16 DECEMBER 1998

1:30 P.M.


Chair: D. Holmes

Members: M. Bellemare, W. Byrne, R. Cantin, L. Davis, C. Doucet, J. Legendre, M McGoldrick-Larsen, M. Meilleur

REGRETS H. Kreling



That the Transportation Committee confirm the Minutes of the meeting of 18 November 1998.





- Co-ordinator, Transportation Committee report dated 20 Nov 98

Committee members received a detailed presentation about the Regionís approach to snow and ice control from the Director of Road Maintenance, Bill Beveridge. He highlighted the various initiatives employed by staff to reduce costs associated with winter maintenance and increase road safety. The more salient comments noted were as follows:

- the Region is responsible for approximately 25% of the roads in Ottawa-Carleton, which handle approximately 75% of the traffic;

- there are 3200 lane kilometres in the total system and roads that carry in excess of 7000 vehicles per day are provided with a minimum 3-hour level of service, the transitway receives a 2-hour level of service and the formerly provincially-owned portion of Highway 17 (Regional Road 174) receives a 1.5-hour level of service;

- the 1999 budget shows a reduction of $600,000 despite the 10% increase in the Regionís road system and it is through new and innovative technology that this reduction can be realized;

- approximately two-thirds of the winter maintenance budget is invested in spreader or de-icing operations with the remaining portion put towards clearing of pedestrian walkways and bus stops;

- a route optimization system was established which deploys the trucks in a fashion that allows the Department to continue the same level of service without having to purchase more equipment;

- it is more efficient and cost effective to send trucks out to plow 25 cm of snow that fall during one storm, than it would be to go out five times to plow 5 cm of snow each time; therefore, it is the number of times the fleet must be out that represents the cost;

- having one truck out of the system is crippling and therefore it is important to have the right equipment to handle the variety of weather the region experiences in any given winter; the new backbone of the Regionís fleet is a vehicle that combines the capabilities of a salt spreader and a snow plow into one (referred to as a combination unit) and which can be operated by one individual where, in the past, a plow required two people to operate;

- the projection for the winter fleet is to use more "combination units" and fewer plows; in the long term, the fleet will be comprised of approximately 37 combination units (32 belonging to the Region) and five contracted units;

- the number of trucks in the fleet has been reduced by five with a projected reduction of an additional ten plows by the end of next winter; these are one-time reductions and the equipment to be taken out is either close to or already obsolete;

- the Department is concerned about the environmental impact of using salt to de-ice roadways and use a combination of sodium chloride, sand and salt brine (a combination of salt and water);

- the key to using these chemicals is based on pavement temperature and the Regionís Road Weather Information System (RWIS) tells staff what the temperature of the pavement is which then assists them in determining when and what type of de-icing chemical to apply; there are currently 9 RWIS sites across the Region;

- through its partnership with Environment Canada, the Department retrieves the data through the RWIS sensors and transfers it to them; their meteorologists read the data, prepare road temperature forecasts and send them back to staff.

In closing, the Director advised that safety is the Departmentís business and staff pride themselves on being proactive rather than reactive to winter situations.

Councillor Meilleur was very concerned about the number of deaths caused by black ice on Highway 17 over the past few weeks and wanted assurance that what staff propose to improve safety while reducing costs, will not put people at risk. Mr. Beveridge appreciated her concern but reiterated that safety is the Departmentís business and that staff do test the technology to ensure it is right for Ottawa-Carleton. He added that the savings will come from being proactive - if staff were to do what they have done in the past and simply react to winter conditions, it will not be as successful as it can be when a proactive approach is taken. He clarified that the reports of black ice were inaccurate because what was on the road in fact was frost; he suggested the best way to deal with this condition is to remind motorists to slow down and drive appropriately for the road conditions. He went so far as to suggest launching a public awareness campaign to remind people to adjust their driving habits now that the colder weather has arrived.

The councillor questioned whether staff have discussed the concern about road conditions with Ministry staff and the Acting Commissioner advised that the province has a plan in the design stage to twin Highway 17 to Arnprior, thereby eliminating up to 70% of head-on-collisions. He agreed to investigate the status of this initiative and report back to the councillor.

