Tunnel Talk, Bill Marra and After Hours

Tunnel Talk with Gord Henderson

For a columnist who has supported nearly every single border proposal to date, Gord Henderson never ceases to amaze me.

Consider his latest missive against the Province of Ontario, entitled “Doing it Right Down-Under.”

No, it was not an instructional column in mattress aerobics, but an attempt to demonstrate that even in New Zealand, despite prohibitive costs - government there is building a tunnel.

But in typical Gord Henderson fashion, he leaves out some rather important background information.

Henderson writes:

After a prolonged debate, and outrage from the working-class communities to be affected, said Berryman, the central government and local authorities ruled out a surface road and agreed the entire 3.2-kilometre section should be tunnelled at an estimated cost of $1.5 billion in order to preserve neighbourhoods, save up to 500 homes and improve air quality.

Well - not exactly.

The tunnel in question is officially called the Waterview Connection, part of a 48 KM ring-road highway that would connect 3 interstate highways in Auckland, New Zealand. See map here.

But the rationale behind building a tunnel is simple - building a previously non-existent highway or cut and cover tunnel through sensitive parkland and residential neighbourhoods - was not only unpopular with residents - it would cut through the Prime Minister’s riding.

So a bored tunnel 50 meters below the surface was decided upon.

Area in red indicates proposed bored tunnel.   The tunnel would bore 50 meters below environmentally sensitive Oakley Creek and residential areas to connect Highway 16 (top left) with Stoddard Road (Bottom right).

Gord Henderson has erroneously indicated in numerous columns that tunnelling would improve air quality - but apparently, even New Zealander’s don’t buy that argument.  The Government’s Transit Department’s website indicates that a tunnel is the preferred option because it is:

• The shortest and most direct route
• Disruption during construction will be limited to the portals and interchanges
• Fewer properties will be required than for any other option- about 160 in total
• The tunnel will go under Oakley Creek, thus minimising the environmental effects of the project.

Do Greenlink tunnels achieve these objectives?  Sadly not. 

The purpose for tunneling the Waterview Connection are practical -  to protect a “sensitive” Oakley Creek ecosystem, reduce travel times and reduce the number of homes that would be expropriated in contrast to a new at-grade highway or cut-and-cover tunnel.

Government officials also maintain, as does the DRIC here at home, that the at-grade highway would reduce ”congestion and air pollution caused by stop-start motoring.” 

And contrary to Gord Henderson’s column, the 5 KM tunnel project would cost $2.3 billion - as opposed to Henderson’s $1.5 billion.  To fund such a massive project, the government is investigating a Public-Private Partnership to recover costs through tolls - which could run as high as $10.00 per vehicle.  According to government officials, these tolls are critical to the project - in other words - we don’t have the money to do this ourselves so we need the help of private partners.

One could argue then, fine institute tolls on a Greenlink highway since we’re “doing it right,” but to do so for Greenlink would ultimately bankrupt the new government crossing as motorists and transport would use toll-free roads to cross the border in Sarnia or Fort Erie.

So unlike Greenlink, the objectives of tunneling in Auckland are protecting sensitive eco-systems, reducing travel time and minimizing disruption that a brand spanking new, previously non-existent highway would cause.

Councillor Marra speaks up

I’m wondering if the city’s CAO will now threaten the Mayor with the Integrity Commissioner for attacking a councillor publicly.

Yesterday on CBC News, Mayor Francis criticized Councillor Marra for, oh my goodness, actually suggesting we cut the rhetoric and get down to negotiating with the DRIC, publicly by stating:

Councillor Marra may speak and have his own opinion, he doesn’t represent the city council majority.  He doesn’t represent the direction of council.  These same groups; these same individuals that are saying get on with it, are the same groups and same individuals that suggested that we should get on with it when the EC Row was presented.

Interesting, considering Councillor Francis back in 2002 proposed the motion to use border infrastructure funding to upgrade EC ROW and extend Lauzon Parkway to the 401 as a short and medium term border solution - that was until the DRTP arrived on the scene.

But Councillor Marra is showing signs of life lately by attempting to ensure cooler heads prevail; contrasted with Councillor Lewenza’s conspiracy theories and Councillor Brister’s irresponsible public comments about laying down on Huron Church Road to protest the DRIC.

In all honesty, between Mayor Francis and councillors Postma, Jones, Lewenza and Brister - no amount of feel good advertising will undo the damage these elected representatives are doing to the city profile and reputation through their mixed messaging.

But I am impressed with Councillor Marra.  Compared to Mayor Francis and especially Councillor Brister - Councillor Marra is beginning to sound mayoral.

See the entire clip below.   

After Hours Revisited

When it comes to the after hours club debate, I have to agree with Mayor Francis and some of the delegations that appeared before council.

While I could buy the logic, somewhat, of preventing gun violence in our core, I cannot, for the life of me, buy the reasoning behind needing 4 hours to clean downtown streets.

I can’t imagine it taking more than two hours to clean Pelissier, Chatham, Pitt and Ouellette - and you don’t need to have a mandatory closing time either.  For heaven’s sake how does the City of London, Toronto, Montreal or New York accomplish this apparently insurmountable task in Windsor which could take up to 4 hours because of 200 after-hours club goers? 

