Highway plan will severely hurt businesses, Kent told
The NDP dug into the government Wednesday over lingering questions and mounting opposition around plans to upgrade the Alaska Highway through Whitehorse.
The NDP dug into the government Wednesday over lingering questions and mounting opposition around plans to upgrade the Alaska Highway through Whitehorse.
The changes, officially unveiled last month, would come at an estimated cost of $202 million.
The territory has slated more than one-quarter of that for the first phase, which would widen the corridor between Robert Service Way and Two Mile Hill to four lanes.
The work would also improve current intersections and construct new ones, and install new frontage roads to provide safer access to the highway.
Highways and Public Works critic Lois Moorcroft pointed to business owners affected by the upgrade and demanded their concerns be addressed.
“Area business owners are opposed to the plan and say it’s too much, too complicated and too costly. They think the $202-million plan responds to a problem that doesn’t exist,” she told the legislature.
Reacting to the plan, businesses along the route have formed the Alaska Highway Corridor Business Association.
They’ve hired an engineer to produce an alternative design, one that doesn’t encroach as heavily on parking areas or plow through existing buildings — an issue in at least one case.
“This affects way more businesses than people think,” said Bruce Henry, owner of Centennial Motors, located across from the Erik Nielsen Whitehorse International Airport.
“We’re very business-dense, especially when you include the industrial corridors,” he said today.
The highway runs past Burns Road — home to moving and trades companies — the McRae Industrial Park and the Taylor Industrial Subdivision, noted Henry, one of the drivers behind the business association.
D’arcy Olynyk, who owns the Airport Chalet, has said the new highway design cuts right through his hotel and would come at enormous expense.
Moorcroft highlighted concerns voiced online about a lack of sound barriers in the Takhini area, the impact on Squatter’s Road residences and pedestrian and bicycle trails, and the cost of infill to twin the highway.
“There are so many questions that this government must answer before it should proceed,” she said.
The deadline for public comment is May 15.
“Why the rush? This is too little time for the public to consider whether such a massive expenditure of public funds is warranted,” Moorcroft added.
“Does the government have a tender ready to go for May 16, no matter what the public says, or will the government extend the consultation period on the Alaska Highway corridor?”
Highways and Public Works Minister Scott Kent defended the two-month consultation period along with an online comment process. He assured the Opposition that worries would be dealt with.
“The public and industry is getting an opportunity, as they should, to have their say, and I will meet face-to-face with those business owners to listen to and address their concerns where we can,” he told the House Wednesday.
Hours before the afternoon legislative session, Kent reached out to Olynyk of the Airport Chalet and set up a meeting.
“This is very much a long-term plan — a long-term vision — for improving an important piece of infrastructure, and we are going to work through the consultation phase before we make any decisions,” Kent said.
“Clearly, the public consultation is working. We are receiving feedback from Yukoners. They are engaged.”
The goal of the highway upgrade is to address issues around safety and traffic congestions in the midst of a rising Whitehorse population — now close to 28,000 — of 24 per cent over the last decade.
The plans were outlined last March with officials from CH2M HILL Canada outlining the changes.
A website, mail-out survey to all Yukoners, phone number, email address and public open houses are currently being used to collect thoughts on the project from residents of the territory.
Preliminary work on the Whitehorse corridor began in 2011 with a number of Yukon government studies on road safety, environment and highway capacity.
CH2M was eventually contracted to do the functional plan on improvements needed for the highway through Whitehorse to bring it up to current standards and guidelines.
The plan breaks the highway corridor into 10 segments outlining which segments would have priority, what work would be needed for each and a cost-benefit analysis for each section.
High-priority sections – and the estimated cost of $52 million – would see work done over the next five years.
Medium-priority areas – north of Two Mile Hill to just north of Kathleen Road – would be needed by the time the city’s population reaches 35,000 (expected around 2031 based on a population growth of two per cent).
It’s estimated the medium-term work would cost $50 million.
Long-term improvements would include sections just south of Gentian Lane to McLean Lake Road and from north of Kathleen Road to the city’s northern boundary.
Those improvements would cost an estimated $100 million and be needed as the population reaches 47,000.
