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 28 June 2000 in Transportation Committee Report 65.

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

- Director, Mobility Services and Corporate Fleet Services report dated 1 Jun 00

- Director, Engineering Division report dated 5 Jun 00

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

- RCAG submission dated 20 Jun 00

Councillor Doucet referred to the submission from the Regional Cycling Advisory Group and requested a staff comment on the following recommendations the Group proposed:

Greg Kent, Safety and Traffic Studies Engineer advised that the majority of motorists (85^th percentile) travel 80 km/h or more through this area and unless there was vigorous enforcement of a lower speed limit, they would still drive at that accelerated speed. He maintained therefore, that it would be inappropriate and unsafe to extend that reduced speed zone. With respect to the recommendations about cycling lanes, he advised that Council’s policy is to improve cycling facilities when roadway modifications are carried out, but not to extend the facility beyond the project limits. Further, the funds that would be required to do this, would have to come from the budget for traffic control signals.

- Director, Engineering Division report dated 5 Jun 00

In the construction plans for the sidewalk for the westbound bus ramp, Councillor Cantin hoped staff would consider the fact that OC Transpo is moving one of the bus shelters from Bayshore to this site and that there will be enough length to accommodate it without having to go back into other construction later on. Staff confirmed this is the case. The councillor acknowledged that the proposal to improve the lighting in the general area at the same time will provide more protection for transit users. He commended staff for these solutions to what has been a problematic area for pedestrians.

Councillor Kreling noted that there is a bus stop at the proposed new right-turn lane and he wondered whether there would be a conflict between vehicles wishing to make that turn and buses stopping to pick up or discharge passengers. Staff advised that the bus stop will be relocated to the north to provide a standard stopping distance for the bus which would be stopped in the bus lane; therefore, vehicles will be able to turn around the stopped bus.

Lois Smith suggested that audible pedestrian signals (APS) be installed at this location because of the number of visually impaired individuals who use this particular intersection. The Director of Mobility Services advised that staff will make every effort to install APS at this location.

Councillor Legendre commented on the unnecessary details in the drawings and how it makes the picture difficult to understand. He requested that future maps illustrate the proposed modifications clearly, without the technical clutter.

- Director, Mobility Services and Corporate Fleet Services report dated 2 Jun 00

Greg Kent, Safety and Traffic Studies Engineer presented the details of the report. Staff support all of the consultant’s recommendations with the exception of closing the east pedestrian crossing at Woodroffe and Carling and installing a pedestrian signal at Woodroffe and Anthony. With respect to the former, staff maintain that removing the crossing would not be safe for pedestrians and they cannot recommend the signal installation because it is not warranted.

To elaborate staff’s concerns about the removal of the pedestrian crossing, Geoff Noxen, Manager, Mobility Management stated that if there was a strong operational reason to remove it, staff would support it. However, between 1996 and 1998 there were no pedestrian/vehicular collisions involving the right-turning movement from Woodroffe to Carling. He advised that the community wants it removed because there is a perceived lack of safety in this crossing. He added that in May of this year, 60% more pedestrians crossed on the east side than on the west leg and at a public meeting, there was a 50/50 split in terms of support for its removal. In addition, removing this crossing would result in pedestrians having to cross an additional right-turn channelization lane on the west side.

Councillor Byrne thanked staff and the community for participating in the study. She recognized it was a joint effort and was a very co-operative process. She referred to Recommendation 7 in the consultant’s report which suggested signing the Fairlawn/Lenester loop as a "No Trucks Route" and explained her surprise upon seeing this proposal because it had never been discussed at any of the public meetings. Staff advised that the tightness of the area around the mall causes difficulty for truck drivers accessing Canadian Tire at the Fairlawn Plaza because they may be unable to load properly if they cannot enter through the back entrance of the plaza. The councillor advised that there are two other points of access for truck drivers to the plaza from Carling Avenue and emphasized that Canadian Tire had enough time to participate in discussions about this with the community.

