Transportation Committee

Comité des transports

Minutes 7/ Procès-verbal 7

Wednesday, 16 May 2007, 9:30 a.m.

le mercredi 16 mai 2007, 9 h 30

Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West

Salle Champlain, 110, avenue Laurier ouest

Present / Présents : Councillors / Conseillers M. McRae (Chair / Présidente),

G. Bédard, R. Bloess, A. Cullen, C. Doucet, D. Thompson, M. Wilkinson

Absent / Absents : C. Leadman (Vice-Chair / Vice-présidente) (Regrets / excuses), J. Legendre (Regrets / excuses)

Before calling the meeting formally to order, Chair McRae congratulated Sandra Blaikie, Anchor, A-Channel News At 6 for her presentation on behalf of the Ottawa-Regional Cancer Foundation. She reassured Ms. Blaikie of City Council’s support in her quest for the cure for breast cancer.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT

No declarations of interest were filed.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Ratification dU PROCÈS-VERBAL

The Committee confirmed the following Minutes:

· Minutes 6 of the Transportation Committee meeting of Wednesday, 2 May 2007

· Joint Minutes 1 of the Transportation Committee and the Community & Protective Services Committee Meeting of Thursday, 3 May 2007.

PLANNING, TRANSIT & THE ENVIRONMENT

URBANISME, TRANSPORT EN COMMUN ET

L’ENVIRONNEMENT

PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY

POLITIQUES D’URBANISME, D’ENVIRONNEMENT ET

D’INFRASTRUCTURE

1. PRINCE OF WALES DRIVE WIDENING (FISHER TO WOODROFFE) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY – STATEMENT OF WORK

ÉTUDE D’ÉVALUATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE CONCERNANT L’ÉLARGISSEMENT DE LA PROMENADE PRINCE OF WALES (DE FISHER À WOODROFFE) – ÉNONCÉ DES TRAVAUX

Barrhaven (3), Knoxdale-Merivale (9),

ACS2007-PTE-POL-0029 River (16), Gloucester South-Nepean (22)

The Committee received the following correspondence concerning the above item, which is held on file with the City Clerk:

a. Jason McLaren, e-mail dated 14 May 2007.

b. Charles Akben-Marchand, President of Citizens for Safe Cycling, e-mail dated 15 May 2007.

c. Alayne McGregor, e-mail dated 16 May 2007.

At the request of Chair McRae, Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager, Planning, Transit and the Environment (PTE) Department introduced the following staff, who were present for this item:

· Vivi Chi, Manager of Transportation & Infrastructure Planning for the Planning, Environment, Infrastructure Policy Branch, who provided a brief introduction of the project and in turn introduced,

· Valerie Bouillant, Senior Project Engineer, who gave the formal presentation.

Also present to answer questions from the Committee was Peter Steacy, Program Manager, Transportation – EAs.

Ms. Chi advised that the purpose of the Statement of Work was to give Committee an idea of the scope of the work before initiating steps to hire a consultant. She also advised that this would become the scope of work for the consultant assignment and how the consultant will price the assignment. Ms. Bouillant, the Project Manager for this Study, gave a brief PowerPoint Presentation, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk.

Chair McRae asked if there were any delegations present to speak to this item. There being none, the Committee then asked questions to staff.

Councillor Doucet then introduced the following Motion:

WHEREAS, the Mayor’s Task Force on Transportation is due to report back in early June;

WHEREAS, in the current and preceding Transportation Master Plans the priority for travel modes is to be given first to pedestrians, second to cyclists, third to transit and to private automobiles last;

WHEREAS, Environmental Assessments for light rail and inter-provincial transit have been stopped pending the outcome of the Mayor’s Task Force on Transportation;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Transportation Committee defers consideration of the report on the Statement of Work for Prince of Wales Widening until the outcome from the Mayor’s Task Force enables the relative priorities for all transportation EAs to be clear and enables the Committee to judge the priority of this project.

At the urging of the Chair, Ms Schepers commented on the above motion. She strongly urged the Committee to proceed with the Statement of Work and the EA, noting that it had been identified in the first set of priorities in the Transportation Master Plan (TMP). As to priorities and relative timing, she suggested that anything coming out of the Mayor’s Task Force would factor into Council’s decision on when to do the actual work. She suggested that a completed EA would allow staff to proceed as funding becomes available.

Councillor Doucet noted that this was the same argument he used for continuing the light rail EAs, yet those were all put on hold. He wondered why that argument should work for this road EA when it did not work for the transit EAs. Ms. Schepers explained that there were serious questions and concerns about the direction of the various transit EAs. Thus, she felt it prudent to put those EAs on hold pending the review of the Rapid Transit Expansion Study (RTES). She suggested that there was not the same degree of contention over the TMP.

Councillor Doucet felt that it made no sense that five years of looking at interprovincial transit was not sufficient to continue with the interprovincial transit EA. Ms. Schepers advised that she recommended the interprovincial transit EA be put on hold in order to give Council the opportunity to clarify what it wanted for downtown. She suggested this was necessary before the City could adequately engage with its partners in Gatineau to implement a transit solution that works for both Ottawa downtown and the interprovincial crossings. She strongly suggested that the study be reinstituted once Council’s vision for downtown is clear.

In response to further questions as to how long the Prince of Wales EA would take, Ms. Chi advised it would take approximately 2 years. As for the interprovincial EA, Ms. Schepers noted that the City does not have control over the ultimate schedule for that EA, but estimated it would take at least 2 years, potentially up to 3 or 4 years depending on how things unfold with the City’s partners.

