Members: M. Bellemare, W. Byrne, R. Cantin, B. Chiarelli, L. Davis, C. Doucet, H. Kreling, J. Legendre,

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

CARRIED

Staff provided a brief verbal presentation on a campaign aimed at motorists to bring awareness to the fact that children are back at school and to drive safely; the posters will appear on all large Regional trucks. It was suggested the billboards be made even larger to increase visibility.

1. Island Park Drive, Kirkwood, Churchill AREA Traffic Calming Pilot Study - PUBLIC HEARING

- petitions and submissions held on file

At the outset, the committee agreed to consider Agenda Items 1 and 2 together.

The Director of Mobility Services, Doug Brousseau, made the following points:

Councillor Cantin was concerned about the use of vertical measures on Regional roads and questioned whether there could be a delay in response time or damage done to emergency vehicles going over such obstacles. Perry McConnell from the Ottawa Fire Department indicated that on Lyon Street, for instance, where there are several speed humps, it would mean a total delay of 63 seconds. Such a delay could mean a big difference because a fire doubles itself in one minute and lives and property would be at stake. With respect to the proposed for Kirkwood Avenue, he indicated that 75% of the response calls to Station No. 1 (located at the corner of Carling and Kirkwood) use Kirkwood as their principle route.

Councillor Bellemare questioned whether there was a question of liability for the Region with respect to people having to wait longer for emergency assistance, or being injured further while travelling over a speed hump in a speeding ambulance, or if a motorist endangers another vehicle or themselves as a result of speed humps or other vertical measures. The Solicitor advised that while this is a new issue for the Region, he was not aware of any successful claims made against a road authority, so long as the humps are safe and are appropriately marked.

When questioned what the duration of the study was, Mr. Brousseau advised that staff would report back one year following implementation. Councillor Bellemare further questioned what costs could be anticipated to remove the vertical measures if they prove to be unsuccessful and the Director advised that although staff have not made such estimates, in Toronto, for example, it cost $100,000 to remove a $250,000 traffic calming plan. The councillor inquired whether the Regional Cycling Advisory Group was in favour of such vertical measures and the Director advised that the reports were circulated to them, but was not aware of any specific response from them. He confirmed that the design of the speed hump will not pose a problem for cyclists, but was aware of their concern about parked cars and drivers opening their doors into the path of cyclists.

The Committee Chair understood that the TAC has a draft report with national standards and design details for speed humps. The Director confirmed the pilot projects use TAC’s latest design "guidelines" for collector roads, but not for arterial roads. The Chair referred to a report authored by Todd Litman dealing with the evaluation of traffic calming, its benefits and impacts and staff advised they were aware of this document, as well as the studies Mr. Litman referred to in that report. The Director added that staff are members of the Institute of Transportation of Engineers and representatives of the department did attend a recent conference in Toronto at which time one of the main issues considered was traffic calming. When questioned whether accident statistics, before and after traffic calming initiatives will be part of these pilot projects, staff confirmed they would be i.e. traffic counts, noise levels, collision information, et cetera will all be gathered because this information will help determine whether or not the pilots are successful. The Director confirmed that staff will also work with emergency agencies to determine before and after response times, including speed and distance travelled.

Councillor Davis presented a brief video illustrating the difficulties faced by pedestrians crossing Island Park Drive and at the intersection of Scott and Churchill.

Christine Leadman, Westboro Business Improvement Area indicated that this study has been ongoing for five years and some of the merchants along Richmond Road were upset by the fact they were not contacted and involved as part of this study. She made reference to a petition of 1400 signatures of people opposed to the proposal, leading her to believe that they have not been well enough informed and have not had the appropriate opportunity to even know what those traffic calming measures are. Although the BIA is not opposed to traffic calming measures, they believe that speed humps will not stop motorists from driving fast, but will only serve to stop the flow of traffic, which is not what they are designed to do. She emphasized that Regional roads are designed to move traffic in and out of the area and if they are slowed down, motorists will seek alternate routes using residential streets. She explained that these measures will have a major impact to merchants, who would prefer an opportunity to sit down and talk about the proposal further and get the community involved because she did not feel they were appropriately consulted. Ms. Leadman confirmed that she had originally been approached by the former Regional ward councillor a few years ago when the study was first initiated with a view to seeking her involvement; however, she has received no further correspondence or contact since that time.

In response to her concern about the lack of community involvement, Councillor Davis explained that traffic calming has been "in the air" for many years and many articles have been written by herself and others in the community papers and therefore questioned why the BIA did not take the initiative to get involved. Ms. Leadman stated that the BIA should have been included as part of the process from the beginning.

After hearing the question which appeared on the petition, the councillor raised the question of whether or not those who signed it actually had enough information to make an informed decision one way or the other. When questioned what the merchants were most concerned about, Ms. Leadman explained that they are concerned about the impact these measures will have on customers who drive to their stores and the subsequent affect this will have on their business. She believed they would be satisfied if the Region were to meet with merchants and representatives of the emergency agencies, because she did not feel their concerns had been addressed.

In response to a question about public consultation,. the Director advised that in the production of the initial study report, the consultant conducted many walking tours, open houses, workshops and public meetings to bring this issue to light and advertisements for such events were placed in the local and daily papers.

Larry Prudhomme suggested that a general meeting should be called in order to provide an opportunity to those people who are unable to attend today’s meeting to talk to this very important issue. He explained that residents do not even know if these traffic calming measures will work and what damage can be anticipated to their homes as a result of vibrations. Mr. Prudhomme noted that a cyclist riding toward a road narrowing for example, would be forced out into the mainstream of traffic and therefore did not see this as a useful calming measure. He referred to the need for traffic signals at Scott and Churchill which would be more effective than a raised intersection at the same location. He was in favour of more enforcement to ensure motorists adhere to the speed limit, but suggested the community needed more time to study these measures and get all the correct facts before making a decision. He believed the Region should be finding ways of getting motorists through the area faster - not forcing them to use local streets in order to avoid such vertical traffic calming measures.

Richard Hegan, Consumer Advisory Committee, Royal Ottawa Hospital stated that they strongly support the pilot projects and had originally made the request for a speed hump on Merivale Road. He indicated that the Hospital and Westgate Shopping Centre which is located across from them on Merivale Road, are very busy facilities and they are particularly concerned about the high volume of traffic that exits Island Park Drive south onto Merivale Road, often at significant speed. He indicated that many people from the ROH are at higher than average risk to traffic hazards; there are elderly people, children and people whose concentration is affected by medication. Although they have taken steps to increase traffic awareness information at the hospital and have made physical improvements on their property to guide people to the crosswalks, they believe a speed hump will contribute to the calming of travelled speeds in this area, thereby improving safety to residents of their facility and to the community at large.

Emile Therien, Canada Safety Council read through his brief dated 2 September 1998. The more salient points noted were as follows:

A copy of his submission is held on file.

