect and flawed on a number of significant fronts. Highlights include:

• The Roche‐NCE consultant’s study is almost completely devoid of considerations affecting communities, local commerce and “environmental sensitive” and protected areas such as the Montfort Woods;
• While the consultant’s methodology and sensitivity analysis is complicated and complex, the analysis is unsophisticated and highly susceptible to manipulation through discretionary interpretation such as the weightings of factor groups and sub‐elements.
• The sequence of events leading to the report, suggest that the report is the product of a pre‐determined decision from previous City of Ottawa Council meetings.

We urge the City of Ottawa Council members, the NCC Board members and decision‐makers at all levels to critically assess the validity of the consultant’s study and to consider the addition of more viable alternative corridors so that current efforts are not wasted and that the Ottawa‐Gatineau region gets a bridge in a location that serves all of our best interests.

Sincerely,
Christine
A Concerned Resident
————————-

Share on Facebook

Air quality a deadly concern

Contributed by Judy Lishman:
—————
The consultant has said that there would be no impact on air quality in the Kettle Island corridor, the most heavily populated corridor studied. He is wrong.

The adverse health effects of diesel exhaust fumes are well documented. Studies by the American Lung Association indicate that 70-80% of the cancer risk from air pollution is due to particulate matter emissions from diesel engines.

According to Environment Canada, fine particulate matter is considered to be toxic as defined in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

Increased roadway pollution produced by diesel fuel in vehicles is leading to a cascade of conditions that could result in heart attack or stroke and premature death researchers noted in a report to the American Heart Association.

The Canadian Medical Association states that “the link between exposure to diesel exhaust and asthma has been borne out in epidemiological studies indicating that children living along major trucking routes are at increased risk of asthma and allergic symptoms and of having respiratory dysfunction.

The Ontario Government through its “Strategic Options To Address The Fine Particulate Issue In Ontario” recognizes the serious issue of diesel exhaust. “Recent scientific studies have statistically linked atmospheric fine particulate matter arising from diesel exhaust with harmful human health effects such as cancer, the exacerbation of asthma, respiratory disease, heart disease and chronic obstructive lung disease. Unlike the situation with many other toxic substances, for fine particulate matter there is no known threshold concentration below which exposures are deemed safe. Therefore, even at very low levels of ambient particulate matter, susceptible individuals including the elderly, children and people with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular disease may respond adversely.”

There are 12000 people in the Kettle Island corridor who live within the zone of influence of the toxic emissions of diesel trucks. It is not only a possibility but a certainty that a percentage of them will get cancer, heart disease, lung disease and die prematurely as a result of diesel emissions if the bridge is built at Kettle Island.

According to Ontario’s strategy, measures need to be introduced to attain desirable particulate matter levels in the province. Since cities are the place where most of Ontario’s population resides, reduction of particulate matter effects in cities is crucial.

The consultant’s answer is that mitigation measures will be studied in phase 2. There are no mitigation measures available other than removing trucks from populated areas.

The trucks must be directed to a corridor remote from people so that diesel exhaust emissions can be adequately attenuated.

The recommendation by the consultant to locate a new bridge in the Kettle Island corridor must be rejected in order to protect the health and lives of the people who live there.
—————

Share on Facebook

Kettle Island discourages public transit

Contributed by Judy Lishman:
—————
The Kettle Island corridor would be the poorest performing corridor for encouraging transit ridership. According to the consultant’s own conclusion in his Transit Report of July, 2008 “The least useful interprovincial crossing for transit is Crossing 5 Kettle Island – there are no benefits for route travel time or ridership criteria”. In fact, a bridge at Kettle Island would discourage transit travel and encourage automobile travel.

Transit ridership only increases if it is convenient and results in a shorter ride time than automobile. The best way to increase transit ridership is to provide dedicated transit facilities on the bridges (either bus lanes or rail) so that transit is separated from car traffic.

The City of Ottawa has just approved a transit plan that incorporates both Light Rail Transit (LRT) and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). A major rail/bus transfer station will be located at the Blair Station close to the Greenbelt and Highway 174. The Kettle Island corridor would not directly connect with either rail or bus transit. It would not promote transit ridership and therefore would not increase the modal split (M/S) i.e. the split between transit travel and automobile travel. Corridors east of the Blair Station could enhance transit ridership from Gatineau significantly and thereby increase the M/S and reduce the requirement for future bridge capacity. There is little sense in selecting a bridge corridor that fails to connect to transit.

The NCC has recently commissioned the Interprovincial Rapid Transit Integration Strategic Planning Study. It would seem prudent, if the proponents are serious about promoting public transit, to integrate the transit study with the Interprovincial Crossings Study in order to rationalize the decisions about public transit and a new crossing corridor.

To demonstrate how little value the consultant has placed on the importance of transit in the National Capital Region, the combined weight given to the ability of a corridor to encourage automobile use is 13.4% while the weight given to encourage transit use is 2.3%. This distortion in the weighting has led to the selection of a corridor that, in fact, discourages transit use. For this reason, a bridge at Kettle Island should be rejected.
—————

Share on Facebook

Subjectivity masked as unbiased, scientific accuracy

From my speech at Public Consultation #4 in September.  I thought it was worthwhile resurrecting and publishing it to reinforce some of the key messages:
———-
The recommendations of the consultants are based on a mathematical formula, giving the illusion of scientific accuracy. 91 subfactors have been diligently analyzed and quantified, each one feeding data into what I will refer to as the ‘bridge formula’.

A few examples:

• Mathematical models have been created to forecast daily traffic volumes in the year 2031 right down to the individual car and truck.
• Construction costs, which range from $360 million to almost $2 billion for one of the west end tunnel options, are precisely presented to the nearest $1 million.
• Ongoing annual operating costs are refined even further, and have been calculated to the nearest $100,000.
• Shorelines have been measured to the nearest centimeter.

The consultants have gone to great lengths to present a precise, defensible recommendation. One that they claim to be analytically sound and unbiased, and one that identifies Kettle Island as the best technical alternative based on a bridge formula that scores each alternative on a scale of 1-100…to two decimal places.

Very impressive.

As with any formula, the results are entirely dependent upon the values plugged into the formula. In the bridge formula, results are calculated based on utility factors and the weighting applied to each factor.  Obviously, if the utility factors and/or weights change, the result of the formula changes.

I believe there to be flaws and omissions in the factors and subfactors that make up the bridge formula, and I am note alone.