Councillor Harder suggested that the Prince of Wales EA was an absolute priority for herself, the residents of her ward and the other wards. She noted the reason nobody was present from the community was there was no doubt that this should proceed. She advised this project was crucial, and has nothing to do with the Mayor’s Task Force on Transportation. She urged the Committee to vote against deferral, but indicated she would have further comments once the questions to staff had been dispensed with.

Councillor Desroches agreed with Councillor Harder that the project needed to go ahead. Particularly, he suggested that there were serious safety concerns with Prince of Wales Drive and asked staff to elaborate on those.

Ms. Bouillant noted that, during a recent site visit to the Prince of Wales corridor during the PM peak, she observed a larger number of cyclists than she expected. She observed that most of these cyclists were travelling along a narrow, unpaved shoulder and expressed concern with possible interactions between them and the automobile traffic. With respect to the other arterials crossing Prince of Wales, she noted that when going from Woodroffe to Prince of Wales the visibility is poor, the traffic is heavy, and turning is difficult. Thus, she reported that interaction between different travel modes was a problem. As well, she pointed out that it is difficult for people who live on the west side of Prince of Wales to cross the road to visit the pathways along the Rideau River.

Councillor Desroches added that, with such high traffic volumes and four lanes narrowing to two; there could be unsafe passing as people become impatient. Thus, he suggested that further delays to the widening project would compromise the safety of the community, motorists and cyclists.

Councillor Cullen confirmed that the EA would look at accommodating cyclists along this corridor. He noted that he had biked along this corridor the previous week, and his cycling companion felt unsafe. He also noted that road widening can increase traffic volumes, and inquired if the EA would factor in the impact of this widening on the communities to the north. Ms. Chi confirmed that, as with any EA, they would look at the downstream effects. She also indicated that they would be going beyond the limit of the study to look at where the traffic would go.

Chair Cullen noted that the TMP shows three phases of cycling, transit and road projects: Phase 1 Projects, to be completed by 2008; Phase 2, to be completed by 2013; and Phase 3, to be completed by 2021. He noted that Prince of Wales is listed in Phase 2 and wondered if all the EAs for Phase 1 had been completed. Ms. Chi confirmed that all Phase 1 Projects had been considered (they were either completed, ongoing, or about to start), and now the City is moving to Phase 2. She noted that this list was based on growth projections at the time of the TMP in 2001/2002 and acknowledged that things change and priorities shift. She suggested the phases were not cast in stone, and explained that the growth in Barrhaven and the relocation of the RCMP headquarters created an urgency to get this particular project underway. She suggested that, while the timeline for implementation was up to Council, it would be prudent to do the EA in order to protect the corridor and save future costs and liabilities for the City.

Councillor Cullen noted that the TMP would be updated, along with the priorities, and wondered when that would occur. Ms. Chi expected that there would be a recommendation on the OP and the TMP update by late fall 2008. Councillor Cullen asked staff to send an e-mail or memo to Council indicating the status of the Phases 1 and 2 Projects, so that Councillors would be better situated to make decisions. Chair McRae noted that Ms. Schepers agreed to bring that forward as an information item to Transportation Committee.

In response to questions from Councillor Wilkinson, Ms. Chi confirmed that the current Class EA process is 5 years, and the Ministry of the Environment had not yet made the decision as to whether that timeframe would be extended. Councillor Wilkinson wondered how many EAs for road widening were completed or nearly completed. Ms. Schepers suggested that staff could include that information in the above-mentioned information report. Councillor Wilkinson suggested that would be useful, and proposed that they do the same for transit EAs. Councillor Wilkinson noted that there were also serious problems with Carling Avenue, such as a very narrow and dangerous underpass. Thus, she wanted the list to include, not only the EAs completed and in progress, but also which roads staff are looking at as the next priorities.

In response to further questions from the Councillor, Ms. Schepers confirmed that Council would revisit its priorities through the TMP update. She noted that it would be connected to the Long Range Financial Plan this time, which would have an impact on priority timeframes because of affordability. She confirmed that staff would be analyzing where the growth is occurring and where the pressure is on the roads as part of the TMP review.

Councillor Hunter focused on the scope of the project. He noted that the bigger the scope of the EA, the greater the cost. In general, he preferred to see them scoped down. He believes that there was a very well defined scope of work in this case. However, he noted that there were not many alternatives listed to the road widening, and wondered if this was because there were not many other options for dealing with the traffic in the area. Ms. Chi noted that, while they would have to look at ways to enhance on-road transit in this corridor to deal with some of the capacity deficiencies, this project was primarily a road project. She suggested that this was identified at the strategic level with the TMP.

Councillor Hunter wondered if staff had looked at the widening of Riverside Drive as a possible alternative solution to the problem of traffic coming out of the south communities. Ms. Schepers advised that the level of debate around priorities was done at the TMP level. Therefore, once the corridors and lane requirements have been established, there is no need to go back to those basics during the EA process.

As he had to leave for a previous engagement, Councillor Hunter took the opportunity to make the following comments:

· He is pleased to see the continuation of bike lanes, noting that they were put in by the former City of Nepean, and were the first bike lanes on an arterial road in what is now the City of Ottawa.

· He noted that there was a very serious accident on Prince of Wales the previous day. Though he was not sure whether better roads could have prevented that accident, he hopes this project would lead to fewer accidents and safer conditions.