It is nothing more than a feeble excuse to shut down what certain downtown merchants and building owners believe to be an undesirable establishment, in my opinion.

There are enough councillor statements on public record to demonstrate what this is really about.

The ludicrous part about a 4 a.m. closing time is that it will change absolutely nothing.  People will still congregrate outside of bars or 24-hour eating establishments.  People will still drink after-hours in the backrooms of certain establishments.  And unfortunately, people will still fight and people may still get shot - and as of late, you don’t have to be downtown at night to experience gun battles.

And yesterday on CBC News Councillor Postma (see clip below) demonstrated how flip-flopping on the reasons for supporting such a mandatory closing time, could land the city in legal hot water.  

According to Claudio Martini:

The grounds Martini cited for his challenge include that: the bylaw is discriminatory to his client; the bylaw is inappropriate since there was no factual evidence how a mandatory closing time is needed for a cleanup period; and that the sole goal is to put after-hours clubs out of business.

“First they pinned the bylaw to violence (downtown) and that didn’t succeed,” Martini said. “Then (they) said it was for cleanup. But there is no other reason than to put after-hours clubs out of business.”

Even Mr. Horwitz turned this from preventing acts of violence, when he stated back in January:

But Larry Horwitz, president of the downtown BIA, had been leading the fight to get the mandatory 3 a.m. closing, saying if nothing changes further acts of violence are more likely.

He spoke of viewing video of surveillance cameras and often seeing 30 to 50 people milling around outside the Box Office with very little authority and too often seeing fights…

…”We can’t risk the loss of other young people’s lives. Council has an obligation to make this city safe and a place where we can be proud. If they don’t do this now, will I have to come to council in another month or two after a violent incident has happened again? Whose responsibility is it at that point?”

To now needing to clean city streets:

“We will do our part and move forward with the clean team and make downtown clean and secure for downtown daytime business,” Horwitz said. “The goal was 3 a.m. closing, but I’m a realist and will make things work.”

I’m not sure closing down clubs at 4 a.m. will resolve one single thing and agree with Mayor Francis that passing this bylaw could create more problems than simply enforcing existing laws and bylaws.

Over 100 years to pay for arena

In looking at the arena contract between the Windsor Spitfires and the City of Windsor, one could take one of two positions - it is an investment into the community that could improve the quality of life for residents or from a strictly economic point of view.

First, let’s be clear - the purpose of filing the Freedom of Information request was to gain access to a confidential contract agreed to by the City of Windsor.  I don’t believe spending tens of millions of taxpayers dollars should ever be shrouded in secrecy.   It is our money and we have an absolute right to know how it is being used.  We now have the contract, and lets hope that in the future the City makes private corporations aware that confidentiality clauses are a no-go.

But let’s be honest - this arena was built primarily for the Windsor Spitfires - a for profit corporation. The Spitfires need to have an arena to conduct its business.   The contract between the City of Windsor and the Spitfires amounts to a public subsidy of a for-profit corporation.

And according to Jan Wilson, in Friday’s Windsor Star, the only reason the arena complex may be profitable is because of the rental income and user fee’s from the seniors centre, community ice pads and auditorium:

But we have more revenue streams. We have the rental fees from the (three) community rinks, the senior centre and community centre activities.

Therefore, residents are paying twice for the arena - once through the capital costs and twice through user fees with a successful private partner paying next to nothing. 

All told, the City expects a profit of more than $300,000 per year which equates to about $70-million over 130 years.

Considering that Mayor Eddie Francis campaigned on a P3 arena in 2003 and that the City of Windsor had budgeted just $15-million towards the cost of a new mulitplex arena - this is a terrible financial deal. 

In fact, Councillor Brister and current Arena Committee Chair  back in 2005 stated:

Brister, who groans at the thought of taking a public stand that will get him in hot water with the mayor and his council colleagues, sees “a number of big-dollar issues on the horizon that lead me to believe we should not be proceeding this way. I don’t think we need to be spending more tax dollars on bricks and mortar at this point. In my opinion, we’re going to need those funds…

…”That logic that it’s already budgeted escapes me,” said the financial analyst. Compared with real needs like deficient sewers and pothole pandemics, he said an arena would be far down on his list of priorities. “Not even my 10th or 20th choice.”

The biggest problem I have with the deal is that the City of Windsor assumes all of the risk and nearly all the expenses, while a private corporation pays a measly $150,000 a year in rent and $210,000 in the first year only for suite fit-outs; team room maintenance and hockey related staff. 

While there is no question in my mind the Spitfires have every right to capitalize upon their brand through merchandise sales and to some extent advertising revenue - it should not come at the expense of residents.  All other revenue generating activities belong to the city such as concessions and pouring rights.

That is to say they could probably pay more in rent (Even the Sarnia Sting in a city of 73,000 pay about $500,000 per year) and/or give up some of the lucrative side deals in the contract such as suite licencing fees and alcohol pouring rights to name but two.

Even Jan Wilson agrees on CBC (clip below) that perhaps could have received a better deal but quicky (and very quickly) highlighted the benefits of the Spitfire’s benefiting:

Could we have gotten a better deal?  Maybe.  But we are very pleased with the deal that we got.  We feel the Spitfires are going to benefit and by having them benefit they’re going to make more investment into our community.

