5th Line Interchange ESR gets rough ride in BWG Council

By Miriam King Bradford Times January 6 2011
It was the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury that authorized an Environmental Assessment for a new interchange at the 5th Line and Hwy. 400 – identified as a “need” in numerous studies over the past 8 years, and a key piece of the puzzle in developing the Industrial lands approved in Official Plan Amendment 15.
But members of the new Council raised numerous questions, following the presentation of the completed Environmental Study Report by McCormick Rankin Corp. Manager of Transportation Planning, Michael Chiu and project Manager Heather Templeton, January 4.

“There has been a series of documents and reports (identifying the need for an interchange), and that was before we even started the Environmental Assessment,” Chiu said, noting that preferred options for the new interchange and the realignment of 5 Sideroad and Coffey Road were developed in consultation with the Ministry of Transportation – “the future owner of the interchange”; the County of Simcoe – “future owner of the 5th Line”; and the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority.
The LSRCA was deeply involved because the technically-preferred design is a “Parclo A4”, which requires ramps in the northwest quadrant, within the floodplain of Fraser Creek, also known as the North Schomberg River.
The Conservation Authority was able to turn what could have been an environmental threat “into an opportunity,” Chiu said – approving plans that will involve the relocation and restoration of the river channel, creating meanders, pool and riffle habitat, restoring natural vegetation along the streambanks, and excluding the cattle that currently graze on the pasture.
“They see an opportunity for enhancement here,” said Templeton, noting that improvements will also address seasonal and storm-event flooding.
Templeton outlined the reasons for pursuing the interchange: The Bradford Bypass is “no longer included in the province’s official plan;” County Rd. 88 is “almost reaching capacity” – and even when widened to 4 lanes, will be over-capacity by 2015. The new interchange will meet both population and traffic needs of a growing municipality, reduce congestion on 88, permit the eventual closure of the Holland Marsh access ramps – and will support the Town’s Official Plan Amendments 15 and 16.
She noted that the cost estimate stands at $49.1 million for construction, with a cost-sharing agreement that would split the bill “approximately 1/3 – 1/3 – 1/3,” among the MTO, County of Simcoe, and Town, an agreement that “is currently being reviewed by the Ministry and County.”
Cost was a major issue for Councillors. Councillor Peter Dykie Jr. asked, “The interchange at 88 and 400 – that’s also planned for expansion. When is that going to be built, and who’s going to pay for that?” He asked if the $49.1 million included construction of the Southwest Arterial road, that will link the Town and the interchange.
Templeton pointed out that the 88 interchange, slated for construction in 2012, is a County project, completely independent of the 5th Line project.
Director of Engineering Services, Debbie Korolnek explained that the $49.1 million covers only the cost of the interchange and approximately 500 metres on either side of the 400 – not the Arterial road.
ApplyOnlineNow.com Advertise! Klix.ca”I am concerned with the cost to our taxpayers,”said Deputy Mayor Rob Keffer, arguing that the new figures don’t match those presented earlier in the process. “The taxpayer could be left with a $38 million shortfall… How can these two estimates be so far apart?”
Korolnek pointed out that the previous figures were a “best guess,” based on average costs. “We’ve now got better estimates,” through the various studies carried out as part of the Environmental Assessment. She reiterated that the cost-sharing agreement means that the Town’s share of costs will be $16 to $17 million – not $38 million – of which 90% will be recoverable from Development Charges, paid by developers.
“That leaves around $1.7 million-$2 million to be funded from either the tax base or other sources,” such as reserve funds, Korolnek said, adding that the complete financial plan is in the 2011 budget. “You can see for yourself that the funding is there.”
Keffer then challenged the traffic numbers used by the consultants, questioning whether traffic would nearly double by 2015, as shown. “I wonder if the numbers are accurate enough to spend on a $49 million interchange at this time?”
He also cited a new Provincial regulation, which will prohibit development in an Environmental Protection zone, as of July 2011. “This refers to the northwest quadrant (of Hwy. 400 & Line 5). Are you suggesting we break the law and go ahead with this interchange?” Keffer demanded.
Director of Planning Geoff McKnight explained that Ministerial Zoning Orders governing land use “do not apply to municipal infrastructure, like roads, storm ponds,” but added that he would confirm that with the ministry.
“We really have to know before we spend any more money on this,” Keffer said.
Councillor Gary Lamb, noting that there are only 6 days left to comment on the Environmental Study Report, suggested that the comment period should be extended for a few more days. He also expressed a concern that the 5th Line west of the 400 would see increased traffic from New Tecumseth. “Let’s give the public an opportunity” to comment, Lamb said.
Korolnek pointed out that the preferred alternative was identified in a public meeting back in June 2010, that the documents have been available for months, and that the comment period, which began November 29, has already been extended 2 weeks beyond the 30-day period, due to the Christmas break. “There has been ample notice that this is the preferred alternative.”
“Land purchases – are they included in this $49 million?” asked Councillor Ron Simpson. Advised that they are not – that the $49.1 million relates to construction only – he also questioned the $3 million figure for the realignment of 5 Sideroad, suggesting that it was far too low, to build “a mile or more of road” and a new bridge.
Simpson also challenged the proposed re-location. “Why cut through a farm? It’s ridiculous, doing that. It zigzags through… This is going to be at our taxpayers’ cost.” He told Templeton, “I mentioned this at your Open House, and no-one listened to me… Who’s going to be responsible for this if we go over budget?”
Korolnek agreed that there are no guarantees as to cost, since the project has not gone to tender – however, the cost-sharing agreement will split any cost-overruns proportionately, she said. And unlike the 8th Line-Dissette St. project, in this case land acquisition is part of the cost-sharing. The infrastructure funding for 8th Line-Dissette expressly excluded land.
Simpson said that the Town should demand that the Ministry of Transportation take the lead on the project. “Are we going to rely on outside consultants to lead us down the garden path? Hey, they (MTO) are the experts,” the Councillor said. “Does Council get to approve this Environmental Assessment? Do I have to personally object to this project before January 10?”
Other Councillors also asked to see financial details, “before we commit to anything,” said Raj Sandhu.
Korolnek explained that an Environmental Assessment does not commit the Town to construction; “All it does is give the Town the ability to proceed with construction.” There is also no need for Council to approve the EA, since it is already the proponent. “It would be very unusual, at this phase, for Council to not approve the EA,” she said.
Councillor Simpson continued to criticize the consultants for not responding to his earlier comments.
“Did you submit written comments?” Templeton asked.
“No I did not,” Simpson replied.
Templeton explained there is “no written response to verbal comments.”
The comment period closes January 10. Comments in writing can be submitted to Debbie Korolnek, Director of Engineering Services, Town of BWG, 31 Barrie St., Box 419, Bradford ON, L3Z 2A9 or fax to 905-778-2070, or email dkorolnek@townofbwg.com

