Special meeting of Transportation Committee

Réunion extraordinaire du Comité des transports

Minutes 26 / Procès-verbal 26

Monday, 12 January 2009, 9:30 a.m.

le lundi 12 janvier 2009, 9 h 30

Andrew S. Haydon Hall, 110 Laurier Avenue West

Salle Andrew S. Haydon, 110, avenue Laurier ouest

Present / Présents : Councillors / Conseillers M. McRae (Chair / Présidente), C. Leadman (Vice-Chair / Vice-présidente), G. Bédard, R. Bloess, A. Cullen, C. Doucet, J. Legendre, D. Thompson, M. Wilkinson

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT

No declarations of interest were filed.

INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES & COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY

SERVICES D’INFRASTRUCTURE ET VIABILITÉ DES COLLECTIVITÉS

PRESENTATION

PRÉSENTATION

1. INTERPROVINCIAL CROSSINGS STUDY – NCC PRESENTATION – PHASE 1 STUDY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ÉTUDE CONCERNANT LES PASSAGES INTERPROVINCIAUX – PRÉSENTATION DE LA CCN – PHASE 1 CONCLUSIONS DE L’ÉTUDE ET

RECOMMANDATIONS

ACS2009-CCS-TRC-0001 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

The following memos were circulated to all members of Council and are held on file :

a. Memo dated 5 January 2009 from the Deputy City Manager, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability (CD Rom also held on file)

b. NCC announcements dated 5 January 2009 re “Summary of the Study Main Recommendations” and “The Findings from Phase 1 Are Now Available”

c. Memo dated 9 January 2009 from the City Clerk and Solicitor

Public submissions received before, during and following the meeting are listed at Annex A to these Minutes. A copy of all submissions is held on file.

At the outset of the meeting, Councillor Legendre referred to the memo previously distributed from the Deputy City Manager (ACS2009-ICS-ECO-0007 IPD refers) in which it is indicated the NCC is seeking Council’s endorsement prior to their first board meeting scheduled for 22 January. He inquired whether the MTO and the MOE would also have to give their endorsement to this study before the NCC could proceed to Phase 2. In addition, he was extremely discouraged by the fact the ‘full’ report had not been provided to councillors and he questioned the appropriateness of having to give endorsement to a ‘summary’ report.

In response to these comments, Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, advised that the role of the federal government is to pronounce on the entire Phase 1 project; he would expect the MTO to do this and anticipated that the MOE would await the outcome of the process. Regarding the memo provided by the Deputy City Manager about this and the legal opinion contained therein, he confirmed that the purpose of today’s meeting is to endorse the conclusions reached to date on the Interprovincial Crossings Study and to endorse moving forward to Phase 2. He provided a brief overview of what Council has already endorsed with respect to Kettle Island (June 2007), as well as the contents of the City Solicitor’s memo dated 9 January 2009.

With regards to Councillor Legendre’s concerns about having only the summary report, Mr. Marc advised that there is a lot of information on the NCC’s website and it is open to the Committee and Council to determine if that information is sufficient to make a decision.

Councillor Legendre asked why the City would have wasted any effort in participating in this Environmental Assessment (EA) if the results of it are a foregone conclusion. Mr. Marc indicated the rules do apply unless there is new information. The councillor went on to state that if Council ran the EA study it would not have allowed that Motion in 2007 and when there is an EA the City follows the provincial rules and it is the Province that would lead that study. He explained that that was his understanding of the role of the province in this study. However, he now believed that the original Motion was open to challenge in the courts because since Council chose to adopt a position prior to the start of the Study, it could be argued that staff, in participating in the EA, were constrained because of the Council position. Mr. Marc believed staff had taken that into account when providing their professional advice to Council on this matter. The councillor indicated he would request that the Committee go in camera at the end of the meeting, to resolve the issue of the City being exposed to legal challenges on that basis.

Responding to questions posed by Councillor Legendre about what documents are provided when the City conducts an EA, Mr. Marc was not sure if councillors receive the entire report. The councillor explained that it is not a question of whether or not it is sufficient, but his concerns were what is available, is incomplete. Mr. Marc posited that the appropriate way to deal with this is through a Motion of Committee and Council.

With respect to the senior levels of government having to make a decision by 22 January, Councillor Legendre was given to understand that the MTO will be unlikely to meet that deadline and therefore he did not believe the Committee should feel constrained having to make a recommendation today.

Councillor Bédard recalled that when the issue of Kettle Island was before Council in 2007, it was a decision made as a result of a Motion from the Transportation Committee. He recalled that at that time there was no information provided and that it was simply a political decision; Council decided that the crossing was going to be at Kettle Island so the other locations would be avoided. He asked if now there was new information because no information had been provided in June 2007. Mr. Marc stated that had there been new information at that time, a different recommendation might have been the outcome. Because Council has already taken a position on the preferred crossing, therefore, the councillor inquired why this matter is before the Committee now. Mr. Marc explained that it is as a result of an NCC requirement. Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager, added that the NCC requested that this be brought to the City for endorsement to taking Kettle Island forward and to proceed to the next phase of the EA.

