 |
News Archive 2002 |  |
|
Queensway Expansion Backgrounder - Dec 02 New Proposals New proposals for expansion of the Provincially-controlled Queensway are on the table. These proposals are still at the consideration stage but many of them seem inconsistent with the direction expressed by the City of Ottawa in the new draft Official Plan. The City Plan states that “Land use policies and City initiatives that balance the provision of roads and public transport services must seek to capture a higher proportion of transit commuters than we do today”. At the very least, any Provincial proposals must take into account these intended directions. Collector Lanes a Bad Idea The proposals might surprise those familiar with
the recent history of the Queensway because just few years ago the
old Region of Ottawa-Carleton took the Queensway collector lanes
out of the official plan. They had been recognized as a bad idea.
The Region also sold off some of the land it was holding adjacent
to the Queensway for development (the south side of Harvey for instance)
and new homes have since been built there. Summary of Proposals Here is a summary of some of the proposals presented
at the first PAC meeting: Who to Contact If you cannot attend, please consider submitting
comments on this proposed plan at the Mauril Bélanger M.P., Room 315 East Block,
House of Commons, Ottawa, KIA 0A6 Brian Ruck, Consultant Project Manager, TSH engineers
architects planners, David Lindensmith, Senior Project Engineer, Planning
and Design Section, Heritage Houses - Waller-Nicholas Triangle - Nov 02 ASH Has a Guardian Role Action Sandy Hill (ASH), as the recognized community
association for a historic inner-city neighbourhood in Ottawa, has
always promoted and guarded the heritage character of the quarter
in which we live. In fact, Sandy Hill has by far the most
heritage plaques on its dwellings of any neighbourhood in the city.
Therefore, as various infill developments have been proposed, we
have been anxious to ensure that both those officially designated
heritage properties as well as those of heritage interest were not
destroyed in the construction process. Waller Triangle Background The 50 Laurier parcel of land has been of long-standing interest to ASH in this context. Ever since 1995 we have been concerned about the ultimate fate of the triangle within the perimeter of Waller and Nicholas Streets and Laurier Avenue which contained one building, Odell House, which enjoyed protection under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and four other houses which were of 'heritage interest', but not formally 'designated'. The ownership of this land has oscillated between the National Capital Commission (NCC) and the University of Ottawa, neither of which had any specific need for the land or the houses thereupon. In fact, both of these former owners finally decided that, save for Odell House, they would let the remainder of this property become a public parking lot. In the face of this likely but undesirable result, two of the ASH Board's Directors wrote an article for the Summer, 1999 edition of 'Heritage', the magazine of the Heritage Canada Foundation, entitled 'Heritage Precinct or Parking Lot? Options for a Gateway to Canada's National Capital'. Lepine proposal It was in the light of this background that ASH welcomed a proposal from Rene Lepine, a developer from Montreal, to build an apartment block on this site, in return for which he would buy the property from the NCC and preserve the five heritage houses on the periphery of the island. It soon became evident that one of the houses would not sustain rehabilitation and so the restoration effort shifted to the remaining four houses. At one time, the developer pointed out that two of the remaining houses seemed to be decayed to the point that they were unlikely to withstand being moved from their original sites and then repositioned along Waller Street, which was to become a vintage-era avenue. However, the City insisted that all four of the remaining houses be rehabilitated and the developer finally agreed that this would be done. Collapse and Demolition On Wednesday, November 15th, the northernmost house collapsed during the night and the next day, after an examination by a structural engineer, Mr Lepine and his associates took the unilateral decision to pull down the second house as it presented a physical danger to the workers on the site. The consequences of, and possible remedies to, this double disaster are now being considered by the lawyers and others directly (or indirectly) concerned. What's To Be Done? The position of ASH on this catastrophe is, of course, one of outrage that a heritage restoration project of such magnitude and importance has come to this pass. What can be done to resolve this dilemma is now being discussed with, inter alia, the developer, his lawyers, City planners and the Ward Councillor (Madeleine Meilleur). Action Sandy Hill will be a party to these discussions. The developer originally promised City officials to protect to protect the one 'designated' heritage house as well as the four other houses (later reduced to three) of 'heritage interest on the site. It was owing to this very promise that Groupe Lepine originally beat out the competition to develop the site. Now we're left with 17 stories and no definitie assurance that any of the three houses of heritage interest will be preserved. How Can You Help? We know you're proud of the built heritage of Sandy Hill, one of the oldest neighbourhoods in the City. And we know you want to ensure this never happens again. What are some of the things the City can do to make sure that Ottawa's heritage is protected? Let us know your thoughts - - we'll provide this feedback to the City. Send your feedback to info@ash-acs.ca ASH position on pesticide reduction issue - Nov 02 This is the text of a letter sent by Danna Leaman,
