Presentation to Expressway Implementation Committee
by Gisele Williams
June 10, 2004

My name is Gisele Williams. I live on Pottruff Road South and my house backs onto the valley. I have a number of concerns with respect to this project. It is my intention to address some points set out in the Noise Wall Meeting Summary Report.

By way of background, and at the risk of backlash from my neighbours, you should be aware that for a number of reasons, I am in favour of this expressway. I am in favour of a commuter route which will allow the residents of the City to travel from one end of it to another in a relatively short period of time.

I am also in favour of seeing that the City, through this committee, or in spite of it, honour its earlier commitments to: intrude upon the valley as little as possible; protect as much of the valley as possible; and to improve upon the green spaces remaining by including in its design recreational areas, parks, paths and the like. That is what I recall hearing from representatives of the City back in or around 1997, the last time I was invited to a public meeting, or rather an information session, regarding this project.

What I am not in favour of, however, is large truck and transport truck traffic along this route significantly increasing particulate matter and other air pollutants as well as significantly increased noise levels. Quite frankly, I hope that the issues surrounding road use by trucks will be the topic of yet another meeting.

I know that we have to start somewhere and we are here tonight to discuss noise attenuation and the feasibility and acceptability of a noise wall. I am disturbed however with the way this process has been undertaken and I say this for a number of reasons. Firstly, I am not at all certain, quite frankly, that you would be seeking the opinions and input of valley residents on noise issues, or any other expressway related issues, if you were not legislatively mandated to address the noise issue with us. I hope that through our backyard meetings, you have come to realise that noise is not a stand alone issue.

Secondly when you did approach us, you did so by presenting us, in small pocket groups, with two choices, really. One, to build a wall on our private property or two, do nothing and/or take the "wait and see approach". You have pushed these options so forcefully that you've already asked our neighbours on Sinclair Court for their firm decision, based on these two options and these two options only. I hope that after tonight, you do not hold them to that decision should they wish to change their minds.

We have already learned from our backyard meetings that a noise wall, regardless of location, is not going to provide us with much relief from road noise. We have learned all about the shadow of the wall. Even if the wall were placed in our yards, it will do little to assist when we are sitting in our front rooms trying to watch television, visiting our neighbours across the street or getting our children to bed in the evenings. If we have to put up with the noise of this expressway, including air brakes, horns honking and the like, we could at least mask it so that we don't have to see it too.

It became very clear, very quickly, that my neighbours at our meetings were not satisfied with the two options offered. We asked you for alternatives and you put it back to us to provide you with further options. According to Ms. Swerhun's report, the two most popular and frequently suggested option were: provide backyard landscaping/trees; build the noise wall at or near the road itself.

I'd like to talk about trees for just a moment. We know from some preliminary investigations through McMaster University that any barrier which interrupts our sight line to the road will, to some extent, assist with noise reduction. Mr. Murray confirmed that fact tonight.

I believe that others will be speaking to the issue of trees but I want to bring two specific issues to your attention. We need these trees. Some two weeks ago or so there was an article in the Hamilton Spectator detailing just how trees "work". They assist with sound by interrupting our sight line and, in conjunction with a roadside wall, may provide more noise relief than you want to admit. Just as importantly, or more importantly, trees are our natural pollution control.

I don't have to be an expert in anything to know that our air quality will be reduced as a result of the loss of some 40,000 trees you had to cut down to accommodate the road and the construction of that road. Add to that the anticipated particulate matter and other pollutants we will enjoy as a result of the vehicle emissions and we must look to mitigate not only noise but pollution levels as well. It just makes sense.

I am an avid supporter of building a wall at or near the roadway. It just makes sense. The use of a wall is not isolated to the issue of noise control. There are numerous other reasons to consider a wall somewhere other than at the rim of the valley. The commuter will be on this road for what, about a ten minute drive from end to end? Mr. Moore has candidly admitted that he will not support the idea of a roadside wall. Why? Partially because he has designed this road, he has said, for the users of the road and it would not be aesthetically pleasing to the eye of those driving on the expressway to have a wall at the side of the road. Apparently the view from the road is more important than the view from the homes that back onto the valley.

Mr. Chad Collins, at one of the backyard meetings, acknowledged that deer at Highway 403 in Ancaster still jump the chain linked fence. I am concerned that our wildlife, abundant as it is, will not be able to read the signs directing them to the bypass viaduct, the report describes, which will allow them to get to the other side of the road. How will the City address accident victims, or to the families of those who may have lost their lives in a car accident because their loved one hit a deer or a raccoon the size of a small child that jumped over that four foot chain linked fence? Will the City tell them that it didn't want to build a wall because it wouldn't look very pretty?

It makes sense to block access to the roadway not the valley.

Some of the properties in question extend far into the valley. How can the City expect a property owner to willingly give up their land, and access to it, by building a wall in the middle of their property? Save expropriation fees and buy out costs and apply that to the additional costs of putting the wall down in the valley. Let the homeowners keep and access their properties. It just makes sense.

I mentioned before, it was my impression that the City was committed to preserving and improving the green spaces in the valley. Let the shadow of the wall create a safe valley area where people can hike, picnic and play in relative peace.

I have a four year old daughter and two dogs. Although my daughter is a well behaved respectful little girl, she is also a curious one. It makes sense to block access to the roadway from young and not-so-young adventuresome children who may view a four foot chain linked fence as little deterrent to stay off the expressway. It just makes plain sense.

It makes sense also to look at this option now, not in 2007 after the road has been built, for it seems to me that to build it in tandem with the road construction would be less expensive than doing it later and I for one do not want to hear in 2007 that it is too late to consider putting the wall down in the valley because the road has already been built.

In summary, please allow City Counsel to consider putting that wall on City property so that easy maintenance of this apparently maintenance free wall can be achieved easily from either side of the wall. Please protect our children, our pets, our wildlife as well as the well-being of the users of the road by supporting this option. Please encourage pollution and noise control and honour your own brand and logo, "Red Hill Valley Project - More Than a Road". At the end of the day, a little extra planning, and perhaps a little extra capital for these changes will pay off for the City in the long run. Please respect that the residents of the valley will pay the price for having this roadway in their yards for more than a ten minute drive. It just makes sense. Don't make me regret my decision to support this roadway. Please take these issues to counsel, present this option for their consideration because it just makes plain sense.