PRESENTATIONS
PRÉSENTATIONS
1. BRUCE TIMMERMANS AWARD AND COMMUTER
CHALLENGE AWARD
PRIX BRUCE TIMMERMANS ET PRIX DU DÉFI TRANSPORT
Verbal Presentations / Présentations Orales
Chair Stavinga in concert with Vice-Chair
Doucet made the following presentations which, for record purposes and at the
request of the Chair are listed below:
BRUCE TIMMERMANS AWARDS PRESENTATION
“Welcome to the Presentation of the 2006
Bruce Timmermans Cycling Awards. The
Bruce Timmermans Cycling Awards are a cornerstone of the City’s TravelWise
Program.
Bruce Timmermans was a long-time cycling
educator and advocate who was an active member of the Ottawa Bicycle Club and a
founding member of Citizens for Safe Cycling.
Bruce worked tirelessly to promote cycling and safety for cyclists. His legacy lives on through the awards
program created by the City of Ottawa to recognize individuals and
organizations that demonstrate a genuine commitment to cycling in our
community.
Vice-Chair Doucet noted that Bruce Timmermans
lived in his Ward (Capital Ward) and has a park named after him. He talked about Bruce Timmermans
contribution to cyclists, which was even recognized in Europe.
The Annual Awards are divided into two
categories:
■ an individual award bestowed to honour
one exemplary citizen of the City of Ottawa who proactively and publicly
promotes cycling as a viable, environmentally friendly mode of transportation
and/or who demonstrates an outstanding commitment to cycling, providing a
highly visible and positive example of safe cycling for others to emulate. This may include, but is not limited to,
leading by example, advocating for cycling and supportive facilities, teaching
cycling skills or encouraging others to start cycling.
■ an organization award bestowed to
honour the exemplary contributions or investments of one business, organization
or government department that promotes cycling as a viable, environmentally
friendly mode of transportation. This
may include, but is not limited to, advocating for or providing cycling and
supportive facilities, or encouraging employees or clients to start cycling.
Members of the Roads and Cycling Advisory
Committee reviewed the nominations with staff to determine this year’s
individual award winner. No nominations
were received for the organizational award this year.
Chair Stavinga acknowledged the presence of Gordon
Glenn, a member of the Pedestrian and Transit Advisory Committee at the
Award Presentation Ceremony.
The recipient of this year’s Bruce Timmermans
Cycling Award for an individual has a long time involvement in cycling and
other community activities in the City of Ottawa.
For more than a decade, he has promoted both
recreational and transportation cycling, through individual initiatives and
through his work with the City of Ottawa Cycling Advisory Committee, the Ottawa
Bicycle Club, and Citizens for Safe Cycling (CfSC). In all this work, he has been consistently positive, hard working
and focused on getting useful results.
He is an example of a cyclist who has
tirelessly contributed to the Ottawa community and personally promoted many
types of cycling:
■ through
his work in establishing bike tours and rides,
■ actively
participating in recreational riding,
■ by
encouraging others to start cycling, and
■ in his years of work helping to manage
the CfSC Cycling Promotion and Education programs.
He has even been able to use his expertise
from his day job as an Associate Commercial Real Estate Broker with NAI
Commercial to assist CfSC in finding affordable office space, making more funds
available for cycling promotion and training programs.
In addition to his work for better cycling,
he has been a volunteer with several charitable and non-profit organizations
and events including: Hillel Lodge Foundation, Ottawa Road Running Series, Run
for Reach, Physiotherapy Run, Beat Beethoven and Run for Lunch.
It is my pleasure to present the 2006
Individual Bruce Timmermans Cycling Award to Manny Agulnik.”
A plaque was then presented to Mr. Agulnik,
who accepted this special award with great pride and complete emotion. He spoke about Bruce Timmermans’ enthusiasm
and contribution in encouraging the cycling community. He felt honoured to be associated with Bruce
Timmermans in receiving this Award and pledged to continue promoting and
assisting the cycling community.
COMMUTER CHALLENGE AWARD PRESENTATION
“Welcome to the presentation of the 2006
Commuter Challenge award to this year’s Corporate Winner.
First, I want to congratulate all City of
Ottawa employees who participated in the Commuter Challenge this year. Your effort is acknowledged and appreciated.
The Commuter Challenge, a component of the
City’s TravelWise (Transportation Demand Management) Program, is a one-week
long event that encourages commuters to get to work by walking, cycling, taking
transit, in line skating, running, carpooling or teleworking. This year’s event took place from June 4th
to 10th.
The Commuter Challenge is a national program,
but local efforts, including employer support, are crucial to its success. The City of Ottawa has been active in
encouraging employees and residents to take part in the Commuter Challenge for
a number of years.
Once again Ottawa lead the way nationally for
cities with populations between 500,000 and under one million. Also, for the second consecutive year,
Ottawa broke the one million-kilometre mark – still the only city in the
country to achieve this milestone. Just
under 10,000 residents walked, cycled, took transit, in-line skated, ran,
carpooled or teleworked, reducing motor vehicle kilometres by 1.28 million,
representing an increase of 23 percent over 2005.
The Commuter Challenge is about adopting new
commuting behaviours that last beyond Commuter Challenge week. As an example - instead of driving to work
during this year’s Commuter Challenge, Ken Taylor from Public Works and
Services, opted to ride his bike for the week.
Since then, Ken has continued to make the 25 kilometre round trip, from
Kanata to 100 Constellation, by bike, three or four times a week.
As a group, City of Ottawa employees
travelled 28,462 kilometres using sustainable modes of transportation during
this year’s Commuter Challenge. Good
work!
To encourage more City employees to try
sustainable modes of transportation, a further challenge was issued to see
which Department could reduce greenhouse gas emissions the most.
