Report to / Rapport au :

Joint Transportation Committee and Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee

Réunion conjointe du Comité des transports et du Comité de l’agriculture et des questions rurales

and Council / et au conseil

18 February 2011 / le 18 février 2011

Submitted by / Soumis par: Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/Directrice municipale adjointe, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability/Services d’infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités

Contact Person / Personne ressource : Vivi Chi, Manager/Gestionnaire, Transportation Planning/Planification des transports, Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance

(613) 580-2424 x21877, vivi.chi@ottawa.ca

Orléans (2), Gloucester-Southgate (10), Cumberland (19), Osgoode (20), Gloucester-South Nepean (22)

Ref N°: ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0074

SUBJECT:	RURAL PATHWAYS SHARED-USE POLICY

OBJET :	POLITIQUE D’UTILISATION PARTAGÈE DES SENTIERS RURAUX

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Joint Transportation and Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council:

1. Approve the Rural Pathways Shared-Use Policy for the Osgoode and Prescott-Russell Pathways as outlined in Document 1; and

2. Direct staff to undertake a policy monitoring and review program as outlined in this report and to report back to the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee in summer 2013 on the results of this review and any recommendations for changes to the policy.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

Que les Comités conjoints des transports et de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales recommandent au Conseil :

1. D’approuver la politique d’utilisation partagée des sentiers ruraux Osgoode et de Prescott-Russell telle que décrite dans le Document 1;

2. De demander à son personnel d’entreprendre une surveillance des politiques et un programme d’examen tel qu’il est indiqué dans le présent document, et de présenter un rapport au Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales à l’été 2013 sur les résultats de cet examen et toute recommandation de changements à apporter à la politique.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Assumptions and Analysis:

Two new rural pathways (Osgoode and Prescott-Russell) running along former rail corridors were constructed as part of the Economic Stimulus Fund Program. Staff was directed to review the issue of motorized vehicles use of these rural pathways. The scope of this policy review focused on issues related to safety of all users, impacts to neighbouring residents, maintenance of pathway, enforcement of pathway rules and regulations; and, respecting rural lifestyle choices.

The policy development process was based on examining practices elsewhere (neighbouring trails) as well as on feedback received during public and stakeholder consultation. Other trails (including the Ottawa Carleton Trailway) have a history of shared use including snowmobiles, without injuries to other trail users. Impacts to pathway neighbours related to noise and emissions were considered in light of recent precedents in Quebec, and the recommended Rural Pathways Shared-Use Policy is designed to mitigate these impacts based on speed reduction zones, curfew zones, and a ban on older snowmobiles that generate disproportionate impacts.

As outlined in Document 1, during the summer months, staff are recommending that motorized use be prohibited to provide the best environment for the primary trail users - pedestrians and cyclists. During the winter, when the pathways are snow-bound, and non-motorized usage is much lower, staff determined that a shared environment with snowmobiles is feasible under certain conditions such as limits on speed. In consideration of our rural lifestyle and the positive feedback received from residents, it is recommended that horse riders be permitted. ATV are recommended to be prohibited due to experience in other jurisdictions where damage to pathway surfaces lead to increased maintenance cost, and the fact that peak usage in the summer interferes with cyclists and pedestrians. Staff are recommending undertaking a monitoring program for two years and reporting back to council on the results of the review and modifications of the policy if needed. The shared uses that are recommended by staff, together with the conditions placed on winter snowmobile use, address the City’s duty of care towards users of the pathway as noted in the Legal/Risk Management Implications section and also assist in mitigating the impacts of shared usage such as noise, which have been raised by residents and are further discussed in the report.

Technical Implications:

N/A

Financial Implications:

The proposed monitoring program including intercept usage survey, snowmobile counting and noise survey/analysis is expected to cost approximately $100,000. Funds are available within 905437 2010 Transportation Master Plan.

The operating and maintenance costs for these rural pathways is included in the $128,000 operating pressure for all sidewalks and pathways constructed under the Stimulus program. This is a component of the combined $1.19M Stimulus operating pressures for roads, sidewalks/pathways, street lights and traffic control systems included in the Draft 2011 Operating Budget for the Roads and Traffic Operations and Maintenance Branch of the Public Works Department.

Financial implications from Police Services will be issued separately.

Public Consultation/Input:

Three public meetings were held in November and December of 2010 with 404 attendees, and a total of 309 responses to on-line and hard-copy survey were submitted. In addition, groups opposing motorized vehicles on the pathway (especially through Osgoode village) submitted petitions with 690 signatures in support of their position. Groups promoting the use of snowmobiles collected 1,574 signatures on their petition. For neighbouring residents, noise of motorized vehicles on the pathways was raised as the major concern.

Many residents used this opportunity to suggest ideas on sharing these pathways effectively, some of which have been included within the policy outlined in Document 1. Some residents, both adjacent to the corridor and removed from it, strongly oppose any motorized vehicles on the Pathway. Other residents support some form of shared use including snowmobiles. Positive feedback on sharing pathways with horses was obtained from residents and other stakeholder groups representing snowmobiles.

RÉSUMÉ

Hypothèses et analyse

Deux nouveaux sentiers ruraux (Osgoode et Prescott-Russell), sillonnant d’anciens couloirs ferroviaires, ont été aménagés dans le cadre du Programme du fonds de stimulation économique. On a demandé au personnel de préparer un rapport sur la question de l’utilisation de ces sentiers ruraux par les véhicules motorisés. Ce rapport est axé sur les questions reliées à la sécurité de tous les usagers, les conséquences possibles pour les résidents du quartier, l’entretien des sentiers, l’application des règlements et le respect des choix de vie ruraux.

L’élaboration de cette politique reposait tant sur l’examen des pratiques ayant cours ailleurs (concernant les sentiers environnants) que sur les commentaires obtenus au cours des consultations de la population et des intervenants. Sur d’autres sentiers, notamment le sentier Ottawa-Carleton, on permet depuis un moment déjà l’utilisation partagée, entre autres par des motoneiges, et il n’y a eu aucun accident. Les questions des émissions et du bruit ont été prises en considération, à la lumière des récents précédents au Québec; la politique d’utilisation partagée des sentiers ruraux vise à atténuer ces répercussions par la réduction de la vitesse dans certaines zones, l’instauration d’un couvre-feu dans d’autres et l’interdiction d’accès aux motoneiges plus anciennes, qui entraînent des inconvénients démesurés.

Comme l’indique le Document 1, le personnel recommande qu’au cours des mois d’été, l’utilisation de véhicules motorisés soit interdite afin d’offrir un environnement plus sain aux principaux usagers des sentiers, les piétons et les cyclistes. Au cours de l’hiver, lorsque les sentiers sont ensevelis sous la neige et que l’utilisation du sentier par des véhicules non motorisés est restreinte, le personnel a jugé qu’une utilisation partagée avec les motoneiges est du domaine du possible, moyennant certaines conditions, comme l’imposition de limites de vitesse. Étant donné notre style de vie rural et la rétroaction positive des résidents, nous recommandons également que l’utilisation de ces sentiers soit permise aux cavaliers. Nous recommandons que les VTT soient interdits puisque dans d’autres collectivités publiques où leur usage était permis, les coûts d’entretien des sentiers ont augmenté à cause des dommages causés aux revêtements par ces véhicules. De plus, l’utilisation intensive de ces véhicules au cours de l’été interfère avec l’utilisation par les cyclistes et les piétons. Le personnel recommande de mettre en place un programme de surveillance pour une période de deux ans, de présenter ensuite un rapport au Conseil sur les résultats de ce programme et, au besoin, les modifications à la politique. Les utilisations partagées qui sont recommandées par le personnel, ainsi que les conditions imposées à l’utilisation de motoneiges en hiver, répondent à l’obligation de prudence qu’a la Ville envers les utilisateurs du sentier, comme le mentionne la section consacrée aux répercussions sur le plan juridique et de la gestion des risques. Ces utilisations permettront aussi d’atténuer les impacts de l’utilisation partagée du sentier, notamment le bruit, que les résidents ont soulevés et dont traite plus en détail le rapport.

