Transit Committee Comité du transport en commun   Minutes 48 / Procès-verbal 48   Monday, 30 August 2010, 9:30 a.m. le lundi 30 août 2010, 9 h 30   Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West Salle Champlain, 110, avenue Laurier ouest

 

Present / Présents :    A. Cullen (Chair/Président), G. Bédard, R. Bloess, C. Doucet, C. Leadman, J. Legendre, D. Thompson

 

Regrets / Excuses :    M. Wilkinson (Vice-Chair/Vice-présidente) (City Business)

 

 

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT

 

No declarations of interest were filed.

 

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Ratification dU PROCÈS-VERBAL

 

Minutes 47 – 12 July 2010

Procès-verbal 47 – le 12 juillet 2010

 

                                                                                                         CONFIRMED

 

COMMUNICATIONS
COMMUNICATIONS

 

Responses to Inquiries/ Réponses aux demandes de renseignements

 

TTC 06-10       Commemorative naming at transit services

TTC 07-10       Rack & Roll Service / Service Vélo-bus

TTC 08-10       Bus Accessibility Ramps / Rampe d’accès des autobus

 

 

SENIORS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

COMITÉ CONSULTATIF SUR LES PERSONNES ÂGÉES

 

SENIORS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

COMITÉ CONSULTATIF SUR LES PERSONNES ÂGÉES

 

1.         Reduction to Transit fares for seniors

DIMINUTION DES TARIFS DU TRANSPORT EN COMMUN POUR LES personnes âgées

 

Ms. Dianne Breton, Vice-Chair of the Seniors’ Advisory Committee (SAC), felt the background research that accompanied this motion was comprehensive and compelling and that the motion itself offered both opportunity and solution.  She viewed it as an opportunity to increase ridership and ticket sales for OC Transpo and an opportunity to enable seniors to remain healthy and connected to their city.  She believed it would be a transportation solution for many seniors who did not regularly use public transportation for financial reasons.  She went on to highlight some of the information contained in the background section of the report, noting that of 13 Canadian cities surveyed, Ottawa had the highest ticket price for seniors.  She submitted that all other Canadian cities had recognized the importance of providing accessible and affordable public transit to their growing senior population with discounted senior ticket prices.  She suggested the cost of a seniors’ monthly pass benefited those who worked or had regularly scheduled activities during the week but that it was not economical for seniors who travelled less frequently.  She noted the median income of Ottawa seniors was a modest $30,000 and a significant percentage of seniors had incomes of less than $20,000.  She maintained that this growing segment of the senior population would increase ridership and benefit from a reduced fare.  She went on to talk about the social and health benefits of encouraging seniors to remain healthy, active and independent by making public transportation affordable.  She remarked that the financial impact was estimated at approximately $1 million.  She felt this was a high end estimate because ticket sales and seniors were not separate, therefore statistics were not available.  With the current demographic trends, she believed that if current seniors took one extra trip per week, the projected shortfall would be eliminated.  Further, she guessed that if more seniors started using transit because of the fare reduction, there would be an overall increase in revenue.  She referenced two upcoming initiatives:  the soon to be implemented smartcard technology, which would have the flexibility to load up a variety of fare products, including discounts; and the move towards allowing veterans to ride free.  In closing, Ms. Breton suggested this motion was the next step to recognizing Ottawa seniors with an affordable single-ticket fare and she urged Committee to move it forward to Council. 

 

Responding to questions from Councillor Bédard, Ms. Breton confirmed that the SAC report made reference to the fact that most seniors travelled during off-peak hours.  However, she clarified that the intent was to obtain a reduced fare for seniors regardless of the time of day.  She felt that to reduce fares only during off-peak periods would further complicate an already complex system.  She maintained the objective was to get a fare system whereby one senior would get one ride for one ticket. 

 

Ms. Jean McQuilliam, Ottawa Seniors Transportation Committee (OSTC), explained the OSTC’s objectives and listed a number of organizations in support of the SAC motion.  She was disappointed that, in commenting on the report, staff had chosen not to comment on the many issues with respect to the growing and diverse senior population with different needs and instead, emphasized the unlikely scenario of an estimated $1 million budget shortfall.  She felt that to focus only on this was misleading because statistics on senior ridership were not available.  She argued that it is impossible to accurately say how much revenue was generated from such ridership, therefore it was not possible to accurately measure the impact on revenue.  She submitted that with a reduction in ticket fares, seniors’ ridership would likely increase and offset the budget shortfall.  She noted staff had not commented on the data provided in the report with respect to the majority of Canadian cities being sensitive to the different needs of seniors by offering reduced single ticket prices as well as reduced pass prices.  She felt staff’s comment about the monthly pass being deeply discounted was deeply misleading.  She maintained the pass was only economical for seniors with regularly scheduled outings whereas for others, a $36 per month bus pass was a large amount out of their budget if they did not use transit regularly.  She suggested staff’s comments with respect to 30,000 free bus passes being issued monthly was also misleading because these were allocated to social services and health agencies dealing with vulnerable clients of all ages.  She stressed that the SAC motion was about seniors with modest and low incomes, not the clientele of the social services department.  She expressed support for the proposal to recognize veterans with free transportation.  However, she remarked this primarily benefited males who served in the world wars and the Korean War.  She maintained that the SAC motion was inclusive of all seniors, that it was intended not only to help financially, but to encourage them to participate more readily in social activities.  As for staff’s suggestion that it would be counterproductive to change the fare structure prior to the smartcard implementation, she viewed this as a delay tactic, noting that seniors were particularly affected by delays.  In closing, she urged Committee to approve the motion now.

 

Chair Cullen believed there was sympathy around the table with respect to seniors on modest or low incomes.  However, he noted that the motion applied to all seniors and that there were a lot of seniors who could benefit from it who were not of low or modest income.  He referenced the City’s community bus pass, which was for people on ODSP and was at the same level as the seniors’ bus pass.  As he believed the objective was to help modest and low income seniors, and as he expected that Committee would refer this matter to the 2011 budget process, he wondered if this was something that could be explored in the interim.  Ms. McQuilliam stressed that the intention of the SAC motion was to be all-inclusive.  She suggested there was a social aspect for seniors in terms of the isolation that many suffered.  She felt making single tickets available would make it easier for people to travel and it could not be restricted to those on low or modest incomes.  On the other hand, she did not believe that seniors who had higher incomes would use OC Transpo. 

 

Ms. Marilyn Hart, resident, indicated she had taken public transit all her life, that she was visually impaired, and that she enjoyed taking the bus, particularly during off-peak hours.  She advised that she was also an urban planner and, at times, a transportation planner.  She reported having worked for the City in the 70s and having helped design the transit system.  She asked Committee to broaden the scope of the debate and think about the long range transportation planning issues.  She stated her objectives were to get car driving seniors to think about taking OC Transpo for certain trips and to get seniors of all income groups to understand how the bus system worked.  She noted most people only knew the buses in terms of commuting to and from work and she submitted that taking the bus at 10:00 a.m. was a vastly different and pleasant experience.  She talked about the current fare structure, noting that the fare sign at the front of the bus indicated the cost was $3.25.  She submitted that if a person lived in the Glebe and wanted to go to the Bytown cinema, they would not think of getting on the bus because they would think the fare was $3.25 times two.  As a result, people tended to drive to places like the Bytown.  She maintained that if there was a perceived bargain fare and if it was well advertised and posted on the front of the bus, some seniors would get out of their cars.  Therefore, she wanted the $3.25 fare logo changed to advertised lower fares.

 

Mr. Chris Bradshaw, resident, noted that already the system gave reduced fares to seniors, but only the pass.  He felt this was somewhat cynical because the pass was for people who made 20 or more trips per month, which was not the case for many seniors.  However, he felt the pass looked good because of the inconsistency of the fare system.  He noted that a drug store near his home sold about 70 seniors passes per month but even the seniors pass did not look like a very good deal anymore because of a 13% increase at the same time as the City was offering free Wednesdays.  He wanted to make the point that the City already had only age taken into account in the bus pass, noting that children rode free up to a certain age and then they rode for one ticket for the next six years.  Therefore, he submitted that the City had already created the one-ticket fare and he made the pitch that as life went through an increase of abilities and then a decline of abilities, the City should be consistent in the was transit fares were structured.  He urged Committee to consider the one-ticket fare proposal. 

 

Councillor Doucet referenced the notion of pass holders subsidizing ticket users and wondered how the City could get out of this.  Mr. Bradshaw responded to the notion of subsidization by noting that suburban commuters bus rides were likely about ten times as long as seniors’ trips. 

 

Chair Cullen noted that staff had estimated the budget impact at approximately $1M.  However, he wondered if this would have an impact on the sales of seniors’ bus passes, which was already significantly discounted.  Mr. Alain Mercier, General Manager of Transit Services, noted some delegations had talked about the price value aspect of how many trips and whether the passes make sense after so many trips.  He confirmed that the majority of those who purchased passes did so because they had an ongoing need to travel more than once a week.  He indicated staff did not have enough demographic analysis to be able to say whether there would be shifts in terms of people moving from the pass to tickets.  However, he was confident that those who were at the cusp, in terms of their frequency of travel, would buy tickets rather than a pass if the end result was a lower cost. 

 

Responding to a question from Councillor Legendre with respect to the notion of restricting this to off-peak periods, Mr. Mercier indicated the experience of most transit systems had been that when there were different fare structures at different times of day, the fare structures became too complex .  Further, he advised that OC Transpo did not have the system capability to administer such a structure.

 

In response to a follow-up question from the Council about seniors below the poverty line, Mr. Mercier confirmed that there were programs that sought to include seniors where necessary, either through the community pass or free tickets.  He noted these were not targeted programs.  He indicated staff also did not have the full demographic profile of transit users in terms of how many would benefit from a greater control means testing on pricing for seniors.  He advised that the Service’s goal, before the end of the year, was to get a better demographic profile of transit users.  He also reported that staff was trying to get a quantitative assessment of how beneficial the free Wednesdays program had been.  Indirectly, staff had noted trends of increased weekly usage of transit since introducing this program, meaning people who may not have regularly taken transit in the past, were more apt to do so now.  He maintained that price was a factor in use of the system but the department needed better demographics in terms of the effects.  He suggested that, should Committee members wish to ask staff to get a better economic and demographic profile, this could be done for the 2011 budget. 

 

Chair Cullen read the SAC recommendation and noted that the usual practice for budget items like this was to refer them to the budget process, which would allow staff to do more work and consider the matter in the larger context of the budget.  He indicated he was prepared to entertain a motion of referral or else Committee would move directly to the question at hand.

 

As no Committee member moved referral, Committee voted on the SAC recommendation. 

 

The Seniors Advisory Committee recommends that the Transit Committee recommend Council:

 

1.      Approve a new ticket fare structure for seniors such that one ticket constitutes a senior fare; and

 

2.   That this change be incorporated into the 2011 OC Transpo Marketing Plan.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

PRESENTATION

PRÉSENTATION

 

CITY OPERATIONS

OPÉRATIONS MUNICIPALES

 

2.         QUARTERLY UPDATE ON OTTAWA’S LRT PLAN

MISE À JOUR TRIMESTRIELLE SUR LE PLAN DU TLR D’OTTAWA

 

Ms. Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager of Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, introduced Mr. John Jensen, Director of Rail Implementation, and reminded members of staff’s commitment to keep Committee informed on progress relative to this priority project.  She advised that Mr. Jensen would speak to the status of the EA, the agreement with the federal and provincial governments, preliminary engineering and the geo-technical investigation. .

 

Mr. Jensen spoke from a PowerPoint presentation, which served to provide Committee with an update on the project’s status.  A copy of this presentation is held on file with the City Clerk. 

 

In particular, he advised that on 16 August 2010, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment had informed the City of its approval of the OLRT EA which, in combination with $600M in announced funding, was a strong endorsement of the project.  As a result, the City had posted its notice to proceed on 24 August 2010. 

 

With respect to funding, Mr. Jensen indicated this was another step in the project and included support from the federal and provincial partners.  He explained that it was essentially a three stage process with announcements from the federal and provincial partners and approval in principle, to be followed by a contribution agreement.  He advised that the City had received federal approval in principle, which meant project costs were eligible for cost sharing.  He report that with stage 2 completed for federal funding, staff would work on stage 3, a contribution agreement.  He stated a similar process would be followed on the provincial side, once their equivalent of an agreement in principle was received from that partner.

