Consultation results

2. Transport Canada should require compliance with municipal law or defer processing the IBTA application pending decision of the Federal Court including the Federal Court’s consideration and interpretation of the following:

• The CTC Act and Property Standards By-law as it applies to the ABEP , whether or not there is any conflict between the Property Standards By-lay and the CTC Act and whether the CTC Act already sets out a complete code for addressing any identified conflicts;
• Whether there is merit to the assertion that homes slated for demolition as part of ABEP are immune from municipal laws on constitutional grounds;
• The obligation set out in the CTC Act which expressly requires compliance with municipal law.

4. The IBTA application fails to comply with IBTA Guidelines and violates the IBTA subsection 7(2) including:

1. Failing to provide information on existing and proposed traffic to be carried by the bridge, including information on the effect the traffic will have on the existing road system and nearby communities;
2. Failing to examine local impacts beyond the bridge and plaza;
3. Failing to identify mitigation measure required to address the ABEP ’s adverse impacts; and
4. Failing to provide a list of the regulatory approvals that must be obtained in relation to the project.

The final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) with appendices and attachments as well as the Environmental Assessment Screening Report (EASR) were attached to and are part of the IBTA Application and address all of the comments listed below.

1. Traffic is discussed in great detail in Section 3.5 beginning on page 27 of the EIS .
2. The EIS was conducted in accordance with the Revised Federal Environmental Assessment Guidelines under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act for the Ambassador Bridge Enhancement Project, which was prepared by Transport Canada and Windsor Port Authority in Consultation with the Federal EA Review Team. For the purposes of impact assessment, the study area examined extended approximately 200 metres (657 feet) from the proposed Project footprint. Depending on the factors identified in the section 16(1) of the CEAA and the EA Guidelines dated August 2007 the area of impact assessment did vary according to the study being undertaken and the spatial extent of the potential environmental effects.
3. Mitigation measures for all resources are identified throughout Section 5.0 and 7.0 of the EIS as well as their respective appendices. The mitigation measures are also described and in Table 6.2 of the 2013 Draft EASR . Required mitigation and follow-up measures are identified in the January 2014 Environmental Assessment Screening Report.
4. Section J of the IBTA application outlines all the approvals needed in the United States and their status. Similarly, Section K of the IBTA Applications outlines additional approvals required in Canada.

No information is missing since the EIS and EASR were appended to the IBTA application.

Air quality and associated mitigation are discussed in Sections 4.1, 5.1, 6.3.1, 7.1, and 7.9.1 of the EIS as well as Appendix D. It is further discussed and summarized in Section 6.1 of the EASR .

Noise and Vibration and associated mitigation are discussed in Sections 4.9, 5.9, 6.2.2, 6.3.2, and 7.5 of the EIS as well as Appendix J. It is also discussed and summarized in Section 6.11 and 6.12 of the EASR .

All commitments, mitigation and monitoring is summarized in Table 6.2 of the 2013 draft EASR issued by Transport Canada and the Windsor Port Authority.

As described in Section 1.2.1 on page 3 of the EIS , the purpose of the project is to;

• Improve the structure to facilitate the movement of vehicles and ensure the continued free flow of goods between Canada and the United States;
• Upgrade the efficiency through the provision of FAST/NEXUS lanes;
• Meet current highway standards; and
• Preserve the existing Ambassador Bridge structure.

Traffic numbers used in this report were taken from the approved DRIC project. There are three relevant reports that were posted on the DRIC website at http://www.partnershipborderstudy.com/. The first report, “Detroit River International Crossing Study Travel Demand Forecasts” was completed in September 2005 and established the total cross border unconstrained travel demand. The projected traffic volumes in the study are based on the estimated demand for travel across the river and are not constrained. While these volumes have been shown to overestimate the actual volumes, nevertheless, these volumes were conservatively used in the assessment and mitigation of impacts by the ABEP . The remaining posted reports deal with the distribution of the demand based traffic and were used to demonstrate that the introduction of FAST lanes at the Ambassador Bridge could capture a small number of long haul trucks that may otherwise use the Blue Water Bridge. These were shown to increase the traffic volumes by much less than 2% as discussed in Section 3.5 of the EIS . Further, the volumes projected in the 2006 DRIC Travel Demand Forecast have been shown to dramatically over estimate the actual traffic with the 2014 DRIC projected volume being 78.4% greater than the actual volume. Nevertheless, the CTC used these highly over optimistic projections in assessing impacts and determining mitigation for the ABEP .

