3. BRIDGE STREET - TRUCK ROUTE MOTION

RUe BRIDGE – Motion sur les itinéraires des camions

committee recommendation

That Council approve that Bridge Street in Manotick remain in the Truck Route System as currently designated under schedule ‘XL’ of the Traffic and Parking By-law No. 2003-530. 

Recommandation du comité

Que le Conseil approuve que la rue Bridge à Manotick demeure dans le réseau des itinéraires pour camions, telle qu’elle est actuellement désignée en vertu de l’Annexe « XL » du Règlement n^o 2003-530 régissant la circulation et le stationnement.

Documentation

1. Deputy City Manager’s report (Public Works and Services) dated 29 September 2008 (ACS2008-PWS-TRF-0019).

2. Extract of Draft Minute, 15 October 2008.

Report to/Rapport au :

Transportation Committee /

Comité des transports

and Council / et au Conseil

29 September 2008 / le 29 septembre 008

Submitted by/Soumis par :

R.G. Hewitt, Deputy City Manager/Directeur municipal adjoint,

Public Works and Services/Services et Travaux publics 

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Michael J. Flainek, M.Eng., P.Eng., Director/Directeur

Traffic and Parking Operations/Circulation de stationnement

613-580-2424 ext. 26882, Michael.Flainek@ottawa.ca

Rideau-Goulbourn (21)

Ref N°: ACS2008-PWS-TRF-0019

SUBJECT:	BRIDGE STREET - TRUCK ROUTE MOTION
OBJET :	RUe BRIDGE – Motion sur les itinéraires des camions

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That Transportation Committee recommend to Council that Bridge Street in Manotick remain in the Truck Route System as currently designated under schedule ‘XL’ of the Traffic and Parking By-law No. 2003-530. 

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité des transports recommande au Conseil que la rue Bridge à Manotick demeure dans le réseau des itinéraires pour camions, telle qu’elle est actuellement désignée en vertu de l’Annexe « XL » du Règlement n^o 2003-530 régissant la circulation et le stationnement.

BACKGROUND

This Report is a response to Motion 30/13 tabled at the 23 January 2008 meeting of Council:

“That the Rules of Procedure be waived to consider and approve the following motion:

WHEREAS the south end of our City continues to experience significant growth; and

WHEREAS an additional bridge is needed to accommodate the increased traffic loads across the Rideau River at Manotick; and

WHEREAS the amount of heavy truck traffic contributes to significant traffic delays within and surrounding the Village of Manotick;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that City Council direct staff to prepare a report for Transportation Committee and City Council by mid-summer that examines and assesses the feasibility of removing Bridge Street from the Truck Route System under schedule XL of the Traffic Control By-Law so that heavy truck traffic is restricted from using this residential neighbourhood as a truck route; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff be directed to prepare an information report by late spring for Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee that assesses paramedic and fire response times to the south end of Long Island at peak hours.”

Note: In response to the latter resolution, the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee received comments from Paramedic Service and Fire Services on 12 June 2008, attached as Document 1. The Minutes of that meeting pertaining to this issue are attached as Document 2.

DISCUSSION

Bridge Street in Manotick is part of the Truck Route System and serves as one of only two crossing points of the Rideau River south of the Hunt Club Bridge. Any traffic diverted from Bridge Street would have to travel either 13 km north to the Hunt Club Bridge or 10 km south to the Kars Bridge, to cross the river. Effectively then, if Bridge Street is removed from the Truck Route System, operators of those diverted vehicles could face additional time and operating costs in travelling the additional distances, to cross the river at an adjacent bridge. A map of the area is attached as Document 3.

Classification and Occupancy (C&O) counts taken annually on Bridge Street since 2001 are summarized in Document 4. They reveal that heavy trucks have consistently comprised 5.3 to 8.0 per cent of vehicle flows on Bridge Street. For consistency and to facilitate comparisons for planning needs, C&O counts are conducted for 12 hours (0700 to 1900), weekdays, Monday to Thursday. The most recent count conducted on Tuesday 3 June 2008, revealed total two-way traffic during that 12-hour period of 16,892 vehicles of which 962 (or 5.7 per cent) were heavy trucks. That heavy truck percentage is typical of most truck routes.