· He pointed out that, while communities traditionally oppose local road widening, his community was strongly in favour and were most concerned about it taking too long.

· He maintained that, as the City expands south, appropriate and safe transportation corridors are needed to serve the community. He noted that the City is collecting a lot of development charge money from that area in order to do this.

Councillor Harder noted that a minimum of $4 Million had been spent since amalgamation on improving the Hunt Club intersections. She suggested the City has done everything to improve those intersections to handle the volume of traffic that goes through it on both sides of the Rideau River, and there is nothing more that can be done there as a “band aid” for Prince of Wales. Ms. Schepers agreed with the Councillor’s statement and believes that there has been an awful lot of work and not much more could be done.

Councillor Harder noted that when the Scope of Work for the Greenbank EA came forward, they were able to get the Southwest Transitway included at the same time. She also noted that there is no bus route on Prince of Wales south of Hunt Club, and it takes over an hour to get from her area downtown to the Rideau Centre, meaning residents have no real alternative to taking their cars. Thus, she was glad transit options would be included in the scope of this EA.

Councillor Harder noted that the residents of Country Place have long demanded the widening of Prince of Wales because they are unable to exit onto Prince of Wales via Amberwood. She suggested that, since they are not exiting onto Prince of Wales, they are all going on Merivale and McFarland, causing further traffic problems on those roads.

She asked staff, to their best judgement, if they anticipated Prince of Wales being dropped off the priority list during the review of EAs and the TMP. Ms. Chi did not see that happening, as the City had made many development decisions and approval of growth in the south urban community.

Councillor Harder wondered if the Province had considered widening Prince of Wales when they had control of it. Ms. Schepers, who worked for the Province at the time, indicated that it was indeed on the books.

Councillor Harder wondered if there would be the opportunity to include River Road from Hunt Club at the same time as this EA, and if so, what the extra cost would be. Peter Steacy, Program Manager, Transportation – EAs, explained that the TMP never identified the widening of River Road south of Limebank Road. Rather, the road transportation solution for Riverside South is the widening of Limebank Road. Councillor Harder noted that Limebank Road is too far from the area of major growth, and felt that the residents would not use Limebank Road. She recommended River Road instead, if it could be studied at the same time as Prince of Wales.

Chair McRae noted that it was within the Committee and Council’s mandate to decide if they wanted to widen River Road, and asked Councillor Desroches for his comments. Councillor Desroches understood that River Road was to be a scenic route into the City, and was therefore not identified as a priority for widening, while Limebank Road was identified as the primary entry and exit point to Riverside South. However, as Limebank is in such poor condition, many people choose to use River Road. Therefore, it was his view that the coming improvements to Limebank Road would take some of the pressure off River Road.

Councillor Harder asked staff to get back to Committee on the feasibility and cost of including River Road at this time would be. She suggested that this be brought to the attention of the Mayor’s Task Force on Transportation since she sees this as a potential opportunity to save money by doing the two roads concurrently, but emphasized that she did not want to delay the Prince of Wales EA.

Chair McRae asked if the traffic impacts outside the study area, such as at Fisher and Meadowlands along Prince of Wales, would be included in the study. Ms. Chi explained that they would review the issue of how far down to study, and discuss it with the public consultation groups. She confirmed that Council would be kept informed as the study move along.

Chair McRae also wanted to know how rapid transit would fit in specifically to this EA. Ms. Chi explained that rapid transit as a corridor in this area would not be part of this project, but on-road transit enhancement options would be looked at.

In order to give Committee a clearer sense of the traffic situation in the area, Ms. Chi provided the following data:

· About 50% of the traffic from the south on Prince of Wales heading north will turn right onto Hunt Club heading east. The remainder will continue north.

· As the road gets to Fisher, 1/3 of that remaining traffic will stay towards Fisher and 2/3 will continue on Prince of Wales.

· At Hog’s Back, 50% of the remaining volume will go east to Hog’s back, with the remainder continuing.

· She noted that the numbers do drop down as it is a long corridor and as it approaches different arterial crossings, the traffic will branch off.

· She also noted there will be growth, even if Prince of Wales were not widened.

Councillor Doucet suggested that the discussion was an example of business as usual. He expressed disappointment that the City was going ahead with all of its road expansions while deferring the major transit initiatives. He expressed sympathy for the residents and Councillors of the south end who, due to the collapse of the light rail project, had no alternative to getting in their car to go downtown. He referred to his book Urban Meltdown: Cities, Climate Change and Politics as Usual, and suggested that this was an example of politics as usual, and was not a way to solve climate change. He maintained that the City needed to change and stop building roads. He suggested that roads like Greenbank and Merivale were highly unpleasant places, and that the local residents were given no option on how those roads would be built. He suggested that his motion was not asking the City to change, but rather to slow down a bit; however, he predicted it would not carry. He remained convinced that the City is doing the wrong thing.

Councillor Cullen agreed with Councillor Doucet that this was business as usual. He suggested the City is accommodating the population growth in the south end by expanding the road infrastructure to accommodate more cars. At the same time, the OP talks about trying to increase the modal share for transit to 30% because it is cheaper for the taxpayer. He noted that much of this road infrastructure is crowded going one way, but empty coming back, as there are still few jobs in these bedroom communities. He suggested the City would not get public investment into transit by facilitating cars.

He expressed his intention to vote in favour of this particular EA because there is a growing community that needs to be dealt with. He was also pleased that bike lanes and transit priorities would be included in the EA. He suggested the City needed to debate the various issues related to growth, transit and roads, and noted that the City is in the middle of reviewing its rapid transit plan. Finally, he feels that Councillor Doucet’s motion forces us to examine some of these important issues.

