|
1. FUTURE
INTERPROVINCIAL CROSSINGS IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION – ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASE 2A – STUDY DESIGN FUTURS PASSAGES
INTERPROVINCIAUX DANS LA RÉGION DE LA CAPITALE NATIONALE – PHASE 2A DE
L’ÉTUDE D’ÉVALUATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE – PLAN D’ÉTUDE |
That Council approve the following:
1. Request
both the NCC and the Ministry of the Environment of Ontario to agree that the
conclusion of the letter of October 29, 2008 be reconsidered such that the Ontario
EAA will apply at this stage and that residents of Ottawa will receive the
benefits and protections that the Ontario EAA affords.
2. That while recognizing
that the Ottawa Official Plan calls for removal of
the truck route designation from the King Edward/Rideau/Waller/ Nicholas corridor
upon completion of a new interprovincial crossing, that the Interprovincial Crossing Study proponents be requested to
undertake a comprehensive study of the diversion of all trucks from the KERWN
corridor and that this study:
i) Includes an economic analysis of
such a diversion on truck traffic;
ii) Includes consultation with the
affected business interests;
iii) Includes analysis of safety
considerations of continuing to mix heavy (articulated intercity transports) trucks
in the Central Area given the availability of a proposed alternative;
iv) Determine how the corridors under
study would provide a viable alternative for intercity heavy trucks so that all
such trucks could be diverted from the KERWN corridor;
v) Becomes a direct input into Phase 2B
analysis;
vi) Is completed prior to the selection
of a recommended corridor; and
vii) Completion of the truck
origin-destination study for inclusion in 2.B.
3. That the Interprovincial Transit
Study be completed prior to the selection of an interprovincial corridor.
Que le Conseil approuve ce qui suit :
1. Demande à la CCN
et au ministère de l’Environnement de l’Ontario d’accepter que soit revue la
conclusion de la lettre du 29 octobre 2008 afin que la LEE s’applique
à cette étape, pour que les résidents d’Ottawa puissent jouir des avantages et
des protections prévus par la LEE.
2. Qu’alors qu’on reconnaît que le Plan officiel appelle le retrait de
l’itinéraire pour camions du couloir King Edward/Rideau/Waller/Nicholas après
l’inauguration du nouveau passage interprovincial, il faudrait demander aux
promoteurs de l’étude des passages interprovinciaux d’entreprendre une étude
exhaustive de la déviation de tous les camions du couloir KERWN, et que cette
étude :
i. Comprenne une analyse économique
d’une telle déviation pour la circulation des camions;
ii) Comprenne la consultation des
milieux d’affaires touchés;
iii) Comprenne l’analyse des
considérations relatives aux dangers de la mixité des poids lourds (camions de
transport articulés interurbains) dans le secteur central compte tenu de
l’existence d’une solution de rechange;
iv) Déterminer de quelle façon les
couloirs étudiés offrent une solution de rechange viable pour les poids lourds
interurbains, de sorte que tous les camions puissent être déviés du couloir
KERWN;
v) Soit directement incluse dans la
phase 2B de l’analyse;
vi) Soit terminée avant le choix d’un
couloir recommandé;
VII) Vienne compléter l’étude
origine-destination des camions pour l’inclure dans la phase 2B.
3. Que l’étude de transport en commun
interprovincial soit terminée avant le choix d’un couloir interprovincial.
Documentation
1. Transportation Committee report dated
10 June 2010 (ACS2010-CCS-TRC-0020).
Report to /
Rapport au:
and Council / et au Conseil
10 June 2010 / le 10
juin 2010
Submitted by / Soumis par : Rosemary Nelson, Standing Committee
Coordinator /
Coordonnatrice des comités permanents, City Clerk’s Branch/Direction du
greffe
Contact/Personne-ressource: Rosemary Nelson, Standing Committee
Coordinator /
Coordonnatrice des comités permanents,
City Clerk’s Branch/Direction du greffe
580-2424, Ext. / poste : 21624,
Rosemary.Nelson@ottawa.ca
|
City Wide/à l’échelle de la ville |
|
File. No. ACS2010-CCS-TRC-0020 |
SUBJECT: FUTURE
INTERPROVINCIAL CROSSINGS IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION – ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASE 2A – STUDY DESIGN
OBJET: FUTURS
PASSAGES INTERPROVINCIAUX DANS LA RÉGION DE LA CAPITALE NATIONALE – PHASE 2A DE
L’ÉTUDE D’ÉVALUATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE – PLAN D’ÉTUDE
That the
Transportation Committee recommend that Council approve the following:
1. Request
both the NCC and the Ministry of the Environment of Ontario to agree that the
conclusion of the letter of October 29, 2008 be reconsidered such that the
Ontario EAA will apply at this stage and that residents of Ottawa will receive
the benefits and protections that the Ontario EAA affords.
2. That while recognizing
that the Ottawa Official Plan calls for removal of
the truck route designation from the King Edward/Rideau/Waller/ Nicholas corridor
upon completion of a new interprovincial crossing, that the Interprovincial Crossing Study proponents be requested to
undertake a comprehensive study of the diversion of all trucks from the KERWN
corridor and that this study:
i) Includes an economic analysis of
such a diversion on truck traffic;
ii) Includes consultation with the
affected business interests;
iii) Includes
analysis of safety considerations of continuing to mix heavy (articulated
intercity transports) trucks in the Central Area given the availability of a
proposed alternative;
iv) Determine
how the corridors under study would provide a viable alternative for intercity
heavy trucks so that all such trucks could be diverted from the KERWN corridor;
v) Becomes
a direct input into Phase 2B analysis;
vi) Is
completed prior to the selection of a recommended corridor; and
vii) Completion
of the truck origin-destination study for inclusion in 2.B.
3. That the Interprovincial Transit
Study be completed prior to the selection of an interprovincial corridor.
Que le Comité des
transports recommande au Conseil d’approuver ce qui suit :
1. Demande à la CCN et au ministère de l’Environnement de
l’Ontario d’accepter que soit revue la conclusion de la lettre du
29 octobre 2008 afin que la LEE s’applique à cette étape, pour que
les résidents d’Ottawa puissent jouir des avantages et des protections prévus
par la LEE.
2. Qu’alors qu’on reconnaît que le Plan officiel appelle le retrait de
l’itinéraire pour camions du couloir King Edward/Rideau/Waller/Nicholas après
l’inauguration du nouveau passage interprovincial, il faudrait demander aux promoteurs
de l’étude des passages interprovinciaux d’entreprendre une étude exhaustive de
la déviation de tous les camions du couloir KERWN, et que cette étude :
i. Comprenne
une analyse économique d’une telle déviation pour la circulation des camions;
ii) Comprenne
la consultation des milieux d’affaires touchés;
iii) Comprenne
l’analyse des considérations relatives aux dangers de la mixité des poids
lourds (camions de transport articulés interurbains) dans le secteur central
compte tenu de l’existence d’une solution de rechange;
iv) Déterminer
de quelle façon les couloirs étudiés offrent une solution de rechange viable
pour les poids lourds interurbains, de sorte que tous les camions puissent être
déviés du couloir KERWN;
v) Soit
directement incluse dans la phase 2B de l’analyse;
vi) Soit
terminée avant le choix d’un couloir recommandé;
vii) Vienne
compléter l’étude origine-destination des camions pour l’inclure dans la phase
2B.
3. Que l’étude de transport en commun
interprovincial soit terminée avant le choix d’un couloir interprovincial.
The National Capital Commission (NCC), in partnership with the Ministry
of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) and the ministère des Transports du Québec
(MTQ), and in cooperation with the City of Ottawa and the Ville de Gatineau
initiated the Interprovincial Crossings Environmental Assessment (EA) Study in
2006. The purpose of the Study was to examine
all reasonable options to improve interprovincial transportation capacity
across the Ottawa River to address long-term needs.