Répercussions Techniques

S.O.

Répercussions Financières

Le coût du projet de programme de surveillance, qui comprend un sondage par interrogation au passage, le dénombrement des motoneiges, une analyse du niveau de bruit et un sondage sur la pollution sonore, s’élèverait à environ 100 000 $. Les fonds sont disponibles dans 905437 2010 Plan directeur des transports.

Les coûts d’exploitation et d’entretien de ces sentiers ruraux sont compris dans les pressions de fonctionnement de 128 000 $ pour tous les trottoirs et les sentiers aménagés en vertu du Programme de stimulation, lesquels constituent une composante des pressions combinées de fonctionnement du programme de stimulation d’un montant de 1,19 M$ pour les routes, les trottoirs et les sentiers, l’éclairage public et les systèmes de contrôle de la circulation inclus dans le budget préliminaire de fonctionnement de 2011 de la Direction de l’entretien des routes et de la circulation routière du Service des travaux publics.

Les incidences financières concernant le Service de police d’Ottawa seront présentées séparément.

Consultation publique/commentaires

Trois réunions publiques ont été tenues en novembre et en décembre 2010 auxquelles 404 personnes ont assisté, et 309 personnes ont répondu au sondage, que ce soit en ligne ou sur papier. De plus, des groupes opposés à l’utilisation des sentiers par les véhicules motorisés (en particulier dans le village d’Osgoode) ont déposé des pétitions comportant 690 signatures. Quant aux groupes qui soutiennent l’utilisation des motoneiges, ils ont recueilli 1 574 signatures pour leur pétition. Le bruit fait par les véhicules motorisés sur les sentiers est un sujet d’inquiétude majeur pour les résidents qui habitent près des sentiers.

Bon nombre de résidents ont profité de l’occasion pour suggérer des façons de partager efficacement les sentiers; plusieurs de ces idées ont été incluses dans la politique présentée dans le Document 1. Certains résidents, qui habitent tant près des sentiers que loin de ceux-ci, s’opposent vivement à la présence de tout véhicule motorisé sur les sentiers. D’autres résidents sont pour une forme d’utilisation partagée qui inclut les motoneiges. Les résidents et les intervenants en faveur des motoneiges ont fourni une rétroaction positive à propos du partage des sentiers avec les cavaliers.

BACKGROUND

Ottawa opened its first rural pathway on a converted rail bed in 2000, the Ottawa-Carleton Trailway, running 35 km southwest from the western end of Bells Corners towards Carleton Place. The following shared-usage policy was developed for this Trailway by a volunteer citizen committee, under leadership of the area Councillor and City planning staff:

· Summer: cyclists, hikers, equestrians, on-leash dog walking

· Winter: snowmobiles, skiers, hikers, equestrians, on-leash dog walking

· Restricted use: no snowmobiles or horses within the urban section of the Trailway

In 2010, as part of the Economic Stimulus Funding Program, two new rural pathways were established along former rail lines: the Osgoode Pathway running north-south from Leitrim Road to Buckles Street; and the Prescott-Russell Pathway running east-west from just west of Anderson Road to the eastern City limits. Maps of these pathways can be found in Documents 2 and 3.

The Ottawa-Carleton Trailway and the new Osgoode Pathway are owned by the City and are designated future transit corridors. The City leases the Prescott-Russell Pathway from VIA Rail Canada. These former rail corridors are being used for recreational purposes until the need arises for transportation services to be deployed on them. All three pathways, shown in Figure 1, have compact stone-dust surfaces and will be interconnected in the future by the National Capital Commission pathway system through the Greenbelt.

Figure 1. Rural Pathways Map

The Prescott-Russell rail bed has been used by snowmobile clubs since 1996 as permitted by the owner, VIA Rail. Access to the right-of-way was also provided (under licence) to utilities. All other users were prohibited. The Prescott-Russell corridor construction was deemed ‘substantially complete’ on December 24, 2010. The Carleton Regional Snowmobile Club had an exclusive annual license to use the pathway from November 1 to October 31 each year. The current obligations under the VIA Rail lease include that all users are to be notified that the pathway is to be considered as a rail corridor and signs are to be posted to reflect this. Furthermore, VIA would be involved in assisting in management of unlawful and unregistered use of the pathway.

Snowmobile clubs have been using the Osgoode Pathway since 2008 under a licence of occupation agreement with the City of Ottawa. For most of 2010, the corridor was a construction site and no public access was permitted. There are currently two property owners who have limited access to certain areas of the pathway that abut their properties.

Since the announcement of construction for the two new rural pathways, different user groups, both motorized and non-motorized, have expressed interest in using these new facilities.

In the urban area, motorized vehicles are not allowed on the City or the National Capital Commission pathways. However, the City’s policies do not directly address the issue in relation to rural pathway usage. Therefore, on May 12, 2010, Council directed staff to review the issue of motorized vehicles on multi-use pathways, as follows:

“That staff be directed to review the issue of motorized vehicles’ use of multi-use pathways and, in consultation with the Chair of Transportation Committee, determine how best to bring this issue forward to Transportation Committee and Council for consideration”.

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2010/05-12/englishminutes89.htm

In accordance with the updated committee terms of reference policy approved by the Council in late 2010, with the consent of the Transportation Committee Chair, and with regard to a Transportation Committee IPD in August 2010, this report is being considered by the Joint Transportation Committee and Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee before being sent to Council.

It should be noted that another consultation process, related to the Osgoode Pathway, led by Councillor Thompson, preceded this policy development process. The Councillor’s consultation efforts are summarised below.

· 25 February 2010 – Public Meeting held at Osgoode Community Centre to receive feedback from residents and organizations.

· 4 March 2010 – Public Meeting held at Greely Community Centre.

· Multi-Use Pathway Steering Committee with nine volunteer members, and Councillor Thompson as Chair.

a. 20 April 2010 – Osgoode Community Centre – first Committee Meeting

b. 4 May 2010 – O-YA Centre, Osgoode – second Committee Meeting

c. 15 June 2010 – Metcalfe Town Hall – third Committee Meeting

Councillor Thompson’s Steering Committee supported allowing snowmobiles on the Osgoode Pathway. However, some residents of the Village of Osgoode opposed the Steering Committee decision.