Sean Pigeon, explained that as a visually-impaired resident of Westboro, he was in favour of traffic calming measures to slow down traffic. He understood that vertical measures are not installed to stop cars, but to control the behaviour of the driver and he was especially concerned about safety and being able to move within the community with ease, without having to worry about whether a motorists will actually stop at a stop sign. He stressed that safety is the issue and supported any efforts that will force motorists to adhere to the speed limit, but not divert them to residential streets.

Eleanor Kearns believed this was an issue of enforcement and questioned why police are not enforcing the laws. The Committee Chair explained that there are limited police resources to handle traffic enforcement and is one of the reasons for examining the feasibility of traffic calming in order to encourage motorists to travel at the posted speed.

Mary Hegan, Island Park Drive (IPD) Steering Committee made note of her involvement in this matter for several years and reinforced the point made by staff that these initiatives were community-driven because it was deemed to be for the safety of residents, particularly seniors and children. They understood that such measures would put motorists within the posted speed limit, but would not jeopardize vehicles, including those from the emergency services. She stressed the importance of the quality of life enjoyed by residents and their continuing ability to move in and around the community to get to the local businesses. She acknowledged the concerns raised as to whether the traffic calming measures will in fact divert traffic onto residential streets, but suggested they would have to be monitored to make an accurate determination. She explained that when members of the Steering Committee met with some of the businesses and residents, they began to understand what was really being planned and many had a change of heart with respect to their objections to this pilot project. She stated they that would continue this dialogue to ensure ongoing communication and flow of information. She added that when she learned about the petition being circulated by the BIA, the Steering Committee members took it upon themselves to talk to people about what the facts were and what was really being proposed. Through this dialogue, she discovered that many were unaware of just how long and hard the community has been working on this and as a result, some community associations have written to the Westboro BIA, pleading with them to support the pilot project.

Edward Brado spoke as a resident of Westboro, as a Board Member of the Westboro Community Association (WCA) and as a member of the IPD Steering Committee. Since 1996, Mr. Brado explained that he knew there were problems on Tweedsmuir Avenue, which is where he lives and although traffic calming has been installed on that street by the City, problems continue to exist. He made reference to the bulb-out at the intersection of Tweedsmuir and Byron and the fact that it does in fact slow traffic. As a member of the WCA Board, Mr. Brado explained that he has written articles for the local papers and remarked on the variety of other articles that have been printed in other community papers. As a member of the IPD Steering Committee, he heard that news of the traffic calming initiatives had not been communicated very well to the public and that much of what the Steering Committee has heard has been opinions with few facts. With respect to the pilot projects at the four locations, it was the Steering Committee’s original plan to have extensive traffic calming in the study area; however, they focused on a few select projects which are before committee today, that they deemed could be evaluated for their effectiveness. He closed by stating that the traffic calming pilots present an exceptional learning opportunity to change driver behaviour.

Mary Dalton, Hampton Iona Community Association indicated she was also a member of the IPD Steering Committee and stated that residents in the area are particularly concerned about implementing traffic calming on Kirkwood Avenue because of the impact this will have on local streets. As shown in the video presented by Councillor Davis, she stated that the community is putting its residents at risk every day and this is unacceptable. Residents are tired of the pollution, noise, traffic, vibrations, et cetera and she urged committee members to make a difference for the quality of life for these residents and support the pilot project.

Martha Flavell spoke as a member of the Westboro Beach Community Association and the IPD Steering Committee. She indicated that traffic calming has the benefit of being a permanent reminder to drivers to slow down and yield the right-of-way to other motorists and pedestrians. She would hate to see all these years of hard work wasted because of misinformation and self-interest. She believed the traffic calming projects should be given an opportunity to prove themselves, before being judged one way or the other.

Wilf Olscher was not opposed to traffic calming and in fact believed it is something that has to be done in the Region. However, he was upset about the process and did not think the committee had approved details of the process to be followed and believed much has been left to the discretion of various community groups. While he acknowledged that there are places where traffic calming measures can work, he stated that there are also places where traffic has been diverted as a result. Further, he explained that it would appear that no estimates have been done of the additional costs associated with those measures e.g. snow removal, road maintenance, et cetera. He made reference to studies conducted in Boulder, Colorado where it was shown that associated costs to emergency vehicles have risen substantially and further details on this particular component are included in his brief.

At the request of the Committee Chair, Rob Orchin from the City of Ottawa spoke to the concerns the delegation raised about increased maintenance cost. He agreed there would be extra costs associated with snow removal, but the additional time necessary to plow the road is not significant. He confirmed the municipality had conducted "before and after" studies of traffic calming initiatives on Lenester Avenue, and it was concluded that speeds have been reduced. However, he stated that the City would like to do further evaluation before drawing their final conclusions.

Roger Baird indicated that the plan presented by staff represents a well-balanced and reasonable approach to treating the streets as mixed use- a balance between local and through traffic and the desire of residents to have safe interaction as pedestrians, school children, cyclists and home owners. He maintained that the traffic calming measures respect the courteous motorist and acknowledge the desire of residents to live on the streetscape in harmony. Based on the misconception that traffic calming is traffic management, fears have been raised. Mr. Baird made reference to the success of speed bumps in parking lots where motorists are conditioned to drive slowly because they know it is safer to do so. He believed that the combined effect of traffic calming conveys a message that commuters and residents should co-exist and better lane definition and a painted median are examples of changes on Kirkwood Avenue that have made some improvement. In closing, Mr. Baird stated that the traffic warrant studies for Kirkwood, Churchill and Island Park do not justify traffic calming measures and therefore, alternative measures should be introduced to more appropriately balance the extensive use of those roads.

Amy Kempster, Champlain Park Community Association stated that traffic calming will help businesses and will make the community a friendlier place for people to walk to those stores, which may, in turn, attract more pedestrians and cyclists as people change the way they get to those places. She believed the business community did not understand what neighbourhood shopping is all about i.e. their customers are residents in the community and not people coming from other areas. Ms. Kempster acknowledged that it is a question of enforcement and she believed speed humps would be far less expensive than having policemen enforcing speed limits.

Catherine Casserly & Bonnie Campbell, Westboro Beach Community Association stated that they have been involved in this issue for over five years and safety in their community continues to be a major concern for them. In order to ensure that the community was familiar with the progress of this project, they wrote monthly reports in the community papers to ensure the right information was transmitted. They had public meetings, where options were displayed and encouraged feedback from the community and councillors and have received consistent support from residents. Ms. Casserly expressed concern about the petition circulated by the BIA because the question asked of the signers was made up of such half truths and the Association received many calls from people who were extremely upset about it and wanted their concerns brought to the attention of the committee. She noted that the views expressed in the petition only pretends to represent those of the community and at no time did the BIA request the community association to meet with them to discuss the issue. Recognizing financial constraints, the community has only asked for improvements at the most serious areas such as the intersection of Scott and Churchill.

