Document Sample
minutes2 Powered By Docstoc
					                        Transportation Committee
                          Comité des transports

               MINUTES 25 / PROCÈS-VERBAL 25

             Wednesday, 5 November 2008, 9:30 a.m.
              le mercredi 5 novembre 2008, 9 h 30

          Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West
          Salle Champlain, 110, avenue Laurier ouest

Present / Présents : Councillors / Conseillers M. McRae (Chair / Présidente), C.
                     Leadman (Vice-Chair / Vice-présidente), G. Bédard, R. Bloess,
                     A. Cullen, C. Doucet, J. Legendre, D. Thompson, M. Wilkinson


No declarations of interest were filed.

CONFIRMATION              OF                            MINUTES                      /

Minutes 24 of the Transportation Committee meeting of Wednesday, 15 October 2008
were confirmed.

     ACS2008-COS-TRF-0032                             RIDEAU-VANIER (12)

     The following submissions were received in advance of the meeting and distributed.
     Copies are held on file.

     a.   East Market Condominiums Phase 3 e-mail dated 30 October, 2 Novmeber
          and 3 November
     b.   J. Caron-Sabourin, resident email dated 3 November
     c.   C. Ouellette, G. Uddin and A. Uddin, residents letter dated 5 November
     d.   M. White, parent of a child at Andrew Fleck Daycare, letter dated 5
     e    M. Aubin, Lowertown resident, letter dated 3 November
     f.   B. Clute, resident email 1 November
     g.   K. Carradine, Manager, Andrew Fleck Daycare Centre letter 3 November
     h.   G. Shafer, resident email 3 November and 4 November
     i.   H. Proulx, resident email 3 November and 4 November
     j.   J. Ikura, resident email 2 November
     k.   K. Bujold, resident email 5 November
     l.   L. Parsons, resident email 3 November
     m.   M. Vallee, King Edward Avenue Task Force email 5 November
     n.   P. Ma, resident email 5 November
     o.   S. Grant, resident email 3 November
     p.   W. Stewart, resident email 3 November

     Councillor Bédard advised that he would be putting forward the following Motion
     to replace the staff recommendations:

          1. Reaffirm the removal of the bus waiting areas on York Street, George
             Street and King Edward Avenue, and designate a bus waiting area on
             the east side of Cumberland Street between Rideau and George Street
             to be in effect at all times.
   2. Approve the designation of a bus-only lane, southbound, on King
      Edward Avenue, from Monday to Friday, 2:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., with
      implementation to occur as phases of the construction are completed.

   3. Direct City staff to carry out a study of the area between St-Patrick
      Street, King Edward, Laurier Avenue East and Sussex in consultation
      with appropriate stakeholders, to identify and consider all traffic
      operational measures as well as bus waiting areas for STO and OC
      Transpo operations in Ottawa, including any necessary changes to
      transit routings, and to report back to Transportation Committee and
      Council by April 2009 on measures to improve the overall situation.

   4. That funding for this study be considered in the 2009 budget

   5. Direct City staff to continue to work to identify any required changes
      to OC Transpo inter-provincial services resulting from Council’s
      directions on STO operations in Ottawa, and to report back to Transit
      Committee as required.

Moved by A. Cullen

That the rules of procedure be waived to provide additional speaking time for
representatives from the STO.


Patrice Martin, Chairman, Michel Brissette, Director General, and Salah Barj,
Director, Planning and Development, STO (Société de Transport de l‟Outaouais)
provided a detailed overview of their position on the matter. The more salient points
noted were as follows:
      The STO uses three bridges to move tens of thousands of people on a
        daily basis on both sides of the river
      They plan to decrease the number of lay-by areas to zero by June 2009;
        until then, they will require the use of the Union terminus
      If they have to remove all of their waiting buses today from the
        downtown, the STO will lose riders and it will increase the number of cars
        going into Ottawa‟s core
      The STO is planning to build a new facility in Gatineau, which will be
        ready in 2010
      They will be implementing a Rapi-bus system which will change the
        way buses circulate in Gatineau and will reduce the number of buses coming
        into Ottawa.

A copy of their presentation (English and French) is held on file.

Councillor Bédard congratulated the STO for their work and efforts to reduce the
number of buses in the downtown area. He asked what the impact would be if they
could not use the Union Terminus and Mr. Martin advised that that station is an
important part of their planning to remove buses from both downtown areas because
it is situated away from the residential community. He explained that once the new
STO station is built in 2010, the STO will remove as many buses as possible from
that station.

When asked by Councillor Cullen if they agreed with the Motion to amend the staff
recommendations, Mr Martin requested that the number of spaces be increased to
four by adding a location on the west side of Cumberland. He further requested that
the spaces be made available until June 2010.

Councillor Bédard introduced a second Motion, the effect of which would be to
direct staff to continue to work with the STO to identify and recommend the longer-
term arrangements for transit services between Gatineau and Ottawa and to report
back in one year, or earlier at the conclusion of the Interprovincial study. Until that
time, the STO would continue to use the Union terminus. Alain Mercier, Director of
Transit Services offered that if OC Transpo has until April to determine the
necessary number and location of spaces, they would be in favour of completing the
study and coming back to discuss the Union terminus.

