AVC, News and Status , Old News
News from previous years:
• Previous 2003 News
• Previous 2002 News
• Previous 2001 News
Previous 2003 News
The schedule for the project as updated in December 2003 indicates the next steps should be:
Part #3: Environmental Assessment - Alternative Design Phases, which is the final part in this Environmental Assessment which will include:
- Preliminary Site Design Criteria
- Develop Alternative Designs
- Advisory Committee Meetings
- Update Inventory of Existing Conditions
- Impact Assessment and Evaluation of Alternative Design
- Advisory Committee Meetings
- Refinement of Preferred Alternative
- Staging Plan and Preliminary Costing
- Impact Assessment and Mitigation and Monitoring
- Public Open House #3
- Preparation of Draft Environmental Assessment Report
- Final TAC Meeting
- Final PAC Meeting
- Final CSA Meeting
- Presentation to Transportation and Transit Committee #3
- Finalize Environmental Assessment Report
Over the course of the summer of 2003, the consultant under the direction of City staff has taken transit alternatives for the corridor off the table in this Environmental Assessment. This was done as a result of a study they did on their own, without participation from the PAC. Prior to the summer, the plan (as presented to Transportation & Transit Committee) had been to evaluate all alternatives including transit using the Concordance Method. Last winter the TAC (Technical Advisory Committee), PAC and consultants voted on priorities for evaluating all alternatives as part of the Concordance Method. Now, the plan is to only use these priorities to compare the following alternatives:
- Road (car based) alternatives inside the Alta Vista Corridor:
- (a) A 2-lane road from Conroy Road to the Nicholas Street/Queensway Interchange;
- (b) A 4-lane road from Conroy Road to the Nicholas Street/Queensway Interchange;
- (c) A 4-lane road with 2 lanes for general traffic and 2 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes from Conroy Road to the Nicholas Street/Queensway Interchange.
- Alternative routes outside the corridor using existing roads including Walkley, Heron, St. Laurent, Russsell, Industrial, Alta Vista, Bank and Riverside. For these roads potential widening will be considered. In all these cases, the segment of the Alta Vista Corridor which runs from Riverside to the Nicholas Street/Queensway Interchange would have a roadway and bridge across the Rideau River.
- Do nothing.
On November 20th 2002, Transportation and Transit Committee received a status report on the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the corridor and heard representations from about 45 citizens on the project. Two motions were put forth to amend terms associated with this EA: to strengthen the need to factor the costs of poor air quality in the alternatives being considered and to request that funding be only budgeted to implement transportation measures in the section of the corridor nearest to the hospitals (Smyth to Riverside) first in the near term. Some local newspapers published stories after the committee meeting implying the Alta Vista Parkway idea was dead. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Environmental Assessment project is alive and well and the preferred alternative has not been recommended yet.
On September 26th 2002, the first Open House at the RA Centre was held as part of the Environmental Assessment. Background details can be found at the City of Ottawa's web site on the Environmental Assessment for this project.
On June 4th 2002, Citizens for Healthy Communities organized two public events. They consisted of a Rally for Light Rail held at Ottawa City Hall during the noon hour and a public meeting in the evening at Saint Paul University where about 300 people attended a discussion of Alternatives for the Alta Vista Corridor. The agenda for the meeting included:
Traffic consequences of a road alternative, Pierre Johnson
Ottawa; City of Corridors, John Sewell
The good possibility for light rail in Alta Vista, David Jeanes
Myths surrounding Roads and Light Rail, Tim Sookocheff
Questions and answer period, chaired by Jon Legg
Photo: Etienne Gibeault
Text of John Sewell's talk can be found be clicking here. Text of Tim Sookocheff's talk can be found be clicking here. A brief summary of the road and rail alternatives discussed can be seen in the alternatives page of this site. Additional information on light rail can be found on the background page. People attending the meeting were given a survey to complete. The results showed very strong support for a David Jeanes proposal as well as objection to a road alternative in the corridor. A summary of responses from the survey is available on this site.The following is a summary of the big issue from the June 5th 2002 Public Advisory Committee (PAC) meeting (the revelation that the consultant who is one of the parties who stands to gain substantially from a roadway will have the greatest say in the Concordance Method):
Criteria for evaluating the "preferred alternative" are being prioritized. The PAC's votes count for a third, the Technical Advisory Committee's votes count for one third and the consultant (Delcan) gets a vote to cover the last third. The PAC consists of community representatives some of whom favour a roadway and many of whom do not. More than half of the TAC (Technical Advisory Committee) is composed of City staff. The consultants stand to make the most money from a road project (assuming they get subsequent contracts and their past track record at getting contracts for projects they recommend is good). One can expect some division of opinion from the PAC, and the TAC may have varied points of view but it seems hard to believe Delcan won't be more single minded in casting their vote. Ultimately, City staff are responsible for directing Delcan who effectively have the greatest influence of any single player over the outcome of prioritizing the criteria. See the text of the presentation made to Transportation and Transit Committee by Jon Legg which covers this subject in the context of the King Edward Avenue Environmental Assessment for more details.