As such, it is the CTC ’s position there are no measurable impacts on Windsor City Streets and traffic safety as a result of the ABEP . Any changes to the city streets beyond those already discussed in the EIS , EASR and IBTA Permit Application are beyond the scope of the project.

The existing plaza has numerous inspection booths dedicated to FAST trucks and NEXUS users only. The introduction of dedicated FAST lanes thru the entire facility with the ABEP will move participants through these trusted trader/traveler programs more efficiently. As participation in the FAST and NEXUS program increases, waiting times are expected to be reduced as these program participants will not have to wait in line with other non-participants. Bus traffic will also benefit through the use of designated lanes allowing them to bypass regular passenger vehicle traffic and proceed directly to the CBSA secondary inspection facility.

In addition, the ABEP provides an additional 12 commercial primary inspection booths which nearly doubles the processing capacity for trucks from existing conditions.

It is the CTC ’s position that the ABEP will have no effect on these roadways and interchanges since the build and no build traffic volumes are less than 2% different.

See # 1

The temporal boundaries for the project were determined by the Revised Federal Environmental Assessment Guidelines Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act for the Ambassador Bridge Enhancement Project, which was prepared by Transport Canada and Windsor Port Authority in Consultation with the Federal EA Review Team.

The temporal boundary for most analyses included present day, construction (2013-2015) and operation (any time after 2015). The air and noise analyses required a future build date to be analyzed to discern impacts. The air quality analysis identified year 2015 as the construction date and year 2025 as the future operation build year. The noise study identified 2010 as the existing year (for current traffic noise impacts) and 2025 as the future operation build year.

15. If the Ambassador Bridge truly believes in its traffic estimates it should have no problem accepting safeguards to keep traffic at or near that level. SSE recommends the following measures:

1. The CTC should institute a pricing plan on the Ambassador Bridge.
2. If the CTC rejects the pricing proposal, then the City should implement a pricing plan.

The final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) with appendices and attachments as well as the Environmental Assessment Screening Report (EASR) were attached to and are part of the IBTA Application and address all of the comments listed in this Peer Review.

A detailed noise and vibration study was conducted on the project and can be found in Appendix J and summarized throughout the EIS in Sections 4.9, 5.9, 6.2.2, 6.3.2, and 7.5. It is also discussed and summarized in Section 6.9 of the EASR . Table 6.2 of the 2013 draft EASR contains a summary of the mitigation, commitments and monitoring required.

2. The CTC fails to examine the ABEP ’s noise impacts on the community. In order for the CTC to provide a complete application to TC pursuant to the IBTA , suitable for review by TC and key stakeholders, it must include the following elements, currently missing from the CTC application:

• Consideration of the noise impacts that ABEP may cause as a result of increased traffic on approach roads and on local roads that require relocation to service the project;
• Use of adequate and representative sensitive receptors within the community;
• Use of realistic traffic data over a reasonable planning and assessment horizon;
• Adequate collection of baseline noise data, compliant with industry standards and Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change guidelines;
• Consideration of road surfaces (ie. grooved concrete);
• Consideration of construction impacts; and
• Application of appropriate noise standards for assessment.

Local roads and proposed modifications to local roads were considered in the noise and vibration study.

The noise and vibration study can be found in Appendix J and summarized throughout the EIS in Sections 4.9, 5.9, 6.2.2, 6.3.2, and 7.5. It is also discussed and summarized in Section 6.9 of the EASR .

1. The IBTA application is premature and incomplete without the following two key submissions:

1. Design mitigation: the CTC application should be considered incomplete until detailed plans have been provided that allows stakeholders to review proposed traffic flow and air quality mitigation details.
2. Air quality follow-up program should include the following elements:
   • Traffic levels could be more than double than those predicted by the CTC , resulting in air quality impacts that exceed the maximum modeled by the CTC .
   • The proportion of truck traffic to passenger vehicle traffic could change, resulting in a significant change in air quality impacts.
   • The project could cause traffic volumes on local roads to grow, impairing service at local intersection and roads and resulting in deteriorating air quality.
   • Use of outdated emission software (U.S EPA Mobile 6 rather than the new U.S EPA MOVES model) could underestimate the air quality impacts of stop and go traffic.
   • Queuing times could exceed those estimated by the CTC , causing longer line ups and a deterioration of air quality.
   • Road and bridge surfaces may not be maintained as assumed in the EIS emission rates resulting in increased air emissions.
   • Background air quality may change.