Phase 1, completed in 2009, confirmed the need for an additional
interprovincial crossing and identified the preferred corridor location as Kettle
Island. The Study Partners decided to
carry forward the three highest ranked corridors identified, Kettle Island,
Lower Duck Island and Gatineau Airport/McLaurin Bay, for further examination.
Phase 2 was initiated in October 2009 and is being undertaken in two
stages. Phase 2A included the
preparation of the Study Design Report which sets out the Work Program, and
describes the procedural and technical aspects of the assessment. Phase 2A also includes the preparation of a Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
(CEA Act) Scoping document to direct activities during Phase 2B. During that Phase, the EA will be completed, leading
to a recommended corridor out of the three under consideration.
At a meeting of the Transportation Committee on 2 June 2010, the Committee received a detailed presentation from the National Capital Commission and their consultants on Phase 2A of the Environmental Assessment Study of the Interprovincial Crossings. The Study Design Report (Document 2) prepared by AECOM-Delcan was made available electronically and in hard copy to all members of Council and outlines the process and methodology that will be used in the next and final phase of the environmental assessment, Phase 2B, to select an interprovincial bridge crossing in the Region’s east end.
The following material was also distributed to Members of Council in advance of the meeting and is referenced as supporting documentation to this report:
a. Memorandum dated 25 May 2010 from the Deputy City Manager, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability transmitting details of the project and other printed material.
b. Memorandum dated 1 June 2010 from the City Clerk and Solicitor addressing procedural matters related to the presentation.
c. Legal
Opinion dated 31 May
2010 from Borden Ladner Gervais speaking to the City’s ability to regulate
semi-trailer truck access to interprovincial crossings.
CONSULTATION
The Committee heard from 12 public delegations on 2 June. The details of their presentations are contained in the attached extract of Draft Minutes at Document 1. Members of Council received all public submissions and deputations received by the City Clerk’s office, copies of which are held on file.
LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no financial implications associated with the preparation of this report.
SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 - Extract of Draft Minute, 2 June 2010 (immediately
follows the report).
Document
2 - AECOM-Delcan Study Design Report
entitled “Future Interprovincial Crossings in the National Capital Region - Environmental
Assessment Study”, dated May 2010 – Issued previously and held on file with
the City Clerk.
Document 3 - Deputy
City Manager memo dated 25 May 2010 Issued previously and held
on file with the City Clerk.
Document 4 - City
Clerk and Solicitor memo dated 1 June 2010 Issued previously and held
on file with the City Clerk.
Document 5 – Borden
Ladner Gervais memorandum dated 31 May 2010 re the City’s ability to regulate
semi-trailer truck access to interprovincial crossings Issued previously
and held on file with the City Clerk.
If approved by Council, the City Clerk to prepare
the appropriate letters to the Study Partners.
DOCUMENT 1
FUTURE
INTERPROVINCIAL CROSSINGS IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION – ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
STUDY PHASE 2A – STUDY DESIGN
FUTURS
PASSAGES INTERPROVINCIAUX DANS LA RÉGION DE LA CAPITALE NATIONALE – PHASE 2A DE
L’ÉTUDE D’ÉVALUATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE – PLAN D’ÉTUDE
Verbal Presentation by the Study Partners (NCC, MTO, MTQ) / Présentation
Orale par les partenaires de l’étude (CCN, MTO, MTQ)
The following documentation and
correspondence was distributed in advance of the meeting and copies are held on
file:
a. N.
Schepers, Deputy City Manager memo dated 25 May 2010
b. AECOM
- Delcan Interprovincial Crossing Update dated 18 May 2010
c. AECOM
- Delcan media release dated 26 May 2010
d. FAQ
sheets (to be posted to the website 26 May 2010)
e. AECOM
- Delcan PowerPoint presentation dated 2 June 2010
f. AECOM
- Delcan Study Design report dated May 2010
g. City
Clerk and Solicitor memo dated 1 June 2010
h. Borden
Ladner Gervais legal opinion memo dated 31 May 2010
Vivi Chi, Manager, Transportation Planning
spoke briefly to the Committee, noting that for the last three months, the
study team has been working hard through consultation with the community to
develop a study design before initiating the detailed EA work. This is a procedural and process step and
will explain what will happen in terms of the scope of the study and what will
be undertaken with consultations as well in the next detailed phase. She confirmed that no technical analysis was
undertaken to date.
Fred Gaspar, Director, Federal Transportation
Coordination in the National Capital Region (NCR), National Capital Commission
(NCC) provided Committee with some brief introductory remarks. He thanked the City for allowing their
consultants AECOM – Delcan to present their report on the Study Design, noting
that a similar presentation would be given to the City of Gatineau on 8
June. Mr. Gaspar noted that the NCC
continues to manage and administer the study in a collaborative effort between
the three funding partners (NCC, MTO and MTQ), the City of Ottawa and the City
of Gatineau. The MTO is represented here
today by David McEvoy as a Study Team member and the MTQ is represented by
Normand Chevalier and Paul Baby, Steering Committee members.
Mr. Gaspar recalled that Phase 1 confirmed
the need for an additional interprovincial crossing, examined alternative
solutions and a preferred corridor location (Kettle Island) was
identified. There was consensus among
the funding partners to proceed to Phase 2 and to assess that corridor as well
as two other options. He introduced
Valerie McGirr, Project Director and Patrick Déoux, Project Manager with AECOM
– Delcan.
Ms. McGirr gave a detailed overview of the
Environmental Assessment (EA) Study, Phase 2A and the more salient points noted
were as follows:
·
The
purpose of today’s presentation is to review the work of Phase 2A of the EA and
to present the Study Design Report; the purpose of the Study Design Report is
to guide activities in Phase 2B by defining the study areas, refining the
factor list (started in Phase 1), identify the EA study methodology and,
develop an integrated communications and consultation process
·
This is
a Federal EA in accordance with the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA)
·
The
Ontario MOE examined the project and determined that their legislation did not
apply
·
The Quebec MDDEP (Ministère
du développement durable, de l'environnement et des parcs) have not yet
advised on the applicability of their legislation
·
The
Study Partners have committed to using the most stringent of the three
processes where requirements are different
When asked to describe how the problem is
defined with regards to this proposed interprovincial connection, Mr. Gaspar
explained that the issue of trucks on King Edward Avenue is one of the issues
and, more universally, the issue of capacity and managing growth across the
NCR. He agreed that the problem could be
described as a problem with commuter traffic and one a problem of the effect of
the heavy truck traffic on Ottawa’s downtown core, with the proviso that there
is also the challenge of how we choose to manage growth proactively going
forward.
Councillor Bédard inquired when the final
decision about the bridge would be made and the consultant advised it would be
in 2013, at the end of the EA study (Decision 2). Mr. Gaspar explained that it will take
18 months to arrive at a recommendation for one corridor (Decision 1) and an
additional 12 months will be required to work on the development of the final
design for that corridor. The decision
that happens at that point is the decision to confirm that there will be a
project and building of a bridge. He
added that it is a decision within the context of the EA of CEAA.
Councillor Bédard inquired what would then be
the process from a jurisdictional perspective as to who builds the bridge,
noting that the Province of Quebec, which is a participant on this project, has
not advised whether or not their EA applies.
He was concerned that at the time Decisions 1 and 2 are reached, the
Quebec EA may still not be met. Mr.
Gaspar explained that while they do not have confirmation on the applicability
of Quebec’s legislation, it does not represent any sort of gap in the process;
rather, it is more of a technical issue insofar as the formal engagement and
submission required to Quebec’s Environment Ministry has not gone forward. He explained that the NCC would soon be
triggering that formal request and was confident they would get formal
direction at the right time in terms of when that process will be determined.
