I am writing as a resident of the Cummings/Forbes neighbourhood. Our property and that of our neighbors have no buffer between it and the corridor this Project proposes to widen and convert into a major truck route. I recognize that interprovincial bridge capacity is genuinely constrained and that routing heavy trucks through the downtown core is a legitimate problem. However, I do not think Corridor 5, as currently proposed, has been shown to be the right way to solve it.

I am asking that the following points be entered into the public record and substantively addressed before the Project proceeds further.

**1. This corridor was studied and abandoned once before, for reasons that deserve a direct answer.** The Aviation Parkway/Kettle Island corridor was recommended in 2009 and again in 2013, and in June 2013 the Government of Ontario formally withdrew its support, after which the NCC terminated the study, following public criticism that the process had not adequately weighed social and environmental impacts on surrounding communities. The current Initial Project Description mentions only that the Project "was dormant until Budget 2019," without explaining why. I recognize that conditions can change over 13 years, and I am not asking the Agency to treat 2013 as dispositive — but I am asking the proponent to state, on the record, what has materially changed in the community-impact analysis since then.

**2. The proponent's own evaluation shows this corridor scores worse for human health and social equity than the retained alternative.** Table 12-2 of the Initial Project Description states that Corridor 5 "scored lower on most human health subfactors... because its location in proximity to a large urban population means that more people may be exposed to noise and vibration," and that it "could potentially impact community cohesion and social equity." I recognize the alternative corridor scores worse on other factors (natural environment, Indigenous interests, cost), so this is a genuine trade-off — but I am asking for an independent review of how these factors are weighted against cost and land-use factors, since the corridor's advantages are concentrated in the categories that most affect the proponent's budget, and its disadvantages are concentrated in the categories that most affect residents (us!).

**3. The Project's own Public Advisory Group has already flagged that this may shift the problem rather than solve it.** Feedback recorded in the Initial Project Description raises "concerns regarding... whether the Project could shift impacts from the downtown core to neighbourhoods along the corridor." I am asking for a direct, quantified response to this question, not a restatement of the Project's purpose.

**4. Noise and property-value impacts are acknowledged but not analyzed.** Baseline noise on the Ontario side of the corridor is already documented at 52–65 dBA. The Initial Project Description's only response to property-value concerns is that it "will be a consideration as part of the Project planning." I am requesting a corridor-specific, address-level noise and property-value impact study, with concrete mitigation commitments (noise barriers, buffering, setbacks), before further design work proceeds.

**5. Montfort Hospital's emergency access and expansion plans should be independently assessed**, not simply managed as a stakeholder relationship during construction.

I ask that these concerns be formally addressed in the Agency's review and that I be added to the list of interested parties for future updates on this Project.

Kindly

JP