On 23 August 2010, staff provided an update to Transportation Committee (IPD-TRC August 23 ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0149.doc) in response to the 12 May 2010 Transportation Committee directive:

“In order to best determine the usage of the Osgoode Pathway, staff intends to hold two public consultation sessions, one in the rural area and one in the suburban area of the pathway in November 2010. Following this process, staff will bring a report on results of the public consultation and a recommended usage policy to the appropriate Standing Committee and Council in January 2011. Until a Council decision is made, historical use patterns, including snowmobile use on this path as per terms of the lapsed agreement with the Kemptville Snowmobile Klub, will continue and a temporary agreement will be entered into with the club to this effect.”

Staff continued to investigate the issue, and conducted three open houses in late November and early December 2010.

DISCUSSION

Scope of Review

The scope of this review encompasses development of a shared-use policy for the Osgoode and Prescott-Russell rural pathways. The policy is intended to be in force starting in the spring of 2011. The existing Ottawa-Carleton Trailway use policies were not reviewed under this process, nor were public meetings held in the vicinity of this Trailway. Should a review process be held at some future date for the Ottawa-Carleton Trailway, the framework contained within this Policy document could be followed.

The scope of this policy review focused on issues related to:

· Safety of all users (speed);

· Impacts to neighbouring residents;

· Maintenance of pathway;

· Enforcement of pathway rules and regulations; and

· Respect for rural lifestyle choices.

While Council direction was limited to consideration of motorized vehicle use, it was clear that rural pathways had demands for use by horse riders (as is already the case for the Ottawa‑Carleton Trailway); therefore the scope of work was expanded to include the question of horse riders as shared users.

POLICY DEVELOPMENT

The policy development process was based on examining practices elsewhere as well as on feedback received during public and stakeholders consultation.

Review of Existing Practices

Staff reviewed trail practice and experience on similar trails inside or nearby Ottawa as well as work undertaken by the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec.

Trails in Ottawa and Other Jurisdictions

Inside Ottawa, the Ottawa-Carleton Trailway (a mixed-use pathway) has been in operation for 10 years running roughly from Stittsville to Carleton Place. This trail is similar in construction and proposed usage to the two new pathways being considered in this Policy. The Ottawa-Carleton Trailway serves as a valid reference point for evaluating mixed usage issues, but is less comparable for issues of concern to neighbouring residents as the density of residences is very low along much of this trail. The Ottawa-Carleton Trailway experiences heavy mixed use traffic just west of West Ridge Road, but limited mixed-use exposure after approximately five km west of this point.

In addition, the experience of neighbouring trail managers to the east and west of the City has been obtained. The Prescott and Russell Trail in the County of Prescott and Russell shares the same VIA right-of-way to the east of the City’s boundary and is an extension to Ottawa’s Prescott-Russell Pathway. A summary of these jurisdiction practices and experience is included in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary of Other Jurisdictions Practices and Experience

Trail

Practices and Experience

Trans -Canada Trail

(Ontario) ¹

o The Trans-Canada Trail runs approx. 3,000 km through Ontario, of which 24% consists of stone-dust improved “rail-trails.”

o From a capacity perspective, forced to accept multi-users (especially where the corridor width is limited).

o As soon as a second user type is added, it impacts the enjoyment for the first user type.

o All trails should be signed to indicate allowable use and be managed to accommodate those allowable uses.

o There is very limited data on cross country ski use on long distance trails.

o Snowmobile clubs are good partners for trail management, planning and enforcement (SAVE program with OPP). The snowmobile clubs are diligent on safety issues.

o Unaware of any examples of accidents involving snowmobiles and skiers or pedestrians.

o Where Equestrians are not allowed, it’s because they are seen as incompatible with cycling, or because there is no long-distance equestrian infrastructure.

Ottawa-Carleton Trailway

(Ottawa)²

o Snowmobilers/pedestrians/skiers/equestrians have co-existed since 2000 on the rural section of this trail, without incident.

o Most citizen complaints are related to dogs off-leash.

County of Renfrew³

o Trails are open to all users, no restrictions on motorized recreational vehicles (snowmobiles and ATV’s are allowed) liability is not a major concern.

o Horses have a significant impact on the stone-dust surface

o Maintenance budget is $1k/km/year for the 20km Kingston and Pembroke Trailway.

o Usage statistics are not collected.

o Motorized vehicle noise complaints are rare from trail neighbours, although the majority of trails run through sparsely populated areas.

o Motorized recreational vehicle sports are seen to provide an important economic boost to the County.

o A Trails Committee is planned for the near future, to assist in planning and dealing with trail conflicts.

Prescott and Russell Recreation Trail

(Prescott-Russell Township)⁴

o Snowmobilers/pedestrians/skiers have coexisted together for years without incident.

o Parking areas are not ploughed, discouraging pedestrians from using the corridor during the winter months.

o There are no shared-use protocols in their snowmobile club agreements.

o Horses are prohibited due to concerns with damage to the stone-dust trail surface, and concerns over liability.

o The lease for the corridor limits use to “solely for the purposes of recreational hiking, bicycling and snowmobile trail”.

o Test run with horses on the right-of-way beside the trail was attempted, but did not succeed (horses could not be kept off the stone dust).

Trail Policy Development by the Province of Ontario:

Staff consulted with the Ministry of Health Promotion and Sport which is the lead ministry for trail planning and coordinating matters for the Government of Ontario. Among other things, the Ministry oversees the implementation of the Ontario Trails Strategy (released in 2005) which recognizes the value of all types of land and water trails used by motorized and non-motorized users. It includes single, shared and multi-use trails urban, suburban rural and remote settings. As part of the Strategy's implementation the Province undertook a review of off-road vehicle Use and a review of legislation affecting trails. Further work in detailing policy related to trails conflicts (including impacts to adjacent trail residents) has been considered.

The Trails Strategy Document put in place a Framework for Action, one component of which included improving collaboration among stakeholders, with a resulting strategy involving the development of a framework for trail co-ordinating bodies at the regional and local levels.

A follow-on report commissioned by the Province related to a “Review of Legislation affecting Trails” was released in February 2008, and includes numerous recommendations of interest to the City, in particular and as excerpted from the consolidated list of options in Appendix 1 of the Province’s report, recommended the following actions:

o #5) …. develop a new regulation that prescribes the standards of design, development, maintenance, operation, and promotion of one or more classes of trail. Ministry of Health Promotion, Ministry of the Attorney General – Medium Term

o #12) …..enhance equipment manufacturer and rider association materials in manuals, promotions, advertisements and programs to better encourage responsible trail use, including by motorized vehicles. Ministry of Transportation- Short Term

o #13) ….. Negotiate with manufacturers and the federal government to foster accelerated technological innovation ……. to better address pollution, noise …….. apply provincial rules to help address pollution, noise.. Including educational, incentive, technical and/or regulatory methods. Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Transportation – Short-Term

o #15)….. Require enhanced Motorized Snow Vehicle identification systems. These could include better positioning on the vehicle, larger or reflective identifiers, embedded electronic identifiers capable of being read at trailheads. Ministry of Transportation – Medium Term

o #23) Review and update policies and amend the Highway Traffic Act etc. to address the safe use of trails in locations parallel to or crossing highways. Ministry of Transportation – Medium Term

Further work in detailing policy related to trails conflicts, including impacts to adjacent trail residents, is a future objective for the Ministry of Health Promotion and Sport, in collaboration with affected ministries (e.g. Ministry of Transportation). City staff welcome the proposed provincial work to develop solutions to common problems faced by trail managers regarding motorized recreational vehicles, given the span and scope of Provincial authority in these matters.