There was a PAC meeting on April 25th. The following summary of that meeting was prepared by Heather Humphries:
Public Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting #2 April 25, 2002
The second meeting of the PAC for the environmental assessment (EA) of the Alta Vista Corridor met on Thursday, April 25. The meeting was devoted to the discussion of several technical documents that had been prepared by Delcan, the consulting firm hired to complete the EA. This report will highlight EA process decisions that were made, and describe the discussions about each of the technical documents.
Process: many of the documents under discussion had not been distributed far enough in advance to permit adequate review. The consultants have made a commitment to issue future documents a month in advance to permit consultation by the PAC members with their respective constituencies. Many PAC members want an iterative discussion process for the development of these documents; others preferred that the “discussion” take place by e-mail. A compromise was reached, whereby individual members will submit their comments to the consultant for distribution to all members, with subsequent discussion of the comments to occur at the next PAC meeting.
Study Design Document:
The Study Design Document is a 46-page document that outlines the tasks and processes to be undertaken in the environmental assessment. The first version of the document was presented to PAC at the October meeting; subsequent comments from PAC members were reviewed, and some changes were made.
The document must be “evergreen”, sufficiently flexible to permit it to respond to changes in circumstances. In particular, the time schedule for various components of the environmental study will have to be adjusted, as it is too aggressive in its targets for Public Open Houses and meetings of the Public Advisory Committee. Delcan agreed that many of the dates for these meetings would have to be postponed. In particular, the first Public Open House will now not likely occur before September.
Tasks in the revised document still focused only on the Alta Vista Corridor. After much pressure, Delcan has agreed to look at alternate routes during the review. (The assessment of alternate routes is a requirement of the consultant’s Statement of Work as approved by City Council.)
Delcan has also been asked to modify the Study Design and study area definitions to include the assessment of cumulative effects, and effects on downstream communities.
Needs Assessment:
This intention of this document is to establish that a need exists to build a transportation facility in the Alta Vista Corridor. The consultant attempts to prove the need by assessing current traffic capacity at various intersections and across screenlines in the study area, and by predicting how traffic would increase between now and 2021, based on the City of Ottawa’s projected population figures.
The calculations are based on certain assumptions:
- That no screenlines are necessary north of the Queensway, or east of the Alta Vista Corridor, or west of the Alta Vista Corridor;
- That the intersections chosen to measure capacity are representative;
- That all the additional facilities listed on page 3 of the document will be in place, although no demand side management projects are listed among them;
- That the very aggressive population targets, established before the technology slump, will be met;
- That ease of travelling to the downtown core is valued more highly than is greenspace, or clean air, and that the need to provide transportation capacity can be assessed wholly in these terms; and
- That the population of the City of Ottawa will grow more rapidly in the suburbs than in the inner core, despite evidence to the contrary in the past year. This assumption is opposed to the “Smart Growth’ densification that will be one of the guiding principles of the new City Official Plan;
- That need can only be shown in terms of intersection capacity; and
- That there is no need to assess the ability of downstream communities to absorb more automobiles.
The document does not show the other side of needs assessment, the justification of need. Because of that imbalance, all that the consultant is able to show is that, based on his assumptions, there would likely be more vehicles at major intersections in the study area in 2021, unless more infrastructure is built. No attempt is made to assess public transit capacity, or current capacity of Park and Ride lots.
