For information on the Third Crossing, please contact:

The Third Crossing Team
Phone: 613-546-4291, Ext. 3130

Comment Page Guidelines

Your feedback is important  and the project team welcomes your comments!

  • Please note comments on this forum are moderated and submitted comments will be posted on this page.
  • The project team aims to respond to all comments, however we may not be able to answer all because work is continuing on some elements. Once information is available we will provide an update.
  •  Please email if you wish to send private comments or are experiencing technical issues.
Sign up to receive Third Crossing news


Note: If you wish to leave a comment, please sign in.

To comment, please sign in.

By: Ken Cuthbertson
Posted on 10/2/17 3:18 PM.
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.
By: David Slack
Posted on 6/21/16 6:14 PM.
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...
By: mj Overby
Posted on 6/27/16 6:27 PM.
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.
By: Derek Complin
Posted on 7/4/16 9:59 PM.­3.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
By: Third Crossing
Posted on 7/15/16 5:33 PM in reply to Derek Complin.
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
By: Mahmood Rowghani
Posted on 7/17/16 6:07 AM.
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
By: Derek Complin
Posted on 7/20/16 10:52 AM.
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
By: Third Crossing
Posted on 7/22/16 10:23 AM in reply to Derek Complin.
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
By: Arthur Jordan
Posted on 7/22/16 11:42 AM.
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.
By: Derek Complin
Posted on 7/22/16 1:55 PM in reply to Derek Complin.
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..
Posted on 7/23/16 1:30 PM.
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!
By: Derek Complin
Posted on 7/27/16 11:28 AM in reply to Third Crossing.
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?
By: A Decade Of Waiting
Posted on 7/31/16 7:15 PM.
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!
By: Gerry Locklin
Posted on 8/4/16 4:54 PM.
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.
By: Grant Buckler
Posted on 8/5/16 11:55 AM.
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.
By: Dionne O'Neil
Posted on 10/2/17 3:14 PM.
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??
By: Grant Buckler
Posted on 8/5/16 1:22 PM in reply to Dionne O'Neil.
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.
By: A Decade Of Waiting
Posted on 8/5/16 2:30 PM.
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.
By: Gerry Locklin
Posted on 8/6/16 12:36 PM.
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
By: Karen Lahey
Posted on 8/7/16 2:19 PM.
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.
By: Ken Cuthbertson
Posted on 10/2/17 3:53 PM in reply to Karen Lahey.
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.
By: Derek Complin
Posted on 8/8/16 9:35 AM in reply to Ken Cuthbertson.
"possibly having to pay taxes to finance major infrastructure projects" ?
Where else do you believe the money might come from?
By: Karen Lahey
Posted on 8/8/16 9:38 AM.
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.
By: Grant Buckler
Posted on 10/2/17 3:13 PM.
"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 thrir 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?
By: Mahmood Rowghani
Posted on 8/8/16 3:01 PM in reply to Karen Lahey.
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
By: Karen Lahey
Posted on 8/8/16 9:20 PM.
Thank you Mahmood. A thoughtful and well considered answer.
By: lake lady
Posted on 10/2/17 2:13 PM.
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.
By: Ken Cuthbertson
Posted on 8/11/16 7:40 PM in reply to lake lady.
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.
By: Ken Cuthbertson
Posted on 8/11/16 7:40 PM in reply to lake lady.
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.
By: Douglas Burrell
Posted on 8/12/16 4:36 PM.
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.
By: Douglas Burrell
Posted on 8/12/16 4:41 PM.
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?
By: mj Overby
Posted on 8/12/16 4:49 PM.
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.....
By: Maralyn Complin
Posted on 8/13/16 9:49 AM.
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.
By: Douglas Burrell
Posted on 8/13/16 10:52 AM.
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!
By: Douglas Burrell
Posted on 8/13/16 10:53 AM.
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.
By: Mahmood Rowghani
Posted on 8/22/16 7:00 PM in reply to Third Crossing.
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
By: Ken Cuthbertson
Posted on 8/22/16 8:42 PM.
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.
By: Brian Arthur
Posted on 8/25/16 12:11 PM.
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.
By: Karen Lahey
Posted on 8/25/16 4:18 PM.
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.
By: lake lady
Posted on 8/29/16 3:15 PM.
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.
By: Douglas Burrell
Posted on 8/29/16 8:54 PM.
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?
By: Brent Lalondr
Posted on 9/8/16 9:24 PM.
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.
By: Karen Lahey
Posted on 9/8/16 9:54 PM.
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.
By: George Harris
Posted on 9/11/16 9:31 AM.
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!
By: Derek Complin
Posted on 9/13/16 3:12 PM.
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.
By: Third Crossing
Posted on 6/19/17 2:01 PM.
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
By: Douglas Burrell
Posted on 9/15/16 9:05 AM.
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).
By: Mahmood Rowghani
Posted on 9/16/16 2:10 PM in reply to Third Crossing.
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 Kinstonians.

