MINUTES
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON
CHAMPLAIN ROOM
1 MARCH 2000
1:30 P.M.
PRESENT
Chair: D. Holmes
Members: M. Bellemare, W. Byrne, R. Cantin, L. Davis, C. Doucet, H. Kreling, J. Legendre, M. McGoldrick-Larsen, M. Meilleur
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
That the Transportation Committee confirm the Minutes of the meeting of 16 February 2000.
CARRIED
REGULAR ITEMS
1. Terry Fox Drive Environmental Assessment Study
- Planning and Development Approvals Commissioner report dated 14 Feb 00
Brendan Reid, Manager, Infrastructure and Projects Planning introduced Don MacKinnon, Mike Flanick and Peter Hannah from Dillon Consulting Limited. Mr. Flanick gave a detailed presentation of the environmental assessment (EA) study as outlined in the report.
________________________________________________________________________
Note: 1. Underlining indicates a new or amended recommendation approved by Committee.
2. Reports requiring Council consideration will be presented to Council on 8 and 22 March in Transportation Committee Reports 57 and 58, respectively.
Following a brief outline of the results of the evaluation process for each of the alternatives, Mr. Hannah advised that Alternative 4-1 was identified as the preferred alignment for various reasons, including:
Mr. Hannah advised that mitigation measures have been identified and are recommended in the EA document. With respect to the natural environment, some measures proposed include planting salt-tolerant species of trees/shrubs on the right-of-way as well as reducing the level of maintenance within the right-of-way. In light of the number of water crossings involved with the roadway, oversized culverts will be provided to allow for the passage of wildlife. In addition, construction of the new road will result in some displacement of aquatic habitat and under the Federal Fisheries Act, such loss must be compensated by improving fish habitat further up or downstream of the road, so the actual net result is no loss of habitat. He confirmed there are a number of water crossings by the preferred alignment including one or two tributaries of the Carp River and of Shirley’s Brook. He went on to state that in areas where the roadway is already draining into wetland areas, it is proposed that these existing drainage patterns be maintained as opposed to directly running off into existing water courses. It will be necessary to work with the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority with respect to issues on the flood plain because a portion of the roadway extends into the Carp River flood plain just north of Richardson Side Road.
Councillor Munter was concerned that constructing this major road would essentially set the stage for the development of the lands between that facility and the urban boundary. The Planning and Development Approvals Commissioner advised that any future development would be part of the work program leading to a Regional Official Plan (ROP) amendment as to whether any change in the designation in Schedules A and B is required, or would be recommended. He noted that this alignment was chosen because it is the least environmentally damaging. The councillor remarked, however, that it is only the least environmentally damaging if the 120 acres of natural environment area are never paved over. He did not believe that approving this alignment and expanding the urban boundary was environmentally friendly. Mr. Tunnacliffe stated that regardless of whether or not development eventually occurs on that land, there will be environmental damage if one of the other alignments is chosen.
Councillor Munter inquired what the degree of difference in the environmental damage would be with another alternative such as the First Line road allowance. Mr. MacKinnon advised that Alignment 4-2 travels through four significant grade differences and in order to build even a two-lane road, would require in the order of 30-45 metres of right-of-way to accommodate the side slopes, thereby causing a lot of damage to the land. Alternatively, Alignment 4-3 (Goulbourn Forced Road) would require four lanes because it currently exists as a collector roadway internal to the community and adding two more lanes of commuter-related arterial traffic would require fairly significant noise barriers.
Councillor Munter questioned whether staff could guarantee that an amendment to the ROP would not come forward recommending an additional 120 acres being added to the urban area. While he could not provide such a guarantee, the Commissioner advised that it is staff’s intention that should this alignment be selected, they would determine what the best use of the land should be. The councillor noted that 80% of that land is natural environment area, with some agricultural lands, and is designated as such in the ROP. He did not want to do anything that invites and encourages the development of those lands and asked that if this alignment is chosen, that the committee specifically instruct staff to rule out the option of developing those lands and that their uses, as designated in schedules of the Official Plan, remain the same.
