Fall Update
Earlier this year the Minister of Transportation wrote to ABC. ABC thought long and hard about what was being offered to us by the Minister of Transportation. (See letter at www.hwy7and8.blogspot.com )
A volunteer meeting to consider all options was held. As it was high season for agriculture in a difficult year, we asked for time to consider what the Minister was suggesting. ABC again did more research and had decided to refuse the Minister.
Before we took that final step we asked Mr. Wilkinson, MPP for advice about our response for the Minister. Mr. Wilkinson eventually facilitated a meeting to see if there was any common ground. The letter of Aug 1st is the result.
ABC has held meetings over the summer to try to identify the MTO next steps. At this time the selected route has not been confirmed.
We continue to stress the importance of retaining agricultural land and businesses and the potential impacts to our livelihoods that would result from restricted road access.
More recently we spoke with the MTO Regional Director for the study area about the issues.
A copy of the letter to the Minister of Transportation summarizing the meeting with ABC and MTO staff has been posted to the website.
Read the letter for all the details at : www.hwy7and8.blogspot.com
Monday, September 19, 2011
Friday, June 17, 2011
Minister of Transportation Responds to PIC concerns
Earlier this spring, ABC responded to the March PIC deadline . At that time letters of concern were forwarded to both the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Transportation as the result of material sent to ABC by the consultants. The Minister of Transportation responded to our concerns and her letter is below. ABC called a volunteer meeting at that point to discuss possible responses. Any strategy or direction we finally take will be vetted by the volunteers and the Executive of ABC. The response sent back to the Minister is further down this page.
3167 signed[1]
Minister of Transportation PIC 4 05132011[1]
3167 signed[1]
Minister of Transportation PIC 4 05132011[1]
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Another Letter to the Editor
Highway 7/8 expansion could lead to ruin for some farmers........ We are writing in response to our conversation at the Shakespeare Hall on Jan. 18 with representatives of the Ministry of Transportation and their consultants. We were shocked to learn that the proposed route for the Highway 7/8 corridor would run directly south of our property, Alpaca Acres (Lot 25, Concession 1, Perth East). The impact of this proposal would be devastating to our business and would shatter our dreams for our retirement and our plans of building a business that could be passed onto our son. more.....
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Letter to the Editor March 22nd, 2011
Latest Highway 7/8 route not better
Contrary a Point of View which appeared in The Beacon Herald, most people are unhappy with MTO's path of least resistance.
The comments in the paper are beyond absurd that a swing road south of Shakespeare is the lesser of two evils as this path forces the road not just around Shakespeare, but to continue for 9 kilometres through highly- productive farm land all the way to Stratford.
This option not only destroys quality farm land, but also brings added cost to all the farm businesses, as it restricts normal farm movement to other properties which are vital parts of their operation.
Farms are no longer single parcels of land, but many parcels, both owned and rented. A farmer needs this to be competitive but most of all good land stewards; rotating crops and wise use of animal compost.
In terms that non-farmers can understand this section of road would take out approximately 530 acres. If it were all planted in wheat, at 42 loaves of bread per bushel, you would lose 1,335,600 loaves of bread per year.
As The Beacon Herald article said but reversed. Logic would dictate that it needs to take a route that will have the least amount of negative impact. To that end, the RURAL route should be off the table and enter Shakespeare instead.
As for other vital information on the MTO and the study team, they have a huge list of guidelines to help them find a preferred route. They have failed on almost every one!
Guideline #1. Efficient use shall be made of existing and planned infrastructure -(not making efficient use of existing hwy 7&8).
#2. Encourage more compact communities with services, shops, and businesses. -(Shakespeare will become a ghost town by redirecting traffic around the village).
#3. Curb urban sprawl as best possible -(they are encouraging urban sprawl with a new Highway 7&8).
#4. Preserve green space and agriculture lands - (they are doing anything but with this new route).
#5. Cut down on car dependency -(they are encouraging more commuters).
#6. Contribute to better air quality -- (encouraging more cars at a higher rate of speed, this goes totally against the government's Kyoto accord agreement.)
#7. Spur transit investment -(the highway discourages transit investment).
#8 Promote a culture of conservation -(they are failing by promoting commuters to go further).
#9. Reduce reliance on any single mode of transportation -(again, encouraging more car use).
#10. Revitalize downtowns -(neither Shakespeare nor the city of Stratford's downtowns will be revitalized with the new preferred route).
These guidelines are quoted from the Study Team's Report B. The most important guideline which is mentioned many times and is in their stated purpose is to address the needs of the analysis area.