Councillor Cantin questioned whether a telephone number could be put on the Internet that people could call to find out about road conditions. He also questioned how many RWIS stations the Region owned. The Director advised the Region owns two stand-alone stations and the province has installed one in Ashton and another along Highway 416 at Bankfield Road. Staff have also learned that the sensors can be installed at signalized intersections with a separate computer control box which takes the data off the street and feeds it back through the telephone line, thereby allowing staff to expand its network without spending additional dollars. The Acting Commissioner added that they currently have closed circuit televisions monitor of traffic and hoped to have that information available on the Internet by March. With respect to the councillorís first question about a telephone number, he advised that staff would explore whether or not this would be a useable format on the Internet.

The councillor further questioned whether staff were examining the possibility of installing a sensor in the east end of the Region and the Director advised there is a station in Orléans but it is not on line yet.

With respect to how the RWIS works, Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen questioned why it is the Region that has this technology and not Environment Canada and whether they are reaping the benefits of this system at the Regionís expense. B. Beveridge acknowledged there is a benefit in that the Region supplies them with data from the sensors which they read and summarily provide staff with pavement temperature forecasts. The councillor remarked that this appears to be one more responsibility the Region has taken on and while she could appreciate the fact the Region benefits in the long run because it is able to provide safer roads, she questioned whether it should be a cost borne by the Region. B. Beveridge advised that Environment Canada has its own meteorologists who interpret the data the Region sends to them and could not recommend hiring its own meteorologist to do that because there is not a year-round demand for such a position. It is also more cost-effective in the long-run because it is less expensive to do it in this fashion than having the Region hire its own meteorologist.

The councillor made reference to the Directorís suggestion for a public education program to ensure motorists drive to road conditions and questioned whether the department had a budget for public education. D. Brousseau confirmed the Department does not have a budget per se and for specific programs the money is found within capital projects. He recognized the need to be more proactive in communication but stated it would be up to committee and Council to determine how much education is warranted in this regard. He referred to the success of the waste reduction program and the 3-Rís program. The councillor suggested an ad campaign could be implemented on the sides of buses but the Commissioner advised this is an expensive undertaking. Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen therefore suggested there needed to be adjustments made to funding for such initiatives so that the safety aspect is addressed.

Henry Carter, a citizen, suggested that any safety education program the Region presents should state that the Region is not responsible for a motorists safety - but that the driver is responsible for his or her own safety. He agreed that the Region has a job to do with respect to ensuring the roads are safe and cleared, but stressed that the onus for safe driving should be put where it belongs - on the driver.

The Committee Chair agreed there was a need for public education about roadway conditions and the techniques people should be using.

That the Transportation Committee receive this verbal presentation for information.






- Co-ordinator, Transportation Committee report dated 3 Dec 98

Councillor Cantin made reference to the extract of Minute of 4 November 1998 in which it appeared he had not voted on one particular Motion during the discussion of this item. The Co-ordinator later confirmed with the councillor, that he was not present when that vote was recorded.

Staff advised that the temporary bus bay closures were part of a pilot project to determine the effect on transit service, traffic flow and safety. Helen Gault of OC Transpo advised that over the four year period, the results show an improvement to transit service with no safety implications and delays to other vehicles were unmeasureably small.

Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen noted that other bus bays in the Region appear to function as merge lanes for motorists and asked how these lanes are in fact intended to function. H. Gault stated that where bus bays are provided they are generally far-side to traffic signals which provides an opportunity for the bus driver to pull out when the signals are changing. The difference between those and the ones being considered today is that the Baseline Road bus bays function as mid-block bus bays and on a heavily-congested road the buses are having difficulty getting back into the traffic. The councillor expressed grave concerns of not providing the bus bay at Farlane Boulevard and cited other locations where residents have difficulty getting onto Regional roads because there is no merge lane. She could not support the staff recommendation and suggested it be split so committee members could vote on the individual locations.

Councillor Cantin questioned whether it was necessary to permanently remove the bus bay at Farlane and Baseline because he felt it would give residents that little amount of space to get up to speed to merge with the traffic. Jim Miller, Director of Engineering illustrated the present situation in a series of overhead slides, stating that if there is no bus bay, motorists could use it as a merge lane although it is not designed for that use. The councillor noted there is a seniors residence - the Villa Marconi - at this intersection which will soon be open and will attract a lot of traffic. He believed a merge lane would assist those people visiting the home, some of who will be quite elderly themselves and proposed that the bus bay remain open at Farlane and Baseline.

