Stop The Kettle Island Bridge

Inland tunnel: A viable alternative to a new bridge

The City Centre Coalition (CCC) represents 9 community associations toward the centre of Ottawa as well as Citizens for Safe Cycling and the Carleton University Students’ Association (CUSA).  It has a focus on community-friendly, environment-friendly solutions to transportation issues in Ottawa and across the Ottawa River.  CCC advocates a significant shift in investment away from road building and toward public transit especially light rail rapid transit as well proper facilities for walking and bicycling.

The following are excerpts from a presentation made by Derek Reid, the chairman of the City Centre Coalition (CCC), to the NCC on June 18th:

Currently, the City of Ottawa, the City of Gatineau and the NCC are allocating a lot of money for projects to fix transportation problems in the region. However, these parties are not acting in an integrated cohesive manner with a unified sustainable vision for the region.

The presentation I will make is meant to illustrate what is possible if all parties were to re-examine their plans, and pool their efforts into an integrated visionary solution.

This presentation is not about its details, but about the NCC taking a leadership role to inspire a sustainable integrated regional vision.

On the topic of a new east end bridge, his presentation states the following:

The NCC is considering a new $400M east-end bridge. The result would be an expanded road network, and the reduction of the quality of life for those who happen to be near the new route. It would impact the surrounding environment, and create more pollution from thousands of trucks per day that would be forced to travel further to cross the river. It would not restore King Edward as a beautiful avenue friendly to green transportation modes.

A better solution for King Edward Avenue has been studied by the City of Ottawa. A $190M inland tunnel could link the Mac Donald-Cartier Bridge with the Queensway via Nicholas. This option could significantly improve conditions along King Edward avenue — currently a depressing gateway to Ottawa.

The option of an inland tunnel link needs to be assessed by the NCC as a fourth option for an inter-provincial corridor, and as an alternative to a new bridge.

Click here to see Derek’s full presentation and transit vision.

Key Gray also comments on Derek’s presentation here:
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/bulldog/archive/2009/06/25/the-making-of-modern-ottawa-1.aspx

Share on Facebook

Project update: Email exchange with Marie Lemay, NCC CEO

The following exchange has recently taken place between John Forsey, MPCA President, and Marie Lemay, NCC CEO. A few facts have come to light about the next phase of the study:

• There will be no public consultation while defining the terms of reference for Phase 2 of the study.  However, the consultant’s statement of work, once finalized, will be posted on the NCC website in the coming months.
• Alignments beyond the three that have been selected for further analysis may be considered in Phase 2, although this seems unlikely.  The extent to which other options will be assessed will become clear through the Terms of Reference (which will not be publicly disclosed) and the consultants’ Statement of Work.
• The NCC is fully prepared to ammend its traffic policy on parkways to accommodate trucks, in the case of the Aviation Parkway, if required.
• The NCC states that public consultation will be an important component of Phase 2 as the project evolves, and that comments related to the project (even without a formal public consultation) will be submitted to the project team for consideration.  Please share any of your thoughts or concerns with the NCC.

This message is sent on behalf of Marie Lemay, Chief Executive Officer, National Capital Commission.

June 01, 2009 

Mr. John Forsey
President
Manor Park Community Association

Dear Mr. Forsey:

Thank you for your e-mail of April 21, 2009, in which you provide additional comments on the Interprovincial Crossings Environmental Assessment (EA) study.

All comments are being collected and will be considered as part of Phase 2 of the study. We have also sent a copy of your comments and this response to the Phase 2 Study Team.

With regard to your concern of the Consultant’s mandate, the National Capital Commission (NCC) believes that the first step in the Consultant’s work program will be very important. It will lay out a study design, which will be subjected to a full public consultation, as well as guide the study to its conclusion. The Consultant’s terms of reference will not be subject to a formal public consultation. The Consultant’s Statement of Work will be posted on the NCC’s website, at www.canadascapital.gc.ca, in the coming month, and your comments will be welcome.

Rest assured that the NCC and its partners are committed to a comprehensive, participatory and transparent public consultation on aspects of the Phase 2 EA and that public and agency comments, concerns and issues will be taken carefully into account and addressed effectively and appropriately by the Phase 2 Consultant.

Although there will be further consultation in Phase 2, we wanted to provide comments on the alignment alternative presented in your letter of February 11, 2009. This option considered an alternative alignment for Corridor 6 in Ville de Gatineau, utilizing an alignment at Lac-Beauchamp Park to a new interchange on Autoroute 50.

As part of the Phase 1 work program, each of the alternative crossing locations assessed available alignment alternatives to provide access between the two provincial freeway road networks. Corridor 6, which is centred on Lorrain Boulevard in Ville de Gatineau, considered environmental constraints and the technical feasibility of other alignments both to the east and west. In fact, a previously identified alignment using the park had been identified in the JACPAT study in the early 1990s. This alignment was revisited as part of the Phase 1 work and not carried forward because of substantial residential development that has occurred in the north end of the Corridor 6 study area since the 1990s. Several hundred homes have already been built on the previously identified corridor, as illustrated in the attached Figure 1.