For the most part, vehicles flow freely on Bridge Street except during weekday peak periods. Again, for consistency, C&O outputs identify peak periods as being the 5-hour sum of the (0700 to 0930) period and the (1530 to 1800) period. Peak period volumes from 2001 to 2008 are summarized in Document 5. It shows that between 2001 and 2008, 5-hour peak period volumes (all vehicles) ranged from a low of 5,654 units in 2001 to high of 8,592 units in 2005, while peak period heavy truck volumes ranged from a low of 345 in 2002 to a high of 538 in 2007. The June 2008 count shows that during the 5-hour peak period, a total of 8,099 vehicles used Bridge Street, of which 410 (or 5.1 per cent) were heavy trucks.

Direct comparison of the 2001 peak period data against the 2008 peak period data shows that while total 5-hour peak period volumes increased from 5,654 units in 2001 to 8,099 in 2008 (+43 per cent), peak period heavy truck traffic actually decreased from 441 units in 2001 to 410 units in 2008 (-7.0 per cent).

Based on the foregoing then, and considering that Motion 30/13 to which this report is responding, specifically notes that “…the amount of heavy truck traffic contributes to significant traffic delays within and surrounding the Village of Manotick” – a situation that may only arise during peak periods - it appears fair to say that based on peak period counts taken during the past 8 years, Bridge Street automobile traffic has increased at a far greater pace than has truck traffic. Furthermore, as field observations indicate that a high percentage of trucks using Bridge Street are conveying construction equipment and building materials, it is also reasonable to conclude that periods of increased truck activity at this river crossing, are closely tied to ebbs and flows of new housing starts on both sides of the Rideau River, within the south urban area.

a) Assumptions

To provide some order of magnitude in discussing the impacts of a truck ban on Bridge Street, the following analysis is provided. This is not intended to be detailed or comprehensive; rather, it is offered as a starting point to outline some obvious concerns and to raise awareness of some less obvious concerns, should Council wish to proceed with a truck-ban. To provide a framework for this analysis, some assumptions are required, specifically:

1. If heavy trucks were banned from Bridge Street, operators would choose one adjacent bridge or the other and thus face the additional time and expense of making, on average, a 20 km round-trip to use either the Kars Bridge or the Hunt Club Bridge.

2. Depending on the exact origin and destination of each trip, the choice of alternative crossing would usually be based on a desire to minimize overall travel time.

3. To determine origins and destinations of truck trips using Bridge Street, detailed and costly surveys are required. Either each truck must be traced through the arterial road network in the vicinity of Bridge Street (by recording turns and license plate numbers), or, each truck observed using Bridge Street must be stopped and the driver interviewed to find out where the truck is coming from and going to.

4. Without that origin-destination information, our analysis will assume that all diverted trucks will result in extra travel. While truckers would no doubt try to minimize that increased distance by adjusting their route to provide the most direct connection between their point of origin and their destination, we will assume that they must travel, on average, 20 km extra, whether to use the Kars Bridge or Hunt Club Bridge crossings.

5. Without conducting 24-hour counts to determine daily heavy truck volumes, our analysis will ignore all truck volumes between the hours of 7:00 p.m. (1900) and 7:00 a.m. (0700). It will therefore be confined to the 12-hour (0700 to 1900) period only.

6. Without knowing what weekend truck volumes are on Bridge Street, our analysis will ignore them and be confined to weekdays only. To further simplify calculations, we will consider only 250 weekdays per year – to compensate for statutory holidays.

7. Without knowing exactly what the operating speeds of heavy trucks may be while using the diversion routes, our analysis will assume an average speed of 60 km/h – a value that is totally unrealistic for peak periods but one that may also be usually exceeded in off-peak periods. Again, this value has been selected to provoke thought and establish an order of scale.

b) Concerns Arising from a Truck Ban on Bridge Street

Based on the foregoing assumptions, if heavy trucks were prohibited from using Bridge Street at “anytime” (24 hours per day), it would result in the diversion of at least 962 truck trips per day. This in turn would result in at least 4.81 million km of additional truck travel per year (i.e. 962 trips @ 20 km each for 250 weekdays per year) and approximately 80,000 hours of additional truck operating time per year (i.e. 4.81 million km, at an average speed of 60 km/h).

If trucks were banned on Bridge Street for weekday peak periods only (i.e. 0700 to 0930 and 1500 to 1800), an additional 2.05 million km of truck travel and approximately 34,000 hours of additional truck operating time would result annually (i.e. 410 trips @ 20 km each for 250 weekdays per year, at an average speed of 60 km/h).

