WEST TRANSITWAY EXTENSION (SOUTHWEST
TRANSITWAY TO PINECREST) VALUE ENGINEERING STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMANDATIONS DE L'ÉTUDE ANALYTIQUE DE
LA VALEUR DE LA PROLONGATION DU TRANSITWAY DU SECTEUR OUEST (TRANSITWAY
DIRECTION SUD-OUEST JUSQU'Ŕ PINECREST)
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0058 Bay/Baie (7), College (8)
Chair Cullen indicated he had a
Motion to bring forward and wanted to participate in the debate. He stepped down from the Chair and Vice
Chair Wilkinson chaired the meeting for this item.
The
following submissions were received in advance of the meeting:
a. C. Valiquette, Roman Avenue resident,
e-mail dated 5 May
b. K. Bell, Roman Avenue resident, e-mail
dated 30 April
c. K. Beltzer, River Road resident, e-mail
dated 6 May
d. G. Ross, e-mail dated 5 May
e. D. Gladstone, Frank Street resident,
e-mail dated 6 May
f. A petition with 52 signatures of
residents in favour of conducting an EA for the West Transitway Extension,
under cover of memo dated 5 May 2008 from Chair Cullen.
At the meeting, Committee members
received another petition with 41 signatures of residents of Roman Avenue,
opposing the expropriation and demolition of homes for the transitway. They only supported an option that does not
destroy homes.
All correspondence referenced above
is held on file.
Vivi Chi, Manager, Transportation
and Infrastructure Planning, Planning, Transit and the Environment Department
(PTE) and Steve Stoddard, Senior Project Engineer, PTE, gave a detailed
overview of the report in a PowerPoint presentation. A copy of their presentation is held on file.
Councillor Cullen indicated he would
be putting forward a Motion that would ensure the residents on Roman Avenue are
fairly compensated for their loss of property.
He asked if the Environmental Assessment (EA) would consider all
reasonable alternatives, including the five alternatives examined in the early
1990’s and any variation of those that may be requested. Ms. Chi confirmed the EA would look at all
feasible variations (including an alignment that skirts the OC Transpo
Pinecrest garage) on both sides of the Queensway and the Committee would
receive a scope of work.
When asked what plans the Ministry
of Transportation (MTO) had with respect to their plans to widen the Queensway
and how much land is available, Ms. Chi explained that it is not a big corridor
and there would not be a widening of the Queensway, but a taking up of the
auxiliary lane and making modifications to the ramp at the interchanges. Mr. Stoddard added that the MTO needs
have been identified in the most recent EA and gives an indication of how much
land is required, which is approximately 3 to 5 metres (outer shoulder).
Referring to Alignment C, Councillor
Doucet asked whether staff intend to use the Queensway and Mr. Stoddard
explained that they would use Queensway land to improve bus operation between
the Queensway and Pinecrest stations.
He noted that the major capital investment may be deferred if the City
does a minor investment of improvements on the Queensway. The councillor wondered why staff would not
be making a case to use the Queensway, rather than spending millions of dollars
and having to tear down homes a transit system that may soon be outdated (move
to LRT). Mr. Stoddard explained that
the City could use the Queensway for the interim, but indicated that one of the
key issues is the introduction of the Pinecrest station. The councillor then asked why the province
is spending millions of dollars to widen the Queensway for private vehicles and
not giving the land instead for use by public transit. He could not support the staff
recommendation and suggested the City should be advancing this argument to the
province.
Questions arose on the ease of
converting the transit lanes to accommodate light rail and Mr. Stoddard
confirmed that the transitway has to be convertible to this future technology.
Councillor McRae noted that the
original route proposed in 1994, required expropriating some homes and now
staff are proposing to change the EA to change the alignment and expropriate
other properties. Ms. Chi explained
that the original route was rejected because of the cost. Responding to additional questions posed by
the councillor, she advised that the alignment along Roman Avenue was one of
the options and in 1994 it carried heavy weight on the community impact and is
why the other alignment was now being recommended. The councillor was surprised to hear this explanation, especially
given the heavy community impact the latest alignment proposes. Ms. Chi advised that staff are seeking direction
and to see if the Committee wants to proceed with the EA study because of the
cost component. Nancy Schepers, Deputy
City Manager, Planning, Transit and the Environment, interjected that in terms
of the directions, this was specific around the Value Engineering
exercise. It is driven by dollars and
it is reasonable and a lot less cost.
Councillor McRae asked for a staff
comment on the suggestion made by Councillor Doucet about the province’s
role. Ms. Chi advised that staff had
posed that question to the Ministry in the 1990’s and MTO had said they wanted
to protect the corridor of the Queensway.
She went on to state that given the City’s growth, there is a need for a
bigger Queensway and rapid transit system.
When asked what the MTO says now, Mr. Stoddard indicated it was
whatever does not severely disrupt their plans. The determination of that would be made by the Ministry. He added that the use of any remaining
portions of the Queensway (to reduce the impact on the homes) should be considered
as an alternative.