Councillor Meilleur questioned whether cars used the bus bay when it was opened and whether this created a safety hazard for pedestrians. D. Brousseau advised that staff had reviewed the closures as a transit priority measure and a review of accident history show there is no difference.

Paul Churchill, Fisher Heights Community Association indicated his association represents more than 1300 people in the area and related the fact that before the bus bays were closed, motorists leaving the side streets could at least use them as a merge lane, but now they are forced to get into traffic on Baseline Road from a dead stop, which is made all the more treacherous when a bus is stopped at either corner. Although his comments related to the safety aspects for the three proposed closures, he focused his attention on the intersection of Farlane because it is the primary intersection in that area. He explained that this north/south artery is the only street that provides access to and from Baseline Road. However, because it has the only break in the median between Merivale and Fisher, U-turns are common and create a more hazardous situation. As previously referred to by Councillor Cantin, he made note of the anticipated increase in traffic resulting from the opening of the seniors residence and suspected that when it is at full occupancy, traffic signals will be warranted. The Association acknowledges that this intersection is in desparate need of improvement and restoring the bus bay would go a long way to addressing the safety concerns.

Councillor Cantin stated that in the current situation, when a bus stops the traffic backs up, thereby making it that much more difficult for motorists to get off the side streets. H. Gault advised there is one bus route along this stretch of Baseline, with service every 7 to 8 minutes.

Councillor Gord Hunter spoke in favour of keeping the bus bay open as requested by the community and suggested that the best reason to reopen the one at Farlane would be the minimal impact on bus traffic. However, the removal of the bus bay at this intersection has a tremendous affect on the traffic emerging from the community, especially since Farlane is the busiest egress for residents. He emphasized that the issue is not about having an acceleration lane, but having a level of comfort in the turn radius at that corner. The present configuration, while somewhat improved, still forces motorists coming from Farlane to look for gaps in the traffic, effectively backing up traffic on Farlane, especially during rush hour. In response to previous comments made by staff, he was of the opinion that the accident history had not changed at this intersection because people probably stopped using it as much as before. He emphasized the fact that sight lines are limited partly because of the crest in the hill at Baseline and Merivale and the proximity of some shrubbery at the corner of this intersection, forcing motorists into traffic before they have a clear view of what is coming. He urged committee members to support the reopening of the bus bay at Farlane, noting the community is willing to accept the closures at Zena and Marson Streets as a compromise.

Councillor Bellemare felt the committee had not solved the problem of traffic merging onto Baseline Road and believed there was a need to look at a less costly solution for an intersection that was already in need of improvement. He could not support a recommendation to re-open the bus bay because using it as an acceleration lane is a contravention of the Highway Traffic Act and the Region should not be encouraging that type of vehicular movement. He maintained his belief that the solution would have been to move the bus stop to the other side of Farlane, but unfortunately that recommendation was not approved by Council when it initially considered this report.

Councillor Meilleur agreed it would be very dangerous to reopen the bus bay if motorists are going to treat it like an acceleration lane. She was concerned this could be a potential danger to people waiting at the bus stop.

Councillor Legendre noted this report is as a result of a four-year pilot project and as staff have suggested, there have been no changes in transit or traffic flow and it is as safe as it was previously. He recollected that the Regionís Official Plan and its Transportation Master Plan (TMP) state that mass transit should be given preference over private vehicles and where there is a conflict, the hierarchy of priorities, as established in those documents must be upheld.

Councillor Legendre assumed the Chair so that Councillor Holmes could address the committee.

Councillor Holmes was emphatically opposed to the use of bus bays as acceleration lanes because that type of use is very unsafe for both pedestrians and motorists. In response to one suggestion, she explained that even if the bus stop was moved to the other side, it would still trap buses, thereby reducing transit service. She agreed that transit must be given priority over private vehicles and emphasized this pilot has been ongoing for four years and has proven to be successful.

Councillor Cantin opined that this is a safety issue and not as much an Official Plan issue. He believed that many people coming to the Villa Marconi will likely drive since there is only bus route in front of this facility. Although this fact was true, H. Gault clarified that it is a major cross-regional bus route and during peak hours can carry between 400 and 500 people. The councillor continued by stating that the safety of people in the area is important and urged committee to give them one place they feel safer to exit their community from, at least until such time as traffic signals are warranted.

