1. Pedestrian Crosswalk at the Intersection of King Edward Avenue and Cathcart Street

Passage piétons à l’intersection de l’avenue King Edward et de la rue Cathcart

committee recommendations as amended

That Council approve the following:

1. That Council’s approval of the recommendations contained in Councillor Bédard’s Report ACS2007-CCS-TRC-002 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of King Edward Avenue and Cathcart Street, and that funds be allocated from the King Edward Capital Project” be rescinded.

2. That the City of Ottawa undertake to have the speed limit on the Macdonald Cartier Bridge on the Ontario side reduced from 60K/hour to 50K/hour and the speed limit at the entry curve to King Edward Avenue be reduced from 40K/hour to 30K/hour;

3. That the speed limit on KEA be reduced from 50K/hour to 40K/hour from Sussex to Mann Avenue; and,

4. That the City of Ottawa aggressively pursue the province of Ontario to permit the City of Ottawa to install on an exceptional basis photo radar technology on KEA to reduce the excessive speeding on the road.

Recommandations modifiées du comité

Que le Conseil les approuve les points suivants:

1. Que l’approbation du Conseil relative aux recommandations présentées dans le rapport ACS2007-CCS-TRC-002 du conseiller Georges Bédard, qui stipule « qu’un feu de circulation déclenché par les piétons soit installé à l’intersection de l’avenue King Edward et de la rue Cathcart et que les fonds qui y seront alloués proviennent du Projet d’immobilisations de l’avenue King Edward », soit annulée.

2. que la Ville d’Ottawa réduise la limite de vitesse sur le pont Macdonald-Cartier, du côté ontarien, de 60 km/h à 50 km/h, et réduise également la limite de vitesse dans la courbe d’entrée de l’avenue King-Edward de 40 km/h à 30 km/h;

3. que la vitesse de limite sur l’avenue King-Edward soit réduite de 50 km/h à 40 km/h, de la promenade Sussex jusqu’à l’avenue Mann;

4. que la Ville d’Ottawa tente par tous les moyens de convaincre la province de l’Ontario de lui permettre d’installer, dans ce cas exceptionnel, un appareil de contrôle radar sur l’avenue King-Edward afin de réduire la vitesse excessive sur cette route.

Documentation

1. Deputy City Manager’s report dated 29 September 2008 (ACS2008-PWS-TRF-0034).

2. Extract of Minute, 15 April 2009

Report to/Rapport au :

Transportation Committee

Comité des transports

and Council / et au Conseil

29 September 2008 / le 29 septembre 2008

Submitted by/Soumis par :

R.G. Hewitt, Deputy City Manager/Directeur municipal adjoint,

Public Works and Services/Services et Travaux publics

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Michael J. Flainek, M.Eng., P.Eng.,

Director, Traffic and Parking Operations/Directeur, Circulation et stationnement

613-580-2424 extension 26882, Michael.Flainek@ottawa.ca

Rideau-Vanier (12)

Ref N°: ACS2008-PWS-TRF-0034

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

OBJET :	Passage pour piétons à l'intersection de l'avenue King Edward et de la rue CATHCART

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That Council’s approval of the recommendations contained in Councillor Bédard’s Report ACS2007-CCS-TRC-002 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” be rescinded.

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que l’approbation du Conseil relative aux recommandations présentées dans le rapport ACS2007-CCS-TRC-002 du conseiller Georges Bédard, qui stipule « qu’un feu de circulation déclenché par les piétons soit installé à l’intersection de l’avenue King Edward et de la rue Cathcart et que les fonds qui y seront alloués proviennent du Projet d’immobilisations de l’avenue King Edward », soit annulée.

BACKGROUND

At Transportation Committee on 16 May 2007, a report prepared by Councillor Bédard entitled, “Pedestrian Crosswalk at the Intersection of King Edward Avenue and Cathcart Street” was considered. In it, Councillor Bédard recommended that a pedestrian crosswalk be installed at that location.

Staff comments in the report noted that this location is not suitable for a pedestrian signal as the new alignment of the ramp from the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge, north of that point, does not provide sufficient sight distance for operators of large southbound trucks with conventional braking systems to see, react, and stop in time to avoid collisions with queued vehicles that would back up from the proposed signal at Cathcart Street.