Ian Rawes, Chairman, Island Park Drive, Kirkwood, Churchill Traffic Calming Study Steering Committee stated that the Westboro Business Association have always been supportive of community initiatives and the Steering Committee was therefore quite concerned when they found out about the petition being circulated. However, its existence has at least brought the issue to light for many people in the community who may not have otherwise become involved and he welcomed their involvement. The Steering Committee must now decide how to deal with those individuals and businesses and their concerns about traffic calming in general. They believed that public consultation has to be even more extensive than it was and a large educational component must be taken into consideration with respect to this issue. He again referred to the petition and while he agreed that it was based on misinformation and therefore should not impede this process, he maintained that steps must be taken to measure the effects of these projects and to ensure the public is well aware they are pilot projects. The differing opinions heard today are exactly the reason committee should proceed with these projects so that the correct facts can be known and the Region can make informed decisions.

Moved by J. Legendre

CARRIED

Councillor Cantin did not support using vertical measures on Regional roads because of the impact they will have on emergency vehicles and their response time. He emphasized that Regional roads are designed to carry large volumes of traffic and these are often the major routes used by emergency services. He suggested instead that operational changes such as those implemented on Parkdale Avenue e.g. staggered parking, could be implemented instead; this will have a low-cost calming effect without actually affecting the vehicles themselves. He proposed that vertical measures not be implemented on Regional roads until further study of other options.

Councillor Davis did not support this proposal because it would mean more delays while the Region studies the effects. She stated that none of the emergency agencies have stated that such traffic calming measures will create difficulties for them and she believed the cost was too high with respect to the safety of the community. She encouraged committee to support the staff report as amended.

Councillor Bellemare believed that when motorists approach speed humps they will slow down but immediately speed up again, which will have the reverse affect they are intended to have. He noted the concerns expressed by OC Transpo and the possible impact to ridership with these measures implemented. He also recognized that these measures would result in higher maintenance costs and perhaps additional costs associated with the removal of such devices if the project is not successful in calming traffic. As a result of these additional and unforeseen costs, he did not believe the pilot project should be approved, especially in view of the anticipated shortfall in the annual budget.

Councillor Legendre remarked that while vehicles are designed to take bumps, houses and buildings are not and they can be exposed to vibrations as a result of these vertical measures; therefore, in high bus or truck traffic areas, such vertical measures may have to be removed.

Councillor Byrne stated that many of the comments received tonight reflect the fact that vertical measures will regulate the speed at which motorists are travelling. She understood vibrations can affect houses and buildings, but she felt the proposed measures might even help decrease those vibrations if vehicles are forced to drive slower. She noted that the Chief of Police supports the proposal, and suggests that these measures be implemented and an evaluation conducted after a period of time to ascertain their effectiveness. In closing, she felt all the concerns have been addressed and stressed that the Region must work to make its streets safer.

The Committee Chair did not support Councillor Cantin’s Motion because she believed it would only serve to remove the only solution to the problems on Lyon Street. She stressed the need for motorists to drive the speed limit and following a monitoring and evaluation period, it will be evident what impact these measures will have had on emergency vehicles and their response time.

Moved by R. Cantin

That no vertical measures be implemented on any Regional road until the Region has experience of traffic behaviour with road narrowings and other measures - other than vertical obstructions on these roads.

LOST

YEAS: M. Bellemare, R. Cantin....2

NAYS: W. Byrne, B. Chiarelli, L. Davis, C. Doucet, D. Holmes, H. Kreling,

J. Legendre, M. McGoldrick-Larsen, M. Meilleur....9

2. LYON STREET Traffic Calming Pilot Study - PUBLIC HEARING

The Director advised that staff have taken her latter suggestion into consideration and confirmed that there will be a slight difference in elevation so the visually-impaired will be able to feel it.

Drina Wethey, Chair, McNabb Neighbourhood Improvement Bunch stated that Lyon Street is simply a high speed on-ramp to the Queensway although this section is predominantly residential. Seniors, parents and children cross the street and the volume and speed often make it unsafe to do so and they fully support any measure that will reduce that risk.

Gordon Chamberlain objected to the traffic calming theory because of the cost; road maintenance and repairs should take precedence over traffic calming. and Lyon Street is already in a state of disrepair. He was concerned that speed humps will interfere with emergency service vehicles and will have an adverse effect on someone being transported in an ambulance for instance. He remarked that traffic problems are at their worst during peak periods and he felt that traffic calming will only make it more costly for everyone, by causing additional wear and tear on vehicles.

Eugene Siste spoke as the owner of a property on MacLaren Street at the corner of Lyon Street. He indicated that there have been at least 25 reported accidents where motorists driving down Lyon Street have crashed into this property, and because of the number of claims he has made, his insurance company is hesitant to provide him with coverage. He supported any measures that may stop these accidents from occurring.

Jane Stinson, Elgin Street Public School and the Ottawa-Carleton Assembly of School Council explained that many of their students walk to school and have to cross Lyon Street in order to do so. She believed that educating children can help to improve their safety and enforcement should be used to encourage motorists to drive safely. She believed that an important component to this is traffic calming because such measures are permanent and do not depend on whether children look both ways or whether police are enforcing the speed limit.

Jamie Kass and Geoff Bickerton spoke as residents living at 398 Lyon Street for over 20 years. Ms. Kass noted that over the years, they learned to cope with squealing tires, speeding cars and the dust and dirt that gets swept on their property on a daily basis. However, as years went by and they started their families, the impact of living on Lyon Street has become more extreme. She explained that there is not a "buffer" between residents’ and their homes and the road itself and parents that have to take their children to a local day care centre will not do so via Lyon because they prefer to avoid the traffic. She added that traffic during off-peak hours is very fast and they are afraid the children in the community may suddenly dart out onto the street. She felt that having the road patrolled more is a great idea and she would welcome a proposal to change Lyon Street into a two-way street or, better yet, to eliminate access to the Queensway. She believed that if speed humps are the best solution to these problems, then she was in support of it.

Mr. Bickerton advised that if nothing is done to change the speed limit then nothing will change and commuters will continue to exceed the posted speed. He believed there was more of a need for enforcement, but recognized financial and resource constraints. He did not believe the affect of speed humps on emergency vehicles would be an issue, since the fire station was relocated to Preston Street and those vehicles would therefore not use Lyon as a major thoroughfare to the Queensway. He fully supported the staff proposal.

Catherine Boucher, Centretown Citizens Ottawa Corporation spoke as a resident of James Street where she walks and drives on that street every day and on Lyon Street at least twice a day. She commented that the CCOC owns six residential properties on Lyon Street which house seniors and families. She indicated that one of the goals of the Region’s Official Plan is to encourage a vibrant downtown which encourages residential development and she believed the Region should therefore provide them with streets that are safe. She believed the pilot project was a modest investment for the safety of the community.