 

He advised that preliminary engineering was another important step in project development.  He indicated this phase was ready to move forward and that Council would be advised of the successful preliminary engineering firm once staff received the green-light letter from the Province.  He explained that the preliminary engineering work was intended to advance the OLRT design and generate specifications for final design and construction and that this included a value engineering process where staff would investigate options to manage project costs.  He added that project cost estimates would be refined, as part of the preliminary engineering process, and presented to Council.

 

Mr. Jensen advised that, in order to understand the geo-technical conditions, staff had conducted preliminary investigations of the tunnel section by drilling a number of bore holes along the project site.  He indicated the field work data collected had been sent to a laboratory for analysis.  On a preliminary basis, and subject to final analysis, he reported that staff had found nothing to affect the project’s technical feasibility or its costs, as presented in the functional design in January and approved in the functional design report.

 

With respect to business development, he suggested this was an important part of the project because it would seek development and partnership opportunities with the private sector.  He advised that in the coming weeks, ads would appear inviting businesses to meet with City staff to discuss partnership opportunities.  He indicated the preliminary results of these discussions would be presented to Council in the first quarter of 2011 as part of a business development strategy report.

 

In closing, Mr. Jensen spoke to a slide containing a list of major project milestones, with check marks next to the items completed, indicating that the project was moving forward.  He re-iterated that staff had completed the functional design and EA approval and, as soon as the green-light letter was received from the Province, staff would move forward with preliminary engineering.  He advised that moving into the first quarter of 2011, a number of reports would be coming forward; an update on the Ottawa LRT, a procurement options report and a business development strategy.  He reported that the project was on schedule with system and service by 2019.

 

Responding to questions from Chair Cullen, Mr. Jensen indicated staff expected to receive the final results of the geo-technical analysis by late October and that he expected the City would receive the Provincial green-light letter shortly.

 

Chair Cullen referenced the slides listing the major milestones, noting that construction consortium selection was scheduled for 2013.  He wondered why this would take so long and whether there was any opportunity for a shorter process, should Council wish to move forward more quickly.  Mr. Jensen submitted that the schedule for preliminary engineering, development of specifications and procurement was already very tight, explaining that it would take at least 16 months to complete the complete preliminary engineering and output specifications, which would then feed into the procurement cycle.  He added that, once a preferred firm had been identified, there would have to be negotiations before it could be presented to Council for ratification.  He maintained that the schedule currently before Committee was the tightest schedule staff could pull together at this time.  However, he committed to reviewing the schedule during preliminary engineering. 

 

That the Transit Committee receive this verbal update for information.

 

                                                                                                            RECEIVED

 

 

CITY OPERATIONS

OPÉRATIONS MUNICIPALES

 

organizational development and performance

dÉveloppement organisationnel et rendement

 

3.         QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORT TO COUNCIL, q2: april 1 – june 30, 2010

rapport TRIMESTRIEL SUR LE rendement présenté au conseil POUR LE 2^E TRIMESTRE, du 1^ER avril AU 30 juin 2010

 

Committee dealt with items 3 and 8 concurrently – Quarterly Performance Report to Council, Q2 : April 1 to June 31, 2020 (ACS2010-CCS-TRC00012) and 2010 Operating and Capital Budget Q2 – Transit Committee Status Report (ACS2010-CMR-FIN-0059).

 

Mr. Alain Mercier, General Manager of Transit Services, provided an update on the many issues and activities affected Transit Services during the quarters of the above-noted reports.  In particularly, he talked about:  the industrial garage and the new dispatching centre on Industrial Road; the roll out of the next stop announcement technology; construction projects in the downtown core; elevator service disruptions at transit stations; levels of service; bus operator recruitment; completion of the southwest transitway; on-time service performance; and the financial report.

 

With respect to the garage, he indicated the City had taken possession of the facility on August 28 and it would be operational September 13, at which time 80 new buses would be dispatched from this location.  He explained this meant that over the coming winter, all buses would be properly stored when not in use.  In addition, he report that the Service would b shifting some maintenance from the Merivale and Pinecrest garage to help with efficiencies with the new facility.  In closing, he submitted that opening this garage was a key step in transforming maintenance and would provide for a better balance of use of the various facilities.

 

Speaking to the roll-out of the next stop announcement technology, Mr. Mercier reported that an event was scheduled for September 3, at which time members of Council and the media would be able to rude a bus equipped with the new technology.  He indicated the first 10 buses would be in service August 30, which would allow staff to do a system test in advance of activating 450 buses on September 27.  Therefore, he submitted that September 27 would be the start of a clean, reliable announcement system, which would provide a significant benefit for all customers, but especially for those with visual and auditory impairments.  He advised that installations should be completed by February 2011, when the City received delivery of the last of its New Flyer buses. 

 

He reported on various station improvements on the downtown area, which had created some traffic issues.  He advised that the platforms and concrete lanes would be completed by mid-September, after which new shelters would be installed.

 

With respect to elevator service disruptions, he reported that the Service currently had 47 elevators in transit stations, each of which received a daily operational check and monthly inspection.  He believed elevators at Transit facilities operated as they should and at an overwhelmingly high level of performance.  He reported that on any given day, 96% of these elevators were running efficiently.  However, he remarked that there was no redundancy in that the Service did not have multiple elevators in each station.  He further noted that these elevators were located in harsh environments in that they were not fully protected from the elements.  He advised that when things went wrong, the Service tried to inform its customers, either through signage at the location, through the website or through its bus operators.  He also reported on a program underway to upgrade and/or replace elevators and that by 2013, more than half of the Transit elevators would be less than six years old.

 

Mr. Mercier updated Committee on some of the service issues that had surfaced in recent weeks, indicating that a couple of factors had contributed to this.  Firstly, he advised that there had been higher levels of service this summer over any other previous summer due to the development of an improved transit system, enabling more service out on the road, and an unexpected increase in work.  He submitted that construction had a major impact on bus operations, requiring more service out on the street to deal with construction delays.  As well, Transit Services had kept the O-Train out of service longer than anticipated, requiring more buses on the road.  This had required staff to make changes to their vacation planning. 

 

He reported that the department had launched a large recruitment program, which had been significantly slower than anticipated because it had yielded twice as many candidates as usual and because of a more complex training program due new criteria.  He surmised that before September 5, the Service have approximately 100 more operators coming into service, largely due to vacations, but also due to new operators completing their training.  

 

He then referred to the southern areas of the City, noting a lot of construction in the Barrhaven area, and the completion of the southwest transitway in the spring of 2011. He indicated there would be faster service to Strandherd, more parking spaces at the Fallowfield park and ride and new platform arrangements, allowing for easier boarding. He informed Committee that Transit Services would introduce some new service in the area; route 95 would change and staff would be working with local councillors and residents as they finalize the planning for service. 

 

Mr. Mercier advised that the following day, residents would see an insert in their newspaper.  He noted that a lot of new things were happening and this was a busy time of year, with people planning their trips around the City.  For this reason, staff had planned an insert to highlight some of the significant made in Transit Services infrastructure, fleet and services.  He indicated the insert would speak to the value of making a transit choice for this fall.  He promised to provide each Committee member with a copy of the insert after the meeting to ensure they were aware of the OC Transpo was telling its customers. 

 

Mr. Mercier indicated she Service had seen an increase in on-time performance, which was continuing to improve, and that substantial changes had been made to about 7 routes within the system for September in order to make them timelier.  He reported that each quarter, the Service continued to see improvements with on-time performance.

 

Mr. Mercier projected that by the end of the year, OC Transpo would have provided 98.5 million rides in 2010.  He compared this to their record year in 2008, at which time the figure was 99.6 million rides, excluding the period of the strike.  He indicated one of the key elements affecting transit demand was that the employed labour force statistics in Ottawa showed a decline in employment levels from 2008 to the current period.  He explained that employment accounted for approximately 90% of all fluctuations in transit demand for the commuting public.  Therefore, he submitted that what staff had projected for the balance of the year was supported by the Conference Board’s forecast of constant employment levels in Ottawa for the remainder of the year.  He noted that this was a bit off budget, which was reflected in their numbers for the balance of the year. 

 

Responding to a question from Councillor Feltmate, Mr. Mercier explained that the next stop announcement system was being installed based on bus category rather than on routes.  He indicated the hybrid buses had all been completed and the articulated buses would be next.  He explained that this meant the bus to be done initially would be the hybrid buses, which were primarily used in town on routes with the most frequent stops and starts, and the commuter buses.  He added that the older buses in the fleet would not have the system installed as they are being phased out in the next two years.  He noted that these buses mostly operated on express services.

 

Responding to further questions from the Councillor, Mr. Mercier explained that the morning express operations were performing quite well with an 87% on-time performance but that the afternoon was not working as well because getting out of the downtown on the second and third trip was a problem.  He indicated the problem regarding some cancelled express trips was more to do with a staffing situation then the on-time performance and congestion and that staff was making every effort not to impact express services.  He felt this would likely be resolved the following week as the Service would be back to full staff. 

 

Councillor Feltmate stressed how frustrating it had been, particularly in the afternoon peak hours, and asked that route 66 be monitored.  Mr. Mercier responded affirmatively.

 

Councillor Bédard referenced the numerous construction projects throughout the City and indicated there had been some instances where buses were being held up due to the construction.  He asked about the normal process relative to construction disruption.  Mr. Mercier acknowledged that this was an exceptional year for construction.  In direct response to the question, he explained that staff was involved as construction plans were developed and, as changes were made to construction plans, these were communicated to Transit Services.  He talked about the two days in July when significant problems occurred.  He indicated these were exceptional because of catastrophic events where the system shut down due to an accident and nothing was moving.  He remarked that OC Transpo was generally able to accommodate passengers by removing them from the bus to safety.  On the two days in question, they did not have that luxury on some of the buses in the downtown core because of jersey barriers and fencing for construction.  This required additional effort by all parties in the City, including police or public works.  He reported on discussions between himself and the General Manager of Public Works to eliminate events that risked a catastrophic shut down of the downtown core with construction elements.  In that perspective, the inability of allowing passengers to leave a bus because it was unsafe for them created a very tense environment and a very difficult situation.  He maintained that communication was the key to ensuring this would not happen again. 

 

Responding to a follow-up question from the Councillor, Mr. Mercier explained that a combination of having a rapid reaction force and sending people to the downtown core was the order of the day, which was done on the days in question.  However, he acknowledged that within a thirty minute period, things had degraded very quickly.  He indicated this was the lesson learned with respect to greater vigilance in terms of building in scenarios for when passengers were restricted on a bus and the need to manage the downtown differently.  He maintained that bus drivers did their best to protect customers, but when some buses were able to open their doors and others were not, the situation flared up and people panicked. 

 

Chair Cullen noted that when the two events occurred, the response from the media was that this was all related to construction.  He wanted confirmation that the construction was anticipated by OC Transpo and the assessment was that OC Transpo could run a summer schedule of transitway buses through the corridor and for the overwhelming bulk of that time, OC Transpo was successful in doing so.  Mr. Mercier confirmed this, adding that in general throughout the summer, traffic had flowed through the downtown area. 

 

Chair Cullen re-iterated one of the myths that was being perpetuated was that OC Transpo was not aware that this construction was happening.  He asked for confirmation that this was not the case, remarking on members of Council’s aware of the Utilities Coordinating Committee and the OC Transpo’s role on same.  Mr. Mercier responded affirmatively.

 

Chair Cullen referred to the 2010 Operating and Capital Budget Q2 Status Report, noting that staff had reported on the revenue shortfall, which had been well played in the media.  However, he remarked that, net to OC Transpo, out of a $363M budget, the City was looking at a shortfall of less than $200,000.  He wondered if this was an accurate picture.  Mr. Mercier advised that staff’s goal was to have no variance and part of the management team’s approach in fiscal matters was to anticipate the worst.  He reported that staff had been working hard in terms of bringing cost savings into the operation and these had been paying off to a greater extent than anticipated.  He acknowledged that ridership was something that needed to be worked on aggressively but he submitted that costs were controlled by staff, who had taken a diligent approach in order to save every penny possible in case of changes in ridership. 

 

Chair Cullen referenced the insert and asked how much it would cost.  Mr. Mercier indicated each copy would cost less than a quarter. 

 

Mr. Klaus Beltzner, resident, spoke on the 2010 Operating and Capital Budget Q2 Status Report, reminding the Chair of a commitment made to him via email the previous week that there was a false impression left regarding the O-train, it summer shut down and cost savings.  It left the impression that shutting down the O-Train would save money.  However, he submitted that the cost of the replacement buses was nowhere to be found and were, in fact, hidden under the capital cost of refurbishment to the O-Train line.  He quoted from an e-mail in which Chair Cullen had thanked him for his inquiry and indicated that he expected this matter to be raised at Committee. As a result of this exchange, he asked about the cost of replacing the O-Train with buses during the period of shutdown and how this compared to the cost of O-Train operations. 