Councillor Desroches noted that ultimately
this is a decision of the Federal government as to where this bridge will
go. However, many residents believe it
is a decision of the City of Ottawa and he was seeking clarification in this
regard. Mr. Gaspar explained that they
are currently engaged in a formal federal EA process and ultimately, Decision 2
would be reached under the CEAA. At that
point any further discussions required in order to proceed with the development
of building the bridge would occur at that point.
The councillor also expressed concern about
‘consultation fatigue’ and inquired how this would be handled. Mr. Gaspar explained that the process is
quite directed insofar as the consultation activities are particular to those
going on in the project. Therefore,
while people are always welcome to provide broad-based input, they are seeking
input on distinct elements of the project.
Ms. McGirr added that it is a large part of what they propose that
people feel involved rather than talked to and they hope that will help them to
continue to be interested and involved as the process proceeds.
Councillor Bloess referred to the width of
the three corridors recommended to move forward and asked at what point they
become so wide that they become a new corridor.
For example, he explained that Corridor 6 (Lower Duck Island) is so
broad it is actually starting to overlap with corridors that were previously
rejected. Mr. Gaspar advised that the
earlier limits of the corridors were nothing official and were simply rough
estimates of where those corridors would be.
However, during this latest phase, the actual development of the
specific site study area for each corridor occurred, based on applying the
existing evaluation criteria. To explain
how those corridors were specifically developed, Ms. McGirr indicated that it
is necessary in the EA process to study alternative alignments or designs to
accomplish the same objectives. Also,
many members of the public wanted additional flexibility for the alignments to
be considered, and so, they determined that all of the Greenbelt in Ottawa
should be included in the assessment because none of that area was examined and
ruled out in Phase 1 and no technical analysis was done during Phase 2A to
assess potential alignments.
Following on the latter comment, Councillor
Bloess remarked that the Greenbelt Master Plan Review, which is currently
underway, will greatly influence where the transportation corridors go in the
next three or four decades. He asked if
this process was ahead of that review in terms of trying to determine the
appropriate corridor when the Review, once completed, may preclude one of these
corridors. Mr. Gaspar explained that the
NCC would be more than happy to come back to the Committee to speak to the
Greenbelt Master Plan Review, once that process is completed. He recognized that obvious considerations
with respect to the Greenbelt will be an important element of consideration
going forward and will inform the study in Phase 2B.
With respect to transit, Councillor Bloess
recognized that the provincial and municipal governments in Ontario and Quebec
are currently involved in the Interprovincial Transit Study, looking at
commuter congestion in both downtowns, and he believed the study being
presented to the Committee today does not fully consider what the impacts will
be of improved interprovincial transit.
Mr. Gaspar agreed that they do not know what this is all going to look
like at the end, only that it will be a multi-modal bridge to serve the mix
required to carry the population going forward.
He confirmed for the councillor, however, that part of what will
ultimately inform what the right mix is, will be the Interprovincial Transit
Study.
Councillor Bloess indicated he would be
bringing forward a Motion to influence the way the study looks at the impacts
of trucking because he believed it lacked information on the origin and
destination of trucking that would use these bridges and the economic impacts
of where the bridge is located. Mr.
Gaspar indicated that during Phase 2B, there will be an updating of information
with respect to the interprovincial movement of trucks. There will also be a strategic, high-level
goods movement study aimed at developing longer term policy. Ms. McGirr added that data is not currently
available that details what percentage of trucks on King Edward are interprovincial
and what percentage are local. In their
technical tasks for Phase 2B, they have included a survey to establish that, so
it will be clear what it would mean if the City removes the truck route
designation on King Edward Avenue.
With respect to corridors, Councillor Bloess
referred to the misinformation circulating about the NCC building an
interprovincial bridge at Cumberland-Masson-Angers. He remarked that Council already dealt with
and rejected this corridor and he asked if that was even a factor for the
NCC. Mr. Gaspar indicated they are
conducting their study on the basis of the three corridors only.
Councillor Cullen asked the NCC
representative to explain when the Ontario EA rules come into effect. Mr. Gaspar explained that the MOE has made a
declaration with respect to their process and are following the CEAA process;
where there are gaps or differentiations, they will apply the more stringent of
the approaches. He could not confirm if
the provincial government has endorsed this EA process, but assured the
councillor they are participating fully and positively in the CEAA process.
The councillor hoped that an investment in
public transit would help to reduce the pressure for an interprovincial
crossing, although the conclusion from Phase 1 showed the need to increase
capacity for all traffic movements across the river. Mr. Gaspar confirmed this understanding and
Ms. McGirr elaborated further by indicating that even with the achievement of a
43% transit modal split in the peak compared with the current 26%, a deficiency
will still exist in passenger cars. She
indicated this would be the planning horizon of 2031.
Councillor Monette asked what criteria the
decision factor would carry as the process moves forward and whether or not it is
strictly what the federal government says or does it take into consideration
all the public input, et cetera. Mr.
Gaspar indicated that one of the things that is particularly relevant about the
results of the Study Design report of Phase 2A is that it identifies exactly
what the factors are that are going to be used in Phase 2B. What they are doing is highlighting and
capturing what factors (which are quite substantive) are going to be used in
the decision-making process as opposed to more broad based.
Following on a question posed previously
about the option of a crossing at Cumberland-Masson-Angers, Councillor Monette
referred to the argument made by some groups that a tunnel option at King
Edward Avenue be considered. He wondered
if that was a viable option and Mr. Gaspar reiterated the fact that they are
dealing with the three corridors only.
The councillor suggested that it might be possible that at a certain
point this option may be considered to see how it compares to building a
bridge.
Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel interjected at
this point, stating that the provincial governments in Ontario and Québec have
allowed the options to be expanded to three corridors, but those will be the
only corridors moving forward. He
reminded Committee that a tunnel option is not subject to further analysis.
Councillor Monette indicated that his
question was directed to Mr. Gaspar, who explained that fundamentally there is
still a capacity issue, particularly when looking at the planning horizon they
are dealing with in terms of the integration of the National Capital Region
transit needs and transportation needs going to 2031. That issue still remains out there and he
reiterated again the three corridors being considered.
Following on his previous questions with
respect to timing of the building of the bridge, Councillor Bédard asked when
in 2013 Decision 2 would be made. Mr.
Gaspar explained it would be the latter half of that year. The councillor then inquired about the timing
of the truck study the NCC will be undertaking and was advised that they are
not yet at the point of scheduling the specific activities within the context
of Phase 2B. He added that as part of
the RFP process to be issued, the NCC will be looking to the consultants to
provide a proposed work plan. That
information will need to be incorporated at the right point in the process in
order to inform the decision making.
Councillor Bédard then asked what would be
included in that study and if there will be public consultation to ensure that
the scoping of that study is done properly.
Mr. Gaspar explained that he would invite the consultant to speak
specifically to the elements that are going to be required in that study but
reiterated that this will be a different exercise than the Strategic Goods
Movement Study which the NCC is also engaged in and which is designed to help
develop and frame policy. In response to
additional questions posed by the councillor, Mr. Gaspar explained that it is
more of part of the conversation which Council and all stakeholders will be a
part of, to understand exactly what is going on, particularly looking towards
the future planning horizon, which is different than what is going to inform
the phase 2B activities in terms of truck movements.
The councillor thought that should then be
done prior to Decision 1 being made and Mr. Gaspar explained that the
Strategic Goods Movement Study is separate from the truck study they will be
doing as part of Phase 2B and there is definitely going to be an opportunity
for cross-pollination between those two.
