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.