I am a resident of Carson Grove, located very close to the proposed corridor. I oppose the Eastern Bridge Project as currently proposed, and ask that the following be reflected in the Agency's Summary of Issues. My concern is with the project's permanent operational effects over its stated 100-year service life — not with construction-phase disruption, which the IPD addresses at length and which is by definition temporary.

1. The proponent's own evaluation ranks this corridor as the worse option for human health

Table 12-2 records that Corridor 5 (Montée-Paiement–Aviation Parkway) "[s]cored 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 from the Project," while Corridor 7 "[s]cored higher on most human health subfactors, primarily because it is located away from heavily populated areas and would therefore expose fewer people." Corridor 5 was retained on transportation, cost and habitat-footprint grounds. The trade-off is therefore explicit: lower cost and a smaller habitat footprint, purchased with higher human exposure.

Request: re-run the corridor comparison using 2026 population and densification data, with human health weighted to current federal and provincial health policy, and publish the Corridor 7 results in full.

2. Corridor 6 was dropped without the evidence being shown

The 2023 refresh assessed only Corridors 5 and 7. Corridor 6 (Boulevard Lorrain–Ottawa Road 174) was excluded on the basis of "previous evaluations which consistently found that it scored lowest overall and identified some significant community impacts to be unmitigable." No figures, no subfactor scores, and no description of which impacts were deemed unmitigable appear anywhere in the IPD, and Corridor 6 is absent from Table 12-2 entirely. A corridor cannot be eliminated from public scrutiny without transparency.

Request: publish Corridor 6's full subfactor scores alongside Corridors 5 and 7 in the format of Table 12-2, identify specifically which community impacts were judged unmitigable and on what evidence, and confirm whether that judgment has been retested against current data.

3. "Below the applicable standards" is not the same as "no effect on residents"

Section 19.1 predicts contaminant concentrations below CAAQS, OAAQC and QAQS thresholds. But the Human Health Risk Assessment has not been performed — it comes later, in the Impact Statement phase, after the corridor has already been approved and the alignment effectively locked in. That is the wrong sequence.

CAAQS are not legally binding and are not a no-effect threshold. Yuchi et al. (2020, Environmental Health 19:8), a cohort of roughly 678,000 Metro Vancouver adults, found living within 50 m of a major road or 150 m of a highway associated with elevated non-Alzheimer's dementia incidence (hazard ratio 1.14, 95% CI 1.07–1.20) at median PM2.5 of about 4 µg/m³, well below the CAAQS annual standard of 8.8. Homes along this corridor fall inside those proximity bands.

The baseline in Section 14.1 is also inferred from two regional NAPS stations. Regional monitoring does not capture the near-road concentration gradient, which is the entire health question here, and the IPD does not quantify it anywhere.

Request: complete the HHRA before the alignment is finalised; model near-road pollution at actual residential, school, daycare, and hospital receptors rather than screening regionally against CAAQS.

4. The corridor already sits at or above health-based noise guidance, and mitigation is limited by cost rather than health

Section 14.1 records daytime levels of 52–65 dBA on the Ontario side and 49–75 dBA on the Québec side, highest along Montée-Paiement and the Aviation Parkway, the segments to be widened and opened to heavy trucks. WHO (2018) recommends road traffic noise below 53 dB L_den and 45 dB L_night.

Proposed mitigation is roughly 5,000 m of barriers averaging 3.0 m, sited "based on technical and economic feasibility" (which is an affordability test, not a health test) with locations still undetermined. Barriers of that height do little for upper storeys, which matters given the densification this project is intended to encourage. Section 19.3 discusses noise and human health almost entirely in construction terms; permanent operational noise exposure to residents, the largest long-term quality-of-life impact, receives no substantive treatment.

Request: adopt a health-based operational noise objective aligned with WHO 2018, assess upper-storey receptors, and assess aircraft, road, and bridge noise cumulatively.

5. The downtown benefit is questionable, while the corridor burden is not

The interprovincial truck strategy is only "being planned," and depends on other jurisdictions. So the exposure along this new corridor is certain, immediate, and permanent, while the downtown improvement is conditional on policy that does not yet exist. Note also that the Aviation Parkway is currently closed to trucks and is an NCC-designated cultural landscape; this project converts a protected parkway into a freight route. Relatedly, the public has already put to the proponent that the project "will not reduce congestion but simply relocate the problem to new areas." The response that the project will minimise impacts "as much as possible" is an aspiration, not an analysis.

Request: Justify why shifting downtown heavy traffic to a residential area rather than further from the places where people live makes any sense.

The proponent's own analysis identifies an alternative that would expose fewer people to harm, and a third corridor eliminated without published evidence. I do not accept that residents here should absorb a century of avoidable noise and emissions exposure as the price of a cheaper bridge.