He added that there is a specific set of needs and data required for
Phase 2B, which can resurface as part of the study that will be conducted as
part of Phase 2B. To explain further,
Ms. McGirr noted that the analysis of truck traffic is contained in Appendix B
of the Study Design Report. The two
objectives are:
1. The observation of local vs. interprovincial truck traffic;
and,
2. What are the differences between the corridors? (in the EA
study the main purpose is to distinguish between the alternatives).
Mr. Gaspar added that there is no set
schedule for Phase 2B in terms of when each of the specific component elements
of that study will be completed and delivered.
The RFP process which will soon launch will help surface a work plan
from the consultants and part of that work plan will have a schedule in
place. He noted that the value added
elements such as this truck study should be provided as part of the Phase 2B
activities in a timely manner, to help inform the decision; the NCC recognizes
that it is important to have that information before substantive decisions are
made.
Councillor Bédard reminded the NCC
representative that the City of Ottawa has already determined that whatever
location is decided for the new interprovincial bridge, King Edward Avenue will
be removed from the truck route system.
However, the NCC’s study indicates there will be a number of trucks
using that roadway. He wanted to know
therefore, whether or not someone would be looking at the jurisdictional aspect
of this decision. To ensure that the
study is conducted in as timely and efficient a manner as possible, and, to
differentiate it from the Strategic Goods Movement Study and other high level
considerations, Mr. Gaspar indicated that the work that is going to be done to
inform Phase 2B is the more technical/analytical work with respect to
commercial goods movement. He recognized
that there are different perspectives amongst all the stakeholders with respect
to what it means when a roadway is de-designated as a truck route and there are
some operating realities with respect to the fact that there are commercial
truck movements between the cores and ultimately it will have to be determined
what the best traffic management system is to ensure that the right proportion
and mix of goods are moving through the right crossings at the right times of
day. He added that steps are being taken
to ensure that this will be done in a coordinated fashion, but recognizing that
there will be challenges with respect to those definition points.
When asked who would take over once Decision
2 has been reached, Mr. Gaspar indicated that it is not proper for the NCC to
speak on or be definitive about, but confirmed that that process will need to
involve all stakeholders.
Following a brief discussion about this, the
Deputy City Manager advised that what is before the Committee today is about
getting the outcome to get to a project.
She confirmed there would be lots of discussion about how this will be
implemented, when and by whom, but those are discussions for another day. She reiterated the fact that first the study
partners have to get to a point where there is an approved project and this EA
process is intended to reach that point.
While he understood this process, Councillor Bédard suggested that those
discussions begin as soon as possible because 2013 is not far off and he did
not want to wait until that time before that important decision is made.
The Chair asked that the Deputy City Manager
take as direction to the extent that the City of Ottawa is involved, that
Council would like to start this process as soon as possible. Ms. Schepers accepted this direction.
Councillor Doucet inquired what the primary
justification was for a new bridge and was advised by Mr. Gaspar that there is
an existing interprovincial capacity shortfall right now, and towards the 2031
planning horizon for effective regional integration in that context from a
transportation perspective, there is also a gap that needs to be addressed in
addition to the truck concern that is existent.
The councillor was not accepting of this answer because he did not
believe it was all a problem with traffic in general. He maintained that the primary reason for a
new bridge (from the City’s viewpoint) is to get 3000 trucks out of the centre
of the city every day.
When asked by the councillor if the NCC
supports the City’s intention to ban trucks from King Edward Avenue, Mr. Gaspar
indicated that the issue of the commitment made to de-designate that roadway
once the new interprovincial crossing has been constructed, has been heard and
will be incorporated.
Councillor Doucet then asked if the City had
the authority to ban trucks from the KERWN corridor and Tim Marc, Senior Legal
Counsel advised that once a viable alternative exists, that corridor could be
removed as part of the heavy truck network, keeping in mind that trucks serving
local purposes within that community would still be permitted in that
area. There would be no interprovincial
trucks on the KERWN corridor.
The councillor was looking for a sense that
there is actually the possibility of a solution at the end of this process that
everyone will be able to live with. He
asked if there was anything he could say that can relieve this concern and Mr.
Gaspar explained that the NCC recognizes fully that one of the tradeoffs with
doing a substantive and meaningful conversation exercise is that it will have
been very robust and will be one that is informed by data. Also, the process provides for opportunities
for stakeholders to react in a pointed fashion to specific developments in the
process. He acknowledged and recognized
the concerns and discomfort the councillor may have with respect to that, but
reassured him that the NCC is not here today seeking their endorsement on that
or any sort of blank cheque. He
confirmed they would report on the work they’ve done to date on developing a
road map for that decision-making process and look forward to the City’s input
and the involvement of any of your citizen or other interested stakeholders in
the Phase 2B process going forward.
Councillor Legendre noted that during Phase
1, there was still the contemplation of a west and east-end bridge crossing and
at the time, it was estimated that 60% of truck traffic would remain within the
KERWN corridor. Ms. McGirr explained
that the Phase 1 analysis indicated that those interprovincial trucks would
keep using the MacDonald-Cartier bridge if they could choose another
bridge. The councillor remarked however,
that this latest study is only looking at a crossing in the east and therefore,
the option of using another crossing to the west has been eliminated. He believed the calculations prepared by
AECOM-Delcan should have to change since they were originally assuming another
choice which no longer exists. Mr.
Gaspar explained that the models that will be run as part of the study will
understand exactly what the mix of trucks is going to be based on what is and
is not local.
Councillor Legendre was seeking clarification
that this next study would distinguish between interprovincial truck traffic
and local delivery trucks. Ms. McGirr
stated that there is certainly classification data for the trucks available and
included in Phase 2B is the study that would establish the volume of local vs.
interprovincial trucks. While this data
is not available at the present time, Mr. Gaspar did confirm that they would be
using it when it does become available.
With regards to the Strategic Goods Movement
Study (the truck study) and the Interprovincial Transit Study, Councillor
Legendre was seeking the assurance that those studies will both be completed
prior to the selection of any corridor.
Mr. Gaspar indicated that that would not be the case and reiterated his
response to questions posed previously by Councillor Bédard, that there will be
cross pollination of information between the strategic goods movement study and
the activities in Phase 2B. More
appropriately, he emphasized that the truck information required for Phase 2B
will be conducted distinctly as part of the Phase 2B study. Therefore, they do not need to rely on the
Strategic Goods Movement Study being complete, in order to make the operational
types of analyses that have to happen for the activities in that phase of the
study because the data that is needed and which will be required will be
presented and will be available.
The councillor was very disappointed with
that clarification because he believed there was a need to have the information
on the trucks in order to make the best choice possible; he also believed there
was a need to have the commuter information because transit could at least
solve part of the problem. Mr. Gaspar
clarified that the transit study should be finished by the end of this
year. With respect to the strategic
goods movement study, recognizing the need for pointed and direct operational
information about the movement of goods within the region and across the
provinces is why they pulled that analysis requirement out and will build it
directly into Phase 2B. He added that
the Strategic Goods Movement Study is a high-level policy development tool
designed to review where the region is going with respect to these kind of
issues more broadly: with respect to production and mobile movements. The specific data that is required will be
brought forward and surfaced as part of Phase 2B.
The Committee adjourned for a lunch break
between 11:55 a.m. to 1:15 p.m.
Councillor Legendre asked who would be
responsible for paying for the provincial infrastructure from the bridge once
it is built, suspecting that it would largely be the federal government. Mr. Gaspar could not speak to that question
because it is not part of the study the NCC is engaged in. The councillor disagreed, and pointed to the
fact that the provincial government (Agatha Garcia-Wright, Director of the
Ontario Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch) in her letter to
Gabrielle Simonyi of the NCC dated 29 October 2008, which included certain
conditions, one of which being that any modifications to the provincial or
municipal facilities and/or lands are described as part of the undertakings and
that such works are implemented by the federal government. He remarked that this was a condition for the
province stating that their EA Act will not be initiated. The councillor explained that Council needs
to know now and that understanding should be clarified. Mr. Gaspar advised that this information
would be provided to the study partners.