With respect to the issue of removal of the pedestrian crossing on Carling, Councillor Byrne inquired that if the status quo was maintained, what could staff do to make it safer for children and seniors. She indicated that adult crossing guards will be situated on the west side of that intersection and can assist pedestrians crossing. While she recognized that pedestrians currently have a protected crossing cycle, she stated that northbound motorists make the right turn during that cycle. Mr. Noxen suggested that zebra markings could be painted on the road to more clearly identify to motorists the crossing area. Also, a lead-in interval for the pedestrian signal would give them a few seconds head start before the vehicles can make that turn.

In response to further statements by the councillor, the Environment and Transportation Commissioner reiterated the fact that more pedestrians use this crossing than on the other side and if pedestrians were banned from crossing on the east side, staff would have to install measures that would physically prevent them from making that crossing. He believed removing that crossing would make it less safe.

In reference to the proposal for a signal at Anthony and Woodroffe, Councillor Byrne acknowledged that the funds for those signals would come from this project budget. She referred to the Transportation Committee minutes of 21 October 1998 when the committee considered a report on the warrants for pedestrian signals and in light of the number of people jay-walking across Woodroffe at this location, she questioned whether signalized intersections are subject to pedestrian counts. Staff advised they were not.

Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen inquired where the loading dock was situated at the Canadian Tire store at Fairlawn Plaza. Staff advised it was on the west side of the plaza, facing north. The councillor questioned whether that was part of the reason staff are hesitating in recommending total restriction for trucks. G. Kent confirmed this, adding that it might not be possible to restrict trucks from accessing Fairlawn via Carling to get into the site. In response to a further query by the councillor, staff advised that Canadian Tire would have to prove the only way they could access the plaza is by using Fairlawn.

Councillor Davis referred to the involvement of The Ottawa-Carleton Safety Village in educating children with respect to traffic safety and the rules of the road and wondered whether staff are looking at cycling also and if so, suggested that Citizens for Safe Cycling would be an appropriate organization to involve in this educational aspect. D. Brousseau concurred. The councillor further suggested that the Regional Cycling Advisory Group also be included. The Committee Chair suggested that those groups be asked if they would be interested in taking part and Councillor Davis felt this was an opportunity to do this jointly. D. Brousseau agreed that staff would encourage both agencies to get together in this particular aspect.

- joint Planning and Development Approvals and Environmental and Transportation Commissioners report dated 7 Jun 00

- Light Pollution Abatement Committee submission dated 13 Jun 00

- Citizen for Safe Cycling letter dated 21 Jun 00

Sylvie Grenier of the Planning Department and Ron Jack of Delcan provided highlights of the report presented to committee. Also with them were Ron Clark from Delcan and Nelson Edwards from the Planning Department.

Councillor Doucet questioned how staff see the conflicting demands between urban village and urban residential streets. R. Jack advised that this is only a guideline because it is just not possible to address every circumstance; the guide contains a wealth of background that identifies what is behind the various components. He added that the document is not meant to be regulatory, but is a guide for road designers to help resolve conflicts on a street-by-street basis. The councillor believed it would be useful to be aware of the specific details because sometimes wrong decisions are made at committee because it may not have had the right context with which to make a decision. He preferred that the guidelines be used to inform and enlighten committee discussions in a more pointed and useful way.

Councillor Legendre expressed frustration with the document, particularly with respect to definitions, which he maintained diminished in clarity throughout the report. He made note of a letter he received from Dr. Barry Wellar at the University of Ottawa which addressed specific points in the document. Ms. Grenier confirmed staff had received these comments, and while written submissions were not attached, staff made every attempt to incorporate as much as possible those comments. Mr. Jack explained that there are all sorts of trade-offs and conflicts and only so much that can be done within a corridor. He confirmed there was extensive consultation with groups such as Citizens for Safe Cycling and what was finally put into this document is what staff feel are the best efforts, given the mandate.

