Third Crossing - Contact Phases 1-3

Third Crossing - Contact Phases 1-3

Nested Applications

Image - Projects Construction - Third Crossing

Content - City Hall - Project - Third Crossing Icons

Alert - Archive Third Crossing Page

 


This is an archived version of the Third Crossing project page for phases 1-3. These phases  were completed in 2017. View the Third Crossing website for the latest information.

 

Content - City Hall - Projects - Third Crossing - Contact

CONTACT & COMMENTS

For information on the Third Crossing, please contact:

The Third Crossing Team
thirdcrossing@cityofkingston.ca
Phone: 613-546-4291, Ext. 3130

General Notice - Comment review period

Comments have been closed for this portion of the project.
Sign up to receive Third Crossing news

Page Comments

Please get on with building a third crossing. Kingston desperately needs such a link for economic and logistical reasons. I would even have no problem with the idea of a public-private partnership to pay for such a project.

Regardless, the time for talk is over. The same holds true for the Wellington Street extension.
00
I believe that not only in the Third crossing needed it is long overdue. With the growth of our City we need to be connected. Build it Now...
00
Please. Just please, build it and stop stalling. This traffic is out of hand. I'm tired of using the 401 as a thoroughfare, it's far too busy. The congestion in the east from Grenadier to the top of hwy 2 is nuts. I spent 48 minutes one morning getting to the bottom of the hill at Fort Henry from Grenadier Drive. It's certainly NOT going to improve now that there are more apartment buildings and now MORE subdivisions being built. How about a little consideration for the east? How about some shopping, a Walmart, Lowes, Costco.....something?? Something that doesn't start with "strip mall"? This would alleviate traffic in the city and on the 401 greatly. Please stop with the studies and committees.....we aren't protecting endangered species, or saving the Amazon rain forest. What we I'll be doing is SAVING LIVES and preventing car accidents on the 401.
00
https://www.cityofkingston.ca/documents/10180/12910408/ThirdCrossingInfographicV3.png/e6b11bf8-b4f2-4c01-b2a3-82a3bfa4ee07?t=1467232594761
Reviewing your latest 'considerations', can you please explain :
1) How you plan to reduce noise and visual impacts on Kenwoods Circle residents?
2) what is meant by 'softer landscaping along Gore Road'?
3) how you plan to mitigate automobile exhaust gasses spilling into residences backing onto the 12 meter high east end approach road?
Thank you
00
Thank you for your inquiries Derek. Please see the following responses to your questions.

Response 1): The Environmental Study Report (ESR) performed an evaluation of several bridge alignments and ultimately recommended a gradual ‘S’ curve that lands north of the Gore Road right-of-way and further north of Kenwoods Circle compared to having the bridge land in line with Gore Road. The ESR also recommended noise mitigation measures such as noise walls to be implemented into the design of the bridge along the south side and east of the arch span to reduce noise impacts for Kenwoods Circle residents.

Response 2): The ESR illustrates a landscape concept rendering that will be referenced to guide the preliminary design landscape drawings. Many bridges have minimal landscaping integrated onto the sides of their embankments such as having an exposed rock face whereas the Third Crossing proposes to have the embankment fully vegetated which helps reduce the visual impact of the bridge embankment by having a more organic/natural look.

Response 3): The project will not be able to mitigate automobile exhaust gasses along Gore Road once the bridge is in operation. This emission issue was considered in the ESR’s Table 5.3 “Project effects on Impacted Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs): Operation Phase.

The table states the following impact: “Emissions are largely unavoidable as vehicle traffic is part of intended use of the bridge and roadways.”

The table states the following mitigation measures: “All vehicles are licensed by the MTO, which administers emissions control regulations”, and, “the bridge could reduce idling fuel consumption and greenhouse emissions.”

The ESR analyzed this emission issue which was submitted to and ultimately approved by the province since automobile emission standards are in place and that a reduction in overall emissions in Kingston would be realized if the project was implemented.