Province of Quebec

The recent work done by the Province of Quebec, culminating in Bill 121 passed 8 December 2010 provides a relevant precedent for action by Ontario related to improving relations between motorized trail users and trail neighbours. Key elements of the Bill have been summarized below.

· As of 2011, new trails need to be 100m from residences, and subject to municipal by‑laws. Off-highway vehicles may be operated (near residences) only between 6 AM and 12 Midnight. Apply progressive speed limits as trails run closer to residences.

· Until 2017, immunity will be provided against legal actions related to disturbances to surrounding neighbourhoods surrounding trails. The minister will establish a procedure to deal with complaints regarding neighbourhood disturbances (noise, etc), in lieu of legal action.

· After 2019, off-highway vehicles not equipped with four-stroke or direct-injection two stroke will be prohibited, with exceptions in certain areas provided by ministerial regulation.

Resident and Stakeholder Feedback

Many residents used this opportunity to suggest ideas on sharing these pathways effectively, some of which have been included within the recommendations of this report. Many residents regretted the divisions that this debate has caused within the Community (within Osgoode Village in particular). Some residents, both adjacent to the corridor or removed from it, strongly oppose any motorized vehicles on the Pathway. Other residents support some form of shared-use including snowmobiles.

Comments from Public Open Houses and Resident Letters

During the public meetings, many residents commented that the ‘wide open country’ spaces in these rural areas did not automatically translate to space for recreational activities. They highlighted the fact that there were often no nearby dedicated recreational facilities for cross-country skiing, horse-riding, nature walking trails, or off-road cycling facilities, leaving roadway shoulders as the only option. This puts a premium on access to these pathways, and in particular the contention between snowmobile use and potential use by cross-country skiers.

Residents shared their direct experience on these trails (in the un-improved states), in particular during winter. A number of residents related experiences: near misses, jumping out of the way of snowmobiles, and one collision (no injuries). The general feedback on snowmobilers indicated that the majority of snowmobilers behaved respectfully, with a minority causing concerns for safety. The general feedback on All-Terrain Vehicles (ATV’s) indicated that less than half behaved respectfully, with a majority causing concerns for safety and damage to adjacent lands.

Summary of resident survey carried out by the City

The City made available a survey form (in both official languages), both on line and at Public Open Houses to solicit input from residents. A total of 309 responses were received. The main results are summarized in the table below. The survey was made available from November through December 2010. A copy of the survey form is included as Document 4.

In consideration of shared snowmobile use on either pathway – (typical season between Dec 15th and March 1st), Please indicate if you…
Strongly object	46.5%	35.4%
Object Somewhat	46.5%	11%
Neutral/No answer		10.5%
Support somewhat	43%	9.5%
Strongly Support	43%	33.5%

In consideration of shared horse riding on either pathway – (typical season – year-round) Please indicate if you…
Strongly object	15.5%	10.5%
Object Somewhat	15.5%	5%
Neutral/No answer		17.5%
Support somewhat	67.5%	12%
Strongly Support	67.5%	55.5%

Out of the total 309 received responses, a total of 77 residents indicated they are within 300 metres of the pathway. Their response to the questions on snowmobile use is summarized in Figure 2.

FIGURE 2: Survey feedback, snowmobile use vs. distance from pathway

Osgoode Village Residents’ Association (OVRA)

The OVRA was involved throughout the consultation process, and provided staff with a written submission. This Association represents a group of residents, many residing adjacent to the Osgoode Pathway. The OVRA initiated a petition of residents on the issue of motorized vehicles. The OVRA has as its main concern the negative impacts of motorized vehicle traffic near neighbours of the Pathway, some of whose homes are 45 metres from the pathway. Complaints of noise and fumes were most prominently put forward, and it was stated that the effects from the operation of the former rail line were minor by way of comparison.

In its opposition to the use of snowmobiles, the OVRA held the position that such approval may encourage other motorized vehicles (ATV’s and motorcycles) throughout the rest of the year. The OVRA also was concerned that snowmobiles represent risks for other users in winter, and that they in effect limit use by others, especially skiers. The position (put forward by some snowmobile groups) that skiers prefer snowmobile groomed trails was questioned, with other alternatives (ungroomed or ski-track specific grooming) left unexplored.

The OVRA states that it is not against the use of snowmobiles in general, but only within Osgoode Village where such usage should not be allowed primarily due to negative impacts to neighbouring residents, given the relatively high density of residences along this stretch of the Osgoode Pathway.

Summary of petition received from the Osgoode Village Resident’s Association (OVRA)

The City received a copy of a petition signed by 690 individuals against the use of motorized vehicles on the Osgoode Pathway. The petition signatures span from April through December 2010. This petition was presented to the City by a member of the Osgoode Village Residents’ Association. The statement on the petition reads:

The petition did not distinguish between snowmobiles and all other motorized recreational vehicles (i.e. ATV’s and motorcycles). A few (10) of the petition respondents qualified their signatures as being in support of snowmobiles but against other motorized recreational vehicles, or limiting their comments to the pathway section within Osgoode Village. The petition was directed at residents of Osgoode Village. The covering letter and summary of this petition, as provided by OVRA, is included in Document 7.

Osgoode Village Community Association (OVCA)

The OVCA participated in the public open-house meetings, and was involved in the Osgoode Trail Committee, which considered snowmobile use in early 2010. The OVCA preferred to have its members present their individual opinions on the Rural Pathway Usage Policy process, and therefore did not put forward a position of its own.

Bradley Estates Community Association (BECA)

This is a new community of approximately 500 homes located near Page/Navan/Renaud Roads, bordering immediately to the North of the Prescott Russell Pathway. This community has many young families with children, the community association reports that “Many young children are going on to the path in the winter and summer seasons”, and that “3-6 snowmobiles use the nearby section of the pathway each day”.

The Community Association is not supportive of any motorized vehicles being used on the pathway, due to concerns of noise impacts, parking by snowmobile users on residential streets, and safety of children. Specifically related to the usage policy for the Prescott-Russell Pathway, the BECA requests:

· West of Mer Bleu/Navan Road: permit only pedestrians, bicycles, skiers and dogs.

· No Horses (unless strict horse waste collection is enforced on the trail west of Mer bleu/Navan)

· That swing gates remain closed and locked at all times.

· Community access paths should have proper signage to disallow ATVs/Snowmobiles onto the Pathway. Posts can be installed but should not be limiting double carriers or wheelchairs.

The Community Association conducted a survey of residents (number of residents surveyed was not provided). The results of this survey are summarized in Document 8.

Vars Community Association (VCA)

The Vars Community Association submitted a copy of its Neighbourhood Plan (developed under guidance of City staff in Dec 2009). This plan put emphasis on the potential for horse riding as both a local economic driver as well as local recreational activity. Allowing horse riding on the Prescott-Russell Pathway was considered an important requirement.