The Committee received the following
public delegations:
Karen Bell, Roman Avenue resident indicated that she has lived on the south side of Roman Avenue for 26 years. She and her husband purchased their retirement home last September, with a closing date of September 2008. They sought two evaluations on their home and listed it with a realtor last month. In March, with the announcement of the Roman Avenue route proposal, the impact and fallout was felt immediately. Their asking price dropped by $12,000 and their realtor was even concerned about their ability to sell their property. She indicated there are other properties on the street and in the immediate area that have been on the market and have not moved, even with reduced asking prices, while properties in Queensway Terrace North - not directly affected by the transitway - have sold within one to six weeks. She asked the Committee to consider the ramifications to those facing a financial loss if this proposal is not approved or delayed for the EA. She and her husband support the initiation of the EA and would welcome the City purchasing their property at fair market value, which they could rent back until their new home is ready. She did not support the addition of any more lanes on the Queensway because it would result in more noise and pollution closer to their backyard, which abuts the Queensway. A copy of her previously distributed comments are held on file.
Marlene Roach lived on Roman Avenue and requested that the EA be sent back to staff for modification because there are other options to be considered. She noted that the City already owns homes on Connaught Avenue and to expropriate 25 more on Roman Avenue in this close-knit community, and rent them out will make them like those homes on Connaught Avenue. When asked, she agreed the City should consider compensating her for the lost value on her home.
Bruce and Chantal Taylor indicated that he and his wife had gone through the first EA in 1994 and he wondered where the value is for the money the City is proposing to spend for this project. He indicated that the former EA indicated that Roman Avenue was dropped and the Value Engineering study raises more questions than answers their concerns. They did not have a lot of confidence in the information presented to the community and they were very concerned about the duress this process has put on residents. They were quite upset that the Expropriations Act does not protect homeowners and they wanted to be fairly compensated if this is the option chosen. He had several questions he wanted answered as follows:
1. Why did the City go to the expense of undertaking a Value Engineering Study when, in the end it, will only lead to another EA, which, if completed properly, should arrive at the same conclusion that was approved in 1994 (Connaught Tunnel)?
2. Why does the City think the results of another EA will be any different from the EA that was approved in 1994? 3. What is the financial cost of conducting another EA and where is the value in completing this once again? 4. Why is the City considering a project that will cost over $100M when the documented benefit in the Value Engineering Report is shaving 30-45 seconds off a trip from Kanata or Stittsville?
A copy of his letter his held on file.
Responding to the property value concerns raised by the delegation, Ms. Schepers explained that Councillor Cullen’s Motion will protect homeowners to ensure they get fair market value from the City. With respect to the delegations’ questions about the Expropriations Act, Ernie McArthur, Legal Counsel, indicated that the City has to first establish that it needs those lands and outside of that, they cannot commit to anything further.
Some discussion arose on the use of existing lanes on the Queensway for transit and the delegation was encouraged to contact his local MPP to press for this. Councillor Harder believed that is something all affected residents should do because if the solution can be found within the 417 system, it would save millions of tax dollars at the City level. Mr. Taylor understood that there was no room for using existing lanes for transit and felt they would be back in the same situation. He indicated he needed additional time to digest this proposal further.
Responding to a question posed by Councillor Legendre regarding expropriation, Legal Counsel explained that if there is agreement on compensation, the land is transferred. If there is no agreement, the owner of the land or the City can apply to the OMB, who would determine fair compensation. Gord MacNair, Manager, Real Estate Services, added that the City pays market value as defined in Section 14 of the Expropriations Act. To the delegation, the councillor indicated that the Motion that would be put forward by Councillor Cullen provides residents with a reasonable “out”, whereas the alternative is to accept the term by the City at the time of expropriation, which could place them in a worse situation with respect to market value later on. He asked the other delegations in the audience to advise whether or not they would be opposed to the Motion.
Councillor Feltmate asked whether the delegation’s preference would have been to follow the 1994 recommendations and Mr. Taylor advised that they went through this 14 years ago and at the end, decided to stay in the neighbourhood. He did not feel the Committee appreciates what they have and how this proposal changes all their plans. His choice would have been to follow the 1994 EA. Responding to questions posed by the councillor, Ms. Chi confirmed that staff would respond to the letter provided by the delegation and indicated there would be plenty of opportunity for engagement before proceeding.
Henry Swiech, President, Queensway Terrace North Community Association was opposed to the staff recommendations because they do not want to move and all other options should be presented to the Committee before an EA is approved. He thought the City should be concerned about lost property taxes from the homes that are proposed to be expropriated. Residents do not have confidence in the EA and have been receiving conflicting timeframes for it’s completion. He was looking for a final solution that satisfies all concerns and he urged the Committee to reject the EA and the Value Engineering study and send it back. He did support Councillor Cullen’s proposed Motion that would purchase homes from those already on the market.