Councillor Bédard asked whether the Committee could vote against moving forward with Phase 2 and reverse the decision on Kettle Island. Chair McRae emphasized this question by asking whether the Committee and Council could revisit the decision of 2007. Mr. Marc explained that if the Study proceeds, Council has adopted a decision with the crossing being at Kettle Island. He added that the recommendation specified “if there has to be an east-end bridge crossing” so if members do not want it, they should vote against moving forward.

Councillor Legendre proposed a Motion, the effect of which would be as follows:

That the National Capital Commission be requested to provide the full Environmental Assessment Phase 1 report prior to seeking an endorsement.

Councillor Cullen suggested the Committee consider the Motion, following the presentation by the NCC and after receiving the public delegations. The Chair agreed with this course of action.

Following on this, Councillor Bédard asked whether the Committee had the full EA report in front of them. Steve Taylor, Vice President, Transportation Ontario, GENIVAR confirmed that they did. Councillor Legendre was surprised by this response because he could not find all the documentation. Mr. Taylor confirmed that what is before the Committee is the complete EA Phase 1 report. And, posted to the web is the summary report (Volumes 2-5). Volume 1 is currently in translation and would be released next week when it is available in both official languages.

Councillor Bédard took exception to this response and on a point of privilege, stated that he had asked the same question and was given a different answer. The Chair asked the consultant to explain the context of his answer. To clarify, Mr. Taylor explained that only the English version is before the Committee today, but all the volumes are available on the web. Responding to questions posed by the Chair, he further explained that Committee members have the technical appendices, but not the full report. He confirmed that the French version is not yet available.

Councillor Legendre stated that the federal government does not release public documentation in one language and that both official languages should be served at the same time. He was prepared to have the NCC provide their summary of this issue today and to ask the Committee not to rule on the endorsement of moving to Phase 2. He was willing, however, to hold his Motion until after the presentation and public delegations.

John Moser, Director, Planning Branch and City Planner introduced the following members of the Steering Committee and the Study Team for the EA:

· Phil Pawliuk, Area Engineer and Glen Higgins, MTO

· Jacques Filion, Regional Director, MTQ

· François Lapointe, A/Vice President, Capital Planning and Real Asset Management, NCC

· Paul Bobby and Gabrielle Simonyi, NCC

· Steve Taylor, Roche-NCE

· Vivi Chi, Manager, Transportation and Infrastructure Planning, City of Ottawa

· Mona Abouhenidy, Program Manager, Transportation Strategic Planning, City of Ottawa

Prior to receiving the presentation by the consultant, Mr. Lapointe offered the following points:

· the NCC must rule on 22 January

· they will respect whatever decision the City makes

· the study is a financial partnership with the NCC, the Ministry of Ontario, the Ministry of Quebec, the City of Gatineau and the City of Ottawa

· the EA is a harmonized process and was conducted in two phases; Phase 1 addressed the need for the crossing; Phase 2 is either to go forward or not but within that, would be the EA of the recommended crossing and seeking approval for the project

· it has been four years since the study was initiated and there is probably another three years before the completion of Phase 2

Mr. Taylor provided a detailed overview of the study. The main areas highlighed included: the Planning Process; Selection and Benefits of the Technically Preferred Alternative (including strengths and weaknesses of Corridor 5 (Kettle Island); and, Public Issues and Responses to the Recommended Plan. A copy of his PowerPoint presentation is held on file.

The following public delegations presented:

Jane Brammer, New Edinburgh Community Alliance indicated that she Chairs a coalition of community organizations (Community Action for Reasonable Analyses and Decisions or “CARAD”) of which the New Edinburgh Community Alliance is a member and they requested that she speak for them. They were particularly concerned that as part of the public consultation process, 1688 written comments were submitted and yet no acknowledgments of input were reflected in this study report. They found it hard to believe that not one of these submissions had any weight whatsoever in changing the decision of choosing Kettle Island as the preferred option. Additionally, they believe there was an unbalanced assessment conducted and do not agree with the Consultants recommended “technically preferred solution” for the following reasons:

· a bridge at this location will not remove heavy commercial traffic from King Edward Avenue

· the location is not favourable for efficient public transit

· the categories of information used to compare different bridge options were ranked in such way as to give more weight to traffic efficiencies and cost, despite the fact the public wanted those categories ranked lowest in value; if the scoring system is re-balanced to represent better the concerns of people and communities Kettle Island is NOT the preferred bridge location

· if scores for traffic, natural and cultural environments were equal, Kettle Island would have come third in the list, while Gatineau Airport would rate first

· public and community values deserve more attention

In closing, she recommended that the City respond to this new information and implement a substantive new Motion to advise the Study Proponents to include in Phase 2 another corridor east of Kettle Island and in the Greenbelt area where there is more space to provide better separation between homes and highways, better connections to transit, and will enable heavy truck traffic to proceed unobstructed by signalized intersections. Additional details are contained in her speaking notes and “A Bridge at Kettle Island ? A Closer Look” (CARAD submission), both of which are held on file.