Following on questions posed earlier with
regards to the truck traffic and the KERWN corridor, Councillor Bloess asked
what an interprovincial truck would be?
Mr. Marc did not know this information when asked, but believed there is
a provision in the City’s Traffic and Parking By-Law that deals with that
definition. He offered to find it for
the councillor.
Councillor Bloess recognized that there would
still be truck traffic in the downtown core and wondered if that percentage
would change from what is currently known.
Ms. McGirr advised that the figures provided from Phase 1 were
based on the truck route designation staying the same. The councillor then asked what the
assumptions would be if King Edward Avenue was no longer a truck route? He recognized that there would still be trucks
in the core to serve businesses et cetera and wondered if there was an estimate
for that percentage? The consultant
indicated that there is no estimate at this time as that work would be done in
Phase 2B.
The councillor noted that the MacDonald-Cartier
Bridge has sufficient capacity, but noted that it is the accesses on both sides
of the river that are probably deficient.
He asked if that was a correct statement, but the consultant was unable
to answer it. The councillor explained
that the reason he was asking for that information is because if there is ever
a wish to look at the option of a tunnel from that bridge to Nicholas (or
closer to Highway 417), that would certainly factor into that. Ms. Chi indicated she would follow-up with
the councillor on this.
With regards to the statement made previously
that if an additional crossing was provided, trucks would be removed from King
Edward Avenue, Councillor Monette wondered if that decision could be overturned
by another level of government?
Mr. Gaspar indicated that it would not be appropriate to get into
conjecture, but confirmed that the NCC supports the answer provided by the
City’s legal counsel with respect to the level of truck traffic on King Edward
Avenue after a bridge is built.
Mr. Marc added that while he would be surprised if it did, the
province could amend the Municipal Act
to give it direct authority over all roads.
At this point in the meeting, the Chair then
asked Legal Counsel to speak briefly to the information contained in the City
Clerk and Solicitor memo dated 1 June 2010.
Mr. Marc provided a detailed overview of the information provided
in that memorandum and the more salient points noted were as follows:
·
The item
before Committee is for information and should it wish to adopt recommendations
as a result of the presentation, they would have to rise to Council
·
Given
the purpose of today’s presentation by the NCC, delegations should focus on
those particular aspects only; comments made beyond the scope of the
presentation would be out of order
·
Motions
on particular issues that may be made today that are also outside of what is
being presented or contrary to a previous decision by Council, would be deemed
to be out of order
With respect to ruling out of order a Motion
about a tunnel option in the KERWN corridor, Councillor Monette asked that if a
member of Council brought forward a Motion at Council to look at that option,
that is permissable? Mr. Marc explained
that the decisions made by Council in 2007 and again in 2009, endorsed a
proposal that the corridors to be studied would be Kettle Island and Lower Duck
Island. There is a Motion that staff has
seen today that speaks to a tunnel option, which has not been previously
endorsed by Council; in fact, Council has taken a contrary position and
therefore, the advice from legal staff today and again at Council is that such
a Motion would not be in order. He added
however, that with ¾ of the members in favour, it could be introduced at Council.
Councillor Jellett asked how far the King
Edward corridor extends into the City and was advised by Mr. Marc that it is
could probably be defined as the corridor from the Laurier Bridge to where King
Edward picks up at the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge. The councillor thought therefore that a tunnel
that does not cross the river is still covered in that corridor and wondered
that if truck traffic came over the bridge and then went into a tunnel at the
end of the bridge on the Ottawa side and came out at Highway 417, would a
Motion to that effect be out of order as well?
Mr. Marc clarified that it would not be an interprovincial crossing and
would simply be a means of access. He
confirmed that it is not something that has been considered by this Council yet
but would be appropriate for a Notice of Motion either today or at Council for
fuller discussion, without having to waive the rules.
Councillor Legendre noted that the
Solicitor’s memo of 1 June 2010 mentions that “the project” was advised in
October 2008 as per the letter from the MOE dated 29 October 2008 to the NCC
regarding Ontario’s position with respect to its EA process and that this was
the information known at the time of Council’s consideration of Phase 1 in
January/February 2009. However, he emphasized
that he was certainly not aware of this letter and/or the province’s
position. Mr. Marc assured the
councillor that it was Legal Services’ understanding that that letter was known
to Council in January 2009, but would take the opportunity to confirm that.
When asked by Councillor Legendre if in fact
it is only the CEAA that will apply, as suggested by the MOE in their letter of
October 2008, Mr. Marc advised that the decision by the Ministry of the
Environment did make sense. When asked
if there was any legal opinion whether or not the provincial EA Act cannot
apply in this situation, Mr. Marc explained that the provincial Environmental Assessment Act would not
apply to an interprovincial bridge because it is a matter of federal
jurisdiction. When asked if there was
anything that forbids the provincial EA Act from applying, he indicated he
would be surprised that the province could apply its own Act to an
interprovincial crossing because of the way the Constitution of Canada works;
matters under federal jurisdiction are not subject to provincial
legislation. If that is the case, the
councillor then asked why the Ontario EA did apply during the
Detroit/Windsor bridge study? Mr. Marc
indicated that he would find that surprising if it did.
The Chair suggested that the councillor
provide to Legal staff in writing the questions he would like them to address
and that she and members of the Committee and the Coordinator be copied so the
answers could be placed on record.
Following on earlier statements made about
banning trucks on King Edward Avenue, Councillor Leadman asked if the
municipality had the authority to ban all trucks from this corridor. While this was not something he had looked at
in detail, Mr. Marc indicated it would surprise him if the City could do
this. He offered that the courts might
find that to be an unlawful interference with businesses in Ontario or indeed
even residential property uses in that they need heavy trucks in order to
deliver supplies, moving, et cetera.
Prior to hearing from public delegations, the
Chair announced that if any member of the public wished to make a submission on
the matter, they would have until the end of the week to provide their comments
to the Committee Coordinator and it would be accepted as part of the record.
John Forsey, Manor Park Community Association read from a prepared statement. The more salient comments noted were as
follows:
-
the
NCC-lead interprovincial crossing study should not proceed to Phase 2B because
building a new bridge will not provide a sustainable solution to the issue of
heavy trucks on the King Edward Avenue corridor or to the perceived peak period
vehicle congestion on existing bridges
-
the
focus of the study should be on solving the problem
-
while
the study has been called an environmental assessment, it has never been and
still is not a proper EA because under the provincial EA legislation, all
viable alternatives would have to be considered moving forward and without
applying that legislation throughout the process, the public does not have
legal protection as there is no accountability for the manner in which the
study team develops its recommendations
-
building
a bridge along any of the three narrowly defined corridors would not solve the
critical truck issue, but would simply spread it around
-
commuting
by car will become relatively more attractive once a bridge is built thus
making it difficult to achieve the transit modal share; therefore, it is
premature to proceed to Phase 2B when no interprovincial transit strategy has
been finalized and the Strategic Goods Movement Study has not even begun
A copy of his written submission is held on file.