The staff comments further explained that this particular intersection is situated in a very complex driving environment and that a combination of factors including the geometry of the southbound ramp from the bridge, the height of the barrier walls, the volume, speed and makeup of the traffic, visibility conditions on the inside of the curve, time requirements for pedestrians to traverse King Edward Avenue at Cathcart Street, the limited vehicle storage capacity of King Edward Avenue north of Cathcart Street, the need to retain advance warning flashers at the entry curve to King Edward Avenue and a number of other technical considerations, ultimately led to that conclusion.

During discussion of the item, John Buck, Manager, Traffic Management, emphasized that a signal at this location would be unsafe and that staff could not recommend under any circumstances, that one be installed. In addition, Ron Jack of Delcan Corporation, who managed the Environmental Assessment Study for the King Edward Renewal Project, told Committee that while he did not disagree with the community - that a pedestrian crossing would be great to have at Cathcart Street - it just does not work at this location. Despite that input, Committee approved the report recommendation that a pedestrian crosswalk be installed.

The report was considered by Council on 13 June 2007. At that time, a supplementary memo from Public Works and Services was conveyed to the Mayor and Members of Council. It is attached as Document 1 and summarizes the situation as follows:

“In light of our inability to install a pedestrian signal for the reasons cited, please be advised that, should Council endorse the Transportation Committee recommendation, staff will not be able to proceed until such time as funds have been identified and approved to engage specialized consulting engineering expertise to identify whether there are specific measures which can be implemented to allow installation at this location. Implementation funding, expected to be significant, would also have to be budgeted.”

Ultimately, Council approved the recommendation contained in Councillor Bédard’s report (14 yeas, 6 nays) as amended by Transportation Committee 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”.

DISCUSSION

Since Council's direction, staff have investigated all possible options to mitigate the risks associated with the installation of a pedestrian signal at this location. This included extensive research into traffic sensing equipment, dynamic warning devices and the engagement of two additional consulting firms, both with extensive expertise in human factors and road safety.

However, because:

(1) The minimum stopping sight distance requirement for large trucks is not met on the southbound ramp approaching this intersection; and,

(2) Stopping sight distance is such a fundamental requirement for the safe operation of motor vehicles, that it in fact forms the very basis of all highway engineering and road design standards, including those set out in the Transportation Association of Canada’s Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads and the Ontario Ministry of Transportation’s Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways; and,

(3) The risks associated with the sight distance limitation at this particular site cannot be properly mitigated through the installation of standard traffic control devices;

The consulting firms retained by Public Works and Services to find a solution, determined that there are no measures that can be implemented to enable a signal installation at this location to operate safely.

Therefore, three of the most highly qualified road safety consulting firms in the country, specifically Delcan Corporation, Delphi/McCormick-Rankin Corporation and iTrans Consultants, have now reviewed the proposal to install a signal at this location, and all three have advised that in view of the associated safety risks, they cannot recommend such an installation.

In particular in discussing sight distance, Delphi/McCormick-Rankin’s report authored, by Dr. John Robinson (attached as Document 2), notes that:

“Sight Distance Available: The provision of stopping sight distance and in the case of intersections, crosswalks or similar facilities where vehicles may have to yield the right-of-way to vulnerable road users – decision sight distance – is critical to the safety of all users of such facilities. Failure to provide adequate sight distance in such circumstances jeopardizes public safety and, in the event of litigation flowing from a collision where lack of sight distance was a contributing factor, would in all probability be interpreted by the courts as a failure on the part of the Municipality to meet the standard for their required duty of care.”

The report prepared by iTrans Consultants (attached as Document 3), also discusses the sight distance issue noting that:

“Stopping sight distance is defined as the distance needed by a vehicle travelling at the design speed of a roadway to be able to stop before reaching a stationary object in its path.

As noted by both Delcan and MRC, the stopping sight distance available on King Edward Avenue southbound to the Cathcart Street intersection is compliant with the 60-65 metres required for a 50 km/h design speed. This statement of compliance was made in reference to the TAC Manual for automobiles and trucks with antilock braking systems. However the stopping sight distance at the 50 km/h design speed is inadequate to provide the 85-110 metres required for heavy trucks with conventional braking systems.

