18 Comments »

Corry Burke said:
Could someone familiar with this project tell me what this item from the budget is all about?
“$55 million for the Alta Vista connection to Smyth Road”
Alta Vista runs from Bank Street to the west and terminates at Industrial, next to the Canada Post headquarters. it intersects with Smyth in the final third of its total length.
What is 55 million dollars going to be spent on? Is there a significant change coming to the Alta Vista roadway? Is this change planned for the Smyth to Bank corridor, the Industrial to Smyth portion? What is this?
# 20 January 2011 at 12:51 pm

Perry Marleau said:
Hi Corry,
I have lived in Alta Vista for years and having ran against Peter H. in 2006 against the Alta Vista Transportation Corridor.
The ATVTC is a half century going dated about a major arterial road that, when complete will run from Bank at Conroy all the way to the Alta vista 417 interchange ramp. Currently only Bank/Conroy to Walkley rd has been completed. The second leg is from Walkley to Smyth rd and the last leg to be constructed is from Smyth to the 417 interchange.
It will take at a minimum 55 millions to complete ( in 2004 dollars).
# 20 January 2011 at 1:53 pm

Corry Burke said:
Mmmmm…I don’t think so, Perry. I am very well versed in the Alta Vista corridor, and this does not appear to be a part of that proposal. If memory serves, it was “scratched” for the time being from the list of roadways. I believe Doucet played a large role in removing it temporarily from the books. If someone was actually pitching it as a large infrastructure projecty again, I would think we would have heard long before it appeared as a line item in the budget proposal.
# 20 January 2011 at 2:28 pm

Corry Burke said:
I stand likely corrected, Perry. Looking at the TMP 2008, the AVC is, indeed, slated for development in the 2009-2015 timeframe, with the Riverside to Smyth section being the first developed as a 4 laner. Nicholas to Riverside to follow. And the original budgeting for the Smyth to Riverside portion was 60 million, so it sure seems likely that 55 million is earmarked for that corridor.
I must say…Wow….I’m shocked….and a bit speechless…..this plan was a 1960′s design that took zero consideration to transit and was all about the ever dominant automobile. I will be keenly interested to see where this goes from here….I’m less than impressed….
# 20 January 2011 at 2:46 pm

Perry said:
I remember Mayor Bob and Ducet press release a few years back at a press conference announcing that they have agreed to take the Alta Vista Transportation corridor out of the TMP. It was all for show and tell, as the mayor has no authority to remove or alter master plans without the approval of council.
I have been sitting in the EA assessment for the East transit link….known as “the hospital lands”; which is a piece of the puzzle completing the AVC, the hospital and 417 interchange.
We will both be old by the time this is complete and our grand-children will be paying for it
# 20 January 2011 at 5:56 pm

Corry Burke said:
Doesn’t this new parking garage at the General campus on the AVC lands throw a bit of a monkey wrench into the mix?
http://www.obj.ca/Real-Estate/Construction/2010-12-02/article-2012384/R.E.-Hein-wins-$5M-hospital-parking-contract/1
# 21 January 2011 at 3:59 pm

Perry said:
The current construction of the hospital garage has little effect on the AVTC. While the final plans for the AVTC has yet to be finalised, it should be linked with the hospital lands transit way, which will see cars, busses and special bike lanes all using the same road.
I’m no big fan of the AVTC, but the big benefit to this major roadway is that Ottawa South East residents will have faster and more direct access to the Ottawa General and Children’s hospitals. It will also take the multitude of cars using Alta Vista Dr who make their way to/from the 417 and to/from Ottawa South.
Corry, if you have yet to so so, I encourage you to take the city’s Primer courses. The courses teach you on the city’s Urban Planning, the Transportation Master Plan, The Master Transit Plan, Heritage, Zoning By-Laws and the OMB, just to name a few and its free.
Here is the link to the Primer Course. I would recommend it to anyone who had interest in their community and city. Perhaps Blake could blog about the Primmer Planning course. http://ottawa.ca/residents/planning/primer/index_en.html
# 22 January 2011 at 9:53 am