Referring to the comment about the number of public comments submitted and nothing being changed, Councillor Bédard asked if that was normal for such a process and what the consultant did with all that information. Mr. Taylor confirmed that they had reviewed all the comments provided (6.0 of the Summary Report) and as a result, performed sensitivity testing to look at the various corridors. In reality, the difference in the weight was not substantial between the two options. He further confirmed that many comments were received regarding culture and if the weighting values were changed, it would alter the results of the study. It was determined not to change those values.

Responding to a question posed by Councillor Legendre, Mr. Taylor confirmed that Kettle Island was not the first choice in all seven categories. Following some further discussion regarding the delegations’ presentation, the councillor pointed out that the Evaluation Committee is made up of people with technical backgrounds and the people bringing this proposal forward have a transportation background. Therefore, this study is based on cost and transportation and not the environment.

Royal Galipeau, MP, Ottawa-Orléans explained that the information provided by the expert panel is not inconsistent with that which was provided to Gloucester City Council in 1984. The conclusion at that time was, that by 1989, a new interprovincial crossing would be built at Kettle Island, by linking what is now called the Aviation Parkway with the province of Quebec. He maintained that the City would still reach the same conclusions as those reached 25 years ago, and that is to construct a bridge at Kettle Island.

Responding to questions posed by Committee members, Mr. Galipeau provided the following:

· the Eastern Parkway (now called the Aviation Parkway) was built 40 years ago in preparation for an approach to an interprovincial bridge at Kettle Island

· the former City of Cumberland had recommended a crossing at Petrie Island in the 1990’s for economic reasons; however, this island has many recreational advantages and therefore goes against building a bridge there

· the recommendation of the JACPAT study (mid-1980’s) was for a river crossing at Kettle Island; however, the bridge was not built due to the lack of federal funding at that time.

Pete Weston, Queenswood Heights Community Association spoke in support of the Kettle Island crossing as it would help to reduce congestion on Highway 417. There are over 14,000 residents in this community and the only route in and out is Highway 174, which feeds into Highway 417 causing traffic disruptions and complaints from residents. The infrastructure is not in place to build a new bridge east of the split, but if a crossing is provided at Kettle Island, traffic can branch off from Highway 417 without using the secondary lanes destined for Orléans. In addition, motorists travelling west will be able to take the Queensway and those going to destinations further east will already be traveling on Highway 417. Therefore Kettle Island is the most logical place to build a new interprovincial bridge.

Roger Smiley, Blackburn Hamlet Community Association explained that theirs is a community made up of about 9000 people, the majority of which support the recommendation to build a new bridge at Kettle Island. He reiterated the fact there have already been three studies done on this location, the latest of which cost approximately $4.5M and he emphasized that it is now time to start building and to stop wasting taxpayer’s money on additional studies. He echoed some of the points raised by the previous delegation about congestion on Highway 417, noting that if the split is not dealt soon, that congestion will only get worse. A bridge at Kettle Island will also aid in reducing the amount of truck traffic in the downtown.

Tim Tierney President, Beacon Hill North Community Association spoke about how their community of 5400 people will be the most affected by the Committee’s decision since it is situated between Kettle Island and the other proposed locations. The current transit strike has given them a good idea of what traffic will be like if the City does not build a bridge at Kettle Island.

Brian Roberts, Riverwalk stated that taxdollars should not continue to be thrown away on studies and that the results of the last two recommended Kettle Island, which is the best location for a crossing.

Sean Crossen, past-President, Cardinal Creek Community Association indicated that their community, which is close to Petrie Island, is made up of approximately 10,000 people. He spoke about the economic advantages of building a bridge at Kettle Island, noting it is time to act on the best solution for an interprovincial link between the two provinces. He believed a crossing at this location would help to reduce the number of heavy trucks coming through the downtown, thereby removing a safety threat for residents and pedestrians.

Dave Villeneuve, Fallingbrook Community Association indicated that the approximately 24,000 residents that make up this community fully support the conclusions of the study and the recommendation of the link at Kettle Island. He echoed many of the points raised by the previous delegations with respect to eliminating downtown truck traffic and reducing congestion on Highways 417 and 174. He was concerned that if the City does not support the study recommendations, this same situation will repeat itself in another 10 years. He urged members of the Committee to support the study recommendations so Phase 2 of the study can commence.

Judy Lishman was concerned what a bridge at Kettle Island would be like, especially in the approaches leading up to the crossing. She noted that an estimated 1700 heavy trucks are expected to use this corridor on a daily basis and she wondered how the emissions from those vehicles will affect the approximately 12,000 residents living in the community. Mrs. Lishman further wondered how noise levels would be addressed, noting these are not to be considered until Phase 2. She also wondered how a four-laned road (with bicycle lanes) can be built in a corridor where there has been recent residential development. Mrs. Lishman was also concerned that heavy truck traffic (some transporting hazardous material) would be traveling through some important institutions including: the National Archives; the Aviation Museum, and; the RCMP Musical Ride. She was also concerned about the impact heavy truck traffic would have on sensitive MRI equipment at the Montfort Hospital which would be adjacent to this corridor. A copy of her written submission is held on file.