The Commissioner indicated that some of the land is designated Natural Environment Area B and as such, the ROP contemplates the possibility of development. Councillor Munter stated however, that approving the preferred alignment will automatically invite applications to redesignate those lands between it and the urban boundary on the basis that the road infrastructure is there. From a purely transportation perspective, he agreed there is nothing wrong with this report; however, his real concern is the next step in this process which pertains to the planning consequences of the preferred alternative. The Commissioner stated that some of that land is probably worthy of being designated Natural Environment Area A and should therefore be protected. As part of the EA study, staff could examine the land and make some judgements with respect to protection.
Prior to asking questions, Councillor Legendre requested that for future presentations, staff provide a paper copy of their presentation for ease of reference by committee members. In a review of the various alignment alternatives, the councillor inquired whether Alternative 4-3 has similar problems of hills and marshes which are present in Alternative 4-2, which is a hydro corridor. Mr. MacKinnon advised that Alignment 4-3 is not as severe as 4-2, but does have some fairly steep vertical grades and horizontal curves. It would be impossible to build the new alignment on top of the existing road and therefore the route would vary slightly, making it necessary to cut through natural wood lot. According to the drawings in the report however, the councillor noted the deviation is very minimal.
Councillor Munter asked that a member of the committee put forward a Motion stating that this report focuses mainly on the transportation aspects of the various alignments and that approval be deferred pending Council’s consideration of a report from the Planning Department on the planning and development implications of the various alignments. Councillor Meilleur agreed to move such a Motion.
Councillor Cantin believed the preferred alignment appears to take motorists quite far west, with very limited access to the road. D. MacKinnon advised there are two roads that will connect into Marchwood Lakeside, at Goulbourn Forced Road and also at First Line Road. The councillor questioned the need to construct an arterial road so far west and suggested the more logical route should be Alternative 4-3 (Goulbourn Forced Road). Mr. Hannah reiterated the fact that there is a requirement for four lanes of traffic-carrying capacity in this area and Alternative 4-3 puts all four of those lanes through the community with a lot of disruption.
The councillor was concerned that the woodland near the preferred alignment would be negatively affected by the road as a result of changing the natural drainage patterns. In a related example, he recalled how a portion of forest died as a result of the development of Highway 17 past Dwyer Hill Road. He reiterated his belief that Alignment 4-3 would be the more logical route since it is an existing road and has several other roads feeding into it. He opined further that it would be best to have all four lanes on one road instead of two separate roads of two lanes. Mr. MacKinnon advised that once it is designed to an arterial road standard, it will mean increasing the radius and reducing the vertical profile, resulting in a greater environmental impact. He added that the community was very opposed to having another road cutting through the community.
When questioned what development is planned for either side of Goulbourn Forced Road, the Planning Commissioner indicated that the ROP contemplates community development such as housing, parks, schools, small stores, et cetera. Councillor Cantin questioned whether industrial development could be accommodated along these new roads, so residential areas are not as affected. The Commissioner suggested it would be difficult to develop industrial businesses in this area because of the rocky terrain.
Councillor Cantin questioned whether the Region is locked into the Hope Side Road alignment at Eagleson Road and Mr. Reid advised it is not totally locked in because the road has not been built yet, but plans have been evolving over the past 25 years that have more less taken as a given there would be a connection to Hope Side Road. The councillor noted that the Nortel campus west of Terry Fox Drive will be expanding and questioned whether staff would be bringing forward a request to do a study on Huntmar Road to connect it to Terry Fox Drive or to Richardson Side Road. The Commissioner indicated that would be part of the Corel Area study. The councillor expressed concern about the amount of infrastructure being recommended that the Region would be unable to fund now, while there are other areas in the Region that have been waiting for better infrastructure for many years. In balancing development, he believed there appeared to be too much concentrated in the west end of the Region.
Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen supported the Motion because she wanted to have more information on the potential development and what the effect will be. With respect to the comments made by Councillor Cantin about preferring Alignment 4-3, she advised that this two-laned road and is very scenic, with trees on both sides, and she would not want to see it used as an arterial.
The Committee Chair asked about the report on the loss of fish habitat and the consultants advised that it is contained within the EA document, which will be completed following Council approval. Chair Holmes asked to receive that portion of the EA that dealt specifically with the loss of fish habitat.
Moved by M. Meilleur
WHEREAS this report is focused primarily on the transportation aspects of the various Terry Fox drive alignments;
RESOLVED THAT approval of this report be deferred until Council has had the opportunity to consider a report from the Planning Department on the planning and development implications of the various alignments (Section 4).
CARRIED
2. Modifications to Industrial AVENUE immediately west of St. Laurent Boulevard to Accommodate the Development at 911 Industrial - ADDENDUM REPORT
- Director, Mobility Services and Corporate Fleet Services report dated 1 Nov 99
- Addendum to report dated 11 Feb 00
Councillor Legendre noted the reference to the level of service (LoS) in the report, but recalled that during consideration of the Regional Official Plan and the Transportation Master Plan, it was agreed there would be more emphasis on something other than LoS and the only measure used was to be by counting people. He was unable to find the reference in either of those documents and suggested it might be in one of the many subsidiary documents related to them. Doug Brousseau, Director of Mobility Services clarified that one of those many documents speaks to the issue of traffic system management and this deals with total person delay as well as vehicle capacity ratio. He added that the LoS referred to in the report relates to the traffic control signals and how well they will operate at this location. The councillor simply wanted to remind staff of the standard adopted by Council and hoped future reports would be written accordingly.
Councillor Bellemare asked whether the collision statistics from 1998 to 1999 were available and staff agreed to provide the councillor with a copy, noting they would probably be very similar to those recorded between 1995 and 1997. The councillor made note of the fact there are already a number of conflicts in this area, which he believed would only multiply if committee approved the modifications. In response to a question posed by the councillor, staff advised that northbound vehicles exiting the development (a bank) on the opposite side of Industrial Avenue would be permitted to drive straight across into the driveway of the new development; motorists travelling in the southbound direction and exiting the new development would be allowed to make the same movement. Staff provided an overhead drawing of the proposed roadway modifications and the various turning movements that exist and would exist once the development is complete. Councillor Bellemare believed that with the variety of movements at this location, it would appear to be very dangerous, especially considering the number of lanes involved. D. Brousseau agreed there is potential for conflict, but noted there are not a lot of motorists at this location now.
Councillor Bellemare questioned whether traffic control signals would be installed at the entrance to the new development and D. Brousseau confirmed it would be an uncontrolled access, although the westbound turning lane does provide some storage capacity. He explained that staff have to determine the safest way to provide access to ensure the road functions and while they cannot deny access to the Regional road (Industrial Avenue), they do have the ability to limit access to right-in and right-out only. Part of the challenge for staff is to help make this a viable business and it is intended that this entrance be monitored to see if problems occur.
Councillor Bellemare questioned whether extending the median across the entrance was an option and D. Brousseau advised this would make it difficult for the businesses across the road which have enjoyed full access. It was further added that there is no alternative access for this business and it would become landlocked without access to the Regional road.
The councillor questioned who would be financially responsible for making the corrections at this location if it becomes problematic and was advised by staff that the Region would pay, unless another development comes along that provides an opportunity to address those problems. While he understood staff’s position on this matter and taking into account the Region’s responsibility to provide access to a business on this road, the councillor indicated he would dissent on the staff recommendation.