The new alternative identified in your letter proposes a more westerly interchange connection to Autoroute 50. This would be a new interchange. The freeway design constraints utilized as part of the study on every corridor maintained the standards of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec of having a 2 km spacing between interchanges on a freeway. This interchange spacing is a North American standard that allows for signing and the spacing of acceleration and deceleration of vehicles on speed change lanes (ramps) to and from the freeway. The alternative identified in your letter does not comply with this provincial freeway standard.

As indicated above, this alternative, and your comments, will be documented for review in Phase 2 of the study.

The NCC Board of Directors’ decision included the statement that “It is understood that amendments may be needed to the Traffic and Property Regulations and NCC Policy on Parkways and Driveways (1984) or to the Greenbelt Master Plan (1996) in order to proceed to the construction of the Bridge.” These amendments, if necessary, will be undertaken.

The “participant funding” as defined in the Act is administered by the CEA Agency.

Thank you for providing these comments. We look forward to your continued participation in Phase 2 of the study.

Yours sincerely,

Marie Lemay, P.Eng., ing.

Chief Executive Officer

——————–

From: Forsey, R. John
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:31 AM
Subject: RE: Response from M. Lemay, CEO, National Capital Commission to your letter of February 11, 2009 and your e-mail of March 4, 2009

Dear Ms. Lemay,

Thank you for responding to my letter of March 4 and for forwarding a copy to the NCC Board members.

I have also taken the opportunity to review the Phase 2 Next Steps and Frequently Asked Questions posted on the NCC web site and I would like to make the following additional comments:

1. It appears that no public consultation will occur until 2010. As I noted in my March 4 letter, the Terms of Reference under which the Phase 2 consultants will be engaged are critical. Once the overall direction and scope of the study is set, it will be very difficult to change, no matter how valid the points raised during public consultations. Manor Park Community Association therefore urges the NCC to allow public comment on the draft Terms of Reference.

2. The NCC website indicates that “Corridors 5 (Kettle Island), 6 (Lower Duck Island) and 7 (Gatineau Airport / McLaurin Bay) will be evaluated in Phase 2 of Study.” As also suggested in my letter, the actual corridors to be studied in Phase 2 should not be strictly limited to Corridors 5, 6 and 7 (as defined by Roche-NCE) since some flexibility could allow the determination of the optimal solution.

3. The NCC website indicates that “Input from the Greenbelt Master Plan study and its public consultation will be considered by this study.” This is appropriate, given the location of Corridors 6 and 7. However, as noted by the NCC Board, selection of Corridor 5 would require a change in the NCC policy concerning NCC Parkways. Hence equal consideration must be given in Phase 2 to the implications for the future of the NCC’s scenic parkways.

4. It appears that Phase 2 will be a “screening study” under the CEAA. Will there be any provision for participant funding?

I urge you to give consideration to these points and to share them with the Phase 2 study team.

Yours sincerely,

John Forsey

President, Manor Park Community Association

——————–

Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 2:19 PM
To: Forsey, R. John
Subject: Response from M. Lemay, CEO, National Capital Commission to your letter of February 11, 2009 and your e-mail of March 4, 2009

This message is sent on behalf of Marie Lemay, Chief Executive Officer, National Capital Commission.

Dear Mr. Forsey:

Thank you for your letter of February 11, 2009 and your e-mail of March 4, 2009, which included a letter addressed to Mr. Russell Mills, Chair of the National Capital Commission’s (NCC) Board of Directors, regarding the Interprovincial Crossings study.

As requested, we have forwarded your letter to the NCC’s Board of Directors.

The Interprovincial Crossing Environmental Assessment (EA) study is part of long-term transportation planning by the federal, provincial and municipal authorities in Canada’s Capital Region. This EA Study is lead jointly by the NCC, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and the ministère des Transports du Québec (MTQ), with technical support of the cities of Ottawa and Gatineau. ROCHE-NCE provided consulting expertise to the study partners during Phase 1 of the EA study, which has now been completed.

Phase 1 of the EA study recommended Kettle Island Corridor as the highest ranked and technically preferred location for a future interprovincial crossing. It also recommended carrying forward a number of important planning strategies.

The summary report, the technical studies and outcome of the public consultations of the final report on Phase 1 of the EA study were made public on January 5, 2009.

In order to proceed to Phase 2 and complete the Interprovincial Crossings EA Study in conformity with the Partnership Agreement between the governments of Canada, Quebec and Ontario, unanimity amongst NCC, MTO and MTQ, on the number and location of crossing corridor(s) and alignments is required. Our funding partners, MTO and MTQ, in a letter dated January 27, 2009, informed us of their interest in doing more detailed study of the first three ranking corridors instead of only the first ranking corridor.

On February 13, 2009, the NCC’s Board of Directors approved the recommendations contained in the January 5, 2009, Interprovincial Crossings EA Study – Summary Report, by Roche-NCE, with the following amendments:

In addition to the consultant’s recommendation to assess in detail the Kettle Island crossing, the corridors at Lower Duck Island/Lorrain Boulevard, and Lower Duck Island/Gatineau Airport/McLaurin Bay be included in Phase 2 of the study, subject to approval by the three funding partners, NCC, the MTO and the MTQ.
The Board also approved that the commercial vehicles planning study to review interprovincial crossings and the ability to meet forecast demand be started in parallel to the EA study.
The Board’s decision has been communicated to the MTO and MTQ in a letter asking that they confirm their commitment to provide additional funding, in order to proceed to Phase 2.