Councillor Harder noted that the South Nepean Urban Design Plan, approved last year, spoke of the transit corridors within Barrhaven. She also noted that communities in Councillor Desroches’ Ward were built around transit corridors. She suggested there would be real value in having the Committee go out on road trips to various parts of the City so that all the Councillors could see the situations for themselves. She suggested this was the only way for Councillors to understand what is going on in the other parts of the City.

Councillor Harder also noted that she gets daily complaints about the bus service from Barrhaven. She suggested that merely stretching out existing routes was not sufficient to get more riders on the bus, as it takes them over an hour to get downtown. She suggested that the City has done a good job in their planning to encourage people to get on the Transitway, but has fallen short with their actions. She expressed an interest in having an item on the Transportation and Transit Committees agendas, which deals solely with Barrhaven. She maintained that the City was not giving the residents of that area an opportunity to not use their cars.

She further noted that Barrhaven has had the highest number of new homes built in the past few years, and suggested this would be continuing. She noted that those residents would have been served by light rail, but would now be on the roads. She maintained that it was critical for the Prince of Wales Widening, as approved in the TMP, to move forward as quickly as possible. She noted that Barrhaven has been contributing their development charges to projects in other areas, such as Terry Fox Drive, for years, and suggested it was Barrhaven’s turn now. She urged the Committee to support this project, and suggested it would benefit people, not only in Barrhaven, but also all along the corridor.

Councillor Desroches suggested that the City could not afford the luxury of delaying its public transit and infrastructure projects. He noted that this project has been in the works for a long time, and suggested the City had an obligation to see it through. He noted that it would benefit not only people in the South end, but also rural residents. He noted that the RCMP was moving out to the area as well, and suggested the infrastructure was needed in order to encourage businesses to locate there. He pointed out that Prince of Wales is also a gateway to the city, and it currently does not give a very positive impression.

He suggested this project was not only about housing, but also about stimulating economic growth in the south end and attracting jobs to that area so that there is not just a one-way commute. He also emphasized the urgency of dealing with some of the safety issues along the corridor, and concluded that the project should not be delayed any further.

Councillor Wilkinson expressed her support for doing this EA. However, she suggested that getting this EA done does not necessarily mean the road gets built. She gave the example of the north end of Terry Fox Drive, where the EA has been done, but the City had to do an addendum, as it had been such a long time. She noted that there is often difficulty getting the funding to actually build the roads.

Councillor Wilkinson agreed that transit was a very important component of the City’s overall plan, and noted that construction was already underway on a portion of the Transitway to the west. She suggested this was critical if they were ever going to solve some of the traffic problems in the west. She suggested it also gives the City the ability to move forward on the overall transit plan. She emphasized that it was important for Council to move forward very quickly once the report comes back in July on immediate transit solutions. She feels this project could fit into that, because there could be bus only lanes that could help the transit from the south.

Councillor Doucet wrapped up the Committee’s discussion on his motion. He suggested that the cancelled light rail project would have taken 126,000 tonnes of carbon out of the air annually. He noted that both the old and new Councils voted for it, and suggested it was lost because of the interference of former Treasury Board President John Baird, who is presently the Minister of Environment. He acknowledged his bitterness over this issue and suggested that, as climate crisis deepens, people will get angry and wonder where the leadership was.

The Committee then voted on Councillor Doucet’s motion.

Moved by Councillor C. Doucet:

WHEREAS, the Mayor’s Task Force on Transportation is due to report back in early June;

WHEREAS, in the current and preceding Transportation Master Plans the priority for travel modes is to be given first to pedestrians, second to cyclists, third to transit and to private automobiles last;

WHEREAS, Environmental Assessments for light rail and inter-provincial transit have been stopped pending the outcome of the Mayor’s Task Force on Transportation;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Transportation Committee defers consideration of the report on the Statement of Work for Prince of Wales Widening until the outcome from the Mayor’s Task Force enables the relative priorities for all transportation EAs to be clear and enables the committee to judge the priority of this project.

LOST

YEAS (2): Councillors G. Bédard, C. Doucet

NAYS (5): Councillors R. Bloess, A. Cullen, M. McRae, D. Thompson, M. Wilkinson.

Councillor Harder noted that there is supposed to be a greenway along Prince of Wales between Merivale Road and Capital Memorial Gardens. She noticed this was missing from the scope and asked that it be added. Ms. Chi agreed to take that as direction.

Chair McRae asked Councillor Wilkinson to chair the meeting so that she could move a motion. Councillor McRae indicated her support for the EA and suggested it was very important to the City.

She noted that there is a significant amount of cut-through traffic in the Carleton Heights area, much of it coming from the south end of the City. Ms. Schepers indicated that in the background work staff has tried to capture these studies. She suggested the Carleton-Heights Study was an important one, and she was happy to make sure it was included and referenced in the background materials for the Statement of Work. She indicated they would try to circle back and give the proponents a timeframe in terms of when it will be done.

Councillor Bédard spoke in favour of Councillor McRae’s motion. He noted that the EA Study for King Edward Avenue never dealt with many of the recommendations from the community. He suggested that if the Ward Councillor had presented this kind of motion at the time, those items would have been dealt with. He suggested that the motion was a positive move, and proposed that these things should be included in the terms of reference for future EAs.

