Say no to a bridge in Orléans

How else can one explain why the NCC opted for a decision that will cost $9 million rather than $4 million in these tough economic times? Or, add years of delay to a project that has been discussed since the 1980s?

So why has the NCC decided to make the decision of an interprovincial bridge more costly to all taxpayers and disconcerting to Orléans residents, who will now be directly impacted by the choices for an interprovincial bridge? According to NCC board chair Russell Mills, the decision was based on what the governments of Ontario and Quebec wanted since they will be partially footing the bill. While the NCC wanted the opinions of the two cities – Gatineau and Ottawa – that will be linked by this bridge, they ultimately rejected their wishes that concurred with their own consultant’s report because these cities are not putting money into the project. What ever happened to one taxpayer concept? To this end, the NCC acquiesced to these provincial governments and added the Lower Duck Island options.

I will posit that when the next round of studies concludes Kettle Island will once again be the logical location for this interprovincial bridge except when it comes to the almighty political reality. When Andy Haydon Park was being considered as a potential bridge location, west-end cabinet heavyweights in the Ontario and federal governments, Jim Watson and John Baird, respectively, flexed their political muscles and buried the thought that a bridge, which would eviscerate this park, would ever see the light of day. After all, their constituents expected no less from them. Equally to form, Madeleine Meilleur, an Ontario cabinet minister and Mauril Bélanger, a former federal cabinet minister sprung into action to defend the interests of their constituents of Manor Park. In fact, after the NCC’s recent decision, one of the organizers against a Kettle Island bridge remarked, “Today is a good day. This is an excellent decision.”

In this light, what, if anything, should the greater Orléans community do to avoid a bridge in our community? I for one will “Say yes to Orléans by saying no to a bridge.” My words in this column will become my sweat in a community petition. My reasons are firmly rooted that any bridge located at the Lower Duck location will ensure an already congested 174 will burst at the seams. In other words, today’s horrendous commute times will be tomorrow’s dreams of yesteryear. While most of the world moves forward in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the idling gridlock of vehicles on the 174 will rival any smog-haven city.

In addition to moving backwards on the environmental front, Ottawa’s Greenbelt will now be open for business to develop. The horrible precedent set will be all too real. Moreover, the impact to residents in my community of Convent Glen will be a permanent nightmare that will not go away.

In the end, our bedroom community can ill afford to sleepwalk our way to an interprovincial bridge with no tangible benefits to our families.