STATUS OF EAST-WEST LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS AND BUS RAPID TRANSIT PRIORITY PROJECTS
ÉTAT
D’AVANCEMENT DES ÉVALUATIONS ENVIRONNEMENTALES CONCERNANT LE TRAIN LÉGER SUR
RAIL EST-OUEST ET LES PROJETS PRIORITAIRES CONCERNANT LES SERVICES D’AUTOBUS
DIRECTS
ACS2007-PTE-POL-0005
Councillor Bédard called a point of order to propose that this report be tabled like the previous report due to the non-existence of the Mayor’s Task Force on Transit, and agreed to move a motion to that effect.
Chair Cullen pointed out that the report have two separate issues - one dealing with the East-West Light Rail Environmental Assessment and the associated assessments, and the other dealing with the 2007 Draft Capital Budget, in which staff is proposing to proceed with certain projects independent of the Mayor’s Task Force.
After discussion on how it would proceed, the Committee agreed to hear the staff presentation on the whole report and the delegations before going through the regular process.
Councillor Doucet stated that he would raise the following motion after the staff presentation:
WHEREAS, the
East-West LRT EA, the Carling LRT EA, the Rideau-Montreal LRT EA and the
Interprovincial Transit EA are already approved, funded and called for based on
the Official Plan and Transportation Master plan;
WHEREAS,
these studies were requested in order that Committee and Council could be as
fully informed as possible on all options before any final decisions were made;
WHEREAS, EA
studies are a complex undertaking and take a long time to complete;
WHEREAS, the
lack of results from EA studies impairs both the decision making process and
the ability to move forward on transit projects (e.g. if an EA on the LRT
tunnel option had been available much of the controversy and speculation which
helped kill the North-South LRT would have been avoided);
WHEREAS, the
interim results and findings of ongoing and planned transit EAs would inform
and be a valuable resource to the Mayor’s Task Force on Transportation;
THEREFORE BE
IT RESOLVED, that the Transit Committee report on the Status of East-West
Environmental Assessment and Bus Rapid Transit Priority Projects be amended not
to recommend the suspension of any EA studies.
Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager of Planning, Transit and the Environment Department started the staff presentation by pointing out the rationale of the report, in particular Recommendation 2. It gives the Committee an opportunity to make some investments in the short term to get some design work underway and to give direction to staff in terms of investments the Committee may want to make sooner rather than later. She asked that the rules be waived to have this report going forward to Council on the 24th of January in terms of direction on budget preparation.
Dennis Jacobs, Director, Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy gave a PowerPoint Presentation, copy of which is on file with the City Clerk. He began by explaining that the report was in response to motions passed near the end of 2006 as well as in preparation for the 2007 budget deliberations. It explained the status of the East-West Environmental Assessment (EA) and other Transit-Related EAs, as well as outlining some projects that could be considered in the 2007 Budget.
He outlined a series of events that had resulted in the present report. The first was Council’s decision on 25 October to put the East-West EA on hold and directed staff to prepare a comprehensive status report on the East-West LRT for January, and part of the present report is a response to that. In December 2006, following the termination of the North-South LRT Project, Council directed to staff to bring forward an implementation plan to move forward on priority projects to address the immediate East-West transportation challenges. As well, he noted Staff Memos provided to Council outlining the financial and the transit planning impacts. The City Treasurer in her memo identified $112 million funding available for other transit priority projects. He also noted the Mayor’s creation of a Task Force on Transit, with recommendations to be released in June.
The Committee heard from the following delegations:
Chair Cullen noted that Peter Lok, President of Emerald Woods Residents’ Association, who registered to speak, was not present.
David Jeanes, Transport 2000 expressed concern about only seeing the report this morning and the PowerPoint Presentation just now. He is disappointed that the report was not initially circulated to the City’s Pedestrian and Transit Advisory for comments.