Phase 2 of the study will involve the following steps and targeted dates:

Choosing and contracting consultant services, through a Request for Proposals process – completion by September 2009;
Phase 2 of the Study – completion by July 2012; and
Environmental approvals – completion by October 2013.
Phase 2 of the study will evaluate in more detail the environmental, social, economic, heritage and transportation effects of the corridors and propose mitigation measures to address these effects. The analysis, as per our partners’ request, will include impacts on communities, economic development and transit.

The NCC will continue to manage and administer the study in a collaborative effort between the three funding partners, the City of Ottawa and the Ville de Gatineau.

Once Phase 2 is initiated, we will invite all interested parties to actively participate in the consultation process. I encourage you to consult the NCC’s website at www.canadascapital.gc.ca for information regarding the Interprovincial Crossings Study.

Thank you for your interest in this important initiative.

Yours sincerely,

Marie Lemay, P.Eng., ing.
Chief Executive Officer

Share on Facebook

MPCA letter to the Premier of Ontario

The following letter was sent to Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario, by John Forsey, MPCA President. If you agree with the points raised in this letter, you are encouraged to reinforce these points with letters of your own to the NCC and to the Premier.
——————–

March 16, 2009

Hon. Dalton McGuinty, Premier
Legislative Building
Queen’s Park
Toronto ON M7A 1A1
Via e-mail: dmcguinty.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org

Dear Premier McGuinty:

Re: Ottawa River Interprovincial Crossings Study

The Manor Park Community Association (MPCA) has consistently taken the following position on this important file:

• The Kettle Island Corridor is unacceptable; and
• Another interprovincial crossing is needed, but must not cause the transfer of heavy commercial vehicles from one established neighbourhood to another.

MPCA would like to thank you and your government for your principled response to the Phase 1 Environmental Assessment (EA). This was instrumental in bringing about the recent decision of the NCC Board not to accept the recommendation of the consultant to proceed with a Phase 2 assessment of the Kettle Island Corridor alone. Nevertheless, our community is concerned that the Kettle Island option remains on the table, and we will continue to oppose it as a viable corridor.

The MPCA has serious concerns about the manner in which Phase 1 was conducted. We believe that some changes in priority and methodology are required at the outset of the next phase to result in a more transparent and productive process. The purpose of this letter is to urge you and your government to link Ontario funding for the next phase to meeting the following criteria:

• Independent analysis, ensured by hiring a different consultant in Phase 2;
• Meaningful public consultation, including opening the terms of reference to public comment;
• Terms of Reference that include:
  • Priority weighting of factors related to impact on communities, transit and economic development, as requested by your government;
  • The study of variations from the corridor alignments defined in Phase 1;
  • A requirement to take into account the results of the truck traffic and interprovincial transit studies;
  • The requirements of the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act in the harmonized EA; and
• An explicit requirement to solve the downtown core truck impasse.

Further detail on these points is contained in the Annex.

The Manor Park community intends to remain active on the interprovincial crossings file in the upcoming months. We look forward to working closely with the study team and the consultants toward a goal of finding a solution that does not harm communities and addresses the transportation needs of the National Capital Region for the 21st century—including public transit. We urge you and your government to support a Phase 2 assessment that will achieve this goal.

Yours sincerely,

John Forsey, P.Eng.
President

cc.
Hon. Madeleine Meilleur
Minister of Community and Social Services
Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs
MPP Ottawa-Vanier
mmeilleur.mpp@liberal.ola.org

Hon. James J. Bradley
Minister of Transportation
jbradley.mpp@liberal.ola.org

Annex

Independent Analysis is Required
MPCA believes that there were a number of flaws in the manner in which the Phase 1 study was conducted, the most egregious of which was the disregard for the health, safety and well-being of residents in close proximity to the corridors under study. Despite extensive written and oral public comments, many concerns were never satisfactorily addressed. Our fear is that the same consultant, Roche-NCE, if engaged for the next phase, would simply confirm its Phase 1 conclusion. We urge the proponents of this study to seek an independent assessment for the next phase by hiring a different consultant. This would not only provide greater objectivity, but would also assure us that the commitment to protect the interests of existing communities is sincere.

Meaningful Public Consultation is Required
Given the paramount importance of the impact on existing communities, we request the participation, in all aspects of Phase 2, of representatives from communities that will be affected by the corridors under study. This would include providing input to staff in drafting the Terms of Reference and ongoing consultation throughout the process.

In particular, unlike what transpired in Phase 1, weightings for each assessment factor should be subject to public participation. If only special interests are represented in the weighting process, how will communities be protected? Citizens need to have input.

Terms of Reference are Critical
It is essential that the Terms of Reference for the next phase be carefully developed and open to public review and comment, prior to engaging the consultant.

As suggested by your government, the impact on existing communities, compatibility with public transit, and impact on economic development are all highly important criteria that need to be recognized in the Terms of Reference. These factors were not sufficiently weighted in the Phase 1 study. Priority needs to be given to the weighting of the factors related to impact on communities and public transit, as opposed to factors related to trucking and automobile commuter interests.

