PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK AT THE INTERSECTION OF KING EDWARD AVENUE AND CATHCART STREET

TRAVERSE PÉDESTRE À L’INTERSECTION DE L’AVENUE KING EDWARD ET DE LA RUE CATHCART

ACS2007-CCS-TRC-0002

The Committee received the following correspondence relating to the above item, which were distributed to Committee members and are held on file with the City Clerk:

a. Marc Aubin, letter dated 14 May 2007.

b. Liz Bernstein, Ecology Ottawa, letter dated 15 May 2007.

c. Barbara Myers, e-mail dated 15 May 2007.

Councillor Bédard introduced his report. He noted that the community has been requesting a crosswalk for years at the corner of King Edward and Cathcart. He explained that he and the community were upset to discover that staff had decided not to install a crosswalk at that location during the ongoing reconstruction of King Edward is undergoing reconstruction. He suggested that the item came forward to Committee because he, staff and the community could not reach a resolution on the issue.

The second recommendation, that during the actual construction process, which has reduced the number of lanes on King Edward from 6 to 4, a feasibility study be undertaken to estimate the impact of permanently reducing the Avenue to four lanes, he noted that such a study was proposed in 1992 when the EA for the project was accepted, but had never been acted on. He proposed that this was an appropriate time for the study, as King Edward is currently down to 4 lanes because of the construction.

John Buck, Manager of Traffic Management introduced Bruce Mason, Manager of Construction Services West, and Ron Jack of Delcan Corporation, the Consultant, who oversaw the King Edward EA. Mr. Buck then outlined staff’s assessment of Councillor Bédard’s report. He stated that, in reviewing the report, it was staff’s position that there would be an unsafe situation if a pedestrian signal were installed at King Edward Avenue and Cathcart Street. He explained that he relayed that information immediately to the Councillor, and at the Councillor’s request went out to the community to explain the issues and answer questions.

Mr. Buck noted that EAs for existing roadways that are being modified or upgraded significantly are managed by the Infrastructure Services Branch; once it is complete, the road is then turned over to the Traffic Operations Branch, who is responsible for putting such things as signals, signs and markings on the road. Mr. Buck also noted that, as he himself was not part of the EA process, Mr. Jack was present to give an overview of the EA process, what their design was premised on, and talk about some of the design constraints.

Mr. Buck first outlined the existing traffic situation on King Edward Avenue, highlighting the following:

· King Edward Avenue is one of the City’s busiest thoroughfares, handling approximately 40,000 vehicles a day.

· This section of the road deals with 5 different governments – the Ottawa and Gatineau Municipal Governments, the Ontario and Quebec Provincial Governments and the Federal Government.

· The MacDonald Cartier Bridge is a freeway, coming in at high speed into a residential area.

· There are hills, curves, visibility problems, and a mix of traffic that is approximately 5-6% heavy trucks.

· It is the interprovincial goods movement main line.

· When something big happens on that bridge or its approaches, it causes major problems and major delays.

· The City manages this stretch of road religiously, but it is a daily challenge. He acknowledged that this situation was not ideal, but suggested staff had to deal with it and are trying their best to ensure it operates as well as possible.

Mr. Buck provided a series of photographs of the area in question in the form of a PowerPoint Slide Presentation. A copy of that presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

He explained that, from the beginning of the project, they were aware that this corridor needed to be renewed and improved from both a social and physical perspective. He believes the EA done from 2000-2002 looked at the problems and many issues that the public brought to the table. He noted that there was extensive public consultation. He maintained that they assessed this project very thoroughly, and recommended what was appropriate for the City. He also noted that they considered the full range of options to divert traffic from the residential part of King Edward Avenue, and presented them to the community and Committee of the day.

Mr. Jack then gave an overview of the area in question as it exists currently, and outlined what is being constructed.

He appreciates that the ultimate objective is to try to ultimately bring the corridor down to four lanes; however, it currently carries 5,000-6,000 vehicles an hour or 60,000 vehicles a day across the Bridge. He believes reducing it to four lanes would require 25% of the traffic in the corridor to not be there, if not, there would be impacts on goods movement, STO Transit Service, commuter traffic, and infiltration into the adjacent neighbourhoods. He also believes that the City does not currently have the means in place to divert the traffic off this corridor for the following reasons:

· There is no downtown transit plan;

· There is no integrated interprovincial transit plan;

· There is no alternative truck route available;

· There is no additional spare capacity on the existing bridges; and

· There is no agreement on or concrete plan for the next interprovincial bridge.