Bruce Bursey informed committee that a study conducted by a traffic calming group with Regional and City staff concluded that the two main issues with respect to Lyon Street include speeding vehicles during the non-peak hours and cross-through traffic. He believed the pilot project is a comprehensive solution to the problems created by using Lyon Street as an on-ramp to the Queensway and is targeted at those drivers who speed during non-peak hours. He confirmed the traffic calming measures will not reduce the carrying capacity below the Regional standards and made reference to studies conducted in Canadian cities that concludes how traffic calming can have significant safety benefits. In addition, there is a 6-month pay-back from traffic calming project costs because of reduced insurance claims alone; injuries declined and accidents were reduced. He reiterated the fact that this is a pilot project and during the time it is implemented, the effects on vehicles can evaluated and used in future traffic calming projects. Approval by committee and council will show the Region’s commitment to public safety on its roadways.

David Seaborn, Dalhousie Community Association stated that posting speed limit signs do not work and while police enforcement is not viable, traffic calming measures can help reduce the speed, without reducing volume.

David Gladstone, Centretown Citizens Community Association supported traffic calming measures in general and in particular the proposal for Lyon Street. He emphasized that traffic calming is a professional engineering discipline and should be treated as such.

Craig Layng supported the measures for Lyon Street. He commented on the speed at which motorists travel down this road and explained that while it is a narrow and residential street, drivers treat it like an extended Queensway. He noted that for years the Region has been involved in plans to improve the centretown and now it has an opportunity to do just that, and at the same time, monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of such measures.

Moved by J. Legendre

CARRIED

CARRIED as amended

3. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS AND ROADWAY MODIFICATIONS AT ALBION ROAD AND RIDEAU ROAD AND AT TRIM ROAD AND WATTERS ROAD - PUBLIC HEARING

Following a brief staff presentation of the proposed modifications and rationale for signals at these two locations, Councillor Legendre emphasized some concern about the pedestrian crossing on the west side of Trim and Watters. He explained that the proposal places it quite far back from the intersection and that a motorist will have fully turned the corner before coming in contact with the crosswalk. He suggested it be moved closer to the intersection to provide a safer, although longer, crossing. Staff believed this change could be accommodated.

Trim Road at Watters Road

Glenn Scott explained that he moved into the area several years ago so that he could get to work quickly and easily. He questioned the need to install signals at this intersection when it is proposed that Trim Road be moved further to the east to accommodate the potential north/south link and, if ever, the bridge over to Quebec. He explained that installing signals will result in delays to his travel time because of the additional wait incurred at the lights. He acknowledged the fact that there have been accidents at this intersection, but questioned whether putting signals in will actually decrease those collisions. Conversely, he believed there will be more accidents as motorists race to make the yellow light and perhaps drive through on the red. Mr. Scott also emphasized there is little peak-hour traffic waiting to turn left onto Trim Road going north and therefore did not feel the light was required. He stressed that traffic lights only serve to impede 50% of the traffic and in this case, most motorists will be turning left against the flow of the light and therefore will be impacted.

Staff confirmed that the Environmental Assessment Study for Trim Road which was approved by Committee and Council a few months ago, does relocate the road to the east because of the gradient and there would be a considerable modification to this intersection in the future as Trim is widened. However, it was pointed out that there is no specific time when that might occur, as it will be driven by growth of the Orléans community and the possibility of a future bridge crossing.

In response to the concerns raised by the delegation, Councillor Kreling indicated that the intersection would not disappear in its entirety because although the EA study recommends moving the road further east, the intersection would still have to move with it. He explained that he had received a number of concerns by residents in the community and by the municipality with respect to the safety of this intersection and who supported the installation of traffic signals. He explained to the delegation that while Trim Road will be realigned, there is no set timeframe when that will occur, but the Region did go ahead and protect the corridor for that eventuality in light of the development that is planned to occur in the area. Based on the fact the warrants have been met and in view of the concerns expressed by residents and the municipality, he was in support of the staff recommendation.

Albion Road at Rideau Road

Roseanne Dean supported the staff recommendation, explaining to committee the number of serious accidents she has witnessed at this intersection. She stated that Albion Road is a widely used route by people living in Greely, whose population has increased dramatically since she first moved into the community over 20 years ago and as a result of such heavy traffic flow, motorists have an extremely difficult time turning left from Rideau onto Albion. This is compounded by the fact that Rideau Road is now a truck route and there are a lot of heavy vehicles using that road and which in fact have been involved in collisions. Mrs. Dean explained that motorists are driving at excessive speeds on Albion Road and she feared for the safety of the children in the area having to cross that road. In closing, she emphasized that she has fought for several years to have traffic lights installed at this dangerous intersection and urged committee to support the staff recommendation.

Councillor Beamish supported the comments made by Mrs. Dean and hoped the committee would approve the staff recommendation.

The Committee Chair noted the request by the Regional Cycling Advisory Group to have cycling lanes installed as part of the design. Staff advised that the shoulders of the roadway will be paved and this will provide a safe area for cyclists to travel on.

CARRIED

4. MARCH ROAD AT THE ACCESS TO THE GATEWAY MALL - PROPOSED NORTHBOUND LEFT-TURN LANE AND ACCESS TO 365 MARCH ROAD - PUBLIC HEARING

5. PROPOSED INTERSECTION MODIFICATIONS TO KIRKWOOD AVENUE AND HAMPTON PARK PLAZA/SWITZER AVENUE - HAMPTON PARK PLAZA REDEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING

6. Fallowfield road from woodroffe Avenue to a point 155 m west of woodroffe avenue - Proposed median - PUBLIC HEARING

Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen inquired that if the median is approved and should problems occur at the access to the Petro Canada station, can measures be taken immediately to rectify the situation. Staff confirmed that if it is a safety issue, they have the authority to erect signs prohibiting motorists from making those turns.

After discussing his previously approved Motion (Transportation Committee meeting of 21 July 1998), Councillor Legendre explained that staff had advised him that there would be safety problems if the median is reduced in width and therefore proposed the following:

Moved by J. Legendre

That the staff position on the design of the median be accepted and that the 21 July 1998 Motion regarding a narrowed median be set aside.

CARRIED

CARRIED

7. LIGHT RAIL PILOT PROJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS AND FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

Pamela Sweet, Director, Policy and Infrastructure Planning Division introduced Lee Sims, Director, IBI Group, Ronnie Gavsie, Partner KPMG and Brian Bourns, Principal, KPMG.

Mr. Sims provided an overview of the KMPG/IBI Group report dated 27 August 1998 for the Light Rail Pilot Project Steering Committee. Mr. Sims remarked that although the CN line is in the plan for a light rail service, it is not being recommended as part of the pilot project; the CPR route offers comparable new ridership, has the highest total ridership anticipated, is the most cost-effective with the fewest operating constraints and is supported by the community. A copy of their report and the summary overhead presentation is held on file.

Ronnie Gavsie presented an overview of the capital and operating cost estimates for the pilot project, as outlined in the summary overhead presentation document.

