The following is an analysis by
Roland Madou, translated into english. He is against the Kettle Island Crossing.
I publish it here because in his objections he also lists every reason to support it.
Revival of the Idea for a New Interprovincial Bridge (March 2019)
Kettle Island Still Under Consideration: How Is This Possible?
Gatineau MP Steve MacKinnon has once again revived the idea of a new interprovincial bridge crossing Kettle Island. Since then, other politicians, journalists, and citizens have weighed in on the matter, seemingly without fully understanding the situation. It therefore seems worthwhile to understand why so many people believed, and are still convinced, WRONGLY, that the Kettle Corridor was undeniably the best solution! That is the purpose of this note.
As a Fellow of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries and a retired mathematician, my passion for numbers led me to spend hundreds of hours studying this issue in depth over several months, as I wanted to understand the core of the NCC's recommendations. (I should clarify that no one asked me to do this study and that, whatever solution was chosen, it made no difference to me. I therefore acted alone, and in a completely objective and disinterested manner).
1. What did the NCC engineers’ figures say?
The NCC engineers themselves highlighted that the Kettle Corridor was the worst of the 12 corridors considered for two of the seven criteria, as well as for the combined environmental and social criteria (see table in Appendix 1).
And this is not just my interpretation: these are the engineers’ own figures! Moreover, engineer Steve Taylor of Roche-NCE, who was the lead engineer for the NCC studies, confirmed this on two occasions.
First, in a personal letter he sent me on December 18, 2008 (and according to Adel Ayad, who was a member of the NCC Board of Directors, I am the only member of the public to have received a personal reply), Steve Taylor wrote: “I do note that you have correctly interpreted the evaluation methodology and the numerical scoring of the alternatives.” He added that “we added an ability for members of the public to provide comments on what they thought the weighing of the factor groups should be”, but “these weights were not utilized by the evaluation committee”. “The outcome of the evaluation is a function of the weights assigned for the evaluation sub-factors and factors”. “We note that you place a large importance on effects to the human environment. However, none of the 25 members od the evaluation committee place enough weight on these specific evaluation criteria. You are correct to identify that using different weights can lead to a different outcome”.
· Then, at the meeting of the Transportation Committee of the City of Ottawa, on January 12, 2009. Here is an extract from the Minutes (26) of this meeting, published by the City of Ottawa: “Responding to a question posed by Councilor Legendre, Mr. Taylor confirmed that Kettle Island was not the first choice in all seven categories”. He also confirmed that "if the weighing values were changed, it would alter the results of the study," but that "it was determined not to change those values" despite "the number of public comments" regarding the lack of importance given to cultural and social factors. During this meeting, it was also emphasized that "the Evaluation Committee is made up of people with technical backgrounds, and the people bringing this proposal forward have a transportation background," which explained the Committee's emphasis on non-environmental factors!
Steve Taylor therefore confirmed that the table in Appendix 1 is correct and that the Kettle Corridor was only recommended because the Evaluation Committee had given much more weight to non-environmental factors than to environmental ones. However, the governments had demanded an environmentally focused study, and the public consulted had expressed the same wish. One might therefore have expected the NCC to reject the Kettle Corridor on its own. However, it did the opposite!
Let's try to understand the reasons for this surprising recommendation.
1. Possible Political Pressure and Transgression of Provincial Requirements
To be able to recommend the Kettle Corridor, the engineers had to deviate from the requirements of the provincial governments and gave negligible weight to environmental factors when ranking the twelve corridors considered in Phase 1 of the study. In the central part of the table in Appendix 2, it is clear that it was thanks to the disproportionate weight (over 69%) given to non-environmental factors that the Kettle Island Corridor received the most points.
At the time, some whispered that Lawrence Cannon, the (Conservative) minister in charge, favoured the Kettle Corridor because he wanted to help his friend Bob Labine, with whom he had served on Gatineau City Council, and who still had real estate interests in the Paiement Road area.
Like me, some members of the NCC Board of Directors (such as the scientist Adel Ayad) had raised objections to the recommendations. What's curious is that the mandate of these administrators was not subsequently renewed by the Conservative government! This looked very much like a desire for absolute control!