He then outlined what was currently being done to improve the road, which he described as being in “failure mode.” He explained that they are maintaining the current number of lanes, but reconfiguring the corridor. He then outlined the following details of the new plan:

· It significantly reduces excess pavement.

· It increases the separation of the road from the homes.

· It reduces pedestrian crossing distance.

· It increases the boulevard widths and landscaping.

· At the north section of the corridor, it has significantly improved the connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists to and from Sussex Drive and the adjacent parks.

· It has realigned the roadways in the north section to create two new city block, valued at $4 million.

· It has realigned the connections to Sussex Drive that approximately double the size of the park adjacent to the Rideau River.

· It has realigned the existing roads and brought them closer together, to try to provide a transition between the freeway section and the residential section to the south, and try to create a bit of a parkway environment in the middle.

Mr. Jack explained that, only from Boteler to Laurier, the corridor is six lanes, and the rest is already 4 lanes. He also explained that the ultimate design has been done very cognizant of the desire to eventually go down to four lanes. The six-lane section has been designed with a minimum-width median in the middle, so if the City decides to go down to four lanes, the curb lane on each direction could be removed without affecting the proposed sidewalks, landscaping, lighting or median. He maintained that this could be done very inexpensively.

He believes that the study done was thorough and comprehensive, and that they worked with the community to come up with a solution that the majority agreed with. He noted that Committee and Council approved the EA and design contract, and the project has been underway for two years and there have been few expressions of concern during this time.

Thus, Mr. Jack concluded that, while it will be relatively simple to go down to four lanes at some point, there needs to be other alternatives in place before this can happen. He noted that City staff has looked at the implications of the construction-related lane reductions, and the other interprovincial crossings and approaching streets, and they all have increased congestion and volume. He referred to a memorandum from Tom Fitzgerald, Superintendent, Traffic Operations, which outlines the various problems caused by the lane reduction, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk.

Mr. Jack then went into further detail about the layout of the area, by means of maps and photos of the area, which were distributed to Committee and are held on file with the City Clerk. About the issue of a pedestrian crossing at Cathcart Street, he explained that when they did their preliminary recommendations on the EA, they did not recommend it, feeling that the new north end solution combined with the existing pedestrian crossing at St. Andrew Street accomplished that safe access. However, there was some concern by the community, and the then Ward Councillor asked that the underground traffic plant be put in at Cathcart to give the future option to provide signals there if it made any sense. As this was included in the EA, the underground plant is being put in as part of the design, but it was not part of the initial recommendation of the EA because it was not felt it was safe to do so.

The Committee then heard from the following public delegations:

Angela Rickman, President of the Lowertown Community Association, spoke in support of the report recommendations. She suggested the fact that there were few people present at the meeting was not indicative of a lack of concern it the community. Rather, she advised that it was emblematic of the community’s cynicism felt around the issue of King Edward Avenue and how the process has dealt with their concerns.

She explained that the community had been working on this issue for decades, and highlighted the timeline of the King-Edward pointing out that the matter had gone to the OMB in 1999 and the renewal project was a result of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision. She noted that one of the OMB’s prime concerns was the roadway was not appropriate for the area, and was unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists. She challenged the assertion that the majority of the community was in favour of the Delcan’s recommendations during the public consultations. She feels that the vast majority of the improvements being made to King Edward supports improving traffic flow and making it easier for vehicles to move through the community and does very little to improve the community. She took exception to the level of consideration of community concerns and the level of care taken with the process undertaken.

She suggested that the only reason the community went along with this process through the EA was that they were promised a crosswalk at Cathcart St. She noted that Mr. Buck had explained to the community that it would not be safe, and that the number of people crossing the road was not adequate to require a crosswalk. She also suggested that nobody was crossing there because it was unsafe without a crosswalk. She hoped to take Councillors and others on a tour of the area to see the situation for themselves, and invited any interested Councillors to attend. She expressed the Lowertown Community’s desire for a crosswalk at that location, and their anger at being told so late that it is not going to happen. She further noted that local residents were organizing protests to raise awareness of the situation. Finally, she urged the Committee to approve the report recommendations, as it would promote public safety, and feels it was the least the Committee could do.

Councillor Bédard had questions regarding the usefulness of alternate means for crossing King Edward Avenue in that area, namely the underpass to the north and the crosswalk to the south at St. Andrew Street. Ms. Rickman suggested that, while some find those crossings useful, the distances are too long for the many young families in the area. She noted that, aside from people trying to access the park, there are a number of residents who need to cross there for commuting purposes.