To further complicate the issue, according to profiles provided by Delcan, the southbound ramp from the MacDonald Cartier Bridge to Cathcart Street is on a 3% downgrade. The effect of a downgrade is to increase the required braking distance. By applying table C2-3 from the Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways (MTO) for a design speed similar to the observed operating speeds an additional 5 metres of stopping distance is needed.

It appears from the documents provided to iTRANS for review that the stopping sight distance required for the design speed of 50 km/h is only marginally compliant at best.

While the stopping sight distance may be marginally compliant with the theoretical design speed of 50 km/h, it is not adequate for the actual current operating speeds of traffic. The 85th percentile operating speed measured by the City along the southbound approach to the intersection is 62 km/h.

Vehicle speeds in excess of design speeds on any facility will result in challenges for drivers but particularly so for this location where sight distance and stopping sight distance is limited.”

The iTrans report concludes that:

“It is the professional opinion of the undersigned that a signalized pedestrian crossing at the intersection of King Edward Avenue and Cathcart Street not be implemented for the reasons expressed ….”

And, Delphi/McCormick-Rankin’s report concludes that:

“In our view the complex and layered nature of the risk environment that would be present should a crosswalk be constructed makes it impossible to develop cost-effective mitigation measures which could overcome the hazards present in this risk environment. In the strongest possible terms we recommend against proceeding with the proposed pedestrian crosswalk.”

In summary, staff cannot proceed with the installation of a pedestrian signal at the intersection of King Edward Avenue and Cathcart Street as directed by Council without exposing the City to liability. Therefore, Public Works and Services respectfully request that Council reconsider this matter and rescind the previous decision.

A map of this area is attached at Document 4.

CONSULTATION

No public consultation has been undertaken.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications at this time.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 - Memo in Response to Transportation Report 16 May 2007

Document 2 - Delphi MRC Memo (available in pdf only)

Document 3 - iTrans Review (available in pdf only)

Document 4 - Key Map

DISPOSITION

The report’s recommendation will be implemented following Council approval.

DOCUMENT 1

MEMO IN RESPONSE TO TRANSPORTATION REPORT 16 MAY 2007

M E M O / N O T E D E S E R V I C E

To / Destinataire

Mayor and Members of Council

File/N° de fichier: RTS#: 28333
ACS2007-CCS-TRC-002

From / Expéditeur

Deputy City Manager

Department of Public Works and Services

Subject / Objet

Pedestrian Crosswalk at the Intersection of King Edward Avenue and Cathcart Street

Date: 8 June 2007

At Transportation Committee on 16 May 2007, a report prepared by Councillor Bédard entitled “Pedestrian Crosswalk at the Intersection of King Edward Avenue and Cathcart Street” was considered (ref ACS2007-CCS-TRC-002).

During discussion of that item, both Mr. John Buck, Manager, Traffic Management, and Mr. Ron Jack, of Delcan Corporation, the firm that managed the Environmental Assessment Study for the King Edward Renewal Project, stressed that, as noted in the staff comments contained in the Councillor’s report, this location is not suitable for a pedestrian signal as the new alignment of the ramp from the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge, north of that point, does not provide sufficient sight distance for operators of large southbound trucks with conventional braking systems to see, react, and stop in time to avoid collisions with queued vehicles backed up from the Cathcart Street intersection.

Despite that input, members of the Committee unanimously approved the report recommendation that a pedestrian crosswalk be installed at that intersection.

For the reasons set out in our comments in the report, staff cannot support the installation of a pedestrian signal at this location unless a solution is found that will facilitate that installation without compromising the safety of other road users approaching that intersection. To date, we have not found that solution. Furthermore, neither our professional engineering code of ethics nor the Ontario Highway Traffic Act will permit us to install a pedestrian signal under such circumstances.

As our comments in the report note, this intersection is situated in a very complex environment. A combination of the geometry of the southbound ramp (from the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge), the height of its barrier walls, the volume and makeup of the traffic using it, visibility conditions on the inside of the curve, the pedestrian crossing time requirements, the vehicle storage capacity of King Edward Avenue north of Cathcart Street, the need to retain advance warning flashers at the curve, and a number of other factors, ultimately led to our conclusion based on public safety requirements.