A few examples:

• There are no factors to address the NEGATVE traffic impacts on people and communities associated with heavy traffic increases on residential roads in and around the corridor – every traffic factor is focused on maximizing traffic flow through the new corridor.
• Socio-economic benefits to both downtown and to the new crossing area are based primarily on maximizing traffic volume through the new corridor. This amplifies the already heavily weighted traffic flow factors.  Furthermore, there is no consideration for land use within the corridors.  According to the consultants, routing trucks through the communities along the Kettle Island corridor is good for economic development in the corridor…even though there are no industrial areas anywhere near the corridor!
• Cultural impacts from disruption and possible relocation of the RCMP stables and Musical Ride, a national institution and treasured facility in the heart of the city, are completely neglected.
• There is no measure of the negative economic impacts of closing the west-bound 417 exit at St. Laurent, effectively isolating east-end residents from the businesses along St Laurent, including the St Laurent mall.
• Ancillary costs such as potential relocation of the RCMP stables and musical ride, potential relocation of the runway at the Rockcliffe airport, and necessary mitigating measures for Montfort Hospital have been excluded.
• And one of the biggest oversights, I believe, is that there is no simple measure of the total population of people negatively impacted by the corridor.

I could go on, but what I really want to focus on are the weightings.

As we know, the weightings were determined by a closed-door technically oriented committee with no effective community representation.  Based on the composition of this committee and the interests represented, it is not surprising that traffic considerations specific to trucks were given high consideration.

To the detriment of the people living in the impacted area and to the broader National Capital region, factors contributing to the negative impact on people and communities in the impacted areas were given low consideration.

Traffic and Cost factors represent 55% of the total score, while the impact on people and communities, only partially represented within the Cultural Environment (where, for the record, Kettle Island ranks 12th of the 12 crossing options considered), accounts for only 9% of the total score.

And make no mistake: If the weightings change, the results change.  Without getting too far into the details, Kettle Island rises to the top of the list only as the weightings applied to people factors diminish, and as the weightings applied to Cost and Traffic factors increase.

Despite the precision of the consultant’s analysis and recommendations, it is critical to remember that there is a difference between precision and accuracy. For example, given the early stages of this analysis, I believe there to be a wide margin of uncertainty in the cost and traffic numbers, so I would argue that these number can’t possibly be accurate. Changes to these numbers in particular have a very real impact on the final scoring and ranking, given the disproportionally high weightings currently applied to these factors.

So as much as the consultants would like us to believe that this is an objective, unbiased study:

• Subjective decisions were made about which factors to include and which factors to exclude;
• Subjective decisions were made about how to quantify and measure each factor;
• Subjective decisions were made about who would sit on the weightings committee, and about how the weightings would be applied to each factor;
• Subjective decisions were made about if or how feedback from public consultations would be incorporated into the analysis;
• And ultimately, subjective decisions were made to put trucks before people.

At the end of the day, the final scores and rankings outputted by the bridge equation as it exists today are just numbers. These numbers should be inputs into the final decision, but they should not be the sole basis of the final decision.

The numbers need to be balanced with common sense.

And common sense says that trucks and people don’t mix.
———-

Share on Facebook

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.

Share on Facebook

Ontario Requests NCC Re-evaluate Preferred Bridge Crossing Site

The Province of Ontario carries a lot of weight in the bridge decision process, and we have every expectation that the NCC will listen closely to their position. On that note…

Press Release issued by Madeleine Meilleur’s office on January 27:
——–
OTTAWA – Madeleine Meilleur, MPP for Ottawa-Vanier, is pleased to announce to her local community that the Ontario government has requested that the National Capital Commission (NCC) further analyse the top three site options, (Gatineau Airport, Lower Duck, and Kettle Island), for the proposed Inter-Provincial River Crossing between Ottawa and Gatineau. The government of Ontario has asked the NCC to expand its Phase 1 Environmental Assessment with an emphasis on community impact, transit, and economic development, before proceeding to Phase 2 of the process.

MPP Meilleur, along with many community advocates, has long been opposed to the Kettle Island option. Community members have raised countless concerns about noise, air quality, increased traffic volumes and public safety. Meilleur has always believed that the new bridge should be constructed away from any established residential neighbourhoods.

“I am extremely pleased with the request by my government to expand Phase 1 of the study,” said Madeleine Meilleur, MPP for Ottawa-Vanier. “Thanks to the hard work and dedication of the people of Ottawa, this expanded study will hopefully identify a better option for our community. We know we need a bridge. We know the east end makes sense. We even know there are better options right here in Ottawa-Vanier, but we are going to have to work with the NCC and other levels of government, including the Province of Québec, to find an option that makes sense for the residents of Ottawa and Gatineau.”
——–
This is very good news for the fight against Kettle Island, particularly if the expanded study is mandated to further analyze and consider negative community impact, transit, and economic development. If these factors are given proper consideration, it will become clear to all that Kettle Island is the wrong choice.

Kudos to Madeleine Meilleur for gaining the support of the Province.

Let’s just hope the NCC listens.

Share on Facebook

Ramp closures at 417 and St. Laurent Blvd

Did you know that the Kettle Island corridor would require significant changes to the existing on and off-ramps at St. Laurent Blvd?

The following access routes would be closed:

• 417 westbound exit ramp to St. Laurent Blvd. north and south
• St. Laurent northbound entrance onto 417 east

These closures would make it much less convenient for consumers from Ottawa East (including Orleans) to access businesses on St. Laurent, including the St. Laurent Mall.  As a result, these closures would very likely have a negative impact on these businesses.

They would also significantly impact traffic patterns and highway access for anyone south of the 417 trying to get onto the 417 east.

But, true to form for the current analysis, none of these considerations have been included as part of the decision-making process.

Click here for a detailed plan of these changes.

Share on Facebook

Gatineau councillors and residents concerned about Kettle Island

On Tuesday, the consultants presented their recommendation to Gatineau city council.  Discussion and debate followed, with some strong concerns raised about the Kettle Island corridor.

A few excerpts from the Ottawa Citizen’s coverage of the meeting:

• Councillors at the meeting raised concerns about the noise that comes with a major thoroughfare, where the new corridor’s exits would fall, and how public transit would adapt.
• Joseph De Sylva says he’s worried about the people in his Versant district whose homes face onto Montée Paiement, which would become an artery to the proposed bridge on the Gatineau side of the Ottawa River.
• “I have concerns about the bridge no matter where it is,” said Nicole DesRoches, who runs an Outaouais environment and sustainable development council called CREDDO. “You can’t build a bridge just for trucks.”