Don Lishman stated that determination of the future travel demand across the Ottawa River is the most important analysis in order to establish the need for a new bridge. He subsequently was concerned about the consultant’s projected trips of 2.4% per annum, when the estimated population increase will be 31% by 2031 or 1.1% for the same period. He believed it was highly unlikely that the travel demand would exceed the population growth rate. Further explanation for this analysis is contained in his written submission. Mr. Lishman made the following additional comments, the details of which are also contained in his submission:

· a new interprovincial crossing is required to solve truck traffic problems in established communities; such heavy vehicles must be removed where adjacent land uses are incompatible with such movement and the Kettle Island corridor does not meet this requirement because it has over 7 km of residential, commercial and institutional uses

· a new crossing is also required to enhance the use of transit; the study indicates that the Kettle Island corridor is the least useful corridor for transit and an examination of the City’s recently approved LRT/BRT plan does not integrate with the proposed transit plan

· considering how important transit use and the modal split are in determining bridge capacity, it is shocking that the rapid transit study has not preceded this study so as to rationalize the selection of a suitable interprovincial crossing

A copy of his written submission is held on file.

John Forsey, President, Manor Park Community Association believed that the consultants’ recommendation to build a bridge at Kettle Island is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Transportation Committee. He provided details for this conclusion in his written submission. He submitted the following additional points in opposition to using the Kettle Island corridor:

· it could encourage automobile commuting and discourage transit use

· this corridor would disrupt the most heavily used portion of the east-west pathways that parallel the Ottawa River

· widening the Aviation Parkway to four lanes north of Montreal Road would leave no room for the NCC pathway used by walkers and cyclists

· increased congestion on Hemlock and Beechwood would also discourage use of these streets as cycling routes

· Kettle Island will not solve the major existing health and safety problem due to heavy truck traffic along the Rideau/King Edward corridor

· Kettle Island is the longest of the corridors between Highway 50 in Quebec and Highways 417 and 174 in Ontario; it also traverses the largest number of east-west city streets; therefore, rather than routing truck and commuter traffic to expressways where it belongs, it facilitates the dispersion of this traffic onto Hemlock, Beechwood, St. Patrick, Montreal and Ogilvie/Coventry, all of which are already congested; any attempts to remediate the congestion and the increased maintenance costs would be at the expense of the City

· this corridor could not stimulate economic development because the route passes almost entirely through already developed residential zoned land; there is no opportunity to stimulate development on any available land zoned commercial or industrial

A copy of his written presentation is held on file.

Andrew Katz questioned whether the volume of traffic travelling between the two provinces justifies the negative impact a crossing at Kettle Island will impose on the surrounding communities? Also, how much traffic will be forced into these communities? He was particularly concerned that traffic levels are estimated to exceed the numbers predicted by planners, within 5 to 10 years. He did not believe the true effects on the communities have been addressed and he did not believe Kettle Island is the best location for a river crossing. He did not have an alternative route to offer, but suggested the whole process should be redone.

Roland Madou referred to the consultant’s report and the comparison made on the 12 corridor options selected in terms of seven factor groups. He made note of the fact that Kettle Island scored last in many of the factor groups, but was rated first for traffic, which is not surprising since the closer a bridge is to downtown, the more it attracts traffic.

Based on the ranking of the corridor options, Mr. Madou expected Kettle Island would be ranked last, as it was in 1999, but it is not. It is ranked first because it offers a balanced solution. He questioned the rating of issues used to rank this corridor as number one, and was especially concerned that human and environmental factors were not deemed important enough by any of the panel of experts. In fact, these weighed so low, they had no impact at all on the final ranking. He stated that engineers confirmed that if the experts had given as much weight to the human factor as they did to traffic, Kettle Island would not be the recommended option. He believed it is the City’s responsibility to look into the needs of the population by also looking at the environmental needs and he urged Committee members to reject the recommendation and to demand a real environmental study. A copy of his written presentation is held on file.

Trevor Milne suggested that the study is completely wrong and there are problems with weighting and with certain hypotheses. He did not believe that a new bridge will significantly reduce the number of trucks on King Edward and would simply “twin” the problems currently on that roadway, while at the same time, mar one of the most beautiful areas of the Aviation Parkway. Like other delegations before him, he wondered if a bridge at Kettle Island will actually encourage transit use, especially if it is going to attract traffic coming from the east end of the city.

Jim Kenward indicated that the information contained in the consultant’s report leads him to believe that the current proposal of a four-lane facility with two travel lanes per direction, is below the required number of lanes under all scenarios presented in the lane deficiency columns of that Table. The consultant points out that it is imperative that aggressive transit targets be met and that parallel transit initiatives be planned and implemented across the screen line. In light of these and other details in the report, Mr. Kenward firmly believed there was a compelling case for proceeding with environmental assessments of second and third bridge crossing alternatives now. He encouraged the Committee to recommend to Council that such EAs be conducted concurrently on at least two additional crossing corridors. A copy of his written submission is held on file.