Councillor Legendre questioned whether the guidelines build upon information contained within the Walking Security Index (WSI) and S. Grenier advised that it builds on the policies contained within the ROP, noting that the WSI is not a Council-endorsed document. Nelson Edwards further explained that this documents attempts to bring together many different components, e.g., cycling, sound attenuation, greening, et cetera, which are usually looked at individually. The guidelines help to determine how these many uses can be blended in order to maximize opportunities. He confirmed that the definitions contained within the document are not to be used as a performance standard, but to provide guidance and understanding in using this document to further understanding the ROP.

Councillor Legendre noted that there is no clear definition for some of the words contained in the document and therefore did not believe it could be relied upon. By way of example, he stated the term "heavy vehicle" was not clearly defined in the report. While he recognized the glossary at the back of the book provides definitions, he opined that these would not be particularly helpful to its users. He suggested adding a thicker glossary which would elaborate on such definitions as a "heavy vehicle" e.g. articulated, not articulated, et cetera. He suggested the document be referred back to staff to provide greater clarity, including definition of terms et cetera. He also suggested the document be made available through the Region’s website.

Questions arose on the possibility of doing the latter and staff explained that the difficulty lies with the size of the file that would have to be downloaded by users. Councillor Cantin did not believe it was unreasonable to at least try, although there may be a point where the cost outweighs the benefit. He preferred to see what costs are involved before accepting the Motion.

By putting the guidelines on the web, staff inquired whether there was an expectation of further public consultation. Councillor Legendre explained that that is his point, as well as provide ease of access.

Chair Holmes stated that what really matters is whether staff and Council believe in the policies and principles of this document. The Official Plan contained the direction that this work would be done and now it is finally here, after two years of hard work. While she admitted the document might not be perfect, she emphasized this document is a vast improvement of what the Region currently does and is a progressive step forward in the process.

Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen was also not in support of deferral at this point in time. She agreed it is a step forward and she commended staff and the consultant for their efforts. She opined that the guidelines provide a good framework and will assist the Region in moving in the right direction in planning its roads.

Linda Hoad, President, Federation of Citizens Associations of Ottawa-Carleton (FCA) stated that as one of the groups involved in the creation of this document, she recognized that an attempt was made to develop guidelines that could be used by the planners of subdivisions and how to design a road in local communities. She maintained that this is a general document and all other documents can and will be brought into play as the process demands. She agreed with the comment in the report that roads are public spaces, not just pavement, and therefore must be in accordance with other uses. With respect to the discussion on the WSI, Ms. Hoad believed that document should be made more widely known and felt it would be appropriate to include reference to it in the guidelines. She agreed that making the report as accessible as possible, i.e., on the website, is a good idea, but emphasized staff should not rush to do this so they have the opportunity to make it as attractive as possible.

Councillor Legendre proposed: That the Regional Road Corridor Design Guidelines document be placed on the RMOC’s Web Site.

Moved by D. Holmes

- Director, Mobility Services and Corporate Fleet Services report dated 8 Jun 00

The Committee Chair wanted assurance there would be police enforcement during this event and that barriers would be removed immediately following the parade. Councillor Kreling agreed to take direction back to the Chief of Police to ensure these concerns are addressed.

- Motion TC-4-99

- Director, Engineering report dated 1 Jun 00

The committee received a detailed overview of the report from Paul Clarke, Project Manager and the consultant, Neil Standen who had carried out the earlier noise study for this area. A copy of the presentation is held on file.

The Director of Engineering, Jim Miller, stated there were two particular problem areas that needed to be addressed: Pleasant Park/Mountbatten and Lamira. He indicated staff were unable to receive consensus from residents on an overall program. He clarified that the report states that approximately $700,000 remains in the budget for the Southeast Transitway, but this amount is actually $650,000.

When he learned that the acoustic consultant was not aware of the Region’s use of Leq 30 minutes instead of Leq 16 hours, Councillor Legendre reminded staff to send a message to the consultants they hire that the Region is now using this shorter time period to measure noise.

Councillor Hume stated that the concerns of residents are legitimate and for many, it is difficult to live in their homes because they are so negatively affected by the noise of the transitway. Unfortunately, there is no consensus among residents for a preferred option. On behalf of the residents, he urged committee to appropriate the dollars and direct staff to go ahead and do what needs to be done.

