Citizens Opposed to Paving the Escarpment

Citizens Opposed to Paving the Escarpment

P.O. Box 40548, Upper Brant Postal Outlet

Burlington, ON, L7P 4W1

June 20th, 2003

Ministry of the Environment

Environmental Assessment & Approvals Branch
2 St. Clair Ave. W., Floor 12A
Toronto, Ont.
M4V 1L5

Attention: Solange Desautels, Special Project Officer

Re: The Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor, Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference.

INTRODUCTION

The following represents the submission from Citizens Opposed to Paving the Escarpment – COPE.

COPE is an all-volunteer, grassroots organization. Since our founding about one year ago, we’ve grown to over 1,100 members, and more concerned citizens are joining us every day. We have members from across the province. Regardless of where we live, we have some concerns in common. Foremost among these is protection of the Niagara Escarpment and the environment from the massive highway project known as the Mid-Peninsula Highway (MPH).

This 131-kilometre highway (see map below on page 7) will, if built, do irreversible damage to the Niagara Escarpment, the Niagara Peninsula, and uncounted natural and human areas of biological or cultural significance.

The MPH is slated to run from Fort Erie either to Burlington, or to intersect the 401 near Milton, Ontario. It will cut through farms, houses, businesses, wetlands, streams and forests. In the Burlington area, the road (via MTO’s preferred route C) is slated to cut the Escarpment diagonally, through valuable green space that the City of Burlington has preserved throughout its history. In the Niagara region, the highway will further destroy the remaining Carolinian forest. In rural Hamilton, the road will further fragment what remains of the provincially significant Beverly Swamp wetland area.

OUR POSITION

It is COPE’s position (one we share with many groups, individuals, and municipalities) that the Ontario Transport Ministry (MTO) has not demonstrated a need for this highway, that the planning process undertaken thus far has been haphazard, biased in favour of concerns in Niagara at the expense of concerns at the western end of the corridor, poorly documented, incomplete, deaf to the input of hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals (lay people and experts alike), that it has essentially ignored many of the environmental consequences of highway construction, and also that the many viable alternatives to this $1.5-billion toll road have been discarded without proper study. Nonetheless, MTO appears committed to proceed.

PUBLIC OPINION

Of more importance than the views of COPE, or the MTO, or of the other stakeholders is the will of the people.

A public opinion poll – commissioned by COPE – of 1,200 voting-age residents of 11 MPH-affected provincial ridings in late spring of 2003[1] revealed the following:

• 91.8% of respondents expressed the opinion that the Niagara Escarpment should be protected.
• 87.4% of respondents want to see a full Environmental Assessment included in the MPH planning process. (please also see page 11 for EA comments).
• 72% said that rail and transit should be improved before new major highways are built.

The MTO needs to be aware that its ultimate customer is the citizen – not the land speculator, not the tender fruit lobby, and not the Region of Niagara. The will of these special-interest groups and highway proponents should not be allowed to override the will of the people.

A brief aside: The Ministry of Transport insists on calling this project the ‘Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor.’ This paper, however, will refer to the project as the “Mid-Peninsula highway (MPH). Please see the endnotes for an explanation.[2]

PURPOSE AND OUTLINE OF THIS PAPER

This report aims to provide the Ministry (MOE) with some of the information needed to assess the merits of the MPH Terms of Reference prepared by the MTO. Environmental concerns are given high priority in this report, given that MOE’s mandate is, in part, “to protect the quality of the natural environment so as to safeguard the ecosystem and human health ... and foster the efficient use and conservation of resources.” [3]

Environmental impacts on the Niagara Escarpment are of paramount concern to many stakeholders and Ontario citizens – these are discussed in the main body of the paper. Other environmental concerns are covered in the appendices.

As well as the environmental concerns associated with the MPH, this paper touches on some of the structural and procedural problems with the planning process thus far, some of the economic factors involved, implications of the proposed routes on potential demand, and the issue of whether the MPH will actually provide any long-term transportation solutions.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER CONSEQUENCES OF POTENTIAL MID-PENINSULA HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

THE NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

The MPH will do substantial damage to the Niagara Escarpment, a World Biosphere Reserve, an area described by Ernie Eves as an "environmental treasure," and theoretically an area protected by Ontario law.