He was surprised to see the Interprovincial Study included in this report although there was no mention of it at the October 25th City Council. He noted that the Interprovincial Study came out of the City’s Rapid Transit Expansion Study (RTES), not the Mayor’s, and the NCC Task Force. He does not believe it is appropriate or necessary to include the Interprovincial Study in any moratorium at this point, and it must go ahead. He pointed out that the NCC review panel has recommended that the NCC take back a prime responsibility for transportation planning in the Ottawa area, and his recommendation is, if the City, which is currently delaying the start of that Study, is not prepared to move forward that the NCC should get going on it right now. Transport 2000 participated actively with Gatineau and the STO in this Study and supports their Rapi-Bus Plan, but does not support Ottawa not having any concept of how this is going to affect the downtown congestion problem and how that could be managed.
He spoke on statements in the report that imply only bus-based rapid transit projects are possibly moving forward. He pointed out that the report brings forward some items that are not even in the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) in the short term, e.g. the extension of the Barrhaven Transitway down to Cambrian Drive. He served on the advisory committee in support of that planning, but he does not support doing that project perhaps as an alternate to other things.
He advised that Transport 2000 had many options, identified in the Statement of Work for North-South LRT for immediate term extensions to the existing diesel O-Train, which could take some of the pressure off Riverside South. These options were not proceeded with because of the decision taken in the EA to focus on electric light rail. He feels that now, that the project has been cancelled, there are comprehensive issues that need to be looked at, including inter provincial. He suggested using all of the resources available to meet the transportation issues, and particularly to address immediately, with public consultation, what is happening downtown. He stated that the City cannot buy more buses because they cannot go downtown and it does not help to build more bus garages because the City will not be able to deal with a larger bus fleet in the downtown congestion.
In response to Councillor McRae’s question on how he would recommend the Committee to proceed in order to address issues, such as the need of the Leitrim Park and Ride, Mr. Jeanes referred to the RTES and the TMP, which identified a 100 km. rapid transit network of which 60% was intended to be rail, and 40% was intended to be additional bus ways. So additional bus ways are certainly part of the picture, and then there are the issues that were to be addressed by hub and spoke and he learned today that there is already an alternate to hub and spoke that is in planning. He advised that they were promised there would be public consultation on that last spring but it did not happen.
He thinks there are certain things that must go ahead and suggests a planning framework if it is to be done within the Mayor’s Task Force, otherwise it will have to be done under Council and Committee supervision. It should be comprehensive and not just a “here’s a menu of every way we could spend money.” He stated that the $400 million from the Federal Government is still available contrary to Page 22 of the report stating that it is no longer available. He believes that if the City spends all the money available to match its 1/3 share, then that $400 million would disappear. He also believes that we would know in June how to spend that $400 million if we can still get it from the Federal Government, but if we do spend our resources now on other stuff, then that $400 million will in fact be gone.
In response to Councillor McRae’s question on his understanding of what that $400 million was earmarked for, Mr. Jeanes stated that it was earmarked for transit, subject to a memorandum of agreement. However, letters from the Treasury Board Minister have superseded that memorandum of agreement. He noted that Transport 2000 received a letter from the Provincial Minister Jim Watson stating that the Provincial Government’s money is still available for transit projects in Ottawa and it has not been cancelled. Therefore, the message is both from the Federal Level and from the Provincial Cabinet Level that the money is still on the table for transit.
Further to Councillor McRae’s inquiry, Deputy City Manager Schepers confirmed that the Federal Government has made it clear that the money is still available for transit. She also confirmed that the Provincial Government has indicated that the money is available for a project – the North-South Project, and that there is no commitment that would be available for other projects.
In response to Councillor Bédard’s question, Mr. Jeanes believes there is still a Transportation Plan (TMP) in which he participated very extensively in its development, and was appointed by Council to be one of three citizen members of the advisory committee to the Rapid Transit Expansion Study (RTES). He explained that he did not actually recognize many of the comments that are in here about the report they produced then. For example, it says RTES confirmed that public transit travel demands could be accommodated by a combination of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit (LRT) operating at street level in the downtown core. Mr. Jeanes maintained that RTES never did that; that was an OC Transpo operational matter conducted outside RTES, so there are many things like that. He feels that doing projects that are inconsistent with the TMP is not something to be taken lightly.
