tansi! hello! - gov
TRANSCRIPT
TANSI! HELLO!
YORK LANDING TO ILFORD ALL-WEATHER ROAD:
ROUTE SELECTION STUDY
Community Meeting
Round Two (November 2015)
1
The Project
We want to answer your questions and hear your comments.
Please take a comment sheet and provide your feedback.
2
October 2015
Meeting Objectives
We are here to discuss preferred options for:
1. All-Weather Road Alignment from Ilford to York Landing and
Aiken Point
2. Corridor for a Future All-Weather Road Connection to PR 280
We want you to tell us what you think…
• Do you agree York Landing ferry terminal should be relocated
to Aiken Point?
• Do you agree with our preferred route south of Moose Nose
Lake for the road between Ilford, York Landing and Aiken Point?
• Do you agree that the recommended corridor through Keeyask
is the best option for a future connection to PR 280?
• Please let us know what you see as the benefits or negative
impacts of the preferred route and corridor
3
October 2015
Project Phases
4
October 2015
Corridor and
Alignment
Selection
Preliminary Design,
Environmental
Assessment and
Public Consultation
Detailed Design Construction and
Maintenance
Gather
information
Evaluate options
for York Landing
to Ilford
2nd Public
Engagement
We are here
Evaluate options
for PR 280
connection
1st Public
Engagement
Recommend
preferred
alignment
Recommend
preferred
corridor
Final
Report
Previous work
completed in
2012
CURRENT STUDY
What is an All-Weather Road? • Road is open throughout the year
• Gravel road, with dust control where necessary
• Minimum posted speeds: 60 – 70 kilometres per hour
• Minimum width 6.6 metres (wide enough for trucks to pass)
5
October 2015
Source: SNC-Lavalin Source: bigmanitobabears.com
All-weather roads can be used in winter… and also in spring, summer and autumn
Ferries • Ferries can be a cost effective option for crossing major rivers and
lakes
• Ferry services can be affected by operational considerations
(weather/shoulder seasons, hours of operation, staffing)
6
October 2015
Source: SNC-Lavalin Source: MIT
Community Feedback
• Feedback from communities:
• Ilford/War Lake: • In favor of all-weather road to York Landing
• Preference was for the least expensive connection to PR 280 so as to
improve likelihood of road construction
• York Landing: • In favor of all-weather road to Ilford/VIA Rail
• Preference was for the least expensive connection to PR 280 so as to
improve likelihood of road construction
• Tataskweyak (Split Lake): • In favor of all-weather road between Ilford and York Landing
• Preference for Corridor 2 as a connection to PR 280 to improve access to
Tataskweyak lands south of Nelson River
7
October, 2015
Stakeholder Feedback We received feedback from the following key stakeholders:
• Fisheries and Oceans Canada
• Historic Resources Branch, Archaeological
• Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship
• Manitoba Conservation – Wildlife Branch
• Manitoba Health, Healthy Living and Seniors
• Manitoba Hydro
• Manitoba Metis Federation
• MIT Northern Airports & Marine Operations
• Northern Association of Community Councils
• OmniTrax
• Royal Canadian Mounted Police
• Transport Canada
• VIA Rail
Together wi th stakeholders, we considered financial costs, the environment,
social/community factors, and transportation.
8
October, 2015
How are we choosing the preferred
routes and corridors?
9
October 2015
Four Criteria:
Source: MIT
Source: AANDC
Source: Tennessee Aquarium
Source: gabetaylor.net
#1: Financial Cost #2: Environment
#3: Social/Community #4: Transportation Economics
Connecting Ilford to York Landing
and Aiken Point York Landing to Aiken Point connection benefits:
Reduces the ferry travel time from 2 hours to 1 hour
Extends ferry season from 5 to 6 months
Enables up to 4 sailings per day if needed in peak periods
Ilford to York Landing connection benefits:
Provides Ilford with ferry access for 6 months
Provides York Landing with rail access year round
Eliminates the need to build and maintain a winter road every
year
Provides improved community access to fishing, hunting and
berry picking
10
October 2015
Ilford to York Landing to Aiken
Point
11
October 2015
Summary of Terrain and Water Crossing Data
for Ilford to York Landing to Aiken Point
12
October 2015
Potential Aggregate and Bedrock Borrow
Source Areas for Ilford to York Landing to
Aiken Point
13
October 2015
Potential Aggregate and Bedrock Borrow
Source Areas for York Landing to Aiken Point
14
October 2015
Terrain Legend
15
October 2015
Relative Ease of Construction Factor:
Qualitative Multiple Account Evaluation: Ilford
to York Landing to Aiken Point Route Options
16
October 2015
l = More Favourable
= Favourable
= Less Favourable
Evaluation Account Evaluation Criteria Route 1
(north of Moose Nose Lake)
Route 2
(south of Moose Nose Lake)
Financial Cost 25 year life-cycle cost
Higher cost: more difficult to
construct due to longer route
and poor soil quality
l
Lower cost: easier to construct
due to shorter route and higher
soil quality
Transportation
Economics
Travel benefits
Longer route by 4 km
l
Shorter route by 4 km
Social/Community Community