What we haven’t been told yet is what we are paying Global Spectrum to conduct:

 ”Event promotion including marketing, programming and negotiating events, establishing relationships with event promoters and event sponsors, evaluate the profitability of their acts and negotiate event contracts; and the operation of on-site food preparation anad licensed beverage service in the restaurant area, concession areas and catering to suite areas.”

And based upon the City of London’s experience with Global Spectrum, Global Spectrum does not care for ticket surcharges on events - according to the London Free Press, July 21, 2005:

But there’ll be no surcharge on tickets bought at the box office, because JLC officials warn performers would object, since the higher price could discourage buyers.

That could seriously eat away at the profit margin (if there is one) of the City of Windsor if Global Spectrum objects to the ticket surcharge.  We then have to account for the fee paid to the company.  There are also the one-time administrative start-up costs that could see the city taking a loss for the first couple of years (assuming of course we truly are making a profit).

Essentially, I believe the City of Windsor could have negotiated much better. 

The community benefits of the seniors centre are an entirely separate issue.  The issue with the contract is that despite residents providing a multi-million dollar facility for the Spitfires to play in, residents lose revenue creating opportunities such as alcohol pouring rights and suite licensing fees to support a corporation’s bottom line. 

Especially when we have more urgent infrastructure needs.  While the agreement is similar to some others in the province - the debate as to whether or not public dollars should support private sports teams is one that could make this blog even longer.

What the Spitfires Receive:

• Ownership of the Jumbotron
• 50 Parking spaces with 20 controlled spots for the team
• 2 Complimentary suites
• Exclusive operator of the Pro-shop with additional rent to be negotiated
• 8% of all food and beverage sales generated from concessions, restaurant, catering for the entire facility, though does not include revenue from the community centre portion
• 300 Complimentary tickets per game, team is entitled to all other hockey season ticket revenues
• Exclusive sales agent for the purposes of marketing and selling all suite licenses in exchange for 50% of the gross sales revenues
• Exclusive license to sell merchandise
• All revenue from advertising and sponsorship opportunities
• Receive 6% commission on naming rights team helped to broker or arrange
• Alcohol pouring rights revenue
• Media revenue related to Hockey Games

What this amounts to is roughly $3.8 million in gross revenue including ticket sales of an average of 4,700 at $24.00 per game. 

What the City Receives:

• $150,000 a year in rent which may be increased or decreased on the 5th, 10th and 15th anniversary at the inflation rate but not greater than 12% per period.
• Use of the Jumbotron
• A $1.00 surcharge on tickets for hockey to fund future improvements and maintenance of the facility and can only be increased twice by a combined maximum total of 60 cents to $1.60 by the 10th anniversary - which would translate into approximately $141,000 per year for hockey; and if the same charge applies to non-hockey events at 30 events per year or about $150,000 per year.
• $210,000 from 50% share of suite licenses
• $25,000 per year from the team as an advertising fee
• Naming rights revenue - roughly $100,000 per year
• Non-alcohol pouring rights
• Undisclosed percentage of concessions revenue

What this amounts to is approximately $1.2 million in gross revenue.

The Contract:

• Facility Licensing Agreement
• First Amendment
• Second Amendment
• Lease Amending Agreement

CBC News Story

No blog

No blog today.  However, I have read the arena contract and will present what I have learned tomorrow.

YQG Secrecy; Economic Collapse for Sandwich Town, and City Clerk ignores information request

I didn’t catch all of the council meeting, however a couple of things I picked up on. 

Windsor Airport:  The Secrecy Continues

The secrecy is simply astounding.

In response to Councillor Dilken’s question asking about the status of the recruitment of board members and whether or not it is a priority, Mayor Eddie Francis responded:

Ms. Nazzarrati, among her other priorities is still in the process of developing an ad.  She, I believe was going to call the CVB to borrow the ad that was put in by the CVB recently for their board members.  As you can appreciate, she’s the only person out there right now and among her other duties she’s got to draft up an ad.

Councillor Dilkens:  I appreciate that your Worship, but I would think that establishing the governance of the organization would’ve been one of the top priorities.

Mayor Francis:  It is one of the top priorities, but as members of council are well aware, as you are aware Councillor Dilkens, I did  come to city council during striking committee and did indicate to you that we were working on three or four active files and that our attention needed to be diverted to those active files.    As members of city council are aware we’ve been able to secure two new…uh…uh…two new things at Windsor airport that have not been announced so those priorities as you know were their…

Why does the Mayor do this?   Clearly, during yet another in-camera meeting, councillors were informed of two new developments that have been secured.  What are these developments and why have they not been discussed at an open meeting of council, if they have already been secured?

Sandwich Town isolated:  Economic collapse imminent

Back on February 19th, 2008 City Council instructed:

CR67/2008

That the Canadian Transit Company BE REQUESTED to provide further information on the work to be carried out, and demonstrate why it cannot use netting, tarps or mesh for bridge maintenance. Following receipt of the additional information, the City Engineer undertake a review and make a determination if alternate construction/maintenance techniques are not suitable for the described works; then City Council AUTHORIZE only after a report back to City Council on the exact detours requested with the criteria, that detours only be for a time period solely when said work is directly above the public rights of way to provide protection of the public from debris, subject to the four conditions stated in this report.