Councillor Cantin was also concerned about the access and egress from this site, especially since it is 100 metres away from the intersection of St. Laurent Boulevard. He questioned whether there could be a proviso added to the agreement for the modifications, that should collisions become unreasonable, the developer be responsible for paying for the closure of the median. D. Brousseau advised that committee’s decision is how to serve the business needs at what might be considerable risk. The councillor then suggested that the developer be asked to install traffic control signals and D. Brousseau explained that staff had not examined that option and therefore did not know if it would be viable. Councillor Cantin noted there will be two fast-food restaurants built at this site and questioned what the projected traffic counts would be when they are opened. The Project Manager, Bill Jolliffe, indicated that 145 vehicles are anticipated to exit this site during the p.m. peak hour. The councillor proposed the following:
That the entrance to the site be moved west as far as possible from St. Laurent and that the developer agrees to the installation of traffic control signals at their cost.
Councillor Bellemare noted that the intersection of St. Laurent and Industrial operates at LoS E during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, although the map provided today by staff indicates that it operates at LoS F. Staff confirmed the level of service should be "F". With respect to the aforementioned Motion, the councillor believed these were two possibilities the committee needs further information on and suggested the report and the Motion be referred to staff for consideration. B. Jolliffe advised that staff have already addressed the option of moving the entrance further west, but such consideration did not include the provision of signals. He added that approval of the roadway modifications is on the basis of further investigation to see how it functions and if there are problems, staff would provide certain measures to mitigate those, which may include traffic control signals. The Director believed it would probably take another month to look at the situation as suggested by the Motion.
Councillor Bellemare did not like the idea of moving ahead on this on a trial and error basis and proposed that committee refer the report and the Motion back to staff for further information. Councillor Cantin believed the basis for referral is flawed, noting staff have already advised that the entrance is too close to the intersection to be considered for the installation of traffic control signals. He urged committee members to support his direction to staff to negotiate with the developer.
Moved by M. Bellemare
That the report and the following Motion be referred to staff for review and a report back:
That the entrance to the site be moved west as far as possible from St. Laurent and that the developer agrees to the installation of traffic control signals at their cost.
CARRIED
YEAS: M. Bellemare, W. Byrne, L. Davis, C. Doucet, H. Kreling, J. Legendre,
M. Meilleur….7
NAYS: R. Cantin, D. Holmes….2
The Director asked whether committee would approve temporary access to this development site. When questioned what the legal ramifications were, the Solicitor advised that the committee can choose to deny access until it is satisfied it is safe. Councillor Bellemare therefore proposed that no access be provided.
Councillor Cantin questioned whether that Motion could be amended to say "until staff come to an agreement with the developer". What ensued was a brief discussion about the length of time involved before staff could report back and based on the fact there may be a lengthy time delay, Councillor Bellemare agreed to withdraw his Motion. Instead, he recommend that committee approve that temporary access be permitted, but restricted to right-in and right-out movements only.
Moved by M. Bellemare
That temporary access be limited to right-in/right-out only.
CARRIED
(D. Holmes dissented)
The Solicitor later confirmed with the Co-ordinator that only the above-noted Motion has to go forward to Council because the prior Motion speaks to referral.
COUNCILLOR’S ITEMS
3. EAGLESON ROAD SPEED LIMIT
- Councillor A. Munter’s report dated 3 Feb 00
- Bridlewood Community Association letter dated 26 Jan 00
The Environment and Transportation Commissioner recommended that the matter be referred to staff for a technical analysis and a report back.
Councillor Munter noted that the 60 km/h speed limit ends because that was the end of the developed area. Mr. Brousseau confirmed this fact, adding that the existing speed zones were recommended at the time Eagleson Road was reconstructed. The councillor believed this was a housekeeping issue, noting the 60 km/h speed zone should be extended because the urban area grew further south. He explained that this is a particular concern to the community and requests to change the speed limit have been made in the past but were always rejected. However, he was very concerned because motorists have to turn at an unsignalized intersection which is on the portion of Eagleson where the speed limit jumps from 60 to 80 km/h. Also, there is a social housing development to the east of the road and many of those residents do not have cars and must walk along Eagleson Road to get to the local stores.