He confirmed that the North-South LRT was par of the TMP but the prioritization was set by a separate Ottawa Rapid Transit Expansion Plan (ORTEP) Study conducted in 2003 after RTES. He noted that ORTEP did not have any public consultation; did not have any public advisory committee, and did not have a proper presentation to Transportation Committee. Therefore, a lot of this prioritization was done administratively within the City, and was not part of a public, open planning process as with RTES and Environmental Assessments (EAs). He gave the example of the deletion of the airport, which he stated was not done in a public, open process; was not reflected in the EA; was not reflective of RTES, but was done administratively outside the open public process.
Mr. Jeanes agreed with Councillor Legendre that Park & Ride Lots are still need and suggested the most important Park & Ride Lot needed is the expansion of the South end, because the Greenboro Park and Ride Lot has been full since 2001, and that is the one area not addressed.
In response to Councillor Legendre’s question, Mr. Jeanes stated that some Park & Ride Lots were built ahead of the ability of the buses to serve them, e.g. the Trim Road Park & Ride, but is now important. He does not believe there is any that could be parked for a few years.
On the question from Councillor Legendre regarding bus purchases, Mr. Jeanes responded that they should be subject to road capacity being able to accommodate those buses.
On the question of LRT Buses from Councillor Legendre, Mr. Jeanes answered that buses intended to replace the LRT were to replace the diesel LRT during the period that it was cancelled. Since it is now not cancelled, those buses are not needed anymore, and if they were available they could be redeployed for other purposes. However, the additional buses talked about being necessary, if you had a presentation on the Friends of the O-Train Plan, or City staff had requested a presentation on that Plan before Mr. Chartrand described its failings to Council, then you would know that this second principle of the Friends of the O-Train Plan was to re-deploy a large number of buses into suburban areas where they would provide a much higher frequency, much higher capacity and a better level of service. He feels this is a way of buying more buses that you do not know can make it through downtown, because you do not have any assurance that anything can be done with Slater Street in the afternoon.
Ron Jack handed out two maps for reference during his presentation, both held on file with the City Clerk. He explained that one depicts the various EA studies on transit that are either underway, cancelled or recently selected consultant firms but not started yet. The other map shows the various transit corridors within those EAs. He started by congratulating the Councillors on their election. He introduced himself as a Vice-President with Delcan and Manager of their 50-person Ottawa Office. He explained that his firm was doing the East-West LRT EA for the City, and was selected to do the Carling Avenue LRT EA. In expressing his opinion the staff report and on the Councillors’ motion concerning the East-West LRT only, he talked about three words – suspend, carry on, or terminate.
With regard to the East-West LRT EA, he prefers that it be carried on as opposed to suspend it as recommended by staff, and explained in details the benefits that would not prejudice any future findings of the task force. He pointed out the importance of doing the EA now is to have the ability to protect the right-of-ways. He feels cancelling the E-W EA would not allow anything to happen. It would not be possible to complete the section from Cumberland to Blair Station; to extend the westerly facility to Scotiabank Place and beyond; and to have any vehicle for protecting property around the south portion of the City. He suggested that to suspend it as per the staff recommendation is a safe position; it has no cost because the project is already suspended, but it would not allow implementation of short-term priorities, and having them move forward. He is convinced that there is no risk in moving forward and that is the only course to allow the pursuit of short-term solutions and protect the right-of-ways.
Councillor Doucet referred Mr Jack to his proposed motion, which proposes to continue with the EAs regardless of what the Mayor’s Task Force may be doing.
In response to Councillor Bloess’ question, Mr. Jack stated that the easterly and westerly sections that are part of the study is absolutely compatible with every bit of planning, every bit of EA and every corridor already protected. The EA would allow them to actually be constructed and implemented because it fills in the gaps. The southerly section is to ensure a corridor to do whatever you want with whatever technology when you want it.
In response to a question from Councillor Bloess on the delegation’s statement, Mr. Jacobs confirmed that the completion of the EAs would give the City the authority to protect the corridor through conditions of development approval and/or through acquisition. However, he noted that in the event the EAs are not completed, the City would have negotiation ability but no authority to protect the corridor.
Mr. Jacobs agreed with Councillor Bloess’ statement that there are pieces, specifically the Blair-Innes Bypass area that have not been previously covered by an EA, and those pieces would need to be done before doing some of the initiatives contained in the report.