Greg Ross explained that this proposal must not come at the cost of expropriating and demolishing homes on Roman Avenue and the City must find creative solutions to arrive at a win-win situation. He made note of the fact there were many other options that require minimal property taking or purchasing of the property. He suggested using the shoulder lanes as much as possible and advancing light rail to the latter stages of the plan. His previously disributed comments are held on file.
David James provided a PowerPoint presentation
and photo illustration of the alignment he was proposing. He spoke to the use of light rail, stating
this technoligy is the preferred vehicle and the City should be considering a
different plan for rapid transit. He
believed that a possible solution would be to have a surface LRT (light rail
transit) in the tunnel corridor because it is a quieter operation, less
frequent vehicle movements, there would be time savings for transit uers and
the environment and land impacts would be minimized. He highlighted the advantages of a West Transitway LRT as
follows: reduced time and distance;
reduced NCC right-of-way; avoids utility relocation of tunnel plan; no
expropriations required, et cetera.
Additional details are contained in his presentation, which is held on
file.
Timothy Lane, Transport 2000
spoke as a supporter of light rail and suggested the EA include that as an
option. Additional comments noted were
as follows:
·
If
the line was built as electric LRT along the original Connaught alignment,
there would probably be far less objection from the residents near Connaught
Park to having an at-grade line, thus saving the costs of building and
maintaining a tunnel for buses. ELRT
would be much quieter, would emit no pollution, and would have far fewer
vehicles per hour crossing the park and Connaught Avenue
·
For 24 years, buses in huge numbers cross the parkland
at Iris Street. The Roman Avenue
expropriation "solution" is at least a half kilometre longer than the
Connaught solution and would have new ramps at a new Queensway Transitway
Station, all of which will have to be thrown away, when the Transitway to
Bayshore is converted to ELRT. In
addition, the Roman Avenue ELRT alignment has reverse curves that will slow
down the trains unnecessarily
·
Therefore,
the Roman Avenue route will cost much more to build and more to operate,
because the vehicles, whether bus or train, will take at least a minute longer
to travel this extra distance
·
Destroying
25 homes along Roman Avenue is not only unconscionable, it will
not save taxpayers money, versus building ELRT, on the original Connaught
alignment
·
He encouraged the City to do it right and not build more busways at higher operating costs, and which would be more
costly to convert to LRT in the future
A copy of is his written notes are held on file.
Julia McDowell spoke as a resident on the north
side of Roman Avenue. She was opposed
to the expropriation of the houses on the other side of the street because it
would be disasterous for them and most residents have lived there for decades. She indicated that residents on the north side
of Roman would be better off if their homes were included in the expropriation
because at least they could sell them.
As it stands now, no one would want to buy their property. This proposal will result in the loss of
good neighbours and the remaining residents will be faced with a barrier. She also did not want to see the street
become a rental area, noting it is currently a quiet community. And, while she understood that the EA was a
necessary part of the process, she wanted the City to look at other options,
stating that the transitway should go around - not through - the community.
Paul Beveridge spoke on behalf of his mother who
has lived on Roman Avenue for 46 years.
He explained that facing expropriation is not an option for her and
disrupting 25 households is a solution that should not even be considered.
Barry Dickman spoke as a 37-year resident of
Roman Avenue. He explained that four
generations of his family live on this street and they are not happy about
having to be separated because of this proposal. He made note of the fact that the previous report referred to a
fibre-optics cable that runs at the back of the homes on Roman Avenue and he
wanted to know if this is still an issue.
Responding to his question, Mr.
Stoddard advised that the section between the Pinecrest garage and the
Queensway Station is not part of that plan so he did not know if the cable was
there. Mr. Dickman added that reference
to the cable is made in the original EA, Volume 1, page 4-131, second
paragraph.
Christine Coma noted that she was in support of
transit and commented that there would not be such an uproar from Roman Avenue
if it were not for the 1994 EA. Of the
five options studied at the time, one was chosen as the approved transit route
from Lincoln Fields to Pinecrest and it was formally approved by the province
in 1994. And now, it appears that
another, less costly route is being recommended. However, she believed that setting aside the original EA
is an expensive mockery of the constitution.
She questioned how much
would it cost the taxpayers to build something, only to have it ripped up again
when the City decides to convert to LRT.
She noted that because of the original EA, people on Roman Avenue have
made permanent changes because they were told that nothing would happen
(demolition) for years. In conclusion,
she strongly recommended that the City not move forward to approve a new EA to
consider revisions to the approved transitway, including alternate Queensway
alignments; instead, it should proceed with the existing plans, and find a less
costly way to complete alignment C. A
copy of her written submission is held on file.
Klaus Beltzner suggested social costs should be added as part of the EA process, noting that the previous EA was a two-year, emotionally-draining exercise for the community. Raising this again has brought all that uncertainty back again and he wondered what the impact would be if more families are bought out on the north side of the street. He agreed there was a need to extend the transitway so he accepted the recommendations as quickly as possible to convert to light rail for economic reasons. His previously distributed comments are held on file.