MPCA understands that a harmonized environmental assessment process to meet both federal and provincial requirements will be undertaken. We wish to ensure that the most stringent of the federal and provincial requirements is applied. We are particularly concerned about retaining full legislative protection of the social and human environment in the harmonized EA, which is assured only through participation of the provincial ministries of the environment.

The actual corridors to be evaluated should not be strictly limited to the alignments of corridors 5, 6, 7, as defined by the Phase 1 consultant. To do so would exclude possible variations of corridors 6 and 7, which could provide the optimal solution.

Results of the recently-initiated interprovincial transit study and the updated interprovincial truck traffic study mandated by the NCC Board need to be taken into account in evaluating the candidate corridors.

The Recommended Corridor Must Solve the Truck Route Impasse
The new crossing must be located so as to solve the truck (semi-trailer) route impasse. It must be selected to accommodate all the long-distance heavy transport vehicles that are today so problematic along the Rideau–King Edward corridor.

As matters stand, Ottawa City Council has passed a resolution, backed by the Ontario Municipal Board, to ban such trucks on the King Edward Corridor, as soon as a new crossing is opened. The Rideau Street BIA has threatened legal action if this does not occur. The City of Gatineau has accepted the Kettle Island Corridor option, but only if trucks can remain on the Macdonald-Cartier bridge and be prevented from using Montée Paiement. The Phase 1 report recommends continuing to permit some heavy truck traffic on the King Edward Corridor and the remainder on the Kettle Island Corridor—negatively impacting existing communities along both routes.

When presented with the impasse, Roche-NCE suggested that if all heavy trucks were to be prohibited from King Edward Avenue, many would choose to use the Chaudière Bridge instead of the new corridor. The approaches to the Chaudière Bridge from expressways on both sides of the Ottawa River are difficult and pass through the downtown cores of Ottawa and Gatineau. Furthermore, structural limitations have recently been discovered in the Chaudière Bridge. Hence, our view is that the Chaudière Bridge is unsuitable to absorb an increased proportion of the heavy vehicle load.

In short, the new corridor must have the capability to absorb virtually all the interprovincial heavy vehicle traffic.
——————–

Share on Facebook

MPCA letter to Russell Mills, NCC Chair, re: next phase of the study

The following letter was sent last week by the MPCA to Russell Mills, NCC Chair, highlighting key factors that need to be considered as the next phase of the project is defined:
——————
MANOR PARK COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
ASSOCIATION COMMUNAUTAIRE DE MANOR PARK

March 4, 2009

Mr. Russell Mills
Chairman of the Board
National Capital Commission
202-40 Elgin Street
Ottawa, Ontario, K1P1C7

Dear Mr. Mills:
Re: Interprovincial Crossings Study

While the position of the Manor Park Community Association (MPCA) has consistently been that a new Interprovincial crossing is necessary, we have serious concerns about the manner in which the Interprovincial Crossings Phase 1 Environmental Assessment was conducted. We therefore welcome and appreciate the decision of the NCC Board not to accept the consultant’s recommendation to proceed with a Phase 2 Assessment of the Kettle Island Corridor alone.

We believe that as the Commission enters the next phase of this important study, there are some
changes in priority and methodology that will result in a more transparent and acceptable process. The purpose of this letter is to seek information regarding the process for the next steps and to share our views with you prior to the start of the next phase.

Independent Analysis is Required

MPCA believes that there were a number of flaws in the manner in which the Phase 1 study was
conducted, the most egregious of which was the disregard for the health, safety and well-being of
residents in close proximity to the corridors under study. I will not present details here, but would refer you to the many hundreds of submissions made to Roche-NCE following PCS#4, and to the oral and written presentations made at the NCC AGM on Dec. 3, 2008.

We urge the NCC to seek an independent assessment for Phase 2 of the EA by hiring a different
consultant for the next phase. This would not only provide greater objectivity but would also assure us that the NCC is truly committed to protecting the interests of existing communities. Our concern is that the same consultant, if engaged for the next phase, would simply confirm its Phase 1 conclusion.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

The NCC Board has decided to carry three corridors forward into Phase 2 of the Environmental
Assessment. However, it is our understanding that under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (the “Act”), there is no opportunity in a screening study to compare alternative projects, but rather that the screening study requires that only one site-specific project be considered.

In light of this, how will Phase 2 proceed? Our technical committee, comprised of a number of engineers, has suggested that the next step in the Interprovincial Crossings study be a comparative analysis to compare the alternative corridors before selecting the site-specific project. This comparative analysis would of course need to be in sufficient detail to make a rational decision, but it would not require the design of intersections, structures, noise barriers, berms, etc. Following completion of this comparative analysis, the fully detailed screening study, as envisaged in the Act would proceed.

It is important that this matter is clarified so as to be part of the Terms of Reference for the next phase of the study.

Terms of Reference are Critical

It is essential that the Terms of Reference for the next phase be carefully developed and open to public review and comment, prior to engaging the consultant.

As noted above, the Terms of Reference need to reflect both the decision of the Board and the provisions of applicable legislation.