Either way, during peak periods, a truck ban would divert 410 heavy trucks from Bridge Street to the adjacent bridges and would also add those volumes to the connecting road links. Hunt Club Bridge is already heavily congested in peak periods (during which its volume to capacity ratio routinely exceeds 1.0); therefore, any additional truck traffic shifted to that crossing would only compound that problem.

Accordingly then, four very obvious impacts of a truck ban on Bridge Street are:

1. Additional costs to the owners and operators of those diverted trucks;

2. Additional costs for goods and commodities transported by those vehicles;

3. Additional peak-period congestion on adjacent bridges and diversion roads; and,

4. Additional safety risks to diversion road users.

c) Other Considerations

There are also less obvious impacts that will arise from a truck ban on Bridge Street.

The most important of these is the adverse impacts on the environment created by the additional greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. From that perspective, the additional GHG emissions would not simply be those produced by trucks in travelling the extra 4.81 million km distance annually (to use alternative bridges), but also would include additional GHG emissions produced by all of the other vehicles that would be further delayed, in crossing Hunt Club Bridge and travelling through the heavily congested arterial road network in that area, as a result of those diverted truck trips being added to those facilities.

References on GHG emissions from Environment Canada and other sources are shown in Document 6. Application of factors from those references reveal that 4.81 million km of additional heavy truck travel per year, assuming those trucks are diesel powered (as the vast majority of heavy trucks are), would result in the generation of some additional 21.89 tonnes of carbon monoxide, 5.24 tonnes of carbon dioxide and 28.96 tonnes of nitrogen oxide annually.

A second less obvious concern is that of “fair play” in the goods movement industry. Without knowing precisely what each and every truck is currently hauling, it is nonetheless apparent that a high percentage of truck traffic on Bridge Street is related to the construction industry - since they are hauling heavy equipment (hi-hoes, stone slingers and boom trucks) and commodities such as sand, gravel, concrete, lumber, shingles, roof trusses, bricks, sod and topsoil. Some of those commodities (sod, topsoil and granular material) are produced by local sod farms and quarry operators. Therefore, any additional transportation costs those companies encounter can weaken their ability to compete on a level playing field with competitors selling the same commodities but delivering them from the opposite side of the river, and who therefore are not required to contend with additional distance and travel-time constraints imposed by a truck ban on Bridge Street. Obvious examples would include businesses in Greely wishing to haul sod and topsoil to Barrhaven or sand and gravel firms on Moodie Drive wishing to haul aggregate to Riverside South.

There are a significant number of retail businesses within Manotick and virtually all of them including the Independent Grocer, LCBO outlet and Home Hardware in the Mews, are either on, or in, close proximity to Rideau Valley Drive and that road is part of the Truck Route System.

Truckers are permitted to deviate from the Truck Route System for local deliveries but the Traffic and Parking By-law specifies that all, “such deviations from truck routes are to be direct – i.e. made from the point on a truck route nearest by highway distance to the premise referred to above.” This means that if trucks are banned on Bridge Street, then all deliveries to those establishments must be made from roads on the west side of the Rideau River, such as Prince of Wales Drive or Bankfield Road. This will no doubt require adjustments to delivery routes and schedules.

Finally, drivers intent on making deliveries as expeditiously as possible, usually choose the most direct routes possible. Bridge Street has been part of the Truck Route System for at least the past 35 years and experience has clearly shown that heavy truck operators are reluctant to embrace any changes to the Truck Route System unless they themselves derive some benefit. In our opinion, a truck ban on Bridge Street will not be well complied with unless augmented with rigorous enforcement. Accordingly, those additional enforcement costs and resource requirements must be considered.

In summary, there are numerous impacts and considerations that arise from changes to the Truck Route System. No one wants trucks using their road or travelling through their community, and yet, most people acknowledge the need for a network that facilitates goods movement.

Truck routes must consider many things including noise, vibrations, emissions and public safety. Proposed changes to the established Truck Route System must also consider collateral impacts on diversion routes, intersections and bridges. Since all diversions can adversely affect the economic livelihood of suppliers and competitiveness within the trucking industry itself, it is imperative that extensive public consultation be conducted beforehand, so that all concerns are recognized as part of that decision making process.

That sensitivity to change in the Truck Route System is acknowledged in Section 9.8 (5) of the Transportation Master Plan wherein it states:

“The City will consult with the trucking industry, the business community and the public to resolve goods movement issues and balance community needs with those of road users.”