Thank you,
The Third Crossing Team
Email: thirdcrossing@cityofkingston.ca
00
Thank you Third Crossing Team, for your responses,

1) This might sound great in theory perhaps, but as a long time resident in this neighbourhood, 1.2 kilometers from the railroad tracks on the west side of the river, 3 km south of the 401, and 3 km north of the Causeway, I can reliably report we can hear traffic on all three quite clearly. I am sure you can understand that the noise mitigation solutions you suggest for a 12 meter high crossing adjacent to this residential neighbourhood are entirely unacceptable. We depend on City Hall to provide us with a livable environment, not to impose negative environmental conditions on us. Perhaps you can take another look at this. We look forward to hearing about your further solutions.

2) Regarding the ESR illustrated landscape solutions you refer to, they do not seems to be available on your website. Please provide a link.

3) I am familiar with the content of the ESR.

Your ESR states: “A Life Cycle Cost Analysis should be undertaken during the detailed design stage for selecting the appropriate materials and methods. This analysis should take into consideration the environmental and societal factors such as sustainability and climate change effects, user costs and serviceability."

I take this to mean that the ESR has not done such a study, and since climate change is all about greenhouse gas emissions, your last statement “a reduction in overall emissions in Kingston would be realized if the project was implemented“ appears to be a contradiction.

Kindly clarify.

In addition, your statement “the bridge could reduce idling fuel consumption and greenhouse emissions.” appears misleading.

The annual CO2 produced during idling is only in a limited area and not in the entire city. Your ESR table 3-9 (is it 2029 or 2009?) indicates that if the bridge is built, the Annual PM Peak Hour will be reduced by only 115 tonnes of CO2, which is a very tiny fraction of GHG emissions generated by the transportation sector in Kingston in 2011 of 451,082 tonnes of CO2.

Finally referring to City Report 12-155, it states “The traffic volume in the mid-town area on the west side of the Cataraqui River bounded by John Counter Boulevard in the north, Concession Street in the south, and Leroy Grant Drive on the west is forecasted to increase by approximately 25%. It should be noted that the projected use of the proposed Wellington Street extension accounts for the majority of the increased traffic in this area. Scenarios that were modeled with the removal of the proposed Wellington Street extension showed marginal changes to the amount of traffic in this area.

The traffic volume in the Point St. Mark neighbourhood on the east side of the Cataraqui River is forecasted to increase by over 180%”

From this, the residents of this neighbourhood conclude the nature of their community will change beyond all recognition.

Thus I am sure you can understand the concerns, and ask again what steps you are taking to safeguard our community environment?
00
Hello,
The Third Crossing will stimulate a need to open up the urban boundary leading to subdivisions sprawl. Would your evaluate the environmental impact of the urban sprawl in the east side of river?

The City studies indicate that during the evening rush hours car trips between two parts of the city will increase by 22% (127,050 extra car trips a year) if the bridge is built. Would you evaluate the impact of this increase on the environment and climate change?

Would you answer why the bridge won't change the traffic conditions of the Causeway to meet with the Official Plan and Transportation Plan standards?

Would you evaluate the diversion of traffic by the Third Crossing from the downtown core, channelling it to the Kingston and Cataraqui Centers?

Is this a good move for the economy and survival of the downtown core?

Thank you,
Mahmood Rowghani
Graduate architect and urban planner
00
There are two major approaches in transportation planning. The old one focuses on widening roads, building bridges, etc. This approach has been proven to be wrong. The study in the UK shows that the traditional transportation planning approach (widening roads and building bridges) encourages more car trips and as a result won't decrease the congestion.
On the contrary, for example in Florence Italy restriction of private vehicles to downtown areas has increased active transportation considerably, and has had a positive impact on the environment and congestion.
Unfortunately, our current transportation planning is following the traditional approach that will cost taxpayers $500 million in 20 years including the cost of the Third Crossing.

If we invest in transit instead and increase the current frequency to 10 minutes, provide free rides for everyone and make buses available in most of our neighbourhoods, we can significantly reduce automobile use from the city's roads and mitigate congestion in arterial roads. This will save on taxpayers’ money, protect the planet and put our grandchildren first.