Councillor Doucet recollected that his Motion approved by committee with respect to the examination of moving the bus stop to the other side of the intersection was rejected by Council and he questioned whether it could be brought forward again. The Solicitor confirmed that a lost Motion could not be brought forward within the same term.

In light of the assumption that traffic signals will be needed at this intersection in the not-too-distant future, Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen suggested that when plans are submitted for developing the lands surrounding the Villa Marconi, site plan approval be contingent upon the developer installing signals. She thought staff might consider discussing this option with their municipal counterparts. She believed the municipalities concerned (Ottawa and Nepean) should be made aware of the Regionís concern about the stress on that intersection, relative to the future development of that site. She recognized that a bus bay provides a safe egress for motorists turning the corner and move into traffic and for residents living in the suburban areas who cannot get out onto the Regional roads and committee should be concerned about. She believed this issue is an exception to the policy that there be no bus bays and did not believe the impact on transit would be as severe as it is thought to be.

Further to these comments, Councillor Hunter indicated that the bus bay cannot possibly be used as an acceleration lane because it is too short; rather, it provides a level of comfort for motorists turning into traffic in a reasonable amount of time. He opined it would also provide a chance for deceleration because a motorist can stay in that lane to avoid a collision if the approaching traffic is coming too fast. With respect to transportation priorities, he explained that not having bus bays on this narrow two laned road is a tremendous impediment to commuter cyclists because the bus takes up the whole lane and cyclists have to either stop behind that vehicle until it moves again, or take a chance and pass the bus. In conclusion, he believed the Region should approach the province with a request that transit be given greater priority so buses are able to pull out ahead of cars.

Moved by R. Cantin

That the bus bay at Baseline and Farlane remain open to provide motorists with some acceleration space eastbound on Baseline Road.


YEAS: R. Cantin, M. McGoldrick-Larsen....2

NAYS: M. Bellemare, W. Byrne, L. Davis, C. Doucet, D. Holmes, J. Legendre

M. Meilleur....7

Having held a public hearing, that Transportation Committee recommend Council approve the preliminary design for the permanent closure of the bus bays at the intersections of Baseline Road and Farlane Boulevard, Zena Street and Marson Street as illustrated on Drawing No. RT-2353.


* Councillors Bellemare, Cantin and M. McGoldrick-Larsen dissented on the permanent closure of the bus bay at Farlane Boulevard.




- Director Mobility Services and Corporate Fleet Services report dated 28 Oct 98

On behalf of Councillor Hill, Councillor Cantin proposed the following Motion:

WHEREAS Stittsville has grown from a population of 3,000 in the 1970ís to 12,000 in 1998, and continues to grow at a rapid pace; and

WHEREAS this growth has created a major increase in the traffic volume and safety problems; and

WHEREAS this growth has generated some $12 million in Regional Development Charges (RDCs) for Regional Government since 1985 ($1.7 million in 1997 and $1.5 million in 1996 alone); and

WHEREAS Main Street, Stittsville, is Regional Road #5 which bisects the village from its northerly boundary to the southerly limits and brings major truck traffic from both Highways #416 in the south and #417 to the north; and

WHEREAS Main Street is the focal point of commercial development, schools, churches, three seniorsí residences, offices for doctors, dentists, and other professionals, an arena and community centre as well as shopping malls, all of which create an ever-increasing amount of traffic which threatens the safety of pedestrians and cyclists, as well as vehicles; and

WHEREAS Regional Development Charges (RDCs) are used to partially fund traffic signals on the basis that they are growth related; and

WHEREAS the traffic volume and unsafe crossing situation on Main Street, Stittsville are growth related,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Committee and Council approve the installation of traffic signals on Regional Road #5 (Main Street), Stittsville at the corner of Church/Wintergreen Streets. Funding is to be provided from Regional Development Charges.