- 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
By: lake lady
Posted on 9/27/16 8:28 PM.
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
By: Derek Complin
Posted on 9/27/16 8:52 PM in reply to lake lady.
Absolutely. The Whig disclaimer at the bottom of the page­-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.
By: stacey rosbury
Posted on 10/2/17 3:08 PM.
I dont think we need a third crossing! We need to focus on building the downtown core back up with businesses. Have you not seen how many businesses are empty from Barrie st down to the water along Princess??? Its appalling.that these businesses either cannot afford the rents, and/or that all this construction that happens yearly has diminished the amount of customers they can receive. We aren't going to get anyone wanting to come here on this so called "needed" third crossing, because they wont want to see a shamble of a city. Its hard to be happy about a city falling apart.
By: Jeanette Parsons
Posted on 10/2/16 8:26 PM.
As a resident of the East end for the past 12 years or so, I think the third crossing is long overdue. In fact, I think the City of Kingston has been rather negligent and ill-prepared in its plan to permit the building of hundreds of homes in this area over the years without at the same time dealing with the traffic pressures that inevitability accompany such growth.

To those who say the morning commute isn’t that bad likely do not have the challenge of dropping school children off during a short time window (e.g., 8:05-8:20 am) and getting to work on time, say at Queen’s or KGH. Good luck too with making an 8:30 appointment at Hotel Dieu, the Cancer Centre or KGH without the inconvenience of having to leave ridiculously early.

I have read comments by those who suggest that building the third crossing will serve only to perpetuate our car-reliant community. The reality is that not building the third crossing will have no influence on the way people chose to get around. People in general will not suddenly take up biking to work just because they’re spending a bit more time in traffic. As a cyclist who rides from Greenwood Park to Queen’s daily 7 months of the year, I too would dearly love to see fewer single-occupant cars travelling to the same or similar destination each way. Since that’s not likely to happen, I believe the third crossing will make biking to work easier and safer, since at the very least, it’ll mean fewer cars using the causeway, which in and of itself is hazardous for cyclists.

As to how we’ll pay for it, well I would think that the millions and millions of dollars in property taxes the City is raking in from the hundreds of newly built home in the East end should help, many of which bring in between $4500 and $6,000 per year, with more coming on grid. In the years I’ve lived in Kingston, I’ve see many significant traffic improvements in areas like the West end. Surely to goodness, we East end residents deserve no less.
By: Mahmood Rowghani
Posted on 10/3/16 8:17 PM.
Dear Jeanette,
As a cyclist myself, I understand your point. Unfortunately, most of our roads are built only for cars sacrificing cyclist's safety.

The thing is that our transportation planing is obsolete. Instead of discouraging car dependency specially 75% of private cars with single passenger, it recommends widening roads, adding lanes and building bridges. This approach is proven to be wrong. It doesn't reduce congestion or make roads safer, but it results in more congested roads. The visual example is the 401 through Toronto where there is gridlock with 16 to 20 road lanes.

This happens because of the "induced demand phenomenon". The more lanes or bridges you add the more drivers you encourage to come ( for more information please read " Kingston's obsolete transportation planning" on Kingston Region online).

The solution is to provide Kingstonians with an efficient transit and give them strong incentives to use it ( Please read " Decreasing car dependency smart planning" on the Whig). Nobody expect that things will change overnight. It will takes time. But the result will be less congested and safer roads. In addition we can save taxpayers money to address our priorities such as rehabilitating our roads, providing subsidize and affordable housing and more nursing homes for our elderly people.

I have also a bad news for you. The City studies show that with the two lane Third Crossing the traffic condition on highway 2 and 15 and Causeway won't change to meet the Official plan and Kingston Transportation Master plan standards. Sorry!


Mahmood Rowghani
Graduate architect and urban planner
By: Ken Cuthbertson
Posted on 10/2/17 3:34 PM.
I'm a cyclist .. . rode my bike to work for 25+ years.

I'm also no fan of the automobile, and I agree the rule of the road weren't written with cyclists or cycling safety in mind.

But I'm also enough of a realist to know that people aren't ever going to give up their cars. Far too many people live in suburbia or in rural areas and for them cycling is a non-starter. When gasoline-powered vehicles go the way of the horse-and-buggy, which
I hope will be sooner rather than later, people will be zipping around in electric cars or hydrogen-powered, or whatever. As for mass transit . . . in a city the size of Kingston. It will always be a money loser, unless we completely rethink the way we deliver the service.