J. Hruska expressed concerns with a crossing at Kettle Island and the impact it would have on the MRI machines at the Montfort Hospital. She noted that caution must be used when using MRI machines because vibrations can affect the results. She recalled how such equipment had to be moved from the Civic Hospital to their labs in Blackburn Hamlet in 1967 because Carling Avenue traffic was having a negative affect on this sensitive equipment. She believed there was an agreement with the City that for the next 50 years there would be no major routes built next to their labs.

When asked to explain the agreement she referred to, Ms. Hruska explained it was an agreement with the laboratory. When asked if the expert panel were aware of this agreement, Mr. Taylor advised that the agreement is regarding a building that is not in the corridor on Henderson Road.

Andra Waterfield stated that the proposed site of Kettle Island for an interprovincial bridge is not the best site for a crossing and the City should support an alternative site, at Lower Duck Island for example, which has less impact on residents and the least impact on taxpayers. She was concerned that the report failed to identify the costs associated with widening the Aviation Parkway and expropriation of the required land and suggested that if such costs had been included in the selection criteria, Kettle Island becomes the most expensive option. Ms. Waterfield echoed some of the previous concerns and she agreed there was a need for an interprovincial bridge site that removes heavy truck traffic from the downtown core, but not putting it in other established residential communities. A copy of her written submission is held on file.

David Jeanes, Transport 2000 did not believe the Kettle Island corridor is a good choice with respect to transit for the following reasons:

· it will provide a faster car trip between the two provinces

· it is the farthest distance from Ottawa’s Transitway and Gatineau’s planned Rapibus; when the east transitway is converted to LRT, the corridor will be even less useful for through transit operation

· the intersecting roads on the Ottawa side are not major bus corridors and have only limited capacity, if any, for through bus connections towards downtown

Instead, he suggested that the Lower Duck Island corridor would be more suitable for transit, as it is close to both the Place d’Orleans and Blair Stations, as well as to the Boulevard Lorrain planned terminus for the Rapibus. He believed the City should evaluate that corridor on the basis of criteria that apply to Ottawa. Mr. Jeanes also made note of the fact that the Interprovincial Transit Study is not yet completed and suggested that Council could recommend that Phase 2 of the EA for the interprovincial crossing not proceed until the completion of that study. A copy of his written presentation is held on file.

Responding to questions posed by Councillor Leadman, Mr. Jeanes advised that Lower Duck Island was one of the other options when Council determined to opt for Kettle Island in 2007, but it had been screened out. Mr. Taylor was unable to provide justification for that, but indicated it had been added. However, when presented at the public consultation sessions, it almost became the preferred option, save for the fact nearly 80 homes would have to be removed from the Quebec side of the river.

In response to the delegation’s concerns about Kettle Island not being a strong transit corridor, Ms. Chi informed Committee members that staff had reviewed the public transit component of the study along with the transportation of goods. She confirmed that public transit, on its own, cannot solve the problems of interprovincial crossings. However, it is a key part of the study.

Julie Taub quoted from a study done in 1999 in which it is stated that an interprovincial bridge at Kettle Island has the best results for saving time and emissions whereas in a later study, it was shown that a bridge in the Cumberland/Masson-Angers corridor permits the best results for all car and truck traffic. Further, a bridge in this more easterly region would reduce the number of trucks on the MacDonald Cartier Bridge and would be less expensive ($61M) than the $150M price tag for a bridge at Kettle Island. She noted that the same consultant before the Committee today was the author of that previous study and she wondered how, in 1999, Kettle Island was in last place and Cumberland/Masson-Angers was in first place, when today it is the reverse. She questioned the process that arrived at the different conclusions as this study did. Ms. Taub also spoke about the 12 communities and historical national treasures that would be affected by a bridge at Kettle Island. She submitted two coloured photographs depicting community populations in the Kettle Island corridor, copies of which are held on file.

Following on these comments, Councillor Bédard inquired what has changed since the 1999 study because it would appear that it is going in a different direction. Mr. Taylor explained that the study in 1999 was not a formal one and no preferred conclusions were given, only that a new bridge crossing was needed in the east and that an environmental study would make the choice. He went on to state that the Economic Study was one of the criteria for the choice of the different locations and provides data from 1989. The work they have done is based on 2007 data.

Councillor Legendre noted that the 1999 study was not an environmental study but an economic study and he wondered why there was such a big difference in the results. The Chair asked that the consultant provide that answer, following the public delegations portion of the meeting.