Councillor Bloess asked if the STO is planning (in the long term) to eliminate the
Union terminus and also asked if there was a way to use that station without
impacting residents on Boteler Street. Mr. Martin explained that in the short term,
they would like to reduce the 357 buses currently using Boteler. It would be
difficult to move out of Union Station because it will drastically change the service
base and will cause traffic problems.

Mr. Mercier offered that when King Edward was under construction, STO
operations had to be moved and Union station was selected to reduce the impact on
residents living on King Edward, Cumberland and York. The site was selected on a
temporary basis, until the long-term infrastructure had been put in place.

Dr. Alan Wu, President, Board of Directors, East Market Condominiums Phase 3
made note of the fact that the report indicates that the bus waiting area proposed
on the south side of George Street will only impact the LCBO parking lot and
grocery store, but fails to mention the impact this will have on residents living on
the north side of the street. He advised that they have collected a petition with
231 signatures in opposition to the staff recommendation because putting the bus
waiting area on Cumberland is unacceptable to residents. He suggested that
further west on George Street, there is room for two buses to park in front of the
Drinks Pub, which will have no impact on residents. Additional details are
provided in his letter dated 30 October which was previously distributed and held
on file.

Mr. Mercier indicated that the location mentioned will be part of the review of
suitable spaces.

Peggy DuCharme, Downtown Rideau BIA spoke on behalf of stakeholders adjacent
to the impacted area in the Rideau/Cumberland/George/Dalhousie/King Edward
corridor in opposition to staff Recommendation 1. They were particularly
concerned about the growth of transit in the area, noting that since 2006, the number
of STO buses entering Ottawa have increased from 572 to 861 and the majority of
those were only half-full. With regards to the Motion brought forward by the ward
councillor, she commented that Cumberland is a one-way street, a short block from
Rideau and George Street where there is already a designated STO lay-by on the
east side and she wondered how these buses will be approaching and exiting this
block. She emphasized that the growth issue is not being addressed by these band-
aid solutions. A copy of her submission dated 4 November is held on file.

Councillor Bédard explained that his Motion recommending a study will look at the
entire area because of the recent fatality at Rideau and King Edward and because of
the growth problems. He believed this would address the issues for the STO and OC
Transpo, as well as all other traffic impacts through that part of the core. Ms.
DuCharme was concerned about putting buses on Cumberland without assessing the
situation. However, as a short-term measure, she did not see it being a problem.
The councillor clarified that his Motion does not suggest that buses park on one side
of Cumberland or the other, but does direct staff to determine if it is feasible and to
report back.

Barbara Myers, resident put forward the following points:
     Residents have put up with the safety and health issue for 34 years and it
       cannot be allowed to continue
     The provision of a southbound transit lane on King Edward between
       2:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., is not in the best interests of residents and STO bus
       drivers are frequently using the space on the street to lay-by; she asked that
       this provision not be approved because traffic is light on southbound lanes in
       the afternoon and is therefore open to abuse
     Given that STO buses are carrying less then half capacity during rush
       hour, she suggested that they reduce duplication (as well as the number of
       buses), thereby eliminating the problem of laying by in Ottawa.

In closing, Ms. Myers asked the Committee to confirm the directives Council took in
August, and ensure that all STO buses are prohibited from waiting and laying-by on
Ottawa streets. She urged Committee to resolve the problems once and for all and
not to carry out yet another study to the detriment of the health and well-being of the
affected community.

Michel Vallée, President, King Edward Avenue Task Force did not support having
an ongoing lay-by on George, King Edward or York. He agreed with the position
taken by the previous speaker with regards to the bus-only lane on King Edward,
especially when, it is the only place for residents along King Edward to park. He
suggested delaying the bus- only lane until construction is completed. Mr. Vallée
further noted that when residents agreed to the construction of the Union Station, it
was on the condition and the commitment by the STO who were awaiting resources
from their provincial government to build a lay-by area in Gatineau, which now
appears to be delayed for another two years.

With regards to the Motion put forward by Councillor Bédard, the delegation had
difficulty with buses being allowed to lay-by on the east side of Cumberland. And,
while he did not disagree with conducting a study, he believed it should include a
long-term integrated bus approach between Gatineau and Ottawa in order to reduce
the number of buses and increase ridership.

Angela Rickman, President, Lowertown Community Association supported
Councillor Bédard‟s Motion, save and except continuing to allow the bus lay-by on
Cumberland Street. She commented on the fact that buses are idling and there have
been no assurances that By-law Services will enforce the idling by-law because they
do not have the resources to do so. Ms. Rickman added that on numerous occasions,
the Association has supported the implementation of loops that would eliminate the
need for STO to park or operate Union Station as a terminus for routes that run
through downtown and she believed that simply continuing to study to maintain the
status quo would not solve the problem. She suggested that if there is to be a study,
that there be meaningful consultation with the community, with adequate
stakeholder representation.

