According to the MERX posting, here’s what the NCC is looking for with this RFP:

“An experienced and highly skilled bilingual (English and French) Fairness Auditor will be engaged by the NCC to provide evaluation process Fairness Auditor Services. The primary skills needed from the Fairness Auditor are: an established credibility in adjudicating broad questions of fairness; and experience in decision support systems and in the selection of transportation alternatives.”

In the A section of the paper on January 10, the CCN published a request for proposals for a “vérifcateur de l’équité du processus d’évaluation” (Evaluation Process Fairness Auditor) for the Interprovincial Crossings study.

Does anyone know what that is all about?

I could’t find the advertisement in the Citizen, but perhaps I just didn’t look in the right place. The RFP is on MERX (ref.no. TH01).

The NCC and its provincial partners should go back to the drawing board, and really think this thing through, for the sake of our National Capital Region.

J.A.M.

First, we still don’t have good information on where trucks using King Edward are coming from or going to. There is different information floating around about how many trucks using King Edward are local deliveries vs. passing through en route to Montreal or to the 416 and points west. Completion of Hwy 50 on the Quebec side would help a great deal to solve the origin-destination Montreal destination problem. A bridge in the west end would better serve the others. King Edward will still remain a truck route if only for local delivery. We still don’t know the scope of the problem we are trying to solve and we really don’t know how much the King Edward problem can be alleviated by any of these proposed options.

King Edward truck traffic is only one piece of the puzzle although for some it has become the raison d’etre for a bridge somewhere else. Fantasies abound of a future King Edward as an elegant truck free boulevard.

Serious consideration should be given to a King Edward corridor tunnel or some variation on a tunnel along the lines of Rue Berri in downtown Montreal. The Ontario government needs to step up to the plate to seriously address the truck problem where it exists and not rely on the NCC to transfer the problem to another corridor at minimal provincial and municipal cost. We shouldn’t be distracted by bogus arguments about why a tunnel isn’t feasible. Tunnels exist and function well in many cities of the world.

Second, the pressure from Gatineau commuters for a bridge is understandable but short sighted. Corridor 5 is short term and short sighted because it fails to take into consideration future links to light rail and public transit on both sides of the river. It would dump heavy traffic into the most populated residential corridor of the three proposed and ad to gridlock on the 174 and 417. It is short sighted because growth in the Gatineau sector is west around Alymer, not east. It is also short sighted if economic growth in the east end is considered desirable because by that criteria, the need for a cross river link is further east. Some growth is continuing in the east past Orleans and there appears to be interest on the Gatineau side to develop an industrial area around the airport and link it to Ontario side through the proposed corridor 7.

This study should be stopped and rethought from a longer term urban development perspective integrating housing development, transit and economic development plans on both sides of the river.

You have reached the correct conclusion. None of the three corridors makes sense. The NCC-led team is mired in 1950s thinking.

Sustainable Solutions/solutions durables is a group encompassing communities from downtown to Orleans that shaere this view. For more information look at the website http://www.ssd-ottawa.ca/

Also, corridor six would cause the expropriation of about 80 homes and businesses on the Quebec side (including some of the oldest homes in Gatineau) as well as the destruction of a 19th century cemetery. As a Canadian, I find that completely unacceptable and would argue that such a move will impact people far more significantly (getting the family home torn down and being forced to move) than anyone in either of the other two options.

I think that I have come to the conclusion that none of these corridors make sense. That the stated goals will not be met no matter what option is decided upon. I hope that they aren’t simply building a bridge, for the sake of building a bridge.

The Kettle Island corridor would run within a stone’s throw of nearly 7 kilometers of established, developed areas – most of which are residential.

For the other two options currently being considered, because the routes keep their distance from densely populated areas, the relative impact on people is far less. So either of these options would impact far fewer people than Kettle Island.