 

Mr. Mercier explained that the process, with respect to construction projects and associated incremental costs of transit, was that if there were any incremental costs related to a construction project, these were borne by the construction project.  Because the O-Train was out of service longer than anticipated, staff would have to do a re-calculation of those numbers.  He offered to forward the information to members of Council. 

 

Chair Cullen confirmed that this information would be listed on the next agenda as an Information Previously Distributed item, which would be available to the public.

 

Following these exchanges, Committee RECEIVED item 3 and CARRIED item 8.

 

That the Transit Committee receive this report for further review and discussion of the service areas’ performance results, as outlined in Document 1.

 

                                                                                                            RECEIVED

 

 

INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES AND COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY

SERVICES DES INFRASTRUCTURES ET LES SERVICES DE VIABILITÉ DES COLLECTIVITÉS

 

PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT

URBANISME ET GESTION DE LA CROISSANCE

 

4.         WEST TRANSITWAY CONNECTION (terry FOX drive to fernbank ROAD) pLANNING Study - functional design recommendations

ÉTUDE DE PLANIFICATION RELATIVE AUX RACCORDEMENTS DU TRANSITWAY OUEST (DE LA PROMENADE TERRY FOX AU CHEMIN FERNBANK) – RECOMMANDATIONS RELATIVES À L’ÉTUDE FONCTIONNELLE

 

Mr. Frank McKinney, Program Manager, Transportation Planning-Environmental Assessments, and Mr. David Hopper, Delcan, spoke to a PowerPoint presentation, which served to provide Committee with a detailed overview of the report.  A copy of this presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

 

Mr. Klaus Beltzner, resident, noted this project amounted to $54M per kilometre and was $95M more expensive than the next viable option.  Therefore, he surmised that money was no object for this $425M segment.  He referenced the design parameters and remarked that there were a lot of good elements to it.  However, he did not see any discussion with respect to connectivity with local bus routes.  He indicated he would hate to see park and ride lots become the prime motivator for people to have two vehicles so they could park them at the park and ride lot as opposed to taking a local bus to connect to the transitway.  He made the same observations with respect to the Southwest transitway to Barrhaven and from Fallowfield station to Strandherd station.  He felt some elements of this plan needed to be rethought.  He referenced Roman Avenue, where Committee had authorized an engineering value study to save a few million dollars because it was more expensive to put the initial underground tunnel in for a short distance, which would save a community.  He argued that instead, a whole group of residents would have their homes devalued and the City would have to buy them out because the idea was to put the transitway on a longer route behind their houses to save a few million dollars.  On the other hand, Committee and Council were being asked to look at a $95M additional expenditure because it made more sense.  He perceived that in the case of the western parkway, money was an object whereas with this project, money was no object.  He stated that he was confused and puzzled by the inconsistency and logic applied to these projects.  He added up the dollar value of the projects listed on the current Committee agenda.  He wondered who would pay for these projects and who would benefit from them.  He asked Committee to seriously consider having a discussion on the overall approach to these projects. 

 

Councillor Feltmate asked whether the Carp River floodplain would be filled in or altered as a result of this project.  Mr. Hopper confirmed that the crossing of the Carp River respected the 100-year floodplain boundaries, which were incorporated in all of the flood modelling.

 

Councillor Feltmate noted this was a longer term project and would probably take 30 to 40 years to complete.  She acknowledged that portions of it was going through areas that were currently fields; currently not development and no where near being developed.  However, she maintained parts of it were currently very busy and could benefit from the transitway.  In particular, she referenced Scotiabank Place and the fact that it generated a lot of traffic.  She also noted that a lot of traffic came from Stittsville, Carp and the Arnprior area.  She wondered if there was any question about putting a park and ride in either in the area of Scotiabank Place or in Stittsville to accommodate such traffic.  Mr. Hopper believed there were separate discussions with Scotiabank Place to provide for joint use parking whereby part of the stadium parking would be used for transit, starting relatively soon and as part of this project.  He confirmed that staff would try to incorporate this at the station.

 

Councillor Feltmate clarified that she was inquiring about something separate and apart from Scotiabank Place, where the staging area was located on the map.  She assumed this would be City-owned land and she wondered if there was a potential to use this to relieve Eagleson and to relieve some of the concerns from outlying areas.  Mr. Hopper explained the area at Hazeldean was already owned by the City as part of a development there, so a park and ride lot could also be developed there to provide an additional 325 spaces connected to a bus route along Hazeldean.  Therefore, he confirmed that there were options along the corridor. 

 

Councillor Feltmate remarked that Hazeldean was not connected to the transitway.  Mr. Pat Scrimgeour, Manager of Transit Service Design, remarked that Route 96 ran along the referenced section of Hazeldean, connecting directly into downtown and this could be made more frequent if needed; if a park and ride lot at Hazeldean and the future transitway were built earlier than the transitway itself.

 

Councillor Leadman referenced the chart on page 12, which detailed the evaluation of corridor options.  She noted that with respect to compatibility with existing and future transit operations, the recommended route was the least responsive.  Mr. Hopper confirmed this was correct in that a fully grade separated transitway had fewer options to connect every local street than an option that ran at grade.  He submitted the trade off was the fast completely grade separated service of a transitway compared to being able to access every local cross street.

 

Responding to a follow-up question from Councillor Leadman with respect to connectivity, Mr. McKinney noted there were several options to connect.  He explained that Didsbury station was at grade with a direct connection to Didsbury Road, Campeau station had a connection to the local connector road, there was a potential to connect the lay-by facility at the stadium to either Palladium Drive or Huntmar Drive, there was an at-grade connection at Abbott, plus there was Fernbank, as a terminal station.  Therefore, there were five stations where local routes could connect relatively easily.

 

In light of this explanation, the Councillor wondered why option 2 rated least responsive.  Mr. Hopper explained it was because it did not provide access directly through the stadium area due to the grade separation.  It did not provide access to any bus route that may come along Maple Grove or Hazeldean, therefore it was less responsive to the criteria than the other options. 

 

In response to a question from Councillor Leadman with respect to the area’s geology, Mr. Hopper explained the geo-technical conditions really affected the project’s constructability and, in the area in question, it was traditional Ottawa clay, which meant that any elevated structure would require very deep foundations.  He added the reason the recommended option was less responsive with respect to noise and vibration was because an elevated structure had more opportunity for noise and vibration transfer into the local areas than something constructed at-grade.  Again, he submitted that by separating above, the City was trading off the potential for noise against the efficiency and speed of a grade-separated transitway. 

 

Councillor Qadri talked about the crossing at the Trans-Canada Trail and a recent ruling about the park location.  He wondered how this would affect the proposed route.  Mr. Hopper believed they were still in the same vicinity, noting the park and ride lot at Abbott was in the Hydro corridor, so the two were immediately adjacent. 

 

Councillor Qadri referenced the earlier comments with respect to discussions for a park and ride facility at Scotiabank Place and he wondered if these talks were on-going.  Mr. Scrimgeour explained that to this point, the discussions had been only general.  He indicated the talks had not gotten specific because there appeared to be years of reserve growth at the Terry Fox station.  He acknowledged that with growth in Kanata North, the use of the Terry Fox park and ride could increase more quickly than it had over the past few years and this was the reason for looking at options such as Scotiabank Place.  He noted that such a venture would result in lower capital costs but higher operating costs as opposed to location where there might be a higher capital cost but lower operating costs. 

 

Responding to a follow-up question from the Councillor, Mr. Scrimgeour confirmed that the park and ride lot on Carp Road had substantial room available and staff could increase the frequency of service on the route serving this location.  This represented another option.

 

Councillor Qadri referenced the congestion at Terry Fox and Eagleson, which posed a major concern for West-end riders.  However, he recognized that there were a couple of options to deal with this sooner rather than later.  He then inquired as to the reasoning for going to an above-grade crossing at Hazeldean rather than an at-grade crossing.  Mr McKinney explained that staff was concerned about future traffic congestion, noting that the area was already close to volume capacity and at risk of failing.  Staff felt that throwing bus timing into the mix would make a bad situation worst.  Therefore, the main reason for grade separate was to provide better transportation capacity at that intersection.

 

Responding to a follow-up question from the Councillor, staff added that the proposal was for the future (2031), which did not preclude continuing to have something at-grade until then. 

 

Councillor Qadri talked about the North/South arterial in terms of the front-ending agreement, especially starting at Fernbank and going Northwards.  He wondered if the City was part of this with respect to projecting for this kind of infrastructure in the future.  Mr. Hopper confirmed that, as part of the implementation staging, staff had look at this and, as the project moved forward, staff would have to engage more directly on the issue. 

 

Councillor Qadri noted that Hazeldean was currently going through some major expansion.  He wondered if staff had worked with the current design team to ensure they would not be ripping up the same roadway in the near future in order to accommodate the proposed overhead crossing.  Mr. Hopper confirmed that the two groups had met and staff had managed to find a landing spot for the centre columns to avoid all the utilities so there would be very minor impact on Hazeldean when the proposed project would be built.  

 

Councillor Legendre referenced slide 12 and asked why the proposed corridor was the best in terms of air quality.  Mr. Hopper indicated this was because the emissions would be at a higher level so they would disperse more easily and have less of an impact at grade.

 

Councillor Legendre then talked about the other criteria listed at the bottom of slide 12 – noise and vibration levels.  He noted that in one case, the selected corridor was the worst.  He remarked that option 3 was the best corridor with respect to noise and vibrations and he wondered why.  Mr. Hopper confirmed this information and explained that with at-grade options, the buses would be running on the ground so there would not be joints in an elevated structure and the noise and vibrations of the structure itself and of buses climbing grades to get up onto the structure. 

 

Councillor Legendre remarked that air quality, noise and vibration were three factors that would affect anyone living in the vicinity.  He indicated he was happy that the chosen option had the greatest ability to accommodate future transition to LRT.  He noted all three corridors were essentially the same in terms of their integration with cycle and pedestrian networks.  He referenced the Trans-Canada Trail and asked for confirmation that this was a former rail corridor now used for pedestrian and cycling.  Mr. Hopper responded affirmatively. 

 

Councillor Legendre wondered how the connection point near Abbott would be made and how this would affect the trail.  Mr. Hopper explained that the trail would run parallel to Abbott Street, next to the Hydro corridor and, where it crossed the North/South arterial and the median transitway, there would be a signalized intersection to cross the perpendicular traffic. 

 

Chair Cullen noted this was a large capital project with significant capital costs.  He inquired as to estimates for phase 1 and phase 2.  Mr. Hopper indicated he did not have exact information at his fingertips.  However, his recollection was that phase 1 was slightly more than half the cost to get from Terry Fox to Scotiabank Place and the balance would get the project to Fernbank. 

 

Chair Cullen noted that the report Financial Implications section indicated costs would form part of the Long Range Financial Plan (LRFP), to be tabled later this year.  Therefore, he surmised that Committee and Council were approving these functional designs and the capital budget process, affordability and sources of funding would be addressed in the LRFP.  Mr. McKinney confirmed that staff was in the process of working on the Long Range Financial Plan but that this project had not yet been installed in the LRFP. 

 

Responding to a follow-up question from the Chair, Ms. Vivi Chi, Manager of Transportation Planning, clarified that today’s exercise was just on the project itself and that there would be opportunities to talk about priorities and affordability through the LRFP, which she believed would be up to the next Council.

 

Following these exchanges, Committee approved the report recommendations.