Planning and Growth Management, the smallest
City Department, lead all departments by:
■ having
a 10.5 percent participation rate; and,
■ travelling
8,069 kilometres for the week.
Planning and Growth Management Department is
this year’s recipient of the Commuter Challenge Award.
Please join me in congratulating John Moser
and his team for their achievement in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by
making wise travel choices.
Unfortunately, John was unable to be with us
today. Accepting on behalf of Planning
and Growth Management is Dennis
Jacobs, Director of Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy Branch.”
A plaque was presented to Dennis Jacobs, who
spoke on the importance of promoting involvement in this kind of exercise and
encouraging environmentally alternatives for travel.
POSTPONEMENTS
AND DEFERRALS
REPORTS ET
RENVOIS
PUBLIC WORKS AND SERVICES
SERVICES ET TRAVAUX PUBLICS
TRAFFIC AND PARKING OPERATIONS
CIRCULATION DE STATIONNEMENT
2. THE
PROCESS REQUIRED TO AMEND THE DEFAULT SPEED LIMIT ON LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREETS
FROM 50 KM/H TO 40 KM/H
PROCESSUS
REQUIS POUR FAIRE PASSER LA LIMITE DE VITESSE PAR DÉFAUT SUR LES RUES DES
SECTEURS RÉSIDENTIELS LOCAUX DE 50 KM/H À 40 KM/H
ACS2006-PWS-TRF-0023 CITY WIDE / À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
Appearing
before Committee to make a PowerPoint Presentation on the item, from the
Traffic and Parking Operations (TPO) Branch of Public Works and Services were
staff members Michael Flainek, Director of TPO, and John Buck, Manager
of Traffic Management. Also present to
answer questions from Committee is Staff Sergeant Rick Levine of the Ottawa
Police Services. A copy of the
PowerPoint Presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.
The following reports were distributed at the meeting
prior to the Presentation, copy of which are on file with the City Clerk:
§
The 2003 Report on the interim 40 km/h warrants that
was considered by the Transportation and Transit Committee, which was amended
at Committee and forwarded to City Council.
§
3 Pages of coloured tables on School Speed Survey
Summary; Glebe Avenue, A Neighbourhood Street – Before/After a change from
Unsigned 50 km/h to 40 km/h; and Fairlawn Avenue, A Local Residential
Roadway – Before/After a change from Unsigned 50 km/h to 40 km/h Speed Limit.
Mr. Flainek suggested the following three
paths to address Councillor Legendre’s original motion:
1.
Council could
present a resolution to the Province requesting consideration for lowering the
default speed limit in residential areas to 40 km/h. This can be done right away without providing any additional
commentary as to the need of the perceived effectiveness of such a measure.
2.
Council could
authorize funds in the 2007 Budget to conduct the required research, develop a
comprehensive speed zoning policy, and then, based on the findings coming out
from this study with the possible support of other Ontario municipalities, then
go forward lobbying the Provincial Government to consider such action. (After contact with the Province, staff was
advised that only a few villages have contacted the Province to look at changing
the default speed limit; no major cities within the Province of Ontario have
contacted the Province to ask for such a change.)
3.
Council could
adopt the interim 40-km/h speed limit criteria, as approved in October 2003, in
conjunction with the previously approved Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton
Speed Limit Policy to provide staff with an approved policy of setting speed
limits in all environments.
The Committee had questions of staff and the
following is a summary of the main points raised. In addition to the members of the Transportation Committee,
Councillor Harder was also present and participated in the discussion:
§
In response to
questions from Councillor Legendre, Staff Sergeant Levine confirmed that
enforcement is an important factor in establishing speed limits. However he stated the Ottawa Police Services
(OPS) do not have the resources to provide adequate enforcement if residential
speed limits are reduced with a blanket policy of 40-km/h. He spoke about OPS’ effective enforcement of
the Red Light Policy to apprehend red light runners.
§
Also, in
response to Councillor Legendre’s questions on the Walking Security Index
Study, Mr. Buck advised that recommendations contained in that Study were not
directly implemented, but were used as a base for subsequent study to further
the development of pedestrian safety issues.
§
Further to
Councillor Legendre’s query, Mr. Buck clarified that only the
arterial/collector road system – 50+-km up to 90-km roads were administered
under the Regional Speed Zoning Policy, which did not address 40-km/h zones,
and there were no criteria or methodology to determine the justification of a
40‑km/h speed limit. The report
brought forward in 2003 was an attempt to do that based on best practices in
Ontario, which was amended, but were still interim until staff finds an
improvement. There is currently no
mechanism available to the City to set out a blanket speed zone for the whole
area. Therefore, staff is suggesting
that the interim 40-km/h Speed Limit Criteria (approved by Council in October
2003 be adopted in conjunction with the previously approved Regional Speed
Limit Policy to provide staff with an approved policy of setting speed limits
in all environments.
§
In reply to
Councillor El-Chantiry’s question, Mr. Buck acknowledged that the results of a
recurring survey on this issue are not expected to change because drivers
instinctively slow down when they are in an environment around pedestrians,
school children and so on.
§
Also in
response to Councillor El-Chantiry’s question, Mr. Buck explained the process
of reducing the speed limit done on individual streets when required. Following a request, staff would conduct a
study on the appropriateness of the existing speed limit on the street, then it
is factored into the interim warrants approved by Council in 2003 for the
provision of a 40-km/h speed limit, which is a solid methodology based on best
practices across the Province.
