More media

From the New Hamburg Independant:
New highway corridor proposal saves farms

Letters to the Editor and More!!!

PREFERRED CORRIDOR' FOR HWY. 7/8 TOO DISRUPTIVE

LATEST PLAN FOR PREFERRED ROUTE FOR HWY. 7/8 EXPANSION ALARMING

This was on the frontpage of yesterday's Beacon:

Councillors critical of corridor

New - PIC # 3 dates

The timing for the next round of Public Information Centres (PICs) is now confirmed. The PICs will be held on:

• Tuesday July 21, 2009 at the Festival Inn in Stratford from 5:00 pm to 9:00 pm
• Wednesday July 22, 2009 at the Wilmot Recreation Complex in Baden from 5:00 pm to 9:00 pm
• Tuesday August 11, 2009 at the Shakespeare and District Optimist Hall in Shakespeare from 5:00 pm to 9:00 pm
  

The following information will be presented:

• Evaluation of the short list of corridor alternatives and the selection of the preferred corridor;
  
• Environmental conditions and constraints within the preferred corridor;
  
• Highway widening / route alternatives that have been generated for the various sections of the preferred corridor; and
  
• Process and criteria to be used for the assessment and evaluation of these highway widening / route alternatives.

More Local News Items

Here are some more local media items on the corridor:

From the Beacon :

Tunnel, flyover among possible solutions?

From the Beacon Letters to the Editor:

Historic buildings, communities not disposable

HighWay Really Hits The News!

This past week, the Municipalities of Perth East, Perth South and Stratford all received their sneak peek of the Consultants' recommendation of the preferred corridor for an improved Highway 7 and 8. Below is an Editorial and several articles about the issue .

From the Stratford Beacon Herald, below are two articles and and editorial. Click on the title to read:

Farmland may be spared in proposed highway expansion


Historical society says inn off limits


A road runs through it

MTO Responds to ABC's May 29th letter

We have copied the MTO letter to this website and for the record the origional is available through the Scribd window.

Ministry of Transportation Ministère des Transports

Engineering Office Bureau du génie
Planning and Design Section Section de planification et de conception
West Region Région du Ouest

659 Exeter Road 659, chemin Exeter
London, Ontario N6E 1L3 London (Ontario) N6E 1L3
Telephone: (519) 873-4550 Téléphone: (519) 873-4550
Facsimile: (519) 873-4600 Télécopieur: (519) 873-4600


June 4, 2009

Agriculture Business Community of
Perth East, Perth South and Wilmot West,
c/o 3649 Road 107
RR#2
Tavistock, ON
N0B 2R0


Dear Ms. Dietrich:

RE: Highway 7&8 Transportation Corridor Planning and Class EA Study
Greater Stratford to New Hamburg Area, GWP 13-00-00



Thank you for the Agricultural Business Community (ABC) letter of May 29, 2009 regarding the captioned study. We are pleased to provide a response.

As you indicated, your letter reiterates your main positions, and for the most part, our April 21, 2009 response on those issues stands. However, we feel that it is appropriate to provide you with new information regarding the consideration of agriculture in the evaluation process, and with clarification regarding the status of the study team response to the ABC ‘Volume 1’ and ‘Volume 2’ submissions of September, 2008.

Consideration of Agriculture in the Evaluation of the Short List of Corridor Alternatives

As we indicated in our letter of April 21, 2009, we have modified our evaluation process by giving agriculture its own evaluation factor (rather than being a sub-factor under “land use resources”).

In preparing for the evaluation of the short list of corridor alternatives that is currently under way, the study team has further enhanced the process by consolidating elements of other evaluation factors/sub-factors under agriculture, which provided it with four evaluation criteria (and associated indicators), as follows:

1. Agriculture - Canada Land Inventory Class 1, 2, 3 land
-Potential to affect specialty crop areas and/or areas of Canada Land Inventory Classes 1,2,3 land

2. Agriculture - Farm Infrastructure
-Potential to affect farm infrastructure (field tile systems/outlets, irrigation systems, barns/silos/structures, etc)

3. Agriculture - Operations on Individual Farms
-Potential to sever/disrupt in-farm field operations (planting, harvesting, grazing, nutrient management, etc.)

4. Agriculture – Transportation Linkages Between Multiple Farm Operations
-Potential to sever/disrupt transportation linkages between multiple-farm operations (movement between linked multiple-farm operations of equipment, materials, workers, etc.)