In terms of finishing the existing Terms of Reference for the E-W EAs, Deputy City Manager Schepers noted that to include Innes would require a change to the Terms of Reference and additional funds, which she thinks is inappropriate to speculate.
In terms of funds left in the original EA contract, Ms Vivi Chi, the Manager of Transportation & Infrastructure Planning, advised that after the $1.8m spent, the balance of $700,000 is available for any additional work for the section between Innes/Blair intersection up to Blair Station and that would be the only scope change to be added to the contract. She noted that this would be over and above the $700,000 left in the contract, and not the amount provided by the delegation. Mr. Jack then clarified that the amount he provided was what was left plus the scope change.
Councillor Wilkinson expressed concern about the maps being erroneous and outdated, to which the delegation agreed and said that they were provided for a visual image.
In response to Councillor Wilkinson’s questions, the delegation noted that the portion to the west point going to Scotiabank Place is not approved.
Councillor Wilkinson agreed that although not approved, it is in the TMP for that area and wondered if it is possible to finish the EAs for that portion without doing the middle, i.e. get the corridors in those places where there is general agreement, and not work on the central part where there is no general agreement.
Mr. Jack understands from EA experts that the EA cannot be piecemealed, and believes City Staff got this same opinion from the Ministry of Environment.
Deputy City Manager Schepers added that Council could certainly direct staff to do whatever it decides, but it would be a different process. She noted that, should Council decide to take out pieces, it would be complicated and it might have to resurrect or have new EAs in the east and west. New Terms of Reference would have to be approved and then go through the process, which could be extensive. She also noted that Council can do what it wants to do, and did not want Council to be left with the impression that it is not do-able; it is do-able and if directed staff would find out how best to do it and provide Council with that advice.
In response to Councillor Legendre about on his focus on the East-West EA, Mr. Jack confirmed that his firm has a pecuniary interest and he has professional interest in this matter.
When asked by Councillor Legendre if he was prepared to talk about the other EAs on the map, Mr. Jack stated that, with caution, he would try to answer the Councillor’s questions.
Councillor Legendre did not see the sense in the staff recommendation to park the Rideau Street-Montreal Road EA regardless of the Mayor’s Task Force. He feels that EA needs doing, especially because of the CFB Rockcliffe site that is at the elbow of that EA. He questioned whether it made sense to suspend that; noted a consultant had been named; and that he had been asking for the name of the consultant that was hired but has not received it.
In response, Mr. Jack advised that his firm was not the chosen consultant, and that his firm was selected to do the Carling Avenue EA. He was not sure that the Rockcliffe redevelopment was necessarily the driving force as to why the Montreal Road EA should be done or not because it has not been demonstrated that it is the best way to serve the Base or that it can actually get into the Base. He agreed that high quality transit is certainly needed to serve redevelopment of the Base. He noted that there were topographical issues as to whether you can get LRT into the Base because of the grades on the roads and the grades of transit.
Councillor Legendre was astounded to hear that it has not been demonstrated that you can get a train into the base. He feels that this is important and that is why we do the study, to demonstrate whether you can get light rail in there or not, which is part of the technology choices, the options, you develop those things through studying it; you do not know the answer before you do the study.
Mr Jack suggested knowing whether the plan for the Base had to accommodate a corridor or not would be helpful for its redevelopment. He stated that if the redevelopment of Rockcliffe was not imminent or before us, Council may still want to go forward with the Montreal Road Corridor EA, but he was not sure it is the trigger.
Councillor Legendre agreed with the delegation’s statement but hope that he agrees that Council is now into serious discussion developing a Community Design Plan for Rockcliffe, which adds to the necessity of getting on with it.
Mr. Jack agreed it would be helpful to know the answer for sure, and said it would be helpful to know where the next bridge is going too because it would affect the Base significantly as well, to which the Councillor agrees with.
Councillor Legendre did not ask the delegation’s opinion on the Carling Avenue Corridor EA due to his direct interest and imagines that the delegation would like to see it go ahead.
Business wise, Mr. Jack agreed but could also see why Council may want to wait.
