The following is a copy of the text from a report from the City on the March 30th 2004 Public Open House.
Draft Public Consultation Report Public Open House #2
Alta Vista Transportation Corridor EA Study March 30 2004
Document 7
Public Open House # 2 Summary
A total of 433 participants signed in at Public Open House No. 2 on 30 March 2004. Of those attending, 333 provided comments in the form of Comment-Questionnaires, written letters and emails. Individuals who attended the Public Open House and submitted Comment-Questionnaire sheets made up the majority (264) of the comments. Other individuals faxed (7), mailed (16) or emailed (46) their comments Comment-Questionnaire sheets, at a later date, to the City of Ottawa. Details of the responses from all of the comments and submissions are provided below.
About You
1. Where do you live?
A total of 307 people indicated where they reside. Approximately eighty-nine percent (89%) of the respondents live in close Proximity to the Alta Vista Transportation Corridor.
2. What specific interest do you have in the study?
A total of 298 responses were recorded addressing the specific interest in the study. Many people indicated they had more than one interest. The most recorded response was that they were directly impacted by being a local resident (28%), followed by the quality of life in the community (20%).
Table 1: Summary of Specific Interest.
| Specific interest | Frequency of Response |
| Local resident / direct impact | 83 |
| Quality of life in community | 59 |
| Air quality / pollution | 31 |
| Loss of greenspace enjoyment or allotment gardens | 31 |
| Road network improvement | 29 |
| Traffic volume | 26 |
| Environmental impacts / protection | 25 |
| Alternative modes of transportation (cycling, light rail, etc) | 20 |
| Future Of Ottawa / smart Urban Planning | 18 |
| Access to downtown / congestion | 17 |
| Escalation of car based solutions | 15 |
| Noise vibration | 14 |
| Smart Growth / stop urban Sprawl | 11 |
| Cut through traffic | 11 |
| Taxpayer / cost / budget | 8 |
| Property value | 8 |
| Future of public transportation | 8 |
| To consult / monitor the project | 7 |
| Improved access to hospital lands | 7 |
| Opposed to any development in the AVTC | 6 |
| Safety | 6 |
| Improvement of recreational pathways | 3 |
| Access to community services | 2 |
| Quality of the environmental assessment | 2 |
| Bridge over the Rideau River | 1 |
| Member of the PAC | 1 |
| Total* | 449 |
*The frequency of responses is greater than the number of completed Comment-Questionnaires as several individuals indicated numerous interests in the project.
Preliminary Preferred Alternative Solution
Six alternative solutions were developed, assessed and evaluated. Do you have any comments or concerns regarding Alternative 3, which was judged to be the Preliminary Preferred Solution?
A total of 316 respondents commented or expressed concerns on the preliminary preferred solution. The most common response was that the EA was not complete without a Transit only option being evaluated (26%). Twenty-two percent (22%) were opposed to the preliminary preferred solution. Eleven percent (11%) want it built now.
Table 2: Comments and concerns on the Preliminary Preferred Solution
| Comments and Concerns | Frequency of Response |
| Lack/Exclusion of a true transit option - EA not complete | 81 |
| Opposed to the preferred solution | 68 |
| Air Quality / Pollution | 65 |
| Lack of consideration of downstream traffic - 417/Nicholas interchange | 55 |
| Escalation of car based solutions | 52 |
| Noise/ vibration | 51 |
| Loss of greenspace/ recreational opportunities | 48 |
| Preferred solution - build it | 34 |
| Biased / faulty Methodology - weighting favors automobiles | 34 |
| Quality of life / community values | 31 |
| Increase in overall traffic | 31 |
| Band-Aid solution - won't solve long term transportation problems | 20 |
| Negative environmental impacts | 19 |
| Dividing communities | 17 |
| Increased traffic accidents | 16 |
| Cost / budget concerns/ use of taxpayer money | 13 |
| Doesn't fit with Official Plan/ Growth plans questionable | 13 |
| Truck traffic should not be permitted | 11 |
| Cut-through traffic will increase | 11 |
| Induced traffic will be created | 10 |
| Traffic studies are inadequate/ questionable | 10 |
| The need for the project is not clear | 9 |
| Access to Hospital Lands needs improvement / immediate attention | 8 |
| Comments from the first open house were ignored | 7 |
| Property value will decrease | 7 |
| Lack of information on the Preferred Design (connections/design) | 7 |
| Loss of allotment gardens | 6 |
| Encourages urban sprawl | 6 |
| Impact on Lees Avenue apartments is a concern | 6 |
| Cycling paths need to be implemented | 6 |
| Usefulness of HOV / Bus lanes is questionable | 5 |
| Least environmentally sensitive solution | 4 |
| Don't widen roads then build AVTC | 2 |
| Losing homes and businesses on Hawthorne | 2 |
| Air quality conclusions are questionable | 2 |
| Not big enough | 1 |
| Garbage/ litter | 1 |
| Trucks need to be included | 1 |
| Heightened crime | 1 |
| Future room for LRT | 1 |
| Total number of Concerns* | 773 |
*The frequency of responses is greater than the number of completed Comment-Questionnaires as several individuals indicated numerous concerns and/or comments on project.