Mahmood Rowghani, Graduate architect and urban planner
00
Reference my entry 4th July.
The three questions posed are serious and very relevant to those living close by the planned crossing site.
How you propose to deal with these issues will have a huge impact on all residents in the area.
Can we anticipate an answer?
You state you endeavor responding to all comments within two business days.
It has now been over two weeks.
Thus an additional question is now : when can a response be expected?
Thank you
00
Derek,
We apologize in providing a quicker response to your July 4 questions. There were some technical issues that we’ve been experiencing behind the scenes. We believe they are cleared up now. Please see our July 15 response posted above in the blog. Again, sorry for the delay. We will do our best to respond to questions as soon as possible.

Thank you,
The Third Crossing Team
Email: thirdcrossing@cityofkingston.ca
00
Thank you for your response, which I see was dated 15th, but only visible yesterday. I understand you were having issues with your website, and trust these are now resolved..
00
I have heard that there will be east-bound off the bridge access to Point Saint Mark as no drivers are going to try taking a short cut through the neighbourhood, given that the distance is the same Gore/Hwy 15 and Gore, Point Saint Mark to Hwy 15. While that may be true, it would avoid a long traffic light. How do I know so certainly this will be so, it happens now -- southbound on Hwy 15 turn right on Gore when it is congested in the morning. In fact, I have seen drivers cross Hwy 15 on Gore to access Point Saint Mark to get to the Grenadier light quicker. My concern is well founded. I hope it will not be so easily brushed aside. Art.
00
By: Kay Morrell
I support the building of a third crossing, so that all parts of this beautiful city are more easily accessible to all residents. Because Kingston is becoming a long and narrow city, confined between 401 and Lake Ontario, we need more east-west roadways, that don't feed through the congested downtown core. Let us get to know one another, and involve ourselves in common projects by improving our ability to go where things are happening. As we go, a third crossing could actually save gas, and lower pollution because travel to events will be more direct, with more sharing of rides and ideas, and less idling of motors and brains. Help us build community, by building the bridge that can unite us!
00
I watched your short video and we should have built this second bridge years ago. That sketch for the bridge was really ugly tho. Let's not make the new bridge like the ugly Kingston Public Works building on Division.

Stop making us wait!
00
The recent Third Crossing survey of 25th July has a fundamental flaw in its’ design. In my opinion the survey should ask one simple question at the start, “Are you in favour of building such a structure across the Cataraqui River? YES or NO”

If a person states NO it should be recorded as such. No need to proceed to the design part of the questionnaire. As it stands now it appears everyone wants the crossing. A position I don’t hold. Since I pay taxes to the City of Kingston I want my right to disagree recorded and given equal weight in any such survey.

A vote for YES would launch the questionnaire and those wishing to complete the survey would be free to do so.
00
First let me say that I live east of the river, and have done so for eight years. I've lived in Kingston 26 years altogether.

I don't commute to work but I do drive around Kingston a fair bit for other purposes, at varying times of day including sometimes the morning and afternoon rush. My partner used to commute to work and I know her experience.

I don't see a real need for a bridge. Traffic on the LaSalle Causeway is rarely a problem. Traffic on Hwy 15 southbound approaching Hwy 2 sometimes is, but much of that traffic is turning left, not right toward the causeway. Hwy 401 had some backups during construction but since that ended delays are rare.