Responding to her concerns about enforcement, Susan Jones, Director of By-Law
and Regulatory Services explained that By-Law services are performing blitzes in
the area to deal with enforcement issues, but pointed out that bus drivers will
drive off before incurring an idling by-law violation. Mr. Mercier added that OC
Transpo and STO drivers are aware of this by-law and he commented on the
difficulty of supervising nearly 1,000 operators between the two agencies. He
agreed that enforcement needs to be part of the solution and the commitment by
the STO would be to increase supervision to achieve compliance. He confirmed
that the STO have inspectors regularly at Union Station and Mr. Barj added that it
is a priority to have a permanent inspector during the afternoon peak times in
problem areas in the hopes of solving this particular problem.

Responding to a question posed by Councillor Cullen, Mr. Mercier confirmed that
as part of the study, consultation would be carried out with appropriate
stakeholders, including the community associations and the local BIAs.

Marie White spoke as a concerned parent of a child attending the Andrew Fleck
Day Care on George Street. She fully supported the removal of STO buses from
George Street. The more salient points she raised were as follows:
     was especially concerned about buses idling beside the day care and
       the affect this has on the children when they are playing outside
        the report does not speak to the health impacts on these children as a
        result of these buses, and the fact that drivers are on a continuous rotation
        means there are always several buses idling at a time
        parked buses on George Street causes an acute danger for parents and
        children crossing to enter and exit the day-care; STO buses are occupying
        the available parking spots for parents dropping off or picking up their

Responding to a question posed by Councillor Doucet, Ms. White advised that the
Director of the day-care had approached the bus drivers to ask them to turn their
engines off and was told they could not because the engines are old and they risk not
being able to restart them.

Michael Casey made the following comments:
     as recommended by Council in August, the STO were advised that
      they have to provide bus lay-by areas in Gatineau and would have one
      year to do so
     as a result of the issue on King Edward, he believed that the problem
      of parked STO buses has now shifted to other local streets and maintained
      that to solve this problem, Ottawa has to force the STO to have their own
      stations in Gatineau
     not a lot of traffic comes into Ottawa between 2:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.
      and the bulk of what is coming in is STO buses; he suggested they be
      asked to park on the bridge if they have to wait to begin their shift
     the STO buses should be removed from Boteler Street and washroom
      facilities should not be built at Union station because that would make it
      more of a permanent station for their use.

Responding to a question posed by Councillor Bloess as a result of the
delegation‟s suggestion to use the bridge, Mr. Mercier commented that there was
an engineering study done on the capacity issues on abusing the bridge. The
bridge is within federal jurisdiction and there have been meetings between the
senior levels of government on the use of the bridge. He believed the inter-
provincial bridge crossing study would address the capacity utilization in this

When asked how many OC Transpo and STO buses lay-over on each side of the
river, Pat Scrimgeour, Manager of Transit Services advised that three to seven OC
Transpo buses lay-over just north of Place du Portage and between 15 and 22
STO buses lay-over in Ottawa, with five spaces on York and 17 at Union station.
Mr. Barj added that OC Transpo buses also lay-by on Sacre Coeur.

If the Committee were to approve the Motions presented, Councillor Leadman
inquired whether they would supercede those which were approved by Council in
August. Councillor Bédard explained that his Motion changes the staff
recommendations before the Committee. He further noted that until the results of
the interprovincial study come forward in one year‟s time, the STO will be able to
use the terminus at Union Street.

Councillor Leadman suggested that if the results of the study being recommended
by the ward councillor do not solve the problem, it would appear the community
has to then wait until the results of the interprovincial crossing study before
finding a resolution to this problem. Mr. Casey suggested the Motion be amended
to add: “notwithstanding the results of this study, it is understood that the STO
will relocate their bus lay-bys to Gatineau within 12 months.”

David Gladstone, Friends of the O-Train believed community safety was the issue
and that Council must consider extending the O-Train across the Prince of Wales
bridge now, because STO and OC Transpo buses are congesting the downtown
streets because there is no light rail service across that bridge. He cited the fact
this bridge is completely unused while trucks and buses congest King Edward,
Rideau and Wellington. He agreed that a very firm deadline must be set,
accompanied by Council directing staff to proceed with extending the O-Train
across the Prince of Wales bridge into Gatineau.

Councillor Cullen hoped the Committee would support Councillor Bédard‟s
Motion and believed that the interprovincial study will be an important input to
this issue. He commended the councillor and staff from both transit agencies for
coming up with something that was manageable.