From a traffic management perspective, it cannot be over emphasized, that if changes to the Truck Route System are contemplated, they be considered comprehensively. That is, on the system as a whole, and not piecemeal – one road section at a time. Transportation Committee endorsed that position in November 2005 when they approved the Truck Route Designation Policy. At that time, in view of the extensive public consultation required, it was estimated that a study to review the Truck Route System in its entirety would require funding of $150,000.

Conclusion

The foregoing discussion and high-level analysis is intended to provoke thought and provide insight into the possible impacts of a truck ban on Bridge Street. It does not attempt to quantify additional transportation or enforcement costs, nor does it attempt to quantify benefits resulting from reduced congestion and GHG emissions on Bridge Street as a result of diverted truck trips. Nonetheless, it does point out that there are major cost and environmental implications associated with the deletion of Bridge Street from the Truck Route System. Therefore, considering that:

1. Heavy trucks currently comprise 5.7 per cent of all traffic using Bridge Street in Manotick – a percentage typical of most roads in the Truck Route System.

2. The diversion of those trucks to the Kars and Hunt Club Bridges would result in the addition of some 4.81 million km of additional truck travel and 80,000 hours of needless additional truck operating time per year.

3. Those diesel-powered trucks travelling the additional 4.81 million km/yr will generate some 21.89 tonnes of carbon monoxide, 5.24 tonnes of carbon dioxide and 28.96 tonnes of nitrogen oxide annually.

4. That impact will be challenged by the trucking industry and opposed by all those who are environmentally conscientious.

5. Public consultation has not been undertaken to ascertain the impacts that could arise from a truck ban on Bridge Street, on the trucking industry, the business community or the public to balance community needs with those of the goods movement industry and other road users – as a stipulated requirement of the City, under Section 9.8 (5) of the Transportation Master Plan.

6. Transportation Committee, in approving the Truck Route Designation Policy in November 2005, endorsed the notion that changes to the Truck Route System should only be made following a comprehensive review of that system as a whole.

7. Bridge Street has been a long-standing and vital part of the Truck Route System for at least the past 35 years and it is unlikely that a truck ban will be well complied with unless augmented with rigorous enforcement.

It is the opinion of the Departmental staff that it is not appropriate, to delete Bridge Street from the Truck Route System, even for peak periods only. However, in keeping with a desire to balance community needs with those of road users, this matter could be reviewed again, once a new bridge is constructed to address the urgent transportation challenges precipitated by the rapid growth of the south urban area.

CONSULTATION

Since this review was intended only to examine the feasibility of removing Bridge Street from the Truck Route System, no public consultation has been undertaken.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications associated from the recommendation.

However, should Council direct Traffic and Parking Operations Branch staff to undertake a comprehensive review of the Truck Route System, then Council would need to recommend that a Strategic Initiatives Capital Project in the amount of $150,000 be submitted for Council consideration as part of the 2009 Draft Capital Budget for a Truck Route System Study.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 Memo in response to Motion 30/13 tabled at the 23 January 2008 meeting of Council from Paramedic Services and Fire Services

Document 2 Excerpt from Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee Minutes – 13 June 2008

Document 3 Map of Manotick – Bridge Street

Document 4 12-Hour Bridge Street Summary Classification and Occupancy 2001 - 2008

Document 5 5-Hour Bridge Street Summary Classification and Occupancy 2001 – 2008

Document 6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

DISPOSITION

Upon approval of this report, staff of the Public Works and Services Department, Traffic and Parking Operations Branch, will proceed as per Council’s direction.

DOCUMENT 1

MEMO IN RESPONSE TO MOTION 30/13 TABLED AT THE 23 JANUARY 2008

MEETING OF COUNCIL FROM PARAMEDIC SERVICES AND FIRE SERVICES

M E M O / N O T E D E S E R V I C E

To / Destinataire	Mayor and Members of Council	File/N° de fichier: ACS2008-CPS-DCM-0004-IPD
From / Expéditeur	Deputy City Manager/Directeur municipal adjoint, Community and Protective Services/Services communautaires et de protection
Subject / Objet	Response to Council Motion 30/13 - Paramedic and Fire Response Times to the South End of Long Island at Peak Hours / Réponse du Conseil à la motion 30/13 – délais d’intervention des services Paramédic et d’Incendie à l’extrémité sud de Long Island aux heures de pointe	Date: 5 June 2008 / le 5 juin 2008

This memo is a response to Motion 30/13 tabled at the 23 January 2008 meeting of Council:

That the Rules of Procedure be waived to consider and approve the following motion:

WHEREAS the south end of our City continues to experience significant growth; and

WHEREAS an additional bridge is needed to accommodate the increased traffic loads across the Rideau River at Manotick; and

WHEREAS the amount of heavy truck traffic contributes to significant traffic delays within and surrounding the Village of Manotick;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that City Council direct staff to prepare a report for Transportation Committee and City Council by mid-summer that examines and assesses the feasibility of removing Bridge Street from the Truck Route System under schedule XL of the Traffic Control By-Law so that heavy truck traffic is restricted from using this residential neighbourhood as a truck route; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff be directed to prepare an information report by late spring for Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee that assesses paramedic and fire response times to the south end of Long Island at peak hours.

This information memo responds to the last portion of the motion relating to Paramedic and Fire Services response times.

Data analysis indicates the response times to the south end of Long Island during peak hours are not an issue for both Paramedic Service and Fire Services as described in the following.

Paramedic Service:

Paramedic Services conducted several test responses from the Manotick Paramedic post located at 5669 Main Street to the south end of Long Island. The results suggest that response times would not be affected in response to traffic, as the drive time of each event was less than 6 minutes. The test drives were performed without lights and sirens and respected the 'rules of the road' wherein speed limits, traffic lights and directional signs were observed.

This data demonstrates that response times to the south end of Long Island fall within the established performance targets of 15 minutes 59 seconds 90% of time for life-threatening calls in Ottawa’s low-density area.

Fire Services:

A review of the historical data indicates that there have been four actual emergency responses to the south end of Long Island since 2004. In all four instances the travel time was less than 6 minutes.

Several additional scenarios were developed utilizing the station location modeling program and the results were similar. In addition to reviewing the data from the Manotick Station located at 5669 Main Street response times from the prime back-up station located at 910 Earl Armstrong Road to Long Island indicated a consistent arrival time of less than 9 minutes.

Overall fire service to the island has been enhanced with the ability to deploy multiple stations due to a centralized dispatch and best station deployment practices that have been implemented since amalgamation.

Steve Kanellakos

cc: Kent Kirkpatrick, City Manager

Carole Langford, Committee Coordinator Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee

DOCUMENT 2

EXCERPT FROM Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee

minutes 25 - 12 june 2008

INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED

INFORMATION DISTRIBUÉE AUPARAVANT

a. Response to Council Motion 30/13 - Paramedic and Fire Response Times to the South End of Long Island at Peak Hours

Réponse du Conseil à la motion 30/13 – délais d’intervention des services Paramédic et d’Incendie à l’extrémité sud de Long Island aux heures de pointe

ACS2008-CPS-DCM-0004-IPD (RIDEAU- GOULBOURN WARD 21)

Appearing before the Committee on this item were Gord Mills, Deputy Chief of Rural Services and Paul Hutt, Sector Chief for District 9. Deputy Chief Mills provided a preliminary explanation of the response times to the south end of Long Island during peak hours. He outlined the 2007 statistics, which showed that 36 calls were taken with four of those responses going to South Island at various times of the day. The following provides a more defined description of each call:

· 8:00 - Five minute response to Van Vliet

· 11:56 - Six minute response time to South River Drive

· 17:48 - Five minute and 25 seconds to South Island Park Drive

· 21:00 - Four minute response time to South Island Park Drive

He believed that the increased volumes on the bridge would have little or significantly low impact on the response times. Further, staff ran scenarios utilizing the Station Location Modelling Program. This program allowed staff to gain more information by using various distances within a district at different times with a variety of factors that may affect response times. It also provided statistics with respect to the back up station at Earl Armstrong Road in Barrhaven, which were also able to get to South Island within nine minutes.

In response to questions from Councillor El-Chantiry, Deputy Chief Mills advised that there is minimal impact on the response times since they have the ability to get around the traffic and he added that the bridge is wide enough to get through even if there is traffic on both sides.

Brian Tansley advised that he submitted a request for information through the RIAC regarding emergency services provision, not only for South Island, but for all of the Village of Manotick. He believes that the level of service on Bridge Street is approaching unacceptable levels of service especially during peak hours and is gradually extending with time so that traffic is jamming access to the island. Notwithstanding the statistics, the residents continue to be concerned regarding the trend, which shows there are significant times during the peak periods (being during weekdays and/or weekdays) when the bridges are blocked. In his opinion, there is no way that emergency vehicles could get across the bridge in any direction. His primary concern is that he does not believe access to paramedic, fire and police services is going to continue effectively at the present rate, given the traffic intensity that they have observed.