Lubomyr Chabursky indicated he was representing the residents living on Lamira Street. He advised that noise is a problem during peak periods, so much so that he cannot even open his windows. Not only is it the buses that are making the noise, but also utility trucks using the transitway also create a problem. Because of the incline on his side of the transitway and the wall on the far side, noise is bounced off and reflected back into the community. He asked that committee consider these concerns and to direct staff to look at another option along the lines of Option 4, but at minimal cost.

When questioned what he would consider to be the other option for Option 4, Mr. Chabursky explained it would be a barrier that sits on the concrete wall of the transitway. He opined this would provide the best long-term solution because it is the least affected by salt caused by the buses. He also suggested building a barrier of wood planking located behind the concrete wall.

Questions arose on whether there were funds available in the transitway budget to respond to this noise problem and the Director advised that an analysis carried out initially concluded that sound barriers were not warranted on this side of the transitway, based on the policy for noise barriers that existed at the time. Therefore, funds were not allocated for sound attenuation. Mr. Standen added that the criteria had always been an Leq of 16 hours and the original decision was based on an assessment before the transitway was built. It was determined that noise levels would be higher than the criteria, but not exceeding that which would require the RMOC to attenuate.

Diana Haddad indicated that her home is located at the corner of Pleasant Park and the transitway. While she does hear noise from the buses, she admitted she was not particularly bothered it. However, she was concerned about Option 2A because she was opposed to erecting a sound barrier at all because, in her view, it was not necessary and she did not believe it would be cost effective. From an environmental point of view, greenspace, including mature trees, would be lost if that option was chosen and it would not be aesthetically appealing. The thought of having to look at a 4 metre high barrier alongside her property was quite unacceptable to her.

Michel Haddad indicated that the option which extends the sound barrier from Pleasant Park to the Lamira cul de sac was most acceptable to him because it is placed far from his home and will have a significant affect on the peak noise. Mr. Haddad opined that the policy that is in place to address noise issues such as infrastructure of transportation development, is not sufficient to mitigate the negative effects on residents. He noted that until the transitway was built, there were only five trains/day for 15 years. Now, there are approximately 100 buses/hour during peak periods, as well as utility vehicles on the transitway day and night. In an effort to reduce costs and make Option 2A more acceptable to others, he proposed a reduction of the length of the distance of the noise fence to about the end of his cousins’ property at 136 Pleasant Park Road. He believed this would be an acceptable compromise for everyone involved and would result in a reduction in the overall cost. He suggested that a small fence built on his property would be reasonable. He recognized there would still be residents opposed to this modified option, and suggested the installation of a planking fence along the transitway might reduce noise and be more visually acceptable to residents. He stressed that it was incumbent on the committee to ensure that when infrastructure is put in, to the benefit of all the community, that the people who are adjacent to those developments are not negatively impacted by that infrastructure.

Mr. Pruner explained that he bought his property on Lamira Street from the city of Ottawa and built his home there. However, with so much noise emanating from the transitway, some residents have had difficulty selling their homes. He believed the Region should correct this wrong, regardless of cost. He also believed the posted speed limit of 50 km/h is being well-exceeded by most bus drivers.

Lois Smith suggested that one possible solution is to erect an anesthetically-pleasing sound barrier and to allow crawling plants such as Virginia Creeper to grow along the top of it. She indicated this would be much more attractive than a concrete barrier.

At this point in the discussion, the committee lost quorum and agreed to reschedule this item on the next agenda as the first item of business.

- Director, Infrastructure Maintenance report dated 6 Jun 00

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

- Chair, Transportation Committee report dated 14 June 00

- Director, Mobility Services and Corporate Fleet Services memorandum dated 30 May 00

Councillor Meilleur inquired when the barrier at Charlotte and Laurier will be built. The Director of Engineering advised that he would follow up with the councillor.

Staff advised there were items that must be dealt with on 2 August. The Committee agreed the meeting would be held on that date.

The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.