 

That the Transit Committee recommend Council:

 

1.      Approve the recommended functional design for the West Transitway Connection from Terry Fox Drive to Fernbank Road;

 

2.      Direct staff to initiate the Transit Project Assessment Process based on the functional design in accordance with the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (Regulation 231/08) including the preparation and filing of the Environmental Project Report for formal public review and comment; and

 

3.      Direct staff to initiate the property acquisition, subject to the completion of the Environmental Assessment process and annual capital budget approval.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 

5.         HOSPITAL LINK and CUMBERLAND TRANSITWAY westerly PLANNING STUDY - FUNCTIONAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

ÉTUDE DE PLANIFICATION DU TRONÇON ouest DU TRANSITWAY à CUMBERLAND et de la correspondance vers l'hôpital – RECOMMANDATIONS SUR LA CONCEPTION FONCTIONNELLE

 

Mr. Frank McKinney, Program Manager, Transportation Planning-Environmental Assessments, and Mr. Andrew Harkness, Morrison Hershfield, spoke to a PowerPoint presentation, which served to provide Committee with a detailed overview of the report.  A copy of this presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

 

Mr. Michael Polowin, representing the Aga Khan Foundation Canada (AKFC), indicated he represented the owner of the property at 1420 Riverside Drive, at the intersection of Terminal Avenue.  He explained that the property in question covered 1.76 hectares and was bounded on the East by Riverside Drive, on the North and West by Terminal Avenue and on the South by Industrial Avenue.  He advised that the AKFC served many functions, but in this context, it provided communal, cultural and worship facilities for the benefit of the Ismaili community in Canada.  It was on this basis that these lands were acquired from the National Capital Committee (NCC) in September of 2006.  He reported that it was part of a complex land exchange between the NCC and the City, which was intended, in part, to facilitate the acquisition of the lands by the AKFC to construct a place of worship and community centre for the Ottawa area Ismaili community.  He advised that the proposed community centre would be approximately 2,600 square meters with 270 parking spaces and that it was intended to serve the Ismaili community of the entire national capital region.  He recalled that on August 24, 2005, Council approved Official Plan (OP) and Zoning By-law amendments to permit this use on the property and that in tandem with the rezoning and conceptual planning, the former road allowance running through the property had been closed and a further land exchange had been arranged between the AKFC and the City to allow for a new alignment of Terminal Avenue as it intersects with Industrial Avenue.  He noted the current OP designation was mixed use and the zoning was minor institutional, I1A.  He reported that during negotiations of the aforementioned land exchanges, future access from Terminal Avenue had been a matter of some contention.  It was resolved through correspondence, with the City undertaking that the AKFC would retain full movement access off the lands; right in, right out, left in and left out onto Terminal Avenue.  He submitted that without this, his client would not have completed the land exchange that was sought by the City and the NCC.  He was concerned that the current proposal would endanger the possibility of full movement access.  In addition, the AKFC was concerned by the fact that they were not aware of the current proposal until receiving a letter from Morrison Hershfield dated August 11, 2010.  This letter invited them to attend a briefing on Thursday, August 26, 2010.  This was their first opportunity to understand the nature of the proposal and therefore, the AKFC felt it was being asked to provide comments in haste and that it needed more time to properly evaluate the entire frontage of its lands.  Further, he remarked that, as part of the 2006 land exchange for the re-alignment of Terminal Avenue, there were lands immediately to the West of Terminal Avenue, a long triangle fronting onto Industrial Avenue, which the City acquired from the NCC.  He noted the current configuration proposed to take land from the AKFC when the City was not using the full width of its own lands in the area.  Therefore, he suggested a rejigging of that intersection in order to minimize the impact on his client.  He explained that the current plan showed Terminal Avenue curving back towards the East when it could simply be straightened to take greater advantages of the City’s own lands rather than taking additional lands from the AKFC.  He advised that from the AKFC’s perspective, the site was already quite constrained for what they proposed to build there and these land takings would aggravate these constraints and the organization’s ability to build the intended buildings and provide the necessary parking.  For these reasons, he asked that Transit Committee and Council defer approval until his client had a proper opportunity to assess it and respond to it.  He closing, he reported having talked with staff earlier in the day and that they had been open to fixing these problems.  He acknowledged their openness and expressed appreciation for same.

 

Responding to questions from Chair Cullen, Mr. McKinney expressed his belief that the AKFC’s concerns could be resolved before this matter rose to Council the following Wednesday as he believed it would require only minor changes to the functional design.  Ms. Vivi Chi, Manager of Transportation Planning, confirmed that staff would work with the AKFC and its representatives during the seven working days between Committee and Council meeting dates to resolve their concerns.  She also committed to showing them the revised plans before initiating the EA process.

 

In response to a follow-up question from Chair Cullen, Mr. Polowin expressed appreciation for staff’s openness to resolve the issues and inquired as to a mechanism for recourse should the discussions between staff and the AKFC be unsuccessful.

 

Chair Cullen suggested the direction to staff would be to work with the AKFC to resolve their concerns and report back to Council on the outcome prior to Council’s consideration of this item.  Should the aforementioned discussions be unsuccessful, he believed Council would be amenable to defer the matter to allow sufficient time to resolve this.  Mr. Polowin stated this was acceptable to his client.

 

Mr. Marty Koshman, Controlex Corporation, indicated he represented the lands going along Terminal Avenue on Trainyards Drive, some properties on Belfast Road and some properties on the east side of the 417 on Innes Road; altogether more than one kilometre fronting onto this project.  Therefore, he advised that he had some significant concerns about it.  He began by stating that he supported the advancement of this transit project and he understood that it had a 2031 horizon.  With that in mind, he realized that the plans before Committee were high level and when one started driving down into what was being planned, land was would have to be acquired and property lines adjusted.  Like the previous delegation, he advised that he saw some of the detailed plans the previous Thursday so affected property owners had to rush up some comments.  He reported having submitted some comments to staff and having received assurances that his concerns could be addressed.  To give Committee an idea of some of his concerns, he advised that this plan would eliminate half of the parking lot at a Tim Hortons location.  He felt some parts of the proposal were excessive and so, as a land owner, he maintained this would hurt him in development and unnecessarily limit some of the things going on.  He appreciated the upcoming EA process and staff’s willingness to resolve concerns.  However, he noted the plan currently before Committee did not include any changes that may be needed to resolve the concerns of affected property owners.  Further, he remarked that recommendation three of the current staff report asked for a direction to start acquiring land.  He again recognized that this had a horizon of 2031, but he maintained that in the interim, any development applications would be assessed based on the design currently before Committee.  Therefore, he had concerns with respect to process, noting that if this functional design was approved by Committee and Council as outlined in the current report and then went on to an EA process, Committee and Council would never see this again to judge whether it was right or wrong before moving to the stage of property acquisition.

 

In light of Mr. Koshman’s final comment, Chair Cullen asked for clarification on the process.  Ms. Chi confirmed that if Committee and Council approved the functional design, this project would more forward to the EA process and not come back to Committee and Council unless there were major changes to the functional plan.

 

Chair Cullen wondered what recourse Mr. Koshman would have if Committee and Council approved the current plan.  Ms. Chi explained staff were following the quick six month EA process, as was done with the DOTT project.  She stated that if Committee wanted to direct staff to come back with a revised functional plan before initiating the EA process, this could be done.  However, she confirmed that if Committee did not direct this, the alternative recourse would be to go through the Provincial process when the EA was filed. 

 

Responding to a follow-up question from Chair Cullen, Mr. McKinney indicated staff had looked at the comments Mr. Koshman had submitted following the previous Thursday’s briefing and that staff believed his concerns were valid, for the most part.  Therefore, he believed the speaker’s concerns could be alleviated in the next few days.

 

Upon hearing this, Chair Cullen suggested staff be given the same direction as with the previous delegation, to work with the land owner to resolve his concerns and to report on the outcome prior to Council’s consideration of this item.

 

Mr. David Gladstone, resident, indicated his main concerns were that, for something with a horizon out to 2031, he did not recall seeing any reference to Light Rail Transit in this report.  He felt this was strange as he believed the City was supposed to be investing massively in LRT.  He encouraged Committee to ask staff to explain how this proposed investment corresponded with the planned investment in LRT.

 

Mr. Gladstone then provided comments on behalf of Mr. Klaus Beltzner who noted this proposal failed to provide a direct connection to the hospitals.  He felt the proposed corridor would do nothing to change the poor transit connectivity from Orléans/Cumberland to the hospitals and he questioned the rationale for making this major investment in bus rapid transit when the City was supposed to be investing in LRT.

 

Councillor Bloess believed staff had presented an important transit link for Orléans South in terms of getting onto the main system and getting downtown.  He felt it was unfortunate that the browning corridor had been dropped because it provided the most direct link to the hospitals.  He referenced the last presenter’s comments with respect to LRT and recalled a past motion from Councillor Jellett about advancing LRT in this particular corridor.  He asked staff to comment on this issue.  Ms. Chi indicated the current plan, from Blair down to Innes and all the way through the Cumberland westerly link, was designed to be converted to LRT.  Therefore, it was still protected and in the Transportation Master Plan (TMP).  She recalled that when Council approved it, there were for conditions as to when the City would convert from BRT to LRT; the first condition was a focus on the LRT construction inside the Greenbelt first and then have the proper density out in the suburban areas and, when there was a business case for it and funding, then LRT would be introduced.  She maintained this was still all protected.  She noted that the section from Innes in towards the hospital was not a rapid transit corridor.  Rather, it was making use of existing arterial roads and improving them for transit operation. 

 

Councillor Bloess specifically referenced the section along Blair and Innes, heading towards the Cumberland transitway.  He recognized that the Jellett motion was superceded by the conditions in the TMP.  However, he noted that some of the identified costs would become throw away and he wondered at what point the City would be losing an opportunity to decide whether it would be LRT or BRT.  Ms. Chi suggested this would be at the end of the design, before construction.  However, she maintained there would not be a lot of throw away because the corridor would be there.  It would simply be a matter of laying down the tracks and adding the electrical supply system for LRT. 

 

Responding to a follow-up question from the Councillor with respect to land acquisition and the amount of land needed for LRT stations versus BRT station, Mr. Harkness submitted there may be some variation, however the plan had been developed based on the transitway design manual, which did protect for conversion in the future.

 

The Councillor referenced noise attenuation, noting that he already received noise complaints off the by-pass and he assumed there were already complaints along Blair.  He remarked that the report indicated the City would be prepared to put in barriers along a couple of stretches of Blair.  However, he maintained there were other corridors where noise was an issue and that existing berms were insufficient for the current conditions.  He indicated this project proposed to add two more lanes of bus traffic, which would increase the amount of noise.  Therefore, he wondered if staff was taking into account the cumulative effect or just the marginal effect.  Mr. Harkness confirmed that staff looked at the cumulative effect.  He explained that it had been broken down for the transit and for the auto components.  The findings were that, given the distance, which was some 200 meters away from the corridor, that although noise was noticeable, it did not meet the warrants for noise attenuation.

 

In order to give some reassurance to area residents who, according to this report would not see any noise attenuation, Councillor Bloess indicated he would be moving a motion asking for further examination of this question during the course of the EA process.  Mr. Harkness indicated there would be another round of public consultation and that staff would be happy to review the issue of noise during the EA process.

 

Councillor Bloess noted there were no park and ride lots planned as part of this project.  He acknowledged that there were other park and ride lots on the periphery, however he referenced the parking lot at the Pineview Municipal Golf Course, which was adjacent to this corridor and was essentially unused for seven or eight months of the year.  He wondered if staff had contemplated this as an opportunity, to make full use of that facility.  Mr. Pat Scrimgeour, Manager of Transit Service Design, explained one reason it had not been included was that this section of transitway was intended to be a feeder transitway into a light rail line and that it would not be an attractive park and ride location for people to park their car, get on the bus for one stop, and then change to light rail.  He acknowledged that after 2031, or whenever this section was converted to light rail, the referenced location may be a good one for a park and ride.  However, he advised that experience had shown that the most successful park and ride locations were outside of the greenbelt whereas Pineview was immediately inside the greenbelt.  Therefore, he would not suggest it as a good location for a park and ride lot.

 

In closing, Councillor Bloess referenced the public consultation on this item, noting that the name was misleading and did not trigger the interest it should have stimulated within the affected communities.  He suggested that for the next round of consultations, the project be renamed in order to reach into those affected communities. 

 

Responding to questions from Councillor Legendre with respect to slides 8 and 9 of the PowerPoint presentation, Mr. McKinney explained that option 1.1 was part of the future Alta Vista Transportation Corridor, which had been identified as an acceptable link to the hospital lands.  Mr. Harkness added that as part of the current proposal, part of option 1.4 as well as options 1.5, .2.2A, 3.1, 4.1 and 5.1 represented the selected corridor.

 

Councillor Legendre echoed Councillor Bloess’ comments with respect to naming things, adding that he had a much bigger problem with the way things were named at the City.

 

In reply to questions from Councillor Doucet with respect to the hospital link, Mr. Harkness indicated he believed it was 1.2 kilometres.  He advised that this corridor had been looked at but was not being carried in the cost of the current project given the adoption of the recommendations of the previous EA.  He explained it was a linkage connected to the browning corridor and it was shown as a dash line for information because it was not part of the current project recommendation.