The cost of a bridge concerns me. I've heard the arguments about other levels of government helping with the capital cost. What about operating costs? Kingston already is scrambling to maintain its existing roads, not to mention other infrastructure. The money would be better spent on better maintenance of what we have, as well as transit improvements aimed at reducing car traffic.
00
Look I know everyone needs to get paid, but come on. I have lived here all of my life and for as far back as I can remember, the City has been doing evaluations/reports on the Third Crossing and paying different company to do studies etc. I think it is time to stop wasting Kingston citizen's money and time. The way that I and everyone else see's it, is City Counsel has wasted so much money over the years, that the third crossing could have been built at least three times over. There is so much growth in Kingston's East End and it is continuing to grow, the Third Crossing is so long overdue!!!! And to wait another year for more reports to be done, are you for real??
00
Dionne, I am not suggesting we wait another year for more reports. I'm suggesting we don't need a bridge. I totally agree with you that a lot of money has been wasted. Wasting more won't get it back.
00
Grant, they have already done multiple assessments which indicated that there is a need for a third crossing. Anyone who drives to work can tell you that. Your opinion of need is in the minority. If you are concerned about cost then fill out the survey but dont waste more time by trying to get them to go backwards in the process. Again.
00
I wonder if you could advise me why a moderated website such as yours is allowing anonymous comments to be posted?

Although I am in favour of open discussions with both the yes and no arguments I would prefer we all work from the same starting point, if you wish to comment your name is published! Anonymous comments diminish the integrity of the exchange. Perhaps it was simply a startup error but I think it needs to be rectified quickly.

While the IT folks look at this might they also 1) add a direct link right on the My Portal page to the comments section. It would simplify matters. 2) to make the actual submission process clearer change the Reply button to Submit below this Comment box as I am not replying as much as submitting. Thanks for giving us the opportunity to voice our comments
00
I just moved back to Kingston three years ago, so I may have missed this part of the conversation, but can you tell me why it is that totally rebuilding the LaSalle Causeway is not being considered.
00
Rebuild the LaSalle causeway? Difficult, given that historic Fort Frontenac and other DND-owned sites are at the west end, and at the east end are HMCS Cataraqui and the grounds of RMC.

What is it with people who oppose the building of a Third Crossing? They all seem to want to seal off downtown Kingston, allow only horses and bicycles into the area, or else they get thier knickers into a knot about possibly having to pay taxes to finance major infrastructure projects that improve the quality of life for everyone in the community. OMG! The only way our downtown will survive is to balance growth and development with the desire to preserve and nurture the city's rich historical and culture heritage. Some people may not like cars, but the reality is that cars will be with us for a long time to come -- whether they are gasoline powered or electric. To be livable, sustainable, and prosperous, Kingston needs public infrastructure and infrastructure improvements. The Third Crossing is needed. Time to stop talking and get on with building it. If cost is the deciding concern, the city should seek for private sector partners and implement a toll system . . . say $1 for cars/motorcycles/trucks to cross on the new bridge. Bike and pedestrians pass free.
00
"possibly having to pay taxes to finance major infrastructure projects" ?
Where else do you believe the money might come from?
00
Ken Cuthbertson. I can see that this is an issue that you are passionate about. However, I did not say that I am against the bridge. I was just asking a question of the Third Crossing people, as to why rebuilding the causeway is not an option.
00
Karen,
Your question is 100% legitimate. But, Causeway is Federal property and is up to them to rebuild it. If the City asks for Federal government funding for the Third Crossing, they might ask the City to take over the Causeway first and pay at least $1,000,000 a year for maintaining it. Unfortunately, We cannot hove both.

If I may, I would like to modify your question a bit. Is the Third Crossing going to make changes to the traffic conditions of Causeway?

Unfortunately, no. The City's document shows that even the 4 lanes Third Crossing won't change the traffic condition of Causeway according to the Official Plan's and Transportation Master Plan's standards.

I believe our traffic problems would be solved with an efficient transit, raising awareness about the car dependency impacts on the environment and on the life of our grandchildren.

The Third Crossing doesn't allow us to achieve the above goal. It diverts traffic from downtown core to Kingston and Cataraqui Center, increases green house gas emissions and absorbs only 15% of the current crossing through the 401. In addition, taxpayers should bear the burden in years to come even with the private partnership modal.

Some of the opponents of the bridge is better to read the City's documents first, use the common sense and appreciate reading others' opinion instead of trying to make them silent or call them minority. Thank you
00
"What is it with people who oppose the building of a Third Crossing? They all seem to want to seal off downtown Kingston, allow only horses and bicycles into the area, or else they get their knickers into a knot about possibly having to pay taxes to finance major infrastructure projects that improve the quality of life for everyone in the community. OMG!"