§
Further to Councillor El-Chantiry inquiring about
the rationale of this discussion as opposed to continue implementing the
current process, i.e. keeping the status quo, Mr. Buck advised that the intent
of the report before Committee today is to address Councillor Legendre’s 21
June 2006 Motion asking staff to report back to Transportation Committee on the
process to make the default speed limit on residential streets 40-km/h. The original staff report was intended to
outline the legislative process only; and was not intended to recommend that
all City streets in the City of Ottawa be posted at 40-km/h, as was mistakenly
reported in some past media broadcasts.
§
Recognizing
that this being a complex issue, Councillor Doucet suggested that it be
deferred until the new Council is in place.
After
further discussion, Councillor Legendre put forward the following motion:
That Staff
be directed to bring forward, in the new year, a City of Ottawa Speed Limit
Policy, which would build on the 40 kilometres per hour interim speed zone
warrants (approved by Council in October 2003), in conjunction with the
previously approved Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton (R.M.O.C.) Speed
Limit Policy. This policy would set out
the methodology to determine appropriate speed limits on all City roadways.
Following
Chair Stavinga’s question to staff on its understanding and support of the
proposed motion, Mr. Flainek replied that it would not require any significant
staff resources other than putting together a staff report to provide
Transportation Committee with more information on the current Regional Speed
Zoning Policy in the New Year.
Therefore staff would not be looking for any 2007 budget pressure
dollars and could provide Committee with the report with existing staff
resources.
The
Committee then considered the following motion:
Moved
by Councillor J. Legendre:
That Staff be directed to bring forward, in the new year, a City of
Ottawa Speed Limit Policy, which would build on the 40 kilometres per hour
interim speed zone warrants (approved by Council in October 2003), in
conjunction with the previously approved Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton
(R.M.O.C.) Speed Limit Policy. This
policy would set out the methodology to determine appropriate speed limits on
all City roadways.
CARRIED
1. That Transportation Committee receive report dated 28 July
2006 (ACS2006-PWS-TRF-0023) for information.
2. That the Transportation Committee
consider the Motion tabled by Councillor Doucet at the Committee meeting of 16
August 2006.
RECEIVED with the aforementioned direction
planning and growth
management
urbanisme et gestion de la
croissance
Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy
Politiques
d’urbanisme, d’environnement et d’infrastructure
3. NORTH-SOUTH
CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT - PROPOSED EXTENSION TO THE UNIVERSITY OF
OTTAWA - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ADDENDUM
PROJET DE TRONÇON
NORD-SUD DU TRAIN LÉGER SUR RAIL – PROPOSITION DE PROLONGEMENT JUSQU’À
L’UNIVERSITÉ D’OTTAWA – ADDENDA À L’ÉVALUATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE
ACS2006-PGM-POL-0074 RIDEAU-VANIER (12)
Appearing before Committee to make a
PowerPoint Presentation on this item and to answer questions, from the Planning
and Growth Management (PGM) were staff
members Dennis Jacobs, Director, Planning, Environment & Infrastructure
Policy; Rejean Chartrand, Director, Economic Development & Strategic
Projects; Peter Steacy, Project Manager for the Environmental
Assessment for the North-South Corridor LRT Project EAs, and Barry Padolsky,
Barry Padolsky Associates Inc., Heritage Consultant. Also present to answer any questions that arise is Robert Hunton,
McCormick Rankin Corporation, Project Consultants. A copy of the PowerPoint Presentation, in both English and
French, are held on file with the City Clerk.
Staff also
showed a video on how the
signalization that would allow train and car traffic to merge on the bridge
would work.
The
Committee received the following correspondence:
§
E-Mail dated 16 October 2006 from David Flemming,
President, Heritage Ottawa, Re. LRT: University of Ottawa Extension.
The following correspondence received after
the meeting were forwarded to all Members of the Committee, copy of which are
on file with the City Clerk:
§
E-Mail dated 18
October 2006 from Alayne McGregor.
§
E-Mail dated 18
October 2006 from David Gladstone.
The Committee heard from the following
delegations:
Claudio Brun del Re, University of Ottawa (UoO) expressed the University’s support for
the EA Addendum findings and is sensitive to the transportation and traffic
issues in the community. He advised
that UoO would work closely with its consulting team and the community towards
resolving some of those issues. He
reminded the Committee of UoO’s transportation strategies that were discussed
with the community for a long time. UoO
has supported all measures of traffic calming brought forward by the community
and is therefore actively engaged in that process. The proposed parking facility is to capture vehicles coming to
the Campus and not having them penetrate towards the University or the
community, and to transform these vehicles into pedestrians as quickly as
possible.
In response to Councillors Bédard and Bloess’
questions, the following is a summary of the responses provided by the
delegation and Mr. Padolsky:
§
The new
development on Stewart Street would provide a pedestrian access to the Terminal
through the building. Plans are still
to be developed and the University fully collaborated with the City and Mr.
Padolsky on the demonstration plan.
§
Once the
University engages in its process, it would work closely again with the City
and the community to establish what the issues and guiding principles would be
for that development.
§
The University
would commit to maintaining the entranceway and to ensuring security until the
closure of the terminal and the LRT stops to operate.
§
The University
would accommodate access for cyclists, details of which would have to be worked
out at a later date.
§
As suggested by
the Councillor, the University also would prefer having the entrance of the
parking lot on Waller as opposed to on Séraphin-Marion, however the University
did not presume that was possible without doing a proper transportation study;
this would be an issue at the City level more so than for the University and
would be dealt with during the site plan application. The Séraphin-Marion proposal is just a conceptual plan and a
determination could not be made without an extensive study.
§
With respect to
the rear areas that are to be demolished in some of the heritage buildings on
Stewart Street, in the absence of Heritage Staff, Mr. Padolsky believes
that some are part of the original construction and some are annexes.
§
In terms of the
character of the heritage district, Mr. Padolsky believes that blending old
with new would enhance the existing heritage character of the Sandy Hill
Heritage District. Preliminary
discussion with LACAC and City Planning Heritage Staff on this matter was
undertaken and feedbacks were positive.
