PRESENT

Chair: D. Holmes

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

Note:

1. Underlining indicates a new or amended recommendation approved by Committee.
2. Reports requiring Council consideration will be presented to Council on 26 April 2000 in Transportation Committee Report 60.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

1. BANK STREET AND MCLEOD STREET INTERSECTION MODIFICATIONS  

- Director, Mobility Services and Corporate Fleet Services report dated 29 Mar 00

2. MODIFICATIONS TO PRESTON STREET TO ACCOMMODATE AN OUTDOOR PATIO AT 434 ½ PRESTON STREET  

3. BRONSON AVENUE/GLADSTONE AVENUE INTERSECTION MODIFICATIONS  

- Director, Mobility Services and Corporate Fleet Services report dated 29 Mar 00

4. MODIFICATIONS TO RIVERSIDE DRIVE BETWEEN UPLANDS DRIVE AND KIMBERWICK CRESCENT TO ACCOMMODATE COGNOS EXPANSION  

- Director, Mobility Services and Corporate Fleet Services report dated 30 Mar 00

5. ALTA VISTA DRIVE/SMYTH ROAD PLANNING STUDY - STAFF RESPONSE  

- Planning and Development Approvals Commissioner report dated 5 Apr 00

Brendan Reid, Manager, Infrastructure and Project Planning highlighted the main points detailed in the report. He referred to the direction previously given to staff last October to address the full implications of future development in this area over the next 15 years. Staff intend to report to the Committee on this in June. The development and adoption of the traffic management strategy from that study will properly address the real transportation requirements of this area over the next several years.

Councillor Legendre noted that City Council is also requesting improved transit service for the area, although the staff response does not address that issue. Mr. Reid advised that staff will be examining this as part of the overall examination of the area. He noted that there have been recent discussions with OC Transpo about this, and one of the particular difficulties is providing an appropriate transit service to shiftworkers at both hospital complexes. Presently, buses go into the site and circle around the ring road to the facilities; however, this delays the service to the other major generators of traffic along Smyth Road. Given that the overall staff response is a negative response to the City of Ottawa’s request, the councillor hoped that a positive note could be added with respect to providing improved transit service. Councillor Hume explained that OC Transpo had implemented a new route which goes around the hospital and back to Billings Bridge. However, the route has been less than successful and OC Transpo is now looking at some targeted marking in the hospital to increase the use of that route.

Councillor Hume advised committee members that he was pleased with the staff response before committee today. He referred to the significant development (1.8 million square feet) projected for the area in the future and stated that the staff report to be brought forward in June will deal that development in a comprehensive fashion, including all modes of transportation, not just vehicular. That report will provide a global picture of the issues and resources will be better allocated in a much more strategic fashion to meet the needs of the community.

Dr. Quentin Bristow spoke on behalf of Ottawa City Councillor, Allan Higdon, who was unable to attend due to a conflict with the City’s Council meeting. Dr. Bristow read into the record the letter dated 17 April 2000 from the councillor, a copy of which is held on file. On his own behalf and as a resident of Billings Avenue for 20 years, Dr. Bristow explained that there has been increased traffic in the area as a result of the development of Conroy Road and the community does not need nor does it want the proposed development in the area. He believed that such development would mean a poorer quality of life as a result of the increased noise and traffic. He explained that residents would not be so much in favour of the Alta Vista Parkway if all the traffic was not here, but existing communities are paying for incremental developments. He noted that such development will continue unless the Region puts a stop to it and there will be no option for the Alta Vista Parkway unless development is restricted.

In response to Dr. Bristow’s comments, Councillor Hume explained there is no way for the Region to clamp down on development without the technological justification to do so and the study conducted by the City of Ottawa does not provide that information. The Region’s comprehensive examination of all issues will provide the necessary defense should a decision made by the Region to restrict development be appealed by a developer.

6. RURAL TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS - COST-SHARING

- Director, Mobility Services and Corporate Fleet Services report dated 31 Mar 00

Following a brief overview of the conditions and procedures set out in Annex A, Doug Brousseau, Director of Mobility Services and Corporate Fleet Services explained that should the committee and Council approve a cost-sharing formula, street lighting and engineering should be added to the third bullet of Annex A. He advised that it is more complicated to install signals in the rural areas due to property issues et cetera and it is unlikely staff would be able to undertake all of those installations this year. Therefore, it would be unlikely that the Department would spend the $500,000 allocated for this purpose. He stated that should the committee and Council decide to pursue something similar to this in future years, there will be a need to establish a new program and to fund it.

Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen questioned why rural Nepean was not included with the other municipalities to be considered and was advised by Mr. Brousseau that it was the direction of the committee that it only be the rural municipalities as identified by name in the Motion. He noted the rural portion of Cumberland was added at the request of the ward councillor and was done outside of committee. The councillor was somewhat concerned about that, particularly when there are a number of intersections outside the greenbelt that could qualify under the same circumstances, i.e., Amberwood and Prince of Wales Drive. She therefore did not believe the report was inclusive enough to deal with all the situations that should be examined by committee.

Councillor Meilleur proposed that the Region cost share 50% for unwarranted signals in the rural communities.

Councillor Bellemare questioned whether Regional Development Charges (RDC) are strictly available to fund traffic control signals that are 100% warranted or whether they can be used at Council’s discretion for unwarranted signals. Mr. Brousseau advised that the RDC By-law says those funds can be applied to signals, but does not say that they have to be warranted. The councillor requested a formal legal opinion from staff on this point. He noted that the Transition Board has yet to approve the signal program for this year, and given that uncertainty, the committee may very well find its signal budget modified downward.

Mr. Brousseau advised that should the Transition Board not approve the signal program it would be problematic. He reiterated that he did not believe staff would be able to install all the warranted locations if the Transition Board gives its approval and therefore, he believed there would be cash flow available that could be applied to this program. Councillor Bellemare questioned whether or not staff endorse an establishment of cost sharing and Mr. Brousseau stated they did not for signals that were not warranted. He added that it is only for the next several months that this opportunity exists. The councillor questioned whether staff had approached Nepean, Kanata and Gloucester to see if they wanted to participate in this cost-sharing program and D. Brousseau indicated staff had not contacted those municipalities.

Councillor Bellemare questioned how the warrants are calculated for the rural areas vs the urban areas. D. Brousseau explained there are different number warrants, i.e., volume, cross-street, collision, pedestrian, et cetera. The volume warrant in an urban setting is higher because the speeds are lower and therefore the gaps are easier to judge. In the rural areas the number of vehicles warrant is lower because the speeds are higher and there are less gaps between vehicles. It is the number of acceptable gaps in the traffic which is measured and there are fewer gaps on higher-speed roads. The councillor questioned whether the calculation for urban warrants could be applied to rural intersections and was advised by staff that conditions are not the same and therefore the two cannot be intermixed.

Councillor Bellemare noted that when Council approved the budget for 2000 there were two separate pages for signals; one was locations which were 100% warranted in the rural area (6) and 7 locations identified in the urban area which were warranted but for which funds were not identified. Mr. Brousseau explained that the department will install as many warranted signals as possible to reduce injury and death and if they cannot be installed in the rural area for property acquisition reasons, et cetera, then the signals should be installed in the urban areas. He confirmed that allocating $500,000 for unwarranted signals would not affect the installation of signals at locations which are already 100% warranted.

Councillor Bellemare inquired as to what assurances staff can give that installing unwarranted signals in the rural area will not siphon off the dollars for the warranted signal program this year. D. Brousseau confirmed the Department would not be able to spend the money in the budget for this year because of design work, et cetera. He maintained that by spending up to $500,000 from the warranted signal budget will not jeopardize this year’s installations.

Councillor Hill reminded committee that this opportunity to cost-share will only be available for the remainder of the year. With respect to the issue in the Village of Stittsville, the councillor noted that growth in this community has created a problem with the traffic. In the rural villages, such as Stittsville, Main Street, which is a regional road, goes through the centre of the village and is where most commercial and public facilities are located. While the Township meets the warrants for the regional road, it does not (and never will) meet the warrants from the local streets accessing onto the regional road because there are not enough people to make the intersections meet the warrants. She emphasized that their main concern is safety and people still have to cross Main Street to access businesses and facilities on that road. She suggested that if not all of the townships want to take advantage of this cost-sharing program, that Goulbourn be allowed to install a second signal.

Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen compared the intersection of Longfields Drive and Woodroffe Avenue in some regards to Main Street, Stittsville, because the requirement for those residents to come out onto the regional road is comparable to the urban development that is requiring access to a regional road. D. Brousseau agreed the situation is similar because Woodroffe Avenue is a high speed roadway and the difficulty lies in getting onto the main road. He stated that this intersection is of a rural cross-section and staff would probably apply the rural warrant to that so it can reach a warranted value. The councillor indicated that should committee adopt a policy to cost-share, she would support the inclusion of all municipalities with rural components, to ensure fairness and equality. Further, she would want to revisit some of those intersections that have been under review in the vicinities she referred to.

