The Solution is really nothing more than having MTO and the Government accept and follow Ontario’s Statutory Environmental Assessment regime.  

Having done that, the issue of jurisdiction must be set aside until the ultimate solution or solutions are identified.  Only then should the question of “who pays for this” be addressed. Given the Ontario government’s current focus in improving infrastructure, our vote is the have the province pay whether it is to build a 4 lane highway or several lesser roadways. 

• Rename the Bradford Bypass so the public will better appreciate the effect this highway will have on Bradford: The Bradford Thoroughfare
  This highway will cause the sprawl on either side of the route to the west and north of Bradford.
• Comply with Section 4.4.2 of MTO Class EA for Provincial Transportation Facilities Regulation – duty to assess alternatives beyond the existing study area and MTO’s mandate. For the purposes of this analysis utilize a study area with Cooks Bay as its northern boundary and Queensville Sideroad as its southern boundary.
• Include the Highway 89 Extension Environmental Assessment Study (1984) in the alternatives to be considered. (If MTO can rely on an the outdated Bradford Bypass EA study which was initiated in 1993, it should also be able to rely upon this study to a similar extent.
• Properly consult with our First Nations peoples, with particular focus on the Chippeaws of Georgina Island with respect to any potential intrusion on any part of Lot 118 west side of Concession 1 in York Region (Lower Landing).
• Conduct a thorough impact Assessment of this project on Lake Simcoe.  Unless, post mitigation, this highway will have no net impact on this Lake, the EA decision should be do nothing.  The health of the Lake far exceeds any possible need for this highway.  This must be treated as being “Non Negotiable”
• Using the analysis data obtained in identifying and evaluating reasonable alternatives pursuant to MTO’s Class EA regulation employ the following assessment criteria to prepare a financial and environmental cost/ benefit report comparing the Bradford Bypass to one or more of the other alternatives identified.
• Use the following criteria in conducting this cost / benefit analysis:

CRITERIA FOR ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES.

Routes to be analyzed.  At a minimum, the following routes should be analyzed:

1. Bradford Bypass
2. Queensville Sideroad, via Bathurst St. and Hochreiter Road with 8^th line in Bradford
3. Ravenshoe Road to Line 12
4. MTO’s previously preferred Highway 89 Extension route to Ravenshoe Road

Criteria to be reported:

• Traffic volume and travel times – peak and average
  1. Barrie to Keswick
  2. Barrie to Highways 404 and 401
  3. Hwy 89 at Highway 400 to Oshawa
  4. Keswick to Highways 400 and 401
  5. Vaughn to the planned employment lands on Queensville Sideroad in East Gwillimbury
• Construction cost for each alternative
• Greenhouse gas produced for each alternative both construction and peak operation
• Estimated extent of environmental impact for each alternative – scale 1-5 with 5 being highest

Compare each of the above findings for the Bradford Bypass to each of: alternatives 1, alternatives 1 plus 2 and alternatives 1 plus 3.

• The objective of this analysis is to determine the cost, in both dollars and carbon emissions, of the presumed incremental travel benefits traffic capacity of the Bradford Bypass versus the proposed regional road upgrades. 

Present your findings on-line and subsequently in a Public Information Center to ensure compliance with MTO’s duty to consult.

Excerpt from MTO Class EA for Provincial Transportation Facilities Regulation

FOR ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

4.4.2 Assessing Alternatives – [excerpts]

Each of these “alternatives to” is assessed against the following selection criteria:

        Does the alternative realistically address all of the problem/opportunity statements?

        Does the alternative, when used in combination with other alternatives, make a significant contribution towards realistically addressing all of the problem/opportunity statements? [Emphasis Added]

Selecting the Preferred Alternative(s)

Only those alternatives which satisfy at least one of the above criteria are carried forward.  [Emphasis added] More than one “alternative to” may be carried forward. For example, reasonable “alternatives to” for addressing a major capacity deficiency may be a new highway, widening of an existing highway, or a combination of the two.

If reasonable “alternatives to” not covered by this Class EA are carried forward under other EA processes, the other EA study processes may in some instances be co-ordinated with those of a Group A, B or C study under the terms of this Class EA.

Final words:

Ontario’s Professional Engineers have clearly stated how this EA study process needs to be conducted:

OSPE’s Position

Infrastructure projects should not be politicized. They should be based on evidence and reported to the public and stakeholders transparently.

The Ontario Government should develop and use standard, evidence-based project evaluation tools. The quality of project evaluation reports for each major infrastructure project should be independently reviewed for merit. This should be accompanied by providing transparent reports available to the public outlining all project approvals and rejections, along with detailed summaries of decisions.

To ensure that the province is investing in proper infrastructure projects, the government needs to be transparent and answer all questions and concerns regarding each project. The Bradford Bypass is no exception.

[1] MTO Class EA for Provincial Transportation Facilities s.4.5.2- duty to consult.

[2] MTO Class EA for Provincial Transportation Facilities s.4.4.2 –duty to assess alternatives beyond the existing study area.