Brian Bourns provided details of the cost-benefit approach, noting that the analysis is limited in that it does not include any value in OC Transpo’s capital cost for the public road system and is therefore conservative in terms of the comparison with the rail system. Further, the analysis does not make any provision for the qualitative benefits that most people attribute to rail service and there has been no financial benefit accrued for that. It was also pointed out that the study compares light rail to the "average" OC Transpo service and the type of investment the Region has made in its bus system. He maintained that it is worthwhile negotiating with CP Rail in the hopes of bringing the cost of riding the rail down to the range that is comparable to the Region’s bus system.

R. Gavsie highlighted the implementation approach which includes negotiating a public-private partnership with CPR and Council’s commitment of $16M for capital costs. She made reference to a Memorandum of Understanding to be drawn up and which will set out the intent and process and Council will have an opportunity to extend the pilot project or make it permanent within 2 to 6 years.

With respect to the Environmental Assessment terms of reference. P. Sweet advised that the Ministry of the Environment requires the Region to do a full EA and in order to meet the timelines for the proposed 2000 start-up, the Region must proceed to the stage of stock acquisition because there is an 18-month waiting period for the cars and staff will be bringing forward a report later this year seeking Council’s approval for such acquisition. She indicated that this project will add to the travel choices of Ottawa-Carleton residents and the Region will be in a position to take advantage of existing infrastructure.

Councillor Cantin questioned whether the vehicles to be used for the pilot project would be the first ones used in North America and was advised that the same type were used in the demonstration project in Calgary and will also be used in a pilot project in New Jersey. The councillor was somewhat concerned about the difficulties that might be encountered if the Region owns vehicles that are not made in Canada and may require servicing or repairs. He wondered how the Region would be able to recover 65% in salvage value for the vehicles, when it does not own the stock and will be leasing it at a cost of $3.5M. Mr. Bourns indicated that leasing is simply an option the Region may wish to consider, but it could also purchase the stock and then resell it for 65% of the value at the end of the pilot period.

Councillor Cantin further questioned how accurate the Class D estimates were and Ms. Gavsie indicated that until CPR provides their fixed cost, IBI is not in a position to give any greater refinement than Class D; while these were rough estimates, they have been "grossed" up considerably to take into account what might be found in the actual design process.

Councillor Cantin inquired about the track and signal costs and questioned whether Transport Canada would allow the Region to proceed with the minimum signal requirements for the pilot. The consultant indicated that the CP line is already in service and is fully signalized and while there may be some signal modifications and track upgrades, the initial estimates include those improvements. The councillor presumed that was the reason there was such a variance in cost (between $2.7M and $5.3M), because there may be a requirement to have improved safety features. Mr. Sims concurred, adding that the railways are self-regulating and only if and when a problem arises does Transport Canada get involved. He confirmed they have only had preliminary discussions with Transport Canada.

With respect to the project ridership increase and associated costs, Councillor Cantin believed there would be additional costs for those new passengers because he suspected few of them would use the train for the duration of their trip without having to transfer at some point to a bus, thereby increasing the volume and the need for more rolling stock. Mr. Bourns indicated that they allowed for this and allocated the cost only for the portion of the trip that would occur by train. However, they have still allowed some of the revenue to accrue to the part of the trip that would be on the bus. He explained they were attempting to compare the potential value of a permanent system versus the potential value of the existing bus system.

Councillor Bellemare stated that a basic principle stated in the report is that light rail corridors are intended to compliment the transitway network rather than compete with it and he questioned whether that includes the possibility of competing with the rest of the transit network, including bus routes that do not travel on the transitway. Mr. Bourns advised that the rail system will compete to the extent that it will carry people who are currently on the transit system and will allow trips that avoid the downtown core thereby relieving the stress on Albert and Slater and will also provide service to major destinations not connected to the transitway such as Confederation Heights and Carleton University. He added that the train will provide a different service than the transitway and for that reason it compliments it, but it does not provide a good service to downtown core. Something that has become evident in their review of OC Transpo, is that more and more bus trips are to the suburban industrial and employment areas and the rail system will help facilitate some of those non-core trips better than the transitway. Therefore, if the rail provides a more direct link to these areas, it could be viewed as competing with the bus system, but what it will be doing is providing a better transit service option for those people and over time, this will allow OC Transpo to use those resources to meet other trip requirements.

The councillor made reference to a statement in the report with respect to the access to key transit markets and questioned whether OC Transpo had considered the cost of increasing services to post-secondary education and business park markets, using either existing roads or purpose-built bus corridors. He thought that while these may not correspond to the existing rail corridors, they may be cheaper than using the current rail infrastructure. Mr. Bourns indicated that the Official Plan review examined how service is provided in this general corridor and it was suggested that the rail corridor is the only right-of-way available to provide that kind of service without disruptive road widenings. P. Sweet added that at the time the Transportation Master Plan was completed, there were several different alternatives examined and it was determined that in order to service a market that was not well-served by the existing transit such as outlying areas where jobs are being created, the rail lines happen to be in a place where future growth will take place and it was therefore an obvious opportunity to utilize that option, rather than building more costly roads and/or transitways.

The councillor noted that the report identified the need to reduce the demand for transit travel through the central area and wondered what the maximum volumes were and when OC Transpo expected to reach those numbers. Helen Gault, indicated that one of the constraints on the current system is the Albert/Slater corridor which carry approximately 200 buses/hour during peak periods. With the projected transit ridership increase over the next 25 years, if more transit continues to be routed through the core, it will cause some difficulties and was the initial reason for a strategy of taking trips that do not need to go through the downtown, but kept to corridors further south.

The councillor made reference to Table 6 which showed the comparison of alternative routes and their cost-effectiveness and questioned how accurate the projected differences were. Mr. Bourns explained that one reason the range of those figures is so wide is because they are looking at two ranges on top of each other i.e. a range of ridership (high or low) and a corresponding range of capital cost. He indicated however, that those ranges will narrow during the next stage of this project as firmer fixed capital and operating costs are known.

Councillor Bellemare made reference to the selected capital and operating costs and questioned how these compare to costs in other jurisdictions and whether they are within the range of acceptable costs. Mr. Sims advised they did do some comparisons of those costs, but stated it is difficult to make the comparison exactly because every case is different. For the light rail, for example, their cost per annual rider is between $8.75 and $16 compared to the Spadina LRT project in Toronto, which was $12/annual rider.

With respect to the discussion of cost-effectiveness as detailed in the report, Councillor Bellemare noted that the crucial test identified is that "a light rail pilot project should deliver service to transit users at a cost that is comparable to, if not less than, OC Transpo’s existing operations". He noted that the report identifies hypothetical costs of expanding OC Transpo bus operations to provide new transit service equivalent to the light rail pilot project and questioned whether OC Transpo agreed with the estimates provided. H. Gault confirmed that she did, but agreed it is difficult to make those comparisons.