Horse Riders

Numerous horse owners wishing to ride on the Pathways spoke at the public meetings or provided input through other means. Club Equestre Ramsayville Equestrian Club (CEREC), a local group representing approximately 100 riders is engaged in establishing a trail system for horse riding across Ottawa (70 km so far in place). The horse riders indicated that they have successfully shared trails with all users, and that trail riding horses are well acclimatized to dealing with other users. Suggestions were made on shared trail protocols to enhance safety for all users. Winter riding is much less common; and thus trails may be safely shared with snowmobiles. The main complaint is the too-rapid acceleration by snowmobiles after slowly passing horses. Horse manure management was raised as a concern by one Community Association, and some riders (especially in winter) indicated they usually remove manure from pathways.

Ski Associations

Staff received a letter from the Cross Country Canada (cross country ski organization with 51,000 members) that believes that these trails should be used in the winter for local youth groups to establish children’s cross country ski programs and that such programs would be wholly incompatible with shared use by snowmobiles.

Local Snowmobile Groups

Several snowmobile groups stressed that their volunteers actively support and maintain the pathways they share with other residents, and that they believe that shared use with non-motorized users and horse riders could be safely accommodated. They also mentioned that snowmobile access makes the pathway passable for walkers in deep snow, and may also be preferred by some skiers. Snowmobile clubs are attracted to these City owned rights-of-way because of the increasing difficulty in obtaining permission for trail access through a large number of private landholdings. Pathway access to a gas station on Osgoode Main Street was also cited as desirable.

Concerns and issues related to ‘rogue’ snowmobilers (those not holding memberships in the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs as required by all Clubs) and members not respecting shared-use protocols were acknowledged, with the clubs expecting to be actively involved in enforcement to mitigate these concerns through their trail patrollers and any other co-operative agreements that may be agreed to with Police Services.

The snowmobile clubs indicated that they would be willing to consider mitigation steps (such as curfews and speed restrictions) to reduce impacts to neighbouring residents. They acknowledged that late-model snowmobiles offer great reduction in noise and fumes compared with the older models, which have given snowmobiles ‘a bad name’.

The snowmobile clubs responded to the idea of a detour around Osgoode Village indicating that the Osgoode corridor has improved safety of snowmobilers (heading North-South) by offering a route alternative to the Rideau River, which presents hazards for snowmobilers breaking through river ice. It was stated that by-passing Osgoode Village is problematic since they rely on co‑operation of numerous landholders to provide permission for trails to cross their lands, and if even accomplished, they would still need to traverse residential driveways along the proposed alternative route.

They also stressed the shortness of their season (six to eight weeks), implying a relatively small impact on the overall yearly usage by others.

Summary of petition received from snowmobile clubs

The City received a petition signed by 1,574 individuals in support of snowmobile access on the Osgoode Pathway. The petition signatures span from September through December 2010.This petition was presented to the City by the president of the Osgoode Snowmobile Club. The statement on the petition reads:

A summary and background letter related to this petition is included in Document 7.

Local ATV Groups

Although ATV use was not included within the terms of reference of the Public Open Houses, several ATV owners and members of club organizations spoke and provided written comments. The request was for limited access to the trails for transit purposes, a trial period for ATV’ers to prove that they are responsible, and requests to consider access to the Pathway Right-of Way, off the main rail bed.

ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

For the purpose of this policy development, since the pathway sites were under construction, no data on existing usage were collected. Also, estimating the potential number of users for various pathway activities is difficult. Therefore, the following figures are provided as reference points only:

· 2,883 - Total Memberships in Ottawa area snowmobile clubs for 2009/10 season (Ref: West Carleton, BEAST, Rideau, Osgoode, Carleton Regional snowmobile clubs

· 2,400* - holders of Gatineau park cross-country Ski passes for 2009/10 season (Ref: NCC estimate for the City of Ottawa. (*Figure should be considered a minimum since many more skiers participate on an informal basis)

· 7,500 - horses used for Recreational purposes within the City of Ottawa (Ref: CEREC)

Rural areas of the city may differ from urban areas, in part due to the increased emphasis on activities such as snowmobiling and horse-riding. Where possible, attempts have been made to accommodate rural lifestyle issues within these recommendations.

Non-motorized Recreational Use:

Horse Riders

Staff was concerned with potential horse riding impacts on the pathway stone-dust surface. These impacts however can be tracked over a two year period, and rectified as part of annual maintenance. Should the maintenance impacts become too great, a limit on sections of the pathway allowing horses may be considered. Experience to date on the Ottawa-Carleton Trailway indicates that horses are not a significant area of resident complaint, and that the majority of residents had positive feedback (67% slightly or strongly positive) on the prospect of sharing Rural Pathways with horses. For these reasons, and considering the perspective of rural lifestyles, staff recommends horses be permitted.

Motorized Recreational Vehicle Use:

Motorcycles and ATVs

Staff examined the issue of shared use by motorcycles and by All-Terrain Vehicles (ATV’s) and recommended that they will not be allowed for the following reasons:

· Damage to pathway, resulting in increasing maintenance costs;

· Peak usage in summer interferes with cyclist/pedestrian use peak; and

· ATV’s are not permitted on many neighbouring pathways (permitted only on 9% of the entire Trans-Canada trail)

During the consultation process, no protests were recorded on the proposal to ban motorcycle use on the pathways. However, several ATV’ers and ATV groups objected to staff position of prohibiting any ATV access on these trails.

Snowmobiles

In considering the merit of allowing snowmobiles on the rural pathways, staff examined their impact on other non-motorized users as well as their impact on neighbouring residents.

While snowmobiling may be considered a prevalent activity in rural areas, the notion that it represents a core ‘rural lifestyle’ issue was strongly challenged by many rural residents, tolerated by others, and fiercely defended by snowmobile proponents. In light of this split within the community, rural lifestyle issue was not considered as a factor when setting recommendations for snowmobile use.

Impact on non-motorized users:

The snowmobile impact on non-motorized users would be limited due to the shortness of the snow season and by the fact that non-motorized usage levels would be much lower during the winter months. In addition, the use of snowmobiles during winter would:

· not impact cycling, which is not feasible on these pathways in the winter;

· have limited impacts on pedestrian use - either positively (by providing a compacted surface) or negatively (due to pedestrian concerns of sharing with snowmobiles); and

· impacts on skiers would be mitigated through enforcement of shared-use protocols.

Impacts on Neighbouring Residents:

The most significant impact to neighbouring resident, as identified during the consultation, was concern over noise emitted by motorized recreational vehicles. In general, noise impacts are strongly influenced by motorized volume, distance from the pathway, and the age of snowmobiles being operated on the pathways. Several references (as well as comments received during the consultations) indicate that late-model snow machines impose only a small fraction of the noise and pollution impacts of the oldest machines still in use.

The City consulted with an expert in the field of noise impacts related to snowmobile traffic who was well acquainted with the recent legal proceedings in the 2004 Quebec case. This case examined issues of nuisance related to snowmobile trails passing close to residences, and has been as summarized in the Legal/Risk Management Implications section of this document. Based on this interview, it became apparent that a simple noise characterization definition and limit could not be easily defined for noise impacts related to snowmobiles.

Based on the above examination of the impact on non-motorized users and neighbouring residents, two basic approaches could be applied:

Option A- Restrictive Approach: prohibit snowmobiles from using parts of the newly built pathways.

Option B- Managed Approach: allow snowmobiles on the pathways with certain operational restrictions around dense residential areas, with enforcement to rules and regulations, followed by a two-year monitoring program and adjustment to the policy as necessary.