Councillor Wilkinson recognized there was no funding in the 2009 budget to
conduct the study being recommended in Councillor Bédard‟s Motion and
wondered if staff should not already be doing this, without it being an added
budget pressure. Mr. Mercier commented that the nature of the study is far more
wide-ranging related to traffic, safety and other elements, that go beyond what
staff does in terms of managing operations to try to minimize bus usage on local
streets. Rob Orchin, Manager, Mobility and Area Traffic Management agreed to
provide details on the magnitude of the study prior to the item rising to Council
on 26 November. He confirmed it is certainly beyond what staff can deal with in
their day-to-day operations. The councillor could not support adding anything
more to the City‟s budget and preferred to see the interprovincial rapid transit
study done before moving forward on the Motion. She preferred to resolve the
issue with the buses first before looking at what else has to be done to address the
traffic issue and subsequently proposed that Items 3 and 4 of the Bédard Motion
be deferred until completion of the interprovincial rapid transit study.

Councillor Bédard pointed out that Item 3 would specifically address the question of
the interprovincial rapid transit system study and stated that they are to be done
together. He suggested that if it is not done in coordination with or at the same time
as the other study, it will have to be redone. Staff were unable to indicate how long
and at what cost such a study would take and Mr. Orchin confirmed it would depend
on what comes out of the issues.
Following some additional discussion on the matter and while she still preferred
to defer the two parts of the Motion, Councillor Wilkinson decided to withdraw
her Motion. On the substantive Motion put forward by Councillor Bédard, she
reiterated her difficulty with adding to the budget and suggested that the only way
to do this study, would be to remove something else.

Moved by G. Bédard

That staff be directed to continue to work with STO both directly and as part
of the Inter-provincial Rapid Transit Study to identify and recommend the
longer-term arrangements for transit services between Gatineau and Ottawa,
to report back to Transportation Committee, Transit Committee and
Council one year from now, or earlier at the conclusion of the Inter-
provincial study, and to continue the interim use of the Union terminus until
that time.


The Committee agreed to vote on the individual portions of the substantive
Motion as follows:

Moved by G. Bédard

WHEREAS on August 28, 2008, Council directed that all STO waiting areas
on the following three streets, King Edward Avenue, George Street and York
Street, will no longer be available, subject to staff bringing forward a report
by the end of October 2008 for consideration by the Transportation
Committee on the steps to be taken to immediately implement the removal of
STO buses and to accommodate the STO in the short term;

AND WHEREAS on August 28, 2008, Council directed that all STO buses
must be provided with bus lay-by areas on the Gatineau side of the Ottawa
River and that one year be provided for the STO to provide this

AND WHEREAS the use of the south side of George Street between
Cumberland Street and King Edward Avenue as a full-time bus waiting area
is not acceptable given the proximity to the Andrew Fleck Day care Centre;

AND WHEREAS the STO services currently using the existing time points
on York Street and George Street are scheduled months in advance and
planned to operate at the current level until January 2009, and is planned to
be at a reduced level in January 2009;
AND WHEREAS STO has indicated that the scheduled use of the York
Street and George Street time points is to be eliminated in June 2009;

AND WHEREAS there will be impacts on the adjacent community, if
current STO scheduled services in the Rideau Street area are not
accommodated to a certain degree, including: buses idling or stopping in no
parking areas, no stopping areas, on other streets, or as necessary to await
the start of their routes; buses circulating on and impacting area streets and
the neighbouring community; and longer wait times for STO passengers,
resulting in increased crowding on the sidewalks (Rideau Street, Wellington

AND WHEREAS the downtown core has experienced increasing traffic
congestion due to the rising numbers of commercial trucks using this
corridor, increasing transit use as well as increased vehicular traffic;

AND WHEREAS fatal accidents have been the unfortunate and tragic result
of such congestion;

AND WHEREAS it is in the City‟s best interest to mitigate the negative
impacts of increased traffic on residents;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the staff recommendations be
replaced with the following:

1.     Reaffirm the removal of the bus waiting areas on York Street, George
       Street and King Edward Avenue, and designate a bus waiting area on
       the east side of Cumberland Street between Rideau and George Street
       to be in effect at all times.


2.     Approve the designation of a bus-only lane, southbound, on King
       Edward Avenue, from Monday to Friday, 2:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., with
       implementation to occur as phases of the construction are completed.


3.     Direct City staff to carry out a study of the area between St-Patrick
       Street, King Edward, Laurier Avenue East and Sussex in consultation
       with appropriate stakeholders, to identify and consider all traffic
       operational measures as well as bus waiting areas for STO and OC
       Transpo operations in Ottawa, including any necessary changes to
       transit routings, and to report back to Transportation Committee and
       Council by April 2009 on measures to improve the overall situation.
CARRIED, with M. Wilkinson dissenting

4.    That funding for this study be considered in the 2009 budget

CARRIED, with M. Wilkinson dissenting

5.    Direct City staff to continue to work to identify any required changes
      to OC Transpo inter-provincial services resulting from Council‟s
      directions on STO operations in Ottawa, and to report back to
      Transit Committee as required.


Moved by C. Leadman

That compliance monitoring of lay-bys be carried out in consideration of the
community and report back to Committee.