Click here for the full article.

Share on Facebook

Transportation Committee – meeting coverage

The consultants presented their recommendations to the City of Ottawa Transportation Committee today, and the public had an opportunity to comment on and question the findings. Strong objections were raised against Kettle Island by a large number of attendees, while a handful of Orleans residents reinforced their support – primarily based on the false perception that Kettle Island would have the worst impact on their commuting routes.

“We do not want any crossing that’s going to make our commutes, morning and afternoon, worse than they already are.”

What these east-end commuters continue to fail to realize is that this study has focused exclusively on interprovincial traffic. There is no consideration for any other traffic flow or existing gridlock within the National Capital Region, including commuting traffic from Orleans to downtown. The Kettle Island corridor, with on-ramps to the 417 essentially at ‘the split’, would have significant impacts on the commute from Orleans as thousands of new commuters and trucks from Gatineau pour onto the already congested highway.

There is a very good chance that these impacts could be just as bad or even worse than other east-end options.

Unfortunately, because these broader traffic issues are out of scope for the current project, we may never know until it is too late.

Here are a few links to media coverage of the meeting:

CBC Ottawa: Fight continues over planned Kettle Island bridge

CTV Ottawa: Residents say ‘No’ to bridge at Kettle Island

Ottawa Citizen: Residents fight over route of bridge

Share on Facebook

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.

Share on Facebook

Coalition reponse to Kettle Island

A coalition of communities submitted an open editorial to the Ottawa Citizen, formally rejecting the Kettle Island bridge, and addressing some of the recent publications of Citizen columnist, Ken Gray, who has repeatedly dismissed objections to the bridge.

The Op Ed was published on Jan. 5, and is signed by 13 representatives of communities that would be negatively impacted by the Kettle Island bridge.

Click here to read the Op Ed.

Share on Facebook

Letter to the NCC: I fear the NCC has lost its noble purpose

Copy of a letter recently submitted to the NCC by a concerned citizen:
______

Re: Kettle Island Bridge

Dear NCC,

I am writing to strongly protest the Kettle Island Bridge. The first noble purpose of the National Capital Commission is to serve the well being of Ottawa citizens in a manner that creates national pride. In the words of your legislated authority your role is

“To build a great Capital for Canadians, specifically:

• “…to prepare plans for and assist in the development, conservation and improvement of the National Capital Region in order that the nature and character of the seat of the Government of Canada may be in accordance with its national significance….” (1958)
• “…to organize, sponsor or promote such public activities and events in the National Capital Region as will enrich the cultural and social fabric of Canada….” (1988) “

Your preference for the Kettle Island Bridge is a abrogation of your responsibility to the citizens of Ottawa and to Canadians who rely on the NCC to build cities that Jane Jacobs would be proud of – citizen oriented and placing the health and well being and mix of communities for long term prosperity as first priority in order for economies to be strong…

Instead you would give pride of place to trucks, traffic and a “cult of efficiency” as Canada’s Janice Stein describes current public policy drivers. Saving traffic maybe 10 minutes and one time construction costs at the expense of the future of the whole east end of Ottawa – is this “conservation and improvement of the National Capital Region’?

A major play area for all Ottawa communities will be lost. A waterfront that brings little boys and old Asian immigrants alike to fish in peace and boaters, tennis players, cyclists, runners and walkers to exercise en plein air will, if accessible, will be drowned in noise and exhaust. Established family oriented neighborhoods whose little children delight in the RCMP horses and the quiet and safety of the community will instead be afflicted by noise and danger and the grind of trucks in the summer air making the grade on the parkway.The horses will leave and the Montfort hospital will worry about its diagnoses.

The east end is holding on by its teeth as the growth and wealth move to west end. You are creating social problems for the future if you chose Kettle Island. Is this “enriching the cultural and social fabric of the Canada?” Is this necessary. The answer is unequivocal. No.

I fear the NCC has lost its noble purpose.

Regards,

A concerned citizen

Share on Facebook

Congestion on existing roadways out of scope for study

A open editorial by Peter Jones, a Manor Park resident and associate professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa, was published by the Ottawa Citizen on Nov. 15. Peter raises questions and concerns about the selection methodology, largely focused on the weightings that were assigned to the various factors.

Peter also shed new light on the traffic studies that were completed as part of the assessment, based on a discussion he had with the consultants:

I asked a consultant what studies had been done on traffic flow on streets that will intersect the new four-lane highway down to the 417/174 split. The Rockcliffe Parkway, Hemlock/Beechwood and Montreal Road are already at peak capacity during rush-hour. Thousands of commuters and trucks coming off a new bridge will jam them further. I was told that this was not looked at as it was not part of the terms of reference.

Click here for the complete article.

Share on Facebook

Re: “A Nightmare” Oct. 31, 2008

A great letter, unfortunately not published by the Citizen:
————–
Re: “A Nightmare” Oct. 31, 2008

The tragic death of yet another pedestrian along the Rideau/King Edward corridor highlights once again the need for governments to develop a permanent and sensible solution to the travesty of heavy trucking passing though the downtown core and existing residential communities.

The problem was created by short-sighted planning in the 1960s and 1970s. Let’s not blame residents of Vanier and New Edinburgh who fought valiantly, and ultimately successfully, not to have the problem merely shifted to their residential communities.

Incredibly, short-sighted planning views have once again come to the fore, in the guise of the consultants’ recommendation of Kettle Island as the preferred corridor for a new interprovincial crossing. This recommendation will not stop the carnage downtown. Under the proposed plan, the number of trucks along the Rideau/King Edward corridor in 2031 will be the same as today.

What’s more, a new killing zone will be opened up. Is a life lost at Montreal Rd. and Aviation worth any less than one lost at Cumberland and Rideau?

The Kettle Island route represents the worst possible outcome for all residents of Ottawa. It won’t solve the truck problem. It will attract the most automobile commuter traffic from Gatineau—clogging routes already overloaded with commuters and leaving Ottawa taxpayers footing the bill for increased road construction and maintenance costs. It will pose a serious threat to the Montfort Hospital. It will destroy a scenic parkway and green space. It will do nothing to encourage economic development. It will divide and degrade existing residential communities along the entire route, which is the longest possible path between Hwy 50 and Hwy174.

Bravo to Georges Bédard for opposing the Kettle Island Route and supporting a new bridge where it belongs—in a commercial/industrial area farther removed from the downtown core.