The Escarpment runs like a ribbon of unspoiled land through some of the most heavily developed and populated areas in Canada. Its difficult terrain and irregular topography have mostly protected it so far from the frenzy for development that has always characterized land-use planning in southern Ontario.

How lucky we are to have such proximity and easy access to wild land, home to thousands of species of plants and animals, waterfalls, hiking trails, wetlands and forests. It is an oasis of nature running through southern Ontario.

Do we even know how valuable it is, or is it like an endangered species: only to be missed after it's gone?

The Niagara Escarpment is simply the wrong place for a major highway corridor.

It is “an absolute jewel of rough country, just given as a gift to the people of Ontario,” said artist, naturalist and environmentalist Robert Bateman at a COPE press event.

While the province continually insists that it values the Escarpment, having referred to it as “invaluable,” “a precious resource,” and “irreplaceable,” in recent documents, it is apparently prepared to allow the MTO to create a great scar in both the face and the surface of the Escarpment over many kilometres.

This is completely unacceptable.

Aside from the physical effects of the highway on the Escarpment biosphere, which would radiate outward from its footprint, is the fact that the creation of another major highway in parallel to the QEW Niagara would place the most environmentally sensitive areas of the Escarpment (those nearest the northern face) between the two highways. As we’ve seen in the GTA, what tends to happen in this situation is that the land in between highways is subject to increasing and persistent pressure for development and to build connecting roads. We’ve seen this phenomenon in the GTA, where development has filled solid those areas between the QEW, the 403, and the 401. The Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act was implemented precisely to protect the Escarpment from the kind of development pressure that the MPH would exacerbate – why make laws on one hand, and carry out contradictory building of major infrastructure on the other?

Surely in a province as prosperous as this, we can find ways to co-exist with this magnificent feature, rather than following our current and past policies, which have slowly subjected it to the “death of a thousand cuts.”

A quarry here, a subdivision there, a new highway now and then; taken in isolation, these events can seem small when set against the scale of the Escarpment. Their impact, however, is incremental and irreversible. If we continue on our current path, we will one day wake up to discover that the Niagara Escarpment as we’ve known it is gone forever – gone like the Passenger Pigeon, gone like the Blue Pike, gone like the Eastern Elk.

ADDITIONAL MPH EFFECTS ON OUR ENVIRONMENT

These are covered in detail in the following appendices:

Appendix A: The Carolinian Forest Zone

Appendix B: Air quality effects from New Highways

Appendix C: Highway effects on Water Quality

Appendix D: Urban Sprawl and Smart Growth

Appendix E: Effects on Wetlands and Woodlots

Appendix F: Noise and Light Pollution

PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PLANNING AND CONSULTATION PROCESS FOR THE MPH

MTO plans to complete a “scoped” rather than a Full Environmental Assessment. This type of fast-track assessment would not, however, examine need for the highway or reasonable alternatives, and has been described by many as wholly inappropriate for a project of the scale, complexity, and potential environmental damage as the Mid-Peninsula Highway (MPH).

Completion of a scoped EA would appear to violate both the letter and the spirit of the EA Act of Ontario, as well as the wishes of the populace, according to a recent public opinion poll.

That poll -- commissioned by COPE -- showed that a vast majority favour a full Environmental Assessment. Fully 87.4% of the respondents agreed with the statement, “Before proceeding with the construction of the Mid-Pen Highway there should be a full environmental assessment including seeing if there is a need for the highway and an examination of possible alternatives to it.” [4]

Judging as well from input from thousands of citizens at upwards of 20 public meetings, the current scoped EA Terms of Reference do not reflect the broad base of public opinion, particularly in the section from Hamilton to Halton. Other bodies, from the Niagara Escarpment Commission to various affected Municipalities have also called upon the Province to complete a proper Environmental Assessment before building a project of such magnitude.

