(By e-mail) I would go for Corridor 3 under these conditions: Fred Henne Camp Ground be amended to further surround Long Lake on the far side and expand to at least twice as many campgrounds as it presently has. (There is a vast shortage of campgrounds during the summer months, tourists making the long trek up here with Campers etc. would appreciate being able to actually have somewhere to camp). The present road (currently in Corridor 1) would still have future access to the Ingraham Trail (once clean-up is done) and a Stop Sign be placed at the present junctions of Highways 3 and 4 giving full right-of-way to vehicles going to and from Highway 3 accessing the City. (Traffic from the direction of the landfill would have to stop before heading to the city, Highway 3 would, in escence be extended to the Four way stop signs at YK Motors and the old Ingraham trail would become an access road to the Landfill site/Giant mines marina etc.). The New 4 way intersection at Highway 3 and Old Airport road have proper traffic lights and the Old Airport Road would expand to at least 4 lanes up to the intersection.
(By e-mail) As a family man and camping enthusiast I am concerned choosing Corridor 1 will take away Fred Henne Park. The statement made by the flyer that went out to the public states that there would be an opportunity to develop a new camp ground and beach access. That is only speculation and there is no guarantee of this taking place. The only way I would agree to Corridor 1 is if a new park and beach was constructed first. That way there would be no interruption of camping facilities. It was a struggle to reserve camp sites this past summer. It would be worse if part or all the park was eliminated. Therefore I would like to recommend Corridor 3 as a solution to improving the trail. It is the least expensive and with the high cost of construction etc. it makes the most sense to me.
(By e-mail) Of the 3 options suggested for changes to the Ingraham Trail I think Corridor 3 is the best. You mentioned several considerations. I would like to add further benefits that lie with the choice of this corridor: the Giant mine clean-up is likely to only be achieved to a standard that is industrial, rather than residential and at least with a road travelling through this area people could still be able to enjoy beautiful views of the lake. I would suggest keeping an offshoot of the road (similar to a cul-de-sac to allow access to the Mining Heritage displays and proposed Museum and the yacht access area. By looking at the diagram it does not appear that there is any less opportunity to straighten the road. The Territorial Government should be looking at negotiating for more park land for campsites and I suggest off the Vee Lake road could be ideal if the main highway is kept away from that area so that campers can enjoy some quiet away from a main road. One of the great advantages of choosing the third corridor is that the existing Territorial Fred Henne Park will not have to be harmed. Although I do think Corridor 3 is the best it should be planned carefully. There are some fantastic geological features "volcanic pillows" outcropping in the area and an effort should be made to preserve them. I have only visited the site once however as a geological feature they are "world class" exposures. I hope that the Giant Mine remediation keeps that in mind and the Department of Transportation takes great care to preserve the natural beauty and does not just draw a straight line on a map and blast everything away in its path.
(By e-mail) Corridor 2 or 3 make the most sense, in no way should the road go through the campground, when we are having shortfalls currently in the level of services we can provide to tourists currently. This would also go through some sensitive fen habitats, and nature trails.
(From the public meeting) - None of these three options deal with the pressure of trucks in the wintertime – none of them improve the intersections. A left hand turn in Yellowknife is an oxymoron. You would think at certain times of the day, the trucks wouldn't move. Since they’ve already messed the land up at Giant Mine site, stay with that one.
(From the public meeting) - I’m very much a traditionalist. I’m going to speak in favour of Corridor 3. I understand Walt (Humphrey)’s concerns, and I still think Corridor 3 could work while still accommodating the Mining Society. It’s fairly clear to me what the benefits and difficulties would be. I don’t see how an arsenic vault would be an issue when it hasn’t been an issue to this point. I have trouble understanding how the remediation process could present any further difficulty than it is now. I just have trouble accepting some of those arguments. There are some environmental issues, but I think they can be dealt with.
|