Carole Kirkpatrick echoed many of the previous comments with regards to property values and loss of homes. She stated this was unacceptable and suggested that the City to figure out another route for the transitway. Further, this has caused a rift between neighbours, in what was once a very supportive community. She emphasized the fact that it was not right for a community to be placed in this position.
David Gladstone asked that the City honour it’s responsibility to residents and businesses and not authorize the conduct of the requested EA. He maintained that threatening people with the loss of their homes to allow for an unnecessary and costly busway is simply unacceptable. He believed it was even more unacceptable to proceed with the proposed study when far more transit-value-for-money could be obtained within a year by extending O-Train service to under-used rail lines. Mr. Gladstone suggested the City should continue to work with the MTO to not have the Queensway widened. His previously distributed comments are held on file.
Andrew Visinski felt that this process seems to have been fast-tracked, and residents have not had time to respond to what people said and did not say. He referred to the previous EA of 1994, stating it is a legal document and cannot be revised. He explained that he has lived in the neighbourhood for 31 years and did not want to have to move because of this proposal before the Committee.
When asked to comment, Ms. Chi advised that the previous EA does exist but proponents have the right to change it. She elaborated further by stating it is a planning tool and can be updated. When asked whether previous options raised in the first EA could be considered again, i.e., developing the south side of the Queensway, Ms. Chi advised they could.
Marlene Catterall noted that the problem is a small one and only involves a small stretch of land with about five homes on both sides of the Queensway and the local MPP has already been contacted to meet with Ministry officials on this. She suggested that adding more lanes to the Queensway will result in decreased transit ridership and the Queensway will be plugged again. She encouraged the Committee to provide specific instruction to staff before approving this report, to work with Ministry staff and develop an alignment that does not require the purchase or expropriation of homes on Roman Avenue.
When asked what their position was on the suggestion made by the delegation regarding the other alignment, Mr. Stoddard explained that the potential impact on 25 homes is the worse case scenario and if there are scenarios that have less impact those would be considered. He supported investigating it. Ms. Schepers added that if the Committee and Council approves going forward with the EA, staff would put together the scope of the EA and report back to the Committee. Staff would be expected to look at options but would require co-operation with the MTO.
David Jeanes, Transport 2000 read from his prepared text. The more salient comments noted were as
follows :
· The Motions today are referring to past EA decisions that were based on public consultation; the City must consult widely again before making changes to the approved EA; any new environmental assessment should be based on a 6-month EA, rather than a new individual EA, but only after a planning exercise has been confirmed by Council
· The Transitway crossing of Iris Street, which serves ALL route 95 buses plus many express and local bus routes, across a much busier residential street, has a an at-grade crossing, and there is no plan to change this; the planned grade separations of Woodroffe, Fallowfield and the Transitway with the railway were eliminated by Council in July 2004 in favour of at-grade crossings, in order to achieve a similar cost saving to what is proposed today
· It is clear that when the West Transitway is converted to rail, it must initially reach Bayshore, with later extension across the Greenbelt to reach major park-and-ride locations; however, the City’s new recommended network option has over 60% more bus transitway than the 2003 TMP and 60% less light rail. This negates the agreed rail-focussed objectives of both the 1997 and 2003 TMPs until after the 2013 plan has been completed
· The public have not been told who participated in this value engineering process and he wanted to know which companies and engineers were involved
In closing, Mr. Jeanes suggested that the Committee not make any decision to further study this transitway in this section, until after the transit network changes have been approved by Council in the form of a new Transportation Master Plan. His previously distributed comments are held on file.
With respect to the
Pinecrest/Bayshore transit, which is currently being constructed, Councillor
Cullen asked whether it was designed to be converted to light rail. Mr. Stoddard explained that it is being
constructed as a bus rapid transit service and the grades, alignment and
station configuration can be converted to LRT.
Councillor Legendre
noted that at the CSEDC meeting yesterday, the issue of an identified person
(professional engineer) signing off on report was raised and he asked whether
such a sign off exists for the Value Engineering study undertaken. Mr. Stoddard confirmed that Steve Taylor of
National Capital Engineering signed off on the report. The councillor hoped that following the EA,
it too would be signed off and that this would become a permanent practice.
Jennifer
Savard recalled many of
the concerns and arguments made by previous residents who had lived through the
previous EA and how their lives have changed as a result of this recent
proposal. And, because they were
satisfied in 1994 that nothing would happen to their community, she and her
husband renovated their home. She
referred to the properties that were expropriated under the previous EA that
are still there, and being rented out because the original proposal was not
carried through. She wondered if the
same would happen to residents like themselves living on the south side of
Roman Avenue. She did not think it was
fair that she has invested in a major renovation to their home, only now to
learn that it will be taken away from them.
She respectfully asked the Committee not to move forward, but to
instead, look at an alternative, community-friendly option that would result in
minimal disruption to the community.
Tony Fragiskos
indicated he has lived on Roman Avenue for more than 19 years and he did not
want to live with his backyard any closer to any more traffic and he does not
want to be subject to the exhaust and noise from buses. And, while he does not have a problem with
having to move, he was concerned that in order to do that, he would have to
incur excessive expense to find a suitable home again. He asked that he be treated with the respect
and that he be compensated fairly.