Here we have a study group that is on their fourth try. At first they said we needed a 400-series style road going around New Hamburg, Shakespeare, and Stratford because that is what we needed!
When people questioned their logic they soon backed off. In reality we have a traffic count of 9,800 vehicles per day (VPD), on an existing road that can handle 17,000 VPD and if they do a good job of up grading the existing road to four lanes (they already own most of the land.) We would have a safer road that can handle in the range of 32,000-38,000 VPD. This will more than address the needs well past their 30 year projection!
Some may be upset, but this route beats the alternative!
Paul Gras
RR 4 Stratford
Contrary a Point of View which appeared in The Beacon Herald, most people are unhappy with MTO's path of least resistance.
The comments in the paper are beyond absurd that a swing road south of Shakespeare is the lesser of two evils as this path forces the road not just around Shakespeare, but to continue for 9 kilometres through highly- productive farm land all the way to Stratford.
This option not only destroys quality farm land, but also brings added cost to all the farm businesses, as it restricts normal farm movement to other properties which are vital parts of their operation.
Farms are no longer single parcels of land, but many parcels, both owned and rented. A farmer needs this to be competitive but most of all good land stewards; rotating crops and wise use of animal compost.
In terms that non-farmers can understand this section of road would take out approximately 530 acres. If it were all planted in wheat, at 42 loaves of bread per bushel, you would lose 1,335,600 loaves of bread per year.
As The Beacon Herald article said but reversed. Logic would dictate that it needs to take a route that will have the least amount of negative impact. To that end, the RURAL route should be off the table and enter Shakespeare instead.
As for other vital information on the MTO and the study team, they have a huge list of guidelines to help them find a preferred route. They have failed on almost every one!
Guideline #1. Efficient use shall be made of existing and planned infrastructure -(not making efficient use of existing hwy 7&8).
#2. Encourage more compact communities with services, shops, and businesses. -(Shakespeare will become a ghost town by redirecting traffic around the village).
#3. Curb urban sprawl as best possible -(they are encouraging urban sprawl with a new Highway 7&8).
#4. Preserve green space and agriculture lands - (they are doing anything but with this new route).
#5. Cut down on car dependency -(they are encouraging more commuters).
#6. Contribute to better air quality -- (encouraging more cars at a higher rate of speed, this goes totally against the government's Kyoto accord agreement.)
#7. Spur transit investment -(the highway discourages transit investment).
#8 Promote a culture of conservation -(they are failing by promoting commuters to go further).
#9. Reduce reliance on any single mode of transportation -(again, encouraging more car use).
#10. Revitalize downtowns -(neither Shakespeare nor the city of Stratford's downtowns will be revitalized with the new preferred route).
These guidelines are quoted from the Study Team's Report B. The most important guideline which is mentioned many times and is in their stated purpose is to address the needs of the analysis area.
Here we have a study group that is on their fourth try. At first they said we needed a 400-series style road going around New Hamburg, Shakespeare, and Stratford because that is what we needed!
When people questioned their logic they soon backed off. In reality we have a traffic count of 9,800 vehicles per day (VPD), on an existing road that can handle 17,000 VPD and if they do a good job of up grading the existing road to four lanes (they already own most of the land.) We would have a safer road that can handle in the range of 32,000-38,000 VPD. This will more than address the needs well past their 30 year projection!
Some may be upset, but this route beats the alternative!
Paul Gras
RR 4 Stratford
Perth East Responds to PIC 4
The Municipal Council for Perth East has issued it's response to the March 25th deadline for comment on PIC 4. This was held in Jan. 2011 in Shakespeare.
Perth East Comments on HWY 7 Corridor - March 2011 FINAL
Perth East Comments on HWY 7 Corridor - March 2011 FINAL
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Farmers push for highway changes
By LAURA CUDWORTH STAFF REPORTER
Farmers affected by the proposed highway expansion found some friends on Perth East council.
However, they were left wondering if they had any support for the bulk of the meeting last night. The Agricultural Business Community (ABC) of Perth East, Perth South and Wilmot West made a presentation at the start of the meeting, but council was tight-lipped about the controversy surrounding the highway expansion until the end of the meeting.
ABC asked council to reject the most recent route proposed by the MTO and "require they go back to the drawing board" and come back with a new proposal that addresses ABC concerns.
"I think it's in our best interests not to be the ones who pick a route," said Deputy Mayor Bob McMillan. "There's no right answer, someone loses along the way."
Council declined to accept the ABC recommendation, but did vote to add any points from the ABC report not included in council's own draft of concerns that was headed to the Ministry of Transportation.
