Engineering Company suggestion is to build the Parkway
Public input on proposals and process is required by April 11. You can respond by e-mail. See bottom of this page for details.
On Thursday, March 21, a little over 100 citizens came out to see what ideas AECOM, the engineering company hired by the City to conduct the Parkway Corridor Municipal Class Environmental Assessment study (EA Study), had come up with after the first round of public input from a meeting held October 2, 2012. Over 20 poster-sized displays illustrated a variety of discussions and proposed approaches to building the two sections of the Parkway south and north of the existing section known as Hospital Drive. AECOM staff were on hand before the meeting presentations to explain proposals.
North Parkway Corridor
AECOM representative Kevin Jones lead those in attendance through the background, findings and proposals they were making in regard to the Parkway Corridor. Most interest from the audience appeared to focus on the North End of the Parkway and the crossing of Jackson Creek. For the north end, three options were under consideration:
- a road down the Parkway right-of-way
- improvements to Fairbairn and 3rd line
- improvements to Parkhill and Water Streets
North Parkway Corridor options against criteria
By dividing the criteria into eight, the importance of the Parkway as recreational greenspace was lost in the shuffle. Predictably, the engineers suggested that turning the Parkway right-of-way from a trail to a road was the best alternative. Using eight criteria: Technical, Natural, Built, Social, Cultural, Economic, Financial and Overall (whatever that means), the AECOM team found the Parkway right-of-way the most preferred option for six of the eight criteria with Social criteria showing up as moderately preferred and Natural criteria showing up as least preferred. The suggestion was made that natural and social environments can be mitigated. How you mitigate the loss of a greenway trail was unclear.
The issue of getting around Jackson Park was also examined and here the engineers were more vague, offering up options of going around the park and options for a bridge over the park. There was no clear recommendation from the team, although the language used appeared to suggest they liked the idea of a bridge (but were aware of how unpopular it might be).
Jackson Creek Valley Crossing Concept
Citizens at the meeting were, for the most part, clearly against the idea of building on the Parkway right-of-way and of a bridge over Jackson Park. Most of the discussion seemed to focus on the northern section of the Parkway and Jackson Park. Fewer people seemed upset with the plans for the southern section. Most comments made suggested that the Parkway wasn’t really needed (things aren’t that bad) or that the loss of greenspace, trails and the beauty of Jackson Park were costs that were just too high for the sake of shaving a few minutes off of a cross city-drive. Some expressed alarm at the speed at which things were moving forward.
The City has posted the presentation materials including feedback forms.
A Peterborough Examiner coverage of the meeting is here, which (as is typical for the Examiner) focused on what the engineers had to say and ignored the public opposition that was voiced at the meeting.
A third public meeting is planned for June with a possible a fourth meeting later in the year.
A .pdf version of the comment sheet is available but must be mailed back by April 11th.
Alternately, you can cut and paste the text below and e-mail your comments to kevin.jones@aecom.com by April 11th. To be valid, your comments must include your name and address.
All comments and information received from the public, stakeholder groups and agencies regarding this Class EA project are being collected to assist the City of Peterborough in meeting the requirements of the EAA. Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Environmental Assessment Act, unless otherwise stated in the submission, any personal information such as name, address, telephone number and property location included in the submission from the public will become part of the public record files for this matter and can be released, if requested.
———————————-cut and paste—————————————-
Name:
Address:
Email:
Phone/fax:
1. What comments do you have related to the Recommended Network Alternatives?
2. Based on the information presented, what comments do you have regarding the Jackson Creek
Valley bridge crossing vs Parkhill Road / Fairbairn Street widening alternatives? Are there
additional criteria we should consider in this evaluation?
3. Do you have any comments about the parking / access options for Jackson Park?
4. Do you have any comments related to the preliminary Design Alternatives that have been
presented? Are there any benefits / impacts that you feel the team should consider in the
evaluation?
5. Do you have any additional comments?
————————————————————————————–