The main beefs with building a bridges are cost and the idea we don't need another bridge. As for the cost argument . . . if cost is the determining factor in all decisions, we will never move ahead. let alone keep what infrastructure we already have serviceable and in good repair. As for the need for a bridge . .. even if we don't need a bridge in 2016, can we be sure the city need one in 2026? In 2036?

I expect there were people in 1917 who said, "A new bridge? Why do we need one? The Penny Bridge (which, BTW, was a toll bridge) has been good enough for the last 50 years. It's all Kingston needs."
By: Douglas Burrell
Posted on 10/9/16 8:32 PM.
Comment from Ken Cuthbertson: "But I'm also enough of a realist to know that people aren't ever going to give up their cars"

Never say never! Just read the website below and wonder why we need a third crossing when the solutions in the article would drastically reduce cars on our streets and highways.­getting-around-will-transform-transportand-cities-too-it
By: Nadene Strange
Posted on 11/8/16 8:55 AM.
The Third Crossing is definitely needed and should be completed sooner rather than later. The Wellington Street extension should also be completed. We have a habit in this city of delaying things until they are critical. Look at Counter St. It should have been widened and the railway bridge built years ago.
By: John Allen
Posted on 1/8/17 7:37 PM.
The third crossing is needed and long overdue! Being in Kingston for only two years I have seen the traffic nightmare first hand. I was in traffic for 25 minutes this summer when the Causeway bridge was open to let boats go past. What happens to the pedestrians and bicyclists when the bridge is broken or needs maintenance, they can't go up to the 401 it is against the law for them to do so, how do they cross? The same thing happened in Oakville years ago, no one wanted the Rebecca Street bridge over 16 mile creek, well now 20 years later you can't live without it. Then 14 years ago someone suggested another bridge for the Upper Middle Road extension over 16 mile creek, same thing we are going through in Kingston...Bridge got built, saves time, money and carbon and the environment....If people are worried about the cost, put a toll on it, those who use it pay a dollar! Use the same technology as the 407 uses, they will license it to Kingston. Oakville now has 4 or 5 crossings and is roughly the same size as Kingston....Food for thought. Kingston a City steeped in History, a little Progress is needed sometimes.
By: Robert Remillard
Posted on 2/19/17 3:41 PM.
I find with interest that the most active commentators on this page are Derek Complin and Douglas Burrell, both living just by the Pittsburg library, just where the entrance to the bridge will be. I have heard both of them complaining about the cost of the bridge, but their real problem is that it will be in their backyard.

Be honest and do not disguise your main reason. Right now, you are not very credible.
By: mj Overby
Posted on 10/2/17 3:52 PM.
i agree with you Robert Remillard. A third crossing will happen (hopefully in my lifetime), it's necessary to the east of the this city. PERIOD. This particular issues has been debated, studied, argued, bickered, surveyed some more, since 1962. ENOUGH. In my opinion, we should recognize that it is going to happen and deal with it. Progress folks. Safety folks. Let's get on with it and stop whining. Thank you.
By: Vicki Schmolka
Posted on 2/19/17 8:09 PM.
Would those of you who are writing "enough talk" and "build it now" please offer to pay my increased taxes -- estimated to be at least $200 a year -- over the next decades? We don't even know what it would cost and you are committed to doing it. Would you run your household that way?
By: Third Crossing
Posted on 2/23/17 11:38 AM.
Good morning,

As you may be aware, the former Councillor for Countryside resigned to pursue employment with the County of Frontenac. To fill this seat, the City is holding a by-election on May 15 and the new Councillor will be sworn in on June 6, 2017. This project update is to let you know City Council will consider the final report on Phases 2 and 3 of the Third Crossing Action Plan (the final preliminary design and business plan) in June instead of May.

Work continues on the preliminary engineering designs and business plan and more information on these aspects will be shared as they become available. City staff continue to engage the community throughout these phases of work with online and in-person communication, including:

• Updating the project website with information as it becomes available
• Offering feedback from the Fall Public Open House online (available summarized or in full).
• Presentations to business and community organizations
• Discussions with near neighbours and community interest groups
• Providing an online forum to allow residents to post their comments and have a discussion with other people about the project. (Find it using the “Contact” button at

There will also be a second public open house in the Spring of 2017 with city staff providing information on the final preliminary design, business plan and an overview of how public feedback has been considered on these phases of work. More information on the date and location of the second public open house will be available soon. If you have questions or comments, please email the Third Crossing project team at or call 613-546-4291 ext. 3136.

Thank you for your continued interest in this project.