PLEASE SEE PAGE 11 FOR A CODICIL TO THIS DOCUMENT RE: THE ‘SCOPING’ ISSUE AND A RECENT (JUNE 17, 2003) ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT DECISION.

We believe, based on our direct experience, that the process used by MTO to do the so-called Needs Assessment and the Draft EA Terms of Reference was deeply flawed. We believe in particular that MTO was just going through the motions.

Speaking of going through the motions:

According to MTO documents: “The centerpiece of the Transportation Development Strategy is a new Mid-Peninsula Corridor (MPC) running from the QEW between Niagara Falls and Fort Erie, westward to south of Hamilton International Airport, and then around Hamilton and connecting to Highway 407 in Halton Region.”[5]

That was written in July 2001. So the “PUBLIC CONSULTATION” conducted during 2002 and 2003 (upwards of 20 public meetings, attended by thousands of people) was essentially an expensive and time-consuming sham. The quoted passage reveals that not only had MTO decided on building a highway and had rejected other, better options before beginning consultation, but they had also picked route ‘C’ to the 407 in Burlington, despite the fact that they continue to claim to be considering other routes.

Planning and consultation process – Continued:

Incomplete and/or non-existent study of a non-highway alternative

Meetings with a senior CN Rail official have confirmed that neither MTO nor its consultants engaged that railway in any meaningful discussions regarding Mid-Pen in the context of ongoing transportation capacities and opportunities in the Niagara Region. In other words, a major non-highway option for moving both freight and people was not researched and assessed by MTO.

It turns out, according to the CN Rail official, that there is significant excess capacity on existing rail corridors in Niagara that could move more people and more goods. This was easy enough for COPE to discover – we wonder why MTO apparently never researched the issue of excess rail capacity in Niagara.

We find this remarkably troubling, given the scale of this project, its cost, and its very real threat of having serious consequences for the environment. If such basic issues were unexplored and/or ignored, how can the totality of the process and the documents – the Needs Assessment, the Terms of Reference, and all the technical documents, be said to be credible?

Environmentally less damaging route option discarded early in the process on questionable grounds

Certain alternatives that utilized existing roads (and thus would have conformed with one of the tenets of Smart Growth) were discarded very early in the planning process (before the ‘public consultation’ even began).

Alternative ‘E’ was discarded because, “sections of alternative E use existing local roadways through Welland and an existing Welland Canal tunnel crossing ... making tolling of these sections infeasible.” [6]

We question whether the ability of a route to support tolls is a valid criterion by which to discard a route potentially less damaging to the environment and also significantly less costly so early in the process.

Have wise transportation infrastructure planning and protection of the environment in Ontario become subordinate to the economic interests of the private-sector operators of toll highways?

PROBLEMS WITH THE ROUTES AND THE PHYSICAL LAYOUT OF THE MPH

Who wants to drive further and pay more?

Route KMs Additional KMs Toll Charge (car) (truck)

QEW 131 0 $ 0 $0

Route C 168 37 $17.87 $53.61

Route F 187 56 $17.48 $52.44

Route H 170 39 $16.58 $49.74

Route G 152 21 $13.21 $39.63

Route C would add 37 kilometres, about 25 minutes, and a toll of about $53 to a truck’s one-way trip from Oakville to Fort Erie, as opposed to the free QEW. Rationally self-interested truck drivers and the firms they work for will not choose this option, especially given that the QEW Niagara is not particularly congested, compared with any free highway in the GTA, for example.

These factors (toll charges, extra distance and extra time required to traverse any of the proposed MPH routes), and the effects they would have on demand for the road were never addressed in the needs assessment documents.

Clearly, these are ‘real world’ factors, and are extremely important to any assessment of potential demand and ‘need’ for the MPH. The fact that they have all been ignored in the planning and assessment process so far is deeply troubling, and is just another example of the haphazard and incomplete nature of the study done on the highway to date.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

The economic impacts of ‘tolling’ have not been assessed with regard to short and long-term revenue implications for whoever ends up operating the highway and collecting the tolls. Nor have studies of the sensitivity of user demand to increases/decreases in toll rates been released. Neither has the impact tolls would have on usage amongst the various potential user groups of the highway. A toll road competing with a free shortcut that is relatively uncongested (according to MTO’s own documents) may end up as a $1.5-billion-plus, underused white elephant.