 

Councillor Bloess introduced his motion; to direct that noise attenuation measures be evaluated during the Environmental Assessment process to provide relief to abutting residents and appropriate berms / barriers be considered for implementation.

 

Councillor Legendre expressed his intention to support the motion, however he submitted that it would give no comfort to the adjacent residents as he felt the City’s standards in this regard were inadequate.  He acknowledged that this motion was small step.  He suggested one of the major problems was that no one could properly express the measurement being used to assess noise.  He submitted one could not feel 16 hours of accumulated average noise, yet these were the kinds of standards built into the system.

 

Councillor Bloess noted that the presentation had made reference to the 417 interchange at Innes.  He indicated this area was already problematic for cyclists and he wondered how this would be accommodated through the proposed design.  Mr. Harkness explained there was not as much in the current plan as there was in the post-2031 plan, which included sidewalks and bicycle lanes across the 417. 

 

At this juncture, Committee voted on the motion.

 

Moved by Councillor R. Bloess

 

That noise attenuation measures be evaluated during the Environmental Assessment process to provide relief to abutting residents and appropriate berms / barriers be considered for implementation.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

Councillor Legendre posed questions with respect to the property identified in the presentation as being of potential historical importance.  He asked for clarification on the proposal in this regard.  Mr. Harkness explained that in discussion on this matter, the NCC had suggested the potential of relocation the referenced building to another site; one that might be more suitable in terms of context.  He noted that there were outbuildings, which used to exist adjacent to the building in question, and that they had been removed.  Further, he believed there was farmland in the area, which may have been associated with the buildings in question. 

 

Responding to a question from Chair Cullen with respect to an approval agency in this regard, Ms. Chi explained that the heritage group within the City would assist in reviewing the matter and, if needed, would bring it forward to Committee and Council.  As for who would actually be responsible for saying yea or nay on the matter, she indicated she would follow-up with an e-mail.

 

Committee then voted on the item as amended.

 

That the Transit Committee recommend Council:

 

1.      Approve the recommended corridor functional design alignment and station alternatives for the Hospital Link and the Cumberland Transitway Westerly;

 

2.      Direct staff to initiate the formal Environmental Assessment process based on the functional design, in accordance with the Ontario Environmental Assessment Regulation 231/08 for transit projects;

 

3.      Direct staff to initiate the property acquisition, subject to the completion of the Environmental Assessment process and annual capital budget approval; and

 

4.      That noise attenuation measures be evaluated during the Environmental Assessment process to provide relief to abutting residents and appropriate berms / barriers be considered for implementation.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED as amended

 

DIRECTION TO STAFF

 

Prior to this item rising to Council, that staff work with the delegations (Michael Polowin representing the Aga Khan Foundation Canada and Marty Koshman representing Controlex Corporation) to resolve concerns relative to their respective properties and report to Council on same.

 

 

INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

SERVICES D'INFRASTRUCTURE

 

6.         west transitway extension from bayshore station to west of moodie drive: functional design recommendations

PROLONGEMENT DU TRANSITWAY DU SECTEUR OUEST DE LA STATION BAYSHORE JUSQU’À L’OUEST DE LA PROMENADE MOODIE: recommandations relatives à la conception fonctionnelle

 

Councillor Legendre raised a procedural matter with respect to this item.  He explained that he was provided with the staff report, accompanied by a number of supporting documents and annexes.  In the end, only some of the annexes were made available to him and these were mislabelled in that the document labelled Annex A was actually Annex B and so on.  He indicated the end result of that he did not have Annex A at all, nor Annex C.  He stated this was how documents were provided through the City’s shared drive, which members of Council go to in order to access electronic versions of documents.  Therefore, he submitted that there was a major problem and the net result was that he did not have all the information with respect to this item.  He wondered what sort of position this left the City in with respect to Committee making a decision today and people appealing that decision.  Mr. Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, acknowledged that he had not personally checked the shared drive as of seven days ago to see what was on there.  However, he had been advised that the material was there.  Further, he confirmed that the information was there now.  He indicated Committee had the legal authority to proceed with this matter if it saw fit to do so but that if Committee was of the view that the information should have been provided earlier and it was not, then Committee could consider a motion to defer. 

 

Councillor Legendre noted Committee had received an opinion that it could proceed.  However, he wanted it on the record that members of Council were sent an e-mail advising that the documents were on the shared drive.  The following day, his staff accessed the shared drive in order to provide him with the documents and they did not change a thing.  They simply copied what was on the share drive so he could have it on his computer.  On the weekend, when he was going through the material, he noticed the problem.  Today, his staff went back to the shared drive and found that all the documents were there and they were correctly labelled.  He re-iterated that Councillors received an e-mail advising of documents availability and, within 24 hours, his staff accessed the shared drive to copy those documents.  He surmised that after this, corrections were made without him being informed of that the previous documentation had been incomplete and incorrect.  In closing, he indicated it was not the first time this had happened to him on a major file. 

 

Chair Cullen confirmed that Councillor Legendre’s comments would be in the Minutes.  He reminded Committee members that they had, as part of their Agenda package, a 33-page report, which covered the issue at hand, and as was usual, there was a list of supporting documentation noted as “issued separately and held on file with the City Clerk” for those members of Committee and Council who wished to access it.  He noted that he had the information because he had participated in the process.  Having heard no other points raised about access to the information, he indicated he was in Committee’s hands as to whether or not to defer the item.  In closing, he stated that unless someone moved a motion to defer, Committee would proceed with the item.  

 

Councillor Legendre clarified that he did not go looking for the information because he needed extra work.  He was trying to do his homework in preparing for the meeting.  He presumed that if the information was not available for him, it was also not available for others.  

 

At this juncture, Committee proceeded to consider the item.

 

Mr. Ziad Ghadban, Manager of Design and Construction-Municipal (East), introduced Mr. Jeffrey Waara, Senior Project Manager, Mr. Robert Hunton, Project Manager with McCormick-Rankin, and Mr. Tim Dickinson, Planner with Ecoplans Ltd.

 

Mr. Dickinson spoke to a PowerPoint presentation, which served to provide Committee with a detailed overview of the report.  A copy of this presentation is held on file with the City Clerk. 

 

Ms. Ruth Tremblay, Crystal Beach/Lakeside Community Association (CBLCA), spoke from a PowerPoint presentation in which she: advised that the CBLCA supported public transit but did not support building the proposed extension at this time; expressed opposition to the Queensway north route recommendation; talked about noise concerns, dangerous conditions for pedestrians and cyclists, unreliable bus service and the business case with respect to time travel savings; and submitted that if the project went ahead, noise barriers would be needed immediately.  She also relayed her community’s support for a Holly Acres Road transitway overpass and its opposition to the proposed Corkstown Road transitway station.  As a solution, she recommended putting the transitway station under or west of the Moodie Bridge or to not build it at all.  She then talked about environmental concerns, noting that regionally rare black maple trees were threatened by this project and highlighted flooding problems in the area.  In closing, Ms. Tremblay referenced the AECERA report, remarking that the Queensway north route was ranked #3 out of 4, making it one of the worst routes from an environmental perspective.  A copy of Ms. Tremblay’s presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

 

Councillor Leadman referenced a photo shown during the presentation depicting flooding at a soccer field during the Spring of 2009.  She wondered how this field had been impacted by the heavy rains experienced this summer.  Ms. Tremblay indicated the ditches had filled up but the field had not flooded.

 

Mr. Guy Potvin, Crystal Beach/Lakeside Community Association (CBLCA), spoke from a PowerPoint presentation in which he talked about the need to review transit plans in the Nepean north area and suggested that a south route may be a better choice in order to provide a link to the Queensway Carleton Hospital, noting that the Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO) would be widening Holly Acres Road and adding a Queensway eastbound ramp.  He further suggested that building the extension to the south side would serve the residents better because it would provide a faster, more direct link to Bells Corners and the Queensway Carleton Hospital and because it would link to the Eagleson park and ride.  He maintained that the City should take advantage of this opportunity to review the whole Nepean north area to find the absolute best solution.  A copy of Mr. Potvin’s presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

 

Responding to questions from Councillor Leadman, Mr. Potvin suggested reviewing this proposal in light of everything the Province was doing with respect to 416 and 417 ramps in the area and traffic on and off Holly Acres.  Further, he opined that to not service the Queensway Carleton Hospital from Bayshore would be a travesty.  He advised that another member of the CBLCA would be talking about pedestrian and cycling issues in her presentation.  However, he had made a comment about cycling issues to raise the point that the CBLCA was looking for something akin to what was being done for the pedestrian overpass near the baseball stadium, what was being done on Cyrville Road and what was being done on Hunt Club at the Airport Parkway.  He concluded by saying his recommendation was for the proposed transitway to be built on the south side.

 

Mr. John Reeves, Crystal Beach/Lakeside Community Association (CBLCA), spoke from a PowerPoint presentation in which he talked about the need for noise barriers in this area.  He advised that noise levels in the area were currently in excess of 63 dba because of two highways (416 and 417) and numerous buses going in and out of the Bayshore station at grade.  He explained that the Provincial outdoor living area standard was 55 dba.  He maintained that the proposed transitway extension would add some 2,000 buses per day, which would add to the noise levels.  He remarked that the community was on the Province’ list for the installation of noise barriers but he maintained the community needed help now in this regard.  He recommended an overpass at Holly Acres, without traffic lights so buses could travel more efficiently, with noise barriers to eliminate the noise and vibration of buses braking and accelerating, and with safety measures for pedestrians and cyclists.  A copy of Mr. Reeves’ presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

 

Chair Cullen indicated he would be moving a motion to ensure that noise barriers were part of the study, which he presumed the CBLCA would support. 

 

In response to questions from Councillor Legendre, Mr. Reeves re-iterated his recommendation that, if the City did proceed, there should be an overpass over Holly Acres.  With respect to noise, he explained the problem was that the roadway ran downhill from Bayshore to Holly Acres Road and uphill from Holly Acres to the 417 so the noise generated by buses was exacerbated by the fact that they were braking and accelerating to travel up and down these hills and to stop and start at the referenced crossings.  Further, he suggested that because of the existing slopes, building an overpass would not require much of a raise to the grade and would alleviate some of the noise concerns. 

 

Ms. Kate Twiss, Crystal Beach/Lakeside Community Association (CBLCA), spoke from a PowerPoint presentation in which she: urged a review of plans for Holly Acres, or at least an overpass; expressed the CBLCA’s support for a proposal by the Citizens for Safe Cycling for a cantilevered deck on the existing overpass at Moodie Drive; talked about the importance of Bells Corners and a north/south access; submitted that her community was becoming marooned and discussed the impact such a situation had the on the City as a whole; suggested that the proposed plan for pedestrians and cyclists was unsafe; and depicted the traffic lanes cyclists and pedestrians currently had to cross in the area.  In closing, she urged Committee to give pedestrians and cyclists safe and separate crossing of the Queensway and transitway by adding a bridge at Moodie Drive and reviewing the big picture with respect to Holly Acres Road.  A copy of Ms. Twiss’ presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

 

Mr. Paul Williams, Crystal Beach/Lakeside Community Association (CBLCA), spoke from a PowerPoint presentation in which he raised concerns with respect to loss of service (LOS) and the reliability of the bus service insofar as the proposed extension.  He quoted the staff report with respect to Synchro traffic studies and suggested these studies were based on biased data.  He compared pre-2009 traffic volumes with a 2009 City of Ottawa traffic count and a 2010 MTO traffic count.  In particular, he indicated traffic volumes for the latter two were measured on 24 July 2009, at the height of summer vacation, and on 18 March 2010, during March break.  He submitted that the pre-2009 data showed a conservative assessment for an at-grade termination at Moodie Drive and suggested that without partial grade separation, there would be traffic chaos and no reliability of bus service.  Further, he noted that the traffic studies did not address pedestrians and cyclists.  He maintained that the City had to provide at least partial grade separation termination at Moodie Drive.  In closing, he recommended that the City undertake a new traffic study in the fall of 2010 to collect statistically significant data, that Synchro be run with this new data, and that an analysis of the results be done using North American standard definitions.  A copy of Mr. Williams’ presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

 

Responding to questions from Chair Cullen with respect to Mr. Williams’ arguments about the traffic data being flawed, Mr. Waara confirmed that the data was collected during the summer.  However, he advised that then factors were applied statistically, based on the day, the week and the month, to come up with the corrected value.  He confirmed that this was a standard practice used in Ontario, in Canada and in North America.