The Third Crossing Team
By: Charles Staple
Posted on 2/25/17 9:06 AM.
The city wants to build the 3rd Crossing but where will the money come from? The City needs a tri-partite agreement with the Province and Federal governments for funds. That begs the question of just how much? How much falls on the backs of City tax payers as actual dollars, and whether or not liabilities from concealed transactions with the federal government surface years later. Consider the following.

FIRST - the cost of bridge construction. We know that the cost of the Ontario government’s proposed construction of the final phase of widening the 401; an additional 2 lanes of Highway 401, including 95 metres of the Cataraqui River Bridge, will cost $26.8 Million The 401 bridge design is relatively simple with the 2 abutments on shore (not in open water); with the roadwork being earth removal/widening, the addition of granular base and paving of the highway for 1.5 km. I believe the cost of the previous project which included the Montreal Street bridge and highway widening was $40 Million. This provides a comparative and raises serious questions about the accuracy of the consultant estimate of $120 million for construction of the 3rd Crossing.

The proposed 3rd Crossing will consist of two intersections and mainland bridge approaches at the Gore and Elliot access points, with two lanes entirely over water, for a distance of 1000+ metres in length from shore to shore. One has to account for the fact that the crossing is entirely a bridge structure, over open water, which will involve constructing 15-20 bridge pier structures with footings to bedrock, in some cases 100 feet down into the contaminated sediment of the Greater Cataraqui River. The construction will take place in open water, with barges, floating containment systems and cranes rather than conventional dry land construction practices. It will not be as simplistic as the Hwy 401 bridge construction. The bridge deck will also be 10 times longer than the Hwy 401 bridge. The 3rd Crossing of the Cataraqui will not cost a mere $120 Million or even the newest estimate of $180 Million. It should conservatively cost at least $200 Million, and I suspect higher, when taking into account the complexity of the engineered bridge piers and foundations and dredging the contaminated river bottom to get barges to "free float" at the pier sites.

SECOND - the cost of “tolls”. If the City’s portion of bridge cost is over $50-80 Million the City will have difficulty coming up with the capital funds from its reserves. Even with a tri-partite infrastructure agreement with the Province and the Federal governments, the City will carry a substantial one third share but also be responsible for any cost over runs (remember the Grand Theatre, the LVEC and the Queens Centre ... all experienced VERY SUBSTANTIAL COST OVER-RUNS after low cost estimates were provided for Council approval). The City has a limited ability to carry any risk for such a large construction project.

Keep in mind that the city is not growing like urban areas such as in the Golden Horse Shoe. The City’s attraction as a senior community results in a constant turnover rather than a sustainable growth with an extremely modest increase in population during the last 5 years, according to Statistics Canada. The City is more likely to experience a population decline (such as Brockville) (due to a decrease of the City’s senior population) in the next few decades. Just how will the City be prepared to carry the cost of $50 to $80 million over the next couple of decades? It can’t bank on taxes alone. With certainty, it will be tolls!

If everyone had to use the bridge, the toll fees could be modest. But if people avoid the bridge crossing the method of payment defeats the user pay concept and then there is little point in pursuing the venture. Additionally, cost will be driven higher through the influence of installing a toll system (staffed or likely electronic like the 407) and the service contract with the party who will own and operate the toll system given the City will likely avoid being responsible. One has to ask, for every dollar collected through a toll fee how much will actually go towards the city for the bridge construction vs the party responsible for the administration/operation of the toll system? Will the toll be as high as $3-5 to build, maintain and administer the toll system with a small portion going the City’s debt recovery?

THIRD - the art of the deal ... Quid Pro Quo. This past summer, did you not think it was strange how the City shied away from the purchase of the marine museum dry dock site? The City had originally agreed to take the property over and lease it back to the museum. Then the City turned their backs alleging that the City could not be responsible for a multi-million dollar clean-up of the site if it assumed ownership. The deal with the museum was no more and the Federal government proceeded to sell the site to a developer for a modest cost. The developer apparently had full knowledge of the site contamination but had little concern with the cleanup costs. So the sale bolstered the Federal coffers. Is it possible that the City intentionally turned back on the museum with an arrangement that the Federal gain in revenue would be reflected in the future Federal infrastructure dollars to be allocated to the 3rd Crossing? Perhaps a case of QIUD PRO QUO?

While the dry dock is no longer, the LaSalle Causeway and the Kingston Pen are still in play. For twenty-five years Public Works Canada has wanted to divest itself of the causeway by way of a $1 sale to the city. Likewise the Kingston Pen is now a consideration. So who holds trump? If it sounds too good to be true, it is. For a dollar, the City could own these properties. But this would be a vast misfortune for the City. A huge financial burden if it assumes the causeway (which itself will need to be replaced) and the penitentiary site (which requires a huge investment if it is to become anything more than a tourist attraction). The financial burden would be many times over the cost of a 3rd Crossing even at $200 million. The City should insist the Federal Government decommission and replace the LaSalle Causeway and the Bascule lift (100 years old this year) with a new crossing.