While this expansion of agriculture evaluation criteria has resulted in a minor degree of duplication relative to some issues, we believe that it has also resulted in agriculture (and “the business of agriculture”) being given a more appropriate level of consideration in the evaluation of the short list of corridor alternatives. Some of the other elements of the evaluation process that are of interest/concern to stakeholders beyond the agriculture community remain unchanged, as follows:

· With respect to farm infrastructure (criterion #2 above), the broader issue of wells will continue to be addressed under the groundwater factor, and the broader issue of drainage along and across transportation rights-of-way will continue to be addressed as part of “drainage and hydrology engineering” that is undertaken for the selected alternative.

· With respect to transportation linkages between multiple-farm operations (criterion #4 above), the generic issue of shipments to/from farms will continue to be covered under the broader transportation sub-factor “movement of goods”; and the generic issue of farm resident/worker movement to/from farms will continue to be covered under the broader transportation sub-factor “movement of people”. The movement of equipment, materials and workers between multiple-farm operations will occur in the context of increased overall traffic within the analysis area regardless of the alternative selected.

· Rural heritage will continue to be covered under the cultural environment sub-factors, which include, but are not restricted to:
buildings or standing sites of architectural or heritage significance, or Ontario Heritage Foundation easement properties;
heritage bridges; and
areas of historic 19th century settlement.

We look forward to sharing the results of this evaluation at Public Information Centre #3, which will present the preferred corridor, and new route or highway widening alternatives that will be generated for each section of the preferred corridor.

All of the above clearly indicates that the study recognizes the importance of agriculture, agricultural land, agricultural operations, and the associated provincial policies. However, it must also be recognized that the transportation policies of the province require corridors to be identified and protected to meet current and projected needs for various travel modes. We suggest that the evaluation process provides recognition and transparency relative to both of the above.

Study Team Response to ABC ‘Volume 1’ and ‘Volume 2’ Submissions of September 2008

As you will recall, the ABC ‘Volume 1’ submission dated September 15, 2008 consisted of 26 specific questions, and the ABC ‘Volume 2’ submission dated September 30, 2008, consisted of a community report arranged under six major headings.

Receipt of the ABC Volume 2 submission was acknowledged by Brenda Jamieson on September 30, 2009, by email to ABC members Gail Stacey, Gary Wagler, Jamie Gibb, Linda Dietrich, Marg Van Nes, Paula Neice, Sharon Weitzel and Wayne Wagler.

The study team carefully reviewed both submissions, and because of the obvious overlap of issues, interpreted the Volume 2 submission to be background information for the preparation of its responses to each of the questions in the ABC ‘Volume 1’ submission. We apologize that this was not made clear in our response.

The ongoing input from ABC is much appreciated.

Sincerely,

Charles Organ, C.E.T.
Project Manager
Ministry of Transportation, West Region
Planning and Design Section



MTO Response Letter 0609

ABC Replies to Consultants

Hi everyone.

Below is the letter of response ABC sent to MTO and the Consultants. It is our reply to the April 22nd response from the Consultants in which they attempt to answer the Recommendations ABC submitted for PIC 2b.

Charles Organ C.E.T.
MTO South Western Region
Project Manager
Planning and Design Section
659 Exeter Road
London ON
N6E 1L3

Brenda Jamieson, P.Eng.
Consultant Project Manager
AECOM
300 Water Street,
Whitby, Ontario
L1N 9J2


In response to your letter to the Agricultural Business Community (ABC) dated April 21/2009 in which you formally respond to our Volume 3 comments regarding PIC #2B. For purposes of clarity our further comments found below reference specific pages of your April 21st letter.

Initially we must say that ABC applauds the consultants and MTO for maintaining an open dialogue around key agri-business issues pertaining to the corridor's planning. Secondly we very much appreciate the time and effort devoted to input and concerns of ABC including your detailed letter of April 21st. We recognize that you have many conflicting stakeholders to serve and satisfy. However some of these stakeholders are directly affected, most notably the agricultural landowners, so we expect you will understand our need to firmly reiterate our main positions.

1. Screening Criteria for the Long List of Corridor Alternatives (Pages 3,4)

“The screening used a 'reasoned' approach in which there was no weighting of the screening criteria against one another. The results in all screening criteria have the same weight. ...... Potential impacts are not quantified at the corridor evaluation stage.”