During the public consultation phase of the Environmental Assessment Study, a commitment was made to install underground ducting during construction, “ to accommodate possible future pedestrian-activated traffic signals at this location if/when warranted, or determined appropriate.” It, of course, led residents to believe that such an installation was technically possible.

However, the intent of EA Studies is to identify all issues at hand, seek a broad range of options to address those concerns and, to then recommend an overall plan – at a conceptual level – that appears to best address the issues in a cost-effective manner. At that level of review, provisions such as pedestrian crossings may be acknowledged or envisaged.

During the detailed design phase following Council approval of the conceptual plan, situations occasionally arise where an acknowledged or envisaged element in the recommended plan must be discarded if found to be inappropriate due to specific constraints. Unfortunately, that is the case here. Further, the studies discussed in the report show that pedestrian demand at this site falls far short of the Council-approved warrants for those devices.

In light of our inability to install a pedestrian signal for the reasons cited, please be advised that, should Council endorse the Transportation Committee recommendation, staff will not be able to proceed until such time as funds have been identified and approved to engage specialized consulting engineering expertise to identify whether there are specific measures which can be implemented to allow installation at this location. Implementation funding, expected to be significant, would also have to be budgeted.

Should you have any questions with respect to the above please do not hesitate to contact me.

Original signed by

R.G. Hewitt

JFB/fj/lf

cc: Director, Traffic and Parking Operations Branch

Coordinator, Transportation Committee

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

PASSAGE POUR PIÉTONS À L'INTERSECTION DE L'AVENUE KING EDWARD ET DE LA RUE CATHCART

ACS2008-PWS-TRF-0034 RIDEAU-VANIER (12)

John Manconi, General Manager of Public Works, Phil Landry, Manager of Traffic and and Safety Services and Tom Fitzgerald, Program Manager of Traffic Engineering spoke to a PowerPoint presentation, which is held on file.

Councillor Legendre inquired about the questions posed to the outside consultants regarding installing the signals at Cathcart. Mr. Manconi advised that John Buck, former Manager of Safety and Traffic Studies led the review initially but noted the consultants were asked to review the directions that were given by staff and to assess all the different parameters of traffic safety management and feasibility.

The councillor followed up further with respect to the measures taken in addition to making the installation safe. Councillor Bédard indicated the only other option is to reduce the speed in addition to having photo radar. He stated the following in Document 1, Section 3.3.3:

“Given the results of our speed surveys sighted earlier and the comprehensive nature of the speed management measures already in place when those measurements were taken in our opinion that it is highly unlikely that any additional speed management measures short of photo radar will add any additional increment of speed reduction to that of what is actually being achieved.”

Marc Aubin, King Edward Avenue Task Force spoke in support of the installation of a crosswalk at Cathcart with, if required, appropriate safety measures, but expressed frustration with the way staff had dealt with the process. He elaborated that when Council agreed to implement the crosswalk, staff ignored comments made by the Task Force, the Councillor’s office and the community. He believed there were critical facts omitted from the report and a lack of desire to find solutions in making this crosswalk work. He posited that staff and the consultants made the argument that if a crosswalk were installed and stopped motorists were backed up from the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge, trucks with conventional braking systems would not have enough sight distance to stop. He argued, however, that since the late 1990s, all new trucks in North America changed their brakes to an antilock system (ABS), which is a much better form of braking system and since 1999 most trucks that had conventional braking systems have been decommissioned. He estimated that approximately 261 trucks a day on King Edward would still have the conventional braking system.

Mr. Aubin indicated that the Task Force had provided several suggestions, including installing a red light before the curve that could be activated by the crosswalk light at Cathcart, but staff had never responded to them. He was in support of the ward councillor’s comments regarding reducing the speed limit on the curve, adding that this would technically increase the sight distance for stopping if vehicles were driving at the posted speed limit. He was also in support of photo radar.

Mr. Landry explained that it would be difficult to get motorists to stop at a red signal on the curve because there is no conflicting traffic at that point and he believed it would be difficult to enforce. Instead, drivers may interpret it as a malfunctioning type of signal cycle. The councillor suggested that the way to slow down traffic at this point is with a sharp curve so that motorists have to slow down, thereby eliminating the need for photo radar. Mr. Manconi agreed this could work.