 

In reply to a question from Councillor Leadman, Mr. Williams suggested part of the problem with the traffic data presented in the staff report was that it was a single sample, taken on one day.  He submitted that no statistics book would allow the use of a single sample. Therefore, he suggested staff’s earlier response to Chair Cullen, with respect to whether or not this was standard practice, had been misleading.

 

Councillor Leadman inquired about the background of the pre-2009 traffic data Mr. Williams had presented in his PowerPoint.  Mr. Williams indicated he had no knowledge as to its background but maintained that it implied there was more than one sample taken, which suggested that it was better than the other data.

 

In response to a question from the Councillor with respect to the community’s involvement in traffic issues, Mr. Williams advised that he started in 2003, when the community was looking at the noise from the widening of the Queensway westbound from the 416.  He reported that the community had worked on several traffic issues since then and had worked very well with the MTO but that they had not had cooperation from City staff.

 

Mr. Anthony Eyton, Crystal Beach/Lakeside Community Association (CBLCA), spoke from a PowerPoint presentation in which he talked about the business case behind the current proposal.  He indicated the CBLCA supported public transit and the City’s objective for improved service and reliability and for reduced travel time.  However, he submitted the justification to spend taxpayers’ money at this time on the proposed interim project was not warranted.  He re-iterated that an at-grade crossing at Moodie Drive would make the service unreliable.  He suggested the potential for congestion delays at peak periods had been eliminated by the recent Queensway widening, arguing that it was faster and more cost effective to stay on the Queensway rather than detouring onto a parallel transitway.  Further, he did not believe the congestion delays east of the 417 / 416 interchange would not be reduced through this interim project and he remarked that the Province was planning to widen the Queensway east of Holly Acres Road.  Therefore, he maintained that this project would not result in reduced travel times.  He referenced page 18 of the staff report (page 139 in the Agenda package) and Document 5, Appendix I in the supporting documentation to the report.  He noted that dwell time at the Moodie and Bayshore stations had not been included in the analysis and would increase the overall travel time and that increased travel time and station stops would increase operating costs.  He recalled that travel delays and passenger frustration had occurred with the detour into and exit from the recently opened Bayshore to Pinecrest segment and as a result, the City now kept buses on the Queensway before 7:00 a.m.  He submitted that the Bayshore to Moodie extension would probably not be fully used because of the increased travel time.  He believed passengers and bus drivers would quickly realize that it was more efficient to stay on the recently widened Queensway.  He felt accessibility to public transit would not be improved given that very few transfers took place at this location and other modes of transport would not easily intersect there.  Further, he believed it did not make sense to build another transit station so close to the existing Bayshore station.  In closing, he recommended waiting until the west transitway extension could be built from Bayshore to Eagleson.  A copy of Mr. Eyton’s presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

 

Councillor Leadman inquired about the references to travel time increasing as a result of this project.  Mr. Eyton stated, to be fair to staff, that they were simply given the job of getting on with the work for this phase 2.  They were initially using data that came out of a study done in the mid-1990s, before the expansion of the Queensway.  He believed that when this project was in the earlier planning stages, it was assumed that it would save travel time.  It had since been confirmed that this was not the case.

 

Responding to questions from Councillor Leadman with respect to the proposed west transitway phasing, Mr. Eyton suggested that building the link from Bayshore to Moodie drive would add to the travel time for residents of Kanata.  Instead, he felt it would make more sense to build it all the way out to Eagleson in one go.  He remarked that the CBLCA had discussed its preference for a link to the Queensway Carleton Hospital and Bells Corners.  However, he maintained that it made no sense to build it piecemeal and that this would be like building the 416 to Smiths Fall, having a two-lane road to Kemptville and then rebuilding it at four lanes all the way into Ottawa.  He felt this made no sense, particularly when the City had the option of deferring a decision on this phase of the project and pulling out all the stops to get the phase from Lincoln Fields to Pinecrest in place.  He felt a more holistic study should be undertaken for everything west from Bayshore at the same time as the City moved ahead with construction from Lincoln Fields to Pinecrest.  He recognized that there should be some overlap.  However, he maintained that highest priority should be given to the missing link from Lincoln Fields to Pinecrest.

 

In reply to questions from Councillor Feltmate and Chair Cullen with respect to reliability and this project’s priority status, Mr. P. Scrimgeour, Manager of Transit Service Design, explained that this section of the system was used by a large number of people each day and the reliability of service would accrue, to the benefit of all these customers.  He submitted anything that was on the main trunk of the transitway and provided a substantial improvement to transit customers would do more benefit than anything else the Service could do to improve service reliability. 

 

Councillor Feltmate acknowledged that there had been improvements with the Queensway’s widening.  She maintained that the Queensway was not all expanded from Moodie to Eagleson; it was done in phases, from Bayshore to Moodie, then from Moodie to Eagleson, and it was currently being done from Eagleson to Terry Fox.  She recognized that these things tended to get done in pieces rather than all at once and she remarked that it took a lot of traffic and congestion before being widened.  She referenced the amount of expansion happening in Kanata and Stittsville and noted that actually building this extension would take some time.  Therefore, she asked if staff anticipated that by the time the City got through this process, the Queensway would be as backed up as it had been prior to its widening.  Mr. Ghadban indicated staff anticipated that the EA process, which would be done over a six month period, would be initiated following Council’s approval of the current report.  Staff would then complete the detailed design in the hopes of being construction ready by the end of 2011 so construction could be started in 2012.  Given the work involved, he expected construction would take a couple of years.

 

Councillor Feltmate wondered where the idea had come with respect to a link to the Queensway Carleton Hospital as she did not believe this was anywhere near the west transitway link to Kanata and Stittsville.  Staff explained that in 2003, there was a Transportation Master Plan (TMP) proposal to build an east / west light rail line, which would have connected the Queensway Carleton Hospital to Bayshore.  However, this was not included in the 2008 TMP.  

 

Mr. Rod MacLean, resident, believed the comments heard with respect to pedestrians and cyclists safety were of the utmost concern.  He noted there was no easy way to get safely across the Queensway from Crystal Beach or Bells Corners and the idea of a pedestrian overpass appealed to him, though he did not know what the design should be.  He felt this became particularly relevant at Holly Acres, where a pedestrian or cyclist on the west side of Holly Acres proceeding south was at risk because cars could turn right at any time on red lights and left turning vehicles could be coming from either of two lanes.  He drew attention to the issue of noise barriers, submitted that these were useless unless there was actually something to stop noise.  He felt that when noise simply got compressed and bounced over the top, it contributed to the problem rather than helping it.  He suggested planting trees on top of berms, noting that a few shrubs did not have the proper effect.  He felt the interim solutions were not quite satisfactory.  He believed area residents taking express buses were unhappy that, if the bus went into the Bayshore station, there was an unnecessary wait to get back onto the Queensway at Pinecrest, which was why they had been pushing for OC Transpo to skip going into Bayshore because getting back on put them back into the middle of rush hour congestion.

 

Ms. France Crochetière, resident, stated she agreed with most of the comments made by Ms Ruth Tremblay in terms of this route being disruptive to the environment.  In light of the aging population and increasing need for easy access to health care centres, she spoke in favour of a connection to Queensway Carleton.  She referenced the open houses held to consult the community on this proposed project, noting they were held at the beginning of summer vacation.  She believed this was a way of trying not to get too many people.  She wondered why the City would rush through this phase, given that the Lincoln Fields to Pinecrest piece was not done.  In closing, she expressed concerns with the fact that traffic data was based on single-day counts, which she felt were not representative of the real situation.  

 

Councillor Qadri asked for clarification on the bus trips that were taken off the Bayshore piece of the transitway and put back onto the Queensway.  Mr. Scrimgeour explained that the section of transitway between Bayshore and Pinecrest opened just short of a year earlier.  Shortly after its opening, it became clear that the Queensway was not as congested before seven am as it is afterwards, to the point where buses that left the transitway to make a stop at the Bayshore station and re-join the Queensway at Pinecrest were actually taking a few seconds longer to go via Bayshore station than if they were to run directly down the Queensway.  As a result, OC Transpo made a change to its routes so that the trips leaving the Eagleson station before a certain time, so as to get to Holly Acres before seven a.m., remained on the Queensway and bypassed the Bayshore station.  However, because the system has seen some congestion happening a little earlier on some days, either because of weather or some other delays, arrangements have been put in place to communicate with drivers from the control centre so they can use the transitway when the Queensway observed to be slow.  He indicated that staff intended to review traffic patterns every quarter and make adjustments to routes as required.  He confirmed that for afternoon return trips, all buses went through the Bayshore station.  He advised that, in the afternoon, operating via the transitway was consistently more reliable because it avoided the back-up on the Queensway near Bayshore where the two highways diverged.

 

In response to a follow-up question from the Councillor, Mr. Scrimgeour confirmed that having return trips go through the Bayshore station gave OC Transpo another vehicle to service more passengers travelling west given that when there was spare capacity on a trip, the bus could pick-up more passengers at Bayshore.  He added, another very valuable addition made possible by the previous year’s opening of the new transitway was that people who were travelling from Kanata or Stittsville to Bayshore, or travelling to buses in the western part of the City, could make this connection much more easily than in the past.

 

Councillor Qadri references trips coming of the City’s east end (Orléans, Cumberland, Blair), and presumed because the eastern part of the transitway was complete, this had a reflection on bus users in that area.  Mr. Scrimgeour indicated he suspected this was correct.

 

Accordingly, the Councillor suspected that having three links missing to complete the westerly transitway affected ridership coming from the City’s west end.  Mr. Scrimgeour responded affirmatively, noting that the west end was in a similar position as the east end was 20 to 25 years ago, shortly after the transitway opened but before the link was constructed through the St. Laurent station and from Hurdman to Blair.  He remarked that as these connections were built, the Service saw considerably more reliable service and ridership increased.  He believed that as there was more reliable service to the west, the same would happen there. 

 

Responding to a follow-up question with respect to ridership, Mr. Scrimgeour stated that by 2021, OC Transpo expected that over 5,000 people per hour would be travelling on this proposed new section of transitway. 

 

Going back to the initial opening of the Bayshore station, Councillor Qadri indicated his community was one that complained about the additional time being used by going into Bayshore.  He believed that was one route at one particular time.  Mr. Scrimgeour confirmed that all the observations were that it was faster to go by the Queensway before 7:00 a.m., through the busy part of rush hour. 

 

Councillor Bloess felt the delegations had made a case with respect to this project not being viable.  He asked for staff and/or the consultants to respond to these assertions.  Mr. Scrimgeour explained the figures presented showed that on opening day, buses would take 46 seconds longer than today, on average, to travel over the transitway.  He assured Committee that staff would be working with staff in road operations and signal timing to reduce this as much as possible.  He noted the report also showed that reliability would improve considerably.  He indicated one of the problems encountered daily on the Queensway was that it varied; four days out of five, it could take two minutes then on the fifth day, it could take seven minutes because of weather, construction, an accident or a hockey game.  He maintained that consistency and reliability were things people generally looked for, but particularly in Transit.  He submitted that if residents could increase the certainty of what trip they needed to be on when leaving their home to get downtown by the time they started work or the time of an appointment, this would assist OC Transpo in convincing more people to use transit.  With respect to accessibility, he remarked that adding a new station at Corkstown and Moodie would provide the ability for people from across the City to travel to work at the very large work locations just north of this area.  He advised they would be able to transfer from there to a frequent feeder bus or walk, if they were going into the former Corkstown properties. 

 

Chair Cullen referenced the delegations’ comments with respect to the reliability of the traffic counts presented.  Mr. Waara noted the delegations had suggested that counts taken in the summer were unique and that this was not standard procedure used by the City or the Ministry.  He confirmed that it was standard procedure to use summer students to do traffic counts, therefore it was fairly standard to do traffic counts during the summer. 

 

Mr. Hunton added that the presenters had also talked about pre-2009 numbers and of having more faith in them than the traffic counts taken in 2009 and 2010.  He explained that the pre-2009 numbers were generated as part of the 2006 TMP and worked through a projection of growth that was proposed to happen by 2031 and extrapolated to 2021.  Therefore, he submitted these were highly mathematical numbers and not based on real situation.  He acknowledged that at the very beginning of the project, this was the only traffic data available.  Because of the construction on the Queensway, there had not been counts taken and any counts that were taken would have been suspect because of the construction itself and the barriers that were being put up to stop the movement from the 416 to Moodie Drive.  Once staff finally got some counts, after the construction was complete in 2009, it was identified that the volumes had gone down.  Being unsure whether this was just a quirk, staff waited until the 2010 numbers were available, which substantiated the 2009 counts, which lead staff to feel it was a trend rather than a blip on the system.  He maintained that, using these numbers and based on projected growth, the intersection would not fail until 2021 or later.   