In response to a question by Councillor Thompson, Sector Chief Hutt advised that one of the studies currently being reviewed is the old deployment model. Regardless of the incident, they would have resources covering the area. He added that Manotick also has a volunteer fire department, including residents living throughout the community who offer updates to the fire department and the Chief officers.

Sector Chief Hutt advised that Fire Services continuously works closely with the Emergency Measures Services and Police Services so if it is a matter of shutting down an intersection to improve a response time, those resources are there to be used.

Mr. McKinley informed the Committee that he was involved in helping the Manotick Community Association when this request for information was put forward. He noted that staff did not answer the question that was put forward, which is quoted as “Could you please determine whether during peak times, if the bridge represents an impediment that would delay response times to an unacceptable level.” The idea being that it might be of some assistance to staff and provide justification to redirect commercial traffic to other more appropriate locations. For the people who live there and see conditions during peak times, trucks backed up for several miles and moving in neither direction, it does not make sense that one single response at 8 am represents a fair assessment of the question.

Councillor Jellett thought that the delegate had a valid point, since Council had asked that a staff report go back to TRC on this issue.

Chief Mills responded that he was a sector chief for that area for four years and Chief Hutt has been responsible for that area since that time and in his experience, there has not been a time when fire trucks have been unable to pass along that bridge. He explained that when vehicles are parked or waiting for traffic lights and they are following one behind the other, they move over to the side to allow an emergency vehicle that is en route to a scene to by-pass them. In the same way that traffic moves downtown, vehicles move to the side, allowing fire trucks to pass down the middle in case of emergency.

Chair Jellett emphasized that the increase in commercial vehicles could in fact cause a problem in the future.

Councillor Brooks noted that it was his motion that asked staff to proceed with a study to see if trucks can be relocated to other routes. He suggested having fire drills at peak hours in order to prove the theory. Deputy Chief Hutt agreed with Councillor Brooks and referred to his suggestion as a Priority One response, although he felt Legal would probably suggest that it is not a likely thing to do. He suggested doing dry runs (no lights or sirens) during peak times. He added that EMS also regularly do dry runs during peak times.

RECEIVED

DOCUMENT 3

MAP OF MANOTICK – BRIDGE STREET

DOCUMENT 4

12 Hour Bridge Street Summary Classification and

Occupancy 2001 – 2008

Manotick Total 12 Hour Volumes
			% Of Trucks
Date	All Vehicles	Heavy Trucks
August 2, 2001	12109	963	8.0%
July 24, 2002	13225	704	5.3%
June 9, 2003	15743	844	5.4%
May 17, 2004	15818	1233	7.8%
May 26, 2005	16907	1129	6.7%
May 29, 2006	17013	987	5.8%
May 14, 2007	17332	1299	7.5%
June 3, 2008	16892	962	5.7%

DOCUMENT 5

5-HOUR BRIDGE STREET SUMMARY CLASSIFICATION AND

OCCUPANCY 2001 – 2008

Manotick Total Peak Period Volumes (5 Hr)
			% Of Trucks
Date	All Vehicles	Heavy Trucks
August 2, 2001	5654	441	7.8%
July 24, 2002	6431	345	5.4%
June 9, 2003	7903	391	4.9%
May 17, 2004	7837	526	6.7%
May 26, 2005	8592	509	5.9%
May 29, 2006	8416	407	4.8%
May 14, 2007	8537	538	6.3%
June 3, 2008	8099	410	5.1%

DOCUMENT 6

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Highway Base Emission Factors, Grams per Kilometre

	LDGV	LDGT	HDGV	LDDV	LDDT	HDDV
Year = 2005
VOC	0.54748	0.70316	1.15316	0.25208	0.31802	0.40498
CO	5.13711	5.57498	11.62512	0.67593	0.71343	4.54890
NOx	0.62086	0.73239	3.74106	0.65099	0.70747	6.02128
SOx	0.00356	0.00188	0.00786	0.04352	0.05524	0.02930
PM10	0.00304	0.00346	0.02788	0.06907	0.07250	0.19919
PM2.5	0.00280	0.00313	0.02135	0.06354	0.06670	0.18325
CO2	0.23364	0.31388	0.47200	0.27300	0.35490	1.08927
Year = 2010
VOC	0.35366	0.43227	1.00371	0.25931	0.33266	0.26965
CO	3.71323	3.77966	10.04808	0.68471	0.72674	4.53414
NOx	0.36392	0.46748	3.43897	0.64720	0.71599	5.19319
SOx	0.00357	0.02837	0.00767	0.04185	0.05414	0.02837
PM10	0.00303	0.00337	0.02226	0.06240	0.06775	0.14822
PM2.5	0.00280	0.00305	0.01758	0.05741	0.06249	0.13636
CO2	0.21476	0.30444	0.47200	0.27300	0.35490	1.05378