§
In
consolidating individual properties with secondary fire exit towards the back,
where the platform area for the train would be located, with new construction
at the back, the University were able to create a fire safety system
discharging towards the side. This
would also meet with the Ontario for Disability Act (ODA) by providing a cost
effective single accessibility solution for these four properties. So if an elevator is needed, construction
could be grouped at the back to revitalize these properties over time and have
a single elevator to meet the ODA’s objective.
§
Mr. Brun del Re
concurred with Councillor Bloess’ comment that it would be better to have the
Transitway veering up and heading towards Hurdman than to have the extension to
the University.
John Verbaas, a resident of the immediate neighbourhood
around the proposed extension to the Ottawa University feels that the EA
Addendum is incomplete in its current form because there is no conclusion about
where the egress and ingress to the parking lot would be. He also feels that the parking lot is as an
intrical part of the overall project as the LRT station. He thinks that some elements have definitely
been overlooked in that analysis and that some of the conclusions seem a bit
fuzzy. He expressed concern about the
inconsistency in the statement that on one hand where the egress and ingress to
the parking lot are going to be would require future study and yet, on the
other hand the details of the traffic study before Committee, definitely make
some assumptions about where the egress and ingress are going to be, and the
impacts of that on the surrounding streets.
He also expressed concern about how increased traffic in the neighbourhood
as a result of the 390-car parking garage would be addressed.
At the request of Chair Stavinga, staff
provided the following clarifications in response to the delegation’s concerns
and agreed to meet with the delegation after the meeting to discuss specifics:
§
The EA Addendum
is not seeking approval for the University of Ottawa development plan and as a
result, this development is being approved through a different process. Based on a design concept that was prepared,
staff is only assessing the potential impacts.
§
Staff did the
analysis based on anticipated public’s concerns.
§
The entrance
and exit to the proposed parking lot are yet to be determined. Based on the concept, staff assessed the
potential traffic impacts and noted the community’s concerns. These concerns need to be addressed more
correctly through the University’s development process, in conjunction with the
City’s site plan and development process.
Chair Stavinga asked that Mr. Steacy follow
up with the delegation with regards to the specifics and provide the resources
from McCormick Rankin to answer other questions. Mr. Legg, the next delegation asked to be included in those talks
as well.
John Legg, Chair of the Transportation Committee of Action Sandy Hill (ASH) focused
his presentation on the following three subjects:
1.
The City’s
consultation with the community of Sandy Hill.
2.
The effects of
a 400-space parking garage on the residential streets of Sandy Hill.
3.
The
arrangements to be made for pedestrians and cyclists with the closing of Stewart
Street.
Mr. Legg advised that ASH understands
perfectly that the City had to deal with the University of Ottawa to see if an
arrangement could be made to locate the end station of the North-South Light
Rail Transit, but questions the procedure of consulting with the community
association only after a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) had been
concluded. ASH does not wish to
minimize the complexity of the negotiations between the City and the University
of Ottawa but asked the Committee to understand that even this so called
preliminary or conceptual drawings could take on a life of their own. To include the community association’s
concerns only after an MOU had been worked out can be seen as a way of missing
out on constructive and innovative options that might have been considered and
conceived of earlier. Regarding
increased traffic on residential streets in Sandy Hill, when it comes to the
detailed traffic studies to be done by the University, ASH wonders about the
support it will receive from City Staff when the time comes to examine the
impact of combination of the closure of Stewart Street and a 400-space parking
garage. He noted that, on one hand it
is the City’s role to represent the community when it comes to the University’s
plans for future development on its own property. But on the other hand the conceptual drawings of the parking
garage including the entry and exit points have been worked out by the City in
partnership with the University with no input from the community. Referring to Document 7 on Page 34 of the
staff report entitled Demonstration Plan Above Grade, when ASH pointed out to
City staff that putting an entry to the parking garage on a quiet dead end
block seems to be a poor idea, they were told that this is only a demonstration
plan and is not a definitive idea of how the parking garage would work - that
is the block that lies between the grass in front of the historic Tabaret Hall
and some heritage buildings belonging to the University on a quiet street. In Table 3-4 of the Traffic Report on Page
23, he noted that the traffic count at the corner of that block would rise from
360 vehicles per hour to 500 in the afternoon peak hour and that this increase
of 39% would be felt on nearby streets.
He hopes that Committee will agree with him that this will be the
ultimate irony if the quality of life of residents in this part of Sandy Hill
will reduce considerably by what is meant to be an environmentally wise means
of public transportation. ASH is
therefore requesting that in the detailed traffic studies, one of the options
considers the entry and exit points to and from the garage directly from Waller
Street, which is already a highly travelled artery and is on the western edge
of the community. He realizes that
additional costs may have to be envisaged for this option but unless the
Committee wishes that a relatively quiet residential sector be sacrificed to a
substantial degree by additional traffic, he believes that this option must be
considered. He advised that he is at
the disposal of staff to brainstorm on this problem. Finally, he feels that the closure of Stewart Street will affect
cyclists and pedestrians, which supposedly are the two priority means of
transportation. Cyclists will have to
use the Laurier Bridge instead of the Mackenzie Bridge. He looks forward to learning in concrete
details what will be done to assist cyclists to go between Stewart and
Laurier. Regarding pedestrians, with
the University of Ottawa as the owner of the future building that will sit
across Stewart Street, he asked the City to ensure that pedestrians, who now
use this street, have access to Mackenzie Bridge and downtown, and will
continue to have access to the bridge.
