Lawyers hammer city at transit inquiry for choosing ‘dog leg’ route

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 03/09/2015 (3157 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

The chosen route for the city’s southwest transitway corridor had its day in court Friday.

In the closing arguments to a weeks-long public inquiry for the expropriation of lands needed for phase two of bus rapid transit, lawyers representing the objectors spent much of their time hammering the city for its decision to choose the Manitoba Hydro ‘dog leg’ route.

The route, which will see busses travel west from Pembina Highway through the Parker neighbourhood, then south along the Manitoba Hydro right-of-way, was under put under the microscope by lawyer James Mercury in his closing remarks.

He pointed to questions surrounding the bus travel time, which the inquiry heard earlier is equal to the more direct route down the CN Letellier line, and the lack of updated functional design report as two examples the city has not fully proven their chosen route is correct.

“It is virtually impossible for you to conclude this is reasonably necessary, at the end of the day,” Mercury said.

Mercury is representing two of the eight objectors to the city’s plan to expropriate 33 parcels of land needed for $590-million project. One of his clients is the resident of a home on Parker Avenue, the only home that will be expropriated with this chosen route.

The lawyer’s task over the past three weeks was to convince inquiry officer George Ulyatt the expropriation of certain parcels of land for the project are not fair or reasonable in order to meet the city’s objectives.

Mercury called into question the city’s reliance on a 2013 report by Dillon Consulting to decide which route to use.

“The Dillon Consulting alignment study is in its own words a ‘high-level examination’ and it is a study that is far too insufficient for this project to proceed as proposed,” he said.

He implored Ulyatt to recommend the city reopen the books on the project and partake in a functional design study as well as a “proper cost-benefit analysis which can be presented to city council and the public.”

A key argument over the course of the inquiry was the release of a detailed comparisons of the merits between the two competing corridor routes; the public has only been able to see a severely redacted version.

However, city lawyer Denise Pambrun remained steadfast in the city’s decision, noting the chosen route has impacted less homeowners, has proven to be less costly and was the route chosen by elected officials.

“We are going to be affecting businesses, we are going to take parking spots and make tough decisions… but over the long haul, this is the best decision for Winnipeg,” she told Ulyatt Friday morning.

Meanwhile the other two lawyers used other tactics in their closing remarks.

Antoine Hacault who represents the owner of a 30-unit apartment building on Southpark Drive, reminded Ulyatt the decision to take the busses down the quiet street, as opposed to Markham Road is not the right fit for the neighbourhood and BRT will be a huge disruption.

“Southpark has never had traffic flow or noise issues,” he said.

Mark Newman who represents Andrew Marquess; owner of a personal care home off Pembina Highway, called out the city for letting engineers make the decisions on land value, when a real estate expert should “drive the process.”

Ulyatt was supposed to issue his report and recommendations Oct. 13. but said given the length of inquiry and vast amount of evidence, he may have deliver the report at a later date.

kristin.annable@freepress.mb.ca

With files from Aldo Santin