Vehicle Type	Description
LDGV	Gasoline fueled cars
LDGT	Pick-ups and commercial vans
HDGV	Gasoline-fueled trucks
LDDV	Diesel fueled cars
LDDT	Diesel fueled trucks < 8500 lb.
HDDV	Diesel fueled trucks > 8500 lb.

VOC = Volatile Organic Compounds

Volatile organic compounds are a large and diverse family of chemicals that contain carbon and hydrogen. They can be emitted into air from a variety of sources including cigarette smoke, vehicle exhaust and building materials such as paint.

CO = Carbon Monoxide

Carbon Monoxide is a colourless, odourless gas that reduces the amount of oxygen in the blood.

NOx = Nitrogen Oxide

Nitrogen oxides include the gases nitrogen oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO₂). NOx is formed primarily from the liberation of nitrogen contained in fuel and nitrogen contained in combustion air during combustion processes.

SOx = Sulfur Oxide

A general term used to describe the oxides of sulfur - pungent, colorless gases formed primarily by the combustion of fossil fuels. Sulfur oxides, which are considered major air pollutants, may damage the respiratory tract as well as vegetation.

PM = Particulate Matter

PM consists of tiny solid and liquid particles that come from a myriad of sources including fuel combustion from automobiles, power plants, wood burning, industrial processes, and diesel-powered vehicles such as buses and trucks.

CO2 = Carbon Dioxide

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is the most important greenhouse gas produced by human activities, primarily through the combustion of fossil fuels.

Sources:

· CAC Emissions Factors – Christian Vzina. Pollution Data Branch. Environment Canada. August 2001. Contact (819) 994-2975

· GHG Emission Factors – Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory: 1990-1998. Final Submission to the UNFCCC Secretariat. October 2000. Volume 1 of 2.

· Environment Canada confirming the test procedures (speed) at which the CAC emission factors were calculated

· Grams per liter to grams per kilometer conversion based on fuel efficiency figures estimated by Joycelyn Exeter. Analysis Modelling Division. Natural Resources Canada. July 2001.

· Definitions of substances from Health Canada, Environment Canada, the Environmental Science Division, The Environmental Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and The Encyclopedia of Earth

BRIDGE STREET – TRUCK ROUTE MOTION

RUE BRIDGE – MOTION SUR LES ITINÉRAIRES DES CAMIONS

ACS2008-PWS-TRF-0019 RIDEAU-GOULBOURN (21)

As ward councillor for the area, Councillor Brooks explained that Main Street and Bridge Street in Manotick have become highways for heavy truck traffic. Manotick is a residential village and these roads were never intended nor built to carry such heavy vehicles. He posited that truck drivers are not using the Hunt Club or Kars bridges as hoped because of the distance to travel and so, they are cutting through Manotick. As noted in a Delcan report, the intersection of Bridge and Main has been failing for a number of years. He asked the Committee to consider restricting the heavy (full-load) trucks passing through this residential community.

Councillor Doucet stated that if heavy truck traffic was restricted, they would be diverted to the two other bridges and given the distance they would have to travel, posited that such a diversion will have impacts on other communities. Michael Flainek, Director of Traffic and Parking Operations Branch noted that there are already major congestion problems at the Hunt Club Bridge and adding heavy truck traffic to this failing intersection is not recommended. He confirmed that restricting trucks from Bridge and Main would impact the rest of the system much more significantly.

Councillor Thompson indicated his intention to put forward a Motion on behalf of the ward councillor to restrict heavy truck traffic from Bridge Street.

While being sympathetic to the local community, Councillor Desroches and some Committee members could not support a Motion to remove heavy trucks from those two streets for the following reasons:

· until the Strandherd-Armstrong bridge is constructed, the Motion was premature

· while no community wants truck traffic, it is fact that many have to live with in order to provide for the movement of goods and services

· there would be impacts on neighbouring communities

Councillor Legendre thought the Motion could be amended to specifically target articulated trucks and if signed appropriately, would find an alternative route before leaving the highway. The Director explained that Section 9.8(5) of the Transportation Master Plan indicates that before any changes to the truck route take place, the City would consult with the trucking industry, the business community and the public.