In response to Councillor Leadman’s questions, Mr. Jacobs clarified that to complete the EA means that it needs to be filed with the Ministry of Environment and approved as a completed project, so suspending it delays that. Therefore, until it is completed, filed, and approved, Council does not have the authority to protect the corridor. The completion of this EA would be finished by the end of the year, perhaps sooner depending on whether the scope of the project is changed. Although development applications are occurring all the time, delaying the EA to find out the outcome of the Mayor’s Task Force may mean missing some opportunities but would not be significant as far as protecting the corridor.
In response to Councillor Leadman’s question on the possibility of carving out specific pieces to complete certain plans already contained in the TMP, Deputy City Manager Schepers reiterated her previous comment that anything Council wants to do is possible but there are complications and issues around it both in terms of time and cost. She noted that once Council has entered into a process, it has the ability to change direction. Staff would not want Council to make those decisions without getting full advice on the best approach.
In reply to Councillor Leadman’s question, Mr. Jack confirmed that $2.5 million was the Council-approved budget to study the complete corridor. He also confirmed that $1.8 million has been spent and the inclusion of the Blair-Innes Section would be an additional $1 million.
Mr. Jack supported Councillor Doucet’s statement that doing an adequate EA is very important. He added that an EA is up-front planning and is the least expensive part of a project.
Having heard the delegations, the Committee posed questions of staff and the following is a summary of the main points raised:
· In response to Councillor Bédard’s questions, staff advised the Rideau-Montreal Corridor is one of the corridors identified in the Rapid Transit Expansion Study (RTES), and the premise of that study was to develop a rapid transit network to serve the whole city. All of the pieces identified in that RTES are important EAs and Council set the priorities for doing them.
· Council terminating the construction of the North-South Light Rail Project does not eliminate the fact that there is an existing EA identifying a corridor and what could take place there if Council so wishes.
· The expansion of the Rapid Transit network to the east following Rideau-Montreal is another leg of that network that works together, and those planning studies are needed to have the background information to decide what is the next piece to be built to meet the City’s commuting and transit needs, and to assist in achieving the 30% modal split.
· The Rideau-Montreal Corridor continues to be a corridor needed to bring people into the downtown and connect portions of the eastern part of the City. Therefore, whether it connects to a North-South light rail or a North-South BRT, or connects into the existing Transitway system and serves the downtown, it is still an important part of serving the overall rapid transit network.
· Councillor Bédard did not agree with the above responses to his questions, and stated he would vote against anything that had to do with LRT on Rideau Street and Montreal Road because there is no North-South LRT anymore, and did not see the value in it.
· With regards to the Interprovincial Transit EA Study, Councillor Bédard noted that Mr. Jeanes had previously said it was separate of everything else, and he tends to agree that it is a different link altogether.
· Mr. Jacobs noted that the actual title of that Interprovincial Transit EA Study was the Rapid Transit Integration Study that connects two different systems, but could not be divorced from how to provide transit service within the City. It is meant to work in conjunction with the City’s transit services and in conjunction with the Gatineau STO services to provide a link between the two municipalities; so to say, it is a freestanding operation is incorrect.
· Councillor Bédard clarified that he meant freestanding from the North-South LRT. The Interprovincial Transit Study can still be done without the North-South LRT.
· The Rideau-Montreal link could be part of the solution to address the downtown link.
· Councillor Bédard maintained that he did not think the Rideau-Montreal link would work without the North-South LRT. He feels that it is a waste of money, energy and time, but the Interprovincial link would still work without the North-South LRT because it simply connects the two sides of the river.
· The $100 million in transit-related development charges identified in the City Treasurer’s memorandum is still available. The money identified from the North-South LRT took into account commitments made and anticipated expenses, such as property purchases, etc. Any kind of legal impacts or other issues are not included in that amount.
· Staff initiated some preliminary discussions with both the Provincial and the Federal Governments to inquire about their commitments and to confirm what they might consider providing support to the City of Ottawa for. That was done in order to give Council the best advice on how to move forward. Therefore, there is approximately $400 million as previously committed and as stated earlier in response to Councillor McRae’s question.
· At this point, staff is looking for direction as to what the Committee would like to see included in the Budget.