Judith
Lishman read from a prepared statement
and the following comments were highlighted:
·
There
are many environmental hazards caused by a trucking/commuter route passing
through residential neighbourhoods; she was most concerned about the effects of
toxic air on people’s health; a recent study from Belgium spoke about the risk
to cyclists of the particles from exhaust
·
There
are 12,000 people living within the zone of influence of this toxicity in the
Kettle Island corridor, including the Montfort Hospital, Montfort Long Term
Care Facility and Our Lady of Mount Carmel School
·
Despite
this, the consultants have determined in Phase 1 that if a bridge were to be
built at Kettle Island, there would be zero impact on the air quality; because
Ontario’s EA Act has not been invoked, there is no review or approval process
in place to correct this error, which means there was no accountability by the
consultant for the work and without the Ontario EA Act, no one is obligated to
listen or to act to correct the problems
·
Without
the Ontario EA act, Ontario citizens are being denied the right to appeal any
of these conclusions and yet, Quebec citizens have the protection of the Quebec
EA legislation for this study
·
Ontario
claims that this is a federal project, but it is not; it is a
multi-jurisdictional project very similar to the Detroit-Windsor Bridge
study. Ontario did participate there in
a harmonized EA for the Detroit-Windsor bridge study.
In closing, Ms. Lishman asked that the City
recommend to the three funding partners that Phase 2B not commence until the
people of Ottawa are guaranteed the full environmental protection of the Ontario
Environmental Assessment Act. A copy of her written
submission is held on file.
Don
Lishman believed that the City of Ottawa should be
seeking to ensure that the citizens of Ottawa have the maximum environmental
protection afforded under the law, especially given that the Terms of Reference
Council accepted in June 2007, provided the maximum environmental protection
for the public through a harmonized EA process.
However, the study partners decided at the end of Phase 1, that the
protection offered by the Ontario EA Act was not applicable and that the
Canadian EA Act would suffice.
Mr. Lishman contended that under the CEAA, public participation and
consultation under a screening study are discretionary, whereas it is mandatory
under the Ontario EA Act and the public also has the right of appeal to the
Minister for any decisions made. He
questioned the legalities of this and if the City sought to obtain any
independent legal opinion on the implications of removing the harmonized EA.
Mr. Lishman acknowledged that the major focus
of Phase 2A is to determine the process for Phase 2B, the most important aspect
of which is that it is meant to be an Environmental Assessment process. He stated that there are legislative
underpinnings to an EA to make it valid and without the EA legislation a study
is not an EA Study regardless of what it is called. Further, since the CEAA is not triggered
until after one corridor has been selected, it does not yet apply. As a Study Team member, the City is in a
position to demand of the study partners that its citizens be afforded the full
environmental protection of the law and he asked that approval of Phase 2A be
deferred report until the harmonized EA process as outlined in the Terms of
Reference agreed to by Council in 2007, is in place. A copy of his written submission is held on file.
John
Verbaas, Action Sandy Hill recognized that the consultants have done their best to
involve community organizations in the corridor selection process and have
provided ample opportunity to make their concerns known. However, there are certain concerns of theirs
that are not being heard because they have been told they are outside the scope
of the current study. He very much hoped
that once a new bridge is built, the 2500 heavy trucks travelling down
Waller/Rideau and King Edward streets each day would use the new crossing,
although, despite the City’s OP designation to the contrary, the NCC and their
consultants (and the City of Gatineau) recommend that King Edward Avenue remain
open as a truck route. He found it
unacceptable that the City would spend millions of dollars to build a new
bridge, with no change to that heavy truck traffic. He was concerned the new bridge will only
lead to more commuter traffic from Gatineau.
Action Sandy Hill would like to know if the
City really can decide unilaterally to ban trucks from Rideau/King Edward. Could such a decision be overruled by other
levels of government if it conflicts with the intentions of the jurisdictions
on the other side of the river? Further,
they were seeking confirmation that a forced diversion of trucks over an
approximate 20km detour via an east end bridge is something the trucking and
business communities could accept.
Action Sandy Hill asks that the City get the NCC and the MTO to the
table to discuss what the real problem is, before blindly move ahead with the
painful and divisive process of selecting a new bridge corridor. A copy of his written submission is held on
file.
The Chair asked Legal staff to clarify the
issue of the truck route and the ability of the City to ban trucks from King
Edward Avenue. Mr. Marc explained that
provided Council can do so on the grounds of safety and not interfering with
viable interprovincial crossings, the City can provide for a different
interprovincial truck route once that bridge is built and in operation. However, the Traffic and Parking By-law
provides for the continued use of that road by local truck traffic, even though
it’s not a designated truck route. He
qualified that that traffic would have to go from the nearest designated truck
route by the shortest path to their destination. He confirmed for the Chair that the City
could go after them for failing to follow where the truck route really is. The Chair asked that he prepare for
councillors the appropriate wording/opinion to that effect so that information
can be disseminated to the community.
Mr. Marc agreed to this request.
Councillor Bédard indicated that the
delegation has raised another level of government telling us what to do with
the King Edward truck route. Can they do
that? Mr. Marc advised that they can
amend the Municipal Act and they
could tell us what to do on our streets.
And, the federal government could declare a particular corridor to be an
interprovincial connector under the Constitution of Canada. He believed it unlikely the senior level of
government would do that.
Councillor Bédard asked if the Federal
government could designate the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge as a truck route and
Mr. Marc explained that is not something that would be meaningful because it
has to deal with what is on both sides of the river. The councillor offered to the delegation that
while his requests were very important, they may not necessarily provide any
further information than what is already known.
Pat
Boulé, Director, Common Sense Crossings
provided the following comments:
·
With the tabling of the
report, we are one step closer to a bridge that does not solve the key problem;
none of the corridors being examined resolve the truck issue; the solutions
will address car traffic only
·
Even if King Edward was
removed from the truck route, interprovincial trucks would move to the
Chaudiere Bridge before using the proposed corridor, once selected; he was
interested in knowing how far away a bridge has to be before it is no longer
considered a viable solution?
·
Ottawa needs a National
Capital Region transportation plan, not another crossing; some studies/plans
that will affect the selection of a corridor in Phase 2B are: the Greenbelt Master Plan Study, the Truck
Origin-Destination Study and the completion of Highway 50 in Gatineau
·
Corridors 6 and 7 have
been greatly expanded since Phase 1 and now includes the widening of Ottawa
Road 174 from the interchange to Highway 417; with ramps starting potentially
at Jeanne d’Arc Boulevard, this severely disrupts the transit lanes on the 174
·
It is anticipated that
residential growth in Gatineau will be so extensive that commuters will take
advantage of the new interprovincial crossing to get into Ottawa
Mr. Boulé asked the Committee to keep an open
mind for truly sustainable solutions that address the key problems Ontario
residents really care about, i.e., getting trucks out of the core (not just
moving them to another area); supporting a solution that helps more than just
Gatineau homebuilders; and, supporting Ottawa’s greenbelt and greenspace. A copy of his PowerPoint presentation is held
on file.
Heather Burke spoke about the impacts a new
interprovincial bridge crossing would have on the environment. She commented on how light, noise, pollution,
wetland drainage and alteration will affect the species of birds, plants and
animals that live within the corridors being examined, especially those
affecting McLaurin Bay. She was
particularly concerned about impacts on the environment should there be a
hazardous waste spillage into the water system.
Therefore, cleaning up a potentially hazardous waste spill must be
included in the mitigation costs for all three corridors. She reminded Committee that during Phase 1,
the natural environment was ranked #1 of the seven factor groups. She asked the Committee to respect the wishes
of the people of Ottawa and Gatineau and ensure that no green belt bridge is
built. A copy of her presentation is
held on file.
Hugh Carter indicated he is a member of the Greenspace Alliance as well as his
local community association in Orléans and is heavily involved in Sustainable
Solutions, a group formed to address the common issues felt by many community
associations with respect to this project.