Ralph Sullivan made note of the fact that the Kettle Island corridor has the greatest number of people within the immediate area, and they will be negatively affected by noise pollution caused as a result of having a bridge crossing at this location. He believed that the corridor will result in particular health risks associated with noise from vehicles. Mr. Sullivan indicated that the consultant has not studied the health risks caused from such noise, adding that noise pollution can cause hearing loss and sleep deprivation. Because of the location of his property and the roadway, it would be impossible to create a buffer zone with trees or berms. Given the impact that noise has on a person’s health and quality of life, he was quite surprised that it only had a weight factor of 2%. He suggested it was clear that the weighting system used by the consultants has distorted the result and consequently, the recommendation to move forward with Kettle Island is wrong.

Gisèle Forsey spoke in opposition to the bridge at Kettle Island. She was most concerned about the truck issue, stating that the route along the Aviation Parkway would significantly degrade this scenic route, spoil its recreational use, and compromise national tourist attractions like the RCMP musical ride and the Aviation museum. She did not believe that parkways in the nation’s capital should be used as truck routes for heavy commercial vehicles. Also, she firmly believed trucks should not be routed through residential neighbourhoods because such traffic threatens the health and safety of people and makes communities unlivable. She echoed many of the concerns previously raised with respect to the impact of truck traffic in the community. Ms. Forsey concluded that to build a bridge at Kettle Island. It would set a terrible precedent for future transportation decisions for the City. Additional details are contained in her written presentation, a copy of which, is held on file.

Diane Gibeault believed a bridge at Kettle Island will repeat the same problems on King Edward, but in another residential area which is still within the city core. She wondered why the City would choose a corridor with the highest residential density of all the options. Ms. Gibeault felt that this proximity to the downtown will encourage Gatineau residents to take their cars to get to work rather than public transportation. The adjacent streets that will collect this flow, i.e., Hemlock, Montreal Road, and the westbound Aviation Parkway, are already at capacity during rush hours. She suggested that a crossing located further east would attract fewer cars from Gatineau and public transportation to downtown would be favoured. It would also put the traffic in line with a future ring road, would better serve development, and would better serve the Gatineau Airport. A copy of her written presentation is held on file.

Don Parkinson believed a crossing at Kettle Island is as short sighted now as the Spadina (Toronto) proposal was 35 years ago. He indicated that this option tries to solve two distinct problems: gridlock traffic on Highway 50 (Gatineau) and trucks on King Edward Avenue; it solves neither one successfully. He suggested that to resolve the problems for commuters travelling from the east (including Gatineau), money should be invested in an integrated transit system that might link up a light rail bridge to an east-west Ottawa rapid transit route. He believed what is proposed creates more problems than it solves and he urged Committee members to reject the proposal and ask the consultants to go back to the drawing board with a view to ranking people over cars and trucks in future considerations.

Christine Cheng suggested councillors should ask the following questions:

1. Whether or not all the stakeholders were adequately represented on the Evaluation Committee – and if not, are their formal positions (i.e. the Aviation Museum, the RCMP musical ride, the Montfort Hospital) parts of the study?

2. How did the members assign the “importance” or weightings to the groupings?

3. How was the input from the public actually used in the EA study and is there evidence to corroborate that input?

4. The City was a commentator and was not in a funding position, when it made it’s initial recommendation for Kettle Island in 2007. How could it claim to be such but still be represented on the Evaluation Committee and is a full partner in the conduct of the EA study as well as a funding partner?

A copy of her written presentation is held on file.

Bill Peppler suggested the City scrap Kettle Island completely and concentrate instead on the benefits of building a bridge at the Gatineau Airport – Baie McLaurin site (Option 7). He cited the following concerns if Kettle Island is selected:

· operations at the Rockcliffe Airport would be destroyed, including an historic museum which cost hundreds of millions of tax dollars

· the bridge would have to be high enough to allow sailboats to pass underneath, thereby posing a menace for aircraft landing at the Rockcliffe Airport, because they would have to be flying high enough to clear the structure, then drop down suddenly to the runway; this would not conform to the zoning criteria set by Transport Canada and this airport’s license would be cancelled

· it would destroy sea plane operations at the Rockcliffe Airport, as well as operations at the New Edinburgh and Rockcliffe canoe clubs.

Mr. Peppler suggested that Option 7 would negate the negative impacts referenced above and would also solve the problems heard today from residents of Manor Park and other communities. A copy of his detailed presentation is held on file.

Councillor Leadman asked if the consultant was aware of the claim about the Rockcliffe Airport license and Mr. Taylor advised that the new river crossing would connect at the existing intersection, at the same distance and elevation. He added that if, in Phase 2, the roadway has to be elevated, the NCC can extend the existing runway to make provision for a bridge crossing if required. He also confirmed that any change would be at the expense of the project, and would not be incurred by the Rockcliffe Airport.

Councillor Bedard made note of the fact that the Aviation Parkway was built to accommodate an emergency landing strip. Mr. Peppler confirmed this, noting if there were an accident it would be very convenient for ambulance aircraft to use the Rockcliffe Airport to bring people to the Montfort Hospital. He believed the Kettle Island corridor would negatively impact its status.