Costs in Phase 1 were calculated to +/- 20%, as reported by the consultants. The costing scores (higher scores indicate lower costs), which represented a combination of estimated capital and operating costs for the three corridors currently on the table were:

Option 5: 24.64 (Kettle Island)
Option 6: 24.74 (Lower Duck)
Option 7: 22.54 (Gatineau Airport)

So, the Phase 1 consultants concluded that, of the three options currently being considered, Option 7 is the highest cost alternative (it had the lowest score), Option 5 is slightly less expense, and Option 6 is the least expensive (being 0.4% more cost effective than Option 5).

But because this was all estimated to +/- 20% at best, it’s safe to say, that each option would cost about the same amount to build.

And any perception that one alternative is more or less expensive than another is, at this point in the process, simply unsubstantiated.

I hope this helps you to understand some of the objective reasons as to why Kettle Island does not make the most sense.

A route up Aviation Parkway will cut the East End in half. This will further impede East West flow along Montreal and Ogilvie, which are already saturated during rush hours. The length of lights required to get trains of trucks through will be sufficient to delay commuters in cross-town traffic. Depending on where the exits off Aviation are located, you may also cause problems for Hemlock which is already at capacity (despite being a residential street).

The impact on the split will also be terrible. The split is already bad and there is not sufficient space to create a proper four-way interchange.

In short, not only will corridor 5 impact communities, but it will impact city-wide traffic, by complicating east-west traffic flows and the split.

The balkanization of the East End (which will be cut by major thoroughfares and the loss of the only North-South greenspace corridor between the Vanier Parkway and the Greenbelt should be added to the regional impacts.

Add to this the loss of pedestrian and bicycle accessibility to the Ottawa River Parkway and institutions like the Montfort Hospital, Cite Collegiale, and the Canadian Aviation Museum, only complicates the situation further.

This is not just Nimbyism. Corridor 5 is a bad choice for the city as a whole. It will impact traffic in the whole of the East End.

Finally, Corridor 5 will contravene the city’s own efforts at densification. The result will be urban sprawl on the Quebec side for new dormitory communities. This will add to Ottawa’s traffic problems, not mitigate them.

I would not underplay by any means the impact that a corridor 5 bridge would have on communities, but it will also adversely affect city-wide transportation in the whole of the East End.

If you are unsure about whether or not your feedback was received, send an email directly to info.crossings@genivar.com asking them if they received it, and expressing your confusion.

You may also want to CC the NCC at info@ncc-ccn.ca.

Let us know what you find out.

As I may not be able to attend the meetings, I submitted some comments in writing to the folks at Genivar who are organizing the consultation.

I stressed the impact that the corridor 5 option would have on communities as well as on East-West traffic on Montreal, Ogilvie, and Hemlock. I also highlighted that having a connection between the 417/174 and the bridge on city streets (i.e. with traffic lights) is a silly thing to have and will only result in a problem similar to the Rideau problem in the East End. One thing I neglected to add is that the Island Park bridge in the West End is already a nightmare during rush hour due to the lack of appropriate access roads — so just imagine a similar situation in the East end compounded by truck traffic!

I copied my MP, MLA, City Councillor and Premier McGuinty (don’t forget we have Ontario elections coming up).

Community Value Planning Workshop – Kettle Island Corridor
June 14, 2011
Ray Friel Recreation Complex
1585 Tenth Line Rd
7:00 pm to 10:00 pm

World Café-Ottawa
June 18, 2011
Cyrville Community Centre
4355 Halmont Dr
Ottawa, ON
9:00 am to 12:00 pm

I sent the following note to the person at the NCC who is listed as a contact:
————————
“Ms. Bédard,

I have just read through the Notice of Commencement for “Interprovincial Crossings in the National Capital Region,Ottawa, Ontario/Quebec” (CEAR #10-01-52629).

Under “Human Populations Potentially Affected”, the Forbes, Cummings, Cyrville and Rockcliffe Mews neighbourhoods are not mentioned. These are among the neighbourhoods bordering most closely the Kettle Island Corridor (corridor 5); Forbes and Cummings may contain some of the densest populations and are extemely close to the Aviation Parkway.

Thank you for your attention,

Charles Siegel
Ottawa, Ontario

Still don’t know why the workshop concerning the Kettle Island Corridor is on the far side of Orleans rather than in or near the affected neighborhoods, though.