John Forsey
President, Manor Park Community Association
————–

Share on Facebook

Rabid squirrels in my living room

A clever submission by Peter Wilson, a concerned citizen, to illustrate the absurd logic employed by the consultants to choose the Kettle Island corridor.

———
Kettle Island Proposal Will Remove One in Three Trucks From Downtown

As if I didn’t have enough to worry about with a proposal to put a four-lane interprovincial truck route through quiet east end neighbourhoods and past locally and nationally significant institutions, I returned from work yesterday afternoon to find three rabid squirrels trapped in my living room. They had soiled and chewed the furniture, were frantically climbing up the drapes trying to get out, and had broken two vases.

I moved my family out onto the front lawn and, using my cell phone, called the City of Ottawa for help. They sent two animal control experts over with computers. They didn’t speak to us as they entered our home, other than to tell us that they would summon us once they had a plan.

About half an hour later we were called inside for a meeting. We were pleased to see that one of the squirrels had been caught, although the other two were still destroying the living room.

“What’s the plan?” I asked.

“We’re going to release the one squirrel that we were able to catch into your kitchen,” one of the technocrats told me.

“That’s insane!” I said, “that will just make the problem worse!”

“Kitchens are the most attractive option for squirrels,” the other expert explained, “there’s food and water there; we hope the other two squirrels will eventually move there as well.”

This is a fictional story to illustrate the completely irrational approach used in selecting the Kettle Island Bridge option as the “preferred route” to get heavy trucks out of Ottawa. Option 7, a bridge between the Canotek Industrial Park and the Gatineau Airport solves, rather than spreads, the problem of trucks in Ottawa.

Share on Facebook

Another downtown bridge? You’ve got to be kidding

See below for a well written commentary by a concerned citizen:

———

ANOTHER DOWNTOWN BRIDGE? YOU’VE GOT TO BE KIDDING

People First – Embracing Ottawa’s Vision for Growth
Population and employment in Ottawa are both expected to grow by 50 percent over the next two decades. Urban communities outside the Greenbelt are projected to accommodate 73 percent of new residents and 54 percent of new jobs (Master Transportation Plan, 2003, ii). New roads and bridges will be needed to foster and accommodate this growth, but not at the expense of human well being or environmental sustainability. Or so says Ottawa’s Official Plan, which envisions Ottawa in 2020 as a bigger and better green city where people come first.

Another Downtown Bridge Doesn’t Serve Ottawa
In light of these projections and commitments, another downtown bridge makes no sense. A bridge at Kettle Island might put smiles on the engineers’ faces, but it won’t meet Ottawa’s needs.

• It won’t get trucks off King Edward Boulevard. 100% of heavy truck traffic will remain inside the city core. Rush hour will be a nightmare.
• Technically viable and cheaper options exist that would ultimately link up with a planned ring road around the city, which will ease congestion and foster growth. Why were these options not recommended for further study?
• Population and economic growth is occurring to the east, west and south of the Greenbelt and yet a bridge that only serves trucks and Quebec commuters has been proposed. So, after all that effort and money, Ottawa commuters will still not have the bridge we need.
• The true cost of this new truck route through the city is incalculable. It imperils homes, a historic airport, a national heritage site, and a nature conservation area. It threatens a major hospital that the Province of Ontario has just spent millions of dollars to renovate. Is this development that puts people first? Does this make sense?

Take Back Control of Our City
The Ontario and Quebec Ministries of Transportation aren’t interested in people. Their “clients” are trucks. An environmentally sustainable, people-friendly capital city is not their aim. It should be the NCC’s goal, but still the President and Commissioner remain silent.

Kettle Island is the most expensive bridge option studied. Cheaper options exist. The Consultant Report ignores hidden costs totaling millions and millions of dollars. Who will pay? The NCC? The province? No. Home owners throughout the city will pay – with higher property taxes.

Take back control of our city. Hold the Ottawa city councilors who endorsed the Official Plan to account. Lobby the NCC. Say no to another downtown bridge. Say no to Kettle Island.
———

Share on Facebook

Open letter to decision makers

Here is a sample letter to give you ideas for your letters to elected representatives and the decision-makers in this project. Feel free to copy and paste shamelessly, but you are also encouraged to edit and change this letter to make it your own.
_____________________

RE: A New Ottawa River Bridge

Dear [elected representative / decision maker],

Most informed observers agree that a new bridge is needed across the Ottawa River, primarily to remove large truck traffic from the downtown Ottawa core, but also to facilitate automobile traffic between Ottawa and Gatineau. A recent technical study has concluded that the new bridge should be in the east end of the city because more of the demand is there and also it would be much cheaper to build because the crossing would not be as long. I and most of my neighbors agree with that assessment.

Unfortunately the technical study also recommended that of six possible east-end bridge sites the preferred site should be Kettle Island because it would “attract” the most trucks and the most Gatineau commuters. It was also claimed that the Kettle Island site would be the cheapest, but that conclusion was reached only by loading the other options with costs such as highway widening that were to occur anyway, and excluding similar costs from their Kettle Island calculations.

The recommendation was based primarily on facilitating the maximum flow of automobile and truck traffic regardless of other consequences. The study gave little or no consideration to the devastating impact of the Kettle Island bridge corridor on established residential communities, businesses, tourist attractions, hospitals, schools or recreational facilities. The cost calculations in the study do not stand up to the most minimal scrutiny. The recommended option is not integrated with future land use plans and longer term urban growth. Perhaps most importantly, the recommended site does not achieve its primary objective of removing truck traffic from downtown. It simply would move some of it and create a second heavy truck congestion point in Ottawa’s core.

Despite the fact that there are much better options, it is now being proposed that the technical study move on to a more detailed examination of the Kettle Island site alone without regard to the serious failings in the first phase of the study. At a minimum the consultants should be directed to re-examine their earlier work, correct the failings and omissions that have occurred, and then select at least two options for more detailed study.

It is very important that our limited infrastructure funds be used wisely and now is the time to get this project back on track. Please join with your fellow elected representatives and decision makers in this project to make sure that this happens before more time and effort is wasted.

Yours truly,

[a concerned citizen]
_____________________

For a list of the elected representatives and decision makers in this project and their contact information, click here.

Share on Facebook

King Edward is the best option…not

When it comes to making any decision, one of the options always available is to ‘do nothing’. Based on the criteria and the logic that the consultants have used to select the best alternative, we thought it would be interesting to see how the current King Edward crossing would stack up in the rankings relative to the other alternatives.