This was with regards to the lane closure on Huron Church Road as well as Riverside Drive.

Except today, I noted Riverside Drive was closed at Huron Church Road.  Did Administration finally understand the meaning of the International Bridges and Tunnels Act - that the City of Windsor cannot prevent the Ambassdor Bridge Company from performing maintenance?

I guess Ron Jones got his “Black Letter Law” interpretation, as did MP Brian Masse.

Funny - residents were subjected to their misinformation and yet we don’t hear an explanation from Councillor Jones or MP Brian Masse now, do we?

City Clerk ignores request for information

On March 31, 2008, I sent the following email to the City Clerk, protesting the presence of the Greenlink banner in council chambers:

Dear Madam:

Pursuant to Section 10.18 of the Procedural Bylaw which prohibits:

“The display of placards and signs is not allowed in the Chamber.”

I am requesting that the Greenlink sign in council chambers be removed

I would like to know if council had passed a resolution waiving the procedural bylaw to allow for the display of the Greenlink sign in council chambers during the council meeting of March 31, 2008.  If so, I would like a copy of said resolution. 

If no such resolution was passed, it is my opinion that such display of signage is an affront to the democratic process - particularly when residents have been instructed on several occasions to not do so for their own particular cause.  I find the city’s actions reprehensible if proper procedure was not followed.

If no such resolution was passed, I demand that the city clerk enforce the procedural bylaw which clearly prohibits such a display.

In addition, with regards to the special meeting of council held March 27, 2008, I am requesting a copy of the minutes of said meeting regarding the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel.

Note, I seek an explanation as well as information, but apparently, the City Clerk is taking cues from Councillor Lewenza by not responding to emails requesting information.  I’ve lost count of the number of days since Councillor Lewenza has not responded to my emails seeking further information regarding the Windsor Utilities Commission.

East-End Arena Contract and the DRIC

I’m still reading the contract as I write.  But I thought I would refresh everyone’s memory as to what prompted my request for information regarding the contract between the Windsor Spitfires and The City of Windsor.

If you recall, on October 31, 2006 I requested the following:

All agreements, including, but not limited to, any leases, rent inducement agreements, lease improvement agreements, concession, advertising and ticket agreements, arena naming agreements, management agreement between the City of Windsor, the Windsor Spitfires and their associated organizations, companies and partners relating to the East End arena.

Straight up - it was the agreement to secrecy between the City and the Windsor Spitfires that initially prompted my request.  I don’t believe that at any time agreements involving public dollars should be confidential.  It’s that simple.

It’s not about whether or not I support the Windsor Spitfires as some nameless individuals have written to me - it has absolutely nothing to do with that.  It’s funny - only in Windsor have I found that requesting information can be so threatening to some individuals.

My request has everything to do with councillors who support contracts but can’t seem to remember the finer details of it - as was the case with Councillor Valentinis last year.  It’s about councillors, like Drew Dilkens, Percy Hatfield and Bill Marra who, by their own admission, did not know what was in the contract and yet passed bylaws in December 2006 pertaining to the east-end arena.

However,  the City of Windsor did not respond to my request for information within the 30 days as required by legislation and the Privacy Commissioner informed both the City and myself that the City was in a legal state called “Deemed Refusal.”  However, the City, while my application was before the Privacy Commissioner, finally released their decision letter to me - after the deadline.

But it appears the city continues to show complete and utter contempt for residents.

Friday, May 2, 2008 was the absolute latest that the city could release the records.  According to the decision by the Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, the city had to release the records after April 28, 2008 but before May 2, 2008.

However, immediately following their release at 10 a.m. Friday morning, the media contacted me seeking my opinion on the 70 or so pages of documents - and they were fair as I told them there was no way I could read let alone interpret all this information.  I do have a job as well.

But in my conversations with various media outlets, I learned that there was a Second Amendment to the Facility License Agreement - which I had not been given.  I immediately called and emailed the city’s Privacy Coordinator who finally responded at 2:50 p.m.:

The documents that you picked up this morning were in response to your Freedom of Information request and subsequent appeal to the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario.  As you are aware, Order No. 2287 (March 28, 2008), in his decision, the adjudicator ordered the release of the four records that were contained in your package.

However, in November 2007, the City entered into a “Second Amendment to the Facility License Agreement” which was not part of your request/appeal.  Normally, a document such as the “second amendment” would be subject to the access request process under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, however, the Spitfires have graciously consented to the release of this document waiving the FOI process. 

Therefore, this second amendment will be posted by the City Clerk, today, Friday May 2, 2008 after 2:30pm, on the City’s website in combination with a Council Report prepared by City Administration on the Spitfire Agreement.  You may access this at www.citywindsor.ca  in the Civic Corner under council communications, item 19.

Interesting - the media can have access to all the documents, but not residents.  And frankly, in my opinion, the “second amendment” being subject to the access request process is pure bunk because the second amendment is subjected to the same “confidentiality” clause in the License Agreement - which the Privacy Commissioner overruled.  As well, the fact that the media received the second amendment without asking for it proves my point.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would almost believe someone at city hall wanted me to share incorrect information with the media - the second amendment changes a few things that would have made me look like a complete fool, were it not for the understanding media outlets in the city.