In response to Councillor Bédard and as a
result of the delegation’s presentation, Mr. Chartrand advised that the
specific requirement for the University to maintain an entranceway for the
pedestrian flow to Stewart, is not currently in the MOU but could be made as a
requirement for any site planning, and staff would take that as a direction
from Committee and Council to ensure its implementation.
In response to Councillor Doucet’s comments
on the electric light rail system in Geneva, Mr. Legg, having experienced same,
concurred with the Councillor that seamlessly quiet electric rail going through
historic neighbourhoods was not a problem.
In response to questions from Councillors
Cullen, El-Chantiry, and Bloess, staff provided the following clarifications:
§
Page 18 of the
Staff Report, talking about ‘decoupling’, Mr. Steacy advised that is an
operational issue that Transit Services need to address. Regardless of what route the future
extension is to the east, there will always be an operational need for this
station. His interpretation of that
statement is – there may be routes coming from east and terminating at this
station of the LRT, and then head back to the east, just as there may be routes
coming from the west and south terminating at this station and then head back
to the west and south.
§
The
Rideau-Montreal Line is intended to be a continuous facility extending from the
North-South Line. The proposed majority
routes would operate in that manner; this particular station would be a
long-term operational need, and would provide a great deal of flexibility for
transit services to operate the LRT Services.
§
The Operating
Budget identifies $500,000 annually for a 25-year period as additional cost for
this extension. Access to the
University’s land is through a ground lease or through a license of occupation
in perpetuity. This cost does not
include the parking facility. As stated
in the MOU, the University is the owner and developer of everything that they
do on their property. The City will
build the station and the University will build the parking facility. The City would get access to 150 parking
spots for the Arts Court development.
§
Council has
already approved the extension to University and the location of the station on
the University. Council has also
approved the principle of an underground facility in the MOU. But as part of the environmental assessment
addendum, staff committed to report back to Committee as to what would be
reported in the EA Report. This was a
commitment that staff made both at Council and during the public consultation
to provide an opportunity for the public to attend at Committee, to express
their concerns, but this is effectively an Information Report that informs
Committee as to what the submission to the Province is so that there are no
surprises.
§
That station
would be required as a turn around point for the North-South movements in any
event. Crossovers are also needed in
the downtown in case of disabled vehicles.
So, having the station at that location does not preclude any other
option. It is still a requirement to
allow people to go from an east-west direction to a north-south direction. That is where that transfer point would
be. Some service would effectively
start at that location and just go north south; other services would and could
effectively bypass that station and keep going east or west. So, from a future operational perspective, a
point will always be required where trains could turn around to service a
north-south direction, and that effectively becomes that station because there
will be a crossover at that station that allows for the trains to reverse and
go back to service the southern end.
Any future decision, whether it is an extension to Hurdman; whether it
is an extension on Rideau-Montreal Road that would be accomplished through the
existing EA Studies, will not have any implications on this station and that
station would be required in any event.
§
That crossover
point at that terminal station is a requirement; no matter what future
decisions would be, and no matter in some ways what preference would be for
down the road, it does not negate any future decisions on a network basis.
The Committee then considered the following
motion:
Moved by Councillor G. Bédard:
That, in recognition of the fact
that the concept plan for the University development is only a demonstration of
one approach, Staff be directed to work in conjunction with neighbouring
residential community and the University in the preparation of the detailed
design of this development to resolve the noted issues of concern, in
particular pedestrian flow through the development and to the vehicular access
/ egress to the parking facility considering such options as Waller Street to
minimize impacts on the residential community.
CARRIED
That the
Transportation Committee receive the findings of the Environmental Assessment
Addendum Study to extend the North-South Corridor LRT Project 300 metres
easterly to the University of Ottawa campus and to permit general vehicular
traffic to share the LRT lane on the Mackenzie King Bridge.
RECEIVED with the aforementioned direction to staff
Councillor R. Bloess dissented.
ACS2006-PGM-POL-0072 BELL-SOUTH NEPEAN (3)
CARRIED
Councillors C. Doucet and J. Legendre dissented.
LATE ITEMS
ARTICLES SUPPLÉMENTAIRES
Councillor /
Conseiller G. Bédard
5. WAIVER TO ENCROACHMENT BY-LAW AND USE
OF CARE OF ROADS BY-LAW FOR FENCE ON THE ROAD ALLOWANCE - 35 WALLER STREET
SUSPENSION
DU RÈGLEMENT SUR L’EMPIÈTEMENT ET DU RÈGLEMENT SUR L’UTILISATION ET L’ENTRETIEN
DES ROUTES POUR UNE CLÔTURE DANS L’EMPRISE ROUTIÈRE – 35 RUE WALLER
ACS2006-CCS-TRC-0013 RIDEAU-VANIER (12)
Moved by G. Bédard:
That
in accordance with Section 81(3) of By-law No. 2005-431 - “(3) Except as
otherwise decided by a two-thirds vote of the members of Committee present and
voting, the Committee shall not consider any report, Information Previously
Distributed memorandum or any matter, that has not been distributed to the
members with the Agenda.” the rules of procedure be suspended to allow the
addition of the aforementioned item to the agenda for consideration.