Staff recommends following Option B, which best addresses the desires for access, while allowing a process of accommodation and adjustment. Licence conditions for snowmobile clubs requesting access to City pathways are provided in Document 4. Initial recommendations on shared-use protocols for all users are provided in Document 5. Following the two-year review period, if successful snowmobile accommodation cannot be made, the City could apply a restrictive policy as outlined in Option A.

In determining required operational restrictions, staff considered the 100-metre distance limit identified in the 2004 case as well as Quebec Bill 121, as well as provisions in Bill121 relating to limiting old (and noisy) snowmobiles. Therefore, staff is proposing that the following operational restrictions be applied to the two new pathways:

· That snowmobiles 1996 or older be uniquely and prominently identified via the OFSC sticker, (as is done currently for ‘Classic’ permits) so that this class of older snowmobiles may be excluded from using City multi-use pathways.

· Incorporate 20 km/hr speed reduction zones and curfews between midnight and 6 AM through built-up areas as indicated on pathway-specific maps in Figure 3 and Figure 4 and described in Document 7.

OG_Fig3 v3

PR_fig4_v3

Enforcement of Shared-Use Rules:

Effective enforcement has been raised as a major issue by rural residents. City By-laws officers do not have the capabilities needed to stop, track or otherwise intervene in problems involving the improper use of snowmobile vehicles on the rural pathways. Enforcement related to snowmobiles will therefore be primarily the responsibility of Police Services. By-law officers will be responsible for other complaints, such as off-leash dogs.

Police Services have instituted a new Marine/Dive/Trails Unit. This unit has access to four ATV’s and four snowmobiles. They expect to patrol each of the three rural pathways. Snowmobile police patrols have been rare in the past, and the noticeable increase in police presence on trails, especially in the winter, is expected to have a positive impact on behaviours.

The Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, which is provincial legislation, creates offences for reckless driving and other driving-related violations such as speeding as well as the use of snow machines with modified exhaust systems, which can be useful tools for enforcement by Police. Similarly, the Police can enforce violations of rules posted on site by the City on the pathways under the Trespass to Property Act.

Snowmobile club members and their patrollers will also take measures to enforce pathway rules. This is currently done in cooperation with the OPP, and is also suggested for evaluation by Police Services as an additional enforcement measure on Rural Pathways. The snowmobile clubs play a pivotal role in maintaining not just the snow surface, but in setting the rule for snowmobile interactions with other pathway users, and in reducing undesired impacts to pathway neighbours. Continued access to these trails by OFSC is contingent on the success of these efforts.

Monitoring Program:

Monitoring usage levels and obtaining feedback from pathway users and residents will be critical to a successful review of these policies. The monitoring program will include:

· Automated counters (for accuracy and suitability), appropriate counters will be installed at two locations along each pathway, for a two-year trial period.

· Intercept Survey: an intercept survey will also be conducted on the pathway, to enable classification of users as well as obtaining feedback on ‘shared use’ experiences. The intercept survey will be done at peak use times (weekends), during good weather. The surveys will be done once per quarter- including winter conditions.

· Complaints and Incident Monitoring: a summary of incidents along each pathway will be obtained from the Police services, identifying the location along the pathway, as well as a summary of the complaints received from the public regarding use violations on the Pathways

· Maintenance Costs: records of maintenance costs per pathway over the next two years in particular looking for any damage from one user-group (for example, from horse hooves) will be collected.

Other Issues Raised During Consultation and Staff Response:

Neighbouring residents have requested pathway access and pathway crossings of various kinds.

- All such request could be made through the City Realty Services group, and then incorporated within access agreements, and are not within the scope of this report.

Residents neighbouring the pathway identified problems with cars parked outside of designated pathway parking areas. Problems included limiting sightlines, blocking driveways, interference with garbage pick-up and access by farm equipment.

- All operational concerns will be addressed by traffic safety (to identify appropriate non-parking zones).

Residents expressed concern over safety of pathway/road crossings.

- This is being addressed by providing new signs warning drivers of trail crossing.

The stimulus funding requests made to the Provincial and Federal Governments didn’t include snowmobiles. Therefore, they should not be allowed on the pathways.

- The issue was referred to OMAFRA (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs), which administers the stimulus funding request and provided the following response:

o To date, only costs related to the current project description have been funded so the City is not in contravention in any way of the Contribution agreement by way of funding any costs specific to motorized vehicle usage.

o usage of the pathway is determined by Municipal By-Laws.

o multi-use pathways are an eligible project type under ISF (Infrastructure Stimulus Fund).

- It is staff’s understanding that the stimulus funding conditions do not explicitly or implicitly preclude the use of these pathways by motorized vehicles.

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

This report is focussed exclusively on rural pathways. Through the consultation process, many residents indicated that the issue has proven to be divisive within their communities, with questions raised regarding:

a) Degree of local autonomy and decision making for local issues in rural areas; and

b) Respect for recreation choices with historical roots in the rural areas (snowmobiling and horse riding).

Much could be done to improve co-operation between user groups through the establishment of pathway working group(s), consisting of local stakeholders participating on a voluntary basis. Such a group can identify areas for improved co-operation by different users and pro-actively address concerns of neighbours, providing a measure of local influence over these pathways.

By working within the report guidelines, confrontational issues (on allowed usage) would not be up for discussion, leaving scope for positive recommendations by all parties. This process was started in Osgoode under the leadership of Councillor Thompson, and a similar working group was instrumental in the establishment of the Ottawa-Carleton Trailway.

CONSULTATION

The consultations included:

Stakeholder Meetings;
Three Public Open House sessions;
On-Line survey forms (also available in hard copy and at the Public Open Houses);
Project web page at: ottawa.ca/ruralpathway; and
Residents and stakeholders encouraged to provide written submissions by 20 December 2010

Public Open Houses:

Three Public Open Houses (POHs) were held which focused on the policy development process and public input on experiences, preferences and suggestions for establishing a policy framework. The format included display boards, a slide presentation, and facilitated ‘Open Microphone’ sessions where attendees stated their positions, or directed questions to staff. Members of the Ottawa Police Services Marine/Dive/Trails Unit were on hand at each meeting to answer questions on enforcement, and to collect first hand information on resident concerns and experiences. Comment sheets and survey forms were provided and the project webpage included all of the POH material. All of the sessions covered the same material, although more emphasis was placed on the specific pathway nearest to the Open House location. Public Open House locations and attendance are listed in the table below:

Open House Session	Location	No. of Attendees
30 November 2010	Osgoode Village Community Centre	280
2 December 2010	Saw Mill Creek Community Centre	38
7 December 2010	Sir Wilfrid Laurier Secondary School (Tenth Line)	86
Total:		404

The Open Houses and information website were advertised in the following locations by the City of Ottawa, as well as being covered by local media:

Date

Publication

Friday, November 12

· Citizen

· Le Droit

Thursday, November 18

· Kemptville Advance

· EMC South,

· Orleans Star

· L’Express

· EMC Manotick

City Advisory Committees:

An overview of the policy development process was provided by staff at four of the City’s Advisory Committee meetings in November and December of 2010. The Osgoode Village Residents Association also provided comments during all of these Advisory meetings. For the RIAC meeting, snowmobile stakeholder groups also spoke, and Councillor Thompson presented his viewpoints and history related to resident consultations (the Councillor’s Steering Committee) which proceeded this policy process. A number of residents also attended each meeting, many of whom addressed the Advisory Committee members.