The Committee then considered the following motion:

Moved by Councillor McRae:

WHEREAS the City’s Traffic and Parking Operations Branch of Public Works and Services has initiated a Carleton Heights Area Traffic Management Study, as a result of traffic concerns, and a formal request for a study from the Carleton Heights Community;

AND WHEREAS this study is currently in progress;

AND WHEREAS the Carleton Heights and Area Residents’ Association have expressed concerns about the potential impacts of the proposed widening of Prince of Wales Drive on the Carleton Heights Community;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Carleton Heights Area Traffic Management Study process and recommendations (once finalized) be included in the Prince of Wales Drive Widening Environmental Assessment Study – Statement of Work, as part of the list of Background Materials to be reviewed; and

That any recommendations of the Carleton Heights Area Traffic Management Study that potentially relate to Prince of Wales Drive, or any verified issues forthcoming from the study that relate to Prince of Wales Drive, be considered when developing and evaluating alternative solutions in the Prince of Wales Drive Widening Environmental Assessment Study.

CARRIED

The Committee then voted on the following report recommendations, as amended by the aforementioned motion:

That the Transportation Committee approve the Statement of Work for the Prince of Wales Drive (Fisher to Woodroffe) Widening Environmental Assessment as detailed in Document 1.

CARRIED, as amended

YEAS (6): Councillors G. Bédard, R. Bloess, A. Cullen, M. McRae, D. Thompson, M. Wilkinson,

NAYS (1): Councillors. C. Doucet

COUNCILLORS’ ITEMS

ARTICLES DES CONSEILLERS

Councillor / Conseiller G. Bédard

2. PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK AT THE INTERSECTION OF KING EDWARD AVENUE AND CATHCART STREET

TRAVERSE PÉDESTRE À L’INTERSECTION DE L’AVENUE KING EDWARD ET DE LA RUE CATHCART

ACS2007-CCS-TRC-0002 (Rideau-Vanier(12)

The Committee received the following correspondence relating to the above item, which were distributed to Committee members and are held on file with the City Clerk:

a. Marc Aubin, letter dated 14 May 2007.

b. Liz Bernstein, Ecology Ottawa, letter dated 15 May 2007.

c. Barbara Myers, e-mail dated 15 May 2007.

Councillor Bédard introduced his report. He noted that the community has been requesting a crosswalk for years at the corner of King Edward and Cathcart. He explained that he and the community were upset to discover that staff had decided not to install a crosswalk at that location during the ongoing reconstruction of King Edward is undergoing reconstruction. He suggested that the item came forward to Committee because he, staff and the community could not reach a resolution on the issue.

The second recommendation, that during the actual construction process, which has reduced the number of lanes on King Edward from 6 to 4, a feasibility study be undertaken to estimate the impact of permanently reducing the Avenue to four lanes, he noted that such a study was proposed in 1992 when the EA for the project was accepted, but had never been acted on. He proposed that this was an appropriate time for the study, as King Edward is currently down to 4 lanes because of the construction.

John Buck, Manager of Traffic Management introduced Bruce Mason, Manager of Construction Services West, and Ron Jack of Delcan Corporation, the Consultant, who oversaw the King Edward EA. Mr. Buck then outlined staff’s assessment of Councillor Bédard’s report. He stated that, in reviewing the report, it was staff’s position that there would be an unsafe situation if a pedestrian signal were installed at King Edward Avenue and Cathcart Street. He explained that he relayed that information immediately to the Councillor, and at the Councillor’s request went out to the community to explain the issues and answer questions.

Mr. Buck noted that EAs for existing roadways that are being modified or upgraded significantly are managed by the Infrastructure Services Branch; once it is complete, the road is then turned over to the Traffic Operations Branch, who is responsible for putting such things as signals, signs and markings on the road. Mr. Buck also noted that, as he himself was not part of the EA process, Mr. Jack was present to give an overview of the EA process, what their design was premised on, and talk about some of the design constraints.

Mr. Buck first outlined the existing traffic situation on King Edward Avenue, highlighting the following:

· King Edward Avenue is one of the City’s busiest thoroughfares, handling approximately 40,000 vehicles a day.

· This section of the road deals with 5 different governments – the Ottawa and Gatineau Municipal Governments, the Ontario and Quebec Provincial Governments and the Federal Government.

· The MacDonald Cartier Bridge is a freeway, coming in at high speed into a residential area.

· There are hills, curves, visibility problems, and a mix of traffic that is approximately 5-6% heavy trucks.

· It is the interprovincial goods movement main line.

· When something big happens on that bridge or its approaches, it causes major problems and major delays.

· The City manages this stretch of road religiously, but it is a daily challenge. He acknowledged that this situation was not ideal, but suggested staff had to deal with it and are trying their best to ensure it operates as well as possible.

Mr. Buck provided a series of photographs of the area in question in the form of a PowerPoint Slide Presentation. A copy of that presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

He explained that, from the beginning of the project, they were aware that this corridor needed to be renewed and improved from both a social and physical perspective. He believes the EA done from 2000-2002 looked at the problems and many issues that the public brought to the table. He noted that there was extensive public consultation. He maintained that they assessed this project very thoroughly, and recommended what was appropriate for the City. He also noted that they considered the full range of options to divert traffic from the residential part of King Edward Avenue, and presented them to the community and Committee of the day.

Mr. Jack then gave an overview of the area in question as it exists currently, and outlined what is being constructed.