At stopthebridge.org, we don’t have an army of engineers and consultants who we can ask to spend the next ten months compiling data and quantifying utility factors for this option. So I’m afraid that we’ll have to keep our analysis fairly basic.

With this in mind, we’ve made some basic assumptions about how the King Edward option would be assessed. Here are some of the highlights:

• King Edward ranks #1 by a landslide when it comes to attracting cars and trucks to the corridor;
• The King Edward crossing uses existing roadways with good connections to the provincial highway systems;
• You may be concerned about gridlock, but because there are no factors that consider gridlock or the negative impact associated traffic increases in and around the selected corridor, it is not important;
• King Edward would score very high in the Economic Development category, which measures the potential for commercial and industrial development in the area based on the number of cars and trucks drawn to the area;
• Costs are very low, since there is already a bridge there;
• There would be no incremental impact on fish habitat, waterfowl, or wildlife;
• There would be continued negative impacts on the people living downtown, their communities, and their quality of life. But as we have learned from the consultants, these impacts are unimportant and warrant very little weighting in the final score (see note below);
• Residential property values in the area would continue to be suppressed, but there is no factor that considers these impacts;
• The King Edward route accommodates transportation of hazardous materials;
• There would be no impact on archaeological sites.

So, taking these factors into consideration, King Edward is clearly the best choice. But, if another option is absolutely required, then it is important to select the option that would most closely replicate the near-ideal conditions on King Edward today.

As ridiculous as this conclusion sounds, it does sadly reflect the decision-making criteria and logic that has been employed to select Kettle Island as the best choice.

If you have an issue with this:

• Formally submit your comments to the consultants
• Contact your elected representatives and the decision-makers in this project to tell them how you feel about this issue
• Raise as much awareness any way that you can (elevator pitches, talking to your neighbours, community rallies, letters to the editor, blog participation, etc.)
• Convince everyone you can to do the same

Note: Based on the final weightings published by the consultants, the aggregate weighting assigned to all factors relating to negative impacts on Community is 4.4% of the total score for each alternative. One of the most significant of these in my opinion, called Community Cohesion, is calculated by the total length of corridor passing through established residential areas. Community Cohesion accounts for a mere 0.8% of the total score. Traffic and cost factors combined account for 55%.

Share on Facebook

No to Kettle Island!

View Interprovincial Bridge Options in a larger map

The map begs the questions: Why is Kettle Island (in red) the only choice being considered? Shouldn’t other proposed routes such as Lower Duck Island (blue) and Gatineau Airport (green) that are both shorter and impact far fewer residential neighbourhoods be given further consideration as potentially viable options?

For more details on the devastating impact that the Kettle Island bridge would have on communities in and around the proposed corridor, click here.

Share on Facebook

Kettle Island versus Gatineau Airport – Important Considerations

Please see the following comparison of the Kettle Island and the Gatineau Airport corridors, submitted to stopthebridge.org from Julie Taub and Derek Chase, concerned citizens. Thanks for your contribution!  Note that this post has been updated by the authors to reflect current information, and to align with the crossing location terminology used by the consultants.
———

Length of Corridor
The Kettle Island bridge corridor passing through established residential communities, RCMP stables and fields, Aviation Museum runway and encroaching on the Montfort Hospital Emergency entrance in Ontario and residential communities in Quebec is 7.0 km long. However the MccLaurin Bay / Gatineau Airport corridor passing through established residential communities is 0 km with no expropriation requirements.

Impact on established residential communities
The population impacted by the Kettle Island corridor in Ontario would comprise nearly 100,000 people in 10 communities (Vanier, Overbrook, Manor Park, (Manor Park Hill, Manor Park East), Viscount Alexander, Castle Heights, Carson Grove, Cyrville, New Edinburgh, Lindenlea, Rockcliffe Park, Rockcliffe Mews ) whereas the McLaurin Bay / Gatineau Airport corridor would pass through non-populated undeveloped land.

Ring Road
The main argument for a bridge in the east end, such as one at McLaurin Bay / Gatineau Airport, is that it can be linked to the proposed Ring Road.  It would link the east end directly to highway 417 and on to the Ottawa Airport and to highway 416, and eventually to 417 at the west end.  Residents in the east end will be major beneficiaries of this route since Hwy 174 will have to be widened easing the gridlock at the Queensway Hwy 417 junction when travelling downtown and westward. This corridor will link into the Ring road proposed in the city of Ottawa 20-20 Transportation Master Plan (Map 6 Urban Road Network) eventually providing for a direct link to the Ottawa International Airport and to the Gatineau Airport. The Kettle Island corridor does not fit into Ottawa 20-20 Transportation Master Plan

Commuter traffic
Via the Kettle Island crossing, commuter traffic from Gatineau, excluding trucks, will not necessarily continue the 4 kilometre route from the Ontario shore to the 417 exchange. Gatineau commuters would probably opt for the faster and direct route to downtown Ottawa, turning right at Rockcliffe Parkway or Hemlock. These two arteries are already at gridlock during the peak hours. Truck traffic wanting to head to Ottawa West would still cross at King Edward.

A Kettle Island crossing would result in gridlock and negative impact for far more people than a McLaurin Bay / Gatineau Airport crossing.  It would include not only the directly affected communities but anyone using the resulting, busy intersection of the Queensway-174 and the Aviation Highway-417, and the radiating highways, in future.

The McLaurin Bay / Gatineau Airport corridor would result in the widening of Hwy 174, which would benefit the residents in Orleans, a growing community

Truck Traffic to remain on King Edward
The consultant’s report states the Kettle Island corridor will reduce truck traffic from 3,950 to 2,275 for 2031 daily on King Edward, source – “Kettle Island daily truck volumes” chart in the consultants’ website. Around a 40% reduction by 2031
.
The report states that truck traffic cannot be banned from King Edward. Yet Kettle Island corridor will impact 10 communities with a combined population of nearly 100,000.  Truck Traffic: “the forecast truck traffic attracted to the corridor” is at 1,725 for Kettle Island.