Ah yes, here we go. Brand anyone who disagrees with you as a dangerous radical. My partner and I have two vehicles. We drive downtown frequently, though we also take the bus when it works. (We also have three horses, but we leave them at home.) Nobody is suggesting abolishing cars or sealing off downtown. What I'm saying is traffic over the causeway is not even the worst traffic I've seen in Kingston (area around the Kingston Centre comes to mind), never mind what you'll find elsewhere. Besides which, what is the evidence that building a bridge is going to solve all your traffic problems?
00
Thank you Mahmood. A thoughtful and well considered answer.
00
There have been some interesting points made here. I live in the east end of the city and my previous councillor's reply when asked how this third crossing will help us was to say "It will be easy to go across the city and all the way to Amherstview". My current councillor has said " It will make it much easier to get to the Cataraqui Town Centre." What if we have little desire to go to either location?
Many of the major employers in the city span the narrow strip near the waterfront, starting at Invista and moving on to passed the new Providence care centre to Queens and KGH, the downtown, OHIP, RMC and ending at CFB Kingston. Those are the sites people NEED to go to. The bridge is near Montreal and John Counter where few people work. On the east it exits onto an already congested Hwy 15. How will this help? Other cities are looking for greener ways to move people and are attempting to minimize greenhouse gas discharges. If Kingston really wants to be a "Sustainable City" this entire vision,or lack of, needs to be reevaluated and we need to be reminded what century we are living in.
00
Lake Lady
You hit the nail on the head . . . this is the 21st century, not the 19th. Personally, I dislike cars and roads, but I also recognize that our society is built around the idea of mobility. The car is not going away any time soon. Even if the internal combustion engine disappears, people will still be driving cars -- electric, fuel-cell powered, or whatever. So we always need roads and a third crossing. Time to get on with it.
00
Lake Lady
You hit the nail on the head . . . this is the 21st century, not the 19th. Personally, I dislike cars and roads, but I also recognize that our society is built around the idea of mobility. The car is not going away any time soon. Even if the internal combustion engine disappears, people will still be driving cars -- electric, fuel-cell powered, or whatever. So we always need roads and a third crossing. Time to get on with it.

And BTW . . . Lake Lady . .. don't be shy. Use your real name.
00
Just took a look at the survey and I am astounded that such patently biased drivel dares to call itself a survey. Locklin's comment is right on the money - any valid survey should have asked whether the responder is for or against the third crossing and continued from there. From the tenor of the video and the survey, a position against the bridge is not even going to get consideration.
00
My comment on the survey has just been posted. Yesterday I submitted a comment on why the bridge was an unnecessary expense. It seems to have been not posted. Why?
00
Wow. So many opinions. Some great ideas, some not so great. While a tough issue, it's without question a necessary project. All the arguing, and snide remarks are pointless.
The city needs to invest in this, we need a mayor that isn't afraid to step up to plate and get it done. Move on.....
00
The only thing that will lessen traffic is the reduction of the car with one occupant. The sooner public transit continues to improve its services, the sooner drivers start considering leaving cars at home and taking the bus (thereby reducing gas emissions, congestion on the roads, and wow, lessen wear and tear on our cars), the sooner traffic problems will lessen. Start thinking of car pooling in our neighbourhoods, or biking, or moving closer to our workplace.
Are we so far down the path of destroying our planet, that we believe we are the only living species entitled to continue our destructive ways? Our attitude of entitlement is simply putting all species at risk….and yes, greater numbers of traffic accidents, regardless of what road one travels: major highways, or country roads.
It is a known fact that the more roads we build, the more cars will use them. There will never be a lessening of car usage, never a shorter time to travel from A to B, if we continue to expand our roads and bridges.
We may WANT a bridge, but we do not NEED a bridge.
00
What is going on?? My initial comment of several days ago still has not shown up. I'm going to try for the third time to get it posted!
00
When I consider the third crossing, I ask myself two questions:

1. Do we absolutely need the third crossing?
To place this in context, I live east of the river. Whenever I wish to go to the city centre or west end, I use either the 401 or the causeway depending on possible congestion (i.e., a concert at the KROCK etc) and which route would be fastest. After living in the east end for 16 years, I have never spent what I would consider even a modest let alone excessive delay in traffic. And that includes driving during rush hour on the 15.

