x Present / Absent
3 Number of Trucks
ted
119. Potential for indus-trial and intermodal eco-nomic development in the new corridor
This sub-factor measures the ability of an alterna-tive crossing to improve and support the accessi-bility to existing and planned industrial develop-ment areas and intermodal facilities identified in municipal official plans. The best alternative will provide the best proximity to these major employ-ment areas.
3
Number of Trucks120. Potential for Ser-vice and Office Economic Development in the new corridor
This sub-factor measures the ability of an alterna-tive crossing to improve and support the accessi-bility to various office and service development areas identified in municipal official plans. The best alternative will provide the best proximity to these major employment areas.
3
No. veh.121. Travel time sav-ings–personal vehicles and transit
This sub-factor measures the travel time savings for personal cars and trucks generated by a new crossing.
3
min Included in the Benefit Costs Analysis122. Travel time savings – commercial vehicle.
This sub-factor measures the travel time savings for commercial vehicles generated by a new cross-ing.
3
min Included in the Benefit Costs Analysis123. Vehicles operating cost savings (fuel, mainte-nance) – personnel cars.
This sub-factor measures the vehicles operating cost savings for personnel cars generated by a new crossing.
3
$ Included in the BenefitCosts Analysis 124. Vehicles operating
cost savings personal cars
This sub-factor measures the vehicles operating cost savings for personal cars generated by a new crossing.
3
$ Included in the BenefitCosts Analysis 125. Long haul
commer-cial traffic advantages.
This sub-factor measures the advantages of a new
crossing on long haul commercial traffic (trucks).
x
High / low Data to be provided by truck OD survey.ted
126. Agricultural activities. This sub-factor measures whether an alternative will impact the usable farm land that is part of the NCC’s farm unit. Alternatives that divide the farm lands are less desirable because they do not facili-tate the easy movement of farm machinery within the farm.
x
No measurable difference:corridors running almost ex-clusively along existing arte-rial roads.
127. Recreational acti-vities.
This sub-factor measures the impact to the
recrea-tional activities due to loss of a parking/access.
x
No measurable difference.128. Tourism activi-ties.
This sub-factor measures the impact to the tour
operators.
x
No measurable difference:these vehicles travelling mostly during the off peak period, on established route.
129. Fisheries activi-ties.
This sub-factor measures the impact to the sport/commercial fisheries due to loss of a public
boat launch.
x
No measurable difference:mitigation measures are mandatory.
130. Loss of Boating Revenue
This sub-factor measures the impact to rental in-come provided by the leasing of berths/docks to seasonal and transient boaters. Any docks and/or access to docks that are required for transportation right-of-ways or no longer have access to naviga-ble waters have been included in the quantity of lost boating revenue.
x
No measurable difference:only one corridor directly impacted (10).
131. Commercial Loss of Passing-By Traf-fic.
This sub-factor measures whether a business will have a loss of visibility due to realignment of a
roadway due to the new crossing.
x
No significant difference:commuters mostly driving on highways, commercial activities usually concen-trated in home or place of work vicinities not impacted
ted
132. Provincial, re-gional and munici-pal economic poli-cies regarding tour-ism and recreation.
This sub-factor measures the impact to tourism and recreation policies due to improved and/or
re-duced access.
x
No measurable difference.133. Impact to the Cumberland Mas-son Ferry.
This sub-factor measures whether the Cumberland Masson Ferry will be impacted by reduced traffic volume to the ferry. Alternatives that do not impact the Cumberland-Masson Ferry are preferred.
x
No measurable difference:only one corridor directly impacted.
13.0 L AND U SE
AND P
RO-PERTY :
134. Conformity with Official Plan and Other Land Use Strategies
This sub-factor measures the impact to land use and growth management strategies in municipal plans. Those Crossings which conform to existing municipal plans are preferred.
3 yes/no
135. Loss of future development.
This sub-factor measures whether a crossing will impact future development, identified in the cities of Gatineau and Ottawa Official Plans.
Those Crossings which result in impacts to future subdivisions are less desirable. Crossings that re-move the least amount of future development properties are preferred.
3 yes/no
ted
136. Loss of Recrea-tional Property
This sub-factor measures whether a crossing will impact recreational property. Crossings that re-move the least amount of recreational property are preferred.
3 yes/no
137. Residential pro-perty required.
This sub-factor measures whether a crossing will impact residential development, identified in the cities of Gatineau and Ottawa Official Plans.
Those Crossings which result in impacts to resi-dential property are less desirable. Crossings that remove the least amount of residential property are preferred.
3 ha
138. Commer-cial/industrial pro-perty required.
This sub-factor measures whether a crossing will impact commercial/industrial property identified in the cities of Gatineau and Ottawa Official Plans.
Those Crossings which result in impacts to com-mercial /industrial property are less desirable.
Crossings that remove the least amount of poten-tial commercial/industrial/ businesses property are preferred.
3 ha
139. Loss of Institutio-nal Property
This sub-factor measures whether a crossing will impact institutional property. Those crossings which result in a loss of institutional property are less desirable.