As suggested by the Province of Ontario, the impact on existing communities, compatibility with public transit, and impact on economic development are all highly important criteria that need to be recognized in the Terms of Reference. These factors were not sufficiently weighted in the Phase 1 study.

Results of the recently-initiated interprovincial transit study and updated interprovincial truck traffic studies need to be completed before evaluating the candidate corridors.

The actual corridors to be evaluated should not be strictly limited by the Terms of Reference to the
alignments of corridors 5, 6, 7, as defined by Roche-NCE. To do so would exclude possible variations for corridors 6 and 7 (including one proposed by MPCA’s Technical Committee and previously made available to the members of the NCC Board), which could provide the optimal solution.

Meaningful Public Consultation is Required

Given the paramount importance of the impact on existing communities, we urge the NCC to facilitate the participation, in all aspects of Phase 2, of representatives from communities that will be affected by the corridors under study.

This would include providing input to staff in drafting the Terms of Reference and ongoing consultation throughout the process.

In particular, unlike what transpired in Phase 1, weightings for each assessment factor should be subject to public participation. If only special interests are represented in the weighting process, how will communities be protected? Citizens need to have input.

The Recommended Corridor Must Solve the Truck Route Impasse

The new crossing must be located so as to solve the truck (semi-trailer) route impasse. It must be
selected to accommodate all the long-distance heavy transport vehicles that are today so problematic along the Rideau-King Edward corridor.

As matters stand, Ottawa City Council has passed a resolution, backed by the Ontario Municipal Board, to ban such trucks on the King Edward Corridor, as soon as a new crossing is opened. The Rideau Street BIA has threatened legal action if this does not occur. The City of Gatineau has accepted the Kettle Island Corridor option, but only if trucks can remain on the Macdonald-Cartier bridge and be prevented from using Montee Paiement. The Phase 1 report recommends continuing to permit some heavy truck traffic on the King Edward Corridor and the remainder on the Kettle Island Corridor—negatively impacting existing communities along both routes.

When presented with the impasse, Roche-NCE suggested that if all heavy trucks were to be prohibited from King Edward Avenue, many would choose to use the Chaudiere Bridge instead of the new corridor. The approaches to the Chaudiere Bridge from expressways on both sides of the Ottawa River are difficult and pass through the downtown cores of Ottawa and Gatineau. Furthermore, structural limitations have recently been discovered in the Chaudiere Bridge. Hence, our view is that the Chaudiere Bridge is unsuitable to absorb an increased proportion of the heavy vehicle load.

In short, the new corridor must have the capability to absorb virtually all the interprovincial heavy vehicle traffic.

The Manor Park Community intends to remain active on this file in the upcoming months. We look
forward to working closely with the consultants, the NCC staff and the Board, with a goal of finding a
solution that does not harm communities and meets the needs of the National Capital Region.

I would be grateful if you would distribute copies of this letter to members of the NCC Board.

Yours sincerely,

John Forsey, P.Eng.
President
cc. (soft copy only)
Hon. Mauril Belanger
Hon. Madeleine Meilleur
Coun. Jacques Legendre
——————

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

Urgent: Fierce lobbying required NOW!

URGENT!

Lobbying from the Kettle Island NOW side is expected to be fierce.

We need to combat this with fierce lobbying of our own.

Please send your letter as a personal email TODAY to each of the following councillors who might be wavering (see letter below for guidance):

Rick Chiarelli
Rick.Chiarelli@ottawa.ca

Maria McRae
Maria.Mcrae@Ottawa.ca

Peggy Feltmate
Peggy.Feltmate@ottawa.ca

Alex Cullen (just in case)
Alex.Cullen@Ottawa.ca

Also include for good measure: Steve.Desroches@ottawa.ca , Diane.Deans@ottawa.ca , Eli.El-Chantiry@ottawa.ca , Jan.Harder@ottawa.ca , Kitchissippi@ottawa.ca (Christine Leadman) , and Shad.Qadri@ottawa.ca

———-
Dear Councillor,

I am writing regarding the issue of the inter-provincial bridge study which will be considered by Council on February 11, 2009. Council needs to show leadership by coming to a decision on this file; its decision should be fair and in the best interest of the citizens of Ottawa.

I believe that the citizens of Ottawa need a transportation vision that keeps trucks away from established communities, improves public transportation, and delivers economic benefits.

Of all the east end options, the Kettle Island corridor will affect the health and safety of thousands of Ottawa residents and have the greatest social impact. Selecting the Kettle Island corridor will not solve the downtown truck problem – it will only repeat the mistakes of the King Edward corridor.

The Kettle Island option does not integrate into future land use plans on either side of the river nor does it link to public transit plans both current and future. There would be considerably greater economic benefits from options further down-stream, which would link the industrial sections of both sides.

I believe the position of the Province of Ontario in its letter to the NCC is correct and fair—the top three options need to be further reviewed, taking into account the important factors of impact on existing communities, encouragement of public transit usage, and stimulation of economic development.

I urge you to support the motion put forward by Jacques Legendre and Georges Bédard that Council support the provinces on the matter of the inter-provincial river crossing environmental assessment.