Robert Bennett spoke from his experience as a professional engineer and as a senior executive in a policy branch of the federal government. He questioned whether an interprovincial crossing is necessary for the City of Ottawa before 2031, suggesting the following three factors that defined whether or not it did:

· private automobile traffic between Ottawa and Gatineau

· public transit service between Ottawa and Gatineau

· commercial heavy trucks crossing between Ottawa and Gatineau

To address these factors, he indicated that the consultants’ report identifies sufficient capacity for Ottawa citizens in the study period on bridges east of the Champlain bridge. Further, none of the east-end interprovincial crossing options will make a significant contribution to public transit service for Ottawa. Mr. Bennett stated that these conclusions are supported by the fact that Council’s vote in 2007 strongly suggests their constituents were not demanding another crossing for automobiles or transit. He suggested that a tunnel from either the Vanier Parkway/417 or the Nicholas Street/417 interchange will remove heavy trucks from the surface of a principal business area and a designated tourism district. In closing, Mr. Bennett indicated that the City and the province must reject further participation in the study of interprovincial crossings until the terms of reference unequivocally include the removal of commercial heavy truck traffic from the core and exclude it from any other surface route in Ottawa closely affecting people and public institutions. A copy of his written presentation is held on file.

William Campbell believed the federal government should take action on the recommendations of the 1999 study because it would support their desire to support key infrastructure projects as well as provide the leadership needed to finally decide on where the crossing will be. He further believed that the lack of positive leadership and vision at this crucial time on this very contentious issue may mean that a bridge will not be built in the foreseeable future, resulting in no solution for the traffic mess in the downtown. He felt Ottawa needed to support the recommended solution presented by the Assessment Team as it is critical to keeping this project moving towards towards a successful conclusion. A copy of his written presentation is held on file.

Councillor Bédard made note of the fact that the study did not even consider the recommendation of City Council. Mr. Taylor understood that the options taken from the 1999 report are consistent with the current Council position. Further, the Official Plan and Council decisions are consistent with the OMB decision with regards to the new crossing being a truck route.

Chair McRae asked what trucks would be removed from King Edward Avenue with the construction of a bridge and Ms. Chi advised that Council may make a decision to ban truck traffic on King Edward Avenue only after the bridge is built. Mr. Marc added that Council could restrict the size of the trucks using the bridge.

Alexander Macklin, President, Rockcliffe Park Residents Association spoke in opposition to Kettle Island. The Association supports Option 7 (Gatineau Airport) because it would permit the building of a ring road which would not be possible at Kettle Island. If heavy trucks are banned from using King Edward, he suggested it would not matter to the truckers if they were diverted to Kettle Island or to a crossing closer to the Gatineau Airport. He encouraged the Committee to endorse Option 7 as has been done by numerous others, including their local MPP and MP.

Bill Fenton, Bay Ward Community Response Committee explained that they are composed of representatives from the following community associations: Crystal Bay; Crystal Beach-Lakeview; Bayshore; Belltown Neighbours Association; Britannia Village; Queensway Terrace North; Whitehaven; and, Woodpark. He explained these are the communities that would be impacted by this study. They support the study’s conclusion that no western alternative is recommended for implementation in the 20 year planning horizon. Details of their concerns about future west-end crossings are contained in their written submission, including:

· not enough emphasis was placed on the better use of existing infrastructure for transit purposes

· the application of evaluation factors and weightings appear to identify a Lac Deschenes crossing as superior to the two Riddell Drive crossings in the west end; they do not believe that the Lac Deschenes-Holly Acres Rd.-Blvd. des Allumettieres crossing or the Lac Deschenes-Moodie Dr.-Blvd. des Allumettieres crossing warrant higher rankings compared to the other west-end alternatives

· while the Study recommends that municipalities are encouraged to work together to address their future interprovincial transportation needs, there is little point in studying and debating land designations now when such a river crossing is not needed for the next 20 years; the designation of any west-end corridor for a future possible river crossing should wait for that study.

They recommend that Council’s position regarding future crossings of the Ottawa River in the west should be:

1. Endorse the Study recommendation that no west end river crossing be carried forward for Phase 2 of this EA Study; and

2. That no corridors in the west end be designated in the City of Ottawa’s Official Plan for possible future river crossings until 2028, when a new environmental assessment may be undertaken to review the need for such a river crossing.

A copy of their written submission is held on file.

Ruth Tremblay, President, Crystal Beach/Lakeview Community Association explained that their association represents the interests of over 1500 households in the west-end of Ottawa. She echoed many of the concerns raised by the previous delegation, and noted their support for the recommendation of the consultants not to carry forward the Holly Acres Road and Moodie Drive bridge options across Lac Deschenes to Phase 2. She suggested that the City make a position statement to the NCC and its consultants that crossing options across this corridor will always be environmentally unacceptable compared to other Ottawa River crossing alternatives. She provided a series of reasons why a bridge should not be built here, the details of which are contained in her written submission, a copy of which is held on file.