· The strategic initiatives list put forward when Council discussed the Budget Directions does include the Smart Card. If that is not recommended, staff would need to take a look at the full picture and present that to Council. Therefore, some of these may have to fall off and because of that it is a moving target.
· The question before Committee today is what it wants to do with this budget and to decide whether to just set all the money aside and do nothing, or to move forward on some designs to be prepared and be in a position to move quickly to implement.
· Staff is looking for direction on which items the Committee wants to see definitely move forward, e.g. Park & Rides in order to prepare a budget for Council’s consideration in February.
· In response to Councillor McRae’s questions, staff advised that the design of the Strandherd-Armstrong Bride was part of the design-build process, so a certain amount of the design has been done, and the City would expect to own that. The City owns what the consortium of Siemens PCL Dufferin has done and paid for to date.
· Staff understood that Siemens PCL Dufferin owns the design, because the City has not paid for it. Staff is exploring different options for the design.
· The bridge was designed in two connected parts – one part for the LRT, the other part to carry mixed traffic lanes of all types of vehicles.
· As to whether the City would only buy the part of the design, staff could not provide an answer at this point. Staff could only say that heavy rail has a different support structure.
· Councillor McRae voiced her support for building this piece of infrastructure eventually. She made it clear that she does not, will not, and cannot support this without a transit plan.
· The City Treasurer’s memorandum talks about available money and authorities. There is authority for that Bridge; it does not say that it is not going to be built. That would be a decision of Council and this matter is not before the Committee today.
· Councillor McRae asked to get this information out there transparently and she feels that this matter is before Committee in principle.
· Staff confirmed that all projects contained in the report have already been studied and have been before Committee, therefore they are part of the RTES, and there is nothing new. They are ready for implementation, and staff is asking budget dollars to get going with the design and property acquisitions.
· Councillor McRae concluded her questions by saying that she will not support Recommendation 2 because it feels like driving to Florida without a map and hoping to end up in the right direction by approving all these ad hoc projects with absolutely nothing connecting the dots.
· In response to Councillor Bloess’ questions, staff advised that there was a motion passed to have the BRT in for the Cumberland Transitway from Navan out to Trim by 2009.
· The 36% modal split is across Green’s Creek screen line; therefore, it includes all bus services that cross that screen line. However, this was taken from 2005 data, 2006 data has not been processed yet, so the impact of Route 94 has not been included in the 36%.
· Staff confirmed that the second-highest transit demand goes towards the south on this southern corridor. There are a number of business parks and employment centres going through that ring. It is one of the largest employment areas outside the downtown and it is now primarily vehicular-focused.
· Should Council approve Recommendation 2, Staff intends to continue to work with Provincial and Federal Representatives to get detail from them between now and the time of the tabling of the budget.
· In response to Councillor Desroches, staff advised that the City Treasurer’s memorandum, attached to the report, outlines the projects and identifies funds that are available for reallocation in 2007.
· The report uses the EA work done for the North-South LRT Project to identify Park & Ride locations in Leitrim and River Road. Property acquisitions took place through that EA process. Therefore, staff would be putting forward both these projects.
· The Browning Avenue Corridor Rapid Transit EA is not included in the report because staff has not started any work on that at all. The corridor is identified in the TMP and the Official Plan (OP). There was a recent Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing and the decision was to complete that Study by 2009. It could wait until 2008.
· In response to Councillor Legendre’s question on whose authority staff ceased any progress on the Carling Avenue LRT EA and the Rideau-Montreal LRT, Ms. Schepers stated that when she assumed her position as Deputy City Manager, these two EAs were in front of her in terms of the decision to go ahead with the award. The election was imminent and since there were a lot of questions and concerns, she thought it prudent not to go ahead in awarding those contracts until staff had more information, direction, and confirmation from Council.
· Councillor Legendre expressed concern about staff not moving ahead every time a municipal election rolls around. He noted these EAs were on the books; staff was in the process of identifying consultants, etc., and had no authority to cease. He feels that, should staff wish to do that, there was opportunity to come to Council and say, “loom the election is a month away, staff would like to park these.” That is what was needed, because staff had been told to go ahead with the Carling and the Rideau-Montreal EAs. He also feels that these EAs should not be parked and would bring a motion to that effect.