Regards,

(concerned citizen)
———-

Share on Facebook

Primary stakeholders have been neglected

I have sent the following letter to the NCC Board of Directors and to the City Councillors:
————
RE: Interprovincial Crossings Project

Dear Elected Representatives and Decision Makers:

I’d like to begin by making one point very clear. The consultants have recommended Kettle Island as their technically preferred corridor. They have not recommended it as the corridor that best meets the overall needs of the National Capital Region.

When considering what’s best for the overall region, the citizens of the region must be considered as primary stakeholders. Their perspectives and concerns warrant the utmost consideration.

The consultants have gone through the motions of public consultation, but these have had little impact on the study. As part of the process, a quantitative survey was conducted across the National Capital Region on both sides of the river, in order to solicit public input on the relative importance of the major factors included in the analysis.

However, when the technical experts determined the weightings that would be applied, they virtually ignored the voice of the citizens. Here are the final rankings assigned by the technical experts in order of importance, with citizens’ ranking in brackets:

1. Traffic and Transportation (6)
2. Cost (7)
3. Natural Environment (1)
4. Cultural Environment (3)
5. Land Use and Property (4)
6. Socio Economic Environment (5)
7. Water Use and Resources (2)

The clear shift that the technical experts made was in the relative priority of Traffic and Cost factors. These factors shifted from the bottom of the list defined by the citizens to the top of the list. To emphasize this shift, the technical experts assigned a total weight of 54% to these two factors alone.

As a result of the assigned weightings, Kettle Island ranks first. But this is primarily due to its relatively high Traffic and Cost scores. Kettle Island ranks last of the twelve options considered for both Cultural Environment and Water Use – two of the top three factors identified by the citizens of the region.

Running the consultants’ decision-making model with the relative weights reflecting the ranking determined by citizens of the region places Kettle Island 9th.

The people have spoken, through the survey and throughout the public consultation process. The trouble is that the technical experts have not listened.

This is where you, the elected representatives and decision makers, must acknowledge the valid concerns of the primary stakeholders in this project. These primary stakeholders – the citizens of the National Capital Region – have been neglected.

You must balance the current technical recommendation with your greater obligation to these citizens.

I urge you to align with the position taken by the Ontario Government, and to further assess the top three options taking into greater account the impact on existing communities, encouragement of public transit usage, and stimulation of economic development.

————

Share on Facebook

Ottawa City Council Meeting: Wednesday Feb 11th

Ottawa City Council meets on Wednesday, Feb. 11, to make a decision on the inter-provincial river crossing EA. The City’s decision will influence the NCC’s final decision on Feb 13th.

The meeting will be held at Andrew S. Haydon Hall beginning at 10:00 a.m. Attend if you can, and don’t forget your button.  Click here for the full agenda.

In advance of the meeting, please urge City Councillors to support the provinces in their recommendation for further study of the top three options with respect to impact on communities, economic benefit, and transit.  See the sample letter below for ideas on what to day.

Letters for distribution to all councillors can be sent to Dawn Whelan, 613-580-2424 ext. 21837, Dawn.Whelan@ottawa.ca.

The councilors who voted last time in favour of carrying two or three corridors forward were:

Marianne Wilkinson, Christine Leadman, Rick Chiarelli, Peggy Feltmate, Diane Holmes, Maria McRae, Diane Deans, Peter Hume, Glenn Brooks, Georges Bédard Jacques Legendre, and Clive Doucet.

It is time well spent to thank these councilors for this support.

————-

Sample Letter to City Councillors:

Dear Councillor,

I am writing regarding the issue of the inter-provincial bridge study which will be considered by Council on February 11, 2009. Council needs to show leadership by coming to a decision on this file, and its decision should be fair and in the best interest of the citizens of Ottawa.

I believe that the citizens of Ottawa need a transportation vision that keeps trucks away from established communities, improves public transportation, and delivers economic benefits.

The Kettle Island corridor will affect the health and safety of thousands of Ottawa residents and have the greatest social impact of all the east end options. Selecting Kettle Island will not solve the downtown truck problem – it will only repeat the mistakes of the King Edward corridor.

The Kettle Island option does not integrate into future land use plans on either side of the river, nor does it link to public transit plans both current and future. There would be considerably greater economic benefits from options further down-stream, which would link the industrial sections of both sides.

I believe the position of the Province of Ontario in its letter to the NCC is correct and fair—the top three options need to be further reviewed, taking into account the important factors of impact on existing communities, encouragement of public transit usage, and stimulation of economic development. I urge you to support the motion put forward by Jacques Legendre and Georges Bédard that Council support the provinces on the matter of the inter-provincial river crossing environmental assessment.
————-

Share on Facebook

MPCA Bridge Committee letter to the NCC

Ottawa, January 20, 2009

Dear Marie Lemay and NCC Board Members:

As you have heard, there is huge public opposition to a bridge at Kettle Island. Carrying Kettle Island and option 6 or 7 forward to phase 2 of the study will not stop the public outcry against Kettle Island. Manor Park and the Kettle Island corridor communities on both sides of the river have never advocated carrying 2 options forward to phase 2 for the following reasons. The purpose of phase 2, according to the Terms of Reference of the study, is to look at alternative design concepts within a selected corridor, not to compare corridors. To take 2 options forward for detailed study would double the cost and extend the duration of the study. Meanwhile, the delay in selecting the corridor would extend the period of hardship for the residents of the Kettle Island corridor. We are currently experiencing a great deal of stress at the possibility of a truck route, with all its toxic impacts, passing beside our homes. With this threat hanging over us, we can’t even sell and move because our property values have dropped and who would choose to buy a house next to a possible truck route?