Advisory Committee	Outcome
PTAC Pedestrian and Transit (Nov 18^th, 2010)	BE IT RESOLVED that Pedestrian and Transit Advisory Committee requests that the City refuse to extend (or discontinue) the permit for motorized vehicles on the OSGOODE path.
RCAC Roads and Cycling (Nov 22^nd, 2010)	BE IT RESOLVED that the RCAC requests the City of Ottawa prohibit motorized traffic on all multi-use paths.
PRAC Parks and Recreation (Nov 23^rd, 2010)	BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee recommends to the Transportation Committee that motorized vehicles be prohibited from using all pathways in the City of Ottawa, including the new multi-use pathways being built on the former Osgoode and Prescott-Russell rail corridors.
RIAC Rural Advisory Comm. (Dec 14^th, 2010)	That the Rural Issues Advisory Committee (RIAC) support the Multi-Use Pathway Steering Committee Resolution (as follows) and forward this motion of support to both the Agriculture and Rural Affairs, and Transportation Committees for their consideration: BE IT RESOLVED that the Ward 20 Multi-Use Pathway Committee makes the following recommendations to City staff with respect to the Multi-Use Recreational Pathway extending from Osgoode Village to Leitrim Road: i. That the pathway be surfaced with limestone (stone dust) from Leitrim Road to Buckles Street; ii. a) That suitable barriers be installed at each and all intersections along the Pathway to prevent access by motorized vehicles; b) Not withstanding motion (ii) a) that the barriers installed would not restrict snowmobiles or wheelchairs. c) That appropriate barriers be installed at the north and south boundaries of the Falcon Ridge Golf Course Property. iii. That the Snowmobile Club be permitted to continue its agreement with the City of Ottawa to groom the trail, use the trail for snowmobiling, provide winter maintenance and patrol the pathway from November to March each year (these dates are weather dependent, subject to a review of this agreement and potential modifications); iv. That in response to City staff recommendations that ATV’s and motorized bikes are not allowed on the Multi-Use Pathway in 2011 and 2012 in order to allow the pathway surface to settle; v. a) That horses not be allowed on the Multi-Use Pathway. b) That all dogs must be leashed while on the Pathway.

Comments by Public Works and Services

The Public Works Department has been consulted in the development of this report specific to the operating and maintenance impacts.

The estimated operating and maintenance costs for these rural pathways is included in the $128,000 operating pressure for all sidewalks and pathways constructed under the Stimulus Program, which is a component of the combined $1.19M Stimulus Growth operating pressure for roads, sidewalks/pathways, street lights and traffic control systems. This operating pressure has been included in the Draft 2011 Operating Budget for the Roads and Traffic Operations and Maintenance Branch of the Public Works Department.

The Public Works Department is supportive of the report recommendations and will work with Planning and Growth Management to implement them subject to approval by Council.

Comments by By-law and Regulatory Services

By-law and Regulatory Services would not contemplate adding any additional resources for purposes of enforcement on the trail; however, enforcement would be on a reactive basis only and would be prioritized against other Requests for Service directed to the Branch.

COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR(S)

Councillor Thompson: (W20)

I am very pleased with the extensive review and research into permitted uses on Multi-Use Pathways, a new concept for recreation, in the Rural areas of the City: Zlatko and other Staff did a remarkable job on a very high profile issue that has engaged our Communities over the past 1 1/2 years. I have concerns about horseback riding on the Pathway, although I do appreciate their horse owners organizations and their interest in recreational riding. I will view with interest and await the comments from the local snowmobile clubs on the recommendation of not allowing older snowmobile machines on the Pathway.

Councillor Blais: (W19)

“I generally support the staff recommendations.

I believe it is overly punitive to restrict the use of snowmobiles that were built before 1997. Many snowmobilers use their machines for in excess of 20 years. This added restriction will unduly punish lawful snowmobilers who happen to own an older snowmobile.

It is unclear to me how staff will monitor the use of the pathway as it relates to the two year review. If the study is completely ‘complaint based’, this could lead to individuals abusing the reporting of noisy snowmobiles.”

Councillor Bloess: (W2)

I do not support the use of the trail by motorized vehicles in the urban area, especially in the stretch adjacent to Bradley Estates. There should be total restriction in the corridor adjacent to this development and skidoos and ATVs should be rerouted away from residential uses.

Councillor Deans: (W10)

Please ensure that the pathways developed protect the LRT corridor and do not allow any pathway use to encroach on the LRT right of way. I do not support allowing snowmobiles to share the multi-use pathway. I am in favour of a total prohibition of snowmobiles using the newly built pathways.

Councillor Desroches: (W22)

Councillor Desroches is aware of this report.

LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

1. City’s Duty of Care as Owner of Pathways:

A duty of care is owed by the City to all authorized users of its multi-use pathways. Under s. 3 of the Occupier's Liability Act this duty of care applies to both the condition of the premises and to the activities taking place on them. Under this legislation, a certain amount of assumed risk on the part of the user of the recreational trail is accepted however the City as occupier (owner) has the duty not to create a danger with the deliberate intent of doing harm, and not to act with reckless disregard of the presence of persons on the property.

Given this duty of care, the City must carefully manage all multiple uses that it allows on its pathways in order to ensure that no undue dangers are being created. The imposition of terms and conditions for snowmobile users on the pathways, including reduced speeds, as well as the use of signage on site are reasonable means of mitigating risks associated with multiple users. However, ongoing monitoring of all uses of the pathways must be undertaken to ensure that the City is meeting its duty to pathway users and that ongoing risk mitigation efforts continue to be effective. Horses present a special case since the interaction with horses and other users whether they are pedestrians, cyclists and in particular snowmobiles is uncertain. Examples include a horse being spooked or losing its rider and running wild on the pathway.

It should be noted that anyone entering the pathways or using them in contravention of a posted regulation on site commits an offence under the Trespass to Property Act, and therefore may be the subject of enforcement action by police.

2. Issues Relating to Noise:

The City has received communications from residents of Osgoode and surrounding areas, and in the case of one resident from their legal counsel, expressing concern about the noise created by snowmobile use on the pathways and claiming that such noise is creating a nuisance. A nuisance in law is created when the use of one‘s lands that causes an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of another’s lands. There is no prescribed standard as to what will be considered a nuisance since one's “tolerance level” will vary and will depend on the facts of a particular case. Therefore, Courts will usually consider the surrounding circumstances of each action on a case by case basis.

At present, the City does not have any data on noise levels or number of snowmobile users on the pathways. It is important to note however that a 2004 case decided by the Quebec Superior Court awarded damages to residents living within 100m of a snowmobile trail that experienced a nuisance from the noise and fumes caused by snowmobile traffic on the trail. In that case, the Court found that on busy days up to 700 snowmobilers were using the trail and the posted speed limits were not being respected, with some snowmobilers travelling in excess of 100 km/h. The Court agreed that a nuisance in law had been created for those landowners that lived within 100 metres of the snowmobile corridor due to noise of the snowmobiles. No nuisance was found for those residents living beyond 100 metres.