Ancillary costs to Ottawa
Although the construction costs of any bridge will be borne equally by Quebec, Ontario and the Federal government, the ancillary costs on the Ontario side, including the 4 kilometre Kettle Island corridor on the Ontario side, displacement of the RCMP stables and musical ride, relocation of the runaway at the Rockcliffe airport .5 km east, widening the Aviation parkway, redesign and reconstruction of the 174 / 417 intersection and necessary mitigating measures for Montfort Hospital will be paid for entirely by Ottawa taxpayers. Yet it is estimated that only about 10% of Ottawa commuters will benefit from Kettle Island as opposed to 90% of Gatineau commuters.

Weightings
The consultants only gave 9% weight to the impact on residential communities, institutions and national heritage sites (misleadingly labelled “cultural” in the study) whereas they gave 29% weight to an insignificant (25%) reduction of truck traffic on King Edward.

The consultants only gave the natural environment 17% weight versus 26% to costs, completely unacceptable in 2008.

Previous reports
Interestingly the 1999 Cartier / Totten Sims Hubicki Associates consultants’ report concluded that construction costs at Kettle Island to be the most expensive of the sites considered, more expensive than the McLaurin Bay / Gatineau Airport site.

The JACPAT study of 1995 concluded that Kettle Island would be the preferred site only if built within 10 years.  The Cartier / Totten Sims Hubicki  Associates consultants’ report of 1999 concluded that Kettle Island was the least preferred site regarding costs and traffic reduction whereas Masson-Angers / Cumberland was the best choice.  McLaurin Bay was second.

Curiously, the current consultants’ report reverses the order; Kettle Island is selected as the best site and Masson-Anger / Cumberland the least preferred site. Even more interesting is the fact that Steve Taylor was the project manager of the bridge study for both the 1999 and 2007/8 reports.
———

Share on Facebook

Numbers Do Matter – Another Weightings Discussion

Numbers do matter. With different weightings applied to the main categories considered by the consultants, the results change and Kettle Island drops out of the #1 position. If you’re interested to hear more, keep reading.

In simple terms, weightings define how important each factor (or category) is when determining the overall project recommendations. Within their findings and recommendations, the consultants have presented a Sensitivity Analysis (slide 15) of weightings and results. The intent of this slide is to deflect any criticism around the weightings assigned to the factors that were considered for the analysis.

This slide depicts the overall results of varying weightings for every major category. For example, within the current analysis, where Kettle Island is ranked #1, Traffic and Transportation is assigned a weighting of 29%. This slide attempts to answer the question: “How does the overall ranking of alternatives change when the weighting of Traffic and Transportation is changed from as low as 15% to as high as 40%? ” This same process is done for every major factor, with the range of values tested varying for each factor.

According to this slide, through every high / low variation tested for each major factor, Kettle Island ranks as the overall #1 selection every time (I’ve read and heard others misinterpret this slide to mean that Kettle Island ranked #1 in every category analyzed – this is not the case, nor is it the intent of this slide).

This doesn’t sit very well with me.

Let me assure you that the results most definitely are sensitive to the weightings assigned to each category. For argument’s sake, let’s consider these weightings, which I believe to be sensible, and see how this impacts Kettle Island’s overall ranking.  I haven’t changed any of the data provided by the consultants other than the weightings applied to the major categories.  For comparative purposes, the consultants’ weightings are in shown brackets.

Traffic and Transportation: 20% weighting (29%)
Natural Environment: 20% weighting (17%)
Cultural Environment: 20% weighting (9%)
Water Use and Resources: 10% weighting (5%)
Socio Economic Environment: 7% weighting (7%)
Land Use and Policy: 8% weighting (8%)
Cost: 15% weighting (26%)

With these weightings, the results are very different. The 10th Line crossing becomes the #1 choice, and Kettle Island ranks in a virtual 3-way tie for second place with Gatineau Airport and Lower Duck. In another scenario, with equal weightings applied to all major categories, 10th Line again comes out on top, with Kettle Island in 2nd place.

The main point I’m trying to make here is that the numbers do matter. Don’t let slide 15 fool you. With different weightings applied to the major categories, the results change.

But most of all, don’t forget that these are just numbers. At the end of the day, the numbers should be inputs into the final decision, but they should not be the sole basis of the final decision.

They need to be balanced with some common sense.

For more information about the categories and weightings, please refer to these earlier postings:  Who determined the evaluation weightings? and Selection Process – Flawed Analysis?

Share on Facebook

Montfort Hospital – How important is it?

There is a very high degree of likelihood that the MRI machines at the Montfort Hospital would be seriously impacted by the proximity of the proposed Kettle Island trucking route, which would pass within just a few metres of the hospital walls.

From an article on the subject:

Additionally, many MRIs are highly sensitive to vibration. Disruptive or crippling vibrations can be transmitted through the ground from cars, trucks and trains, sometimes from distances over 1,000 feet away. Similarly, vibrations from pumps, fans or motors that are commonly used throughout buildings can be transmitted across a building’s structural frame. Regardless of the origin, vibrations can impair an MRI’s image quality, particularly for many of the latest magnet systems, including 3.0 Tesla models and new high-field open MRIs. At the extreme end, harmonic or high-amplitude vibrations can cause quenches, running the risk of permanently crippling a $1 million magnet.

Click here for the complete article.

The good news is that the consultants have recognized this and have created a sub-factor specific to the MRI impacts at Montfort. The bad news is that this factor counts for only 0.09% (less than 1/1000) of the total score, ranking it tied for 84th place of the 91 factors considered.

The rest of the bad news is that there are no other factors that directly consider the negative impacts on the hospital, such as traffic congestion hindering ambulance access, costs of modifying access routes to the hospital, or disruption to patients and their healing process resulting from traffic noise and poor air quality.

Given the state of our current health care system and the importance of Montfort Hospital to the community, this doesn’t seem quite right.

What can you do about this? Post your comments and feedback on this website for others to see. Attend the Final Public Consultation to express your concerns and spread the word to encourage others to attend. Contact your local federal, provincial and city representatives who have been elected to act in your best interests.

Share on Facebook

Diesel Fuel Health Issues

The proposed Kettle Island corridor will be a major trucking route that passes through many established communities. Trucks burn diesel fuel, which has particularly hazardous health effects on people. According to the American Lung Association:

• Diesel exhaust is a mixture containing over 450 different components, including vapors and fine particles. Over 40 chemicals in diesel exhaust are considered toxic air contaminants by the State of California. Exposure to this mixture may result in cancer, exacerbation of asthma, and other health problems.
• The health risk from diesel exposure is greatest for children, the elderly, people who have respiratory problems or who smoke, people who regularly strenuously exercise in diesel-polluted areas, and people who work or live near diesel exhaust sources.
• Studies have shown that the proximity of a child’s residence to major roads is linked to hospital admissions for asthma, and there is a positive relationship between school proximity to freeways and asthma occurrence.