How do you think your above-noted concerns can be addressed?
A total of 264 respondents gave suggestions as to how their concerns could be addressed. The most common response was that the study should have included only transit options for the corridor (59% or 152 responses). Eleven percent (11%) felt that the city should continue to promote public transit.
Table 3: How Concerns Can Be Addressed
| How to Address Concerns | Frequency of Responses |
| Assess a Transit-based alternative only | 152 |
| Promote Mass/ Public Transit/ Build Park and Ride Lots | 29 |
| Evaluate both roads and transit | 27 |
| Do nothing | 25 |
| Widen existing, roads (Alternative 5 or 6) | 21 |
| Smart Growth should be incorporated to eliminate need | 20 |
| Incorporation of input from the public | 20 |
| Improve cycling network - make priority | 17 |
| Develop a landscaping plan | 13 |
| Inclusion of induced traffic/realistic traffic studies (i.e., AM traffic) | 13 |
| Put in place sound barriers / berms | 10 |
| Only build the link to the Hospital Lands | 10 |
| Build bigger - Alternative 4 | 9 |
| Sub-grade development | 8 |
| Build a Ring Route | 8 |
| Restrict/ Prohibit truck traffic | 7 |
| Stronger Council presentation/ involvement | 7 |
| Make it a Toll / Congestion Tax | 7 |
| Make AVTC for commuter traffic only | 6 |
| Fire the Consultant - Redo the Study | 6 |
| Methodology/ Weighting needs to be revisited | 5 |
| No link/ Limit access to Nicholas | 5 |
| Flexible use of HOV/Bus lanes | 5 |
| A more detailed plan of the project | 4 |
| Build houses in AVTC - Stop sprawl | 3 |
| Continue with planned upgrades (TMP) - Re-evaluate | 3 |
| Build for easy conversion to Transit in the future | 3 |
| Build the two Interprovincial Bridges | 3 |
| Restrict access from within the Alta Vista neighborhood | 2 |
| Extend Hunt Club and Regional Road 8 to 417 | 2 |
| Expand the assessment to include other Corridors | 2 |
| Alternative #2 is the Preferred solution | 2 |
| More sophisticated analysis of health impacts | 2 |
| Build it as a whole | 1 |
| Make it a budget/ election issue | 1 |
| Have a landscaping design contest | 1 |
| Solutions of other than traffic lights need to be developed to address safety concerns | 1 |
| More options need to be developed and assessed | 1 |
| Put the environment first | 1 |
| Civil disobedience | 1 |
| Control the bureaucracy | 1 |
| Limit the size of the road | 1 |
| Drop economic criteria from the evaluation | 1 |
| Increase taxes for rural / decrease for Alta Vista | 1 |
| Total number of Concerns* | 467 |
*The frequency of responses is greater than the number of completed Comment-Questionnaires as several individuals indicated numerous concerns and/or comments on project.
General Comments
Do you feel that the information and the format in which it was presented
at this Open House has given you a better understanding of the study?
The following combination of Yes and Somewhat comprised 78% of the responses.
| Yes | No | Somewhat |
| 107 | 56 | 86 |
If No, or Somewhat, please describe what we could do differently,
or what additional information you would like to have?
A total of 114 respondents offered comments on how to improve the Open House or what information they felt they would have like to have known. The most frequent response (27%) was that the presentation/ study was biased, to gain support for the preliminary preferred solution. Eighteen (18%) of the participants felt that they would have preferred a presentation with a Question and Answer period.