With respect to the comparable capital investment, Councillor Bellemare noted that OC Transpo’s system-wide average capital cost is approximately $8.20 for each annual passenger boarding and questioned whether it was fair to compare the light rail pilot project with the entire transit system rather than just the transitway operations. Mr. Bourns believed it was, adding that they are trying to find another way to provide transit service and, to some extent, light rail looks like rapid transit because it is on a dedicated right-of-way, but can provide a 15-minute service which is not typical of the existing system. He maintained that compared to a strictly transitway service, a higher capital cost and lower operating cost is warranted.

The councillor noted the statement that a capital investment of $16M is appropriate and questioned whether this means a capital investment of more than that amount would be inappropriate. Mr. Bourns indicated that a capital investment of more than $16M would mean investing more in the rail service than the Region invests in its average OC Transpo service and whether or not that is inappropriate is for Council to determine; however, an investment equivalent to the average spent on OC Transpo is reasonably well-warranted. He did note that over the next 20 years, ridership growth is expected to more than double and therefore a higher capital spending would be appropriate in drawing a comparison to OC Transpo.

Councillor Bellemare requested clarification on the different figures in Tables 4 and 9. B. Bourns explained that the $2.7M for tracks and signals, for example, in Table 9 was rounded off to $3M in Table 4 because the latter dealt essentially with half-million dollar increments. He went on to explain that they looked at all the costs that could be identified for all the routes and once the selection was narrowed to the CP route, and it was clear at the public hearing that that was the best approach, they spent additional time and effort working on that line which is why some of the capital cost items on the CP route are not available in equivalent numbers for the other routes. The councillor further questioned the difference in cost for the stations in both tables and was informed that Table 4 addresses the cost of seven stations and Table 9 includes the cost of only five stations. Further, the other low cost in Table 4 does not include accessibility features, so low-end costs specifically exclude elevators.

Councillor Bellemare requested an explanation for the difference in ranges for vehicles under those tables and B. Bourns indicated that Table 4 examines the cost of providing vehicles for the project for a pilot period only, and based on the expectation that a 5-year lease cost would be between $1 and $2M, the equipment vendors narrowed it down to a 65% recovery of capital cost if the vehicles could be sold after five years. Conversely, the permanent service assumes the vehicles are bought rather than leased, so the permanent service is $3-4M per vehicle, bought and retained. He went on to state that on the CP-2 line (Table 4), it was undetermined whether three or four vehicles were required and with seven stations it turns out that four vehicles are needed and is the reason for the increased cost for those vehicles. He confirmed that if there are to be only five stations, the lines can operate with just two vehicles and one spare (Table 9 deals exclusively with three vehicles).

In response to further questions by the councillor, he confirmed the cost per vehicle is a little more than $1M if the Region were to buy them and sell them at the end of five years. He went on to state that the $3.5M is based on the assumption that three vehicles are bought for total of $10M and sold for $6.5M (65% of the total cost). The councillor wanted further clarification as to how firm these figures were and B. Bourns indicated that they are uncertain, but was an attempt to illustrate what would be a reasonable estimate in that range for the pilot project. He explained that they would like to get the costs down below the $20M shown at Table 9, which can be done by carrying out the negotiations with CP and at the end of the next stage, the numbers will be a lot more precise than they are at this point because they are really just ranges within which the figures might be.

Councillor Meilleur questioned whether the pilot project is a departure with what Council voted on i.e. 2-6 year pilot project and P. Sweet advised that it was never very explicit in the Official Plan or the Transportation Master Plan how long the pilot project would be. However, it is staff’s opinion that a conclusive monitoring period should be at least 2-6 years and they will be reporting back at the end of the two-year period and every year thereafter. She confirmed that Council can stop the pilot at any time within that period. The councillor was sceptical that it would take up to six years to determine the success or failure of the project and B. Bourns advised that should Council feel it needs more time, it could take advantage of the longer time period within which to make a final decision. He added that having rail encourages further land development, but this would not occur if the project is in a pilot stage.

Questions arose on how this pilot will compliment the existing bus system and it was confirmed that it will provide an alternative service and will not compete with OC Transpo. There will be no additional fare costs to riders going to or from bus. P. Sweet added that in order to service the outlying areas, it was determined that those lines would service areas where growth would occur in the future. It was suggested that if the Region wants to do this pilot project, it should work to bring the proposed cost of $16M down and if it is successful, the project can be upgraded appropriately.

Ray O’Meara, Canadian Pacific Rail spoke briefly to the committee, indicating his pleasure to assume the role of turn-key operator for this pilot. He believed in integrating this system with OC Transpo and having a close working relationship with them. He understood this is a pilot project and the funding constraints the Region is faced with. However, he was optimistic that this is only the first step in a number of lines that could join the system and CP is open to working with CN and are in fact part owner with CN lines.

Councillor Cantin made reference to the proposed cost for upgrading the tunnel under Dow’s Lake and was advised by Mr. O’Meara that CP does not have a lot of freight on that track at the present time and are therefore in no hurry to fix the leakage problems on that structure. In response to questions proposed by the councillor about how he envisioned this light rail service operating, Mr. O’Meara said it would function like a shuttle service, because the line in so short.

Councillor Legendre questioned whether Mr. O’Meara agreed with the estimates put forward by the IBI Group and KPMG and Mr. O’Meara advised that he agreed in general that they are within the costs that could be anticipated. However, he indicated his reluctance to speculate on the estimated cost of rehabilitating the tunnel for example, because that issue had not been examined as thoroughly by CP. He was confident that at least six months were needed for CP to come to a "guaranteed" price for the Region for its use of CP’s infrastructure.

Councillor Davis questioned how the Region could look at extending this pilot project to the Outaouais and Mr. O’Meara contemplated this issue, stating that to downtown Hull would be appropriate, but doubted it could be extended to Gatineau or Buckingham because light rail only operates during specific times and there would need to be extensive collaboration to extend it to these areas i.e. the trains would have to be located on a different track. P. Sweet indicated that staff have discussed this with the municipality whose Mayor has expressed an interest and staff are in fact going to make a presentation to them in the very near future. When questioned whether the National Capital Commission will be playing an active role in this, P. Sweet advised that while they are represented on the Sounding Board, she did not think they would be contributing financially to the project.

Victoria Mason read from her brief dated 2 September 1998. Ms. Mason complained about the difficulty she had in trying to obtain a copy of the KPMG report and questioned the need for this project when 80% of the anticipated ridership are currently bus users. Her objections and concerns about the project are contained in her brief, a copy of which is held on file

Cam Robertson, City Centre Coalition spoke in favour of the pilot, stating that it will compliment the existing bus system and will serve an existing corridor not already well-served by transit. He believed that when the project is extended to the Airport and to Hull, there will be less need to twin the Airport Parkway, which would cost several times more than this pilot. He urged that the stations be accessible to all users.

Darrell Richards, Transport Concepts spoke briefly in support of the project. On balance, he felt the report was a good one and confirms some of the work done as part of the Transportation Master Plan. Both modes (train and bus) have a role to play and the Region should use the existing infrastructure to the best of its ability.