CARRIED
Following a brief introduction and
explanation by Councillor Bédard, the Committee considered the following
motion:
“WHEREAS
Section 3(1) of the City of Ottawa Encroachment By-law 2003-446, as amended,
provides that, “no person shall construct erect or alter and encroachment
without first obtaining a permit in accordance with the provisions of this
by-law”;
AND WHEREAS
Section 3(2) of the By-law 2003-446, as amended, provides that, “no person
shall erect a permanent surface encroachment”;
AND WHEREAS
Section 6 of the City of Ottawa Use and Care of Roads By-law 2003-498, as
amended, provides that “no person, other than the City, shall erect a fence,
construct a wall, or plant a hedge, in, over, or upon a highway”;
AND WHEREAS
the Union Mission for Men has acquired a 99-year lease agreement for road
allowance at the corner of Besserer and Waller Streets from the City of Ottawa;
AND WHEREAS
the lessee has, in the past, constructed a porch and benches, and has installed
trees and pavers on the leased portion of the Besserer Street road allowance
(Site Plan File No. D07-12-04-0125);
AND WHEREAS
the lessee wishes to erect a wrought iron fence to be located within the
Besserer Street road allowance;
BE IT
THEREFORE RESOLVED that Section 3(1) and 3(2) of the Encroachment By-law
2003-446, as amended, and Section 6 of the Use and Care of Roads By-law
2003-498, as amended, be waived to permit the erection of a fence within the
Besserer Street road allowance, outside of the leased portion at Besserer and
Waller Streets, subject to the following conditions:
1.
That the property owner agrees to maintain the
fence, at no cost to the City of Ottawa;
2.
That, before construction of the fence begins,
proper plans be submitted for Site Plan Approval and approved by the Deputy
City Manager of Planning and Growth Management Services or his delegate;
3.
That the property owner agrees that this fence
is subject to removal and the reinstatement of the City of Ottawa’s road
allowance within 30 days receipt of a written notice to do so;
5.
That the owner acknowledges and agrees to be
responsible and liable for any damage caused to this fence within the Besserer
Street road allowance howsoever it may be caused by the City of Ottawa’s
maintenance operations.
6. That
the owner agree to enter into a Permanent Encroachment Agreement, with
associated annual fees, for the encroachment.
7.
That
the Transportation Committee direct that this motion be heard at the Council
Meeting of October 25, 2006.”
At the request of Chair Stavinga,
Michael Flainek, the Director of Traffic and Parking Operations, Public Works
and Services (PWS) confirmed that staff has reviewed this motion and is in
support of the recommendation. He noted
that Condition #2 would require the approval of the Acting Deputy City Manager
of Planning & Growth Management Services (PGM) or his delegate. It was agreed that PWS & PGM Staff would
work in concert together to expedite this matter.
The following delegation was present
at the meeting and is support of the recommendation:
§
Jill
McFarlane, Ottawa
Mission.
Moved by Councillor G. Bédard:
That Section 3(1) and 3(2) of the Encroachment By-law 2003-446,
as amended, and Section 6 of the Use and Care of Roads By-law 2003-498,
as amended, be waived to permit the erection of a fence within the Besserer
Street road allowance, outside of the leased portion at Besserer and Waller
Streets, subject to the following conditions:
1.
That the property owner
agrees to maintain the fence, at no cost to the City of Ottawa;
2.
That, before construction of
the fence begins, proper plans be submitted for Site Plan Approval and approved
by the Deputy City Manager of Planning and Growth Management Services or his
delegate;
3.
That the property owner
agrees that this fence is subject to removal and the reinstatement of the City
of Ottawa’s road allowance within 30 days receipt of a written notice to do so;
4.
That the owner acknowledges
and agrees to indemnify and save harmless the City of Ottawa for all loss,
damages, costs and expenses of every nature and kind whatsoever arising from or
in consequence of the wall within the Besserer Street road allowance, whether
such loss, damages, cost or expenses are incurred by reason of negligence or
without negligence on the part of, and whether such loss, damages, costs or
expenses are sustained by the City of Ottawa or the owner of their several and
respective employees, workers, servants and agents, or any other person or
persons, corporation or corporations whatsoever;
5.
That the owner acknowledges
and agrees to be responsible and liable for any damage caused to this fence
within the Besserer Street road allowance howsoever it may be caused by the
City of Ottawa’s maintenance operations.
6.
That the owner agree to
enter into a Permanent Encroachment Agreement, with associated annual fees, for
the encroachment.
7.
That
the Transportation Committee direct that this motion be heard at the Council
Meeting of October 25, 2006.
CARRIED
Councillor / Conseiller
C.
Doucet
6. SALE OF EXISTING TALENT O-TRAINS
VENTE
DES O-TRAINS TALENT ACTUELS
ACS2006-CCS-TRC-0014 City Wide / À l'échelle de la Ville
Moved by
Councillor C. Doucet:
That in accordance with Section 81(3) of By-law No. 2005-431 - “(3)
Except as otherwise decided by a two-thirds vote of the members of Committee
present and voting, the Committee shall not consider any report, Information
Previously Distributed memorandum or any matter, that has not been distributed
to the members with the Agenda.” the rules of procedure be suspended to
allow the addition of a motion on the aforementioned subject to the agenda for
consideration.
CARRIED
Following
a brief introduction by Councillor Doucet, the Committee considered and
approved the following motion:
Moved
by Councillor C. Doucet:
Whereas recent actions by
the minister in charge of Treasury Board have put in question when and how a
new light rail system will be built to replace the exiting O-Train service;
Whereas the existing
O-Train provides cost effective and reliable service to thousands of people
each day in a manner which cannot be matched by buses;
Whereas it is essential to
minimize the amount of time, the O-Train will be out of service as we convert
from the existing system to a new system;
Be it Resolved that any
potential sale of the existing Talent trains and related assets be put on hold
while the fate of the new LRT system is in question.