Table 4: Comments on the Open House
| Comments | Frequency of Response |
| Biased Study / Conflict of Interest - towards the preferred solution | 31 |
| The decision has already been made - not a consultation | 5 |
| No new information was provided | 5 |
| The need for the project is not clear on the boards | 5 |
| The information presented was too complicated | 4 |
| Too much information was presented | 4 |
| Good presentation - well prepared | 3 |
| The panel format is tiring for seniors | 1 |
| Explanation were political | 1 |
| Total | 57 |
Table 5: How to Improve the Open House
| Suggestions / Additional Information | Frequency of Response |
| Presentation and Q & A | 21 |
| Better explanation of process and methodology | 10 |
| Model/ depiction of the future road/ alternatives | 8 |
| Timeline for implementation | 7 |
| Make use of/ better use of website | 6 |
| Give citizens a vote/ a referendum | 5 |
| Provide the cost for all alternatives | 5 |
| What is the projected usage - cars and transit | 4 |
| Require a better understanding of the pros and cons of each alternative | 3 |
| Require more specific data on areas impacted | 3 |
| Spend less money - we don't need this much consultation | 3 |
| Organize small public meetings within the community | 3 |
| Give some indication of what has actually been completed | 1 |
| Give specific formation of impacts north of the River | 1 |
| More emphasis/ease of finding background reports | 1 |
| Consult with hospital land workers | 1 |
| Need information on the health impacts cost study | 1 |
| More Public Consultation (too much time in between) | 1 |
| Include the Public Advisory Committee | 1 |
| Where is the information from the Hospital Lands study? | 1 |
| Require specific scoring for each criteria | 1 |
| Total | 84 |
Other Comments
General comments were recorded that were not specific to the preliminary preferred alternative.
- I am concerned about the cuts to OC Transpo service made at the recent budget deliberations. (5)
- The Riverside/Smyth and Alta Vista/Smyth intersections need some work. (2)
- Sneaky way to gain support for Queensway collector lanes. (2)
- The City has been deceitful in Master Plan solutions. (2)
- Do not design a road like Conroy. (1)
- Would improve bus service downtown. (1)
- Rework side streets such as Bronson, Vanier Parkway and Riverside (1)
- The Aviation and Airport Parkways do not have many people living near them. (1)
- I hope this is more than lip service paid to the extension of the existing S/W Rapid Transit Route. (1)
- We always seem to be 10-20 years behind the need for roads and bridges. (1)
- Cycle pathways on arterial roads are not acceptable. (1)
- We don't need more buses. (1)
- Do not widen Conroy until transit is provided to the S.East (1),
- Threat of a mega Loblaws being constructed at the Walkley/Don Reid comer which poses a concern about even more traffic coming along Featherston/Ryder to access this store. (1)
- A light rail system could extend to cover Leitrim and Greely area connect with the existing rail system and extend along the old rail route into Overbrook and on to Vanier. (1)
- I found the Citizens for Healthy Communities with their opposing presentation much more credible.
Questions/Answers
The following questions were raised from the comments received.
- Why are there no bicycle lanes on the road? (There are.)
- Can an alternative be developed that does not link to Nicholas? (Not one that meets the 2021 travel requirements.)
- Has a decision already been made? (There is still further work to he done for the BA.)
- Has the cost of maintenance been included in the study? (Capital and Maintenance costs were developed to compare the alternative solutions. Detailed costs will be developed for the preferred solution for in the next stage of the study.)
- Is Delcan the only group proposing an alternative? (It is the study team's recommendation.)
- How could we, the public, truly have our views heard, analyzed and addressed? (Via Representatives on PAC, Open Houses and Transportation Committee.)
- How far away from the Hydro right-of-way will it be built and will the vegetation barrier remain? (To be determined in the study's next stage.)
- Does it meet Federal EA requirements? (To-date, the project has been planned within a Harmonized Federal Provincial EA framework)
- Why is a parking lot being built when the assessment is not complete? (Agreements are in place with the City and the Hospital Complex, such that the Corridor will be made available for road construction, if / when required.)
- I would like to know the status of the promised traffic survey along Featherston? (This matter is being addressed by the Traffic and Parking Operations Section of the Transportation, Utilities and Public Works Department.)
- Who represents the Canterbury Area on this study? (Canterbury Community Association-PAC)
- Where can the consultant's reports be viewed? (Some project Information is already available on the website, PAC Representatives had all of the reports prepared to date and the Environmental Assessment Report (documenting the entire study) will be compiled and made available for public review)
- Is there a website available that shows the City's Transportation Plans and when these starting dates are? (The City's Transportation Master Plan is located at: http://ottawa.ca/2020/transpo/toc_en.shtml)
- When is it scheduled to begin? (2) (Following the completion of the EA Study and upon Completion of design, the section from Riverside Drive to the Hospital Complex is planned for Phase 1 of the City's TMP 2008)