Angela Rickman, President, Lowertown Community Association spoke to the issue of risk assessment, as was carried out by the consultants on this crossing location, and suggested that if the question is whether or not it is safe to install a crosswalk given the conditions of the roadway, then perhaps the answer is to look at alternatives. By way of background, Ms. Rickman explained that before this roadway was revitalized, the City held consultations with the community and presented a plan to smooth out the curve. The community was very concerned with the speed of traffic coming off the curve because it was already moving too quickly and it was felt that smoothing the curve out would allow traffic to travel more quickly. The consultant at the time suggested that one of the ways to reduce speed was to install a crosswalk and the City subsequently built the infrastructure for this at Cathcart Avenue. She was therefore surprised that the same consultant (DELCAN) is now opposed to the crosswalk because of the dangers it poses. She recalled a meeting with staff before last Christmas at which time staff was concerned about trucks having adequate time to stop. And yet, the City has installed similar signals at other locations, e.g., Bank Street in front of Lansdowne Park and the retirement home.

Ms. Rickman went on to state that they carried out a pedestrian study in November 2008 and a crossing here would not only assist in getting people across the street, but would slow the traffic as well. They advocated for a T intersection or a roundabout but were told these would not work. She supported photo radar, which could be part of the solution, and emphasized that a long-term solution to slowing down traffic was crucial.

Councillor Doucet asked staff why traffic would slow down for photo radar but not at intersections where people need to cross the road. Mr. Manconi offered that they are assuming trucks will stop for photo radar, but that is an assumption only. The councillor felt that safety to area residents is more important than traffic and noted he did not support the staff report. He felt that alternatives should have been found.

Chris Bradshaw spoke as a resident of Sandy Hill and as a member of the Ottawa Seniors Transportation Committee (Council on Aging). The main points of his presentation are outlined below:

· The fact that a number of consultants were turned down while doing the follow up work suggests they did not feel they could accomplish what was asked of them, which was to support the original staff position.

· He did not see the analysis done to determine what the demand is for a pedestrian crossing at this location, i.e., How many people have a walking dependent life style? How many people have walking disabilities? Where are the facilities? It seems to have failed the warrant system, but the consultant suggests there would be such a high demand for crossings here, they would need to build a fence in the middle of the median to prevent people from crossing.

· He agreed there was nothing more effective for a traffic calming measure than to have a curve. If this is the problem and the solution is what staff, is proposing, he wondered why there was an exit at Dalhousie? He commented that there is no curve to slow motorists down, and the speed limit drops from whatever it is on the bridge to 50km/h at exactly the same point for the traffic and yet there is about one-fourth the amount of distance.

· Everything about this report speaks to the fact that this is a capacity problem and the City has used the powerful road users as a threat against vulnerable road users.

· There is no attempt to define the alternative pathways that people will use.

Peggy DuCharme, Downtown Rideau BIA understood the concerns re ‘sight line distance’ and the issues noted in the report by the consultants; however, she noted examples in other cities in similar situations where flashing warning signals have worked very effectively. She also thought measures to slow the traffic before approaching the curve was reasonable. She commented on over/underpasses and suggested considering the city’s climate, high density of social services, agencies and homeless population that would create an entrapment area.

In considering the report, Councillor Legendre asked about the status of the hierarchy of transportation modes in the Transportation Master Plan (TMP). He believed that the first priority is pedestrians, followed by cycling, transit, and motor vehicles. Steven Boyle, Senior Project Manager, Transportation Planning advised that the TMP (approved in November 2008) does not include a statement that specifically says that pedestrians come first in all situations and at all times. He elaborated further, by stating that the TMP and the Strategic Directions section of the Official Plan, speak of the modes staff would like to give preference to, but it also recognizes many other factors. Also, the TMP has a whole sub-section on road safety. Therefore, staff, in reviewing site plans, subdivisions, various planning applications, et cetera, does try to apply that priority as stated as a hierarchy, but much is dependent on the situation.