Comments (17)
Up 11 Down 0
Mary on Apr 15, 2015 at 10:13 pm
Dearest Green Eyed Yukoner's first,
I've explained it to you! I can not comprehend it for you!
Up 11 Down 25
Yukoner 1st on Apr 15, 2015 at 3:31 pm
Dearest Mary - "Mr Green Eyed Yukoner 1st"??? No need to make personal attacks...although I have to admit I'm not exactly sure what the hell you mean. I realize this is the consultation phase and to that end I too have the right to state my opinion. I don't think these businesses should be given special consideration given the free use of the right of way they have enjoyed for many years. The highway upgrades need to be completed to serve us all - not just a couple of select businesses.
Up 28 Down 6
Mary on Apr 15, 2015 at 12:19 am
Dearest Yukoner's 1st, What motivates one business owner to bash others?
Maybe the business owners that are effected by this project should get together to have some input into the design and raise the concerns they have about this project, oh, wait they are doing that! I wonder if they pay taxes? Oh, wait I'll bet they do! I wonder if they are entitled to: frontage, access, sidewalks, curbs, DRAINAGE! and parking like OTHER businesses who also pay taxes are, oh, wait they AREN'T getting those things. Maybe the time to have input into the project is now rather than later when it becomes MORE costly to the taxpayers to make changes. How about it Mr. Green eyed "Yukoner's first", maybe the local businesses can have input too and pare the project down in size and make it less of a taxpayers problem.
Up 30 Down 4
Mary on Apr 14, 2015 at 11:32 pm
I am surprised that other business owners are bashing other business owners that are only suggesting that much more consultation with all interest groups is considered, along with some spending constraints in place. As business owners we all pay taxes, those taxes are supposed to be used to pay for things like sidewalks, access, frontage, parking, drainage and all the amenities other business owners receive, all at the same tax rate. The current plan will have a negative impact on business along the corridor, maybe before this project should proceed ALL of the interest groups should have their say in planning rather than becoming an election promise/gift. Lets be one and do what's right for the small business.
Up 5 Down 8
Stu Summer on Apr 14, 2015 at 8:56 pm
I have some sympathy for business owners. Can they move the construction mainly to the airport side to minimize the impact on the Airport Chalet and Centennial Motors?
These business owners have had to deal with tough issues. The chalet let some foreign workers go and they are fighting alleged discrimination. Someone tried to hit Bruce with a ski poll when he used a skidoo on a ski trail; he has PTSD over the incident or perhaps he just likes to talk about how unfairly he was treated.
It's a tough crowd when you are in business and these highway improvements are adding to the stress levels.
Up 17 Down 26
Yukoner 1st on Apr 14, 2015 at 4:55 pm
Dearest "Lost in the Yukon. I am not Darrell nor do I work for Darrell. Don`t you think other Yukon businesses would love to have the opportunity to use Govt land "free" as have Mr. Henry and Mr.Olynyk?? Why should they be given special treatment? I for one will be very disappointed if these plans are changed significantly to satisfy these two businesses. They should pony up, put on their big boy pants and play the game by the same rules the rest of Yukon's business's do.
Up 15 Down 23
Anno on Apr 13, 2015 at 3:55 pm
It is funny to see how they have cleared the brush on the Alaska Highway yet public consultation has not been completed. As well, the government has statistics indicating these 'improvements' need to be completed due the amount of accidents which occur however, no one has seen this study. Did they consider confounding factors such as weather? Did they take into account the lack of highway maintenance which occurs in the winter? So with section(s) upgrade, some will be changed to two lanes and other to three lanes; how are these going to be maintained, especially since Highways cannot maintain the current highway? How are you going to grade the road when you cannot travel with the wing down in the middle? How are they going to get more employees to work for YTG? Have they budgeted for increase employee costs, increased equipment?
This project is ridiculous and in reality it isn't the highway which kills people, but those who lack experience driving the Yukon highways for Yukon weather. There are so many instances where the highway was far too slippery and people were not driving to the road conditions when fatalities occurred.
Up 24 Down 6
NDP supports people not having a legal right to land on Apr 13, 2015 at 12:11 pm
No development Purpose - NDP do not support change for the better but just like to hit the drum of no development, no progress, no economy, no purpose, no on and on. No yesses in the NDP on anything.