 

Councillor Doucet asked for a staff comment on a motion directing staff to report back to Committee on the feasibility of building a separate bicycle pedestrian link from the Crystal Beach/Lakeview area to Bells Corners, independent of any decisions regard the Bayshore to Moodie Drive transitway extension. 

 

The Councillor indicated he was very impressed with the feeling of isolation felt by the community and their difficult in crossing the very large expressway to get to their shopping and recreational destinations.  Mr. Ghadban indicated part of the proposed project included modifications to the Moodie Drive overpass with dedicated cycling lanes on both sides and a three meter multi-use pathway for the recreational use.  He believed the bottleneck referenced by the delegations pertained to the Moodie Drive overpass, which was addressed in the current proposal. 

 

Councillor Doucet maintained that the community was asking for an independent crossing.  Mr. Ghadban indicated that a separate crossing was not what staff had been promoting to this point, therefore the motion would not be a duplication of what was already proposed. 

 

Responding to questions from Councillor Doucet with respect to bus lanes on the section of the Queensway that was 10 lanes wide, Mr. Scrimgeour indicated there were two bus lanes on the section west of Moodie Drive but that there no longer were bus lanes east of Moodie, where this extension was proposed to be built. 

 

The Councillor wondered if it was possible to get two bus lanes on the Queensway rather than spending millions of dollars to duplicate it.  Mr. Scrimgeour felt it would be physically difficult, possibly impossible, to construct bus lanes eastbound between Moodie Drive and Holly Acres Road because of the system of ramps involved with the 416 / 417 interchange; from eastbound 417 to south bound 416 and from northbound 416 to eastbound 417. 

 

Councillor Leadman asked for clarification on slide 17 of the staff presentation with respect to Stage 1, 2012 – 2021.  Mr. Dickinson explained that the traffic analysis was done using the updated 2009-2010 traffic counts and taking into account the proposed intersection modifications.  He indicated the analysis showed that it would operate at an acceptable level of service on opening day and, as traffic increased and employment nodes built out, the intersection would need to be monitored to ensure it continued to provide ad adequate level of service.  When it did not, this would trigger the construction of the grade separation at Moodie Drive. 

 

Councillor Leadman noted that the proposed plan left a gap in the transitway to the east, from Lincoln Fields to Pinecrest, and another gap to the west.   She wondered how this would be effective and why the City was not looking to make those connections.  Mr. Scrimgeour maintained this would fill one of the two large gaps; between Moodie and Bayshore.  He noted that the gap from Pinecrest to Lincoln Fields was also the subject of an EA, which was currently underway and which was likely to be a more expensive project to build.  He remarked that it had been to Committee and Council before and Council had directed that the EA be done again to look at other options. 

 

Responding to a follow-up comment from the Councillor, Mr. Scrimgeour maintained the current proposal would increase the section of the run, from downtown to Kanata, that was done exclusively on the transitway.  He explained that currently, buses ran on transitway to south of Lincoln Fields, joined the Queensway for a short distance, left the Queensway and joined the transitway at Pinecrest, rejoined the Queensway at Holly Acres and then got to the bus lanes at Moodie through to Eagleson.  He submitted that once this section was built, two of those transitions would be eliminated. It would take buses out of Queensway traffic except for the section between the Queensway station and Pinecrest.  He maintained that when the next section was built, service would become that much better.  He remarked that building this was incremental on the section that had opened the previous year.  He acknowledged that it would be more valuable as an entire package, once the entire package was built but this did not necessarily mean it had to be built in sequence.  The City could build each section as it suited the priorities of Council.

 

In response to questions from the Councillor with respect to the community’s perception that it was being boxed in, Mr. Scrimgeour responded from the perspective of Transit services.  He indicated the single change was that there would be a new station build at Corkstown and Moodie, which would serve all transit users to and from Kanata and Stittsville.  This would allow more options for travel than what currently existed.  As for the general accessibility of people in and out of the community by foot, by bicycle or by automobile, he submitted that the transitway construction did not create any more barriers than what already existed.  He added that the transitway was designed to be as close to the Queensway as possible, to be as unobtrusive and non-intrusive as possible.  However, he acknowledged that it was not a solution to the existing situation.  He noted that the community was served by route 166 and by the footpath to Bayshore Station and after completion, it would also be served by the foot path to the Moodie and Corkstown station.  He re-iterated that the proposal did not create any new barriers.

 

Councillor Feltmate noted that the report made reference to 6.2M in capital cost savings and $1.2M in operating cost savings.  She wondered whether this pertained to the first phase, project completion or a projection out to 2021.  Mr. Dickinson indicated this referred to the full build out of this transitway; when the grade separation would be in place at Moodie Drive.  He noted that there were some operational cost savings associated with improving the efficiency and reliability of service by removing buses from mixed traffic.  However, he believed the primary benefit would be to transit riders, by providing more predictable service. 

 

Responding to follow-up questions from the Councillor, Mr. Dickinson explained that there was a $27M investment required to grade separate at Moodie Drive, which was deferred by Stage 1.  He indicated that Stage 1 it would achieve some savings, but it would not achieve the majority of the projected savings.

 

Councillor Feltmate inquired as to the walking distance from Crystal Beach to the proposed Corkstown station compared to the walking distance to the existing stops at Moodie and the Queensway.  Mr. Scrimgeour estimated the walking distance would be shorter by about 200 meters. 

 

In reply to follow-up comments from the Councillor, he confirmed that it would be more pleasant for people getting on and off at a station and it would mean that they did not have to stand at a highway intersection where there was splash and spray and cars turning in different directions.  With respect to residents from points south using this station to travel to work locations in Kanata, Mr. Scrimgeour did not think this extension would make for substantial improvements.

 

Councillor Cullen asked staff to go back to slide 5, which showed the TMP Rapid Transit Network Phasing – West Transitway Extension.  He noted the City had a TMP that sought to extend bus rapid transit to start out to the east, down to the south and out to the west.  He recalled that going to the west, previous EAs had identified the Queensway corridor as the recommended route.  He believed the current EA was to deal with a portion of the system going from Bayshore to Moodie.  Ms. Vivi Chi, Manager of Transportation Planning, confirmed this.  

 

Councillor Cullen maintained the whole notion was that ultimately, the City would have a continuous system that would be able to go from Stittsville or Kanata on the bus, avoid congestion, and ride all along the transitway into downtown.  Ms. Chi responded affirmatively. 

 

Summing up the issues, Chair Cullen indicated the City already had a transitway that got to Lincoln Fields and down to Baseline and that the current objective was to head west.  He further noted that there was a section in place between Pinecrest and Bayshore and an EA was underway for the section between Lincoln Fields and Pinecrest.  He believed the current proposal was brought forward because of a need for reliability and that once it was built out, there would be time savings and reliability savings for the folks living in the west end travelling to downtown.  He maintained it was a question of which section to do first and of choosing a route.  He remarked that the proposed EA was to select a reasonable connection between Bayshore and Moodie and that there were four alternatives.  With respect to a station at Moodie Drive, he indicated the City believed it had accurate traffic data.  Although there was some criticism of the data, staff had explained that the method used was an industry standard and he noted that professional engineers had signed off on it.  He recalled that there had been other options explored and at one time, the selected location was an important employment node, with about 30,000 people working there, and that the City hoped it would again become an important employment node.  He believed this was a good thing for Crystal Beach/Lakeview.  He suggested the outstanding question related to noise.  He recognized that the community was upset about noise and he felt this was justifiable.  He remarked that the staff proposal had the footing for noise barriers because the MTO had identified something like 17,000 meters of noise barriers in two sections in this area.  With respect to cycling facilities, he reported being very familiar with the area and having cycled it many times.  He remarked that from the Queensway Carleton Hospital down to Holly Acres Road and from there down to Andrew Haydon Park, there was a dedicated bike path and that there was a pedestrian connection to the south between Holly Acres and Moodie but staff was proposing something there, which had been reviewed by the City’s Cycling Advisory Committee.  He opined that Committee was not seeing anything in this proposal that was inconsistent with the TMP, nor was there anything inconsistent with the desire to move people.  He submitted that if Committee and Council did not move forward, the City would lose opportunities for pedestrian and cycling connections and would experience more traffic trying to get off the Queensway using Carling Avenue, more people waiting for buses, and more people experiencing unreliable service.

 

At this juncture, Chair Cullen ceded the Chair to Councillor Leadman so he could introduce a motion.

 

In introducing his motion, Chair Cullen confirmed that the noise in this area was horrific and that it had gotten worst with the construction of the 416 and the widening of the Queensway.  He believed the good news was that the MTO had already looked at this area and identified a need for noise barriers.  However, it was not high on their priority list.  For this reason, he introduced a motion calling for the City to go ahead and build the noise barriers then bill the Province for the costs.  Should the Province respond less than favourably, the matter would come back to Committee and Council and he would be asking for the $4M it would take to put in those noise barriers. 

 

He then read his motion into the record and Committee voted to approve it.

 

Moved by Councillor A. Cullen

 

Whereas existing noise levels in the 417 corridor from Bayshore to Moodie Drive range to upwards of 63 dBA;

Whereas the dominant source of roadway noise is and will continue to be Highway 417 and;

Whereas the projected growth in highway traffic will result in future noise levels that exceed 60 dBA at a number of receptor locations;

Whereas the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) has identified areas along the route as candidate sites for their Retrofit Noise Barrier Program:

Therefore be it resolved that Transit Committee recommend that Council direct staff to engage the Ministry of Transportation and the National Capital Commission in discussions to implement noise barriers and;

That staff be directed to seek funding sources at the Federal, Provincial and Municipal level and report back to the Transit Committee within three months and;

That the funding sources be identified as a condition of moving forward with noise barriers in order that these sound attenuation features are completed as part of the West Transitway Extension (Bayshore to Moodie Drive).

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

Chair Cullen then resumed chairing the meeting and asked Councillor Doucet whether he still wished to introduce his motion for a bicycle crossing in this area.

 

Councillor Doucet stated that when the community presented, he was struck by the fact that what was recommended by Citizens for Safe Cycling was not anywhere near, nor did it have the same trajectory, as the staff proposal.  He recalled the debate surrounding the foot bridge over the Rideau Canal, some 400 meters from the Laurier Bridge and he remarked on its success in terms of daily pedestrian and bicycle traffic.  He maintained that cyclists and pedestrians did not want to share the road with cars, trucks and buses and that they wanted to be able to walk or cycle across their own bridge to get to their destinations because it felt safer and more comfortable.  For these reasons, he stated that his motion would stand and he read it into the record: 

 

Moved by Councillor C. Doucet

 

Be it resolved that staff report back to Committee on the feasibility of building a separate bicycle pedestrian link from the Crystal Beach/Lakeview area to Bells Corners, independent of any decisions regard the Bayshore to Moodie Drive transitway extension.

 

Councillor Cullen wondered how staff understood this motion, noting that there was already a bicycle facility at Moodie Drive and part of the proposal involved a bicycle facility at the Moodie Drive Bridge.  He submitted that the motion proposed to cross into corn fields and get to Bells Corners another way, which he assumed would involve discussions with the NCC because it owned the land in question.  Staff noted the proposal would also require MTO approval as it would require crossing the 417.

 

Councillor Cullen described the area’s geography, noting that the proposed link would have to cross over about 10 lanes, given that there were Queensway lanes in both directions as well as ramps in this area for the 416, Richmond Road and Holly Acres Road.  He also referenced the Corkstown Bridge over the Rideau Canal, recalling that he had voted in favour of it and that 3,000 people used it daily.  He wondered if staff had any notion how many people would use a bridge in this location, given that Crystal Beach/Lakeview was a community of 1,300 homes.  He surmised that it would be nowhere near 3,000 daily.  He believed such a bridge was a wonderful idea, but that it was not practical. 

