CAMPP | Citizens for an Accountable Megahospital Planning Process
www.windsormegahospital.ca
  • Home
    • Reports to Decision Makers
    • Globe and Mail
    • Our Legal Challenge
    • Donations >
      • Matching Donor
    • Site Selection Analysis >
      • Service Catchment Area
      • Offiicial Plan Designation
      • Neighbourhood Compatibility
      • Pedestrian / Bike Access
      • Wind
      • Transit
      • Servicing
      • Two Road Frontage
      • EMS/Police/Patient Transfer Sites
      • Visibility
    • WRH Public Engagement
    • About
  • Consulting Engineer
    • Copy of Letter
    • WRH
  • Resources
    • Survey
    • Age Groups
    • Data at a glance >
      • Population Density
      • Seniors
      • Subsidized Housing
      • Transparency
      • CAMPP Survey Responses
    • Data in Detail >
      • Doctors on the move?
      • Map & Transit
      • Windsor: Distance by ward
      • Distance by % affected
      • Distance by Ward & Municipality
      • County
      • Taxi Fares
      • Census Data
      • Sandwich South Secondary Plan
      • Site Selection Committee
    • Downloads
    • Links and other references
  • Experts Speak Out
    • Nicole Baillargeon
    • Sergio Bertucci
    • Ed Cornies
    • Stephen Kapusta
    • Shane Mitchell
    • John Sewell
    • Dr. Albert Kadri
  • Write!
  • Contact
Previous
Next

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%.
Picture

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:
Picture
Picture
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.  
Picture
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.
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.