ASH Chair, Environment to the City of Ottawa Mayor and Councillors
on 20 November 2002. I am a resident of Sandy Hill. I am also Chair of
the Environment Committee of Action Sandy Hill, a community association
that represents the interests of Sandy Hill residents. Residents
of Sandy Hill strongly support the elimination of the cosmetic use
of lawn and garden pesticides in the City of Ottawa by the Spring
of 2003. Many of us have been actively involved in research and
education on this issue, and have participated in the City of Ottawa
public meetings where concerns about the cosmetic use of pesticides
have been addressed. We have legitimate and serious concerns about
the damaging effects of the toxic substances in pesticides on human
and environmental health. Medical and environmental experts consulted
on this issue support these concerns. The City of Ottawa staff report on a pesticide reduction
strategy for private property (Ref No. ACS2002-DEV-POL-0032) fails
to reflect the concerns expressed by residents of Sandy Hill, nor
does it adequately reflect the input of many residents of this city
to the public participation process. We are convinced that the weight
of medical, environmental, and public concern about the demonstrated
and unnecessary risks to health and environment strongly supports
a municipal bylaw restricting cosmetic use of pesticides in the
City of Ottawa. Voluntary measures on an issue of this importance
are not sufficient. A growing number of municipalities in Ontario and
throughout Canada have adopted and are successfully implementing
bylaws that reduce unnecessary exposure of the public and the environment
to risks from pesticide use. We believe a majority of citizens of
the City of Ottawa support this forthright approach by the Ottawa
City Council. As a resident of the City of Ottawa, and on behalf
of Action Sandy Hill, I strongly urge you to support a bylaw restricting
the cosmetic use of pesticides in the City of Ottawa." ASH position on the proposed Alta Vista corridor roadway - Nov 02 by Jon Legg, ASH Chair, Transportation - presented
to the City Council's Transportation and Transit Committee meeting
on Nov. 20, 2002 Bonjour Madame la présidente et Mesdames et Messieurs les Conseillers. Je m’appelle Jon Legg, et je représente Action Côte-de-Sable. I have the honour of also representing Action Sandy
Hill on the Public Advisory Committee. I try, however, to keep in
mind the overall interests of all residents of our still fairly
human city. Having lived in transportation disaster cities such
as Los Angeles, and dream cities such as Geneva, Switzerland, I
realize how short sighted it is to concentrate on the narrow interests
of a particular community. There are a number of things which have gone satisfactorily
so far with this EA, and above all has been the courtesy of the
members of the City staff and of the Consultant’s team. Unfortunately,
there are some serious things which have not gone well, and I would
like to try to describe these, and point out what you, our Councillors,
can do to correct them. I would like to make four main points in my five-minute presentation to you this morning:
When I say that there is an apparent pro-car bias
in the approach of City staff and the Consultant’s team, I
am not accusing any of these planners of bad faith or ill will.
I am simply saying that when a civil engineer who specializes in
municipal questions has received his or her training in how to ensure
that the traffic keeps flowing, and when most of the solutions to
problems have been solved during their professional careers by more
and wider roads, that is the natural bias which current problems
are approached. The health of the communities and the people who
wish to travel has not been, and apparently still is not, a major
factor to be considered. You will notice that whether the report is using
some of the technical tools of the trade such as screenlines, or
traffic counts such as passenger car units, there is an absence
of the attention given to the most important unit of all, the human
being who wishes to travel somewhere without damaging the adjacent
communities or for that matter, the planet we live on. You may recall that, from the Ontario Medical Association,
I have obtained what the health cost is estimated to be for Ottawa
from poor air quality in 2002 from premature deaths and illnesses.
For premature deaths, the current cost is 218 million dollars and
32 deaths. For air quality related illnesses, the cost to Ottawa’s
residents for 2002 is: $33.8 Million for health care costs and $29.4
Million as the cost of lost productivity. I regret to say that I find the section entitled
“Health Cost of Air Pollution” in the Report to be misleading.
The OMA computer model has been found to rock solid, and has been
shown not to be included in recent controversy to which the Report
refers. I do not wish to debate what Dr. Cushman’s views are
on this subject, but would simply point out that he chose to be
a keynote speaker at the rally for Light Rail last June. I am therefore asking you, Councillors, to insist,
as you did for Greenhouse gases when you set the Terms of Reference
for this EA, that the continuing health and death cost of facilitating
more cars be included as an economic criterion for evaluation purposes.
My second point refers to two other sections in
Part 5 of the Report; I would maintain that, in contrast to the
statement in part a), the evaluation process has not lived up to
the description of “traceable and transparent” for two
reasons. I regret very much that this report to you, Councillors,
does not include what the weighting is for all the evaluation criteria.