Everyone agrees that heavy trucks must be removed from King Edward/Rideau because of the impacts on the neighbourhood. Why would transferring those impacts to another neighbourhood be acceptable? The longer Kettle Island stays on the table the longer it will take to solve the King Edward problem because the opponents of Kettle Island are determined to fight this selection through the courts.

The best solution for the residents on both sides of the river is to have a bridge built as soon as possible in the right location. For Ontario, the right location is east of Green’s Creek and far enough west of Orleans so as not to impact any residents there i.e. in nobody’s backyard. There is an empty corridor in this location belonging to the NCC.

On the Quebec side there are 3 possible routes that would connect to the Ontario corridor. The first is through undeveloped land near Lac Beauchamp, the second is along Lorrain Boulevard where the houses would be expropriated, the third connects to Gatineau Airport. This analysis, to select the Quebec corridor, could be done in a preliminary stage of the phase 2 study which would be a much less expensive and time consuming exercise than carrying 2 options forward for the duration of the study.

This proposal is a win/win solution for everyone.
1. A bridge will be built sooner, solving the problem of trucks on King Edward.
2. Quebec commuters will have another crossing, easing the present congestion.
3. No Ontario neighbourhood would be impacted by a truck route or the threat of one.
4. Quebec would have the opportunity to select a corridor that avoids neighbourhoods.
5. A bridge in this location would be good for transit on both sides of the river.
6. This location is downstream of the Gatineau water intake.(Kettle Island is 600m upstream)
7. The Montfort Hospital would be protected.
8. National institutions would be unaffected.
9. Kettle Island itself would remain an undisturbed nature preserve.
10. As no island would be impacted, there would be no aboriginal objections.
11. Gatineau would have a good connection for development in the east end.
12. East end commuters would have a convenient bridge without having to travel downtown.
13. There would be no closure of Queensway access ramps at St. Laurent Shopping Centre.
14. It is the shortest and least expensive route.
15. It moves the trucks outside of the city core on both sides of the river.
16. It could provide a controlled access route from Autoroute 50 to Highway 174.
17. It preseves the NCC scenic Aviation Parkway.

There is no downside in this proposal. I speak for all the Kettle Island corridor communities on both sides of the river when I request that the NCC reject the recommendation of a bridge at Kettle Island and instead proceed to phase 2 with a corridor in Ontario in the vicinity of the option referred to as Lower Duck and in Quebec that further study be done to choose the best route to align with the selected corridor in Ontario.

The NCC, through Mr. Reg MacDonald, its chief engineer at the time the Aviation Parkway was built, promised the residents of Manor Park, at a public meeting, that The Aviation Parkway would never become a truck route. We are counting on you, the current Board of Directors of the NCC, to uphold this promise.

Respectfully,

Judy Lishman
Chair, Bridge Committee
Manor Park Community Association

Share on Facebook

Dear Elected Representative:

If you are opposed to the Kettle Island bridge, NOW is the time to write to your elected representatives.  Decisions could be made imminently so it is essential to formally voice your concerns without delay.

The following letter has been prepared to give you some ideas, but feel free to edit in any way.  And please make use of any other material posted on this website if you’re looking for more information or ideas.

See below for details about who to send this to.

———————————————————————-

Dear [elected representative],

I am writing to you to ask that you reject the choice of Kettle Island as a crossing point for a new inter-provincial bridge for Ottawa.

Most citizens of Ottawa agree that a new bridge is needed across the Ottawa River, primarily to remove large truck traffic from the downtown Ottawa core. A recent technical study has concluded that the crossing point of the new bridge should be in the east end of the city of Ottawa, across Kettle Island, chiefly because this site would “attract” the most trucks.

In addition, the City of Ottawa now proposes to ban truck traffic from the present truck route, the King Edward corridor, as soon as the new bridge is built – because of the negative impacts of truck traffic on human health and well being. In other words, heavy truck traffic will be funnelled across the new bridge, despite the fact that the proposed location is a densely populated residential and recreational area.

I am writing to ask you to act now to ensure that the proposed Kettle Island location be rejected, for the following reasons:

• A truck and commuter highway would be built along the most heavily populated corridor of all the options studied. Homes and quality of life would be destroyed.
• This corridor would route hazardous materials and 18-wheeled trucks through several communities. It increases car and truck traffic in established residential communities and adds traffic to already congested roads – and in a location where pedestrian and bicycle traffic is encouraged.
• National institutions such as the Aviation Museum and RCMP musical ride stables are located along this corridor and subject to the same hazards. It jeopardizes the future of Rockcliffe Airport and the operations of the RCMP musical ride, its pastures, stables and museum.
• The truck route would pass right beside the Montfort Hospital and Long Term Care Facility; trucks would block its ambulance entrance and jeopardize the care of its patients.
• It would turn the Aviation Parkway into a four-lane truck route and the Rockcliffe Parkway into a commuter route with the loss of usable recreational paths and parkland.
• It would negatively impact the environmentally significant Kettle Island, which is owned by The Nature Conservancy of Canada.
• It would not address transportation needs of the 21st century—public transit and future growth outside the core.