1. Information used in the analyses is provided in Appendix D of the EIS . Air quality and associated mitigation are discussed in Sections 4.1, 5.1, 6.2.2, 6.3.1, 7.1, and 7.9.1 of the EIS as well as Appendix D. Mitigation strategies are specifically discussed in Section 7.1. The commitments, mitigation and monitoring is further described and summarized in table 6.2 of the 2013 draft EASR .

2. Refer to Section 3.5 of the EIS for a detailed discussion of the traffic. Also, please refer to the response to comment # 1 made by the City of Windsor’s Traffic Analysis Peer Review.

For purposes of evaluating the environmental impacts of the ABEP , including air quality, a worst-case scenario was used. Specifically, the entire projected demand-based volumes from the DRIC studies were used without reduction. These unconstrained demand-based volumes were then inflated by the entire additional volume predicted to be captured from the Blue Water Bridge and the Detroit- Windsor Tunnel by the DRIC Level 2 and 3 Analysis. Based on these conservative assumptions, an upper bound 2030 volume using the ABEP is established at 7,358,000 trucks and 9,113,000 cars for a total of 16,471,000 vehicles.

The EIS was conducted in accordance with the Revised Federal Environmental Assessment Guidelines Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act for the Ambassador Bridge Enhancement Project, which was prepared by Transport Canada and Windsor Port Authority in Consultation with the Federal EA Review Team. This document included the use of Mobile6. The new EPA model, MOVES, was not an approved model when the air quality study was conducted. This project was grandfathered in using Mobile6.

Reasonable and conservative queuing times were assumed in the modeling. In order to conservatively compare the no build and build alternative air quality impacts, the same assumptions were used in the build and no build alternatives even though the project is expected to result in reduced wait times as a result of the introduction of FAST/NEXUS dedicated lanes.

CTC is committed to maintaining road and bridge surfaces as described in the Mitigation Compliance Monitoring and Follow-up program.

Background air quality is expected to improve in the future due to more stringent fuel and vehicle emission standards and improved vehicle engines.

2. Following submission of a complete application, which has been circulated to stakeholders for review and comment, the following two areas should be considered in the Terms and Conditions of Approval of the IBTA license.

1. Monitoring program: ongoing air quality monitoring is the only method to ensure that predicted air quality impacts are met, and if not, an air quality management program must be in place that is rigorous and detailed to ensure that air quality levels predicted in the EIS are met and air quality does not further deteriorate and provide a risk to nearby residents.
2. Containment material: a procedure must be developed as a license Term and Condition to ensure that if contaminated material is found prior to or during construction, that a proper plan be in place to ensure appropriate mitigation and air quality measurements are undertaken to ensure local residents are not exposed to harmful and unsafe level of contaminants.

A complete application including the attachments ( EIS with attachments and EASR ) has been circulated in which all of the comments have already been investigated and assessed as explained below.

1. Please see previous responses regarding the mitigation and follow up program for air quality. Once again, please refer to Sections 5 and 7 of the EIS along with Table 6.2 of the EASR with clearly describe the monitoring program required.
2. Contaminated materials are discussed in section 5.14 and 7.3.1.7 of the EIS and Table 6.2 of the 2013 draft EASR . As stated, if contamination is discovered during construction, it will be evaluated in accordance with the guidance provided by the Ontario Environmental Protection Act (R.S.O. 1990), and Ontario Regulation 153/04 Record Site Condition.

The Olde Sandwich Towne Community Improvement Plan and The Sandwich Heritage Conservation District Conservation Plan Final Report are dated October 2012, published well after the development of the August 2007 “Revised Federal Environmental Assessment Guidelines Under the Canadian Environmental Act for the Ambassador Bridge Enhancement Project (2006)” and after the completion of much of the environmental analysis associated with the ABEP . However, the issues associated with these planning documents were given consideration as part of the EIS and the EASR , particularly within Appendix N of the EIS . This analysis was performed by a professional engineer with a significant history and experience of supporting the cultural heritage initiatives and preservation in the City of Windsor. Detailed interior and exterior evaluations of buildings on the east side of Indian Road were conducted. A secondary purpose of the investigation by this qualified individual “was to assess whether these properties [on the east side of Indian Road] enhance or diminish the Heritage Conservation objectives of the Phase 1 Sandwich Heritage Conservation District Study.” Consideration was given to the Sandwich Heritage Conservation District Study.