When asked whethe the
Cullen Motion would address his concerns, Mr. Fragiskos stated it does not
cover his expenses.
Andy Haydon believed there were three issues the Committee needed to be mindful of:
· The social effect on people (fair
market value is only part of the problem)
· The cost of the project
· The overall cost to the taxpayer
He believed the
auxiliary lane that currently exists on the Queensway is ready to go and
another lane could be put in where there is a ditch before reaching the fence
line of the properties on Roman Avenue.
He thought another lane could bit fit in there with minimal land taking
from those properties. Mr. Haydon
recognized that the Ministry wants to keep the land adjacent to the Queensway
for future use, but suggested City officials meet with the Minister of
Transportation and with with the local MPP (Jim Watson) to discuss this.
Following the
public delegations, Committee members posed questions to staff.
Councillor Cullen
referred to the province’s long-range property protection plan for an eight-lane
basic cross-section of the Queensway corridor, noting that there are currently
three lanes on either side, with one westbound auxiliary lane that comes off
the Queensway station (for OC Transpo buses) and which turns into an exit lane
at Pinecrest Road. He noted that this
lane is not one of the four lanes the MTO is referring to and when they want to
go to eight lanes, the City would lose this Pinecrest off-ramp. Mr. Stoddard confirmed this
understanding and indicated that if the City wanted to maintain an interim
service, it would have to build an additional lane in the remaining space.
Should the MTO
claim those eight lanes, the councillor wondered if there was enough space on
the right-of-way on the north side to put in a transitway, without affecting
the properties on Roman Avenue? From a
preliminary look that staff were able to do through the Value Engineering
study, Mr. Stoddard could not see a way that they would not have an impact on
these properties.
Some discussion
ensued on the properties acquired for the previous section of the Queensway
(Pinecrest to Bayshore) and the availability of capacity in this area of the
Queensway. Councillor Legendre asked if
that would be examined in the EA study and, should it be taken off the table,
that staff communicate that fact to the Committee then, and not at the very end
of the study. Mr. Stoddard accepted
this as direction, adding that it would be part of the process to report back
on how staff arrive at their decisions.
Councillor Cullen understood that the MTO have already completed an EA
study for the widening of the Queensway to eight lanes and Mr. Stoddard
confirmed this, noting that the EA is currently working it’s way through the
appeal process. With regards to the
issue of cost, the councillor noted that Alignment C, which includes the tunnel
under Connaught Avenue, is estimated to cost $138M, with the tunnel alone
costing $70M. Mr. Stoddard
confirmed these figures. The councillor
further noted that should the City choose the Roman Avenue route, it would cost
$24M (a difference of $46M). He
clarified that the Committee is not here to suggest choosing a route, but to
engage in an EA to see which is the most cost-effective as well as all of the
other factors that an EA looks at. Mr.
Stoddard confirmed the difference in cost, and the reason for the request for
the EA study. Responding to additional
questions posed by the councillor, Mr. Stoddard confirmed that the City is
locked into the Pinecrest interchange with the investment it is making to date
on the transitway.
When asked whether it is known at this point exactly how much property
may be needed if the EA determined Roman Avenue as the chosen route, staff
advised that such detail would not be known until staff examines the detailed
cross-section alternative. In response
to further questions from the councillor, Mr. Stoddard confirmed that when they
did the Bayshore to Pincrest section, this was the result of the EA and it
identified the land that was required was from some 36 properties. Councillor Cullen further commented that
during that time, the former Regional Government had a policy to compensate
people during the EA process based on fair market value. While she did not think the former RMOC had
a policy, she recalled that a Motion was passed to purchase those
properties. If the City were only
requested to look at the Queensway as an alternative, and the MTO proved that
there was no space for a transitway on that right-of-way, Councillor Cullen
asked if the effect of that decision was to block the transitway system at
Pinecrest? Ms. Chi thought they would
fall back to the original tunnel alignment.
Councillor Leadman inquired what the intent of the Value Engineering
study was and staff explained that it was to examine the function and the goals
of the facility the City was trying to construct. The first step is to break down what is needed in this corridor
and then develop alternatives that can be achieved at reduced cost. In some cases, alternatives are determined
that have increased performance at increased cost. It is an exercise on performance and value for cost. When asked by the councillor whether this
was based on the 1994 EA that was done on the options that were provided, Mr.
Stoddard indicated that they had the 1994 EA as a reference to the study and it
had the 1997 Functional Design report as a reference also to help guide the
study.
Councillor Leadman referred to the costs mentioned in the report and
expressed some concern about how these figures were arrived at in such a short
time (three days). The Senior Project
Engineer explained that with a study of this type and short duration, the
alternatives are described in general.