considerations
l
Supported by community; uses
existing hydro corridor
l
Supported by community;
generally follows winter road
corridor
Environment
Moose impacts
Likely higher quality habitat
Likely lower quality habitat
Caribou impacts
Likely higher concentrations
Likely lower concentrations
Fishery impacts
Further from Aiken River, limiting
fishing pressure and negative
impacts
Closer to Aiken River, increasing
fishing pressure and negative
roadway impacts
Trapline impacts
Some traplines
Fewer traplines
Historic resource
impacts
Likely less conflicts because
generally follows hydro corridor
Likely more conflicts due to known
historic/archaeology sites
Overall l
Route 2 (South of Moose Nose Lake)
is Preferred
17
October 2015
Most effective, safe and reliable route in light of its length; the
terrain and soils; construction and maintenance costs; and
ease of staging
Moderate environmental impact due to shorter length of new
road construction; potential impacts on fisheries resources can
be mitigated through careful design by observing appropriate
construction techniques and timing windows
Greatest potential for early implementation since shares
common corridors with existing Road and Hudson Bay Railway
Connecting to PR 280
18
October 2015
Corridor benefits:
Year round access to provincial road system
Provides improved community access to fishing, hunting and
berry picking
Improves access to regional medical services, high school and
higher education, job opportunities, shopping and recreation
Eliminates the need to operate MV Joe Keeper ferry
Eliminates the need to build and maintain a winter road every
year
PR 280 Corridors: All Options
19
October 2015
Corridor 1 (Near Kelsey Dam)
20
October 2015
Summary of Terrain and Water Crossing
Data for Corridor 1
21
October 2015
Potential Aggregate and Bedrock Borrow
Source Areas for Corridor 1
22
October 2015
Corridor 2 (North from York Landing)
23
October 2015
Summary of Terrain and Water Crossing
Data for Corridor 2
24
October 2015
Potential Aggregate and Bedrock Borrow
Source Areas for Corridor 2
25
October 2015
Corridor 3 (Connect to Keeyask Dam)
26
October 2015
Summary of Terrain and Water Crossing
Data for Corridor 3
27
October 2015
Potential Aggregate and Bedrock Borrow
Source Areas for Corridor 3
28
October 2015
Qualitative Multiple Account Evaluation:
PR 280 Connection Corridor Options
29
October 2015
l = More Favourable
= Favourable
= Less Favourable
Evaluation Account Evaluation Criteria Corridor 1
(near Kelsey Dam)
Corridor 2
(north from York Landing)
Corridor 3
(connect to Keeyask Dam)
Financial Cost 25 year life-cycle cost
Higher cost; 57 km: includes
Nelson and Burntwood river cable
ferries
Intermediate cost: 40 km; includes
Nelson River cable ferry
l
Lowest cost: 40 km; no cable ferry;
uses existing trail; links to proposed
public road on Keeyask Dam;
accessible aggregate
Transportation
Economics
Travel benefits
– Distance
from York
Landing /
Ilford
Tataskweyak
Intermediate
l
Shortest
Long
Gillam
Longest
Intermediate
l
Shortest
Thompson l
Shortest
Intermediate
Longest
Social/Community Community considerations
Best access to Thompson;
shoulder season disruption risk
Best access to Tataskweyak;
shoulder season disruption risk
Best access to Gillam; year-round
service
Environment
Moose impacts
Likely higher quality habitat
Likely lower quality habitat
Likely higher quality habitat
Caribou impacts
Likely lower concentrations
Likely lower concentrations
Likely higher concentrations
Fishery impacts
28 water crossings
17 water crossings
l
6 water crossings
Trapline impacts
Fewer traplines
Some traplines
Some traplines
Historic resource impacts
Highest likelihood
Intermediate likelihood
l
Lowest likelihood
Overall l
Corridor 3 (Connect to Keeyask
Dam) is Preferred
30
October 2015
Construction distance is shortest and encounters marginally
better soils
Crosses Nelson River on Keeyask Dam and does not require
cable ferry
Moderate environmental impact due to shorter length of new
road (caribou impacts can be mitigated through careful
construction and operation practices)
Has the least number of water crossings, therefore less impact
on fisheries resources
Most direct access to job opportunities at Gillam
Closer to significantly more potential construction aggregates
than the other two corridors
Study Recommendations
1. Relocate York Landing ferry terminal to Aiken Point and build an
all-weather road from York Landing to Aiken Point
2. Use Route 2 (south of Moose Nose Lake) to connect York Landing
and Ilford
3. Over the long term, a road along Corridor 3 (via Keeyask) should
connect York Landing and Ilford to PR 280
31
October 2015
Contact Us
Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation
David B. Duncan, P.Eng.
Transportation Systems Planning & Development
Phone: 204-945-3646
E-mail: [email protected]
SNC-Lavalin
Tim Stevens, P.Eng.
Project Manager
Phone: 604-605-4961 / Fax: 604-662-7688
E-mail: [email protected]
Community Liaison
Dan Highway
Phone: 204-794-4463
E-mail: [email protected]
32
October 2015
Ekosi!
Thank you for taking the time to meet with us!!