2. Can we afford the third crossing?
We were told that the KROC Centre would make money. Does it? The point being that projects are presented to the public as going to make money but they rarely seem to. I don’t have the current cost of the proposed third crossing but I don't doubt it is lower than what the actual cost will be. Suppose that the final bill for the third crossing was $250,000,000 - a not unreasonable figure in my opinion. This money for the third crossing ultimately comes from everyone’s taxes. My taxes are high enough and growing higher every year. I would feel better if I knew that $250,000,000 was being spent on projects that were vital to the community. In my opinion, the third crossing is not such a project and money spent to build it would not benefit Kingston in the long run.

Conclusion: In my opinion, we do not absolutely need the bridge and the portion of the cost to the city, which is not flush with funds, could be better used on other projects.
00
Lots of comments and good discussion re the pros and cons of the proposed third crossing. However, it seems to me there's a common theme in many of the anti comments. Simply put, it's that "There's no real need for a third crossing." OK. But even if you accept that there's no need for a third crossing in 2016, will that still be the case in 2021? 2026? 2041? It's silly and unrealistic to think that Kingston isn't going to continue to grow. And as it does, the need for a third crossing will only become more pronounced.

The same people who say there's no need for a third crossing have the same mindset as the same folks who were so opposed the building of a downtown area. (Too expensive, can't be downtown, no need for it, etc.) And we all saw, yet again, on Saturday night what a grand thing it is to have the K-Rock Centre in our downtown. For a variety of reasons, it's been slow to happen, but longterm the building will be an economic engine. It's already a source of civic pride. We need more of both those things in Kingston.
00
My understanding is that the plan is for a 2 lane third crossing. What consideration has been given to a 3 lane bridge with a center flex lane? Not only will this allow improved traffic flow in the direction of highest daily volume but it will provide a solution to the inevitable yearly (or more) occurrence of Hwy 401 traffic obstructions where, currently, trucks are re-routed across the LaSalle Causeway and through the city.
00
Good idea Brian. If they're going to spend all that money on a bridge, and build for growth, they might as well do the job adequately, so it doesn't need to be re-built again in 15 years.
00
The Kingston public really has the right to know, in 2016 dollars, how much will a bridge cost? and how will that impact our taxes? and what is going to be disturbed when digging into the river basin?
Many east enders have crossed the causeway during rush hour,. like I did today, and found that it was clear sailing. Many east enders work in the area near the hospital or university and the bridge will not help thier compute to or from work. The east end needs facilities and stores that will allow the people to shop, work and recreate close to home. This will limit green house gas emissions and truly show that the City of Kingston is serious in its commitment to become sustainable. Relying on car travel is not forward thinking.
00
Over the last few days, I have been watching the city buses mostly during morning rush hour. It would seem that the bus is merely a large vehicle for moving the bus driver along his route. I estimate that the bridge might cost the city $125,000,000 in construction costs and $5,000,000 in annual maintenance. If you want to reduce the number of cars on the road at rush hour, why not invest that money in improving the city bus system?
00
My Great Grandfather was born in the City of Kingston in 1882, and when he was a young man they were going to build a bridge in the same spot where they are surveying now. We have known for over 100 years that we would require a bridge, and it's my dream that I will see the beautiful completed project before I pass from this world.
00
Brent Lalondr--I am hoping to see an excellent bike infrastructure before I pass on too. Do you think we will live long enough? Lol.
00
Are you kidding me? With all the unknown factors involved, including total cost, who really pays and actual need, how can citizens be in favour? It seems that many people are getting worn down with the delay and rhetoric in making a true decision and so are throwing their hands up in the air and in apathy are saying "build it". No thank you!
00
I note that your Open House #2 for the current Phase of the project has been deferred from this November to Spring of 2017.
Can you please advise the location of where you plan to hold your Open House #2.
00
Dear comment-ers:

Thanks for your comments and questions. It is evident that you and the overall community has a great interest in all aspects of the Third Crossing project which can be categorized into two main areas: whether the third crossing is needed?…and should the third crossing be built?

