|
To / Destinataire
|
Chair
and Members of Planning and Environment
Committee/
Président
et membres du Comité
de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement
|
File/N°
de fichier:
IPD
- ACS2009-ICS-PGM-0106
|
|
From / Expéditeur
|
John
Moser, General Manager/
Directeur général,
Planning
and Growth Management/ Urbanisme
et Gestion de la croissance
|
Contact Person/Personne-ressource : Richard
Kilstrom, Manager/Gestionnaire, Policy Development and Urban
Design/Élaboration de la politique et conception urbaine
(613)
580-2424 x22653, Richard.Kilstrom@ottawa.ca
|
|
Subject / Objet
|
Council
Motion No.
47/17: Traffic
Impact Studies/
Motion
du Conseil no 47/17: Études
des répercussions sur la circulation
|
Date :
June
1, 2009
|
At
the Council meeting of November 12, 2008, Council approved the following
motion:
MOTION
NO. 47/17
Moved
by Councillor C. Leadman
Seconded
by Councillor C. Doucet
WHEREAS
The City of Ottawa is reviewing its Official Plan (OP) - the central guiding
document that presents a unified vision on how Ottawa will develop;
AND
WHEREAS the current review of One Stop Service will achieve through
organizational redesign more seamless integration of planning approvals and
traffic management;
AND
WHEREAS there is a perception that traffic impact studies have underestimated the
magnitude of traffic impact that intensification along Richmond/Wellington Ave
has brought.
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED THAT
1) In
collaboration with the Ward Councillor’s office and interested community
members, two properties along the Wellington/Richmond corridor be selected to
determine whether the actual traffic generated by the sites is in accordance
with what was forecasted in the traffic studies; as well as a third site in the
Urban Area being selected by the Chair, Planning and Environment Committee and
a fourth site, being within the rural area, being selected by the Chair,
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee.
2)
That a report on the outcome of this review be submitted to Planning and
Environment Committee, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee and Council.
CARRIED
To
accurately respond to this motion required that staff examine traffic impact
assessment reports provided by developers in the process of making their
development applications. Not all
proposed developments require a traffic impact assessment, because this process
is only used when the expected number of vehicles exceeds 75, or there are
particular circumstances that
would necessitate evaluating a lesser number of vehicles. Of those that do require an assessment, and
if there is a desire to follow up with a comparison evaluation at a later date,
it is best to look at those which have been occupied for a sufficient period of
time to generate the predicted traffic.
At that time, staff can go out and conduct a traffic count of vehicles
entering and/or exiting the property during the AM and PM peak hours. For this motion, staff reviewed a number of
sites, of which five are presented here.
Others were looked at, but were considered inappropriate due to multiple
entry/exit points, the actual uses not being the same as first proposed, etc.
Staff
reviewed five traffic impact assessments, three commercial, and two
residential. Document 1 contains a
chart illustrating the findings. Out of
14 trip generation comparisons on this chart, one was over what was predicted
by 25 per cent,
while the other 13 were below what was predicted, varying from 20
per cent below to 88
per cent below, or an average of 52
per cent below what was predicted.
What
staff’s research and analysis illustrated is that although there may be a
public perception that traffic impact assessments have underestimated the
magnitude of traffic impacts, this is a perception rather than a reality.
Original
signed by
John
L. Moser
Attached
Nancy
Schepers