While it is expected that the factual basis of the above-noted case can be distinguished from that of the City’s pathways, it is nevertheless recommended that the City put into place speed reductions in areas that are built up as recommended by staff, and that prohibiting snowmobiling at night in these areas be envisaged. Regulation of snowmobile use in these areas by way of licenses of occupation is also necessary on a go-forward basis to ensure control of speeds.

3. Other Legal Considerations:

The current legal status of the pathways is as follows:

Prescott Russell:

The pathway is currently under license to a snowmobile club, which license will be renegotiated pursuant to the recommendations of this policy review. The VIA Rail lease terms will continue to be followed.

Osgoode:

The current license to the snowmobile club has expired and is currently under renegotiation for this winter season. There are also two licensed users of the Pathway whose properties abut the Pathway (one for access and one for crossing).

4. Conclusion:

Ongoing monitoring will be required by City staff to ensure that all permitted uses of the pathways can be made safely and that the City is meeting its duty of care in respect of pathway users.

CITY STRATEGIC PLAN:

The recommendations contained herein directly support the following objectives of the City Strategic Plan adopted by Council on 11 July 2007, updated 7 May 2010.

o Sustainable, Healthy and Active City

o Objective 1: Support recreational facilities and programming to match the population growth

o Objective 5: Ensure that cultural and recreational programs are offered across a range of levels of activity such that every resident, and in particular every child, has a chance to participate

o Planning and Growth Management

o Objective 4: Preserve Ottawa’s rural villages

o Objective 3: Commit to and develop a democratic, engaging and visible process to maximize input from residents in the work of Council and in policy development, while ensuring that seniors, new Canadians, women and the economically disadvantaged are included

o Governance

o Objective 1: Increase the appropriate delegation of authority to Standing Committees, Ward Councillors and staff to improve Council’s ability to provide strategic direction and reduce transactional approvals

o Objective 4: Enhance and develop processes that support the representative role of Ward

TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Financial implications from Police Services will be issued separately.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 Rural Pathway Shared-Use Policy

Document 2 Osgoode Pathway Map

Document 3 Prescott-Russell Pathway Map

Document 4 Survey Form

Document 5 Shared-use Agreements for Snowmobile Clubs

Document 6 Shared-use Protocols for all Pathway Users

Document 7 Pathway Specific Restrictions (Osgoode and Prescott-Russell)

Document 8 Petition Cover-pages (by OVRA, and local Snowmobile Clubs)

Document 9 Resident Survey Summary: Bradley Estates

DISPOSITION

Following Committee and Council’s approval of this usage policy, City Staff as identified in this report will proceed with implementation of the policy, based on recommendations listed within this report.

RURAL PATHWAY SHARED USE POLICY DOCUMENT 1

The following shared uses are permitted on a year-round basis unless otherwise stipulated:

a. Pedestrians/skiers, cyclists, and on-leash dog walking;

b. Bicycles, including eBikes (as defined by the Province of Ontario);

c. Horse-riding;

All motorized vehicles are prohibited except as expressly exempted or permitted under this policy as follows:

i. Exempted Motorized Vehicles;

· All police and emergency response vehicles;

· Low-speed motorized mobility aids for the disabled including wheelchairs and scooters; and,

· Motorized vehicles as duly authorized for pathway maintenance or trail grooming.

ii. Snowmobiles are permitted on shared-use pathways during a specified winter period based on the following general conditions :

· All snowmobilers using the pathways must be members of or under the authority of clubs that have entered into license of occupation agreements with the City and Snowmobile Clubs on a per-pathway basis, and must abide by the terms of those agreements ;

· Only clubs belonging to the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs (OFSC), where membership can be proven by way of appropriate documentation, identification, and valid OFSC stickers on the snowmobile vehicle, can enter into licence of occupation agreements with the City;

· That snowmobiles 1996 or older (defined as ‘Classic by the OFSC) be excluded from access to these Pathways as a condition of the license; and

· That for the 2011/12 season and later, license of occupation agreements with snowmobile clubs for the Prescott-Russell and Osgoode pathways incorporate 20km/hr speed reduction zones and curfews between midnight and 6 AM through built-up areas as indicated on pathway-specific maps

OSGOODE PATHWAY MAP DOCUMENT 2

PRESCOTT RUSSELL PATHWAY MAP DOCUMENT 3

SURVEY FORM DOCUMENT 4

SAMPLE SHARED USE AGREEMENT FOR SNOWMOBILE CLUBS DOCUMENT 5

The Club shall ensure that its members and guests exercise caution and show courtesy to other users of the Lands, and shall:

o Inform its members that the Lands are shared with other users;

o Instruct its members on the safety protocols for snowmobiling when passing, which include slowing down to “dead slow” when in the proximity of other users;

o Do NOT accelerate rapidly when passing people or horses;

o Ensure that under no circumstances will posted speeds for snowmobilers exceed 50 km/hr. Some sections of the Lands may be signed at reduced speeds;

o Ensure that its members and guests reduce speeds to safe levels during times of limited visibility or inclement weather to ensure the safety of other users of the Lands;

o Ensure all path-side signs and club trail maps highlight and are consistent with the above‑noted points, and;

o Restrict special events (where large numbers of snowmobilers are invited) to one day per season, and provide notification to other potential users of expected higher traffic at trailheads.

Other terms:

o Do not disturb natural vegetation 1.5m outside the nominal 3m pathway surface.

o Establish a minimum base of snow before opening pathway gates, to prevent churn of gravel into snow-bed.

o Term of agreement not to exceed 1yr for 2011/12 and 2012/13 seasons, may be extended to two year term thereafter.

o Non-conformance to shared use safety protocol shall be deemed sufficient grounds for immediate termination.

SHARED USE PROTOCOLS DOCUMENT 6

1. Trail users should wear reflective clothing during low-light and night time conditions.

2. Horse riders should clear horse manure off the trail where practicable.

3. Cyclists RING BELL when passing pedestrians.

4. Cyclists and Pedestrians yield to horse riders, avoid loud noises, Cyclists slow down when passing.

5. Do not disturb farm animals, or allow pets to do so.

PATHWAY SPECIFIC LICENCE RESTRICTIONS DOCUMENT 7

a. Osgoode Pathway

i. Low Speed Zones (20km/hr) and Curfew between hours of midnight and 6AM through Osgoode Village (as delineated by licensing map, and consistent with Figure 3 of this report) to be posted and enforced.

b. Prescott-Russell Pathway

ii. Low Speed Zones (as delineated by licensing map and consistent with Figure 4 of this report) 20km/hr to be posted and enforced.

PETITION SUMMARY PAGES DOCUMENT 8

BRADLEY ESTATES SURVEY SUMMARY DOCUMENT 9

The Community Association conducted a survey of residents (the number of residents surveyed was not provided). The results of this survey are summarized below:

· Majority of residents do not want ATVs or Snowmobiles on the trail (only 1 person owns an ATV and 2 people own both an ATV and a Snowmobile)

· 83% of people wish to X-Country ski on the trail in the winter (50% of those wish to have groomed trails)

· at least 70% of people own a bicycle that they want to ride on the trail

· Residents want their children to be able to bike safely with them on the trail- 46% of kids have their own bikes and 30% are in a bike attachment

· Residents do not want to have to take off bike attachment wheels to pass through gates as opening will not allow passage of double carrier.

· Approximately 55% of residents own a dog that they would like to walk with them on the trail.