Discussion ensued on the definition of a heavy vehicle which John Buck, Manager of Traffic Management explained was a vehicle having a carrying capacity in excess of 1 tonne or a vehicle having a gross weight in excess of 4.5 tonnes (excluding a public transit or school vehicle and ambulances. Based on this definition, he could not see any way to properly sign a truck prohibition to indicate that certain trucks are prohibited from using these streets. He believed enforcement would also be an issue.

Referring to the report whereby it is noted that any contemplation of changes should be considered comprehensively, i.e., on a system-wide basis at a cost of $150,000, Councillor Legendre inquired whether a more restrictive study could be undertaken at less cost. Mr. Flainek advised that once truck movements are restricted in one ward, it flows into another ward. Therefore, to make any alterations to any part of the truck route requires a review of the entire system to see the impact. He suggested that if this is what the Committee and Council want to do, staff recommend that it be properly reviewed in order to evaluate the true impacts on the adjacent areas. The councillor did not see the need to investigate the truck route system in it’s entirety at such a cost, although he understood the necessity for studying more than just trucks or no trucks on Bridge Street, but also examining the impacts up and down stream.

Mr. Flainek indicated that if they were to remove the Bridge Street link, they would see a significant amount of heavy vehicles using Hunt Club Bridge and adding those volumes to an already at-capacity link would create a diversion of traffic away from that bridge. Therefore, it cannot be confirmed if the diverted truck traffic will in fact use the Hunt Club and Kars bridges, but there would be a collateral impact to other heavy vehicles because when the network is at the true capacity, adding even 500 more vehicles will cause significant delays for all. The impact therefore would be greater than a specific study area as suggested by the councillor.

Councillor Brooks was surprised that signage could not be devised to restrict certain type of vehicles because some roads have load restriction signs during certain times of the year and he believed truck drivers would pick up on that because they are constantly in communication with each other. He suggested staff look at load restrictions on these streets, citing a recent collision on Main at Bridge involving a heavy truck and four cars that were wiped out. He suggested that if the Committee does not support removing the trucks, then at least it could put some sort of lighting system up that will slow the traffic down and allow people to move freely on Bridge Street.

Councillor Thompson appreciated the comments made about not being able to restrict certain types of vehicles, but asked if it was possible to erect signage on the highways, recommending large trucks (e.g., transport trucks coming from Toronto) use another route. Mr. Flainek stated that truckers know the road network that is available to them and how they are allowed to operate within that road network. He went on to state that advisory-type signs are erected, but at the end of the day, the issue will be compliance. The councillor stated that truckers could cross the Kars Bridge instead if given enough advance notice and he believed this could be a way of softening the impact of transport trucks coming from outside the city. Mr. Buck advised that the vast majority of transport trucks in the Village are related to the construction industry, but it is not a high percentage and it would difficult to try and restrict them by vehicle and load type. The councillor advised that the truck traffic has also been a problem for residents in Osgoode because they travel to Manotick and at times the traffic jams are two kilometres long because the large trucks take up so much space and have difficulty turning and it just impedes the traffic light system, making it very difficult for the smaller commercial vehicles and for residents to travel through their community and to do their business.

Chair McRae asked whether approval of the Motion, which would mean failure to consult (Section 9.8(5), would require having to alter the TMP and Ernest McArthur, Legal Counsel advised that there are implications to the TMP and while the Committee could choose to waive the requirements, he did not think it could change them.

Moved by D. Thompson

That heavy truck traffic be restricted from using Bridge Street (Manotick) as a full load traffic route (Truck Route System) and be removed from Schedule XL of the Traffic Control By-law.

LOST

YEAS (1): D. Thompson

NAYS (8) : R. Bloess, M. Wilkinson, A. Cullen, G. Bédard, J. Legendre, C. Doucet,

C. Leadman, M. McRae

Councillor Thompson indicated he would submit as an inquiry his other query regarding lighting.

That Transportation Committee recommend to Council that Bridge Street in Manotick remain in the Truck Route System as currently designated under schedule ‘XL’ of the Traffic and Parking By-law No. 2003-530. 

CARRIED, with Councillor Thompson dissenting