AVC (Alta Vista Corridor) Environmental Assessment

CITIZENS FOR HEALTHY COMMUNITIES 

Report on June 4^th Meeting

and

Results of Survey

A public meeting organized by Citizens for Healthy Communities was held on June 4, 2002 at Saint Paul University. The purpose of this meeting was to consider transportation alternatives for the south-east sector of the city and the downtown area.

Presentations on the various alternatives were made. John Sewell of Toronto delivered a keynote speech, entitled “Ottawa, A City of Corridors”. The question and answer period that followed showed a high level of interest in transportation issues and a deep concern about the proliferation of roads. 

Attendees were asked to complete a survey. 127 survey forms were submitted.

SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS RE: TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS

Light rail was clearly the preferred transportation solution of the respondents with 120 of the 127 who completed the survey supporting light rail. 80 of these indicated light rail is the only acceptable solution. The following are typical comments made by the respondents: 

Public transit (light rail) is the wave of the future -- inevitably we must move in that direction -- so we might as well start now. 

Why is there even a quibble about expanding the O-Train? We have so many European models that work.

Only four respondents felt additional roads would ameliorate transportation problems. Of these, two indicated support for improving other forms of transportation as well.

Give people the ability to commute using a method that meets their needs, and 80% of the commuters in the city seem to prefer automobiles. 

Increased traffic on collector roads, congesting them, will generate much more pollution than an efficient parkway. A transit only solution aids the relatively few at the cost of a much larger group of citizens. And does not solve the problem or meet the established need.

Those favouring other modes of public transit felt an expanded bus service including small buses on suburban collector routes would improve access to downtown and eliminate the need for additional costly roads. 

Several respondents cited the need for additional bicycle paths and lanes. Improved pedestrian facilities -- better sidewalks and safer crosswalks -- were also listed as important needs. 

TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA AND DECISION FACTORS 

Attendees noted a number of factors and considerations that should be taken into account when planning transportation solutions. 

Costs: 

24 respondents noted that roads appear to be the single most costly form of transit infrastructure and that this cost is borne by all including those who do not use cars. The high cost of road maintenance, snow removal and salting was also noted. It was felt that the costs related to pollution, loss of green space, health problems, and damage to the environment should be taken into account. 

I would like to see full funding for transit It is the only necessity for which we charge such a high user fee. The car is subsidized at least four times as much. If all taxpayers funded transit, it would be more fair. Currently, taxpayers without cars pay to support car use.

There is not enough money for schools, not enough for health care -- there seems to be unlimited money for highways and roads.

Health: 

76 respondents were concerned about the health problems related to automobile generated pollution. Traffic noise was also felt to impact on citizens general well-being and health.

More roads mean more cars, meaning more air pollution, more respiratory illness and more related deaths, more accidents. This is not a solution for a liveable city. Increasing energy efficient public transit and maintaining existing green space would be the best approach for our children.

Environment: 

75 respondents expressed concern over the loss of green space that would result from more roads. The negative impact of roads on the flora and fauna was noted. 

The main factor to me is environmental; i.e.,, loss of green space (less plant life to recycle carbon dioxide), air pollution, noise pollution, loss of habitat for other animals. We have become too lazy. We want to go from point A to point B with no physical effort.

Transportation: 

31 respondents felt that transportation efficiency is a critical criteria .For them, public transit is the most economical way of moving people downtown, especially at rush hour. 

It is of the utmost importance to choose the solution that reduces traffic to downtown. If you build a road, people will drive on it. The core is already saturated. 

Building more roads will never solve transportation problems. Public transit will move people.

Don’t build more roads; make better use of the ones we already have, ie., more bicycle lanes, street cars, etc. 

More traffic in the core area will necessitate more parking areas, the widening of the Queensway and increased traffic jams. 

Social: 

37 respondents expressed concern over the negative impact more roads would have on the social fabric of the community. Through roads and parkways are seen as barriers that isolate neighbourhoods and individuals. Excessive traffic is felt to sap the vitality of the city core. 

If a road -based corridor goes through, the effect on our neighbourhood would be a catastrophe.

Cars isolate us; public transit keeps us common. 

GENERAL COMMENTS

In general, many respondents felt that providing more roads for cars would be counter productive.

We need to solve our transportation problems using forward-looking ideas.

Planning solutions involving cars are old, poor planning - we can’t afford this.

Spending to create traffic jams is stupid. Gridlock is already upon us and additional paving is not a solution -- we’re running out of green space. Let’s concentrate on moving people, not cars.

Commuters will not leave their cars at home unless it becomes too time consuming and too expensive. Building more highways perpetuates the problem.

We have to break out of the culture of the car, where citizens believe it is their right to drive unhindered to whatever urban destination they please, when they please. This has led to the proliferation of roads, ground and upper atmosphere pollution with attendant costs to health and loss of green space.

OTHER ISSUES

Respondents noted a number of other issues:

*Energy conservation - Public transit makes more efficient use of precious energy resources. This is in keeping with the goals of the Kyoto Accord.

* The safety of children and seniors is a problem that more roads exacerbate.

* The need to preserve the allotment gardens.

* Concern regarding water quality and the impact of road salt on our water supply.

* A need for more federal and provincial funding of public transit.

* A need for more park and ride facilities.

* An Alta Vista Corridor road would necessitate a bridge across the Rideau River. This would be costly and would negatively impact the river ecology.

Finally, a number of respondents felt that the consultant, Delcan is in a possible conflict of interest situation.

It would appear that there is a conflict of interest with Delcan and the city.

Ensure that there is no conflict of interest between the agents performing the environmental assessment and those bidding to construct the transit.

Please note conflict of interest re: Delcan -- they lose half their contract dollars if they choose a ‘do-nothing’ option.

The decision to hire Delcan or any consultants should reside in our elected representatives, not city staff and the criteria of selection should be more open to public scrutiny.