Councillor Mike Bryan and Mayor Janet Stavinga from the Township of Goulbourn spoke to the committee with respect to this issue. In particular, Councillor Bryan remarked that the staff recommendation is completely unacceptable to them and in light of the millions of dollars Goulbourn has contributed to RDCs, he did not feel it was unreasonable to request a traffic light along their main thoroughfare. He elaborated on the extensive use of this intersection by residents going to and coming from the two subdivisions, churches, the hockey arena and the community centre. In addition, there are two schools on either side of Main Street and many seniors live close to this intersection. He believed the report did not take into account the local issues and stated the recommendation was based solely on signal warrants. He urged committee to address this very real safety concern.

Mayor Stavinga believed the Region should focus on revising its policy for implementing traffic controls in terms of the warrant system and suggested a merit process be introduced which would allow the flexibility to address local conditions in the community. She indicated that while the existing system may be appropriate for urban areas, the warrants are inappropriate when applied to an intersection in a rural community. She emphasized that the Township needs to ensure safe and timely access onto the roads and suggested the Region focus on those Regional roads that serve as "intra" Regional transportation corridors, as well as local community routes. The Mayor added that the current traffic crisis is a direct result of the tremendous growth in the municipality, but indicated it is investigating the possibility of collecting some funding for signals through its development charge by-law. They have also sought partnerships with developers to purchase signals.

Mayor Stavinga asked that committee recognize the dual role Main Street and other Regional roads in Goulbourn play, adding that they are very interested in partnerships in a cost-sharing program and she referred to a previous Motion adopted by the Township and forwarded to the Region in 1997 about cost-sharing for traffic signals at the intersection of Fringewood and Hazeldean Road. She explained that although the volume of traffic traveling that portion of Hazeldean Road exceeds provincial warrants, there is a lower volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic crossing through the intersection and this reduces the warrant percentage.

Councillor Meilleur questioned whether the Township was seeking a cost-sharing arrangement for all unwarranted signals and Mayor Stavinga clarified that all the Township is seeking at this point in time is to start negotiations with Regional staff to discuss this issue, including the possibility of a cost-sharing solution. Councillor Meilleur remarked that the Region does not have the budget for intersections that are already fully warranted and questioned how the Township expects the Region to cost-share unwarranted signals. The Mayor understood this fact, but explained that all she was asking was that discussions begin at the staff level, with an examination of the impact on the rural vs the urban community. She confirmed their priority for signals is the intersection of Main and Wintergreen, but as previously mentioned, since 1997 the Township has been seeking Regional staffís co-operation to enter into dialogue on this very issue. Councillor Meilleur proposed:

That the RMOC investigate the possibility of cost-sharing the installation of traffic lights in the rural communities when a traffic control signal is not warranted (according to the present established criteria) but requested by the municipality for safety reasons.

When asked to describe her suggestion for an alternative merit system, Mayor Stavinga explained that she wanted to meet with Regional staff to discuss the frustration they, and other municipalities have with respect to the fact the technical criteria for the provincial warrant system does not necessarily reflect the reality of the situation and she felt that what should be explored is whether there are some local conditions that can be applied.

Councillor Legendre referred to a question he had posed to staff at an earlier meeting with respect to the appropriateness of the current warrant system with the Transportation Master Plan. The Acting Commissioner, Doug Brousseau explained that staff had responded to that inquiry in October and confirmed that the traffic control signal warrant system is based on provincial warrants although the Region has created its own warrant system for pedestrian signals. In response to further questions posed by the councillor, he advised there is already insufficient funds in the budget to install signals that are fully warranted and confirmed it is not Council policy to share the cost of signals with a municipality if they are not warranted.

Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen questioned whether the Region collects for traffic control signals under the RDC policy and staff confirmed the budget for signals does show a contribution from that fund. From her experience as a local and regional councillor, she acknowledged that such a contribution does not cover the costs associated with growth at the upper or lower tier and she believed there should be more opportunity to collect for items such as traffic lights. She proposed:

That staff set up a working committee with representatives from the lower tier municipalities to develop a cost-sharing policy for traffic control signals and to report back to the Transportation Committee.

She believed this proposal offers a chance for dialogue between the Region and the area municipalities and opined there is a lack of co-ordination between land-use planning and the transportation needs as that planning occurs.

Councillor Byrne believed approval of cost-sharing for this intersection would set a dangerous precedent and does not address the real problem which is the warrant system criteria. She supported the Motion proposed by Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen and was also interested in looking towards tying that dialogue into a review of the use of RDCs because she believed they were connected.