He echoed many of the other concerns raised by the previous delegations
and posited that Phase 2B should not proceed as currently conceived and that
the following are required before proceeding further:
·
the truck study commissioned by the NCC in 2009 needs
to be completed prior to the initiation of the next phase because only then can
a proper understanding of the truck movements, loads, economic conditions and
thus design criteria for any potential solution be gained;
·
the interprovincial transit ideas being discussed in
Ottawa and Gatineau need to be solidified into a coherent and agreed-upon
strategy by all affected governments
·
the NCC needs to change the focus of the
Interprovincial Crossings Project and he asked the City to join the community
to ensure the Federal government does not build a bridge that does not fit the
need, now or in 2031.
A copy of his written submission is held on
file.
Following
a brief period of questions posed to the delegation, Mr. Carter indicated he
would send to Committee members the list of community associations that form
Sustainable Solutions. A copy of that
list was later received and distributed and a copy held on file.
Bruce Baker, Lowertown Community Association fully supported the continuation of the
second phase of this study. He reminded
councillors of the intolerable situation the community finds itself in with
regards to the heavy truck traffic, stating that the failure to link the
MacDonald-Cartier bridge to Highway 417 when it was first built in 1965,
created the urban planning disaster that is on King Edward Avenue today. Additional comments and concerns are as
follows:
·
safety
is a major concern; there have been numerous injuries and some fatalities on
King Edward Avenue in the past year alone
·
the
community suffers from noise pollution and unacceptable air quality levels
caused by the heavy trucks using this corridor
·
local
businesses and tourism are negatively affected because trucks flow across the
river and through Ottawa’s downtown
·
the
community has been waiting since the early 1990’s for trucks to be removed from
King Edward Avenue and they would like to see a recommendation that the study
timetable be accelerated
·
they
want to ensure that the Lowertown community is accepted as an equal partner to
the other communities in this study, i.e., if there is going to be a
socio-economic impact on affected communities, the same must be done for this
community because they need to have a viable comparison with what is actually
happening now.
Michel Valleé, Chair, King Edward Avenue Task
Force indicated that the
Task Force does not support the continuation to Phase 2B and provided the
following additional points:
1. They hoped that Phase 2B would include a proper,
significant, comprehensive socio-economic and safety impact on Lowertown and on
the general area.
2. They have serious concerns about truck traffic; comments
made by the consultants that a new bridge would only absorb 40% of the actual
heavy trucks refers to the numbers provided as part of the Phase 1 evaluation
and does not include any decision from Council to eliminate the Interprovincial
heavy trucks; if there is an outright ban on trucks on King Edward, there will
be significantly less than 40% of the trucks that will be eliminated. Using smaller, less polluting trucks would go
a long way to resolving some of the local transportation without encouraging
large trucks or 18-wheelers.
3. The study will be extending until 2013, followed by the
political process for approvals, et cetera.
The Task Force encourages the federal government and all levels of
government in Ontario and Quebec to shorten the final decision as well as the
construction of the new bridge. This
problem needs to be solved as quickly as possible.
4. They would like to ensure that Phase 2 provides for
transparent community and business input which, in their view, has been
somewhat lacking in the previous two phases.
Robert Bennett indicated that every party to the discussion
agrees that the dominant challenge is truck traffic on the KERWN corridor. He recalled the conditions made by the OMB in
1999 about removing that corridor from the truck route system upon completion
of the interprovincial bridge. It is
ludicrous to think that removing a truck route from the Official Plan would
then mean that trucks could travel without control on the route removed, yet
that is clearly the consequence expected by the Phase 1 Study. In light of the comments made that 60% of the
current traffic was predicted to continue to use the KERWN corridor after the
new bridge was completed, he did not think the OMB contemplated or considered
that as an acceptable response to its decision.
Residential and business communities along the KERWN route will also
find that totally unacceptable. Mr.
Bennett was quite surprised to hear any option to consider a tunnel because the
exclusion of the tunnel at this stage of the study design is premature and too
constraining on the best and viable solutions.
A copy of Mr. Bennett’s submission is held on file.
G.A. Macklin, Rockcliffe Park Residents
Association supported the
comments made by some of the previous delegations and provided the following
additional comments:
·
There
has been scant mention of the proposed tunnel today; while he did not know if
it was even a viable option, he believed it merits serious consideration; he
cited the success of the Chunnel between England and France as an example of a
tunnel that can work and help reduce pollution and congestion
·
If a
tunnel turns out not to be viable, then the study partners can look at the
question of river crossings with the bridge
·
He noted
that his MPP Mauril Belanger has proposed the “Canotek option” which is so
called 6A within the 6th corridor.
He understood this option has the support of provincial ministers and
suggested that this option be considered with the other corridor options.
Dan Burke, Beacon Hill North Community
Association reacted to the
last delegation’s suggestion to consider the Canotek option, stating that the
Beacon Hill North community is very concerned about any suggestion for that as
a possible crossing location. He
recognized that the option was initially suggested by the aforementioned Member
of Provincial Parliament on the condition that the following take place first:
·
The
Queensway be extended by four lanes to Trim Road;
·
The 417
split be fixed;
·
A light
rail transit station be set up at Canotek Park for which there is hardly any
demand;
·
The
current on/off ramp at Montreal Road and the Queensway be moved 1.25 miles from
Shepherd Road towards Greens Creek.
The Committee took a short recess between
3:35 p.m. and 3:50 p.m.
Councillor Legendre introduced his Motion,
the operative part being as follows:
That the Transportation Committee recommend that Council
request both the NCC and the Ministry of the Environment of Ontario to agree
that the conclusion of the letter of October 29, 2008 be reconsidered such that
the Ontario EAA will apply at this stage and that residents of Ottawa will
receive the benefits and protections that the Ontario EAA affords.
Speaking to his Motion, the
councillor drew attention to the letter he circulated previously, a portion of
which is very much a part of the operative part of his Motion. He reiterated the unanimous request from the
community for the protection of the Ontario EA process, noting that it will
apply if there is agreement between the NCC and the MOE.
In response to a question posed
by the Chair, Mr. Marc advised that he was not in a position to confirm when
this letter may have been received and suggested that if Committee adopts the
Motion, between now and the time the report rises to Council he would look into
the matter. In the event this
information is not consistent, he would advise Council at that time.
Councillor Desroches questioned
the rationale for duplicating the EA process using the provincial EA process as
suggested in the Motion. He inquired as
to what additional benefits would be derived from having the provincial EA
duplicate the CEAA. Mr. Marc advised
that someone from the NCC or a staff member from Infrastructure Services would
be in a better position to respond to that question. The councillor indicated that he had
confidence in the federal EA process and he did not see the value in
duplicating it, as suggested in the Motion.
In response to a question posed
by Councillor Bloess, Mr. Marc offered that the only difference he saw between
going through the federal EA process or the provincial EA process is that at
the end of the day there is a decision that has to be made by the provincial
Minister, as well as the federal Minister.
He confirmed that within both processes is the ability for any aggrieved
party to ask that the Minister not approve the EA. However, if a provincial process were to be
engaged, the difference is that there would have to be another person at the
end of the day approving the process.
The same environmental features and concerns will be addressed under
either process and Council has the documentation from the NCC that the most
stringent of all three processes - Quebec, Ontario and federal - will be
respected.
When asked by the Chair to
clarify a comment made by one of the delegations that under the federal EA
process, there is no appeal, as opposed to the Ontario EA process, the City’s
Legal Counsel advised that there is no appeal under either process. However, what there is the entitlement under
the provincial process to make a request to the Minister for a Part 2 Order,
which would refer the matter for an individual EA. Therefore, it is not an appeal right but an
opportunity for further process. Under
the federal process, there is an opportunity to write to the Minister to ask
them not to approve the EA.
Councillor Legendre indicated
that he had sought advice from an outside legal source about the differences
between the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act (CEAA) and the Ontario
Environmental Assessment Act. It was
told to him that the CEAA attempts to determine if there are consequences that
cannot be mitigated, whereas the terms of reference for the provincial EAA become
legally binding. Therefore, there is a
legal constraint that does not exist under the CEAA. Also in Ontario there is a requirement that
the exercise must examine and assess the benefits of what the project is
supposed to do.