And as far as the Pen goes, the Federal government should be held accountable for decommissioning the site in preparation for repurposing. Until that time the City should not go near it for any development proposals or ownership. It is a far greater liability than an asset. Leave it in the hands of the Federal government.

Tax payers should remove themselves from the argument of whether they are for or against the need of the 3rd Crossing. The question is whether the City of Kingston can afford to build it. And if we can't, turn to Public Works Canada and force them to decommission the LaSalle Causeway and replace it with a new 4 lane bridge. Its their responsibility. They are replacing the Champlain Bridge in Montreal!
By: lake lady
Posted on 2/26/17 10:22 AM.
There can not be any decisions until the report from the work last summer is made public. The public then needs time to understand the report and the enviromental ramifications of building this very expensive bridge.
By: John Allen
Posted on 2/26/17 10:29 AM.
How about making it a toll road? I pay for the 407 when I use it...I pay in the US for roads when I use them! Pay for use...those that want to use it pay for it! Kingston is behind the times and the population is slow growing and so is economic development. Everything in this town is debated for years and nothing gets done or it gets done late. Kingston is not growing and if it doesn't Kingston residents will not be able to afford the city's pensions or buy new buses etc..unless taxes go way up. I pay more in taxes in Kingston with less services then I did Oakville. Oakville is way more progressive and has better facilitates and services and roads and bridges then Kingston!
By: Charles Staple
Posted on 2/27/17 10:52 AM in reply to John Allen.

I agree. But some will not want a toll and will travel to the 401 or use the causeway. That would defeat the purpose of a toll ... resulting in an extra a high cost to use the new crossing, tuning people away. The best way is that both the causeway AND the the 3rd crossing have a toll. But I doubt the City or consultants would propose such. I hear some people suggest that the toll fee be uni- directional ... with a toll fee on the west side at Hwy15 ... free to go east. This would target the beneficiaries of a 3rd crossing viewed as being the Pittsburgh side.

Very complicated if not ugly. Unfortunately the city is proceeding "down river" and over the falls ... no way to pull back and revisit the course of action. They can, and should have, identified a ceiling cost at the beginning of the study identifying how much the City can afford and how tax payers can pay for the 1/3 portion of an infrastructure project with the province and feds. But no one knows what the City's ceiling limit is. $50M/ $100M or more. It will just go as high as need be to complete the study, instead of pulling the plug when it is known that the cost cannot be managed.
By: Chad Buell
Posted on 3/9/17 10:00 AM.
As a member of Kingston's 3rd Crossing Facebook Group Some members have concerns regarding the use of 3P funding for the Bridge. can you provide some insight into the 3p option for the Bridge and the other possible funding options that the city may currently be reviewing to provide to the Councilors prior to making the decision on the bridge. Funding has been a huge part of the conversation around the bridge and having clarity and transparency on the options is important to all Kingstonians
By: Charles Staple
Posted on 3/9/17 11:02 PM in reply to Chad Buell.
The topic is discussed in general terms on page 202-3 of the Environmental Study Report (April 2012). Basically, the City can handover much if not all of, the construction, operation and maintenance to the private sector for their interest in profit and reduced financial risk. Tolls would be a major interest of the P3 partnership.

The ESR states the following:
The Public-Private-Partnership (P3) model is a cooperative venture between the public and private sectors.
It is built on the expertise of each partner that best meets clearly defined public needs through the
appropriate allocation of resources, risks and rewards. This essentially involves an analysis of what it
would cost the public sector to design, build, finance and maintain the infrastructure for the life of the
Concession, compared to engaging the P3 model, which is a form of procurement for providing capital
assets and associated long term operations that includes a component of private finance.

The P3 model can be appropriate for major and complex capital projects that are usually in excess of $100
million and have significant ongoing maintenance requirements. A P3 can ensure that the contractor is
bound to provide project management, design and risk management expertise to the Owner and to enter
into long term operational contracts for the project after it is built. As such, a P3 carries the responsibility
for the quality of the contractor’s work over the implementation and operation phases of the project.
Typically, at the end of the P3 contract, the infrastructure is turned over to the Owner under clearly defined