1. Worthless Sensitivity Tests
Aware that the Kettle corridor recommendation would be heavily criticized, the engineers stated that they had “validated the reliability of the selection process” by conducting a sensitivity analysis.
Thus, in the brochure distributed at the press conference on September 4, 2008, during which the CCN recommendation was announced, there was a page entitled “Sensitivity Analysis” (see Appendix 3).
The first problem with this analysis is that these tests prove absolutely nothing, because they do not test what should be tested, namely, a different weighting philosophy. In all the hypotheses tested, the total of environmental factors remains well below 50%. The “NO environmental” factor always dominates! And in this case, Kettle obviously wins, since it is the best for the “NO environmental” factor!
Kettle is very weak (see Appendix 1) in what Mr. Taylor calls "cultural" (including, in particular, the social environment, recreational activities, etc.). As long as the weight of "1. Misleading Presentation of Sensitivity Test Results
But it's not just the poor quality of the sensitivity tests that's shocking. There's something even worse!
In the table in Appendix 3 summarizing the sensitivity tests, the number ONE appears next to each of the 7 factors in the Option 5 column (Kettle Island). This is indeed the exact result for the tests designed by the engineers, but they are meaningless given the biased way in which these tests were designed. However, the most shocking thing is the conclusion of the table, written in large red letters: "The Kettle Island link (Corridor 5) receives the highest score for each factor category"!!! This is simply absurd! (See the true meaning in point 5 below).
This is a completely misleading way to present the results of these tests, which already lacked any probative value! And this misleading conclusion undoubtedly had the effect some were seeking: those who read it deduced that the Kettle Corridor was indisputably the best. Here are a few examples.
In Le Droit on September 5, 2008, the editorialist (Pierre Allard) wrote that, for ALL the criteria studied, “everywhere the Kettle Corridor obtained the best ranking.” He concluded that “at this stage, the opponents no longer have any arguments capable of turning the tide. All that remains are the ever-present ‘not in my backyard’!”
The City of Gatineau’s resolution of January 20, 2009, endorsing the Kettle Corridor recommendation, also referred to this conclusion (“Considering that the sensitivity analysis clearly demonstrates that the chosen option always ranks first regardless of the weighting of the criteria”).
On January 8, 2009, live on Ottawa community television, an Ottawa city councillor (Bob Monette) peremptorily made the same erroneous statement, refusing to believe his colleague Jacques Legendre's explanations!
At the meeting of the City of Ottawa's Transportation Committee on January 12, 2009, I personally intervened to point out this misunderstanding. The only reaction I received was a reprimand from the Chair for daring to publicly address an error made by a city councillor! Welcome to public consultations!!!
" is not significantly increased, Kettle remains in first place. Even when Mr. Taylor increases the "cultural" weight to its maximum (22%), the environmental NO remains at 59%! This is far too much for Kettle to be dethroned!
And when he reduces "Traffic" to its minimum (15%), since this reduction is distributed across the other criteria proportionally to the base percentages, the total for Environment remains stuck at 37%. Here again, this is far from enough to unseat Kettle from first place.
These sensitivity tests are therefore biased. Steve Taylor did not test what was important. He should have tested different weighting philosophies, and not simply vary ONE percentage while merely adjusting the others to maintain 100%. What happens, for example, if we want a study focused on the environment and the population (which was, incidentally, its mandate!) rather than on traffic? In other words, what happens if the weighting of the environment is increased to 50% or 75%? We don't know. Yet, given the initial requirements set by the governments, it was ESSENTIAL to at least test these weighting philosophies. Because then, everything changes! For example, by reducing the environmental "NO" from 69% to 50%, and increasing the environmental weighting from 31% to 50% (which is far from excessive, considering the requirements of the study), Kettle finishes third, not first (see the lower part of Appendix 2)!
This shows, at the very least, that contrary to what Steve Taylor claimed, we are very far from an indisputably necessary solution! This may also show that Steve Taylor was either being remotely controlled to recommend Kettle, or was incompetent outside his limited field of construction!
1. Misleading Presentation of Sensitivity Test Results
But it's not just the poor quality of the sensitivity tests that's shocking. There's something even worse!