He appreciates that the ultimate objective is to try to ultimately bring the corridor down to four lanes; however, it currently carries 5,000-6,000 vehicles an hour or 60,000 vehicles a day across the Bridge. He believes reducing it to four lanes would require 25% of the traffic in the corridor to not be there, if not, there would be impacts on goods movement, STO Transit Service, commuter traffic, and infiltration into the adjacent neighbourhoods. He also believes that the City does not currently have the means in place to divert the traffic off this corridor for the following reasons:

· There is no downtown transit plan;

· There is no integrated interprovincial transit plan;

· There is no alternative truck route available;

· There is no additional spare capacity on the existing bridges; and

· There is no agreement on or concrete plan for the next interprovincial bridge.

He then outlined what was currently being done to improve the road, which he described as being in “failure mode.” He explained that they are maintaining the current number of lanes, but reconfiguring the corridor. He then outlined the following details of the new plan:

· It significantly reduces excess pavement.

· It increases the separation of the road from the homes.

· It reduces pedestrian crossing distance.

· It increases the boulevard widths and landscaping.

· At the north section of the corridor, it has significantly improved the connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists to and from Sussex Drive and the adjacent parks.

· It has realigned the roadways in the north section to create two new city block, valued at $4 million.

· It has realigned the connections to Sussex Drive that approximately double the size of the park adjacent to the Rideau River.

· It has realigned the existing roads and brought them closer together, to try to provide a transition between the freeway section and the residential section to the south, and try to create a bit of a parkway environment in the middle.

Mr. Jack explained that, only from Boteler to Laurier, the corridor is six lanes, and the rest is already 4 lanes. He also explained that the ultimate design has been done very cognizant of the desire to eventually go down to four lanes. The six-lane section has been designed with a minimum-width median in the middle, so if the City decides to go down to four lanes, the curb lane on each direction could be removed without affecting the proposed sidewalks, landscaping, lighting or median. He maintained that this could be done very inexpensively.

He believes that the study done was thorough and comprehensive, and that they worked with the community to come up with a solution that the majority agreed with. He noted that Committee and Council approved the EA and design contract, and the project has been underway for two years and there have been few expressions of concern during this time.

Thus, Mr. Jack concluded that, while it will be relatively simple to go down to four lanes at some point, there needs to be other alternatives in place before this can happen. He noted that City staff has looked at the implications of the construction-related lane reductions, and the other interprovincial crossings and approaching streets, and they all have increased congestion and volume. He referred to a memorandum from Tom Fitzgerald, Superintendent, Traffic Operations, which outlines the various problems caused by the lane reduction, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk.

Mr. Jack then went into further detail about the layout of the area, by means of maps and photos of the area, which were distributed to Committee and are held on file with the City Clerk. About the issue of a pedestrian crossing at Cathcart Street, he explained that when they did their preliminary recommendations on the EA, they did not recommend it, feeling that the new north end solution combined with the existing pedestrian crossing at St. Andrew Street accomplished that safe access. However, there was some concern by the community, and the then Ward Councillor asked that the underground traffic plant be put in at Cathcart to give the future option to provide signals there if it made any sense. As this was included in the EA, the underground plant is being put in as part of the design, but it was not part of the initial recommendation of the EA because it was not felt it was safe to do so.

The Committee then heard from the following public delegations:

Angela Rickman, President of the Lowertown Community Association, spoke in support of the report recommendations. She suggested the fact that there were few people present at the meeting was not indicative of a lack of concern it the community. Rather, she advised that it was emblematic of the community’s cynicism felt around the issue of King Edward Avenue and how the process has dealt with their concerns.

She explained that the community had been working on this issue for decades, and highlighted the timeline of the King-Edward pointing out that the matter had gone to the OMB in 1999 and the renewal project was a result of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision. She noted that one of the OMB’s prime concerns was the roadway was not appropriate for the area, and was unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists. She challenged the assertion that the majority of the community was in favour of the Delcan’s recommendations during the public consultations. She feels that the vast majority of the improvements being made to King Edward supports improving traffic flow and making it easier for vehicles to move through the community and does very little to improve the community. She took exception to the level of consideration of community concerns and the level of care taken with the process undertaken.

She suggested that the only reason the community went along with this process through the EA was that they were promised a crosswalk at Cathcart St. She noted that Mr. Buck had explained to the community that it would not be safe, and that the number of people crossing the road was not adequate to require a crosswalk. She also suggested that nobody was crossing there because it was unsafe without a crosswalk. She hoped to take Councillors and others on a tour of the area to see the situation for themselves, and invited any interested Councillors to attend. She expressed the Lowertown Community’s desire for a crosswalk at that location, and their anger at being told so late that it is not going to happen. She further noted that local residents were organizing protests to raise awareness of the situation. Finally, she urged the Committee to approve the report recommendations, as it would promote public safety, and feels it was the least the Committee could do.

Councillor Bédard had questions regarding the usefulness of alternate means for crossing King Edward Avenue in that area, namely the underpass to the north and the crosswalk to the south at St. Andrew Street. Ms. Rickman suggested that, while some find those crossings useful, the distances are too long for the many young families in the area. She noted that, aside from people trying to access the park, there are a number of residents who need to cross there for commuting purposes.

