Letter: The Maley Drive myth

By definition, a myth is “a widely held, but false belief or idea,” which certainly seems to be the case with respect to the Maley Drive extension long proposed by successive city councils, city staff, the Chamber of Commerce and many ordinary citizens, particularity motorists.

The reasons given include relieving traffic congestion on a number of other city streets, the provision of a ring road for northern portion of the city, to take heavy mining trucks off other roadways and to open up areas along the new road way for development.

The exact location for the roadway has changed over the years, as have the cost estimates. To serve as a “ring road,” the new roadway would have to connect to the intersection of the southeast bypass on The Kingsway near Coniston, which is not in the current plan.

The present plan would extend from Falconbridge Road in the east to Elm Street on the outskirts of the city to the west. So the “ring road” is a myth which, if realized, would add considerably to the already significant cost.

A second myth is the substantial traffic reduction volume on other city arteries. In fact, the Transportation Planning Dept of the MMM Group, in a report to the Ontario Municipal Board on city traffic volumes, indicated that the Maley Drive Extension is “too far North to have any impact on Howey Drive Traffic” and “there are no calculations/scientific basis for estimates in reduction of traffic on Lasalle Blvd,” and “no calculations to substantiate the reduction in traffic on the Kingsway.”

The third myth is the support to be received for this very costly project from both the federal and provincial governments. I think we will be fortunate to see the province — and we have no MPP in government — finish the four-laning of Highway 69 and only then might there be considerations for Maley, but not likely until provincial finances are more in order.

Federally, other priorities are more likely to take precedence, and again, unless we have a government in Ottawa with local representation there is little likelihood.

Conveniently overlooked, the ongoing maintenance costs will be the responsibility of the Sudbury taxpayer, as will be any reconstruction costs in the future.

We need to carefully differentiate between what we actually “need” and “want,” and examine in some detail the myth that the Maley Drive extension has become.

John Lindsay
Sudbury