Councillor Cantin questioned whether the warrant should include the fact that all the recreational/commercial development et cetera is on the main road, thereby giving the importance of safe access to the regional road greater importance. Mr. Sheflin indicated that Council has approved non-warranted signals if the area municipality pays the full cost. The issue before committee is not the warrant system, but whether or not committee and Council wishes to divert from its present practice and agree to pay a portion for unwarranted signals in the rural areas. Councillor Cantin noted it is more expensive to install signals in the rural area than in an urban setting and Mr. Brousseau confirmed this fact, so perhaps only two might get installed this year, depending on how much engineering, construction and property is required. The councillor indicated he was going to add a Motion to include the rural areas of Kanata, Cumberland and Gloucester, but advised he would withdraw that Motion in support of the Meilleur Motion. D. Brousseau confirmed that the other townships have not budgeted funds to request participation in this one-time program.

Mayor Janet Stavinga, Township of Goulbourn submitted a letter dated 19 April 2000. She noted that staff have shown a responsiveness to Goulbourn by providing this window of opportunity and she asked that committee look at the benefits that can be derived to the residents of Goulbourn and other rural townships. She stated that the rural townships often do not get the level of safety their residents need and she urged the committee to support this cost-sharing arrangement as set out in the staff report. The Township wanted to come before committee today to show they are committed to participating as full partners in a cost-sharing arrangement for traffic control signals and have allocated $250,000 in their capital projects in 2000 for signals. She noted that should the Transition Board question this expenditure of dollars, the Township can support its argument because there is a history associated with this request.

She went on to state that the Township supports the conditions and procedures set out in Annex A, with the exception of having the municipality responsible for all design drawings deemed necessary for signal installation and that signal installation be limited to one per municipality. With respect to the latter, she indicated that the Township has put in enough money to identify a second location for signal installation. Mayor Stavinga noted that growth in the township has been 5% each year or about 1,000 people coming into the community each year and the Township sees its current traffic crisis as directly related to this rapid growth. She asked that committee support the cost-sharing arrangement, with the exceptions as set out in her letter. She added that the Township has identified Iber Road and Hazeldean Road as its first priority for signals, followed by a second location, should signals be available, at the intersection of Main and Hobin or Main at Wintergreen.

With respect to Motion 2, Chair Holmes questioned whether Mr. Brousseau’s suggestion to include engineering in Annex A would include design drawings and he confirmed it would. The Committee Chair suggested that should committee approve the amendment as proposed by Mr. Brousseau, Motion 2 would be redundant.

2. That staff Recommendation 2 be substituted by the following:

Councillor Bellemare stated that some of his Motions are amendments to Councillor Meilleur’s Motions and should be dealt with first. However, with respect to his Motion 2, the Committee Chair stated that staff had indicated that not all 100% unwarranted signals would be installed this year. The Commissioner agreed that this specific program is for locations that are not 100% warranted and therefore the Motion is contrary to the Meilleur Motion. In explaining his position, Councillor Bellemare advised that based on what staff have told committee, $500,000 could be taken from funding which is supposed to be allocated to 100% warranted urban traffic signals and he has not heard a guarantee from staff that it will not affect that program. Mr. Brousseau reiterated his previous remarks that he believed the urban intersections will be easier to accommodate this year than the rural intersections and was confident that staff would be able to proceed with those installations. Based on these comments, the Committee Chair ruled that the Meilleur Motion would be dealt with first.

Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen was very sympathetic to the rural communities, noting similar issues exist across the Region where people living in new subdivisions and who have limited access to the regional roads, are having difficulty getting out onto that main road. She did not believe it was fair and equitable to all of the situations the committee has to deal with and at this point in time and would not support the Meilleur Motion. She did support some of the amendments put forward by Councillor Bellemare because she believed there was a need to deal with all of the transportation issues and this program would jump the queue for the demands on limited regional funds.

Councillor Byrne questioned whether staff have polled other municipalities with respect to their interest in this program. Mr. Brousseau understood that from a poll of municipal staff, they have not budgeted for this. He suggested the committee might want to deal with this on a first come first basis otherwise it may cause delays in getting design work done.