No heritage sites will be demolished or moved during the construction of the Project. A total of 17 houses will be demolished to accommodate the proposed plaza expansion. Two building will be demolished to accommodate the bridge expansion and a total of 73 houses will be demolished within the project area to create a buffer area between the bridge and the community to the west. As described in Appendix N, the interior and exterior of these houses were investigated to document the condition of their structural, mechanical and electrical systems. All houses were deemed unfit for re-occupancy due to vandalism and structural deficiencies. The assessment concluded that none of the houses merit a historical or heritage designation based on established Provincial, National, and International guidelines. Detailed discussions on the heritage sites can be found in Section 4.11, 5.11.1., 6.2.3, and 7.6 of the EIS .

5. Assessing other land use and socio-economic impacts of the ABEP :

• Potential changes on land use and traffic patterns.
• Potential changes on community resources, including parks, waterfront access, and public safety.
• Protection of community and neighbourhood characteristics.
• Maintain consistency with existing planned land use.
• Protect cultural resources.

A thorough and comprehensive EIS has been prepared for the project studying and assessing potential impacts of the project on land use. The construction of the proposed replacement span directly adjacent to the existing bridge will clearly have no significant environmental effect on land use, schools, playgrounds, sports fields and places of worship as shown in the EIS and EASR and as discussed in the responses to comments above. The majority of the project is being constructed where other major transportation land uses have been historically occurring including the existing Ambassador Bridge, Huron Church Road, Indian Road and the Windsor Plaza.

Community and cultural resources were considered in the EIS in Sections 5.10, 5.11, 5.12, 5.13, 7.6 and 7.7 as well as Appendix M and N. Section 7.6.7 specifically describes how the project will not have an impact on parks, waterfront access, and neighborhood characteristics. It also describes how the project is consistent with the various local plans including the City’s Greenway / Recreation way System and Bicycle Use Master Plan and the City of Windsor Official Plan.

Safety was considered in a number of ways including safety of motorists, border safety, and safety within the adjacent communities. As an eighty-six year old structure, the existing Ambassador Bridge does not reflect modern highway standards for lane and shoulder widths. The lack of safety shoulders on the Ambassador Bridge causes significant disruptions in the flow of traffic when a vehicle breaks down or an accident occurs. The replacement span is proposed to be constructed with safety shoulders on both sides of the outer travel lanes. The proposed Project will increase traffic safety and operations and will reduce vehicular accidents within the project limits.

In addition, a green space will be developed between the plaza and the nearby community of Sandwich on the east side of Indian Road, providing additional green space for the community.

2. The City have the following concerns about the CTC ’s failure to adequately assess the environmental impacts that could be caused by the accidental spill of toxic materials:

• No information is provided in the EIS or DSR about the number of trucks transporting dangerous goods or the classes (and volume) of dangerous goods that will be transported across the ABEP ;
• No information is provided in the EIS or DSR about the number of accidents on the Ambassador Bridge or previous accidents involving dangerous goods on similar bridges to estimate the number of potential accidents that will occur on the ABEP and to assess the environmental impacts of those accidents;
• There is no assessment of the environmental effects of spills of dangerous goods caused by collisions or other types of accidents on the new ABEP in the EIS or the DSR;
• The City is concerned that spills of dangerous goods during the operation of the ABEP will cause significant adverse environmental effects and health impacts.

Section 7.10 and Appendix O of the EIS summarizes the extensive public involvement conducted to date. Consultation with the public regarding the proposed Project has been ongoing for several years. Representatives of the proposed Project have reached out to the community since 2005 to discuss and review the proposed Project. Four public information sessions were held from April 16 – 19, 2007.

In addition, the EASR was published for public comment from April 12, 2013 to June 7, 2013.

The new six lane facility is elevated from the border to the existing plaza and will not change the way the local roads function.

Environmental impacts for the closure of Huron Church Road (HCR) were evaluated and included in the mitigation in the EIS for the ABEP . However, HCR closure is not part of the project as proposed in the IBTA application. Should the closure of HCR be considered by the CBSA as prudent, it would only be implemented once all required approvals are obtained and an agreement can be reached between the property owners and the CTC . During the final design of this small portion of the project, the CTC would consult with all affected property owners and arrive at a mutually agreeable solution before proceeding with construction.