Up 21 Down 8
ProScience Greenie on Apr 13, 2015 at 10:12 am
I just don't see an immediate need for this. Some improvements here and there but certainly not that big of a project. If it ain't broke, don't fix it comes to mind. In the big picture there's a lot better places to spend that money on highways. The Alaska Hwy west of Whitehorse is one. Also dozens of areas where we see serious accidents occur year after year. Time to stop spending like drunken sailors and start spending wisely.
Up 17 Down 3
Dearest lost in the Yukon on Apr 13, 2015 at 10:02 am
You have stated the Premier is writing pieces in the paper. I wrote a long piece in another paper on fracking. You stated the Premier wrote it and intentional wrote it poorly. Well I, Wilf Carter, was the one that wrote the piece and I write poorly because I have disabilities so I can't write properly.
Up 25 Down 5
north_of_60 on Apr 12, 2015 at 5:31 pm
The upgrade plans are clearly overkill, based on unnecessary 'legacy fantasies'. Upgrading to three-lane, good quality asphalt paving is all that's necessary for that stretch of road. There are other highways in the Territory more in need of upgrading. The Campbell highway from Minto to the border has been 'chewed-to-hell' by the ore trucks. Why isn't the government using this money to repair that road, including the Takhini bridge crossing?
Up 48 Down 11
No affiliation on Apr 10, 2015 at 6:58 pm
I don't have a very high opinion of any of our politicians or the parties they represent but I agree with Yukon 1st wholeheartedly. The businessmen who are asking the gov't to change their plans are completely aware they have had a free ride on YTG land and now are acting like squatters who believe they have rights and some type of ownership on the land they have had the good fortune to occupy. They should be saying thanks for allowing us front row seats on the gravy train and adjust their businesses practises accordingly.
Up 34 Down 15
north_of_60 on Apr 10, 2015 at 5:39 pm
Bruce Henry is correct. The upgrade plans are clearly "overkill," based on exaggerated population forecasts. More than 80% of the Yukon government is funded by the taxpayers of Canada, and there are far more important things for those taxpayers to be investing in than a few kilometers of four lane superhighway in the middle of nowhere. The government should be investing in a future where the taxpayers of Canada won't be contributing so much to this bottomless money pit called the Yukon.
Up 24 Down 44
Lost in the Yukon on Apr 10, 2015 at 1:15 pm
Dearest "Yukoner 1st": Really Darrell, you need to stop writing these pieces; and if not, then you have to stop directing your bureaucrats to do your dirty work. Shame on you for attacking business people who have contributed more to the Yukon than you ever did through your contract with Shoppers to run their stores here.
Up 51 Down 34
Just Say'in on Apr 9, 2015 at 5:05 pm
What a gross waste of Tax Payer Money. How about we use this infrastructure money for more pressing issues like the Riverdale bridge, downtown streets, or housing. It must be an election year and we are going to spend as much as we can. How about just save it for a rainy day. hmmmm
Up 40 Down 11
The City of No, in Yukno on Apr 9, 2015 at 4:58 pm
We have become the city of 'No' to everything, that should be our new Slogan. Thank goodness infrastructure was created around here in the 40's through the 60's because absolutely nothing can be done here now. Can you imagine trying to build the dam, airport, or highway in today's day and age? We can't even improve existing infrastructure without everyone getting up in arms about it. Pay highway frontage businesses fair market value for whatever they will give up and proceed.
Up 65 Down 37
Yukoner 1st on Apr 9, 2015 at 4:54 pm
Mr. Olnyk conveniently doesn't mention a portion of his hotel has occupied the highway right of way (land owned by the Yukon Govt.) for many years. This occupation has been legitimized through a license of occupation which allows the use yet protects the Govt. from liability. It also allows the Govt to require him to move from the right of way with written notice. He (and all previous owners) have always known the day may come when they cannot use Govt. land for profit at little or no cost.
Mr. Henry on the other hand just uses the right of way for everything he can, including parking his used vehicles for sale, snow removal, property drainage etc etc........he pays nothing for this and expects more from Govt. How many other business owners in town would like the ability to use Govt land for free?
Both of these business owners went into their respective business ventures with their eyes wide open. Don't make it our problem - and expect tax payers to take the hit!