Councillor Bellemare requested an advance ruling on his Motions because if the Meilleur Motion is taken first, his amendments will be ruled out of order. The Committee Chair confirmed they would be contrary to the main Motion if it is taken first. Given this information, Councillor Bellemare urged committee members to vote against the Meilleur Motion and to support his amendments and the staff recommendations for the following reasons: it will formalize a request to invite other municipalities with rural areas to participate; to obtain a legal opinion from staff that targeting dollars from RDC for unwarranted traffic signals is appropriate and, finally; by adopting this cost-sharing formula, it will not put in jeopardy any of the 100% warranted urban signal locations. He wanted to ensure that if committee does agree to siphon away funds from the 100% warranted traffic control signal program, that it be done from those areas which are represented by the requesting municipalities of this particular program. He did not believe the urban area should pay for unwarranted signals by jeopardizing its 100% warranted traffic control signals.

Councillor Meilleur agreed with the comment that rural municipalities do not have the same volume of traffic as the urban areas and therefore, they can never meet the warrants established for signals. She understood the criteria is different between the rural and urban areas but she believed they are too restrictive for those municipalities to have traffic signals.

Moved by M. Meilleur

YEAS: W. Byrne, R. Cantin, L. Davis, C. Doucet, D. Holmes, H. Kreling, J. Legendre, M. Meilleur....8

NAYS: M. Bellemare, M. McGoldrick-Larsen....2

Moved by D. Holmes

Moved by M. Meilleur

The Committee considered staff Recommendations 1(b) and 2 as follows:

D. Brousseau asked that staff be given authority to proceed on the one Goulbourn request now. The Committee Chair agreed they should do so and that the remaining rural municipalities mentioned in Annex A be circulated to determine their level of interest.

Councillor Legendre suggested that Annex A be amended to add that all rural areas be included in this one-time program. Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen pointed out that Councillor Bellemare had originally proposed that, but the Motion was ruled out of order. The Committee Chair agreed the ruling would not apply to that particular Motion and it was therefore voted on as follows:

7. Motorcycle Racing - Heron Park

- Inquiry TC-17-99

- Director Mobility Services and Corporate Fleet Services report dated 29 Mar 00

- R. Billings letter dated 12 Apr 00

The committee received e-mail comments from RCAG and Citizens for Safe Cycling dated 18 and 19 April 2000.

Sergeant John Crozier of the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service outlined the difficulties the police have had trying to deter this racing, although the real problem is the noise created by these machines. He explained that the mufflers actually elevate the noise of the motorcycle, thereby achieving the desired effect by the driver. He advised that provincial legislation prevents police from chasing motorcyclists, who will do anything to avoid being caught. The police have initiated some campaigns of stopping them from racing by checking for insurance coverage, et cetera.

Dan Cillis, a resident of Heron Park south for 13 years, explained how sick and tired he was of the noise created by motorcycle racers in this normally quiet residential community. In his own words, Mr. Cillis explained how biker brats race on Thursday, Friday and Saturday evenings anywhere from 11:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m., forcing people to close their windows during the summer, even though that may still not ensure a soundless sleep. He complained that the quality of life has been eroded by these irresponsible individuals and some residents have even moved from the area as a result of the noise. Mr. Cillis remarked that motorcycle racers do not obey the signs and it is not safe for people to cross Heron Road when they are racing. While he supported the staff recommendation, he believed a greater police presence on Heron Road would deter the racing and the police should do more to enforce the laws being broken by these individuals.

Marion Hall, Heron Park Community Association recalled that in the 20 years she has lived in the area, she could not remember a summer night when there were no motorcycles racing about. It is an increasing annoyance for her and her neighbours. She appreciated the work the task force and the police have done and was in favour of installing rumble strips in an effort to hopefully reduce the problem.

Lois K. Smith cautioned that should the committee approve the installation of rumble strips, they should not be put in alongside the RA Centre because of blind people accessing that facility. She thought these types of strips might also cause cross-splashing if water accumulated in the grooves. Ms. Smith was also concerned about rumble strips during the winter when icy conditions could affect cyclists or motorists. She suggested that should committee endorse this proposal, that they be easily removable.

Donna Silver, Heron Park North Community Association supported the initiatives being undertaken to try to resolve this problem.

Boris Steipernitz commented that this is not just a noise problem, but is also very dangerous for cyclists and people at Heron and Riverside because the racers are travelling in opposing lanes and going through red lights. He maintained that the present situation is not acceptable and it is an accident just waiting to happen. He was frustrated that the police have been more or less ineffective in dealing with these racers, especially when they often arrive at the scene after the racers have already gone. He believed it is very important to address this issue now because these racing groups will only move to another area. He urged committee members to support the pilot project and then review the staff recommendations which will come from that trial period.

John Gorman, Heron Park Community Association stated the roads where these races take place are on high ground and the sound carries for quite a distance. For example, he lives about a mile away from the area and he can still hear the noise loud and clear. He has become even more concerned since the racing now occurs all the time, day or night and the racers are mixing with traffic.

Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen questioned whether there were any racetracks that could accommodate these groups and staff advised there were no such local facilities. The councillor inquired as to how many complaints the police receive about motorcycle racing from other areas of the Region and while the Sergeant did not have that information readily available, he did confirm that the majority of calls come from the Data Centre Road area, and also along Nicholas Street.

When questioned whether there were any provincial or federal standards for noise levels produced by equipment such as motorcycles, Sergeant Crozier advised there were, but the difficulties occur when questions are asked about how the test was conducted. For example, the City of Ottawa has a noise by-law and there are operators of machines that can register decibel levels. However, then the questions are asked such as: Where was the test taken? Did you make the motorcyclist rev his engine or was the test taken when the engine was idling? On the other hand, the Highway Traffic Act does give the officer discretion in respect to unnecessary noise and whether he/she felt that the noise being emitted by any vehicle was necessary. If the level was unnecessary, then there could be a conviction and this is usually where the police have been successful. The councillor wondered about having a noise specialist do some assessment of the situation so there is a base of information to what the noise levels are. Sergeant Crozier believed that what the police should be looking at is a need to get the prosecutors in the by-law division and the provincial prosecutors on board with the seriousness of the problem because it is very frustrating for police officers to lay charges, only to see the ticket thrown out of court for various reasons.

Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen believed there was a need to get information to these racers. She wanted to convey a message to them that the Region is serious about rectifying the situation and that it has a plan of action to take. Sergeant Crozier remarked that last year the police conveyed a strong message about this to racers who begin in the Byward Market, and they even went as far as approaching the shops that sell the components that make the motorcycle louder than normal, but they were not very responsive to the police concerns. He agreed there could be more education, i.e., flyers, local newspaper articles, et cetera, to convey the message that they are serious about these machines and they will enforce the law. The councillor suggested that perhaps summer students could hand out flyers on weekends at the motorcycle shops to help impress upon them the importance of the issue.

Councillor Legendre believed that the way to solve the problem is to go directly to the source, the mufflers, and do something about the sale of this equipment. He believed there must be a level of government that sets standards for such equipment and those mufflers should be made illegal so that even its presence on the bike is a violation. He inquired whether the police have asked for better laws with respect to the manufacture of the mufflers for these types of bikes and Sergeant Crozier advised that he was not aware of any such request. The councillor suggested that a message be sent to the province with respect to this issue.

Councillor Doucet indicated there were 45,000 people in his ward and this problem affects well over half of them because it occurs in a very high bluff and the sound resonates into the community. People have been asking that something be done about this problem for many, many years. He noted that enforcement is not possible because of the difficulties associated with actually tracking down the culprits in the act of racing. Also, part of the problem is you never know when it is going to happen and the community cannot adapt to the irritation. He maintained that this is a health and safety problem as well because people’s sleep is disrupted and this can lead to stress. He believed that the only way to eliminate the problem is to change the pleasure racers get from racing up and down those hills. He was delighted with the report and urged committee’s support of the staff recommendation.

An unidentified biker admitted he was one of the people causing these problems and agreed that many mufflers are illegal and that they are just for performance. He suggested that the use of speed humps, which was an option examined, would not be safe.

D. Brousseau indicated it would be a good suggestion that the Police Services Board pass a similar Motion.

Councillor Legendre inquired when the modifications for Coventry Road at the St. Laurent Shopping Centre would be coming to committee for consideration. The Director of Mobility Services and Corporate Fleet Services advised that he would look into this and report back to the councillor.

Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen presented a Motion to committee requesting staff to contact VIA Rail immediately to pursue the concept of locating a train stop at the Fallowfield Transit Station. The Environment and Transportation Commissioner indicated there had been previous discussions about this with VIA several years ago and at that time, VIA indicated they did not have the funds to put a station at this location. The Planning and Development Approvals Commissioner added VIA has been positive about this and with the recent announcement from the Federal Minister of Transport for funds for VIA to improve their infrastructure, he believed now would be an opportune time to raise this with them again.

In response to questions raised by Councillor Meilleur, it was confirmed this would be an additional VIA rail stop at this location. Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen added that residents living in this part of the Region and in the south would not have to travel downtown in order to get on the train and can simply board at the station at Fallowfield if it is approved. The Commissioner further confirmed that upon the successful completion of the light rail pilot project, the new Council may wish to look at extending commuter rail to the west, and this station would therefore serve a dual purpose; VIA rail and light rail service.