Along with dozens of other stakeholder groups, COPE is concerned about another ‘407’ situation evolving in which the taxpayers of Ontario build the road, only to see the profits leave the country (2002 407 Operating profit reported by the Spanish/Australian consortium that runs the 407: $211 million Cdn.). Taxpayers lose three times: first paying for a road they won’t own and then having to pay tolls to a ‘private partner’ that not only does not return those dollars to the Ontario economy or to a fund to improve transportation in the future, but also (unlike a government operated toll road) builds a handsome profit margin for itself into the toll pricing structures.

It should be noted that the citizens of the MPH-affected areas do not want another toll road, either. The poll conducted for COPE by Oracle revealed that 64.5% of those surveyed would be less likely to use the MPH if it is tolled.

While the MPH is often touted as an engine of economic growth, especially in the Niagara region because of all the new industry that will supposedly locate along the corridor, it should be noted that industry prefers not to locate along toll roads.

The Mid-Pen, if built as a toll highway, would carry a disincentive for industry to locate anywhere along its length. No firm wants its incoming supplier shipments to carry the extra costs of tolls or its outgoing product to be subject to this tariff. This would clearly affect the competitiveness of this firm vis-à-vis its competitors located on free roads. As well, all of the employees of the firm would be required to pay a toll to get to work every day. Toll roads discourage the very economic benefits through development that the MPH is intended to encourage.

Most truckers are not currently using the 407, and have stated on the record that they would not use a ‘tolled’ MPH. The Ontario Trucking Association is on record as stating (see its website) that trucks avoid toll roads if at all possible. Has the increasing congestion and delays that will be created on the QEW/403 system been adequately studied from a commercial impact perspective, modeled on the assumption that trucks will avoid the MPH? Have alternatives to move truck traffic that refuses or is unable to pay tolls been fully considered?

Not in the documentation produced by MTO and their consultants thus far.

THE MPH AS A LONG TERM TRANSPORTATION SOLUTION

For many reasons – including but not limited to those below, it is COPE’s position that the MPH does not represent a long-term transportation solution.

• Tolls provide an almost total disincentive for truck traffic, as shown by the 407 experience. This removes the entire rationale for the MPH, which was conceived as an economic corridor to facilitate goods movement through the peninsula.

• The route taken by the MPH is so indirect as to add significant time, distance, and cost (on top of toll charges) to its use, compared to the free and relatively uncongested QEW. These factors provide a disincentive for all potential users, not just trucks.

• MPH planning has not been integrated into the larger picture, and therefore does not represent long term holistic “smart” transportation planning -- it has been planned in utter isolation from such crucial related factors as:

• Federal transportation initiatives around facilitation of increased transit use and funding;
• excess existing capacity in other sectors, such as rail;
• recent or ongoing MTO studies around goods movement and the Highways Transit Study;
• the Smart Growth initiative;
• the Federal Government’s Kyoto commitments;
• municipal concerns around land use planning and sustainability;
• the letter and the intent of the Environmental Assessment Act.
• the intent and the rules and regulations of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.
• the will of the people: 91.8% of respondents to the COPE/Oracle public opinion poll taken in April, 2003 stated that Escarpment protection was important to them.

• The MPH is backward-looking, rather than forward-looking – it represents an attempt to solve a 2010 problem with a 1952 solution. More forward-looking jurisdictions have already recognized that air pollution, scarcity of fossil fuels, global warming, urban sprawl, and pure economics will dictate in the very near future that societies produce more innovative, smarter and cleaner transportation solutions. The MPH represents an ostrich-like attempt to deny these coming realities and to continue doing business as usual.

• Long-term transportation solutions must conform to other societal goals if they are to succeed. The MPH, by virtue of its inherent destruction of the Niagara Escarpment and myriad other sensitive ecosystems and habitats, flies in the face of our society’s increasing awareness of, and desire to care for and protect those few green and wild spaces remaining to us.

COPE’S RECOMMENDATION