3 ha
140. Utility Corridor Relocation
This sub-factor measures whether a crossing will impact existing utility corridors. Those crossings which result in a relocation of a major utility corri-dor are less desirable.
3 Yes/no
ted
141. Utility Property Required
This sub-factor measures whether a crossing will impact existing utility property. Those crossings
which require utility property are less desirable.
3 ha
142. Institutional Po-tential Buyout
This sub-factor measures whether an alternative will remove an existing institutional building.
Those Crossings which result in a potential buyout of a institutional building are less desirable.
3 Number
143. Residential Po-tential Buyouts
This sub-factor measures whether an alternative will remove an existing residence. Those Cross-ings which result in a potential buyout of a residen-tial building are less desirable.
3 number
144. Community /recreation facilities property required.
This sub-factor measures whether a crossing will impact community /recreation facilities property identified in the cities of Gatineau and Ottawa Offi-cial Plans.
Those Crossings which result in impacts to com-munity /recreation facilities property are less desir-able. Crossings that remove the least amount of community /recreation facilities property are pre-ferred.
x
Measured under separatesub-factor.
145. Impacts to com-munity access.
This sub-factor measures whether a crossing will impact access to an existing community. Those crossings which result in loss of access to a com-munity are less desirable.
x
Access is maintained146. Commercial po-tential buy-out.
This sub-factor measures whether an alternative will remove an existing commercial building.
Those Crossings which result in a potential buyout
3 No.
ted
of a commercial building are less desirable.
147. Agricultural pro-perty required.
This sub-factor measures whether a crossing will remove an agricultural property. Those Crossings which result in loss of lands under agricultural pro-duction are less desirable.
x ha Measured under separate
sub-factor.
148. Farm land seve-rance.
This sub-factor measures whether an alternative will sever usable farm land. Alternatives that di-vide the farm lands are less desirable because they do not facilitate the easy movement of farm machinery within the farm.
3 ha
149. Agricultural po-tential buy-out.
This sub-factor measures whether a crossing will require an agricultural property buyout. Those Crossings which result in the buy-out of an agricul-tural property are less desirable.
3 No.
150. Loss of major re-creational areas.
This sub-factor measures whether a crossing will require major recreational property. Those Cross-ings which result in loss of major recreational facil-ity property are less desirable.
x No. Measured under recreation
facilities
151. Agricultural Property (Protected Quebec) Required
This sub-factor measures whether a crossing will remove a agricultural property protected in Que-bec. Those Crossings which result in loss of lands under agricultural production are less desirable.
3 ha
152. Loss of Class 1, 2, and 3 Agricul-tural Lands
This sub-factor measures the amount of agricul-tural land with soil capability of Class 1 to 3 that is required for each alternative. Class 1 to 3 are considered to be provincially significant agricultural resource lands. Crossings that remove the least amount are preferred.
x ha Measured under other
sub-factors.
ted
153. Number of Po-tentially Contami-nated Sites
This sub-factor measures whether a crossing will severe the Greenbelt. Those Crossings which re-sult in severance of the Greenbelt are less desir-able.
3 number
154. Area of Severed Greenbelt (Cross-ings 6 and 7 to the Rockcliffe Park-way)
This sub-factor measures the area of Greenbelt that would be severed by new transportation corri-dors dividing it from the larger land mass, The al-ternatives which generally stay at the periphery of the Greenbelt and sever the least amount of area are preferred.
3 ha
155. Agricultural Prop-erty required (ON Greenbelt)
This sub-factor measures whether a crossing will remove a agricultural property in Ontario. Those Crossings which result in loss of lands under agri-cultural production within the Greenbelt are less desirable.
3 ha
14.0 C OSTS :
156. Capital, operat-ing, and mainte-nance costs.
This sub-factor measures the difference in prop-erty, capital, operating and maintenance costs
be-tween the crossing alternatives.
3 $
157. Future mainte-nance and operat-ing life cycle costs.
This sub-factor measures the difference in life
cy-cle costs between the crossing alternatives.