Moved by G. Bédard

That staff be directed to continue to work with STO both directly and as part
of the Interprovincial Rapid Transit Study to identify and recommend the
longer-term arrangements for transit services between Gatineau and Ottawa,
to report back to Transporttion Committee, Transit Committee and Council
one year from now, or earlier at the conclusion of the Interprovincial study,
and to continue the interim use of the Union terminus until that time.


Moved by R. Bloess

That staff be directed to update Committee on the opportunity to use the
MacDonald-Cartier Bridge as a lay-by for STO buses; and that staff be
directed to pursue this matter with the appropriate Federal agencies and
report back to Committee.



     Committee members received a confidential memo from the City Solicitor dated 3
     November 2008, which addressed the legal and risk management issues arising
     from the staff report. A copy of the memo is held on file.

     Councillor Leadman proposed the following :

        Whereas City Council’s adoption and implementation of either the
        provincially-legislated Minimum Maintenance Standards or Ottawa’s own
        municipal service levels has a corresponding effect on the City’s ability to
        avail itself of various defences to claims for the non-repair of roads;

        Therefore be it resolved that the Transportation Committee direct staff to
        provide to the Committee an update on any changes arising from the
        Province’s five year review of Ontario Regulation 239/02, being the
        Minimum Maintenance Standards and identify any opportunities to meet
        or improve the City’s maintenance standards through the use of

     Councillor Wilkinson acknowledged that Council had approved a
     recommendation for staff to report back on, but did not feel that changed what
     Council had approved. She referred to the road patrol frequency at Document 1
     of the report and thought that from previous discussions at Committee, it was not
     just a „patrol‟ but an investigation of the quality and standard of the road. John
     Manconi, Director of the Surface Operations Branch explained that patrolling in
     the context of the report means staff would be out looking at what is specified in
     the minimum standards. Above and beyond that, they would also be looking at
     damaged signs, et cetera that require attention. He explained that life-cycle
     management and evaluation (the physical testing done by Infrastructure Services),
     is a separate exercise because it is done on a totally different frequency.

     Responding to questions raised by Councillor Wilkinson, the Director further
     indicated that using the proposed GPS technology would replace the current
     manual recording done during patrols. They would maintain four FTEs for the
     patrol service. The councillor recalled that what Council asked for was to do at
     least two patrols of every roadway each year and as many as staff can on the other
     routes. She was concerned that the current practice does not have staff looking at
     a major or minor collector. Mr. Manconi confirmed that other than the normal
     day-to-day function i.e., snowplow operator, patching crew, OC Transpo driver, et
     cetera, there is no formal patrolling of those roadways.
Responding to additional questions posed by the councillor, the Director
explained that there is a requirement to look at the minimum maintenance
standards roads patrol function, which the Solicitor‟s memo speaks to in more
detail. He added that the road patrol function is the rigid prescribed process that
is in the minimum maintenance standards and he believed that what the councillor
is looking for can be done, but would come with a cost and a requirement for

Councillor Wilkinson was concerned that there are provincial standards that need
to be met. Chair McRae offered that further discussion on this matter may have to
be dealt with in camera.

Councillor Wilkinson reiterated that what Council approved was that all roads
receive the minimum twice a year examination. The Director explained that part
of the recommendation was also to report back on the proposed examination
frequency for the different road categories under the revised policy and this is
what is before the Committee today. He stated that the frequency inspection on
Class 1 and 2 roads should not be changed. The councillor was concerned that
what Council approved and what staff have brought back is different. Mr.
Manconi suggested the Committee receive advice from Legal staff prior to
considering a Motion to deviate from the current practice.

Ernest McArthur, Legal Counsel advised that there may not be a need to go in
camera, adding that what is reflected in the Solicitor‟s memo and what is in the
staff report are essentially the same.

Councillor Wilkinson maintained that the staff recommendations were contrary to
what was already approved by Council. She explained that the report states that
all roads receive the minimum patrol of twice a year, which means patrols could
go to more than twice, but not less. Rick O‟Connor, City Solicitor explained that
that is the examination frequency that Council recommendations require of staff.
It was the councillor‟s understanding that that was not how it was dealt with at
Council when it was discussed and she proposed that the report be revised to
show a minimum of two patrols per year on all roads.

Councillor Legendre explained that what Council adopted was a recommendation
for a minimum frequency of twice a year and the final direction was for staff to
report back in two months on the proposed examination frequency for the
different road categories, bearing in mind the minimum. He was not aware of
what the effect would be on the other roads and now staff have provided that in
their report before the Committee today and he agreed with Councillor Wilkinson
that Council has decided on what the minimum ought to be and the Committee
can now see what the impact is on the others. He suggested that if there is a
proposal to change what staff have brought forward based on the legal opinion,
there is a requirement for the Committee to move in camera.
The Chair indicated the Committee would lose quorum before they had an
opportunity to move in camera and members agreed to forward the report to
Council on 26 November, with no amendments.
     That the Transportation Committee recommend that Council approve the
     current practice of exclusively patrolling Class 1 and 2 roads be continued.