But at least we have the documents.  As to whether or not it is a good deal for the City remains yet to be seen.  With all respect I’m not going to take the word of the Mayor - the same Mayor who couldn’t remember whether or not the agreement included a confidentiality clause.

However, the Mayor was busy spinning away on AM800 (even though he wasn’t available for interviews on Friday - according to the Star) about how great a deal the contract was - including a press release.

Wow - all this attention on a simple contract that the Mayor in 2006 had already said was a great deal for the city - makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

What is also curious was Jan Wilson’s statement in the Windsor Star about not knowing what the operating costs of the WFCU arena were, but was certain of the level of profitability of the facility.  Interesting - don’t know how much it will cost to operate  - but we’ll be profitable.

As well, there was absolute silence regarding how much Global Spectrum was being paid to market the facility or what take their sister company has in providing concessions.  This would surely affect the profitability of the arena.

But don’t worry - as I wrote back on April 2 - arena’s aren’t built to make money -  according to Global Spectrum.  This was echoed again in Saturday’s Star. 

They may not be built to make money, but they had better not cost taxpayers either. 

The Agreements:

Facility Licensing Agreement

First Amendment

Second Amendment

Lease Amending Agreement

Ken Lewenza Jr. and Greenlink Referendum

Great - another couple of hundred thousand dollars - but I suspect this idea has been tossed around for at least a couple of months. 

Ken Lewenza Jr. suggests holding a city referendum on the Greenlink issue - something he also stated about two months ago at City Council when he accused county politicians of being “bought.”

But according to AM800’s web-poll, with 1357 people responding as of Sunday, May 4 at 7:59 p.m. - roughly 60% of respondent’s believe that the Windsor-Essex Parkway is an acceptable alternative to Greenlink.

Sure - people will argue that internet polls are not scientific - probably not any more scientific than people calling into 311 saying they support Greenlink and then interpreting that to mean there is overwhelming support for the city’s proposal.

Or the same as saying 14,000 people have mailed back their Greenlink cards in support of Greenlink (even though there is no option to say one supports the DRIC).  So does this also mean, scientifically, that 186,000 people in Windsor do not support Greenlink?

But a referendum, as costly as it may be, is far cheaper than paying with your life, if Councillor Brister had his way.  According to AM800:

One Windsor city councillor is taking issue with comments made by a fellow council member. Ward One’s Dave Brister says there ARE people willing to lay down on Huron Church Road to draw attention to the “Greenlink” plan and protest the DRIC border access route. But Ward 4’s Bill Marra thinks that members of council need to keep their emotions in check. He thinks there are other ways to find a solution.

Again I ask - Councillor Brister is rumoured to want to run for Mayor? 

The Windsor-Essex Parkway - A Fair Compromise

By far one, the largest highway investment in Ontario will happen in Windsor.  In a region that has faced massive job losses the province’s $1.6 billion investment in our future is welcome. 

And even though I am critical of our city council, I do have to thank them for putting the pressure on senior levels of government to ensure we were not saddled with an at-grade freeway.

Below is a video of the DRIC’s proposed parkway.  In summation - 11 tunnelled sections.  There is a new 200 m tunnel at Spring Garden and a new 240 m tunnel at Oliver Estates.  In total there is 1.8 KM of tunnelling, roughly 240 acres of parkland and 20 KM of recreational trails.   More information can be found at www.weparkway.ca with some very cool interactive videos as you ride your bike through the parks, or drive under the land bridges.

For comparative purposes the city’s Greenlink website is here.

However, I am baffled over the DRIC’s presentation today.  As was the case with the Greenlink unveiling last year by the city - technical data was not available - and will not be available until the preferred bridge and plaza locations are announced.  This was frankly a foolish move on the part of the DRIC who has been critical of the City of Windsor for not having technical data available for Greenlink.

As well, it is not clear who will pay to maintain all this extra parkland - but that shouldn’t be an issue with the Mayor because it wasn’t with Greenlink.

Unfortunately for the DRIC, our Mayor wasted no time in condemning the DRIC for this and their overall proposal, stating in the Windsor Star that, “It’s the same proposal, effectively, that they presented in August of 2007.” 

Rather than being grateful for this historic investment in our city and region, the Mayor and his entourage fled to city hall and holed themselves up in yet another in-camera session of council with our economic future in the balance with uber-hyper Brian Masse blasting the province and screaming we were “sold out” on AM800 this afternoon.   

To sue or not to sue - that is the question.

Unfortunately, if the Red Hill Valley lawsuit launched by David Estrin  against the Federal Government  is any indication, I have a deep suspicion the Mayor and council will rattle the lawsuit cage in an attempt to coerce the Fed’s and the Province to cover the city’s legal costs and probably the costs associated with the Greenlink campaign.  