When questioned whether RDC funding can be used in the manner suggested in the Cantin Motion, the Solicitor confirmed those funds can be allocated to capital projects as designated in the By-law.

Councillor Hill advised that 40% of traffic control signals are covered by RDC funds if they are growth related. She agreed that this intersection will never meet the warrants because it does not have high density development; however, that does not make it any less dangerous. She confirmed she would be satisfied if committee directs staff to investigate a cost-sharing formula with municipalities and hoped there would be a chance the Township could use the RDC funds to install a signal at this intersection.

Councillor Bellemare agreed there was a need for an overall policy that will have a priority system and which would consider all facets of the issue. He believed this direction will allow staff to examine the urban vs rural environment factors and whether these will be bonefied criteria in developing that policy. He believed the issue of the use of RDCs for traffic signals has added much to this debate and encouraged staff to seriously look at how the Region can develop a cost-sharing policy with the municipalities.

D. Brousseau was concerned that there are existing intersections where collisions occur and although signals are warranted, there is not enough money available to install them. He cautioned committee of the seriousness of reducing that pot to contribute to the installation of unwarranted signals. Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen explained the intent of her Motion is to simply set up a committee with staff and representatives of the lower tier municipalities to develop a policy for cost-sharing, and report back to committee. The Acting Commissioner agreed that if so directed by committee, he would report back in response to this proposal, taking into consideration any liability issues that may be involved.

Councillor Bellemare wanted assurance staff would examine the whole issue of RDC funding, including to what extent those funds have been used to install signals and whether or not the Region could target a portion of those funds in the future for an expanded program which would be cost-shared with area municipalities.

In speaking to her Motion, Councillor Meilleur agreed with the delegation from Goulbourn that the same criteria cannot be applied to the rural community as is applied in the urban areas because the role of roads are different in the rural areas due to the fact they do not have the same volume of traffic. However, as in this instance, at certain periods of the day, a traffic signal is warranted for safety reasons.

Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen wanted a system that was fair and equitable to all area municipalities and the fact that some urban municipalities have a rural component to them was the reason she proposed that all municipalities be involved in the working group.

Councillor Cantin reminded members that in a village as old as Stittsville, it is not a simple matter to provide a better road system to respond to increased traffic because the area is well-established and road patterns have been in place for so long. He suggested Councillor Meilleurís Motion be amended to state "rural areas" because there are several other municipalities that would fall within the same criteria. Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen opined that if it is only rural municipalities, it eliminates the opportunity for those which experience infilling, such as Ottawa, to cost-share. She explained that her Motion encompasses the rural and if something comes out of that dialogue with the lower tier, it should be that working group that decides how best to deal with it rather than segregating those areas out immediately.

Councillor Legendre asked that if these Motions are approved, whether it would be staffís intention to respond in the same report they are presently preparing with respect to the direction taken by committee and council about the warrant system. D. Brousseau agreed this would be the best approach to take.

Councillor Cantin made the suggestion that the final text of his Motion be split for voting purposes and the latter sentence be amended to add the words "and lower tier contribution on a 50/50 basis".

Moved by R. Cantin

WHEREAS Stittsville has grown from a population of 3,000 in the 1970ís to 12,000 in 1998, and continues to grow at a rapid pace; and

WHEREAS this growth has created a major increase in the traffic volume and safety problems; and

WHEREAS this growth has generated some $12 million in RDCs for Regional Government since 1985 ($1.7 million in 1997 and $1.5 million in 1996 alone); and

WHEREAS Main Street, Stittsville, is Regional Road #5 which bisects the village from its northerly boundary to the southerly limits and brings major truck traffic from both Highways #416 in the south and #417 to the north; and

WHEREAS Main Street is the focal point of commercial development, schools, churches, three seniorsí residences, offices for doctors, dentists, and other professionals, an arena and community centre as well as shopping malls, all of which create an ever-increasing amount of traffic which threatens the safety of pedestrians and cyclists, as well as vehicles; and

WHEREAS Regional Development Charges (RDCs) are used to partially fund traffic signals on the basis that they are growth related; and

WHEREAS the traffic volume and unsafe crossing situation on Main Street, Stittsville are growth related,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Committee and Council approve the installation of traffic signals on Regional Road #5 (Main Street), Stittsville at the corner of Church/Wintergreen Streets and lower tier contribution on a 50/50 basis.