Ms. Rickman also noted that, as there is no school in Lowertown West, children walking or biking to York Street School or Rockcliffe Park School need to cross King Edward Avenue. She suggested the required detour for any one living south of Guigues Street is not currently safe or feasible for children. She pointed out that one of the reasons given for not having the crosswalk is that it would slow down traffic. She noted that the traffic that would be inconvenienced is largely from Quebec, while the Lowertown residents are the ones living there and paying taxes there. She expressed the frustration of residents living in a community that has been cut in half by King Edward Avenue, and maintained they should be able to access both sides of the community. She noted that the Transportation Master Plan talks about improving walking access for the public, making communities safer and joining neighbourhoods divided by roads.

She also pointed out that the road reconstruction is smoothing the curves coming onto King Edward which, while it is safer for the trucks, also means they do not have to slow down coming into the residential area. She suggested there were measures that could be taken, such as a flashing sign that would warn traffic about the upcoming stop.

Councillor Bédard noted that in the Official Plan, the focus for the Lowertown street environment is improving pedestrian safety and access across King Edward. Ms. Rickman agreed with Councillor Bédard’s observation that, because of the large distance to the other crossings, many people cross at Cathcart anyway, even without a crosswalk, which is a dangerous situation. She also noted that there had been accidents at other nearby intersections, and suggested that slowing the traffic at one end and providing longer crossing times for people at crosswalks all along the corridor would provide more safety. She believes that this crosswalk, while it does not solve the problem entirely, is a start.

Councillor Wilkinson observed that King Edward Avenue used to be beautiful, and agreed with Ms. Rickman that it had gone down hill. In response to questions from Councillor Wilkinson, Mr. Jack pointed out that the existing crossings were located at St. Andrew, St. Patrick and Murray, and a new connection from Sussex that goes under King Edward, providing access for residents west of King Edward to the park to the east, which was not possible before. In response to questions from Councillor Wilkinson, Ms. Rickman explained that, aside from people crossing illegally at Cathcart, children have to ride their bikes all the way up one side of King Edward in order to cross, and then back down the other side, which is dangerous considering there is no bike path or protection for cyclists.

Marc Aubin, a Lowertown Resident spoke in favour of the report recommendations. He explained that he was speaking on behalf of himself as a fifth generation Lowertown resident, as well as on behalf of the King Edward Avenue Task Force. He provided a PowerPoint presentation consisting of series of photographs of King Edward in the past and present. He also submitted detailed comments and recommendations for the area before the meeting, which were distributed to Committee members. A copy of these documents are held on file with the City Clerk.

Mr. Aubin spoke in support of the study and the possible reduction of King Edward Avenue from six to four lanes. He agreed with the previous delegation that, during the EA process, the community was not impressed with the recommendations being made by the Delcan Corporation and thought they fell considerably short of improving the situation. He noted that the Transportation Committee at the time did not support the community’s push for the immediate reduction from six to four lanes. However, they directed that after certain milestones were passed, the City should examine the feasibility of this option. He suggested that those milestones had passed and nothing had been done.

He noted that the City Staff was doing their job in providing quantitative data and arguments that indicate King Edward cannot be reduced to four lanes. However, he suggested that the qualitative analysis was missing. He also suggested that Council could use their judgement and take into consideration all the variables. He noted that King Edward has been four lanes since construction started, with no widespread traffic chaos and no reports that traffic is out of control in the downtown area, and the City has been able to manage the traffic. This led him to the conclusion that, in practice, the four-lane situation is working despite the modelling that indicates otherwise.

He feels this was a political decision, a policy decision, and that it was up to Council to decide how much traffic they want on King Edward (rather than how much we need). He also feels that there would always be an excuse to keep the extra lanes. He concluded that the lane reduction would be a partial, but substantial, solution to the long-term problems of King Edward Avenue.

Chair McRae indicated that she would be supporting the report recommendations. She noted that it was not a political decision, but one with financial consequences as well.

The Committee then proceeded with questions to staff:

Councillor Cullen understood that, as part of the construction underway, the ductwork for a pedestrian-operated traffic signal would be put into place. Mr. Buck suggested that was central to the issue. He noted that commitment was made during the EA process. He advised that, when staff looked at it in detail they realized there was no chance from a safety perspective that a pedestrian signal could be installed at that location. Thus, he suggested the question of whether the duct should be installed or not was now moot.

Councillor Cullen then inquired as to the cost of installing a pedestrian-operated traffic signal given that the ductwork has not been installed. Mr. Buck suggested it was in the order of $100,000. Councillor Cullen then asked if those costs could come out of the capital budget for this project, should Council approve the report. Mr. Buck initially suggested that it could not and that it would need to be ranked with other locations and submitted as part of the next year’s budget. However, upon further questioning from Councillor Cullen, he clarified that it could come out of the capital project if that were the will of Council.