The consultants have claimed that the Kettle Island site would be the cheapest option, but that conclusion was reached only by loading other options with costs such as highway widening that were to occur anyway, and excluding similar costs from the Kettle Island calculations. Moreover, once the cost of mitigation of all the negative effects is included, Kettle Island is no longer the cheapest option.

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 without regard to the serious failings in the first phase of the study.

Please help us to ensure that the Kettle Island site is removed from consideration.

Yours truly,

———————————————————————-

Who to send this to:

While you are encouraged to send you comments to everyone listed on our Contacts page, key influencers and decision-makers who require your immediate attention and focus are as follow. Don’t delay!

Ottawa City Councillors
Send an email to andrew.lomas@ottawa.ca and ask him to circulate your message to the Mayor and to all Councillors.

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

Honourable Jim Bradley
Minister of Transportation
Correspondence Unit
3rd Floor, Ferguson Block
77 Wellesley Street West
Toronto, Ontario M7A 1Z8
jbradley.mpp@liberal.ola.org

The Honourable 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

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

Hon. 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

Hon. 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

Hon. Jim Watson
MPP for Ottawa West-Nepean
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Constituency
201- 2249 Carling Ave
Ottawa ON K2B 7E9
Tel 613-721-8075
Fax 613-721-5756
jwatson.mpp@liberal.ola.org

The Honourable Lawrence Cannon
Minister of Foreign Affairs*
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Telephone: (613) 992-5516
Fax: (613) 992-6802
EMail: Cannon.L@parl.gc.ca
Web Site: www.lawrencecannon.com
* We understand that Lawrence Cannon will retain responsibility for the NCC

Russell Mills – Chair
National Capital Commission
202–40 Elgin Street
Ottawa, Canada K1P 1C7
613-239-5000 or 1 800 465-1867 (toll free)
info@ncc-ccn.ca, ATTN: Russell Mills

Marie Lemay – CEO
National Capital Commission
202–40 Elgin Street
Ottawa, Canada K1P 1C7
613-239-5000 or 1 800 465-1867 (toll free)
mlemay@ncc-ccn.ca

Share on Facebook

Transportation Committee recommends 2nd site for futher study

Following the strong public reaction against the consultants’ presentation of Kettle Island as the preferred corridor at the Transportation Committee meeting yesterday, the committee is recommending that the NCC take forward a second corridor, at Lower Duck Island, for further study in Phase 2 of the project.

See the CBC News article here:
CBC Ottawa: NCC should look at 2nd site for interprovincial bridge: Ottawa committee

City council must decide Wednesday whether to endorse the committee’s recommendation and ask the NCC to consider both east-end corridors for the second phase of the environmental assessment study.

If you haven’t already done so, now would be a very good time to send comments to your mayor and city councilors.

Mayor Larry O’Brien can be reached here: http://www.mayorlarry.ca/tell-larry/

Councilors can be reached here: http://www.ottawa.ca/city_hall/mayor_council/councillors/index_en.html

Alternatively, you can send an email directly to andrew.lomas@ottawa.ca and ask that your message be circulated to all councillors.

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

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

Your top priority: Submit your comments

The strong showing at the Final Public Consultation was a fantastic start to the public rally against the Kettle Island bridge. But this will be a long fight, and the energy and enthusiasm displayed at that meeting will need to be sustained and amplified as we continue our campaign.

For now, your top priority should be to formally submit your comments to the consultants. Each and every one of your comments will become part of the public record for the project, and the more comments that are submitted, the more the consultants and the project sponsors will listen.

The submission deadline is October 10th.

An equally important action on your part is to send messages to your elected representatives and the decision makers for this project. Just copy your submission to the consultants and paste it into a message, or take a look at our Letter to Decision Makers for ideas on what to say. Click here for the contact list.

We’ve also had a request from CARAD (Community Action for Reasonable Analyses and Decisions), a coalition representing 15 impacted communities, to encourage you to send a copy of your feedback and comments to Jane Brammer, CARAD chair, at janebrammer@hotmail.com. CARAD will compile and present your feedback in a media event.

Please feel free to use any content from this website when writing your comments. Your comments don’t need to be long, but it is essential that your concerns are formally logged by the project. I also encourage you to publish your feedback on stopthebridge.org as a comment to this post. Others will benefit from seeing what you’ve written, and you’ll be published for the world to see.

A few highlights that you may want to cover include:

• This study puts trucks before people
• Community interests were not represented on the weightings committee
• The weightings exercise was not transparent
• Traffic and cost factors were weighted disproportionally high, while community and people factors were weighted disproportionally low
• The recommendation does not solve the problem of trucks on King Edward
• There are no factors that directly consider the negative impact of increased traffic on residential roads
• Health and safety issues associated with the transportation of hazardous goods and diesel fuel exhaust are not adequately addressed

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