"Their response was better than I had hoped, but I still have concerns," said Sharon Weitzel of ABC after the meeting. "No one knows how flawed the process is. There shouldn't be any route approval until there are answers to our questions."
There are many questions from farmers and from councillors too.
The route unveiled in January follows Hwy. 7/8 until about 2.5 kilometres east of Shakespeare. It drops south and follows the train tracks and eventually veers further south through a bush lot and farmland, then follows a municipal drain before it connects with Line 33 or Pork Rd., where it bypasses Stratford.
The newest route bypassed Shakespeare after residents there mounted a loud and consistent lobby against a proposal that had the highway go right through town.
While residents of Shakespeare were able to breath a sigh of relief, farmers had to regroup and sort out what the consequences of the new route will be on their homes and businesses. The route will take out 500 acres of farmland to start, but other land may be necessary, Weitzel said. What she doesn't know is how much land and what the land is for.
Twenty-two agricultural businesses with 14,000 acres will be impacted by the route, said Paula Niece, of ABC. Access to farms currently divided by county roads or spread across parts of the county could be impossible, ABC suggested.
"If 22 businesses in Stratford or New Hamburg were affected they would have to listen. We're talking about cutting people off. Transportation is vital to agriculture," Niece said.
Coun. Rhonda Ehgoetz insisted a comment about council being "generally in support" of the route be taken out of the letter to the ministry.
The amount of farmland and the lack of road access for farm vehicles were two of her concerns. Still, she stopped short of supporting the recommendation.
"We can't pick and choose a side. We haven't done that yet."
Council will revisit its latest draft of concerns at the March 22 meeting.
A short list of concerns highlighted by ABC include:
* The proposed route does not use land on the north side of the existing highway between Shakespeare and Stratford that was taken from agriculture 30 years ago for the highway.
* Access to farm properties will be eliminated.
* The route puts some farmers in noncompliance with the Nutrient Management Act.
lcudworth@bowesnet.com
Farmers affected by the proposed highway expansion found some friends on Perth East council.
However, they were left wondering if they had any support for the bulk of the meeting last night. The Agricultural Business Community (ABC) of Perth East, Perth South and Wilmot West made a presentation at the start of the meeting, but council was tight-lipped about the controversy surrounding the highway expansion until the end of the meeting.
ABC asked council to reject the most recent route proposed by the MTO and "require they go back to the drawing board" and come back with a new proposal that addresses ABC concerns.
"I think it's in our best interests not to be the ones who pick a route," said Deputy Mayor Bob McMillan. "There's no right answer, someone loses along the way."
Council declined to accept the ABC recommendation, but did vote to add any points from the ABC report not included in council's own draft of concerns that was headed to the Ministry of Transportation.
"Their response was better than I had hoped, but I still have concerns," said Sharon Weitzel of ABC after the meeting. "No one knows how flawed the process is. There shouldn't be any route approval until there are answers to our questions."
There are many questions from farmers and from councillors too.
The route unveiled in January follows Hwy. 7/8 until about 2.5 kilometres east of Shakespeare. It drops south and follows the train tracks and eventually veers further south through a bush lot and farmland, then follows a municipal drain before it connects with Line 33 or Pork Rd., where it bypasses Stratford.
The newest route bypassed Shakespeare after residents there mounted a loud and consistent lobby against a proposal that had the highway go right through town.
While residents of Shakespeare were able to breath a sigh of relief, farmers had to regroup and sort out what the consequences of the new route will be on their homes and businesses. The route will take out 500 acres of farmland to start, but other land may be necessary, Weitzel said. What she doesn't know is how much land and what the land is for.
Twenty-two agricultural businesses with 14,000 acres will be impacted by the route, said Paula Niece, of ABC. Access to farms currently divided by county roads or spread across parts of the county could be impossible, ABC suggested.
"If 22 businesses in Stratford or New Hamburg were affected they would have to listen. We're talking about cutting people off. Transportation is vital to agriculture," Niece said.
Coun. Rhonda Ehgoetz insisted a comment about council being "generally in support" of the route be taken out of the letter to the ministry.
The amount of farmland and the lack of road access for farm vehicles were two of her concerns. Still, she stopped short of supporting the recommendation.
"We can't pick and choose a side. We haven't done that yet."
Council will revisit its latest draft of concerns at the March 22 meeting.
A short list of concerns highlighted by ABC include:
* The proposed route does not use land on the north side of the existing highway between Shakespeare and Stratford that was taken from agriculture 30 years ago for the highway.
* Access to farm properties will be eliminated.
* The route puts some farmers in noncompliance with the Nutrient Management Act.
lcudworth@bowesnet.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)