· Referring to Slide 8 of the staff presentation labelled “Other Related Transit Projects”, Councillor Legendre questioned the lack of reference to double-deckers. Helen Gault, the Acting Director of Transit Services advised the double-decker demonstration is currently underway, and it is in fact currently in the cold chamber at the National Research Council. It is due for skid tests on the weekend.
· As far as the garage is concerned, if the double-decker trial is successful and the procurement of double-decker buses is approved rather than high-capacity articulated buses, there could be modifications for the garage that would make it a little bit more expensive, but would be manageable.
· Regardless of the double-deckers, Councillor Legendre feels that it is appropriate to incorporate in the 2007 draft budget, the need for a parking garage. Similarly, he believes that Council ought to proceed with the SmartCard System and does not see the December decision affecting these initiatives.
· A report is coming forward to the Transit Committee on January 31st to cover the entire revision of the bus fleet acquisition strategy.
· Twenty-Six articulated buses are required to cover growth and would be delivered next year. This is reflected under the financial section of the report as the $20.9 million for entirely growth buses and is not related because of the December LRT decision.
· In response to Councillor Wilkinson’s questions, Mr. Jacobs confirmed that all the projects listed in the report were already on the books to go. Staff is only bringing some of them a bit forward as a result of not going ahead with the North-South LRT. He also confirmed that in so doing, staff is not completing the western transitway gaps but is getting the planning done and doing one that was already approved last year, as well as just doing the design work for the others.
· There is still some capacity for the Eagleson Park & Ride on the west side. In addition to that, there is Terry Fox Park & Ride, which is opened and has plenty of space.
· Service to the Terry Fox Park & Ride is being expanded in April, and there is also money around Eagleson to allow the transfers to be made in much better comfort; that is not part of this report but is included in this year’s budge.
· Delaying the East-West EAs would add additional time in its completion but not significantly in the long term.
· $25 million was approved for the completion of the current East-West EA Study. It is approximate $4 million to carry out the Rideau-Montreal and Carling EAs.
· In response to Councillor McRae’s question as to why staff is coming forward the week after Budget Directions to ask the Committee to do budget directions and why this report was not part of the budget directions debate, the Deputy City Manager advised that staff were not in a position to provide details at that time. The report was late because staff was trying to come up with some recommendations. She feels that it is important that staff gets direction from Committee and Council; it could have been rolled in, but there was not time to do so.
Chair Cullen pointed out that Recommendation 1 is to suspend the work on the East-West LRT EA. He reminded Committee Members that there were a number of Members of the previous Transportation Committee, who were concerned about the downtown being bypassed, and also noted that is part of the Terms of Reference of this EA. He further noted that other members were concerned because the five preferred routes were not rapid transit. The five proposed preferred routes by this EA were not grade separated enough to provide for a rapid transit system comparable to the North-South LRT.
The Committee then considered the following motion:
Moved by Councillor G. Bédard:
That
Recommendation 1 be tabled until the establishment of the Mayor’s Task Force on
Transit and its terms of reference are approved by Council.
CARRIED
Chair Cullen then noted that by approving the aforementioned motion, the Committee has decided not to deal with the status of East-West LRT today thus making Councillor Doucet’s proposed motion moot. He suggested to Councillor Doucet that his motion could come back once this is off the table.
Chair Cullen turned the chair to Vice-Chair Wilkinson in order to put forward the following motion:
Moved by Councillor A. Cullen:
CARRIED
Councillor Cullen then resumed the chair.
After a brief discussion, the Committee then voted on Recommendation 2, as amended.
YEAS (5): Councillors R. Bloess, J. Legendre, C.
Leadman, M. Wilkinson, A. Cullen
NAYS (4): Councillors G. Bédard, M. McRae, C. Doucet,
D. Thompson
Although
suspension of the rules of procedure is not required, the Committee considered
the following motion:
Moved by
Councillor M. McRae:
That the rules of procedure be suspended to
forward this report to City Council for its consideration on 24 January 2007.
CARRIED