Ms. Rickman also noted that, as there is no school in Lowertown West, children walking or biking to York Street School or Rockcliffe Park School need to cross King Edward Avenue. She suggested the required detour for any one living south of Guigues Street is not currently safe or feasible for children. She pointed out that one of the reasons given for not having the crosswalk is that it would slow down traffic. She noted that the traffic that would be inconvenienced is largely from Quebec, while the Lowertown residents are the ones living there and paying taxes there. She expressed the frustration of residents living in a community that has been cut in half by King Edward Avenue, and maintained they should be able to access both sides of the community. She noted that the Transportation Master Plan talks about improving walking access for the public, making communities safer and joining neighbourhoods divided by roads.

She also pointed out that the road reconstruction is smoothing the curves coming onto King Edward which, while it is safer for the trucks, also means they do not have to slow down coming into the residential area. She suggested there were measures that could be taken, such as a flashing sign that would warn traffic about the upcoming stop.

Councillor Bédard noted that in the Official Plan, the focus for the Lowertown street environment is improving pedestrian safety and access across King Edward. Ms. Rickman agreed with Councillor Bédard’s observation that, because of the large distance to the other crossings, many people cross at Cathcart anyway, even without a crosswalk, which is a dangerous situation. She also noted that there had been accidents at other nearby intersections, and suggested that slowing the traffic at one end and providing longer crossing times for people at crosswalks all along the corridor would provide more safety. She believes that this crosswalk, while it does not solve the problem entirely, is a start.

Councillor Wilkinson observed that King Edward Avenue used to be beautiful, and agreed with Ms. Rickman that it had gone down hill. In response to questions from Councillor Wilkinson, Mr. Jack pointed out that the existing crossings were located at St. Andrew, St. Patrick and Murray, and a new connection from Sussex that goes under King Edward, providing access for residents west of King Edward to the park to the east, which was not possible before. In response to questions from Councillor Wilkinson, Ms. Rickman explained that, aside from people crossing illegally at Cathcart, children have to ride their bikes all the way up one side of King Edward in order to cross, and then back down the other side, which is dangerous considering there is no bike path or protection for cyclists.

Marc Aubin, a Lowertown Resident spoke in favour of the report recommendations. He explained that he was speaking on behalf of himself as a fifth generation Lowertown resident, as well as on behalf of the King Edward Avenue Task Force. He provided a PowerPoint presentation consisting of series of photographs of King Edward in the past and present. He also submitted detailed comments and recommendations for the area before the meeting, which were distributed to Committee members. A copy of these documents is held on file with the City Clerk.

Mr. Aubin spoke in support of the study and the possible reduction of King Edward Avenue from six to four lanes. He agreed with the previous delegation that, during the EA process, the community was not impressed with the recommendations being made by the Delcan Corporation and thought they fell considerably short of improving the situation. He noted that the Transportation Committee at the time did not support the community’s push for the immediate reduction from six to four lanes. However, they directed that after certain milestones were passed, the City should examine the feasibility of this option. He suggested that those milestones had passed and nothing had been done.

He noted that the City Staff was doing their job in providing quantitative data and arguments that indicate King Edward cannot be reduced to four lanes. However, he suggested that the qualitative analysis was missing. He also suggested that Council could use their judgement and take into consideration all the variables. He noted that King Edward has been four lanes since construction started, with no widespread traffic chaos and no reports that traffic is out of control in the downtown area, and the City has been able to manage the traffic. This led him to the conclusion that, in practice, the four-lane situation is working despite the modelling that indicates otherwise.

He feels this was a political decision, a policy decision, and that it was up to Council to decide how much traffic they want on King Edward (rather than how much we need). He also feels that there would always be an excuse to keep the extra lanes. He concluded that the lane reduction would be a partial, but substantial, solution to the long-term problems of King Edward Avenue.

Chair McRae indicated that she would be supporting the report recommendations. She noted that it was not a political decision, but one with financial consequences as well.

The Committee then proceeded with questions to staff:

Councillor Cullen understood that, as part of the construction underway, the ductwork for a pedestrian-operated traffic signal would be put into place. Mr. Buck suggested that was central to the issue. He noted that commitment was made during the EA process. He advised that, when staff looked at it in detail they realized there was no chance from a safety perspective that a pedestrian signal could be installed at that location. Thus, he suggested the question of whether the duct should be installed or not was now moot.

Councillor Cullen then inquired as to the cost of installing a pedestrian-operated traffic signal given that the ductwork has not been installed. Mr. Buck suggested it was in the order of $100,000. Councillor Cullen then asked if those costs could come out of the capital budget for this project, should Council approve the report. Mr. Buck initially suggested that it could not and that it would need to be ranked with other locations and submitted as part of the next year’s budget. However, upon further questioning from Councillor Cullen, he clarified that it could come out of the capital project if that were the will of Council.

In response to questions of clarification from Councillor Cullen regarding Recommendation 2 of the Report, Councillor Bédard explained that the rationale behind having a feasibility study concurrent with the construction was that King Edward is down to four lanes. Thus, the impact of having the road at four lanes can be assessed at this time.

Councillor Cullen wondered if, in developing this project, staff had given any consideration to reducing King Edward Avenue to four lanes. Mr. Jack confirmed that they had looked at this option. However, upon further analysis, they found that 1,000-1,500 vehicles per hour would have to be diverted elsewhere for a four-lane corridor to serve transit, commuters, goods movement and emergency vehicles in an acceptable manner. He confirmed that this was presented to a previous Council.

Councillor Wilkinson noted that the project approved by Council included the installation of underground traffic plant at the King Edward and Cathcart intersection to accommodate possible future pedestrian-activated traffic signals. She wondered why this was not happening even though Council approved it.