 

Councillor Legendre felt the motion’s intent was excellent and that it could be improved considerable with some discussion.  He referenced slide 21 of the staff presentation, which depicted the pedestrian and cycling network at Moodie.  He inquired about the cost of making the proposed cycling lane a segregated lane; putting in some small barrier to prevent vehicles from nudging over.  He submitted this would not be a major modification, yet it would have a huge increase in the security.  Mr. Hunton explained there were two different types of facilities being proposed.  The bike lanes immediately adjacent to the vehicle lanes were intended as commuter cycle lanes and were proposed to be at-grade with vehicular traffic.  Then there was a full recreational pathway on one side, for other cyclists and pedestrians, which was proposed to be on a raised platform, separate from vehicular traffic. 

 

Chair Cullen clarified that on Moodie Drive, from the 417 north to Carling Avenue, there already existed a bike path that was segregated from the roadway and on the south side, going towards Bells Corners, this was a roadway with gravel shoulders and it was not part of the current EA.  He believed his colleague had identified a cycling link that needed to be improved.  However, he did not believe it was the purview of the current EA process.

 

Going back to slide 21, Councillor Legendre wondered why staff was not proposing the raised, multi-use facilities on both sides of the bridge instead on putting it only on one side.  Mr. Hunton explained that to achieve it, staff had taken away a south bound lane of traffic and re-allocated some of the lane widths to create the two cycling lanes and the one multi-use path.  He noted that the cycling lanes were proposed to be one meter wide, whereas the preference was normally two meters.

 

Councillor Feltmate believed one of the problems related to cars and trucks cutting across the bicycle lane to get onto the Queensway.  She wondered if the motion could explore ways of making this safer. 

 

Councillor Cullen explained that in his ward, there were connections at Maitland, at Woodroffe, at Pinecrest and at Richmond Road crossing the Queensway.  He noted that at each place, there were pedestrians and cyclists crossing the Queensway and in all cases, there were sidewalks as well as the need to cross an access ramp.  People stopped, looked at the traffic, and then crossed.  He submitted that Moodie was no different other than at the overpass there, the sidewalks had been taken away, though he did not know why.  He remarked that with the current proposal, staff would be bringing the sidewalks back in and ensuring there was a cycling facility.  He maintained that the existing cycling and pedestrian facilities would be improved through the current proposal.  He agreed with his colleagues’ desire to improve the situation.  However, he believed that, in consultation with the City’s Road and Cycling Advisory Committee, staff was proposing something that would work.  He remarked that Councillor Doucet’s motion was looking for a separate bridge/cycle link from one side of the Queensway to the other.

 

Councillor Doucet maintained that his motion talked about the feasibility, it did not talk about where it should go or how it should be constructed.  He found it interesting that Citizens for Safe Cycling were credited in one case for the bridge but discredited for the proposal that the resident brought forward.  He noted the ward Councillor had made it abundantly clear that he knew the area better.  Although he felt the ward Councillor had characterized the motion’s intent and purpose unfairly, he indicated he would not presume to advance a motion that the ward Councillor would not support.  Therefore, he withdrew his motion. 

 

Chair Cullen stated he would be happy to work with Councillor Doucet, prior to this item rising to Council, to see if they could come up with something better because he believed the intent was good. 

 

Councillor Legendre thanked Councillor Doucet for withdrawing his motion.  He also believed the intent was good, though perhaps misplaced in terms of this transitway EA.  Therefore, he encouraged him to bring it back when Committee and Council dealt with the Cycling Plan. 

 

Speaking to the report before Committee, Councillor Feltmate agreed that in a perfect world, phase 4 would be done first.  She felt it should have been done long ago.  When looking at the modal split and why the west end did not have the same ridership as the east, she believed it was clear that the reason was related to the transitway not being completed and therefore not serving the population well, which lead to people driving instead of using transit.  Therefore, she encouraged the City to do what it could when it could.  She maintained that the proposed link would reduce one more time of buses getting on and off the Queensway and would leave one small section to be completed.  She believed that as funding came along, the City would be ready to move forward.

 

As the ward Councillor, Chair Cullen wanted to comment on the report and on the process that had led the City to the current point.  He commended the folks from Crystal Beach/Lakeview who had engaged with this process.  He noted that there hade been six meetings with the community association, in addition to the three open houses, all of which were well attended.  He remarked that residents had put staff’s and the consultants’ feet to the fire and that their impact had shaped what was before Committee.  The community’s influence had pushed the transitway off the bike path and off the Stillwater Creek forest, had bundled it with the MTO land and provided the opportunity for noise barriers.  He felt staff had responded to the community’s concerns by providing an overpass at Holly Acres Road and by working with the Road and Cycling Advisory Committee and in-house cycling staff to address the needs at Moodie Drive.  He acknowledged that there was more progress to be made, but he maintained it could not be said that staff did not at least try to respond to the community’s concerns.  He commended staff for making adjustments.  In the bigger picture of things, he maintained that this was a needed piece of transit infrastructure to help the City grow.  He felt it was unfortunate that it started here instead of someplace else, but he recognized that it ultimately had to happen.  The City had to get the transitway out to Kanata.  He remarked that he had managed to avoid the widening of Carling Avenue through the greenbelt going into Crystal Beach/Lakeview because of traffic concerns.  He believed the answer was to invest in transit.

 

Committee received the following written submissions, which are held on file with the City Clerk:

·         e-mail from Jeff Jessen dated 26 August 2010;

·         e-mail from Linda Short dated 26 August 2010;

·         e-mail from Ruth Tremblay dated 26 August 2010;

·         e-mail from Gerry Tapp dated 26 August 2010

·         e-mail from Steven and Shannon Harrison dated 26 August 2010;

·         e-mail from Arthur Andreassen dated 29 August 2010;

·         e-mail from Angus Watt dated 21 June 2010;

·         e-mail from Krista Rajsic dated 25 June 2010;

·         e-mail from Kevin McCartney dated 25 June 2010;

·         e-mail from Steven and Shannon Harrison dated 25 June 2010;

·         e-mail from Heather McBrien dated 26 June 2010;

·         e-mail from George Stretton dated 27 June 2010;

·         e-mail from Tony and Barb Baldock dated 28 June 2010;

·         e-mail from John Biddle and Rosemary Dilabio dated 28 June 2010;

·         e-mail from Dorothy Hayley dated 28 June 2010;

·         e-mail from Pascal Lacaille dated 16 July 2009;

·         e-mail from Anni Genevieve Berthiaume dated 15 July 2009;

·         letter from Krista Rajsic, undated;

·         letter from Elizabeth Labelle, undated;

·         e-mail from Katherine Cooper dated 16 July 2009;

·         e-mail from Richard McLean dated 16 July 2009;

·         submission from Peter Ruptash, undated;

·         e-mail from Christine Mihailedes dated 16 July 2009;

·         submission from Heather McBrien, undated;

·         e-mail from Anthony T. Eyton dated 17 July 2009;

·         submission from Neal Chatterley, undated;

·         submission from Louise F. LeBlanc, undated

·         submission from Debbie Wallace, undated;

·         submission from Michele Kerschbaumer, undated; and

·         e-mail from Robert Wilson dated 17 July 2009.

 

Committee then voted on the item as amended.

 

That the Transit Committee recommend Council:

 

1.   Approve the functional design (Preliminary Recommended Plan) to extend the West Transitway from Bayshore Station to west of Moodie Drive as described in this report and detailed in Documents 1 to 6;

 

2.   Direct staff to initiate the Transit Project Assessment Process based on the functional design in accordance with the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (Regulation 231/08) including the preparation and filing of the Environmental Project Report (EPR) for formal public review and comment; and

 

3.   Whereas existing noise levels in the 417 corridor from Bayshore to Moodie Drive range to upwards of 63 dBA;

Whereas the dominant source of roadway noise is and will continue to be Highway 417 and;

Whereas the projected growth in highway traffic will result in future noise levels that exceed 60 dBA at a number of receptor locations;

Whereas the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) has identified areas along the route as candidate sites for their Retrofit Noise Barrier Program:

Therefore be it resolved that Transit Committee recommend that Council direct staff to engage the Ministry of Transportation and the National Capital Commission in discussions to implement noise barriers and;

That staff be directed to seek funding sources at the Federal, Provincial and Municipal level and report back to the Transit Committee within three months and;

That the funding sources be identified as a condition of moving forward with noise barriers in order that these sound attenuation features are completed as part of the West Transitway Extension (Bayshore to Moodie Drive).

 

CARRIED as amended with Councillor C. Leadman dissenting

 

 

CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE

BUREAU DU DIRECTEUR MUNICIPAL

 

CITY CLERK’S and LEgal services

DIRECTION DU GREFFIER MUNICIPAL et des contentieux

 

7.         Status Update – TransIT Committee Inquiries and Motions for the period ending 20 august, 2010

RAPPORT DE SITUATION - DEMANDES DE RENSEIGNEMENTS ET MOTIONS DU COMITE Du transport en commun POUR LA PÉRIODE SE TERMINANT le 20 aoÛt 2010

 

That the Transit Committee receive this report for information.

 

                                                                                                RECEIVED

 

 

CITY TREASURER AND FINANCE

TRÉSORERIE ET FINANCES DE LA VILLE

 

8.         2010 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET Q2 – TRANSIT COMMITTEE STATUS REPORT

Budgets de fonctionnement et des immobilisations 2010 – T2 – Rapport d’étape du Comité de services de transport en commun

 

Committee dealt with items 3 and 8 concurrently – Quarterly Performance Report to Council, Q2 : April 1 to June 31, 2020 (ACS2010-CCS-TRC00012) and 2010 Operating and Capital Budget Q2 – Transit Committee Status Report (ACS2010-CMR-FIN-0059).

 

For a summary of the discussion, please see Minutes under item 3.

 

That the Transit Committee:

 

1.      Receive the June 30 results and the 2010 forecast as outlined in this report for information; and

 

2.      Recommend Council approve the budget adjustments as detailed in Documents 3 and 4.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

 

REAL ESTATE PARTNERSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE

BUREAU PARTENARIATS ET DÉVELOPPEMENT EN IMMOBILIÉRS

 

9.         LAND Exchange - 651 Industrial Avenue, Part of 848 belfast road and part of pin 04256-0679, city of ottawa  

Échange d’un terrain – 651, avenue INDUSTRIAL, PARTIE DU 848, CHEMIN BELFAST ET PARTIE DU PIN 04256-0679, VILLE D’OTTAWA

 

That the Transit Committee recommend Council:

 

1.      Declare a portion of 651 Industrial Avenue containing a combined land area of 2,919.2m², subject to final survey and described as being PIN 04256-0235, part of PIN 04256-0405 and part of PIN 04256-0315, in the City of Ottawa, shown as Parcels 1, 2 and 3 on the attached Document 1, as surplus to the City’s needs; and

 

2.      Approve the sale of the land referred to in Recommendation 1, having a value of $630,000, together with $390,000 plus HST to 166332 Ontario Inc., in exchange for parcels of vacant land containing a combined land area of 3,413.4m² subject to final survey, described as being Part of PIN 04256-0679 and part of PIN 04256-0225, in the City of Ottawa, shown as Parcels 4 and 5 on the attached Document, having a value of $1,020,000 subject to any easements that may be required, pursuant to an Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 

COUNCILLORS’ ITEMS

ARTICLES DES CONSEILLERS

 

Councillor / Conseiller CULLEN

 

10.       comprehensive review of Para Transpo

EXAMEN COMPLET DES SERVICES DE PARA TRANSPO

 

Whereas Para Transpo provides transit services to those who, through physical limitations (verified by a physician), cannot use the City’s regular transit service (OC Transpo);

 

Whereas since amalgamation in 2000 there has not been a comprehensive review of Para Transpo mandate, policies and funding;

 

Whereas the City of Ottawa strives to provide public services to be accessible to residents with all disabilities (consistent with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act );

 

Therefore be it resolved that staff be directed to provide to Transit Committee a report outlining an independent comprehensive review of Para Transpo services, including timeline, budget, review panel composition, scope of issues to be reviewed (including eligibility for Para Transpo use), and opportunities for public input, to be conducted in 2011;

 

And that this report on the review process be presented to the November 2010 meeting of Transit Committee.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 

INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED

INFORMATION DISTRIBUÉE AUPARAVANT

 

A.        TRANSIT SERVICES LABOUR RELATIONS PROGRESS UPDATE

Services de transport en commun – Mise à jour sur la progression dans les relations de travail

 

                                                                                                            RECEIVED

 

 

B.         LESSONS LEARNED FROM SLATER STREET CONSTRUCTION

            LEÇONS TIRÉES DE LA CONSTRUCTION SUR LA RUE SLATER

 

                                                                                                            RECEIVED

 

 

 

ADJOURNMENT

LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE

 

The meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                           

Committee Coordinator                                                       Chair