Disappointed
By Miriam King Editorial Bradford Times January 6 2010
We have to admit to being somewhat disappointed in the Council meeting of January 4.
Not because new Councillors raised questions regarding the Environmental Study Report for a proposed 5th Line Interchange at Hwy. 400 – raising questions, especially about finances, is a good thing – but because so many of the questions and comments seemed to indicate that some Councillors haven’t read the Environmental Study Report, or done their homework.
The 5th Line Interchange isn’t something that suddenly appeared out of the blue; there is a long history that explains the need: The province’s decision to put the Bradford Bypass on a back burner until 2026; the need for an additional, safe interchange that doesn’t force motorists off onto Canal Road when the 400 is closed at 88; all of the economic planning of the past 4 years that has successfully designated the Highway 400 corridor as the Town’s economic development area.
To say that the public hasn’t had time to comment is to ignore the 2 Public Information Centres, numerous publications, and the ongoing opportunity to comment – an opportunity that continues until Jan. 10.
And it is disingenuous to imply that the disparity between the original cost estimates and the new figure of $49.1 million means there has been some kind of slight-of-hand. The original figure of $25M was a guess; now studies have been carried out that give a better idea of the true costs. And according to the report, Development Charges and a cost-sharing agreement with MTO and the County will limit the Town’s actual share to about 3.3% of the total.
There were also some excellent questions raised; to attempt to safeguard taxpayers’ interests is a noble thing. But we found the at-times hostile tone, and what could be construed as an attempt to scuttle the Interchange… disappointing.