Little or no construction is anticipated at night. Certainly, noise intensive construction items such as pile driving will be limited to daylight hours and will meet the requirements of the local noise ordinances.

As part of the commitments found in Section 5.19 of the EIS and Table 6.2 of the EASR , CTC commits to coordinating with schools within 300 m of the Project to create a mutually agreeable construction system to reduce the impact of noise on schools especially during exams.

A detailed traffic discussion can be found in Section 3.5 and Appendix Q of the EIS . The traffic analysis was performed as a part of this study in order to evaluate the impacts of the project of local roads. As a result of this study, additional improvements were identified that will be needed for the operation of the study intersections at an acceptable level of service. These additional needed improvements are listed below:

• Signalization of the intersection of Indian Road at Wyandotte Street.
• Signalization of the intersection of Indian Road Extended at College Avenue.
• Conversion of the eastbound shared right-through lane for the intersection of Huron Church Road at College Avenue to an exclusive right turn lane.

A thorough and comprehensive EIS has been prepared for the project studying and assessing potential impacts of the project on land use. The construction of the proposed replacement span directly adjacent to the existing bridge will have no significant effect on land use, schools, playgrounds, sports fields and places of worship as shown in the EIS and EASR and as discussed in the responses to comments above. Mitigation will be implemented as required by Sections 5 and 7 of the EIS and Table 6.2 of the 2013 draft EASR .

Community and cultural resources were considered in the EIS in Sections 5.10, 5.11, 5.12, 5.13, 7.6 and 7.7 as well as Appendix M and N. Section 7.6.7 specifically describes how the project will not have an impact on parks, waterfront access, and neighborhood characteristics. It also describes how the project is consistent with the various local plans including the City’s Greenway / Recreationway System and Bicycle Use Master Plan and the City of Windsor Official Plan.

Noise intensive construction items such as pile driving will meet the requirements of the local noise ordinances.

As part of the commitments found in Section 5.19 of the EIS , CTC commits to coordinating with schools within 300 m of the Project to create a mutually agreeable construction system to reduce the impact of noise on schools especially during exams.

Social impacts of the proposed project were discussed at length in Sections 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 6.2.3, 5.10, 5.11, 5.13 and 7.6 of the EIS as well as Appendices M and N. Changes to community cohesion are specifically addressed in Section 7.6.7 of the EIS .

The majority of the project is being constructed where other major transportation land uses have historically occurred including the existing Ambassador Bridge, Huron Church Road, Indian Road and the Windsor Plaza. All construction of both the plaza expansion and the second span will take place on property directly adjacent to the existing operation and on right of way already owned by the proponent with zero required relocations.

Social impacts of the proposed project were discussed at length in Sections 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 6.2.3, 5.10, 5.11, 5.13 and 7.6 of the EIS as well as Appendices M and N. Changes to community cohesion are specifically addressed in Section 7.6.7 of the EIS .

The majority of the project is being constructed where other major transportation land uses have been historically occurring including the existing Ambassador Bridge, Huron Church Road, Indian Road and the Windsor Plaza. All construction of both the plaza expansion and the second span will take place on property directly adjacent to the existing operation and on R/W already owned by the proponent with zero required relocations.

Air quality and associated mitigation are discussed in Sections 4.1, 5.1, 6.2.2, 6.3.1, 7.1, and 7.9.1 of the EIS as well as Appendix D. Noise and Vibration and associated mitigation are discussed in Sections 4.9, 5.9, 6.2.2, 6.3.2, and 7.5 of the EIS as well as Appendix J.

With the proposed mitigation, CTC expects traffic noise levels to be the same or less than current levels.

Details of the air quality study can be found in Section 7.1 and Appendix D of the EIS and Section 6.1 of the EASR .

Table 11 on page 42 of 56 of the air quality report contained in Appendix D of the EIS summarizes the maximum air quality concentration results for all of the studied pollutants. As shown in this table, there were PM10 exceedances already occurring in the background concentrations, during the construction and during the operation scenarios. All other pollutants are within compliance for all scenarios (construction and all operation scenarios). For the PM10 exceedances, there is no difference between the build and the do nothing scenario. Rigorous and comprehensive mitigation measures will be implemented as described in Table 14 in Section 5.19 of the EIS . The effectiveness of this mitigation will be confirmed through a comprehensive compliance monitoring and adaptive management plan as discussed in the EIS and in Table 6.2 of the EASR .