     CARRIED, with J. Legendre and M. Wilkinson dissenting



     ACS2008-ICS-PLA-0220                CITY WIDE / À L'ECHELLE DE LA VILLE

     Councillor Cullen advised that the only outstanding issue is how the public is
     going to be informed. Following consultation with staff, there was agreement to
     provide direction as follows:

     Moved by A. Cullen

     Where a memorandum is sent to Committee and Council when a “bump-up“
     decision by MOE changes the EA Recommended Plan significantly is denied
     completely, or the Part II Order is issued, that this information be posted on
     the „City‟s‟ website.


     That Transportation Committee approve a Protocol for reporting Ministerial
     Part II Order “Bump-up” Decisions as outlined in this report.


     NEPEAN-SUD (22)
Vivi Chi, Manager, Transportation and Infrastructure Planning introduced Valerie
Bouillant, Senior Project Engineer and Chris Gordon, Genivar Consulting, who
gave a detailed overview of the report. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is
held on file. Ms. Chi advised that Appendix E of Document 4 was inadvertently
omitted from the printing of the agenda and that copies would be distributed
following the meeting.

The following public delegations were received:

Klaus Beltzner stated that rural communities south of the Jockvale/Prince of
Wales intersection were not invited to participate in the public consultations, even
they are the ones who have traditionally used this road. He stated they were also
not informed about the realignment of Jockvale Road.                 Mr. Beltzner
acknowledged that the safety issue at the intersection of Prince of Wales and
Jockvale needs to be addressed whether or not this project goes ahead. He added
that the City was spending more money on roads and felt more attention should be
directed to improving transit. His previously-circulated comments are held on

Patty O‟Brien, resident, Jockvale Road advised that her property will be severely
impacted and yet there are no plans to expropriate. She explained that the project
would result in her losing her entire front yard, and her well will be paved over,
resulting in her having to be hooked up to City water which she could not drink,
for health reasons. She further stated that her property is unsellable although it
was once worth $500,000 and she has not been offered any other option. Mrs.
O‟Brien suggested that there appeared to be some confusion about ownership of
her property because the report seems to indicate it is owned by Tamarack Homes
and will be developed, and at one of the open houses, City staff advised that they
owned it and she was renting it from the municipality. The land registry office
proves she owns the property and has for almost 40 years.

The Chair requested clarification on the ownership issue and Bruce Stansfield,
Program Manager, Real Estate Services confirmed that it is owned by June
O‟Brien. Mr. Gordon added that during the course of the EA (environmental
assessment) the home to the north was purchased by Tamarack Homes (it is that
property which is referred to in the study report) and he confirmed it is not the
address of Mrs. O‟Brien‟s home. He explained that the City was not
expropriating because only a strip of her front property would be required and the
house would still be deemed to be habitable. Responding to her concerns about
access to drinking water, he agreed staff would examine her well before and after
construction to ensure there are opportunities to ensure she has safe drinking

With respect to the loss of propety value, Mr. Stansfield explained that the owner
would be compensated for any loss, including injurious affection (loss of the
property value as a result of proximity to the new road), taking into account if the
residual property is still useable. He confirmd that staff have not yet looked at
this property in such detail to determine that status.

The Chair was concerned that the Committee is being asked to recommend
undertaking necessary property acquisition (Recommendation 3) without all the
facts pertaining to this particular delegation‟s property being known. Mr.
Stansfield clarified that staff would have to conduct a detailed investigation of the
property to see what the impacts are. He added that they can get the approval to
buy and analyze all the properties to see what the impact is, but they cannot do
anything until the EA is approved and the funding is in place.

Bob Ray, resident, Jockvale Road spoke in support of the study, noting that there
was good consultation and he believed it addresses 98% of the concerns raised.
He too agreed there are safety issues at the intersection of Jockvale and Prince of
Wales Drive, as well as at the bridge on Jockvale Road crossing the Jock River.
He suggested that the Committee should approve the EA because it provides a
framework for future activities to be undertaken, i.e., safety; improvements to the
road and what the traffic will be like in the future, transit through the area, et

Richard Rankin, resident of Stonebridge objected to the proposal for the following
      it would cause more safety issues than resolve them and would turn a
       rural road into a four-laned road through what is a heavily populated area
      traffic will be funnelled through Stonebridge and alternatives should
       be examined to divert the flow away from that community
      it will provide a quick and easy route to Barrhaven for those living in
       or south of Manotick
      while he acknowledged the safety problems at Jockvale and Prince of
       Wales, he posited that they have been there for years and the City has
       never shown an interest in addressing those concerns before; he agreed
       that a left-turning lane onto Prince of Wales Drive would be helpful
      every resident of Jockvale Road will be affected in some way by this
       plan through increased noise levels or having part of their property taken
       away such that they cannot have proper access onto the road.