Click here for the full article.

To what extent were facts like these considered by the consultants in their recommendation of the Kettle Island corridor as the preferred location? How much emphasis did they put on the negative health impacts on the people and their children living in the vicinity of the corridor?

Very little.

What can you do about this? Post your comments and feedback on this website for others to see. Attend the Final Public Consultation to express your concerns and spread the word to encourage others to attend. Contact your local federal, provincial and city representatives who have been elected to act in your best interests.

Share on Facebook

21 Reasons not to build the Kettle Island Bridge

Walking the Montee Paiement/Aviation Parkway corridor from the Queensway to Boulevard Maloney and beyond:

1. Connection with Queensway/417: A total rebuild of this intersection would be required to accommodate the increase in car and truck traffic and would result in a partial closure of the St. Laurent interchange. How much will this cost? Was it included in the total cost estimate and weighted appropriately in the selection process for the technically preferred route?

2. Wetland at Ogilvie and Aviation: This sensitive wetland would likely be destroyed.

3. Residential areas of Castle Heights and Rockcliffe Mews: These neighbourhoods are adjacent to the route. The area includes Cite Collegiale and Our Lady of Mount Carmel School on Cummings Avenue. People living, working and going to school in this area would be forced to endure all the negative impacts and hazards of truck traffic on a daily basis.

4. Montreal/Aviation intersection: This intersection is already dangerous and complicated due to the entrance to Montfort Hospital immediately to the east and heavy traffic from CMHC. Montreal Rd. is at already at capacity further west. Where will the traffic go?

5. Montfort Hospital: The hospital is now 15 m from the existing 2-lane Aviation Parkway. It would be even closer when the Parkway is widened to 4 lanes. The entrance off Aviation is only 2 years old and was created because of too much delay for ambulances to enter from Montreal Rd. This entrance won’t be effective off an expressway and there would be significant costs to redesigning access. Were these costs included in the total cost estimate and weighted appropriately in the selection process for the technically preferred route?

6. Destruction of Montfort Woods: This is a unique area of mature forest close to downtown. It was preserved from development in a land swap deal that resulted in the development of a farm on Mooney’s Bay. Now the City would lose both areas to development.

7. Residential area of Manor Park Hill: This area is immediately adjacent to the Aviation Parkway. Some properties come within 3m of the existing 2 lane right of way. Residents would be forced to endure the negative impacts of truck traffic—noise, pollution, hazardous cargo—on a daily basis.

8. Development of Rockcliffe base: There is a huge new residential development planned for the Rockcliffe base. A truck route will make this development far less attractive for families. Would you choose to live next to a truck route?

9. The Hemlock interchange: This interchange would need to be completely rebuilt. Will there be access from the truck route to existing regional roads? The Hemlock/St. Laurent intersection is already dangerous. Beechwood/ Vanier Parkway is a “failed intersection” and the existing traffic already exceeds design capacity. If the bridge is built at Kettle Island commuters will spend even more time stuck in grid lock to and from work every day.

10. London Terrace Park: This park, used as soccer grounds for very young children, may become unusable.

11. Manor Park Marsh: Adjacent to the park is a wetland and a stream which will be destroyed by the development of the corridor. The Ottawa Stewardship Council has recently cleaned up the marsh and planted trees. The area is used by schools and youth groups in the neighbourhood for educational field trips and teaching about environmental protection.

12. Manor Park East residential community: The proposed truck route skirts Manor Park East and runs immediately beside the Terry Fox Centre. Each year 5000 kids from all over Canada stay there while visiting Ottawa. The impact of the truck traffic (noise, pollution, hazardous cargo) on families living in Manor Park East will be devastating.

13. The RCMP Musical Ride: The proposed truck route slices right through the middle of the RCMP grounds and stables. This national treasure and a part of Manor Park heritage would have to move to a rural area. What is the cost of relocating the grounds and stables? Should this not be factored into the total cost of using the Montee Paiement/ Aviation Parkway corridor for the bridge at Kettle Island?

14. The Aviation Museum: This museum will be essentially cut-off, with major roads on two sides of the museum and the Ottawa river on a third. Youth programs conducted there regularly will be disrupted by noise.

The Rockcliffe airport runway, used to fly in exhibits, will either have to be closed or moved further east at great expense. The Rockcliffe Flying Club may have to close.

15. Rockcliffe Parkway: A truck route at the proposed site will cause irreparable destruction of green space and loss of picnic grounds along the Ottawa river and will destroy one of the prettiest scenic drives into the city.

16. ONEC: The Ottawa New Edinburgh sailing and rowing club would suffer and its historic building will be threatened.

17. Rockcliffe Yacht Club: A bridge crossing at Kettle Island would destroy the only portion of the eastern Ottawa River suitable for sailing.

18. Kettle Island: A bridge at Kettle Island would destroy the Kettle Island Nature Reserve. The island is almost entirely owned by the Nature Conservancy.

19. Gatineau water plant: There would undoubtedly be significant risk to the Gatineau water plant immediately downstream of the proposed crossing.

20. Montee Paiement residential area: Montee Paiement, north of Maloney Blvd., is primarily residential. Some driveways are accessed directly off Montee Paiement. What will happen to these properties if a truck route cuts through the area?

21. The grade ascending to Hwy. 50 along Montee Paiement: The grade along Montee Paiement is very steep. This is very dangerous as there is significant risk of runaway trucks. In addition to the noise of truck traffic, there will also be screeching airbrakes and the sound of trucks gearing down. Are there plans to change the grade for the truck route and if so what is the cost?

These 21 reasons show just some of the hidden costs, both financial and human, of building a bridge at Kettle Island.  Surely there is an alternative corridor for routing cars and trucks that would have less negative impact on people and our quality of life.

What can you do about this? Post your comments and feedback on this website for others to see.  Attend the Final Public Consultation to express your concerns and spread the word to encourage others to attend.  Contact your local federal, provincial and city representatives who have been elected to act in your best interests.

Share on Facebook

Bridge Choices; Troubled Waters

Read the eloquent words of Max Finkelstein as he calls for Kettle Island to be protected from impacts that may alter the ecological, recreational and spiritual values of this unique island.