The initial P3 selection process is similar to the Design-Build process. The first step involves submissions
by the lead contractor teams to the Owner during the pre-qualification stage. The top three to four submissions
are normally selected by the Owner and those teams are invited to develop designs of
suitable detail that can be assessed by the Owner as well as used by the teams to establish their bids.
Once the preferred team is selected, the Owner executes the contract agreements for the design, build,
finance, operation, maintenance and transfer of the infrastructure at the end of the contract term38. This is
the main difference between the Design-Build and P3 models, in that the P3 model includes a process for
financing and payment over a long period (usually 25 years or more).
By: lake lady
Posted on 10/2/17 3:15 PM.
When will the report on the work completed last summer be available? The concentrations of heavy metals and other contaminations in the sediment needs to be known before anyone can make an educated decision on this matter.
By: Randall Levi
Posted on 4/14/17 4:24 PM.
What scares me is that the total cost has not been figured out. As many letters to the editor have asked for. There is a lot of infrastructure to be built on each side of the bridge which is not included. Where do the people go once they are in the City of Kingston proper? There will be no grants for this. Also a third lane seems to be necessary and not planned for. Lastly is it really needed as 401 is going to be 6 lanes from the east. 4 lanes east to the 401 would be a great idea.
By: Charles Staple
Posted on 4/16/17 10:42 PM.
A couple of weeks ago I inquired with the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change as to the status of the ESR. I was advised ......

“The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) requires proponents to implement the project in accordance with the Environmental Study Report (ESR) and commitments that were made to the public and review agencies during the Class EA process. In addition, the City is required to fulfill the condition imposed in the Minister’s decision by consulting with MOECC on dredging, construction protocols, mitigation measures, monitoring, and required MOECC permits and approvals, and following written directions provided by MOECC as a result of the consultation. The City is aware of these requirements. At this time, the City is not far enough along in its design process to meet with MOECC on these issues.” .........

Assuming that the ‘Arch With V-Piers’ concept, remains the recommended design with up to 13 piers at 83 m spans [for a total in-water pier footprint of 0.07 hectares (ha)], it would appear that the permits and approvals have not been acquired. This means cost estimates are at best questionable approximations. Details are required for the following:
• Approval for dredging as the preferred in-water method for access to construction re extraction, containment, transport and management of contaminated waste dredgeate
• Do the limits for expropriations remain unchanged from the ESR, with no further impacts to residents?
• What will be the on-shore stormwater management system for the de-icing agent (?) use on the bridge with the proposed fixed automated spray technology (FAST) system? What will it cost?
• Approval of the design of sound attenuation barriers being effective in reducing associated noise levels. How high will they have to be, how long, their location etc. for residents to comment?
• What will the rehabilitation/compensation for fisheries and heritage features be? Can the public engage with ideas eg. re-establish Belle Island by removing the adjacent landfill?
• The cost of effluent management, hydraulic dredging, disposal of dredge waste and detention area? Where will it be disposed of?
• Cost of controlling navigation in accordance with Parks Canada requirements.

Just some of the costs that have we will have to wait and see.
By: Third Crossing
Posted on 4/18/17 6:03 PM.
The Third Crossing Team is working to post all the reports, including the geo-environmental report, on the Third Crossing webpage in early May 2017.

In regards to the other recent comments, they are being considered and have been added to the project file and will help inform the decision-making processes on this project.

We look forward to speaking with you at the Public Open Houses next week.

Thank you for your continued interest in this project.

The Third Crossing Team
By: lake lady
Posted on 4/19/17 8:42 AM.
Thank you for responding. The geo-environmental report needs to be released before the open houses, There is no logical reason not to do this. Otherwise those attending the meetings will not have all the information in order to discuss the project. Is it simply a feel-good exercise so people can vent?
It is well known that areas of the Rideau Canal have significant levels of contaminates in the sediment. A recent construction project on the Rideau in Ottawa revealed the presence of heavy metals, such as lead and cadmium, as well as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which have been linked to various cancers.
Parks Canada has known of the industrial pollutants buried in the sediment and recommends leaving them undisturbed. This is the safest way of ensuring they are not released into the waterbody.
No one can make an educated and informed decision about this proposed project until they have all the information. This bridge will burden the taxpayer financially but the environmental legacy it will leave will impact the susceptible Cataraqui wetlands and surrounding area for years to come.
By: Marc Raven
Posted on 4/21/17 9:09 AM.
When will there be more information on the plans to protect residents on John Counter and Gore Rd from the increased noise of adding a major thoroughfare? There have been responses about noise walls, but I can't find any details in the most recent traffic, bridge or landscape plans which already put a large demand on the small amount of space available east of Montreal street. Is there not concern for the social and economic damage this will cause to Kingston residents who will be exposed to an exponential increase in construction, residential, commercial and pedestrian traffic just a few feet from their homes?
By: Randall Levi
Posted on 4/21/17 1:08 PM.
Marc just made a good point about the increased sound level that this new bridge will create on both sides of the river. I know how these studies work as my back yard faces the airport. I went to meetings and was told that the sound level of 737's would be the same as a quiet country road. By the way now it sure is not so I guess the 737's would make the airport quiet. What I learned that they will hire a company who will say there will be no noise and it will not matter that it is totally wrong. Welcome to Kingston Marc.
By: Charles Staple
Posted on 10/2/17 3:17 PM in reply to Randall Levi.
With respect to the newest information from the 3rd Crossing Study: April 21, 2017.

