Two Road Frontage
Nine sites received full marks for having two-road frontage. The GEM site scored 80% and the site at Ojibway, scored well too attaining 90%.
The assessment definition specifies that:
The Site must have more than one main entrance route in case a secondary access route is required.
This is what the vendors for sites V (GEM) and T (Ojibway) said about their sites' access points:
This wasn't enough to put the two sites among the top scorers.
This wordy extract from GEM's Engineer's report describes the access routes to the GEM site.
This wordy extract from GEM's Engineer's report describes the access routes to the GEM site.
That's interesting, because as Mr. Spencer explained, the cost calculations had a further $26M to expand Jefferson. We're wondering why Jefferson would need to be widened if it isn't even an access route.
Timing
Something else that's fascinating about the criteria lies in the scoring. 100% goes to a site with two road frontage currently established. 70% goes to a site with two road frontage proposed.
That's a difference of 12 points or 1.15 % of the total score.
This wouldn't be remarkable except for the fact that a number of other criteria don't distinguish between service that currently exists, and that which will exist in the future.
For example:
16. Roadway capacity - 100% for a site that has two lanes each direction for both primary roads - planned or existing
19. Transit Route - 100% if a transit route will be established by opening day on two roads.
20. Safe and convenient access for pedestrians/bicycles/e-bikes - 100% if bike lanes and sidewalks exist or are proposed.
25. Servicing (Established or Potential)
Doesn't this make one wonder to what extent the criteria were designed to favour a rural site with nice clean corners? We certainly aren't seeing much to penalize a rural site with few established amenities.
Timing
Something else that's fascinating about the criteria lies in the scoring. 100% goes to a site with two road frontage currently established. 70% goes to a site with two road frontage proposed.
That's a difference of 12 points or 1.15 % of the total score.
This wouldn't be remarkable except for the fact that a number of other criteria don't distinguish between service that currently exists, and that which will exist in the future.
For example:
16. Roadway capacity - 100% for a site that has two lanes each direction for both primary roads - planned or existing
19. Transit Route - 100% if a transit route will be established by opening day on two roads.
20. Safe and convenient access for pedestrians/bicycles/e-bikes - 100% if bike lanes and sidewalks exist or are proposed.
25. Servicing (Established or Potential)
Doesn't this make one wonder to what extent the criteria were designed to favour a rural site with nice clean corners? We certainly aren't seeing much to penalize a rural site with few established amenities.