Councillor Bédard proposed the following:

WHEREAS King Edward Avenue is a six lane urban arterial road accommodating 50,000 vehicles per day, including approximately 2,800 trucks per day of which 850 are classified as heavy trucks;

WHEREAS King Edward Avenue is located in a densely populated residential neighbourhood downtown;

WHEREAS between 2002 and 2007, there were approximately 1,568 accidents on King Edward Avenue, with 197 injuries and four fatalities;

WHEREAS since 2007, there have been two additional fatalities, the most recent of which was the death of a 49 year old woman, killed in a collision with a truck;

WHEREAS the 85^th percentile motor vehicle operating speed is recorded on the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge in the southbound direction as 92 km/h in a 60-km/h zone;

WHEREAS the 85^th percentile motor vehicle operating speed recorded at the entry curve to Kind Edward Avenue was 62 km/h in a 40-km/h zone;

WHEREAS the City of Ottawa wishes to protect its citizens, reduce accidents and mortality caused by excessive speeds;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Ottawa undertakes to have the speed limit on the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge on the Ontario side reduced from 60 km/h to 50 km/h and the speed limit at the entry curve to King Edward Avenue be reduced from 40 km/h to 30 km/h;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the speed limit on Kind Edward Avenue be reduced from 50 km/h to 40 km/h from Sussex Drive to Mann Avenue;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Ottawa aggressively pursues the Province of Ontario to permit the City of Ottawa to install on an exceptional basis, photo radar technology on King Edward Avenue to reduce the excessive speeding on the road.

The councillor recalled that a memo dated June 2007 was sent to committee indicating “neither our professional engineering code of ethics nor the Highway Traffic Act will permit a pedestrian signal be installed under such circumstances”. He reminded members that at that time, Council decided to find engineers to determine ways of accomplishing this project and asked staff to outline the steps they took in order to do this. Mr. Manconi reported that they brought in consultants and asked others as well. He emphasized that the key piece to this infrastructure is that in the Highway Traffic Act, a professional engineer is required to “stamp” the drawings in order to proceed. And, as noted in the report, both the Vice-President of Itrans and the senior partner of McCormick Rankin advised not to proceed and did not stamp the drawings. Staff concurred with the consultant and are therefore unable to proceed with signal installation. Ernest McArthur, Legal Counsel acknowledged the accuracy of this decision.

In a further question by Councillor Bédard, Mr. Manconi explained that a professional engineer stamp is a designation from the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario. They have code of ethics and requirements ensuring due diligence, safety and that design work associated with a piece of infrastructure meets applicable legislation acts and best practices.

Mr. Manconi noted that a resident at a community meeting had suggested installing way-finding signs to channel people to the new underpass and staff have agreed to act on that. With regards to Councillor Bédards’ motion, he advised that staff could proceed with the speed reduction, but was not confident the province would act on the resolution for photo radar.

Councillor Legendre questioned if an engineer’s stamp was necessary for what is proposed in the motion and if it was legal. Mr. Manconi confirmed that it was not necessary for an engineer’s stamp and offered to consult with legal and provide information to members prior to the Council meeting.

Moved by Councillor Bédard:

WHEREAS King Edward Avenue is a six lane urban arterial road accommodating 50,000 vehicles per day, including approximately 2,800 trucks per day of which 850 are classified as heavy trucks;

WHEREAS King Edward Avenue is located in a densely populated residential neighbourhood downtown;

WHEREAS between 2002 and 2007, there were approximately 1,568 accidents on King Edward Avenue, with 197 injuries and four fatalities;

WHEREAS since 2007, there have been two additional fatalities, the most recent of which was the death of a 49 year old woman, killed in a collision with a truck;

WHEREAS the 85^th percentile motor vehicle operating speed is recorded on the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge in the southbound direction as 92 km/h in a 60-km/h zone;

WHEREAS the 85^th percentile motor vehicle operating speed recorded at the entry curve to Kind Edward Avenue was 62 km/h in a 40-km/h zone;

WHEREAS the City of Ottawa wishes to protect its citizens, reduce accidents and mortality caused by excessive speeds;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the speed limit on Kind Edward Avenue be reduced from 50 km/h to 40 km/h from Sussex Drive to Mann Avenue;

CARRIED

Councillor Bédard recounted that when he brought this forward in 2007, it was on the understanding there would be a crosswalk at Cathcart and King Edward Avenue, as per the approved 2002 environmental assessment (EA). This was supported by the community and approved by Council. Subsequently, however, Council learned that it could no longer be done and in many ways, he felt that the EA was misleading.

CARRIED, as amended