When asked to suggest what other options might be considered, Mr. Rankin
offered Bankfield Road up to Cedarview Road or improving Prince of Wales by
aligning it at the intersection of Woodroffe Avenue. He suggested the former
involves almost no residences in the area, so there will be less safety concerns and
impacts to properties. In response to questions posed by Councillor Harder, Mr.
Rankin confirmed that he has lived in Stonebridge for nearly five years and he
was not aware that the widening of Jockvale Road had been contemplated for
many years.
Councillor Harder asked whether the Committee has the right to stop an EA and
John Moser, Director, Planning Branch and City Planner advised that
Recommendation 1 is worded such that Committee and Council receive the
results of the EA because it is the Minister of Environment who gives final
approval. When asked what timelines are being considered for property
acquisition (Recommendation 3), he explained that there would be no property
acquisition done until it was in the capital budget and coincided with the timing
from the TMP (Phase II project, 2016-2022). He further confirmed that there are
no immediate implications for this project on the budget.

From the information provided by staff, Councillor Harder mentioned that of the
land necessary for this chosen route, nearly 85% of it has been deeded to the City
by Monarch. Further, having an approved EA gives the City the ability to acquire
land for free when a piece of property is to be subdivided. And according to the
plan, there are few properties that would even be considered for appropriation.

In closing, the councillor advised that she and Councillor Desroches have been
looking at deferring some projects in Barrhaven, in order to bring forward the
bridge (referred to previously) which has no cycling lane or sidewalk, but which
is used by young children in Stonebridge attending St. Joseph‟s High School. She
emphasized there are serious safety issues that must be addressed and she urged
the Committee to support the staff recommendations.

Chair McRae requested legal clarification of the recommendations. She inquired
if the City has to receive the results of the EA, by law, and if so, why is the
recommendation even here? Rick O‟Connor, City Solicitor explained that the
Committee would be required to receive this as a result of the fact there is no
other way for this matter to rise to Council. Should the Committee vote against
receiving it, the report would still rise to Council with „no committee
recommendation‟. He further confirmed that provincial legislation compels the
City to submit the results of the EA for a 30-day public review period.

Councillor Cullen indicated his support for the staff report, stating that receiving
the EA will begin the process of protecting property along this alignment. He
clarified that this does not mean he has voted for the construction of the road,
because that is not before the Committee at this time and would not be for several
years. He did not see this project competing with transit because it is an east-west

With respect to Recommendation 3, the Chair wondered why there is a rush to
approve moving on property acquisition, when the road is not due to be built until
2016. This was of particular interest to her given the concerns raised by Mrs.
O‟Brien. Mr. Moser explained that while there is no rush, approval of
Recommendation 3 would allow that to be presented early in the process. He
suggested that the recommendation could be removed without doing any damage.
Councillor Doucet would not support Recommendations 2 or 3 because he was
concerned that the City cannot maintain roads it already has and it will only get
more difficult to sustain the road system. Rather than building or widening roads
to solve bottleneck issues, he preferred designing the city differently and posited
that rejecting these two recommendations would send that message.

Responding to a question posed by Councillor Bloess, Mr. Moser explained that
rejecting staff Recommendation 3 (and assuming the EA is approved by the
Minister), when someone comes in for a subdivision or site plan, the City can take
the land they need, but in 2016, when it comes time to do the capital budget,
Council would have to deal with the land acquisition money required to proceed.
The councillor urged the Committee to approve the recommendations because it
is good planning and would put the foundation in place for this project. It also
provides clarity for residents who have concerns about their property, rather than
leaving them in limbo, which would be the result of rejecting Recommendation 3.

Conversely, Councillor Wilkinson did not believe it was necessary to approve
Recommendation 3 because these properties are fairly sizeable and it is not an
issue of a single family home being unsellable because of a future widening.
Instead, any required property could be acquired at the time the project is
approved. Responding to comments made about designing the City differently,
she was of the opinion that being anti-road is not the answer, but being careful
about where the roads are put and when they are built and widened, is important.

Responding to questions posed by Councillor Legendre, Ernest McArthur, Legal
Counsel confirmed that both Recommendations 1 and 2 have to rise to Council if
it is the will of this Committee that the EA be done. Alternatively, the Committee
could vote against it, if it does not want anything to be done now. If the
Committee had no intention of moving forward on the project, the councillor
inquired why would it approve Recommendation 2? Mr. McArthur explained that
it does not have to be done now, but if the Committee wants the study report to
proceed, then Council must direct staff to do it. He added that if the Committee
decides they do not want to proceed with this project, it would vote against
Recommendation 2.

Chair McRae asked what happens to the environmental assessment if the
Committee does not direct staff to begin the 30-day public review
(Recommendation 2). Mr. Moser explained that it sits there. When asked for
how long it is valid, he explained that in some ways it would have no validity
because it would not have been approved by the Minister. When asked how long
the City has to give it to the Minister before having to start all over again, Mr.
Gordon explained that the TMP identifies the infrastructure required to
accommodate the growth Council approved in the Official Plan. By approving
the TMP, Council essentially provides staff with the opportunity to do the
necessary EAs. The results of the EAs must be made public within a reasonable
timeframe because if it is left to sit for too long, the consultation, examination of
the environment and all the background work that is done as part of an EA, would
have to be re-visited. He added that as the community continues to grow and the
environment in that area changes, there will be a requirement to revisit all of the
inputs to the study and go through an entire evaluation process again to see
whether or not this result is appropriate. Ms. Bouillant added that the City would
also have no means of protecting the corridor.