In response to questions of clarification from Councillor Cullen regarding Recommendation 2 of the Report, Councillor Bédard explained that the rationale behind having a feasibility study concurrent with the construction was that King Edward is down to four lanes. Thus, the impact of having the road at four lanes can be assessed at this time.

Councillor Cullen wondered if, in developing this project, staff had given any consideration to reducing King Edward Avenue to four lanes. Mr. Jack confirmed that they had looked at this option. However, upon further analysis, they found that 1,000-1,500 vehicles per hour would have to be diverted elsewhere for a four-lane corridor to serve transit, commuters, goods movement and emergency vehicles in an acceptable manner. He confirmed that this was presented to a previous Council.

Councillor Wilkinson noted that the project approved by Council included the installation of underground traffic plant at the King Edward and Cathcart intersection to accommodate possible future pedestrian-activated traffic signals. She wondered why this was not happening even though Council approved it.

Mr. Buck explained that the normal process is for staff to review things from a technical end, make a decision and forward that recommendation on to Committee and Council so they can make an informed decision. He advised that in this case, there was no dialogue with Traffic Staff when this possible pedestrian crossing was included during the EA study process. He explained that, now that they have been asked for their comments, Traffic Staff must inform Council that a signal at this location will be unsafe. He noted that this happens very rarely. Mr. Buck emphasized that they could not, under any circumstances, recommend that a signal be located there. He noted that accidents are preventable and predictable, and maintained that a pedestrian traffic signal at that location would be a dangerous situation.

Councillor Wilkinson recognized Mr. Buck’s concern, and wondered how it could be made safe. He suggested that some measures were needed to slow down the traffic coming into the residential area.

Mr. Jack acknowledged that the situation on King Edward Avenue was not ideal, and suggested his team was trying to come up with a best plan to deal with the situation. He suggested they were trying to provide an interface between a freeway and a residential area, which is very challenging. He did not disagree with the community that it would be great to have a pedestrian crossing; however, he suggested that it just does not work at this location. In response to further questions from Councillor Wilkinson regarding alternatives, Mr. Jack suggested that an overpass would be an option. He explained that the suggestion of installing underground ducts for a pedestrian-operated traffic signal was a compromise, not a technical recommendation from his team. It was thought that, since it does not cost much, the ducts could be installed to give the option of a traffic signal later. Councillor Wilkinson suggested they should still put the ducts in, as the situation could change over time, and it would be much more expensive to go back and put them in at a later date.

In response to questions from Councillor Bédard regarding the costing, Mr. Buck explained that it was approximately $100,000 for the traffic signal. He suggested the cost of the ductwork was insignificant, approximately $5,000, and could be done immediately, as long as there was not the expectation that a signal could be automatically put in. Councillor Bédard proposed that the funds be allocated from the King Edward Project.

Councillor Wilkinson suggested that the details of the funding needed to be clearer. Therefore, she asked that the report be approved in principle, with staff reporting back within a month on how it would be funded. Councillor Bédard suggested that the funds could be reallocated from within the King Edward Project. As to Recommendation 2, he suggested that there are very few funds required for that study, but suggested there should be a report back on that.

In response to questions from Chair McRae, Mr. Buck confirmed that, if the Committee approved the signal and directed that $100,000 be allocated towards its installation from the existing budget, it could be done. Mr. Mason added that all the funds are currently allocated, so staff would need direction as to where to get the $100,00. Chair McRae suggested that it would be up to staff to determine that, and then tell Committee and Council.

Councillor Cullen asked for separate votes on Recommendations 1 and 2. Councillor Bédard confirmed that Recommendation 2 was to be referred to staff to come back with the costs of the feasibility study. Therefore, Councillor Cullen indicated that he would support both recommendations.

Moved by Councillor G. Bédard:

That Recommendation 1 be amended to read “That a pedestrian operated traffic signal be installed at the Intersection of King Edward Avenue and Cathcart Street, and that funds be allocated from the King Edward Capital Project.

CARRIED

That Recommendation 2 be referred to staff for a report back to Committee with financial estimates.

CARRIED

The Committee then approved the Report Recommendations, as amended.

That the Transportation Committee recommend Council approve:

1. That a pedestrian operated traffic signal be installed at the intersection of King Edward Avenue and Cathcart Street, and that funds be allocated from the King Edward Capital Project.

2. That the following recommendation be referred to staff for cost estimates:

That during the actual construction process, which has reduced the number of lanes on King Edward from 6 to 4, a feasibility study be undertaken to estimate the impact of permanently reducing the Avenue to four lanes.

CARRIED as amended