The Environmental Study Report (ESR) submitted in 2012 was supposed to follow the Municipal Class EA process. In my view it hasn't. The process that has been applied in this case has abused the public’s right to a fully transparent and credible study. The changes being presented at this time in 2017 are overwhelming.

The public had the expectation that the proposed V-Pier bridge, its method of construction via dredging and the required permits had been vetted through agencies. In appears that the ESR was nothing but an approval of the 3rd Crossing from point A (Elliot Ave) to point B (Gore Rd) and agencies did not hold the City accountable for the bridge design, method of construction and required permits at the time the ESR was released. Contaminants, storm water management, noise barriers, property expropriations and many more questions appear to be outstanding/unanswered. For agencies like MOECC to simply say “there are no significant changes to the ESR” regarding point A to B, so go ahead, change whatever you like subject to pending permit approval. The consultant and the City can do anything they like, as long as they cross from point A to B. This is not in keeping with the Municipal Class EA process because it leaves the public out of the Class EA process.

Quite frankly, if any bridge is to be built I’d like the public reviewed and Council approved 2012 V-Pier design over others, and secondly I’d like some assurance from the Federal government that they have plans to replace the La Salle Causeway with a new, 100 year life structure within the discussion and documentation of this study!

With the City hiring the same consultant from the previous study phase it’s as wonder how the ‘concept’ design as presented in the ESR changed so dramatically. Could they not build the V-Pier design for only $120 million?

The very attractive V-Pier design is a complex design and harder to build. That should not be surprising to an engineer. Alternatives were presented in the ESR. Why not the current one? We are now told “the pier design was revisited in response to bridge constructability, capital cost and environmental mitigation considerations”. Tell us how these matters warranted such change. One would expect a review of the recommended design would have been undertaken at a time, before the ESR was submitted. The proposed dredging is now scrapped to build a temporary bridge for construction. OR, are we now talking about building (and removing) a landfill causeway across the entire Cataraqui River?.

How valid are all the technical studies and public consultations that are part of the ESR? Is there any amount of dredging to take place? Where? What will the open water impacts be with regard to existing conditions and the uses like the Kingston Rowing Club? What is the “temporary bridge” and how will it be removed? The ESR original design identified 13 piers at 83 m spans [for a total in-water pier footprint of 0.07 hectares (ha)]. What does the new design call for? More piers and less spacing? The final preliminary design has definitely increased this impact. What is it? The public is entitled to learn more and to understand how and why this has study process is conflicting. The public should review, comment and object (if necessary) to a NEW Environmental Study Report.
By: Dave Watts
Posted on 4/25/17 2:19 PM.
I truly hope that all of the "No Third Crossing" people enjoyed the HUGE traffic jam on the weekend because the bridge was closed. It will happen again this weekend so please try to get out and enjoy the view.....of hwy 15 as you wait in line forever to get to the 401! I really hope that none of you need an ambulance because it is a real long drive to get to the hospital through these delays. If last weekend and next weekend doesn't convince you of the need, I guess you are also a member of the NIMBY group in Kingston.

Why are you not also fighting the bridge over the tracks near the VIA station? We don't really need those either do we? I don't know what the cost is but I am paying for it too and I may use it less than 20 times a year. use it . The NoBridge group should get on that project too. Actually they should get on ALL projects that cost money.

I will be retired by the time the bridge is built but FOR THE GREATER GOOD of the east side, I fully support it and will pay for it. Unfortunately most of the NoBridge group and supporters are retired or in jobs that don't require daily travel so they see no benefit to themselves. Maybe they should look at all of the projects in Kingston that were built for the greater good and stop looking at their own little back yard and how it will affect them personally. Taylor Kidd blvd, Centennial extension, Via Bridge, widening of the 401, etc.

I urge the nay sayers to start thinking about the greater picture and for the betterment of the City and not about your pocket! Do you think your taxes will not go up every year without the bridge? Good luck with that.
By: lake lady
Posted on 4/25/17 7:46 PM.
It seems there was a major $20 million plus flaw in the original business plan, Parks Canada, an important stakeholder since they own the basin of the Rideau Canal, has stated they will not have that area dredged to allow the barge. Can we be guaranteed that there are no other $20 million errors in the new business plan?
By: Scott Van Luven
Posted on 5/29/17 1:54 PM.
We need to consider ways of having fewer cars using existing routes. The outcry tends only to be on occasions when either the 401 or Causeway are limited or unavailable (and Kingston Mills was a viable "third crossing" alternative before it went under construction).Closures tend to be well communicated, better coordination would help, and a little planning on the part of residents,

The bottlenecks are the traffic lights, a bridge at Gore Road would make this bottleneck on Hwy 15 worse, as well as the lights at Montreal Street. Impact on residents at each end of the proposed bridge should also be considered.