CARRIED
7. Resignation Request from Treasury
Board President
Moved by Councillor C. Doucet:
That in accordance with Section 81(3) of By-law
No. 2005-431 - “(3) Except as otherwise decided by a two-thirds vote of
the members of Committee present and voting, the Committee shall not consider
any report, Information Previously Distributed memorandum or any matter, that
has not been distributed to the members with the Agenda.” the rules of
procedure be suspended to allow the addition of the following motion to the
agenda for consideration:
Whereas the President of the Treasury Board,
John Baird, decided to withhold the federal contribution of $200 million
towards Ottawa’s Light Rail Transit Project until it had met approval of the
next elected council,
Whereas the federal contribution has been
approved by the Minister of Transportation,
Whereas the City has conformed to all the
requests for information concerning the environmental assessments, financial
structuring and construction contracts,
Whereas the courts have ruled, based on the
principles of subsidiarity, that the level of government closest to the service
being provided has the primary decision making authority,
Whereas public transit fits within the
principles of subsidiarity and its implementation would be considered
advantageous to the environment,
Whereas the present and previous Council have
voted in favour of this project more than 30 times over its development,
Whereas the final vote in July 2006 was 14 to 7
in favour of going forward with Light Rail Transit in the City of Ottawa,
Therefore be it resolved that the
unprecedented, unwarranted abrogation of municipal government authority as
practised by the President of the Treasury Board is just cause for the City of
Ottawa to ask for his resignation.
LOST
YEAS (1): Councillor C. Doucet
NAYS (6): Councillors G. Bédard, R. Bloess, E.
El-Chantiry, A. Cullen, J. Legendre, J. Stavinga
INFORMATION
PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED
INFORMATION DISTRIBUÉE AUPARAVANT
A. STATUS OF MAJOR TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT STUDIES
ÉTAT DES ÉTUDES D’ÉVALUATION
ENVIRONNEMENTALE IMPORTANTES EN MATIÈRE DE TRANSPORT
ACS2006-PGM-POL-0081-IPD CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA
VILLE
Councillor Stavinga suggested Councillor
Bloess speak to the notice of motion he presented at the last committee
meeting, which triggered this Information Previously Distributed (IPD) item
coming to the Committee at this meeting.
Councillor
Bloess agreed that an update on the status of all the Environmental Assessments
(EAs) was the best way to begin, with his motion following subsequent to this
in terms of trying to open up the Terms of Reference of the East-West LRT EA
and figuring out the most appropriate way to open up the EA and get some of the
corridors, which were ruled out back on the table.
Councillor
Legendre agreed that this IPD was an organized way to look at the various EAs
currently being undertaken and thanked staff for the Update.
With regards to
the Carling Corridor LRT EA and the Rideau-Montréal Corridor LRT EA, Councillor
Legendre noted that consultant teams have just been selected. However, he expressed concern that the
Committee was not provided with the names of the consultant teams. At the request of the Councillor, Staff
agreed to provide the names and contact information for the selected consultant
teams to all members of the Committee.
With regards to
the Interprovincial Transit Integration (Core Area) EA, Councillor Legendre
asked for some background on why and when the project management had changed.
Dennis Jacobs,
Director, Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy, Planning and Growth
Management Services, stated that the management of the project was changed from
National Capital Commission (NCC) management to Joint City of Ottawa-STO
management roughly a year ago. He
indicated that the change occurred because the NCC was unable to secure support
for funding from the Treasury Board that did not recognize the NCC as having a
role in transit. He explained that the
only way the project could have moved forward was under the leadership of the
City of Ottawa in partnership with the City of Gatineau, STO and the other
stakeholders. He noted that there were
a number of issues beyond the City’s control that have resulted in this project
not moving as quickly as anticipated.
Councillor
Legendre expressed confusion at the fact that the City of Ottawa is jointly
chairing the project with STO, rather than the City of Gatineau, as the two
organizations are not equivalent. Mr.
Jacobs explained that, whereas in Ottawa since amalgamation transit services
are a responsibility of City Council, that same situation does not exist in
Gatineau. Thus the City of Ottawa
represents the transit authority in Ottawa, and they are dealing with the STO,
which is the transit authority in Gatineau.
In response to
Councillor Legendre’s question as to why the IPD states one third of the
funding would be provided by the NCC, when Mr. Jacobs in his earlier remark
indicated that federal funds were not coming in. Mr. Jacobs agreed that this funding formula would require further
investigation.
With reference
to the Interprovincial Crossings EA, Councillor Legendre again asked that
Committee Members be provided with the names of the consulting teams that had
been chosen.
Regarding the
East-West LRT EA, Councillor Bloess appreciated that the IPD presented complies
with the first half of the motion he introduced at the last meeting which
directed staff to report on the status of the East/West LRT EA, and noted that
it went even further by giving the status of all the EAs.
With regards to
the second half of his motion, which recommended that the East/West LRT EA be
frozen until Council can consider alternative corridors for inclusion in the
study, Councillor Bloess asked for guidance on how to get the door back open
through Committee and Council to look at some of the other options to see
whether they should have been eliminated and how to get them back on the table.
Chair Stavinga
understood that there would be an opportunity when the report update would be
provided in early 2007, at which point Committee could put forward
amendments. She stated that staff had
assured her that there is nothing happening right now that would preclude or
prevent Committee in the future to change a path, for example. In response to concerns from Councillor
Bloess, Chair Stavinga clarified that the upcoming report in early 2007 is an
interim report, not the final report, and assured Councillor Bloess that there
would still be sufficient ability and flexibility to change the course.
At the request
of Councillor Bloess, Mr. Jacobs agreed that staff would endeavour to provide
in the upcoming report the issues and the rationale with respect to the
corridors that were eliminated for Committee and Council consideration. He noted that, at that point, Committee
would not just be looking at individual corridors, but would need to look at
the entire Rapid Transit Expansion Study (RTES) as a network. He also noted that staff is working up to
refresh the City’s Official Plan and Transportation Master Plan (TMP) in 2008,
so this would be a good opportunity to revisit that kind of work.
Councillor
Legendre expressed concern that money is still being spent on the East-West LRT
EA Project until the interim report and questioned why, if there was agreement
amongst Councillors that change was needed, and they were waiting to give staff
new direction.