The assumptions on which the data is based are either faulty or too uncertain to justify the damage to the environment or the massive cost of building a highway in the Alta Vista Corridor.
The Needs Assessment document will be discussed again at the next PAC meeting.
Existing Conditions Report:
This document attempts to describe the existing environment, bio-physical, social and economic. By describing the environment and identifying possible impacts of the proposed project, the consultant should be able to predict if the proposal will cause significant environmental damage. This enables appropriate mitigation measures to be developed or, if predicted impacts are adverse and significant and cannot be mitigated, the proposal may be abandoned.
Because of the consultant’s fixation with the Alta Vista Corridor as the only route to consider, data is only produced for this area. The data on flora and fauna appears to be comprehensive. Data on air quality and noise pollution is incomplete.
PAC members have been asked to comment on this document before the next meeting. My comments will be general in nature, focussing on the need to include downstream communities in the study area described in the report, on the need to do more rigourous and extensive sampling of air quality and noise pollution levels, and on the need to identify and assess alternate routes.
The next meeting of the Public Advisory Committee is expected to take place in the first week of June. The agenda will include continued discussion of the Needs Assessment and Existing Conditions documents. Assuming that a need for additional transportation structure is established, the meeting will also include a preliminary discussion of the criteria by which various alternative solutions to the need will be evaluated. This will probably be the most important meeting of the Public Advisory Committee.
If any resident of Old Ottawa East is interested in reading the documents described, copies may be obtained from Christopher Gordon at the City of Ottawa. If you would like to discuss the approach I am taking in representing you on PAC, please feel free to call me at 567-8796.
Public meetings in 2001 were as follows:
On November 20th a public meeting was held at the Canterbury Community Centre (a copy of the flyer created promoting the event). This session was organized by the community to have a alternatives to a highway presented and discussed. Presentations were made on the Ottawa 2020 Smart Growth Summit, Light Rail alternatives and on the City Centre Coalition's losses and victories on the Bronson/Airport Parkway. This was the first major public meeting since the Environmental Assessment process has begun.
A second public meeting on the Alta Vista Transportation Corridor was held on Wednesday, December 12th, 2001 at Hillcrest High School. The meeting was hosted by City Staff and their consultant, Delcan Corporation. This meeting gave attendees an opportunity to speak directly to the decision makers in this process. See the City of Ottawa's Alta Vista Corridor site for summaries of what was presented. If you missed the Dec. 12th meeting see the section on what you can do.
A Public Advisory Committee (PAC) has been set up by the city for the Alta Vista Transportation Corridor with representation from community groups in the target area. A summary prepared by Heather Humphries of the first meeting follows:Public Advisory Committee (PAC)
Alta Vista Transportation Corridor Environmental Assessment
The Public Advisory Committee (PAC) for the Alta Vista Transportation Corridor Environmental Assessment held its first meeting on October 24. The objectives of the meeting were to introduce consultants who would be conducting the environmental study and discuss their general approach to the review.
Delcan is the prime consulting firm, with additional expertise to be provided by McCormick Rankin; Jacques Whitford; Niblett Environmental Associates; et al, during the course of the study. Christopher Gordon is listed as the Project Manager, on behalf of the City of Ottawa, although the initial PAC meeting was chaired by Vivi Chi, his director.
PAC members are expected to represent the interests of residents, land owners/users and interest groups in their part of the study area, and will disseminate information to the organization they represent. During the course of the environmental study, they will become informed and involved in the assessment of environmental effects, and will participate in the development of alternatives, working towards consensus for actions and approvals.
There was some initial discussion of project issues. The study design as worded appears based on the premise that the only routing possible for any transportation solution is through the Alta Vista Corridor. This premise will be raised by PAC members again, as it appears possible and necessary to consider other routes in order to provide the desired transit or transportation capacity.
Members of PAC are divided in their positions, with some favouring the building of a highway and others being strongly opposed. One PAC member suggested that we spend some time discovering commonalities in the initial stages of our discussions, and build on these to develop consensus on various issues. Several members supported this approach.
The draft study design document was distributed to PAC members for review and comment. The document identifies the various tasks and activities, and their expected sequence and timelines. It also identifies the opportunities for broader consultation with the public at Open Houses. PAC member comments, due by November 7th , will be integrated into the finalized document.