Estrin was successful in suing the Federal Government and the court awarded legal costs to Hamilton.  But that apparently wasn’t enough for Estrin and the City of Hamilton.  In 2004, they launched yet another lawsuit seeking punitive damages:

Estrin filed the lawsuit against the federal employees in April 2004…It alleges that the “defendants deliberately and unlawfully used their public office to harm the city by attempting to imperil and prevent, and in the result substantially delaying, completion of construction by the city of the Red Hill Creek Expressway.”

Four years later, the case has never come to court and the federal government has apparently recently proposed that both sides walk away from the dispute…

…Total legal costs related to the expressway project are close to $7 million, a large portion of which has apparently been paid to Gowlings.

Sounding familiar?  Such a move here could not only delay construction for years - it could jeopardize the entire project altogether, I fear.

If Estrin is successful in Hamilton and Windsor as well, municipalities across the country may follow a similar script to squeeze more money from taxpayers across Canada.  This is an unacceptable use of Environmental Law - and frankly, if this is what our city council intends to do, it disgusts me.

It may not be exactly Greenlink, but it is sure as hell better than an at-grade freeway cutting through our city.  Mayor and council would be wise to accept this proposal and take the credit for a job well done rather than risk the economic future of our region sorely needing the 12,000 jobs it will provide.

More Misdirection: The Mayor responds to DRIC

I stumbled across the city’s official response to the DRIC’s critique of Greenlink.

And honestly - I’m not being sarcastic - I am honestly confused with the statements made in it, which came from the Mayor’s office.  The Mayor’s Office is basically claiming that the DRIC provided no costing information beyond a simple statement that the parkway would cost $1.5 billion.

Yet - all the information the Mayor claims the city was not provided has been on the DRIC website since August 2007.  Cost estimates.  Road design.  Tunnel schematics.

Now some of the statements I really can’t address without some major explanations of the jumble of technical data on the Greenlink website - such as the 100-year versus 20-year storm - so who do I believe? 

But I have some serious objections over many of the other statements from the Mayor’s Office,   which I’ll go through one by one.

GreenLink is based on a 7.3 km highway and in fact mirrors the limits of the DRIC Parkway.  In the material distributed in August 2007 at the DRIC open houses there are the following comments in the DRIC material…

Basically, the Mayor states that the DRIC cost-estimate is really based upon the segment of roadway from the 401 to EC-ROW.

But this is false.  On pages 69-72 the cost breakdown of the segment from Malden Road to Plaza Alternative’s B and C are estimated to be between $80 - $100 million.

Furthermore, page 6 states:

The Access Road alternatives will connect to the Inspection Plaza practical alternatives.

Several requests were made to DRIC to release their costing data. This would have allowed a direct comparison. Unfortunately DRIC would not expand on their one statement of cost in the August 2007 material - “The Parkway is estimated to cost $1.5 Billion.” The GreenLink team prepared a cost estimate for the GreenLink and has always indicated that the estimate was in 2007 dollars, despite the fact that DRIC has not provided details for their estimate.

Again false.

Pages 22 - 89 contain estimated cost breakdowns for all practical alternatives and plaza construction. 

Does not include engineering and contract administration.  Both the GreenLink and DRIC Parkway contain contingency percentages. The initial GreenLink contingency was 35%, which was refined to 30% upon a more detailed analysis.  DRIC indicated that their contingency was in the order of 30%.

The Mayor does not even address the issue - using instead the contingency fund to respond to the charge.  The DRIC proposal includes engineering and contract administration in addition to a 30% contingency.

…many other tunnel design standards worldwide permit the construction of modified shoulder widths in tunnels, because they create traffic hazards and instead use other techniques, such as lay-by areas for distressed vehicles where the tunnel length exceeds a certain value. In any event, the shoulder width issue is a design matter and the design would be adjusted as required. In fact, the GreenLink team did work through a cost estimate for a full shoulder cross-section, but preferred modified shoulders for the reasons stated above. DRIC was aware that the GreenLink team investigated the use of full shoulders as well as the reasons for the modified shoulder approach.

So while the city admits the shoulder width issue is a design matter - they would include full shoulders if required.   Therefore, the Mayor’s press release basically affirms the DRIC’s critique in this matter.

Furthermore, the DRIC proposal, available since August 2007, cited the use of 3m shoulders in their document several times:

• The Access Road will be a six-lane divided urban freeway with a 6.8m wide median. The median will include a Tall Wall concrete barrier and 3.0m wide shoulders.   The outside shoulders are proposed to be 3.0m wide. (Page 6).
• Two shoulders (inside and outside) need to be widened approximately 3m to accommodate lateral clearance. The cost difference between the section which accommodates and the one which does not accommodate lateral clearance would be approximately $26 million. Again, this has not been included at this time. (Page 16).

Finally, page 175 outlines a rough blueprint of what a proposed cut and cover tunnel in the DRIC proposal would look like:  Two tunnels comprised of three 3.75 meter lanes each with an inside and outside shoulder of 3 metres in both tunnels.

So while the Mayor can claim there are no tunnel standards in Ontario, it is quite evident in the DRIC documents that the DRIC believes there ought to be 3 meter wide shoulders.  Had the Mayor looked at this document, he could have ensured that Greenlink met the standards as set forth by the DRIC.