The major components of the project are used with estimating unit
factors as in square meters of structure deck, the depth of a tunnel and
features such as this are estimated roughly in three days. He added that there are a lot of detail
design issues that would come from any final design or further EA that would
give more detail and add to the information available on a project. It is meant to give an indication as to
whether it is worth doing more work or to go with the current project. In this case, it is unfortunate that the
focus is the way it is today, because it is not an EA and therefore does not
have the detail that is expected in order to get a complete feel for the issue.
When asked by the councillor whether the EA that is being recommended is
going to be a stand alone or an amendment to the existing EA, Ms. Chi explained
that the previous process was an individual EA and requires Ministerial
approval. However, the province has
offered other ways to address this, so the amendment means an amendment to the
original EA that would have to go through the Minister. It could be done as a class EA, whereby once
approved by Council, it is filed for a 30-day review process, which could
involve a bump-up request. Staff
propose that this is a new study, in order to take advantage of the timelines
and not have to wait for another agency.
Councillor Leadman further inquired as a stand alone then, what is going
to be the focus, what is going to be looked at in an EA like this? She was
concerned that when Council approved having this look see, it said nothing
about expropriation. Is the EA going to
look at specific things or alternative corridors, or are we going to focus on
this particular corridor because it was the one that was identified in VE study
as the cheapest option.
Ms. Chi informed the committee that the statement of work will be coming
to them later. She summarized that some of the options that they would be
looking at, the goal is to find perhaps a better solution then what is out
there at the present time. A better tunnel alignment at a better price, and
they will report on all of the impacts if there is a new alignment. Each of the
issues will be weighed, and as in the last EA process they came to the
committee on three separate occasions with status reports, to which she
expected they would do the same.
With regards to the cost that was associated with the tunnel in the 1994
option, Councillor Leadman was concerned that the same mistakes would be
repeated and wanted to know what kind of costing was done in today’s dollars to
look at this tunnel. Ms. Chi explained
that it would be a detailed costing exercise, so that they can compare the
alternatives properly and Council would have that information before it makes
it’s decision.
Following on these comments, Councillor McRae recalled
the previous decision to opt for a tunnell and wanted to know why Council was
not apprised at that time, of the kind of disruption (expropriating homes) that
might occur. Mr. Stoddard explained
that the concept of re-visiting the Queensway Alignment emerged during the
Value engineering study in January and at that time, it was proposed to
staff. Given the fact that this issue
dates back to the 1990s, the councillor believed staff should have advised
Council of the anticipated expropriations, before it voted on the tunnel
option. She thought that if the
Committee and Council are going to deal with something like this in the future,
staff needs to be directed to advise if expropriation could be a possibility.
Referring to the previous purchasing of properties of
the three homes on Connaught Avenue, Councillor McRae inquired how the City
valued those properties and was advised by Mr. MacNair that they were based on
the market value at that time, which screened out the transitway project. Therefore, it is what a typical purchaser
would have paid for those properties at the time.
Following on this, the councillor inquired of Legal
Counsel, why fees such as moving expenses, are not included when the City
expropriates private property. Mr.
McArthur explained that when Councillor Cullen first discussed his Motion with
him, that was something he wanted to include.
However, he suggested they not be included because they were not
expropriations but advanced purchases, and there is no authority to pay any
more than market value. Also, the City
recently went through an OMB hearing which relates to the City having purchased
property some time ago and while negotiations at the time fell through, the
matter came forward to the Board and the majority of that hearing was all about
when the effective expropriation date was.
And, if the OMB accepts the evidence, the City will be paying interest
for the past 10 years because in effect it had expropriated 10 years ago. Therefore, he had suggested to the
councillor at that time that the City not put itself in that position by paying
entitlements and inviting the observation some time later when negotiations
failed.
Councillor McRae raised some questions of timing and
suggested that if the Committee and Council chose to delay this project, would
it delay whatever is decided in the fall with regards to the Rapid Transit
Plan. Ms. Schepers explained that one
of Council’s priorities was to complete the transitway and therefore, if this
piece is delayed Council may want to re-visit what it’s priorities are in the
fall with respect to all the priorities that have been given to staff.
A/Chair Wilkinson read out one of the Motions put
forward by Councillor Doucet, the summary of which was:
That an Environmental Assessment be approved to convert the equivalent of
one lane in each direction within the 417 corridor to complete the Transitway
and this be the solution pursued.
When asked to comment, staff advised that it appears
as a direction to look at the Queensway corridor or equivalent only. She added that looking for a solution that
does not affect the properties on Roman Avenue and whether or not that is
feasible, is something on which staff would report back to the Committee. When asked if the transitway could be
completed under these terms, the Deputy City Manager presumed it could be.
A/Chair Wilkinson read out the second Motion put forward by Councillor Doucet:
That
before the Ontario Government considers widening of any controlled access
highway within or immediately contiguous to a major urban metropolis, that transit
solutions have been fully explored with the municipality affected.
With regards to the
first Motion presented by Councillor Doucet, Councillor Bloess noted that if
the City is conducting an EA, then all options have to be considered, but this
Motion pre-determines the outcome of the EA.