While we understand the methodology referred to above, we still firmly believe that any 'reasoned approach' which lacks quantifiable data must inevitably involve a hierarchy of subjectively preferred values. The trade-offs in any list of 7/8 corridor options is not enviable. Does the province wish to further advocate food production or pavement? Is a wetland more or less important than heritage buildings? These decisions ultimately involve value preferences. ABC is not opposed to the application of value preferences. Indeed, all difficult decisions require value guidance. We only ask for their recognition and transparency when applied.

2. Agriculture Land Receives Lower Weighting in Decisions (Page 5)

“We are enhancing our approach by giving agriculture its own evaluation factor and by splitting agriculture into two evaluation criteria: a) the CLI Class; and b) the type of farm operation/infrastructure.”


ABC views that this is a significant enhancement to the evaluation methodology and we are pleased with your creative flexibility given the overwhelmingly tight parameters which constrain the EA study. As we understand the methodology, these new relative weightings will be applied to agriculture in the next detailed planning phase, where quantifiable trade-offs can be assessed for specific route planning.

3. Rural Heritage is Absent (Page 6)

ABC will continue to advocate for protection of agricultural and rural heritage, both built heritage and cultural heritage. The biases we noted in our two earlier briefs regarding rural heritage remain un-addressed. Therefore, this points to a serious flaw in the current design of MTO Class EA studies, which will need to be rectified.

“It should be noted that it is premature to assume location-specific potential heritage impacts since a preferred corridor has not been selected.”

ABC wishes to advise you that when route planning begins we will be monitoring and acting on any perceived threats to rural heritage presented by either the selected corridor or routes within it.

4. Questions of Need (Pages 7, 8, 9)

We continue to respectfully disagree about estimates made by both your firm and MTO regarding population and transportation needs.

a) The population projections for regional growth are based on questionable estimates for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and are not credible.

b) The 7/8 transportation survey, done in 2004, has a 'summer-traffic' bias and precedes the recent oil and energy crisis which is adjusting travel patterns.

c) Truck and commercial vehicle surveys for the province may have been considered but any that specifically apply to this corridor have not been done.

d) Your traffic projections have already been challenged by municipal experts and yet your estimates continue to remain un-revised.

“Widening Perth Line 33 ... may provide sufficient theoretical capacity to accommodate future demands .... [But] the use and widening of municipal roads is an area transportation option that is not being carried forward ...” (your emphasis)

For most local residents further upgrading of Line 33 is a logical traffic management technique for reducing density on the existing 7/8 corridor and this has been so for decades. Yet this option was unwisely ruled out even before the first set of corridor options were presented in the summer of 2008.


5.Drainage (page 10, 11)

“The engineering standards for this work are rigorous state of the art requirements of the MTO Drainage Manual, which is used as a reference by many authorities including many municipalities.”

ABC does not dispute the quality of professional engineering standards to be applied but ABC is concerned about their actual field implementation. The experience of many farmers is that MTO road contractors do not satisfactorily complete drainage obligations or else they do not understand their central importance.

ABC very much appreciates the undertaking and commitment by MTO to pay for the costs associated with system modifications by licensed drainage contractors to mitigate impacts on agricultural private tile drainage systems.

However, MTO is asking all affected municipalities and private land owners to 'have faith' in its professional staff regarding their planning for drainage and to 'believe' that road contractors will understand and complete all the work to the satisfaction of affected parties. To protect affected parties, ABC will continue to press for a viable option for 'peer review' of any drainage plans devised for the selected corridor and route.



6. Public Consultation (Page 11, 12, 13)

Despite your protestations about the reputed efficacy of the PIC's, ABC will continue to ask for formal presentations by the consultants and MTO followed by question and answer sessions as an alternative to the PIC’s. We believe that communities need to hear their voices together. We very much appreciate that the consultants and MTO staff have from time to time agreed to such formal meetings and hope they will be open in future to such alternatives.

The extension of PIC's to 9:00 p.m. was duly noted by ABC and was seen as a positive step to encourage rural participation. The consultants and MTO should also be mindful that the end of June is one of the most hectic periods in the farm calendar.

Conclusion

ABC remains committed to seeking solutions for Highway 7/8 alternatives that will minimize the impact on the agricultural land base and on agricultural businesses while still encouraging future road development and enhancing public safety. We thank you for your attention and for this opportunity to express our positions.



Linda Dietrich p.p.

Agriculture Business Community of Perth East, Perth South and Wilmot West

Scribd document coming soon!