In the table in Appendix 3 summarizing the sensitivity tests, the number ONE appears next to each of the 7 factors in the Option 5 column (Kettle Island). This is indeed the exact result for the tests designed by the engineers, but they are meaningless given the biased way in which these tests were designed. However, the most shocking thing is the conclusion of the table, written in large red letters: "The Kettle Island link (Corridor 5) receives the highest score for each factor category"!!! This is simply absurd! (See the true meaning in point 5 below).
This is a completely misleading way to present the results of these tests, which already lacked any probative value! And this misleading conclusion undoubtedly had the effect some were seeking: those who read it deduced that the Kettle Corridor was indisputably the best. Here are a few examples.
In Le Droit on September 5, 2008, the editorialist (Pierre Allard) wrote that, for ALL the criteria studied, “everywhere the Kettle Corridor obtained the best ranking.” He concluded that “at this stage, the opponents no longer have any arguments capable of turning the tide. All that remains are the ever-present ‘not in my backyard’!”
The City of Gatineau’s resolution of January 20, 2009, endorsing the Kettle Corridor recommendation, also referred to this conclusion (“Considering that the sensitivity analysis clearly demonstrates that the chosen option always ranks first regardless of the weighting of the criteria”).
On January 8, 2009, live on Ottawa community television, an Ottawa city councillor (Bob Monette) peremptorily made the same erroneous statement, refusing to believe his colleague Jacques Legendre's explanations!
At the meeting of the City of Ottawa's Transportation Committee on January 12, 2009, I personally intervened to point out this misunderstanding. The only reaction I received was a reprimand from the Chair for daring to publicly address an error made by a city councillor! Welcome to public consultations!!!
1. End of Phase 1
The Kettle Corridor's decisive advantage was therefore not at all related to the environment or the quality of life of residents, even though that was what the provinces had demanded.
What had propelled it to first place was that it was the most advantageous for trucks (which was obvious, even before the analyses began, since it was the closest to the city centers).
Note: The irony is that when Gatineau City Council endorsed (January 20, 2009) the recommendation identifying the Kettle Island Corridor as the sole option, it unanimously passed a resolution stating that "This council is of the opinion that it is unacceptable for all heavy vehicles to be transferred from King Edward Avenue to Paiement Road." This effectively negated one of the few advantages of the Kettle Corridor!
The provinces were not fooled and rejected the NCC's recommendation, as it conflicted with their environmental requirements.
However, they agreed to proceed to Phase 2 of the study, provided that the NCC retained three possible corridors, not just the Kettle Corridor. The NCC therefore kept the three corridors that received the highest ratings in Phase 1: Kettle Island, Lower Duck Island, and the Gatineau/Baie Laurin Airport.
Phase 2
Phase 2 was launched in May 2011. Despite objections from some directors (such as Adel Ayad, which ultimately cost him his position on the Board!), the NCC retained the same engineering firms that had served it so well during Phase 1.
The engineers had promised to take the wishes of the governments and the public more into account than in Phase 1. However, the hope for greater objectivity was dashed. Two years later, in That settled the debate, because the NCC knows perfectly well that I'm right! And François Lapointe (who had been there for over 20 years) then preferred to "change careers," and he left the NCC at the end of 2013!
I therefore hope that we won't relive this same kind of sterile discussion during this election campaign. It would once again be a source of division and bitterness between different groups of citizens. We would see statements like "the wealthy taxpayers of Manor Park don't give a damn about Gatineau," or "perhaps we, on the Quebec side, should block Ontarians who own cottages in Quebec from crossing our bridges" (Le Droit, September 27 and 28, 2008)!
CONCLUSION
Sooner or later, there will probably be one (or two) other bridges, particularly to facilitate public transit between the two shores. We can dream, for example, of a light rail system that would run in a loop around the urban centers of Ottawa and Gatineau. And I share the opinion of the mayors of Ottawa and Gatineau that the number one priority right now is connecting the public transit systems on both sides of the river.
However, if it is a road bridge, it will have to be located further away from residential areas if it is to meet environmental and social requirements. Ideally, two bridges should be built, at the eastern and western ends of the residential areas, to create a ring road around the downtown cores of Ottawa and Gatineau.
It should be noted that, in 2009, the idea of a sixth bridge was accepted by everyone. If certain prominent Gatineau residents hadn't insisted that the new bridge pass over Kettle Island, this new bridge would probably already be built, but in a location that complies with the requirements of the provincial governments.