There are so many bridges focused on east end or downtown core. Should Ottawa not focus on re-leaving traffic from the core and allowing ever growing communities like Kanata to absorb some traffic?

Registration resulted in a very interesting page thanking me for “registering your e-mail address to receive Interprovincial Crossings Environmental Assessment Study project updates”. No mention of the workshop nor of its location! It seems like they don’t really want to hear from us. What a surprise.

Its always hard to distinguish purposeful ignorance from simple incompetence.

With all communities in Ottawa now opposed to a bridge, it is shameful that this process is forging on in the way it is. Frankly, it’s undemocratic.

Check out his site at

http://www.vote-cannings.com

It’s in the hands of the provinces now.

Canadian and Ontario environmental legislation and how the two acts are supposed to work together is extremely complicated.

MPCA has come to the realization that we need advice from an environmental lawyer to ensure that our rights are being protected under the law.

Wait a minute – isn’t it the Ontario government that insisted that three corridors be carried forward instead of just Kettle Island?

Oops, I guess not such a good strategy after all.

Dumb dumb dumb…

We are very sorry not to be able to attend but we have a long- standing previous commitment this evening.

We share your concern about the volume (and speed) of the traffic on Hemlock/Beechwood. We want to see 50 km/hr signs posted on the west as well as the east side of Hemlock and we recommend that speed cameras be installed to enforce the limit. We also recommend that access to Manor Park be blocked, Glebe-style, to prevent traffic cutting through our neighbourhood.

The proposed location of the bridge on Kettle Island makes no sense to us. It would be deliberately destructive of a series of well-established communities. Town planners may have had that route in mind 30 years ago but it is an idea whose time has come and gone and the planners must now find another solution.

We would be happy to attend future meetings but we ask that you provide a bit more notice next time.

With many thanks for your activism on behalf of us all.

The study must give priority to finding the right solution to the real problem – the trucks;

The Ontario Government must opt back in as a study proponent and apply its provincial environmental legislation. Without this, there is no accountability in the process and no scrutiny until one corridor is chosen. Then it will be too late.

Let’s talk traffic for the 100000 east end residents:
For an Orleans resident going into work – Merging Gatineau truck traffic into the 174 before the pinch point of the split worsens the East to downtown commute.

For an Orleans resident coming home – truck traffic going thru the split versus exiting to 417 south (as today), worsens the Eastern commute.

And, in both cases – the new cloverleaf messes up the bus lanes that currently provide the current poor excuse for mass transit to the eastern part of the city.

Add to that the Greenbelt corridors are so far from downtown that no downtown bound trucks will use them.

Can you point out where on the http://www.commonsensecrossings.com site does it say that Kettle Island is the “right” choice? We’re trying to stay above throwing rocks at our neighbors.

Thanks!

Pat Boule

“The fall of the land makes a natural amphitheatre. Visible just beyond the performance grounds are the Canadian Aviation Museum and historic Rockcliffe Airport.”

The natural setting and surroundings of our cultural institutions and historic attractions are an instrinsic part of their value. Destroying this degrades the institutions themselves and tarnishes our national image.

Maria Cook has a true appreciation for our cultural landscape. She also has a gift for describing it and promoting its significance. It is a topic worth further discussion.

Communities should be given a chance to shape and substantially contribute to Phase II, including the development of its consultation process. Formal public consultation ‘hearing’ milestones are designed to defend/promote and finalize a decision, with fewest mofications, leaving communities with the fustration of reacting.

Regarding the ”choosing and contracting consultant services, through a Request for Proposals process – completion by September 2009 ”: To the extend that is legally possible, particularly selection cirteria, this process should be open and scrutinized accordingly.

Thoughful consideration should also be given to the fundamental nature of the lead expertise for a project with such profound social impact and broader urban planning implications. Transportation engineers are likely inclined to favour and promote the most ‘performing’ route serving trucks and cars with minimal capital costs.

Hubert des Courtis
Civil Engineer E.P.F.L.