David Jeanes, Transport 2000 made reference to his brief distributed to committee members. He had every confidence in the report and fully supported the staff recommendations. He recognized the value of the infrastructure the Region has inherited, noting it still has a well-constructed and well-designed rail system in the Region and he did not want to lose this opportunity to benefit from the value of that infrastructure investment. A copy of his brief is held on file.

Barbara Ramsay, Public Member, LRPP Steering Group made reference to the return on investment the Region will receive by going forward with this pilot project. She stated that $16M invested in OC Transpo today is not $16M invested in the light rail pilot project. She also believed that investing those funds actually takes the Region further down the development line on environmental issues, because studies have proven there are serious environmental impacts to the deployment of rail in mass transit vs rolling bus stock. She stated that the communities that will be affected, including the downtown core, have not been included as part of the balance to support light rail and she urged committee to include them by supporting this project. She urged committee to have faith in the core competencies when making its decision, and emphasized that these existed in the information provided today by the consultants, by the representatives of CP Rail and also in the existing transit system and the Region’s desire for good public transportation.

Councillor Cantin was not prepared to support the report at this time because he did not feel the committee had all the right figures with respect to costs.

Councillor Meilleur believed light rail would be a cleaner choice than having additional buses on the roads and with the reduction in ridership on OC Transpo, she maintained that the Region must provide a complimentary choice of transportation for its residents and commuters.

Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen stated that half of the population live in the suburban areas and therefore more attention should be paid to getting those people out of their private automobiles and onto transit. She noted that the south urban community of Nepean has one of the lowest levels of transit ridership in the Region and suggested a change in order for the locations listed in staff Recommendation 2, so that Barrhaven is listed first, taking into consideration the low transit ridership in this area. She clarified this was not an intent to prioritize those locations.

Councillor Doucet stated that even in these difficult times, the Region can still show some imaginative leadership by proceeding with this pilot project and encouraged members to support the staff report. He was disappointed that the scope provided for a "minimalist project", even though that was what Council directed, but he felt it would be a more effective pilot if it were to run between the Airport and Hull.

Responding to the previous comment, Councillor Legendre stated that it was he who had originally proposed "at least cost" for this project because he did not want to spend a lot of money on a pilot. In view of this and considering the report before committee, he proposed an amendment that the cost be reduced further by providing only for temporary stations i.e. with no elevators. If the pilot is successful, he stated that the stations can be upgraded, however, at this time, he felt it was important to minimalize the cost as much as possible as part of the bargaining process.

Some members expressed reservations about the Motion proposed by Councillor Legendre because the effect would be to ignore a portion of the population from using the system and the result would be a less-than-truthful reflection of the pilot.

The Regional Chair commended staff, the Steering Committee and Council for this initiative and believed the Region had to move forward in public transportation by offering this additional transit service. He agreed the Region should enter into some tough bargaining proceedings with CPR to reduce the anticipated cost, and he was pleased with their indication that there is some flexibility on that. He stated that he would be seeking assurance from CP that there will be the highest level of co-operation with CN, with respect to the possibility of looking at an east/west line, because this has to be one of the Region’s priorities and should be included in the Memorandum of Understanding the Region will be negotiating.

Councillor Kreling recognized that the public involvement and their response was a key criteria for him with respect to his support for this project, as well as having an opportunity for a public/private partnership to bring the project on line. He maintained that approval by the Committee at this time is one step in the process and he supported the staff recommendations because he believed it will provide an opportunity to determine the feasibility of light rail in Ottawa-Carleton. He agreed it was important for the suburban communities to be part of that process.

Moved by M. McGoldrick-Larsen

That Recommendation 2 be amended to read:

CARRIED

Councillor Meilleur proposed that the pilot project be limited to a maximum of two years because she felt the Region should know within that time whether or not the project is a success. Councillor Kreling expressed some concern about this, noting this will radically alter what the consultants and staff have put forward and may change the anticipated costs for the project. P. Sweet advised that if it is only limited to two years, the Region may not be able to extend it further as a pilot if it deems necessary to do so at the end of that period. Conversely, Councillor Meilleur maintained that Council would be sending the wrong message to the community if it approves a longer period for this pilot and she fully believed the results will be known within two years or perhaps even one, on how popular the system is. She agreed that if there are extenuating circumstances that prevent Council from making a final decision after two years, it can deal with that matter at that time.

Moved by J. Legendre

That Recommendation 3 be amended by reducing the costs of the transit stations (i.e. that the stations be designed as temporary structures without elevators) by designing stations appropriate to a pilot project and that the total capital cost be adjusted accordingly.

LOST

YEAS: J. Legendre, M. McGoldrick-Larsen....2

NAYS: M. Bellemare, W. Byrne, R. Cantin, B. Chiarelli, L. Davis, C. Doucet,

D. Holmes, H. Kreling, M. Meilleur....9

Moved by M. Meilleur

CARRIED

YEAS: M. Bellemare, R. Cantin, C. Doucet, J. Legendre, M. McGoldrick-Larsen

M. Meilleur....6

NAYS: W. Byrne, B. Chiarelli, L. Davis, D. Holmes, H. Kreling....5

CARRIED as amended

YEAS: W. Byrne, B. Chiarelli, L. Davis, C. Doucet, D. Holmes, H. Kreling,

J. Legendre, M. McGoldrick-Larsen, M. Meilleur....9

NAYS: M. Bellemare, R. Cantin....2

8. RICHMOND ROAD (REGIONAL ROAD 36) AND STAFFORD CENTRE ACCESS -

PROPOSED CONNECTION TO NORTHSIDE ROAD

- Director, Mobility Services and Corporate Fleet Services report dated 12 Aug 98

Following a brief overview of the report, the Director of Mobility Services, Doug Brousseau, advised that it is staff’s judgement that the proposal by the City of Nepean will provide safe access to the Regional road and will better serve pedestrians by providing a new crossing and by eliminate the high speed right-turn ramp which currently exists from Northside Road onto Richmond Road.

Buck Arnold, Bob Wilson, The Greater Nepean Chamber of Commerce distributed copies of their brief dated 26 August 1998. A copy is held on file. It was their opinion that this is a safety issue and maintaining the current configuration would do nothing but perpetuate several very serious accidents in waiting. The configuration, as it currently stands, only prohibits westbound traffic on Richmond Road from turning with convenience into the Northside Road area. It instead funnels that traffic up to the Lynhar/Stafford intersection and through the community through a series of left turns. For any emergency vehicle, this presents a most circuitous route and any delay of response time is a real concern for the Chamber. Being unable to get onto Northside Road conveniently also creates significant hazards because westbound motorists at the Lynhar/Stafford intersection who do no want to take the circuitous route, will make illegal U-turns at the median on Richmond Road and motorists behind them who are making legal left-turns on Lynhar are not expecting such movements. The traffic flow in and around the area poses a particular problem to residents, including seniors and children. Another concern is the loss of revenue to merchants on Northside Road due to the relocation of Cedarview Road as part of the construction of Highway 416 and they believed the new intersection will provide easier access to these businesses.