Mr Jacobs
explained that the EAs and the corridors, while they are studied individually,
are dealt with as a part of an overall network, so to deal with a specific
piece or a leg of that network without consideration of the broader perspective
could perhaps cause problems for the overall principles and objectives in the
network. He agreed that money is being
spent in forwarding an Environmental Assessment towards a conclusion. However, he explained that unless there is a
change on the direction made by Council to say they are no longer supporting
the framework that is in the RTES, staff is not in a position to change a great
deal.
Councillor Legendre wondered when
the “Lame Duck” phase of Council began.
Chair Stavinga explained that the City Solicitor has assured her that
the lame duck provision would not kicked in for this Council because of the
estimated number of returning councillors.
Councillor Legendre suggested that
this Council, before the Election, should then give the study some new
direction as soon as possible, because if it does get changed, some money could
likely be saved.
Chair Stavinga explained that when
she initially went to staff about this issue, staff had indicated that they
could probably bring something forward on November 15. However, she was concerned that given at
that point the election would have occurred and she did not think it was
appropriate for the Committee to be dealing with a matter of that magnitude at
the end of this Council with the new Council literally two weeks away.
Chair Stavinga maintained that
staff had assured her that nothing is happening in the next couple of months
that would be closing doors and ringing up the cash register.
She asked Mr. Jacobs if he could
provide some greater follow up from his staff in order to provide that
additional assurances and confidence to members of the Committee who feel that
they have to react now, thinking that there is a lot of activity still
underway.
In response to a question from
Councillor Cullen, Mr. Jacobs confirmed that the reference in the IPD of a
meeting in “early 2007” referred to the first regular business meeting after
the new Council is constituted in January 2007.
Councillor Cullen expressed
concern that the current EA is fundamentally flawed because it is not proposing
rapid transit corridors, due to the corridors involving mixed traffic. However, he suggested that there was plenty
of time to do it right. He added that
the information does need to come out because it is an election issue, and
people want to know what is happening with the East-West LRT EA.
In response to a question from
Councillor El-Chantiry, Chair Stavinga noted that the IPD is not scheduled to
go to Council, but was circulated to all members of City Council. Councillor Bloess suggested he would be
bringing forward a motion to direct that the IPD be forwarded to Council for
information.
Councillor Stavinga noted that Mr.
Jacobs would endeavour to ensure that the IPD that goes to Council includes the
names of the consulting teams, as requested by Councillor Legendre.
In response to a question from
Councillor El Chantiry, Mr. Jacobs explained that any directive to stop feeding
money into the project would have to come by way of a motion of Council because
it was a motion of Council that initiated the work.
Councillor Stavinga requested that
Mr. Jacobs also provide, for clarity, information on what work is being done
before January and how much that will cost.
Moved by R. Bloess:
1.
That this Report be
forwarded to City Council for information.
2.
That staff be directed to
include in the comprehensive status report on the East-West LRT EA to be
presented for consideration to Transportation Committee and the newly elected
City Council in January 2007 all corridors considered in the evaluation
process, as well as the rationale for proceeding with certain corridors, while
excluding others.
CARRIED
DEMANDES DE RENSEIGNEMENTS
Councillor Doucet put forward the following inquiry, which was
referred to the Acting Deputy City Manager, Planning and Growth Management, for
response:
“How much of the $5,000,000 assigned
to Project Number 900635 – the Alta Vista Corridor in the 2005 Budget has been
spent to date and on what?”
Councillor Doucet also put forward the following inquiry, which
was referred to the Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services and the
Deputy City Manager, Community & Protective Services, for response:
“According to Parking By-Law 1996
which applies city-wise cars cannot park within 9 meters of an intersection and
within 1.5 meters of any driveway. The
closer a residential street to downtown the more likely cars are encroaching
within those limits. By-law officers on
patrol tend to only enforce blatant violation unless complaints are received in
which case the letter of the law applies.
Without complaint, many encroachments are ignored. This results in apparent inconsistency of
rules for the public and encourages people to push the envelope. The conflicting demands of people looking
for scarce parking with people who want safe driveway access and clear
intersections could be reduced by clarifying where parking is allowed and/or
changes to the by-law.
Options to clarify parking could
include things such as:
a)
more
signage for street corners,
b)
painted
parking stalls in high usage areas to show where you can park,
c) paint markings on the
road surface to reinforce where parking begins and ends (e.g. mark off the 9
meters from a street corner where cars should not park unless we have a bulb
out doing that job already).
Options to change the by-law could include:
a) instead of having a one
size fits all by-law for the entire city, include neighbourhood specific
variation to reduce the distances in high usage neighbourhoods to be consistent
with typical enforcement,
b) change the by-law city
wide to make it consistent with typical enforcement if it turns our 7 meters is
more typical than 9.
Which of the options mentioned
above, such as pavement markings, might be worth investigating further?
Are there other options worth
considering to clarify where parking is (alternately where it is not) allowed
or to make regulation and enforcement more consistent?”
OTHER
BUSINESS
AUTRE QUESTION
This
being the last meeting of the Committee before the Elections,
Chair Stavinga, on behalf of the Committee extended thanks to Public Works
& Services, and Planning & Growth Management Staff for their hard work. She also extended her thanks to her
colleagues on the Committee for the confidence placed in her.
On behalf of the Committee, Councillor Bloess thanked Chair Stavinga
for her guidance through the numerous difficult issues during her three-year
leadership as Chair.
ADJOURNMENT
LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE
The
Committee adjourned the meeting at 1:35 p.m.
Original signed by Original
signed by
Anne-Marie Leung Maria McRae
Committee Coordinator Chair