3 $
Sous-facteurs identifiés dans le cadre de SCP2
1. Connectivité et circulation à l’échelle régionale (c.-à-d., possibilité d’intégration à la stratégie de phasage d’une éventuelle autoroute périphérique)
2. Intégration aux stations existantes du réseau de transport en commun (p. ex. carrefour Bayshore) 3. Incidences sur l’achalandage des grands axes de circulation (p. ex. 174, 417, Queensway, 416)
4. Incidences sur la circulation sur le réseau routier municipal (rues locales, collectrices et artères) à proximité des corridors proposés
5. Possibilité de rediriger la circulation des camions de manière à éviter les ponts existants situés dans le secteur central 6. Possibilité d’améliorer l’accès aux aéroports régionaux (p. ex., l’aéroport de Gatineau)
7. Possibilité de répondre aux besoins des services d’urgence liés aux aéroports
8. Possibilité d’accueillir les détournements d’urgence de vols à destination de l’Aéroport international d’Ottawa 9. Incidences sur les temps de déplacement des migrants journaliers (voitures particulières et transport en commun) de
l’ensemble des résidents de la région
10. Possibilité d’intégration aux stratégies futures de transport en commun interprovincial et d’améliorer la circulation des véhicules de transport collectif circulant entre le Québec et l’Ontario
11. Incidences sur l’infrastructure de transport existante (c.-à-d., effets sur la vitesse de détérioration)
12. Possibilité d’aider à favoriser une éventuelle diminution à long terme de la circulation automobile (horizon de 50 ans) 13. Possibilité d’accroître la continuité des réseaux cyclables et piétonniers
14. Possibilité de diminuer la circulation des camions par l’accroissement de l’utilisation du transport ferroviaire entre Montréal et Ottawa
15. Possibilité de mieux desservir les communautés rurales et les zones d’aménagement futur par une nouvelle liaison 16. Possibilité de mieux desservir les zones aménagées existantes par une nouvelle liaison
17. Incidences sur la piste du Musée national des sciences et de la technologie (Musée de l’aviation) [accord de prolongement de la piste existante]
18. Incidences sur l’aérodrome de Rockcliffe (NOTE : la marge de franchissement d’obstacles minimale est de 20:1) 19. Incidences sur la partie praticable pour la voile de ce tronçon de la rivière des Outaouais
20. Prévoir les dégagement requis pour l’entretien des voies navigables (c.-à-d., le dégagement vertical requis par les embarcations)
21. Incidences sur le champ de tir et le centre de formation primaire Connaught (Riddell)
22. Ampleur des améliorations d’infrastructure requises en plus de la liaison en tant que telle (p. ex., ajout d’une nouvelle rampe d’accès au carrefour 417 et promenade de l’Aviation et travaux de paysagement, advenant le choix de la solution Île Kettle) ...
parc Andrew Hayden, l’Île Petrie) ...
25. Sécurité de tous les utilisateurs du réseau routier (piétons, cyclistes et automobilistes) 26. Effets nuisibles potentiels sur la santé causés par l’accroissement des émissions de GES
27. Ampleur des impacts d’un déversement de marchandises dangereuses dans la rivière des Outaouais
28. Incidences sur le périmètre de sécurité du champ de tir et le centre de formation primaire Connaught (Riddell).
29. Conformité aux dispositions de la Loi sur la protection des eaux navigables gérée par Transports Canada (p. ex., dégagement requis pour les grands voiliers)
30. Possibilité de composer avec les crues centenaires
31. Incidences sur les activités récréatives (p.ex., le parc Andrew Hayden, l’Île Petrie, les clubs de voile, etc.) 32. Incidences liées au bruit (p.ex., le bruit se reflétant sur la surface de l’eau, etc.)
33. Effets nuisibles sur les collectivités locales limitrophes découlant de l’aménagement d’ouvrages antibruit 34. Effets nuisibles sur les collectivités locales découlant de la circulation
35. Incidences sur les terres riveraines en bordure de la rivière des Outaouais (impacts culturels, environnementaux et communautaires)
36. Incidences sur les établissements institutionnels (écoles, églises, hôpitaux, etc.) 37. Possibilité d’accroissement de l’activité criminelle
38. Incidences sur les valeurs foncières des résidences 39. Incidences sur la qualité de l’air
40. Incidences sur la faune
41. Incidences sur les habitats (le flamant rose égaré) 42. Incidences sur la diversité biologique
43. Incidences sur les cours d’eau secondaires (ruisseaux) à proximité des corridors de liaison 44. Incidences sur les terres riveraines sensibles en bordure de la rivière des Outaouais 45. Approbation des autorités environnementales ...
46. Incidences potentielles sur l’eau potable (prendre note de l’emplacement des usines de purification de l’eau) 47. Incidences sur certaines espèces (p.ex., le lépisosté osseux)
48. Incidences sur les activités de la réserve faunique gouvernementale de Shirley’s Bay
49. Incidences sur les droits conférés aux Indiens dans le cadre du traité incluant le secteur Rockcliffe
50. Incidences sur les programmes d’enseignement (Centre de la jeunesse Terry Fox -1805, avenue Gaspé, dans le quartier Manor Park – à proximité de l’option Île Kettle)...
51. Accroissement potentiel de la demande pour de nouveaux aménagements urbains à proximité du corridor retenu 52. Incidences sur le tourisme dans la région de la capitale nationale
53. Emprises déjà protégées en partie par les autorités gouvernementales 54. Possibilité de répondre à l’expansion du milieu urbain
36
57. Avantages-coûts per capita ...
58. Emprises déjà protégées en partie par les autorités gouvernementales 59. Longueur de la traversée...
60. Possibilité d’aménager la liaison par étapes ...
61. Coûts d’aménagement préliminaires du pont...
62. Différence de hauteur entre les berges et le niveau de l’eau
43 43 44 44 44 44