“Can we have a bridge at Kettle Island, and a nature reserve too? Do we have to say good-bye to the undeveloped shoreline, as continually shifting alluvial islands by their very nature do not make good “bridge supports”? Do we have to say good-bye to the efforts of Ottawa Riverkeeper to clean up decades of accumulated garbage on the island? Do we have to say good-bye to the good intentions of Bowater, who donated most of the land with the intention of doing something good for the environment and the good efforts of the Nature Conservancy to protect our natural heritage? Do we have to say good-bye to the peace and quiet and beauty? Will this bridge leave a legacy of impaired ecosystems and recreational opportunities for a city defined by these very elements as much as it is by Parliament Hill.”

“When people in Ottawa seek beauty, they go to the river.“

Read the complete posting here: Kettle Island Opinion Max Finkelstein [pdf file: 0.02mb]

Courtesy of the Ottawa Riverkeeper.

Share on Facebook

Trucks Before People

Questions for your consideration and action:

• Why eliminate all crossing options except the one with the most significant negative impact on communities at this stage of the process?
• Shouldn’t further consideration be given to crossings that better serve the overall needs of society, as opposed to satisfying the objectives of a technically-skewed project?
• Should a committee with primary interests in trucking and fisheries be solely responsible for determining which factors are the most important?
• Why were community interests effectively neglected in the process?

Keep reading to learn more.

It is becoming increasingly evident that the consultants on this project are putting trucks before the welfare of people. By selecting Kettle Island, which ranks 12th out of the 12 sites considered in the Cultural Environment analysis (which essentially measures the negative impact on the quality of life for residents and communities in and around the crossing area), the project team has willingly and knowingly chosen the location that has the greatest negative community impact.

But, given the funding partners in this project, this in not entirely surprising. The project is being funded by the NCC, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, and the ministere des Transports du Quebec (Quebec Ministry of Transportation). Of these organizations, the NCC may have some interest in protecting community interests, but I somehow don’t feel this is their primary objective in this project.

An ‘unbiased and objective’ team of key stakeholders in the project were responsible for determining the weightings for each factor to evaluate the crossing alternatives. These weightings defined the significance of each aspect of the study analyzed by the project team (e.g. truck traffic diversion out of the downtown core, impact on parks and green space, conformity to planned land use, cost, etc.). Factors deemed to have low importance by this team would have little impact on the results, whereas factors deemed to have high importance would have great impact on the results. These weightings are therefore critically important.

This 25-member weightings committee was heavily skewed towards transportation and fisheries, and included no community representation.

Based on the composition of this committee and the interests represented, it is not surprising that traffic considerations specific to trucks were given high consideration. Environmental considerations (primarily the impacts on fish, river hydrology, and wildlife) were also given significant weighting.

To the detriment of the people living in the impacted area, factors contributing to the negative impact on communities in the impacted areas were given low priority.

Overall weightings as assigned by the committee are presented in an earlier posting.

Changes to these weightings change the results of the study. As the weighting of community and people-oriented factors increases, Kettle Island is quickly surpassed by other crossing alternatives.

Weightings were determined only after the bulk of the analysis had been completed, and most of the associated data had been compiled. Therefore, as weightings were being determined, the project team and the weighting committee would have had the ability to potentially manipulate weightings to immediately assess the impact on the final results.

The consultants were directed to select the best technically viable crossing alternative. Based on their assessment and their weightings, Kettle Island was narrowly identified as the best technical alternative. The Lower Duck Island location ranked second, with other options following closely behind.

The consultants are recommending that only the Kettle Island option be taken forward for the next phase of assessment. If this recommendation were to be accepted, all other crossing alternatives would be eliminated and the next two years would be spent refining and finalizing plans and designs for the Kettle Island crossing.

While it could be argued that further analysis of the Kettle Island crossing should cease immediately, within the project mandate, there is room for more than one option to be considered in the next phase of the analysis.

What can you do about this? Post your comments and feedback on this website for others to see. Attend the Final Public Consultation to express your concerns and spread the word to encourage others to attend. Contact your local federal, provincial and city representatives who have been elected to act in your best interests.

Share on Facebook

Who determined the evaluation weightings?

Seven major factors were considered by the project team in their evaluation of crossing alternatives and their selection of the preferred alternative. Each factor was given a weighting to determine the extent to which that factor influences the final results (i.e. identification of the preferred crossing location).

The factors and their weightings as presented by the project team are as follow:

• Traffic and Transportation: 29%
  (primarily, maximizing traffic flow through the new corridor)
• Natural Environment: 17%
  (impact on fisheries, forestry, hydrogeology, etc.)
• Cultural Environment: 9%
  (negative impact on the quality of life for residents in the crossing area)
• Water Use and Resources: 5%
  (impact on sailing, canoe clubs, water purification, and waterfront views)
• Socio Economic Environment: 7%
  (commercial benefits of diverting traffic from downtown into the crossing area)
• Land Use and Property: 8%
  (alignment with existing land use and plans)
• Cost 26%
  (estimated capital and ongoing costs)

As discussed in an earlier post, we do know that an online survey was conducted and that a closed-door committee with undisclosed particpants was involved in determining the final weightings. There has been concern and speculation about who was on this committee, and what interests they represent. In particular, questions and concerns have been raised about community representation (or lack thereof) on the committee.

From a conversation with Steve Taylor, project manager for this analysis, we now know a bit more about this committee and the process they went through to determine the weightings.

The objective in assembling the committee was to achieve impartial, unbiased results. In total, there were 25 people on the committee. The committee went through a lengthy process, including review and assessment of each individual utility factor, site visits, and lengthy debates. It sounds like a rigourous, defensible process…but the process is only as impartial and unbiased as the people making up the committee.

We do not know details of the individuals, but here are the interest groups that were represented on the committee:

• Ministry of Transportation (Ontario)
• Ministry of Transportation (Quebec)
• City of Ottawa
• City of Gatineau
• Transport Canada
• Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans
• Ministry of Natural Resources
• Creddo
• Transport 2000
• Rideau Valley Conservation Authority

Were community impacts adequately represented by these interest groups? How much consideration was given by these interest groups to detrimental impacts to quality of life in and around the crossing area? The answer, as we know, is that they gave it enough consideration to make it worth only 9% of the total evaluation criteria.

For the record, Kettle Island ranked 12th out of the 12 crossing locations considered in this analysis with respect to the Cultural Environment (i.e. quality of life) factor.

For a description of the factors and their sub-factors, and a summary of the analysis that was completed for each crossing location, click here.

Share on Facebook

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