Councillor Cantin did not think extending the 60 km/h as recommended would be appropriate and believed there were sections of Eagleson Road which are posted 60 km/h unnecessarily. He suggested the matter be referred to staff for further review.
Following a brief explanation of how speed limits were originally established, John Buck, Manager, Operational Studies stated these limits are set based on the speed at which most (85%) of motorists were driving. Generally speaking, people will drive safely and at a speed that is prudent for the conditions of the road. Along this section of Eagleson which is surrounded by fields and is 400 metres north of Hope Side Road, he did not believe a 60 km/h speed limit would be obeyed. D. Brousseau added that collisions are often caused by the deviation of speeds along the same stretch of roadway. Mr. Buck indicated that a speed survey was conducted on Eagleson Road between Bridgestone and Emerald Meadows on 21 February between 7:05 a.m. and 7:50 a.m. and it was found that northbound motorists were travelling at 82 km/h and 88 km/h in the opposite direction.
Councillor Munter suggested a compromise that would only extend the 60 km/h speed zone to Emerald Meadows, but not further south towards Hope Side Road. He proposed a modification to his recommendation to extend it only 500 metres south of where that present speed limit ends, bringing it just past Emerald Meadows.
Councillor Cantin could not support that recommendation and reiterated his previous comment that the item be referred to staff for a further review of what actual speeds are being travelled in that 60 km/h speed zone. He did not believe it was practical to have or extend a 60 km/h limit on a limited access road. He proposed that the Motion be referred to staff and that they bring back evidence as to what is presently occurring on that stretch of Eagleson Road.
Moved by R. Cantin
That the matter be referred to staff and that they be directed to bring forward evidence as to what speeds are actually be driven on Eagleson Road.
LOST
YEAS: R. Cantin….1
NAYS: M. Bellemare, W. Byrne, L. Davis, C. Doucet, D. Holmes,
J. Legendre….6
Moved by J. Legendre
That Transportation Committee recommend Council approve that the existing 60 km/h speed limit on Eagleson, in the residential community of Bridlewood, be extended by 500 metres to the south to accommodate increased growth and development.
CARRIED as amended
YEAS: M. Bellemare, W. Byrne, L. Davis, C. Doucet, D. Holmes,
Legendre….6
NAYS: R. Cantin….1
INQUIRIES
Operation of Pedestrian Activated Signals
Councillor Doucet explained that some of his constituents do not understand how pedestrian activated signals work and requested a short presentation at an upcoming meeting. The committee agreed that on 5 April 2000, staff can provide a brief presentation 15 minutes prior to the start time of the meeting and councillors wishing to be involved can attend at that time.
High Speed Rail Presentation
Councillor Legendre proposed that the committee invite the consortium formed of Bombardier, SNC Lavalin and Alstom to speak to the committee under the aegis of Transport 2000 on the topic of high speed rail. The corridor being contemplated now travels through Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto. He had received a presentation about a year ago and felt it behooves the committee to invite them. Since the week of 5 June is "Transportation Week", he felt it would be appropriate to have the presentation on the Transportation Committee meeting scheduled that week (7 June). He proposed that the invitation be extended to their colleagues in the Outaouais to come and participate with councillors and to receive that presentation on that day because it affects both sides of the Ottawa River.
Moved by J. Legendre
That Transportation Committee invite a presentation by the Bombardier - SNC Lavalin - Alstom Consortium to talk about High Speed Rail and its application to the Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto corridor;
Further that Transport 2000 be advised and invited to participate;
Further that elected representatives of the Outaouais also be advised and invited to participate;
And finally, that Transportation Week and the Clean Air Day (June 7) be considered the most appropriate week for the meeting.
CARRIED
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m.
_______________________ ____________________
CO-ORDINATOR CHAIR