(From 1-888-711-0321) Leave the road as is. The money should be used for something else. Why does the road need to be changed? You are spending too much money on upgrading the roads for the mines. The mines are ruining the roads so they should have to pay to fix them. The mines should be spending the money to upgrade the roads for the public. Why should we upgrade the road for the mines to destroy again? The trucks to the mines wreck the roads every year. And leave the Campground - we need Fred Henne for the tourists. And if you are upgrading the road for the people that live outside of the city, then they should be paying a little bit of the cost. If they choose to live outside the city, then they will need to make some sacrifices for living out there. Corridor 1 and 2 are unacceptable choices.
(By e-mail) I'm frustrated that we are going to spend, as taxpayers, to make the road straighter so that trucks can go faster and it's easier on them. The best solution is to just get those trucks to slow down. That would reduce accidents for everyone and save us all some money. Option 4 is the one that should be considered and isn't even on your list of options...that's just leaving the road as it is and getting the trucks to slow down. As your pamphlet is now written you are only giving the public three options when of course there are many options...including doing nothing and spending our tax payers dollars on better investments.
(By e-mail) Whenever I compare Yellowknife with other waterfront cities, it occurs to me that, although it has many kilometers of shoreline, Yellowknife has very little access to waterfront of any kind , mostly due to bad planning in its early years. I would like to recommend that a forth option be added to the list of routes for consideration with this in mind. I would suggest that a route along the shore or as near as possible would be very advantageous for all concerned. It would stay clear of remediation areas and allow Yellowknife a spectacular strip of land for scenic, public and private development. It appears to be of a similar scale to corridor 1. It would could give the City Yellowknife an opportunity to become a truly waterfront city and give the citizens of YK badly needed public access to the water.
(By e-mail) Corridor 2 does not provide for future growth of the City. While better using existing infrastructure, this alignment does not take advantage of this opportunity to create a scenic route to access the Ingraham Trail and Fred Henne Park. It does not create recreational opportunities. It impacts existing City leases with MACA. Corridor 3 should not be considered. It impacts directly on recreational leases, does not create any benefit for the City, and does not consider future growth opportunities. It does not create a new “scenic and trouristy” entranceway to the Ingraham Trail. It impacts on remediation and mine structures.
(By e-mail) I have studied the proposal for the Corridors and prefer Corridors 3 and 2. My first preference is Corridor 3 because it is the least expensive route to take and the fact that there is a greater need to complete the reconstruction of the trail that has already been started. I am not quite sure how this corridor will improve the traffic flow at the intersection of highway 3 and the Ingraham Trail. From looking at the map there is still going to be the problem with the traffic making the left hand turn onto the trail which has always been an issue especially during the trucking season. Corridor 2 is also a good choice. I like the idea of bypassing the mine clean up site that would avoid disruptions in the traffic flow. I also think it great idea to open up more land for any future development and improving the sight lines for the Back Bay boat launch. But again, I am concerned with the costs of construction and which stretch of the road will get the priority. As I stated above, the reconstruction at the far end of the trail should be completed before this stretch is developed. I am not totally against Corridor 1 because there are good benefits from that route. It will open up land for recreational purposes and any other type of development, but it will increase the traffic congestion that already exists at the old airport road intersection. Having said that, the solution for solving that problem may be to install traffic lights at the intersection, which in turn would create more issues regarding the stretch from the airport road to the junction at Jackfish Lake. Would that stretch of read remain as highway 3 with the current speed limit or would it become another city street and the speed limit reduced? Unfortunately, there is no simple solution that will fix all the problems with the trail without some costs, but I would like to see the department get the biggest bang for the buck and at the same time get as much construction done as possible.
(From the public meeting) - NWT Mining Heritage Society: We’re a little concerned you might wipe out our entire site if you’re not careful. Our main concern is that our site doesn’t get destroyed – there isn’t a lot of room for the Giant Mine townsite which we’re trying to save – there isn’t a lot of room to maneuver in between the lake on one side and the open pits on the other. If the road is as close as possible to the open pit, you would preserve our site, and we would be happy with that. As I understand Corridor 2, you’d get up on the high ground, so you’d certainly have scenic views of the lake. I don’t know why, after the remediation work was done, you can’t have a scenic road by the lake leading off the existing road so that those who want a scenic route would have a route to do it.
(From the public meeting) - I want to add some comments to those of Walt Humphrey related to the Mine Heritage Society. I think going closer to Great Slave Lake could present problems. The Mining Heritage Society is in that area, as is the Yacht Club and the City Boat Launch. The City Heritage Society is very interested in developing something in the Giant Mine Townsite, but if you adversely affect that area, (that won’t be possible). There is an interest as well in retaining the natural rock formation (that is in the middle of Corridor 3.)
(From the public meeting) - City Councillor: One point that we discussed was the desire as the process unfolded that the City would be kept in the loop so that we have some say in what the ultimate decision is.
(From the public meeting) - City councillor: If you look at all the corridors and where they are, considering the landfill, a gold mine, the airport, etc., we’re not thinking of nice houses. We’re probably considering Old Airport Road type of development. That kind of detail helps us determine what is good about (each corridor).
(Public meeting comment form) - Do not make the road to tourism destination – Giant Mine Site, dock, etc. – a dead end. It would not work for the site to encourage people to come there.
(Public meeting comment form) - More public consultation (is needed) before final decision
(Public meeting comment form) - More money for maintenance!
(Public meeting comment form) - I support option #2 and also option #1 provided park is protected. Option #3 doesn’t make much sense in my opinion.
(Public meeting comment form) - Long range – 30 years and opportunities for city development.
(Public meeting comment form) - Disturbance to terrain and wildlife and habitat - Is there really a need to open up new area? Could the existing route be improved rather than opening a new one?
(By e-mail) Since I believe there is still the freedom of speech in this Country I would like to express my personal opinion on the Ingraham Trail corridor. Under your “considerations” you state the following concerning corridor #3. “Existing mine infrastructure needs to be removed” – So what. The mine should be utilized as a tourist attraction so therefore the head frame should be saved. “Close to mine clean up area” – The mine operated for years with polluting the environment and the Gov.’t didn’t care so what is the problem now with the clean up? “Underground tunnels under roadway” – Yes these have been there for over 50 years. The Governments mining Inspection Division was suppose to ensure that the proper amount of rock has been left intact for this very reason. Is there a problem there? “Limited option for straightening road”– Why straighten the road? Is it because the Diamond mines want it that way? Let the trucks slow down. “Future development is restricted” – Future development of what? What are the other plans that the Government has in place? “Increased risk to the public” – Sounds like a scare tactic. What could possibly be the increased risk? Enforce the speed limits on the trucks. “Possible environmental and engineering challenges” – Now this one is a real shot in the dark. I really think you should get realistic, unless once again something is being kept from the Public. Why do we need improvements to the Ingraham Trail? The way I see it is that other powers to be want the trail improved for the flow of traffic to the diamond mines and for no other reason. The trucks to the mines are destroying the road on a regular basis so therefore the diamond mines should be paying for the improvements, if any and NOT the taxpayer. The Government along with the City of YK should be looking at using the present trail with more than the Diamond mines in mind. This trail and Giant Mine is a historic site and should be utilized as a tourist attraction. Would be nice if someone there had a vision to suit most of the people instead of the few.