Where is the economic gain to be had? There is very little vacant land between Barriefield and Innovation drive - and if a mall as far north as Innovation were built would the patrons not use the 401?

This would be an expensive element of convenience, it is not a necessity.
By: Charles Staple
Posted on 5/29/17 11:24 PM.
(This information is not confidential and is intended for the use by the general public and the news media to encourage, dissemination, distribution and copying of this communication)

The Third Crossing’s approval is a fait accompli. For those who have persisted with the argument that there is no “need” for the Third Crossing, I have to say, with polite benevolence, that opportunity was lost 4 years ago.

That was when the Minister of MOE, whose consideration of the Class EA study process’ accepted the exclusion of the two main existing transportation corridors into the City of Kingston. That was the true issue and the study furtively side-stepped their inclusion. Once this was accepted no further arguments on the "need and justification" would be heard. That said, the Class EA has not been credible with its disregard for the process.

“Residents are encouraged to provide their comments ...” This recent message issued through a City of Kingston communiqué identified that the residents of Kingston were encouraged to offer their input on the most recent draft reports for the Third Crossing Study.

This is dramatically different from the Environmental Study Notice issued by the City in May 2012 which identified that ALL stakeholders were invited to review the Environmental Study Report (ESR) and provide formal comments/concerns/suggestions. At that time, a person or party with unresolved concerns had the opportunity to request the Ontario Minister of the Environment (MOE) for a review of their concerns. A number of persons did request “Bump-ups” with respect to “the need and justification” component of the report. But that was 4 years ago and unfortunately, unbeknownst to the general naysayers, the entitlement no longer exists under the EA process. Now it is nothing more than having an opportunity to comment on viewing areas and the paint for the bike path.

At this time the City is requesting Provincial and Federal funding. It also requires a right of access on Federal property, the bed of the Cataraqui River leading across the Rideau Canal, which is also designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Yet, stakeholders such as First Nations, residents of the Province and Canadians in general, have no invitation respecting the final preliminary design report, even though it bears significant changes from the original ESR.

The design has been altered and the method of construction has deviated from the original presentation in the ESR and yet the Province and Federal Governments have said nothing to correct the process. The present exclusion of the public at large is disquieting to say the least.

Now, four years after the ESR was accepted by the MOE, Kingstonians and no-one else, are being asked to review and comment on a project design that diverges from the contents of the ESR. The design no longer includes a continuous V-Pier design; the method of construction requires a temporary bridge and; the project cost has increased as well. The argument regarding the ‘need and justification’ of the Third Crossing while still being pursued by staunch opponents to the crossing, is now and has been, irrelevant since the Minister of the Environment endorsed the City’s “need and justification”. He dismissed the public objectors who countered the described ‘need’ within the ESR study. The Minister’s decision never considered the Ministry of Transportation's traffic studies for their current Class EA study for Hwy 401 and Hwy 15. More importantly, the Minister never asked how the ESR planning study took into account what, if anything, was being done by Public Works Canada, with the replacement of the 100 year old Bascule Bridge and LaSalle Causeway. With time,it will likely mean the City will experience a reversion to “Two Crossings” ... as opposed to three.

The Municipal Class Environmental Study process was set adrift at the outset.

The lack of oversight respecting the Environmental Assessment process degraded the credibility, reliability and worthiness of the Environmental Study Report. It should have been the single, tangible, ‘stand alone’ reference document for the duration of the study. The ESR is no longer credible and casts a dubious cloud on the whole Municipal Class EA study.
By: Randall Levi
Posted on 5/30/17 9:35 AM in reply to Charles Staple.
The City do not want the Province or Ottawa to know that the cost and design have changed so much. The funding from these two are not carved in stone. We all know the tax payers in Kingston will pay more but no one knows how much. That part scares me. Good thoughtful comments.
By: David Slack
Posted on 6/5/17 7:40 PM.
In 1841, with about 6,000 citizens, the City of Kingston borrowed 25,000 British pounds to build City Hall, the equivalent of $171 million in 2017 dollars. Building the third crossing today calls for financing $25 million to be paid back over 30 years by 125,000 citizens. In 1841, Kingstonians had a vision and saw opportunity. We can again in 2017.