The feasibility studies will therefore undoubtedly resume sooner or later. As mentioned above, the engineers' analyses to evaluate each of the possible corridors were conducted professionally, and I see no reason to start from scratch, as the problem lay solely in the weighting and presentation. However, the expansion of inhabited areas since 2009 will need to be taken into account.
One thing is certain: if the Kettle corridor did not meet the environmental requirements in 2009, it certainly does not meet them today. It would be inconceivable that, in 2019, when environmental awareness has become so strong, environmental requirements would be less stringent than they were 10 years ago.
Roland Madou, Mathematician, M.Sc.
Fellow of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries
Certified Member of the French Institute of Actuaries
Knight of the Order of the Pleiades
Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medalist
Ottawa
March 26, 2019 2013, the NCC concluded Phase 2 by once again stating that the Kettle Corridor was the best option! And, predictably, the provinces once again rejected this recommendation, which contradicted their environmental requirements! A complete fiasco!
The NCC therefore had no choice. On June 27, 2013, the NCC Board of Directors unanimously adopted a motion ending funding for the environmental impact assessment (sic) for the Kettle Island corridor, but it placed the blame for this rejection on the Ontario government. This was completely unfair!
I felt compelled to set the record straight. On July 6, 2013, Le Droit published my letter, “Chronicle of a Fiasco,” in which I restored the truth.
This led to a heated exchange between the NCC’s Vice-President, François Lapointe, and myself in Le Droit, after he attacked me on Rachel Gaulin’s show on Radio-Canada, accusing me of insulting the NCC. I have attached the following:
• Appendix 4: My article published in Le Droit on July 6, 2013 (“Chronicle of a Fiasco”)
• Appendix 5: François Lapointe’s response in Le Droit on July 10, 2013 (“Two Very Rigorous Processes”), where he states that my accusation is “a real insult.”
• Appendix 6: My detailed scholarly response published in Le Droit on July 12, 2013 (“A Scheme, Really?”).
That settled the debate, because the NCC knows perfectly well that I'm right! And François Lapointe (who had been there for over 20 years) then preferred to "change careers," and he left the NCC at the end of 2013!
I therefore hope that we won't relive this same kind of sterile discussion during this election campaign. It would once again be a source of division and bitterness between different groups of citizens. We would see statements like "the wealthy taxpayers of Manor Park don't give a damn about Gatineau," or "perhaps we, on the Quebec side, should block Ontarians who own cottages in Quebec from crossing our bridges" (Le Droit, September 27 and 28, 2008)!
CONCLUSION
Sooner or later, there will probably be one (or two) other bridges, particularly to facilitate public transit between the two shores. We can dream, for example, of a light rail system that would run in a loop around the urban centers of Ottawa and Gatineau. And I share the opinion of the mayors of Ottawa and Gatineau that the number one priority right now is connecting the public transit systems on both sides of the river.
However, if it is a road bridge, it will have to be located further away from residential areas if it is to meet environmental and social requirements. Ideally, two bridges should be built, at the eastern and western ends of the residential areas, to create a ring road around the downtown cores of Ottawa and Gatineau.
It should be noted that, in 2009, the idea of a sixth bridge was accepted by everyone. If certain prominent Gatineau residents hadn't insisted that the new bridge pass over Kettle Island, this new bridge would probably already be built, but in a location that complies with the requirements of the provincial governments.
The feasibility studies will therefore undoubtedly resume sooner or later. As mentioned above, the engineers' analyses to evaluate each of the possible corridors were conducted professionally, and I see no reason to start from scratch, as the problem lay solely in the weighting and presentation. However, the expansion of inhabited areas since 2009 will need to be taken into account.
One thing is certain: if the Kettle corridor did not meet the environmental requirements in 2009, it certainly does not meet them today. It would be inconceivable that, in 2019, when environmental awareness has become so strong, environmental requirements would be less stringent than they were 10 years ago.
Roland Madou,
Mathematician, M.Sc.
Fellow of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries
Certified Member of the French Institute of Actuaries
Knight of the Order of the Pleiades
Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medalist
Ottawa
March 26, 2019
.jpg)