The Third Crossing Environmental Assessment (EA) posed the question of whether additional crossing capacity was needed across the Cataraqui River. Through the completion of various research and analysis (technical, social, environmental, traffic, development, etc.), the EA concluded that the need for additional crossing capacity was justified. The EA also determined that the location of the crossing be the John Counter Blvd and Gore Road alignment, be a low profile and Arch-span type structure, and have measures in place to mitigate impacts of the project . These EA conclusions were endorsed by Kingston Council in 2012 which initiated the process of seeking the review, scrutiny, and ultimate approval of the EA by the Province of Ontario. The Ministry of the Environment reviewed all of the EA’s content and responded to all questions submitted by stakeholders including questioning the need of the project. The Province declared that the EA’s methodology was correct and led to the EA’s recommendations and conclusions being ultimately approved by the Province. This signalled the end of the debate of whether a third crossing is needed.

It is apparent that the need for a third crossing is still being questioned by stakeholders however the need has been justified as explained above. The Third Crossing team will work to respond to the questions of need over the course of time but please keep in mind that the current focus of Council (and staff) is to answer the question of “should we build a third crossing?”

The current work involves the completion of a preliminary design and business plan. The preliminary design will include an updated Class B construction cost estimate that will be used to inform the business plan and also provide estimates for on-going operational and maintenance costs over the life-cycle of the bridge (Class A is the highest and most accurate level of estimating and is performed as part of any future detailed design exercise). One of the major objectives of the business plan is to determine the cost-to-benefit ratio by comparing the costs that would apply to the design, construction, operation, and maintenance phases of the bridge against the potential benefits that would be derived from the bridge being constructed and in service. It is anticipated that this business plan work will assist and inform Council as to whether to proceed further with the Third Crossing project.

The project team is approaching the halfway point of the current preliminary design and business plan assignments and progress is being made, however, we will not have the answers at this point-in-time to all of the questions that have been posted on the Comment Page. We kindly ask for your patience and continued interest in the project. There is a Public Open House being held on September 29, 2016 in which we can share the process and methodologies of how work is being carried out and how the work will ultimately be completed to help in responding to your questions.

More information can be found on the webpages as the project work progresses.

Thank you,
The Third Crossing Team
Email: thirdcrossing@cityofkingston.ca
00
With all due respect to the Third Crossing team, the EA is not a reliable source to lock up the debate on whether the Third Crossing is needed!

- Provincial government base on the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) requires that "the use of the existing infrastructure should be optimized , wherever feasible, before consideration is given to developing new infrastructure." However, the EA dismiss the use of the 401 only by claiming that the highway is "out of hand" and a "regional" freeway One can wonder how come it is not out of hand when it is used largely in Toronto or Ottawa or even in the medium size cities like Whitby, Oshawa, Trenton, Belleville and Brockville to get from one part of those cities to different parts but the use of that is not appropriate in Kingston after the provincial government has spent more than $100 million to make it 6 lane for Kingstonians.

- In addition the City studies shows that even if the Third Crossing is built, still 85% of the current 401 users will prefer to keep using this highway.

- The EA has ignored the fact that the Third Crossing won't change the traffic conditions of the Causeway to meet with the Official Plan and Transportation Plan standards. If the bridge doesn't do what it is designed for, why the taxpayers money has to be wasted?

- The EA analysis is based on Level Of Service (LOS) D which allowed to use 90% of the road lane's capacity. The Kingston Transportation Master Plan 2015 has changed the LOS to E. Now full capacity of roads can be used. With the new standard we need less new roads and new infrastructures such as the Third Crossing.

- The EA was prepared when the new population growth projections wasn't published. According to the new report, the city's population will be declined by 3.45% between 2030 and 2040. This decline is a big factor to deny the need for a new crossing or new widening roads in the city.