Mr. Buck explained that the normal process is for staff to review things from a technical end, make a decision and forward that recommendation on to Committee and Council so they can make an informed decision. He advised that in this case, there was no dialogue with Traffic Staff when this possible pedestrian crossing was included during the EA study process. He explained that, now that they have been asked for their comments, Traffic Staff must inform Council that a signal at this location will be unsafe. He noted that this happens very rarely. Mr. Buck emphasized that they could not, under any circumstances, recommend that a signal be located there. He noted that accidents are preventable and predictable, and maintained that a pedestrian traffic signal at that location would be a dangerous situation.

Councillor Wilkinson recognized Mr. Buck’s concern, and wondered how it could be made safe. He suggested that some measures were needed to slow down the traffic coming into the residential area.

Mr. Jack acknowledged that the situation on King Edward Avenue was not ideal, and suggested his team was trying to come up with a best plan to deal with the situation. He suggested they were trying to provide an interface between a freeway and a residential area, which is very challenging. He did not disagree with the community that it would be great to have a pedestrian crossing; however, he suggested that it just does not work at this location. In response to further questions from Councillor Wilkinson regarding alternatives, Mr. Jack suggested that an overpass would be an option. He explained that the suggestion of installing underground ducts for a pedestrian-operated traffic signal was a compromise, not a technical recommendation from his team. It was thought that, since it does not cost much, the ducts could be installed to give the option of a traffic signal later. Councillor Wilkinson suggested they should still put the ducts in, as the situation could change over time, and it would be much more expensive to go back and put them in at a later date.

In response to questions from Councillor Bédard regarding the costing, Mr. Buck explained that it was approximately $100,000 for the traffic signal. He suggested the cost of the ductwork was insignificant, approximately $5,000, and could be done immediately, as long as there was not the expectation that a signal could be automatically put in. Councillor Bédard proposed that the funds be allocated from the King Edward Project.

Councillor Wilkinson suggested that the details of the funding needed to be clearer. Therefore, she asked that the report be approved in principle, with staff reporting back within a month on how it would be funded. Councillor Bédard suggested that the funds could be reallocated from within the King Edward Project. As to Recommendation 2, he suggested that there are very few funds required for that study, but suggested there should be a report back on that.

In response to questions from Chair McRae, Mr. Buck confirmed that, if the Committee approved the signal and directed that $100,000 be allocated towards its installation from the existing budget, it could be done. Mr. Mason added that all the funds are currently allocated, so staff would need direction as to where to get the $100,00. Chair McRae suggested that it would be up to staff to determine that, and then tell Committee and Council.

Councillor Cullen asked for separate votes on Recommendations 1 and 2. Councillor Bédard confirmed that Recommendation 2 was to be referred to staff to come back with the costs of the feasibility study. Therefore, Councillor Cullen indicated that he would support both recommendations.

Moved by Councillor G. Bédard:

That Recommendation 1 be amended to read “That a pedestrian operated traffic signal be installed at the Intersection of King Edward Avenue and Cathcart Street, and that funds be allocated from the King Edward Capital Project.

CARRIED

That Recommendation 2 be referred to staff for a report back to Committee with financial estimates.

CARRIED

The Committee then approved the Report Recommendations, as amended.

That the Transportation Committee recommend Council approve:

1. That a pedestrian operated traffic signal be installed at the intersection of King Edward Avenue and Cathcart Street, and that funds be allocated from the King Edward Capital Project.

2. That the following recommendation be referred to staff for cost estimates:

That during the actual construction process, which has reduced the number of lanes on King Edward from 6 to 4, a feasibility study be undertaken to estimate the impact of permanently reducing the Avenue to four lanes.

CARRIED as amended

Councillor / Conseiller C. Doucet

3. SLIDE-SHOW REGARDING TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IN HAVANA, CUBA

DIAPORAMA CONCERNANT L’INFRASTRUCTURE DE TRANSPORT DE LA HAVANE (CUBA)

Due to time constraint, the Committee deferred viewing the aforementioned slide show to a future meeting.

LATE ITEM

ARTICLE EN RETARD

Councillor / Conseiller R. Bloess

4. PARKING INFRACTION FINES AT MOONEY’S BAY & STUEMER PARKS

CONTRAVENTIONS DE STATIONNEMENT AUX PARCS MOONEY’S BAY ET STUEMER

ACS2007-CCS-TRC-0005 River (16) & Orléans (1)

Moved by Councillor R. Bloess:

That in accordance with Section 84(3) of By-law No. 2006-462 - “(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 Bloess, the Committee considered the following motion:

WHEREAS, parking infraction fines at Mooney’s Bay Park & Stuemer Park are prescribed under the by-law relating to private property, as is for downtown parking lots, at a cost of $65.00 ($55 for early payment) for failure to pay or time expired at a meter or pay and display unit;

AND WHEREAS, residents come to parks in the spirit of enjoyment and a healthy environment during the summer season;

AND WHEREAS, in relation to other parkland offences, the fines range from $40 – 50;

AND WHEREAS, in relation to on-street offences, the fines range from $30 – $40 for expired meters;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT, the parking infraction fines for Mooney’s Bay Park and Stuemer Park be reduced to $30 – $40 for failure to pay or time expired at a meter or pay and display unit.

CARRIED

At the request of Councillor Bloess, the Committee also approved that the aforementioned motion be forwarded to City Council for its consideration at its meeting of 23 May 2007 in view of the upcoming season.

ADJOURNMENT

LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE

The Committee adjourned the meeting at 12:15 p.m.

Committee Coordinator Chair