The GreenLink team has included in the cost estimate the equipment necessary for a control centre - closed circuit tv’s etc. - in the cost estimate. Regardless, it is envisioned that an international border crossing including a new bridge would include a control centre, which would act as a control centre for both the crossing and the approach road.

Where exactly?  I could not find this in the Greenlink cost-estimates.  But regardless, DRIC estimates the cost of the control centre to be about $5-million (Page 65) and as such, represents less than 1% of the total cost of the project. 

Ongoing operating and maintenance costs.  Reiterating the above, an international border crossing including a new bridge location would include an operating and maintenance plan. Regardless, a capital cost estimate does not normally include yearly operating and maintenance costs.

While this is true, maintenance and operating costs are higher for tunnelled sections - a consideration for the province since they would be footing the bill presumably for this.  DRIC also acknowledges this in their report (Page 19).  But I will agree with the Mayor on this one - capital costs should only be compared.

Now in fairness to the city, the DRIC does acknowledge that their costing is an estimate and will most likely increase but so too will Greenlink’s.  But the overriding reality is that the province of Ontario cannot afford a Taj Mahal highway.  Heck - economists are predicting Ontario will become a have-not province within two years. 

I’m not sure exactly how they can afford the DRIC’s proposal frankly.

But the issue of precedent is very real.  It is easy for the Mayor to dismiss this since he doesn’t have to face the provincial electorate when they are told that literally, billions of dollars have to be diverted to highway infrastructure because of Windsor’s Mayor.

In particular,  with all the competing interests across the province such as health care, rising social assistance costs, the distressed manufacturing sector - precedence could be a very real threat.  Explain that to Sarnia, Sault Ste. Marie, Fort Erie and the suburbs of Toronto who also deal, in varying degrees, with traffic congestion and traffic related to cross border travel.

Yes - Greenlink is a fantastic concept and the Mayor and council should be proud of that accomplishment.  But as I stated yesterday, council has succeeded in raising the bar and getting a better solution - and we don’t even know yet what the final proposal is.

However, the Mayor and council owe it to all residents to state exactly what a prolonged lawsuit could mean for the Windsor-Essex region; and its impact on the local economy.

Perhaps someone tomorrow could ask the Mayor after DRIC’s announcement.

Be careful what you wish for: Greenlink the new standard

If a tunnel can’t be built for technical reasons, Windsor deserves, at the very least, the below grade cantilevered road proposed by “Gridlock Sam” Schwartz.“

Mayor Francis, January 19, 2006

_____________________________________

Who knew that the city’s new branding campaign included drawing attention to soot and air quality issues in Windsor, when instead they could be promoting, GreenROW.

Mayor Francis this morning lashed out again at the DRIC’s critique of Greenlink on AM800.

“Our kids go to school here and they’re wearing backpacks with air-monitoring.  Where else in the province does that happen?   And they sit there and talk afraid of setting a precedent for residents.  Where else do residents have soot lined across their homes?  Soot that their children are inhaling?  Soot that people in school yards and playgrounds are inhaling…”

To answer the first question - people in Ottawa wore air monitoring backpacks.

Closer to home, Health Canada has been conducting a study in the Great Lakes Basin to monitor air quality and its effects on children and adults.

Insofar as soot is concerned, children in Sarnia are exposed to this as they are in Fort Erie and in Toronto where air quality is a major problem as well.

Now obviously, our Mayor has a right to be concerned; but providing misleading information to residents only furthers that negative perception of Windsor both those living here and those abroad apparently have.   But yet again those thinking of calling Windsor home are told, this time by its mayor (last year it was MP Brian Masse) that Windsor is the ONLY place in Ontario where soot is a problem; where they are wearing air monitoring backpacks.

What the Mayor doesn’t tell people is that  Canada and the US are making major inroads to air quality issues which will result in major improvements to our air quality across the country by 2015 - about the same time Greenlink would be completed. 

The bottom line -  Windsor is not the only city dealing with these issues - contrary to what Mayor Francis,  would like us and apparently the world to believe.

But if Greenlink represents a new standard that the province must follow in highway construction, does this mean that the Mayor is proposing the same for the city owned EC ROW?  

After all, local diesel belching trucks use that roadway and it has reached capacity according to Mayor Francis.  Rather than expand it, let’s not be cheap - construct GreenRow.  

Think about it.  What’s a couple of billion dollars?  Cost isn’t an issue, is it Mayor Francis?   We deserve only the best for Windsor’s future - think big!  We CAN!  Connecting East and West Windsor with a system of trails and parkland…

But in reality, the Mayor Francis of 2006 apparently shared the DRIC’s vision:

“And if the “solution” is merely an at-grade, six-lane urban freeway with a service road and sound barriers, an “80-metre swath” as Mayor Eddie Francis put it, Windsor will co-habit with an infrastructure monster. If a tunnel can’t be built for technical reasons, Windsor deserves, at the very least, the below grade cantilevered road proposed by “Gridlock Sam” Schwartz.” (January 19, 2006).

What is really perplexing is that the Mayor and council could really look like heros rather than like the kid caught raiding the cookie jar.  

They’ve succeeded - it may not be exactly what they wanted, but given the political and economic realities both provincially and nationally - it’s pretty darn good.  Council has raised the bar; demanded better and got better - especially compared to those poor saps (comparatively) in St. Catharines (and elsewhere in Canada) that got stuck with an at-grade highway expansion.