Nick said:
This budget is another shell game and shouldn’t surprise anyone. Raising bus fares and cutting back garbage pick up but spending 32 million on solar panels? What, exactly, is Jumpin Jim smoking to think this is a reasonable set of priorities, and more importantly, why are the media satisfied with this? { Are you listening Sue? } when a mayor runs a city where social housing is a mess, union leaders are optomistic and councillors are suddenly a “happy lot”, you can bet your last nickel that taxes are going up and services are going down.
As I have said all along, this is nothing but scaled down Queens Park politics and attitudes. I would have been surprised if we had gotten anything else.
# 22 January 2011 at 11:58 pm

Corry Burke said:
Perry
The Primer course sounds interesting, but as you may know, I used to work at City Hall as a councillor’s assistant, so I am as well aqcuainted with City processes as anyone. That being said, a refresher is never a bad idea.
Nick
Ease up on the rhetoric. One of the great things about Blake’s site is it is loaded with fact and light on propoganda.
First off, there’s nothing in the budget regarding reduced garbage pickup, the solar panel expenditure is a small investment in a green economy, something that the majority of Canadians in poll after poll want to see happen, not to mention the fact that it will pay itself off in a relatively short amount of time. The social housing expenditure is straight out of Watson’s campaign literature, so I’m not sure why that is something he should be derided for. And union leaders are optimistic? It’s a bad thing that our mayor’s office has opened the lines of communication to the City’s unions? I don’t understand the negative aspect of moving away from an adversarial relationship.
As for a shell game, that metaphor denotes a con, or a fraud is being committed. No one is suggesting that billion dollar finances are easy to digest, but to opine that a fraud is being perpetrated is ridiculous. If you feel the budget to be a poorly prepared document, cite examples of where that is the case and offer alternatives, attend the budget open houses and express your disapproval, appear before the budget committee and before council of the whole and make your voice heard, book appointments with your councillor, other councillors, and the mayor and let them know where they might be able to do things better.
I know of a number of areas in the budget that I don’t agree with the funding formulas, but I also respect the difficulty in generating a document in only 30 days since taking office. We are fortunate to have a mayor diligent and knowledgeable who does not rely solely on the knowledge of City staff to prepare all material on his behalf. In my opinion, anyway.
Corry
# 24 January 2011 at 12:10 pm

Nick said:
Perry.
It would only be rhetoric and propaganda if I was wrong. So far there is precious little evidence of that. I would love to give them the benefit of the doubt an be optimistic, but show me why I should be? If they are willing to cut a core service like garbage pick up, but blow 32 million on solar panels after all we now know about them, what does taht say about other fiscal decisions? You suggest a con when I mention a shell game. Your words not mine, but I would suggest you find a better analogy for moving water rates off the tax bill so those can be increased while “keeping property taxes to 2.5%”. Just exactly who do they think they are fooling? There is a saying that applies at times like these:
“What you do, speaks so loudly, what you say I cannot hear”
Right now, Mr Watsons actions are deafening.
# 24 January 2011 at 4:13 pm

Nick said:
Perry.
One more point. 32 million dollars for a green energy investment is not a “small investment”. As for Canadians who wanat green energy as indicated in poll after poll, I think you should ask OPG customers what they think of skyrocketing hydro rates that are drirectly linked to “green energy”. In every other country in Europe where this nonsense has been tried, they are cancelling contracts, and shutting down programs that have cost them billions in lost jobs and productivity. If you want a green energy solution, then burn the garbage and boil wataer. It would save us millions a year, and put an end to wasteful recycling programs. Whatever you do, don’t get sucked into the smooth talking green agenda that has put this provinice in the huge economic hole it is, and now threatens the nations capital as well. It’s not a good idea. Never has been.
# 24 January 2011 at 4:21 pm

Corry Burke said:
Nick
First off, it’s Corry, not Perry…
Second, that is the most bass ackwards argument, I’ve seen on this site.
You state:
“I would love to give them the benefit of the doubt an be optimistic, but show me why I should be?”
Because, as Blake writes, the mayor says what he is going to do and he does it. There is no hidden agenda, unlike our previous mayor. There is no off the cuff assumptions or knee-jerk reactionary politics. You can deal with this man and believe what he is telling you.
As for utilities being removed from your tax bill, yeah. 75% of the cost of running this utility is paid for via charges for the service to the taxpayer. That means 25% is paid by the municipality to make up the shortfall. Moving the cost off the tax bill means users pay per use. That means people with an average usage will see no change, and people with above average usage will see an increase in their water charges. it’s called pay per use. Neo-cons usually like that term.
And show me some facts around the changes you state in the EU. Information I am aware of is completely to the contrary, although I admit my info is about 1-2 years old. As for burning garbage, now who’s drinking the kool-aid? That is about the worst way to reduce refuse. That is, unless you don’t see a problem with cancer, then, yeah, burn it all….
Corry
# 25 January 2011 at 9:26 am