When questioned whether the City of Nepean endorsed this proposal, Gary Craig, Director of Engineering indicated that the City’s Public Works Committee, which is made up of all members of its council (and therefore does not require council approval per se), considered the item and while it was not a unanimous decision to approve it, the committee did give its approval.

Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen indicated that this issue came before Nepean Council during the last term and was turned down because the configuration being proposed was not safe. However, when the new term of Council began, the business community brought the issue forward again for consideration. She made reference to the thorough technical data which has been distributed by the residents who wish to speak to this issue, and that this information was never presented before the Nepean Public Works Committee because there was a Motion of reconsideration subsequent to the decision that was taken not to approve the design.

When questioned whether the intersection was redesigned to make it safer, the City of Nepean staff representative confirmed it was.

Patricia Murphy spoke to the committee as a resident and as a member of a residents committee. She referred to the diminishing quality of life residents are experiencing in this area and as compensation for the construction of Highway 416 which cut right through the greenspace in their neighbourhood, residents were promised a quieter Cassidy Road which would serve as a buffer between the community and the new highway. However, the proposed connection increased traffic along Cassidy Road. Although businesses claim their losses can be attributable to the construction of Highway 416, she believed there were other factors attributing to this loss. Large stores such as Beaver Lumber, IKEA and Robinson’s grocery have either closed or moved to another location and box stores and even the City of Kanata are attracting traditional Bell’s Corners shoppers to their outlets. She believed that if a business is good, people will continue to shop there. When the City first came forward with a proposed connection, safety was the main issue and nearly 200 residents recently signed a petition against the connection. She explained that the community was working to come up with a solution to provide access to those businesses without compromising safety, maintaining that a "walk and shop" environment was needed to replace vehicular traffic. She emphasized that the proposed design invites pedestrians to cross the road and yet with the grade and sight-line difficulties, it is a real safety hazard for them, cyclists and motorists alike.

Guy Duxbury provided a detailed summary of his concerns in his written presentation which was provided via overhead to committee. A copy of his submission is held on file. His presentation illustrated what would happen in the proposed intersection when blind spots are rampant for motorists and pedestrians alike. He illustrated only one of the many problems that could occur with the proposed design. He believed there would be horrendous safety problems at this intersection due to the grade of the roadway (Northside Road is a few feet below Richmond Road) and motorists turning from Richmond Road into the intersection would not see a pedestrian until they are mere feet away from them. He showed how motorists turning in a variety of movements would be blind to other motorists and to pedestrians who would be attempting to cross along Northside Road.

Chris Wood put forward his comments in a video which detailed the lack of stacking space for vehicles turning into the intersection from Richmond Road. He explained that motorists will speed up and will cause accidents and collisions with pedestrians and other cars.

Don Francis, Owner/Manager, Thorncliffe Place explained that this large residential home is very close to the proposed intersection and he is interested in maintaining the integrity of the community as a desirable place to live. He related the past situation with motorists having to take a circuitous route through the community to access Northside Road or in the reverse for the Lynhar/Stafford intersection. He supports the proposed intersection because it will provide safe and efficient access to the businesses along Northside Road and to the community. In response to a question posed by the Regional Chair, Mr. Francis explained that because the new intersection will eliminate the ramp from Northside Road onto Richmond Road, it will eliminate a safety problem that currently exists for pedestrians.

Mr. Jim Sourges, The Electrical and Plumbing Store reiterated the fact that Northside Road is not a residential road. In addition to the history of this proposal, which has been outlined by residents and the Regional councillor already, Mr. Sourges indicated that traffic counts were made on all major junctions in the area and it was determined that this proposal would in fact reinstate traffic which had previously been there prior to Highway 416 being constructed. He stated that if it is inconvenient for motorists to get to a place of business, they will drive elsewhere and he supported this proposal which would encourage easy access to his store. He did not support the argument that the proposal is unsafe because Regional and city staff have deemed the intersection to be very safe.

Doreen Arnone of Bells Corners Re-Runs indicated that she is aware of the difficulties of this intersection and since their shop has been opened, people who have called to find their location often don’t even get there because it is just too awkward to find. Although she was initially concerned about the data brought forward by some residents at a recent community meeting, she received assurances from staff that the intersection will function safely. She closed by stating that the committee is not addressing the issue of a bad intersection, but the issue of bad drivers.

Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen proposed that the committee not support the staff recommendation, noting that motorists can still get to Northside Road via the bridge link over Highway 416 from Cedarview Road onto Cassidy Road. She indicated that the concern of residents who have spoken tonight relates specifically to the safety implications inherent with this design and the difference of elevation between Northside Road and Richmond Road. She did not pedestrians and motorists should be put at risk and stressed the fact that some residents have gone to great effort to put their case forward. She acknowledged the adverse impact the opening of the highway has on the local businesses on Northside Road, but agreed, as stated by another delegation, that there are other factors that can be attributed to that loss. She noted the change in retail in the area has also had an impact on residents and approving this intersection may very well encourage further development south of Richmond Road, which would be closer to the community. She urged committee members to support her Motion, noting that there has already been ample public consultation carried out by the City of Nepean.

The Regional Chair stated he would be voting against the councillor’s Motion because one of the delegations was representing 75 residents of a seniors complex (Thorncliffe Place). He believed that approval of this concept plan today will give staff an opportunity to work with the community and allow it to come back as part of the public hearing process. He did not believe that the status quo could be maintained.

Similarly, Councillor Cantin supported the staff recommendation, noting that although people will often shop at the bigger "box" stores, they will still shop at local businesses because of the personal service they receive.

Moved by M. McGoldrick-Larsen

That Transportation Committee not support the staff recommendation.

CARRIED

YEAS: L. Davis, C. Doucet, D. Holmes, H. Kreling, M. McGoldrick-Larsen,

M. Meilleur....6

NAYS: M. Bellemare, R. Cantin, B. Chiarelli....3

9. COMMUNITY FACILITY/BAYSHORE TRANSIT STATION

- Inquiry TC-6-98

- Director, Engineering Division report dated 19 Aug 98

Moved by M. McGoldrick-Larsen

That this report be referred to the Community Services Committee with a view to partnering with the City of Nepean and Cambridge and/or Minto.

CARRIED

10. NON-POLICE TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT

- Motion TC-1-98

- Regional Solicitor report dated 21 Jul 98

DEFFERED TO 16 SEP

11. COMPLETING THE WEST TRANSITWAY - PHASE 1B

- Inquiry TC-7-98

- Director, Engineering Division report dated 19 Aug 98

That Transportation Committee receive this report for information.

CARRIED

INQUIRIES

Councillor Cantin made reference to the overlay of Highway 16, but believed it was going to stop at a point short of where major repairs need to be made. He questioned what the Department intends to do to at least save further deterioration of that roadway. Staff agreed to investigate and report back.