- The two lane Third Crossing will be reach the full capacity much sooner than is expected (20 years). This is because of induced demand phenomenon and Newton's laws of attractions. (Please read the "City's obsolete transportation planning" in Kinston Region). Another reason that the bridge is a waste of money.

- On Tuesday December 1, 2015, the City council unanimously approved a target of 20% for active transportation and 15% for transit by 2034. Only the new transit target will decrease 3840 vehicle trips city wide in PM peak hours. When the EA was prepared the transit share was only 5%. This development also demonstrates that the EA's data used to justify the need for the Third Crossing are no longer reliable.

- The EA has failed to provide a comprehensive analysis of the project impacts with regards to the climate change. This document claims that the Third Crossing will decrease the annual car idling emission by 115 tonnes of CO2. Instead, the City studies shows that the bridge will increase the car trips between the two part of the city only in PM peak hours by 22% ( 127,050 extra trips in a year). This will result in generating of hundreds or even thousands ( depending on the length of trips) tonnes of CO2 pumped to the atmosphere in a city that is trying to be the most sustainable in the country. Kinston doesn't need unsustainable infrastructures.

- The new technologies are being used in an unprecedented speed. Uber is testing the driverless cars in Pittsburgh. One of the advantages of this technology is the use of narrower road lanes and less expensive infrastructure decreasing congestions. Another reason that we don't need the bridge.

- The bridge is not needed because it will be a tax burden for Kingstonians.

- Because of this unsustainable project other city's priorities will suffer more than ever. Currently, some of the cities single mothers have to wait for years to get a subsidies housing. Our seniors have to wait at least 6 months to get to a nursing home. This is happening in a city that has a high number of retired and senior people.

The City official and the Third Crossing team is better to give Kingstonians the opportunity to discuss about this mega project in a public meeting rather than focussing on project's details. The open house is just an information session not a real public engagement. Thank you.

Mahmood Rowghani
Architect graduate and urban planner
00
I believe that the comment from the Third Crossing Team, “This signaled the end of the debate of whether a third crossing is needed.”, may be correct as far as it goes but does not accurately state the what is really needed. In my opinion, what is really needed is to reduce the volume (of cars) to capacity( of the road) - i.e., the v/c in the KTMP - of portions of the road system specifically over the Causeway.

The Third Crossing only diverts traffic from north of Gore Road on #15 away from the Causeway. It does not divert traffic coming into the city along the #2 before the junction of the #2 and the #15. In short the volume of cars on the #2 up to the Causeway would not change and the volume of traffic from the junction of the #2 and #15 going over the Causeway could be reduced by the Third Crossing. However, to make matters worse, the segment of the #15 from Gore Road to the #2 has seen high rise construction which will only add to the volume of cars in this section. If this development continues, it would reduce the impact of the Third Crossing on the volume of cars going over the Causeway.

If, as I perceive it, the real need is reduce the volume of cars being used throughout Kingston and especially east of the river, then the only reasonable and cost effective method would be an an improvement in the number of people using the mass transit system. The solution may not be the Third Causeway but implementing the ideas expressed in the Kingston Transportation Master Plan (KTMP).
00
Is the city of Kingston paying for news articles in the local newspaper?
Like this one:
Is the Third Crossing over the Cataraqui River Needed?
Advertisement City of Kingston
00
Absolutely. The Whig disclaimer at the bottom of the page http://www.thewhig.com/2016/09/26/is-the-third-crossing-over-the-cataraqui-river-needed says 'This story was provided by the city of Kingston for commercial purposes'. This is our tax dollars paying for a piece of marketing posing as a news article, promoting a questionable project to paid for by - our tax dollars.

Whilst I'm here - a repeat of the simple question I posed to the Third Crossing Team back on 13th. September, so far unanswered. So again :

I note that your Open House #2 for the current Phase of the project has been deferred from this November to Spring of 2017.
Can you please advise the location of where you plan to hold your Open House #2.
00