He went on to state that the
other aspect of this is that this is an interprovincial project and while the
federal government is involved, the question can be asked: Why do both provinces have to be involved? He explained that in the international
project between the United States and Canada - the Windsor-Detroit crossing -
the Ontario EAA did apply. He therefore
believed that the same should apply with this interprovincial crossing. He did not see it as a duplication and felt
this would give more assurance to the citizens of Ottawa. Given the presentations made today and during
the public consultation process, the NCC and the provincial government have
heard loud and clear from the community and he encouraged the Committee to
support the Motion.
Moved by J. Legendre
WHEREAS the letter from the
Ministry of Environment of Ontario (October 29, 2008) was written at a time
when only one corridor was being recommended; and,
WHEREAS the aforesaid letter assumed
that the “NCC is the sole proponent of the Project”; and,
WHEREAS the aforesaid letter also
assumed that “any of the modifications to provincial or municipal facilities
and/or lands are described as part of the undertaking, and any such works are
implemented by the Federal Government …”; and,
WHEREAS the letter underscored
twice that the stated opinion was based on “a strict interpretation of the
Ontario EAA”; and,
WHEREAS the letter makes it clear
that the Ontario EAA could apply if there was agreement “between the NCC and
the Minister of the Environment to have the Ontario EAA apply in this case”;
THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED that the Transportation
Committee recommend that Council request both the NCC and the Ministry of the
Environment of Ontario to agree that the conclusion of the letter of October
29, 2008 be reconsidered such that the Ontario EAA will apply at this stage and
that residents of Ottawa will receive the benefits and protections that the
Ontario EAA affords.
CARRIED, with S. Desroches dissenting
Councillor Bloess proposed a Motion, the
operative part being as follows:
That the Interprovincial Crossing Study
proponents be requested to undertake a comprehensive study of the diversion of
all trucks from the KERWN corridor and that this study:
i) Includes
an economic analysis of such a diversion on truck traffic;
ii) Includes
consultation with the affected business interests;
iii) Includes
analysis of safety considerations of continuing to mix heavy (articulated
intercity transports) trucks in the Central Area given the availability of a
proposed alternative;
iv) Determines
if any of the corridors under study would provide a viable alternative for
intercity heavy trucks so that all such trucks could be diverted from the KERWN
corridor;
v) Becomes
a direct input into Phase 2B analysis;
vi) Is
completed prior to the selection of a recommended corridor.
The councillor explained that this Motion
attempts to deal with the questions heard today about truck traffic and what
the impacts are of getting truck traffic out of the core. He was concerned that point v) and vi) may be
at odds with each other, and he looked to legal staff to provide a
comment. Mr. Marc believed these would
ensure that prior to the choice of a corridor, that this information is
available. He saw them as reinforcing
what the information i) to iv) is going to be used for.
Councillor Bloess indicated he would be
adding two more points to his Motion, one of which deals with a transit
component and another with an origin-destination study for trucks. The two additional points therefore were as
follows:
vii) Completion of the Transit Strategy first;
viii) Completion of the truck origin-destination
study first.
Mr. Marc commented that the Motion, as
originally seen by staff, was one that spoke to the issue of truck traffic on
King Edward and the impact that had on the community. He believed that there may be a disconnect
between the preamble in the Motion and vii).
Therefore, he recommended it be a stand alone Motion. Councillor Bloess accepted this suggestion
and separated that portion from the rest of the text.
Councillor Bedard inquired what the benefit
of the main Motion was. He made note of
the fact that the emphasis is to ensure that all these other studies are
completed prior to proceeding and given the information that is requested, suggested
the councillor was trying to gather evidence to not remove trucks from King
Edward Avenue. Councillor Bloess
clarified that that was not his intention and that there was a need for a
proper context for what would happen, especially if other Motions come forward
on other options to be considered. He
felt it would be proper in any study to have all the information on hand and
have it properly considered.
Mr. Marc added that with this additional
information, Council would be better placed if there were ever a challenge to
banning trucks on King Edward Avenue. To
show that it had the sound evidentiary basis for saying that King Edward was
not needed, that there were in fact safety concerns from it and that another
corridor was viable. This wording in
fact strengthens the City’s position for future.
Councillor Bedard was reassured by the
comments made by Councillor Bloess and hoped he was receptive to modifying the
first part of his Motion to include the following text: “Therefore be it resolved that while recognizing
that the Ottawa Official Plan
calls for removal of the truck route designation from the King
Edward/Rideau/Waller/ Nicholas corridor…”
He further suggested changing wording in iv) from “determine if
any of the corridors” to “determine how the corridors under study” and adding
“completion of the truck origin-destination study”. Councillor Bloess was supportive of those
changes.
Moved by R. Bloess
WHEREAS one of the main reasons for
initiating the current Interprovincial Crossing Study is the need to resolve
the heavy truck traffic volume through the City’s downtown core along the King
Edward/Rideau/Waller/Nicholas (KERWN) corridor; and
WHEREAS the preliminary findings in
Phase 1 of the Interprovincial Crossings Study indicated that the KERWN
corridor should remain open to trucks and would likely continue to carry
approximately 60% of the total future interprovincial truck movement, meaning
that no significant reduction to truck volumes on King Edward will be realized;
and
WHEREAS Phase 2B of the
Interprovincial Crossings Study will build upon the results of Phase 1 and be
limited to the consideration of three possible corridors for an additional
interprovincial crossing; and
WHEREAS the Ottawa Official Plan
calls for removal of the truck route designation from the King
Edward/Rideau/Waller/Nicholas corridor upon completion of a new interprovincial
crossing; and
WHEREAS there is an expectation by
the residents of Sandy Hill and Lowertown that a new crossing would result in a
ban of heavy through-trucks from this corridor; and
WHEREAS the City of Gatineau has
passed a resolution calling for the KERWN corridor to continue to remain open
to heavy trucks;
THEREFORE be it resolved that while
recognizing that the Ottawa Official Plan calls for removal of
the truck route designation from the King Edward/Rideau/ Waller/Nicholas
corridor upon completion of a new interprovincial crossing, that the Interprovincial Crossing Study
proponents be requested to undertake a comprehensive study of the diversion of
all trucks from the KERWN corridor and that this study:
i)
Includes an
economic analysis of such a diversion on truck traffic;
ii)
Includes
consultation with the affected business interests;
iii)
Includes
analysis of safety considerations of continuing to mix heavy (articulated
intercity transports) trucks in the Central Area given the availability of a
proposed alternative;
iv)
Determines how
the corridors under study would provide a viable alternative for intercity
heavy trucks so that all such trucks could be diverted from the KERWN corridor;
v)
Becomes a direct
input into Phase 2B analysis;
vi)
Is completed
prior to the selection of a recommended corridor; and
vii)
Completion of
the truck origin-destination study for inclusion in Phase 2B.
CARRIED
Moved by R. Bloess
WHEREAS the outcome of the
Interprovincial Transit study would have a direct impact on the modal split
across the Ottawa River
BE
IT RESOLVED THAT the Interprovincial Transit Study be completed prior to the
selection of an interprovincial corridor.
CARRIED
In a closing statement, Mr. Gaspar noted that
the NCC has been listening with great intent to all the activity and the
interest and submissions from the public and they very much appreciate the
constructive and open dialogue that has taken place today. He saw it as very much contributing to the
process. He did not see any of the
resolutions approved today presenting any sort of a problem and the NCC is
committed to working towards these objectives and to continue working with the
City on this study.
That the Committee receive the presentation
by the National Capital Commission.
RECEIVED