Nick said:
Corry.
My apologies on getting the name wrong. But you say there is no hidden agenda? You voted for 32 million on solar panels? What flyer or pamphlet was that in? Let me help you with a little economics 101 when it comes to municipalities. ALL the cost of running teh utilities is borne by the taxpayer. They only move it off yoru property tax bill so they can increase the cost for that “service” without raising the cost of yorutaxes, or at least keep the cost of any tax increase down. It is as old a shell game as there is. There is onloy one taxpayer, so no matter how they slice and dice it, it still comes out of YOUR pocket. You claim that Jumpin Jim does what he says and you can work with hiim, and I suppose in some convuluted way, you are right. The trouble is, the things he wnats to do are going to cost this city huge gobs of cash and take us in the same direction that the province is now headed in. Surely a man with as much common sense and wisdom as you posess would never burden his children with that kind of headache.
You ask for evidence of the disaster that awaits us in this mad rush towards “green energy. Ok, I am only too happy to oblidge. From Spain:
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf
And from Germany:
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5279253,00.html
I can do this for Denmark, England and other countries as well if you insist, but when you consider that McGuinty has already done the same by cutting subsidies and that the next government will likely go even further, why would Jumpin Jim even consider doing this?
As far as Energy from waste, yoru information is over 20 years old. Incineration is the leading edge as far as new technologies are concerned in waste destruction withouot health risks. YOu want to drink water that has leachate from a landfill in it? Now that is old school thinking.
# 26 January 2011 at 10:39 am

Corry Burke said:
Hmmmm…A lot to think about, Nick. I’ll get back to you on a couple of the topics, however, two points I wanted to make in the immediate…
You state:
“ALL the cost of running teh utilities is borne by the taxpayer.”
You call them taxpayers, I call them customers. Nothing is free in this world. Producing electricity and distributing it costs money. Producing clean water and distributing it costs money. These are not paid for by the taxpayer, they are paid for by the consumers. Yes, they are one and the same, but show me a taxpayer that is not using these utilities and I’ll admit that is a person being ripped off. In the meantime, if you’re not paying for it on a seperate utility bill, it has to be paid somehow…
As for incineration, my information is hardly 20 years old. There are fights occurring in many centres in this country on just this exact topic. The York-Durham regional council has been trying to have an incinerator built in their area for almost a decade. It has been failing to receive environmental approval for a number of reasons, including their inability to ensure safe emission levels. Not to mention incinerators are designed to run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year for the (at least) 25 year life span of the facility. In order to do this, the facility requires a continual minimum waste load. This is an enormous disincentive to recyclying, reduction, reuse, repair, and composting. Something this community has invested enormous amounts of taxpayer dollars into for decades, and the decades to come.
You may think the science behind airborne carcinogens is fearmongering, but would you buy a house next to an incinerator? Would you place your newborn child in a day care downwind from one of these new incinerators?
The words of Pierce Brosnan, as fictional retired British Prime Minister Adam Lang, seem appropriate:
“D’you know what I’d do if I was in power again? I’d have two queues at the airports. One for flights where we’d done no background checks, used no intelligence gained under torture, infringed no one’s precious bloody civil liberties. The other for flights where we’d done everything possible to make passengers safe. Then we’d see which plane the Rycarts of this world would put their bloody kids on…”
C
# 27 January 2011 at 10:00 am