Because a small number of community representatives are reluctant
to have made public how their community associations think each
evaluation criterion should be weighted, the final weightings will
not be traceable. Because I see the planners as having a natural
pro-car bias, I hope the Consultant, who has a third of the numerical
influence (in addition to controlling the process as a whole) will
maintain the pledge that all of its weighting votes will be made
public. As to the transparency of the process, I can only say that
a process that took at least two meetings of the PAC simply to explain
the process, cannot be all that transparent. What you, Councillors, can do is to insist that
the weight given to each evaluation criteria is indeed traceable
and transparent. And, you may wish to question past practice for
the future, of giving the Consultant one third of the numerical
influence over the weightings. Thirdly, I would like to point out that in section
3(b), there is talk of “an imminent and identified need for
additional transportation system capacity, regardless of the outcome
of the environmental assessment for the AVTC as a whole.” When
the Alta Vista / Smyth Road Transportation Strategy was considered
by Council in August 2000, the Consultant’s report very rightly
pointed out that if a road were built in the Corridor for local
traffic needs, it would violate the principle of not pre-determining
– by piece-mealing - what might be built in the Corridor as
a whole. I would insist that any attempt to establish a roadway
in the minds of Councillors, as this section appears to attempt,
is a violation of the same principle of not piece-mealing which
was quoted over two years ago. You should insist, Councillors, on
this principle being respected now as it was then. Finally, Councillors, I would like to request that you respect the principles of Smartgrowth in your concrete decisions regarding this important EA, and not simply by supporting Smartgrowth in principle. Any popular theme is simple to support in principle, especially if it makes sense. It is more difficult to take concrete decisions in the interest of Ottawa as a whole, especially when they might appear not to correspond to the shorter-term opinions of your own constituents. As the time comes to take these concrete decisions, I would form of public transit rather than continuing with more roadways, which are the request that you have the political courage to choose the most efficient and less harmful type of public transit, and not support more cars, which would be the opposite to Smartgrowth. Our position The Board of Action Sandy Hill (ASH) believes that
a roadway through the Alta Vista Corridor would be harmful for Sandy
Hill, for Ottawa, and for all of the environment. The ASH Board
is fighting for a public transit alternative as a result of the
Alta Vista Transportation Corridor (AVTC) Background Since 1965, a corridor running North from the corner of Walkley and Conroy Roads has been saved for an “Alta Vista Parkway”. The Corridor goes North through Alta Vista and, if a roadway were recommended by the present EA, a new bridge would be built over the River, and the roadway would join the Queensway and Nicholas. We recommend a light rail link which would use rail lines already built to the Southeast sector, and which would go to Hurdman Station, the best-connected station of the Transitway. The EA’s objective is to recommend to City Council whether some new transportation infrastructure is necessary for the transportation needs of the Southeast sector of Ottawa over the next twenty years, and if so, what type. Why fight against a roadway and for electric light rail? We suspect that any alert observer of how the world’s
cities are evolving would say that the reasons for this position
are simply “common sense”. More roads result in more
cars, and more roads leading to the suburbs encourage more urban
sprawl. As far as Ottawa is concerned, why funnel more Three main groups of arguments explain ASH’s
position: quality of life, economic and environmental. Economically, a roadway alternative would mean heavy costs from the health effects, for a new bridge over the Rideau, and for longer-term effects such as urban sprawl. Environmentally, the negative effects range from planetary to local. A roadway would worsen the greenhouse gas situation, would gobble up precious green space and divide communities. It would ruin important plant and bird habitat along the AVTC, damage fish habitat in the Rideau River, and wipe out the many garden plots on the Corridor. So, in light of these expected adverse impacts, does it make sense to propose an urban highway in the AVTC? Are we being selfish or unrealistic? Are we Sandy Hillers selfish in trying to prevent people in the Southeast from using their cars to commute or are we simply anti-car? Emphatically, no, on both counts. Why opt for the daily stress of bumper-to-bumper traffic, when a comfortable, frequent and rapid light rail linkcould be available? Cars are great, in reasonable numbers; but for daily commuting, most Ottawans know that using cars is inefficient, unhealthy, and even irresponsible. What to do about the issue Phone Madeleine Meilleur’s office (580-2482) to let her or her staff know your views. Come to the meeting of City Council’s Transportation and Transit Committee of Wednesday November 20 at 9:30 a.m. and tell the Committee your views. Check the websites of both ASH (athttp://www.ash-acs.ca/) and Ottawa East (at http://www.ottawaeast.ca); the latter is devoted to this issue. Contact me at 789-6395 or transport@ash-acs.ca. By speaking out, we can convince City Council to adopt a healthier vision of Ottawa which involves moving more people, not more cars. |
|
 |
|
||||||||||||