Ms. Chi confirmed that if approved, it would narrow down the scope of
the EA. The councillor maintained that
while he would support the Motion, the effect would be no EA to be done at that
point. Ms. Chi explained that there is
because it affects the impact on the Queensway traffic; there are some planning
and EA issues that have to be addressed.
The councillor inquired how it dovetails with the EA currently underway
by the MTO and staff did not think they would have to amend their EA.
Councillor Legendre
interjected that staff appear to be giving different advice than it did on
another occasion whereby a similar Motion was considered and staff insisted
that all options had to be considered.
The Deputy City Manager explained that things have changed during that
period and the new legislation that the province has is not law now but allows
the City, based on planning decisions that are made, to limit the scope of the
EA. She added that an EA has been done
for this whole section of the Transitway so staff did look at alternative
corridors and now, when the focus is just on the Queensway. It was then suggested that the Motion be
amended to read: “…be a solution
to be pursued”, rather than the solution to be pursued.
Councillor Doucet
was reluctant to accept the amendment because he wanted the Queensway to be the
only option. It was pointed out that
other alternatives could be examined. He
concluded that any other route cannot include the demolition of homes. A/Chair Wilkinson suggested he amend the
Motion to include the latter statement and the councillor accepted that as a
friendly amendment to his Motion.
The Acting Chair
referred to the concerns raised by Marlene Catterall and the fact there were
very few houses along the Queensway that would be impacted. She asked if that was something the Value
Engineering study examined or whether it could be examined now in looking at
Councillor Doucet’s Motion. Mr.
Stoddard advised that it would be a natural part of the EA.
A/Chair Wilkinson
also inquired that rather than looking at a tunnel, would staff also be looking
at going at-grade because that would obviously reduce the cost of that
route. Ms. Chi advised that they
could examine a surface corridor. She
added that the concept of a surface system was not brought forward from the
Value Engineering team because it did not seem to meet some of the original
requirements in the EA in terms of grade separation and noise mitigation the
way it was originally configured. She
confirmed however that it could be an alternative that would be included in any
new EA and examined. Upon further
questioning by the A/Chair, Ms. Chi confirmed that the tunnel would be
addressed in the report because there is a need to reflect back on an existing
alignment that has been approved.
Councillor Legendre
indicated he was prepared to put forward a friendly amendment to the Doucet
Motion, as suggested by staff to change the word “the” to “a”.
Councillor Cullen
indicated he would support the amendment because if the MTO agrees with this
proposal, then there would be no requirement to demolish homes and disrupt
people’s lives unnecessarily. He
reminded Committee members that it is not a question of whether or not the
transitway is going to be completed, but a question of when it is
completed. He wanted to see the EA test
every option and to convince the MTO that the Queensway is a better
alternative.
Councillor Doucet
expressed his admiration for the presentations from the community, commenting
on the fact this is more about houses and is about people’s lives and when the
City is thinking about expropriating and creating that much chaos, it has a
responsibility to ensure that there is absolutely no other option. He believed that the presenters made it very
clear there is no other option and no overwhelming timing advantage for
commuters either. With respect to the
proposed amendment by Councillor Legendre, he did not want to support it
because it completely changes the intent of his Motion and gives the province
an “out”. He believed the Queensway was
the only option that makes social, financial and environmental sense for the
people on Roman Avenue.
When asked to
clarify the “a” vs. “the” in the Motion, Ms. Chi explained that “the” means the
only solution staff would pursue. If it
fails, staff would come back and advise that there is no solution and would
have to go back to the tunnel option or pursue other options. She indicated that having the term “a” would
mean that no demolition of homes would be pursued. Based on this response, CouncillorDoucet agreed to accept the
friendly amendment. Ms. Chi clarified
that the Motion should be further amended to change “be approved” to “be
initiated” and the councillor accepted this also.
Councillor Cullen
asked whether the Doucet Motion had the effect of replacing staff
Recommendation 2 and this was confirmed.
He noted it would restrict the EA to look at options that would not
involve the demolition of homes. When
asked how long the process would take before Committee would have to revisit it
if Council wants to complete the transitway, Ms. Chi advised that staff would
speak to the MTO first and report back with the status of those discussions.
Prior to voting on
the Motion, Councillor Thompson asked whether something would be sent to the
province. The Acting Chair indicated
that staff have indicated they will do that and will report back on the scope
of the project, depending on what they hear in June. Councillor Thompson suggested there should be some direction to
have a more high level representation with staff going to the province.
Councillor McRae
indicated that the Committee needed to make it clear that we mean business and
should Committee and Council approve the Motion, she encouraged residents to
write to their local MPP to support that decision. The Acting Chair agreed that political representation at the
local and provincial level was needed and suggested that staff set up a meeting
with Jim Bradley, Minister of Transportation and members of the Committee to
discuss this as soon as possible.
Moved by M. McRae
That staff be
directed to set up a meeting with Jim Bradley, Minister of Transportation and
all members of the Committee to discuss this.