Nick said:
Corry. The difference between a taxpayer and a customer, is that the customer has a choice. Taxpayers don’t. Unless you want to become Hutterite or a hermit, you simply can’t live without electricity in todays world. And since you can only get it from public utilities like OPG or Hydro one, you are at the mercy of a monopoly your cash helped create.
Again I am going to point out, that your information on incineration is out of date. I would most certainly live near a modern incinerator, and yes I would put my child in a daycare downwind of one [ If I wanted to use a daycare in the first place that is. ] Modern high efficiency EFW plants have no airborne carcinogens. the air coming out is cleaner than the air going in, so they pose no airborne health risk. [ This is possible because of something called vitrification and vortex technology. ] The exception to this rule, is Plasma arc at trial road. They are having trouble getting certified because they use internal combustion engines to drive the generators an they in turn produce CO. If Brydon had used steam instead of pistons, he’d be up and running already. The fact that EFW plants run 24/365 is a good thing. They actually solve several problems. The first being the destruction of garbage, so you don’t need a landfill and all it’s costs, and second is they can produce electricity far more reliably and at a far lower cost than solar/wind.
The time has come to stop squandering money on fuzzy feel good ideas that only work on paper and start investing in things that actually work in the real world. A novel idea I know, but sooner or later it must be done.
# 30 January 2011 at 4:33 pm

Corry Burke said:
Well, I think we can agree that we have completwely usurped this thread far beyond its original purpose. However, I still maintain that my facts are far from 20 years old:
Whatever the technical details, everyone agrees that waste incinerators emit dangerous substances – the debate is around how much is emitted, and how dangerous these emissions are. The fact that research into incinerator emissions is still being conducted demonstrates that the scientific knowledge is far from complete, and that uncertainties remain over safety. A recent study (Aboh, et al. 2007) that looked into a medium sized city in southwestern Sweden, clearly identified their new modern incinerator as the single most significant source of PM2.5’s.
Another recent study (Mao, et al. 2007) found that the concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10 in the study area located downwind of the incinerator were significantly higher (between 220% and 700% higher) than the study area upwind of the incinerator. The study indicated that the air had “significant contamination by air pollutants emitted” from a waste incinerator, representing a public health problem for nearby residents, despite the facility being equipped with a modern air pollution control system.
Many studies, old and new, show that communities all around the world, living close to incinerators, even modern facilities, suffer higher rates of cancer and respiratory problems (e.g. http://tinyurl.com/y7dteo). The recently released Paris Appeal Memorandum, supported by the European Standing Committee of Doctors (representing 2 million doctors), urged a moratorium on building any new incinerators (www.artac.info/static.php?op=MemorandumParisAppeal.txt&npds=1).
And its very quippy to state things like stop squandering money on fuzzy feel good ideas, but I would retort equally quippy to stop spending money on old antiquated non-solutions that are killing us. Neither smartalecky remark moves the debate forward.
# 31 January 2011 at 11:09 am

Nick said:
Corry. I fyou like I can provide for you technical data that refutes you enviornmental concerns. To say that “everyone agrees” is simply a mechanism for closing down debate in the same manner that “everyone agrees” that global warming is real, and simply must be our fault. Modern, high efficiency incineration is simply the best way forward when dealing with our garbage.
I am curious about these 2 million doctors. Did anyone every ask them how we can pollute the air when all the carcinogens are encased in glass? How is it possible to make air dirtier by cleaning it? No Corry, your information is not only old, but it is biased and out of touch with real science and technology and those who develop it.
# 2 February 2011 at 11:48 am

Corry Burke said:
Why do you feel the need to be pithy, Nick? It’s a typical conservative mantra. When you don’t like how the debate is going, call the debater foolish, or “change the channel” by showing how they are attempting to “close the debate”. I never meant to close the debate when I said “everyone agrees”. In fact, as indicated by the colon (:) at the end of the first paragraph, those are not my words. Forgive me for not additionally encasing them in quotation marks.
I merely wanted to show to you that the debate is raging and that the information being utilized by those on the other side of this issue is hardly 20 year old commentary.
The long and short of it is you are not able to show me irrefutable proof of the safety of these enormous pollutants, yet I have given you numerous examples where proof of their guilt is unquestionable.
As for how it is possible to make air dirtier by cleaning it, it’s simple. Start with really friggin dirty air, clean it as best as technology is capable, and then emit it into the atmosphere for all to ‘enjoy’. The resulting release isn’t cleaner because it was cleaned, its dirtier because it started off that way in the first place, and no amount of technology has been capable of cleaning it to the degree of safety that the rest of the developed world is willing to accept.
# 3 February 2011 at 1:18 pm

Leave your response!