Councillor Harder reminded Committee members that in June 2006, Council
unanimously supported the South Nepean Urban Design Plan (Barrhaven South
Community Design Plan), where approximately 35,000 people would be living.
This is now being built and all of the development that has occurred as a result,
has been predicated on plans that go back to the early 1990‟s. She emphasized
that this community is going to grow to 153,000 people in the timeframe of the
second stage of the TMP and this road project is part of that plan. She reiterated
the fact there are no budget pressures at this time for this project. She remarked
that the people who spoke today in opposition to the project are going to be
marginally impacted and she was confident Mrs. O‟Brien would be able to sell
her land. She stated that rejecting the staff recommendations would not be in the
best interests of the people she represents, nor the City and that by not approving
this, the City is tying the hands of those affected by this project and who want to
do things with their property.

The Chair stated that if the Committee moves forward with these
recommendations, there will be an opportunity to talk about priorities during
consideration of the TMP. She believed that this project speaks to addressing
safety concerns. With respect to Mrs. Brien‟s property, she asked whether staff
had an opportunity to discuss how they can help her situation. Mr. Stansfield
advised that they have not looked at any of the properties in close detail, but for
this piece of land in particular, he reminded members that before the City can buy,
Council approval is required. When staff decide whose properties (and how
much) are required, they will bring forward a report regarding property
acquisition to the appropriate Committee and then to Council. He added that
approval today would give staff the authority to go out and negotiate with Mrs.
O‟Brien and to obtain appraisals.

In her closing remarks, Chair McRae commented that based on the debate and
discussion of this item, it was clear that there were many things in the staff report
that were very difficult for the Committee to understand, and she suggested that
future reports of this nature include a clear explanation of the issues.

Councillor Wilkinson wanted it clear that until the Minister approves the EA, the
City cannot guarantee the protection of the corridor. Mr. Moser confirmed this
fact. Based on this, the councillor suggested that to do anything at all, the
Committee has to recommend to Council, approval of Recommendation 2. She
was also not concerned about approving Recommendation 3 now either since it
would still be subject to budget approval later on.
That Transportation Committee recommend Council:

1.    Receive the results of the Jockvale Road Environmental Assessment
      as shown in Document 1.


2.    Direct staff to prepare the Environmental Study Report for the
      Jockvale Road Environment Assessment for the 30-day public review,
      in accordance with the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act.


      YEAS (5):    R. Bloess, M. Wilkinson, D. Thompson, C. Leadman, M.
      NAYS (3):    G. Bédard, J. Legendre, C. Doucet
     3.    Direct staff to undertake necessary property acquisition for the
           construction of Jockvale Road, in line with the timing identified in the
           Transportation Master Plan and through the annual Capital Budget


           YEAS (5):     R. Bloess, M. Wilkinson, D. Thompson, C. Leadman, M.
           NAYS (3):     G. Bédard, J. Legendre, C. Doucet


     ACS2008-CCS-TRC-0023                      KNOXDALE-
     MERIVALE (9)

     The Committee received a letter dated 3 November 2008 from the Glens
     Community Association in support of Councillor Hunter‟s recommendation.

     The Chair advised of an amendment Councillor Hunter wanted the Committee to
     consider. Councillor Leadman agreed to put the Motion forward on his behalf.

     Darlene Hale and Bob Gilmore, residents declined their opportunity to speak
     when they learned of the amendment being put forward.

     That Transportation Committee recommend to Council that a right hand
     turn prohibition from Woodroffe Avenue to Grenfell Crescent between 7
     a.m. and 9 a.m. Monday to Friday (school buses and bicycles exempted) be


     Moved by C. Leadman

     Whereas not all requests for area traffic management are equally complex or
     require complex solutions;

     And whereas experience is showing that the so-called smaller items are never
     rising to the front of the queue;
       And whereas the smaller items often require only simple solutions;

       Therefore be it resolved that staff be directed to devise a method to
       streamline the consideration of simple traffic calming measures not requiring
       EA studies such as turn restrictions.



Councillor Leadman officially withdrew her Notice of Motion she put forward on 3
September 2008 with regards to the harmonization of procurement methods, practices
and policies for City vehicles. In an e-mail sent to members of the Committee on 12
September, the Coordinator advised that after consultation with staff, the intent and
direction to be achieved with the Motion has been undertaken, but at the time of tabling,
was not available to the Committee. As a result, the direction is already achieved and the
Motion was redundant.


The Committee adjourned temporarily at 1:20 p.m. to allow the Transit Committee to
convene. The meeting convened again at 5:40 p.m. and was adjourned at 6:45 p.m.

Original signed by:                                        Original Signed by:
Rosemary Nelson                                            Councillor M. McRae

Committee Coordinator                                     Chair

Shared By: