MTQ information session on highway 5 "spaghetti junction" extension

Last night was awesome, thank you all for coming out, asking questions and making noise. The following is a report of the meeting from Rita Komendant and myself.

 

Several people stepped up to remind the officials that the consultations and studies were done too long ago- the Population had changed and awareness of the fragility of the Environmnet has grown. We are going to have to give Louis the CONFIDENCE and ammunition to take this on.

EVERYONE is on the same page now
 water,
 animals,
 culture
 history
 where and when was the public consultation

It's important to know that if the EA study shows residual or unknown significant environmental impacts that are deemed unacceptable (to the community), that the project could be delayed or even cancelled. We need a ground swell with all the right reasons/rationale/arguments. It is evident that much work and patience will be required down the highway....

 

- Meeting Synopsis -

- Hall Packed.(~150 people?) (the parking lot was also packed which made me wonder why did so many people from Wakefield have to drive to Masham for a meeting that was mainly about Wakefield? The meeting clearly should have been in Wakefield, maybe Vorlage?)
- Ricard was Chairman  (he inserted several times that they are just the messengers and by law consultations were done and they can't hinder or change the process, people should pressure the MNA and Deputy (Cannon and Vallé) as well as NCC and Transport Canada)
- Bussiere and Rompre were there but did not say anything
- Long Drawings not on boards, flat on tables (hard to see how the proposed "spaghetti junction" was supposed to actually work)

Details of CIMA plan (Jean Francois Roy - Engineer):

2010-05-19 - seance d'info

2010-04-22 - final concept

2010-01-15 - before project (preliminaire)

2009-10-27 - date d'emission du plan)
- 1 rep from NCC (defered everything with: "I am not an expert")
- 2 Consultants to MTQ (the real Engineers - from Tecsult?)
- 2 MTQ guys (they were both real quiet - one guy did not say a word all night)

- Power point show (cleverly . . .or not, had the 2 sections seperated = long drawings) so IMPACT of mountain removal NOT obvious (to untrained eyes)
- Presentation sequence: (all en francais) (death by PowerPoint, nothing new, somewhat pedantic)
a) History (nothing about culture and 'real' history) (Environmental assessment under provinical BAPE process on-going since 1980's (early 1990's process initiated in La Peche and bumped up to Federal level due to involvement of NCC and Transport Canada)
b) Location (a reveiw about land gathering for the project Chelsea, the bypass etc etc other sections) (MTQ land allowance corridor was made many years ago to avoid expropriation issue - but were abandoned along 105 which forces the current stand alone highway monstrocity)
c) stressed numerous times that this phase II project is at the preliminary stage - no construction can begin until all studies are completed and recommendations for mitigation measures acted on. The design thus far is just 'Global' meaning - its a concept they arrived on based on certain criteria for the concept- motherhood statements like:
 1. need a safe(r) road (proposed extension is 3.7 km)
 2. the numbers warrant it 11,000 a day 15,000 on weeeknds
 and a bunch of other unnecessary info i jetisonned from my brain*
 3. accident statistics

 4. need to comply with topography and scenery (I don't think they were talking about natural scenery here...)

 5. need for geomorphology up-front work to focus on "risk areas (such as Valley Drive spring and local wells to ensure that when consturction is complete, there will be sufficient water volume and quality for users)

 6. Harper is handing out some money

>ding<
 Questiontime:

This was no doubt the best and most informative part of the evening and there was no shortage of people lining up to ask questions and voice their concerns. Here are a few: 

 

- Stan Carlson: asked about measures for wildlife movement under bridges (like 3 culverts used in Chelsea). Response was env. studies underway to comply with EA laws and recommendations will be integrated into plans to protect wildlife movement.

 

- Peter Andree got up and did a great job at summing up the key concerns from our meeting at Helene Anne's place last week. (what will be consultation process over next 6 mths - year? Will there be a Brown's lake access and are studies being done to ensure no damage to aquifer?.

  
- A woman from Masham was concerned with the accessibility to the hospital (now compromised by this design). This was touched by another woman who felt that the proposed round-abouts could slow response time for ambulance and fire trucks.

 

- Question about # 52 Trail and how will it work. There is a second multipurpose trail to be built between the 2 traffic circles (no other trails planned).While it is good that bicycles and walkers can access the park, riding a bike through the spaghetti junction will not be pleasant (Ken Bouchard said cycling path will be under all highways)

 

- Mike White made an empassioned plea as did Peter Everitt for protecting the aquifer and probably link to Valley Drive spring (will blasting of mountain damage aquifer? What about noise impact on wildlife at Brown's lake?  (response was the team is well aware of the community concern for Valley Drive spring)

 

- Neil Faulkner reiterated that the spring is essential (high quality water source) to the community and beyond. Environmental studies underway must ensure the spring will not be impacted and will completed studies be shared with residents?. Ricard said he would make these available via website etc). Consultants admitted some studies have not been done for sensitive issues - ie. Hydrology, animal movements etc.

- Rita asked:  "Where am I . . .L.A.? (waving at the power point show on the screen). Guys- when you were drawing this- didn't you think we are trying to do too much? Solve ALL the access points. She had never seen so much overkill in design.  Loop-de-loops. laneways, split approaches. Masham's needs are now our problem to disperse because of the elevation constraints and bad soils (e.g., 366 access was devised due to technical engineering problems with soft soils, leda clay etc.). TOO many variables, must be simplified (too many things in the interchange area). Rita mentioned the Animals- its easy for them to cross one sheet of pavement, WHAT are they going to do when they encounter this spaghetti tangle.  Is it going to be like Banff- with 30 foot high corridor of fences and overpasses for animal crossings???

 

- Some people saw the overkill as a make-work project (e.g., is the round-about for the 366 link necessary? Engineers said yes because of topography (grade is too low and too much fill would be required to raise highway) and the soils around La Peche river are not adequate (too soft?)

 

- Jay said that 25 year old data is being used to base decisions on (is this still relevant?) and that EA is at low "screening" level. Is it possible to "bump up" the EA process to more in-depth study with public consultation? Response was maybe, but this depends on NCC and Transport Canada and if environmental studies show serious impacts or significant unknown impacts (Ricard will get a contact person from TC involved in EA studies and share with residents)

 

- Lawrence brought up some good points (protection of aquifer, access to Brown's lake). Response was that any access tunnel to Brown's lake is not MTQ issue and must be directed to NCC (they are obviously not in favour of this)

- Sean Butler asked why the 105 can't be widened? (response was that allowances are not adequate and shoulders are soft and too many expropriations would be required)

 

- A good question asked was when will environmental and hydrogeology studies be completed and will they be shared with public and more important, be able to influence the overall EA study? (response was that no dates for completion are available but information will be forwarded to Ricard - no construction can be authorized until studies are completed and recommendations are integrated into the specification plans)

 

- Leane Benoit asked what happens if a link is established with the spring? (response was that solutions will have to be found - when asked if this could include moving the highway to a new location, the engineer said it could go that far and that it could delay the project)

 

- Chris Halloway asked if we can get assurance that construction on highway will not happen until consultations and studies are completed? (Ricard responded by saying that a legal injunction may be possible)

 

P.S. someone asked if any studies had been done to quantify the use of the Valley Drive spring? Ricard said he didn't know of any and would check into it. It was proposed that Council could hire a student to count the # of users/water jugs being filled at the spring, Ricard said yes, he'd look  into it. This is something that our group may want to consider doing or assisting. It can raise our profile and make an important argument for the safeguarding of this precious resource.

P.S.S - There were no questions about what kind of lighting was planned for the interchange, but it's clear there will be significant light pollution resulting from this. Also, will it be possible to erect barriers like Queensway to limit noise pollution to Brown's lake?)