But if Greenlink is truly the new standard in highway design, I would expect that both the Mayor and council would whole heartedly embrace GreenRow as a solution to our at-capacity, diesel belching expressway.

Is Greenlink the “cheap” solution?

Mayor Francis doesn’t have a problem criticizing the DRIC proposal as “cheap” or “inferior,” and for some time his statements had the appearance of credibility.  After all, how could the city have designed, in conjunction with Sam Schwartz and Parsons Brinckerhoff, a solution of nearly equal value, but far superior aesthetically?

Easy - claim there are no Ontario safety standards for tunnels and ignore other international ones.

Yes - sure, the Windsor Star reported on Saturday that Nasri Munfah of Parsons-Brinckerhoff - those folks who brought you the Boston Big Dig - defended PB’s position by stating, “There are no Ontario standards to cover tunnels.” 

Except that is not what I was told at the community forum late last year in response to a series of questions I had.  I was told that safety features within Greenlink’s tunnel’s would be according to government standards.  Except now we’re told - after the fact - there are no such standards.

So much for being provided all the facts at those information sessions.

And Mayor Francis stated, “You don’t need full shoulders on tunnels,” added Francis, saying designers don’t want motorists pulling over in tunnels.”

Is that so? 

Mayor Francis would be wise to recall Sam Schwartz’s statement back on January 22, 2005, when Mr. Schwartz offered the following criticism of DRTP’s proposed rail to truck tunnel conversion:

“The biggest issue was the rail tunnel itself being used for trucks given that if a truck is perfectly centred it would only have 0.7 metre on either side,” he said. “There is an unforgiving wall on either side.”

He described it as a “cattle-chute design.”

“I hate that for the crash potential,” Schwartz said. “Then the only way to get a truck out is to approach from head on. It may start up again and be approaching you at 80 km/h.”

He said any accident or disabled vehicle in the rail tunnel would take 15 to 30 minutes to clear. In that time, 200 to 400 trucks could back up behind a stalled rig and “you never could recover the rest of the day from that.”

Mayor Francis should also ask Parsons-Brinckerhoff why they recommended shoulders in the proposed tunnel for the Alaskan Way Viaduct.  The project team there includes the Washington Department of Transportation (DOT), the Seattle Department of Transportation and about 30 private firms, led by engineering giant Parsons Brinckerhoff, which cited shoulders inside the tunnel as a “safety advantage”:

The shoulder would be available for emergency use when most crashes occur, which is at night and off-peak times, the team said.

Gord Henderson should really know better too.  Back on June 21, 2007, he was praising the Swiss for their tunnel designs.

Apparently, those Europeans are learning their lessons in tunnel construction as well, after a series of tragic tunnel explosions and fires that killed dozens and dozens of people since the early 1990’s.  A well known fact not mentioned by our Swiss-born councillor, Bill Marra - an advocate for a tunnelled solution to our border:

“They’re so progressive. There’s a lot of long-term thinking over there,” said Marra

Yes - progressive indeed.  So progressive in fact, the European Union passed in 2004 some of those tunnel standards that Parsons-Brinckerhoff stated do not exist in Ontario.

In Annex 1 of the following linked document - you can see that emergency lanes are required in all new European Tunnels.  The rationale:

Safety measures should enable people involved in incidents to rescue themselves, allow road users to act immediately so as to prevent more serious consequences, ensure that emergency services can act effectively and protect the environment as well as limit material damage.

Parsons-Brinckerhoff should also carefully consider the words of Professor Arnold Dix who recently stated in Munich, that the responsibility for tunnel safety falls “squarely on the shoulders of the tunnel industry and consultants.”

In other words - blaming the Ontario government for not having standards for tunnels is an excuse to do nothing.  Although, I won’t rule out the possibility that perhaps they were told to do so.

And it’s somewhat disturbing too, considering that Charlie Rountree, health and safety manager for Bechtel/Parsons-Brinckerhoff stated:

Unfortunately, it is not possible to count the savings from injuries that did not happen. However, as Rountree said, “We should always consider safety and health, constructibility, and cost, in that order.”

Cost isn’t an issue for our Mayor, nor for Parson’s Brinckerhoff - but cost really does seem to be a factor for omitting shoulders and not addressing some other major issues - according the latest DRIC press release claiming that Greenlink really costs (shock of all shocks) $2.3 - 2.5 billion.

Wherever did we hear this number before, Gord Henderson? 

If you recall, Mr. Henderson retracted the two statements he made regarding the cost of Greenlink being $2.6-billion.  Doesn’t look like this was an error (but we knew that anyway).

While it is convenient for the Mayor and some members of council to rail against the DRIC as the “cheap” solution, it seems the city “cheaped” out on Greenlink to deliberately low-ball the costs so as to embarrass the Province and the Federal Government into supporting it.

And if that is the case - our Mayor and councillors should be ashamed of themselves.

All I have ever asked in this blog is that residents be provided with all the facts so that they may come to their own conclusions.

Sadly it’s becoming clear that this was not the case.

Blog Delay

Blogging will resume on Tuesday.