YEAS: R. Cantin, D. Holmes, M. Meilleur....3

NAYS: M. Bellemare, L. Davis, J. Legendre, M. McGoldrick-Larsen....4


Moved by M. Meilleur

That the RMOC investigate the possibility of cost-sharing the installation of traffic lights in the rural communities when a traffic control signal is not warranted (according to the present established criteria) but requested by the municipality for safety reasons.


YEAS: R. Cantin, C. Doucet, D. Holmes, J. Legendre, M. Meilleur....5

NAYS: M. Bellemare, L. Davis, M. McGoldrick-Larsen....3

In view of the above, Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen suggested her Motion be amended to add "encompass urban municipalities within the Region". The Solicitor advised that such an amendment would be in conflict with the previous Motion. Reluctantly, and although she argued that her Motion speaks to setting up a working group and is therefore different, the councillor was willing to withdraw her Motion.

Councillor Bellemare did not believe there was a conflict between the two Motions and suggested her Motion should perhaps have been treated as an amendment to the Meilleur Motion or the two dealt with independently. He had voted against the Meilleur Motion because he believed the other was more all-encompassing. The committee briefly discussed how they had interpreted the Meilleur Motion. Councillor Meilleur explained that while she meant rural "municipalities" in her Motion, it was written as rural "communities". In light of this clarification, the committee agreed to vote again on the Meilleur Motion, as amended as follows:

Moved by M. Meilleur

That the RMOC investigate the possibility of cost-sharing the installation of traffic lights in the rural municipalities (i.e. Osgoode, Goulbourn, West Carleton and Rideau) when a traffic control signal is not warranted (according to the present established criteria) but requested by the municipality for safety reasons.


YEAS: M. Bellemare, R. Cantin, C. Doucet, D. Holmes, J. Legendre,

M. Meilleur....6

NAYS: M. McGoldrick-Larsen....1





- Chair, Transportation Committee report dated 22 Oct 98

Councillor Cantin suggested this would be a dangerous situation if only one intersection was different from all the rest where the four way red light system operates. The Acting Commissioner suggested this could be reviewed as an inquiry with a staff report to come back to the committee, but he agreed with the councillor that it would be a hazard to remove only one of the four-way flashing stop lights.

The Committee Chair explained this had been a request from the community and in view of these comments, suggested the item simply be received for information.

That staff select a traffic control signal in the Somerset Heights area to use as a pilot project to remove the Ďfour-way red lightí component of the signal cycle.



- Chair, Transportation Committee report dated 22 Oct 98

The Committee Chair made reference to the memorandum from Legal staff and the suggestion for a sub-committee which would consider the issue of civic addressing. Councillor Legendre suggested the wording of the Motion include business addresses as well, since it is important that these be visible too, especially during an emergency.

Moved by M. Meilleur

That the 9-1-1 Management Board be requested to form a sub-committee of all interested parties to examine present civic addressing practices in Ottawa-Carleton, (home and business) with recommendations to the Board, the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee, Regional Council and local municipal councils and committees.





- Executive Director, Ottawa-Carleton Police Services Board memorandum dated 19 Nov 98



Red Light Cameras/Safety Zones

The Committee Chair made reference to the new provincial legislation which allows communities to designate "safety zones" where appropriate as well as red light cameras and questioned whether these are what staff are working towards for Ottawa-Carleton. The Acting Commissioner advised that staff will be bringing forward a report to committee in the near future on safety zones. He confirmed they will be meeting with the police shortly to discuss this and will bring forward the criteria for establishing these zones.

With respect to red light cameras, he advised that despite recent announcements, the province has failed to provide the regulations or guidelines and until that information is forthcoming, he proposed that staff continue with their pilots as directed by committee and Council. He advised that staff have been working with representatives of the industry which manufacture this technology and related their eagerness to work with the Region in this regard. He added that the issue of enforcement must also be considered and staff intend to meet with the police shortly to discuss this aspect of red light cameras. He advised that the administration and management of this initiative will take time and effort.



The meeting adjourned at p.m. 5:15 p.m.
















_______________________ ____________________