CARRIED
Moved by C. Doucet
WHEREAS
the Connaught Tunnel alignment will create a negligible time saving, but cost
over $100 million;
WHEREAS
Roman Avenue is adjacent to five lanes of 417 Provincial highway;
WHEREAS
one of the 417 lanes will be diamonded off for bus use during construction of
parallel bus lanes on Roman Avenue;
WHEREAS
the demolition of 25 homes will cause immense distress to the families who live
on both north and south sides of Roman Avenue;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that an Environmental Assessment be initiated to convert the
equivalent of one lane in each direction within the 417 corridor to complete
the Transitway and this be a solution pursued, as well as other routes that do
not include demolition of homes.
CARRIED
Moved by C. Doucet
That before the Ontario Government considers widening of any controlled access highway within or immediately contiguous to a major urban metropolis, that transit solutions have been fully explored with the municipality affected.
CARRIED
Prior to considering his Motion, Councillor Cullen explained that the original draft he had prepared of this Motion was consistent with the Expropriations Act and included legal costs, land transfer tax costs and relocation costs. He thought the City owed the community nothing less than what they could receive if they were to be expropriated. He also thought he was being consistent with a policy adopted by the former RMOC when it dealt with the Pinecrest to Bayshore portion of the transitway. Staff had met with him and explained that residents living on Allenmede, Dumaurier and Burgess only got fair market value. His Motion would reflect fair market value as if this project never happened. He went on to state that staff in the Legal department have advised earlier that if the Committee includes those costs, then any other property purchased outside of expropriation, where the City will have to negotiate fair market value, lays the City open to having to pay for those benefits. He was not adverse to an amendment that would insert those costs because residents are owed it and would get it if they waited to be expropriated; however, there are three homeowners who cannot wait and are prepared to accept fair market value.
Councillor McRae indicated her willingness to include legal and moving costs in the Motion and suggested that if necessary, the Committee could move In Camera to receive legal advice.
Moved by M. McRae
That the meeting of the
Transit Committee move In Camera
pursuant to Section 13(1) (f) of the Procedure By-Law (being By-Law No. 2006-462)
to consider Item 4, the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client
privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, regarding
amending the Motion to include “legal and moving costs”.
CARRIED
The Committee resumed in open
session following an in-camera session.
A/Chair Wilkinson advised that Councillor McRae had withdrawn her amendment to the Motion.
Moved by A. Cullen
WHEREAS the Transit
Committee has on this day May 7, 2008 considered a staff report on the proposed
West Transitway Extension;
AND WHEREAS that report
recommends an environmental assessment to study an alternative route along the
Queensway right-of-way;
AND WHEREAS this alternative
may impact approximately 25 homes on the south side of Roman Avenue, creating
hardship for those who may wish to sell their homes in the interim and receive
fair market value;
AND WHEREAS pursuant to the Environmental
Assessment Act the City may, prior to receiving EA approval, acquire
property or rights in property in connection with a project which is the
subject of the EA;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
THAT the Transit Committee recommend to City Council that:
(1)
staff be directed to provide notice to the Owners of the properties
listed on Schedule “A” to this Motion that the City will consider requests by
Owners that the City purchase their property;
(2)
where requested in writing by an Owner to do so, staff will negotiate
with the Owner with a view to a City purchase of the property;
(3)
the negotiations are to be based on an independent appraisal of fair
market value, and on a willing seller-willing buyer basis;
(4)
where staff is satisfied that a fair market value price has been agreed
upon, the City will purchase that property, subject to the acquisition approval
process applicable to the purchase (Council or delegated Authority); and
(5)
acquisitions of any properties listed on Schedule “A” be funded from
the Transit Capital Reserve.
Schedule “A”:
·
2496 Roman Avenue
·
2500 Roman Avenue
·
2506 Roman Avenue
·
2512 Roman Avenue
·
2514 Roman Avenue
·
2516 Roman Avenue
·
2522 Roman Avenue
·
2526 Roman Avenue
·
2532 Roman Avenue
·
2536 Roman Avenue
·
2540 Roman Avenue
·
2542 Roman Avenue
·
2546 Roman Avenue
·
2550 Roman Avenue
·
2554 Roman Avenue
·
2558 Roman Avenue
·
2562 Roman Avenue
·
2570 Roman Avenue
·
2576 Roman Avenue
·
2580 Roman Avenue
·
2584 Roman Avenue
·
2588 Roman Avenue
·
2592 Roman Avenue
·
2596 Roman Avenue
and 1063 Hindley Avenue
CARRIED
When asked to clarify the intent of the Motion for members of the public present, the A/Chair explained that if their homes are currently on the market, the City would be willing to purchase their property as if this project had never occurred.
That Transit Committee recommend
Council:
1. Receive the results of the West
Transitway Extension (Woodroffe to Pinecrest) Value Engineering Study.
CARRIED, as amended
At the request of Councillor Cullen, the Committee agreed
to forward the report to the Council meeting on 14 May.