Elizabeth McAllister did not support the decision to have a bridge at Kettle Island because she saw that as losing a major play area for residents. She spoke of it being a waterfront for people fishing, boaters, cyclists, runners and walkers. She suggested that all of this would not be accessible because it will be drowned in noise and car and truck exhaust. She urged the Committee to envision the city as a National Capital and reject a decision that would treat with little care what is left of the beauty of the Aviation Parkway.

Stephen Hazell, Lindenlea Community Association opposed the crossing at Kettle Island, stating that what is before the Committee is not an environmental assessment, but a transportation cost/benefit analysis that downplays the environmental implications of the cultural environment for the people living in those communities. He stated that the consultant:

· failed to include community stakeholders when establishing factors, sub-factors and weights

· failed to include the objectives of key interest groups

· failed to raise public concerns; at the last public consultation, over 1,000 people turned out to express their opposition to the bridge and no response has been provided by the consultants as a result of those concerns

Mr. Hazell believed that what was needed was a study and decision that reflects the need for the people in these communities, not on factors such as transportation and cost. He urged the Committee to reject the report.

Pat Dunphy suggested this study should be rejected because the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act demands that the economic conditions that influence the life of humans be taken into account in any EA. She pointed out that property values are a significant economic condition that influences people’s lives and yet, there is no provision in the report to compensate people for their loss. She believed that if Kettle Island moves forward, these people will not be able to sell their homes at any price. She stated that the factors that show Kettle Island as unsuitable have been ignored, in order to reach this recommendation. Also, the consultant failed to take into consideration the 1,600 written submissions he received last fall in opposition to the recommendation. She posited that there are better options further east that would not affect established communities.

Natalie Belovic echoed many of the comments voiced by previous delegations about a crossing at Kettle Island, including specific concerns about how the weighting was applied to the various criteria. She wondered what the mitigation costs would be if a bridge was built here, noting that such costs had not been included in the total cost reflected in the study. Ms. Belovic stated that the Kettle Island corridor does not embrace public transit and the City should be looking at how to move people more effectively, not by encouraging them to take their cars. She believed that having the bridge crossing here would mean more development on urban lands that will be adjacent to this truck route, similar to what occurred along the Aviation Parkway. In closing, Ms. Belovic stated that residents in the urban core already suffer from roads at capacity and if a bridge is built at Kettle Island, it will only worsen an already bad situation. She had no confidence in the report.

Patrick Leblond spoke specifically to the sensitivity analysis conducted as part of the EA, but made note of the fact that in all cases, human factors were always the lowest factor. He suggested that a recalculation of the weighting of the major factors (transportation, cost, natural environment, human factor) results in Kettle Island being ranked very close to Options 6 and 7 (Lower Duck Island and Gatineau Airport respectively). Based on this, he found it difficult to believe that Kettle Island is the best option and suggested the top three options should move forward to the next phase. If left with only one option to consider, following Phase 2, it may be determined that it is not the best selection of corridor. Then what? A copy of his written submission is held on file.

Tony Stikeman stated this is an important matter for the City and the decisions the Committee is making for future generations. Given the comments raised in opposition to Kettle Island today and previously, he wondered how the Committee could possibly accept this report as it is.

Roger Beauchesne spoke about the evolution of public transportation in Ottawa and in Gatineau. He suggested conducting a peer review of the study report presented by the NCC and offered a variety of questions that could be posed during such a review. He referred to the myriad of documentation from the various federal agencies e.g., the Canadian Medical Association; Environment Canada/Health Canada; Environmental Protection Agency, et cetera and the information these organizations provide with regards to the impact of pollution on health. In particular, he stated that:

· cities do not build highways in densely populated areas

· standards with regard to the generation of particulate matter and its impact on human health are being tightened in North America and in Europe

· cities create limited high-speed corridors for heavy diesel trucks to move trucks efficiently and promote multimodal movement of goods with rail

· cities promote mass transit to move people rapidly during peak period as a way to reduce car traffic congestion and pollution

· since LRT will reach Blair, the City should run LRT on the future bridge to Gatineau to interface with the Rapibus there; this would allow for access downtown

· the corridor should allow for connection to the future multimodal freight yard

· the corridor should be high-speed connection from Highways 417 and 50

More details of his presentation are contained in his PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is held on file.

Iola Price stated that the City is being asked to move forward with a proposal in which the technically preferred option is one that will have impacts on seven ecologically important sites abutting or in close proximity to the Kettle Island corridor. In particular, the Airbase Woods will be impacted by having to extend the runways at the Rockcliffe Airport. She made note of the fact that the City’s environmental staff do not seem to have input in this discussion and wondered why they were not alerted to the potential for damage to this site? Ms. Price further commented on the affects on the Montfort Hospital Woods and the Aviation parkway north urban natural areas which will be further impacted by lanes being added to the parkway to accommodate the cars and heavy trucks. She made note of the fact that the City shares ownership of these sites with the NCC and therefore has the power to prohibit further damage to them. Additional urban natural areas that would be impacted are referenced in her written submission, a copy of which is held on file. In closing, Ms. Price stated that if all three levels of government are truly concerned about the environment, they will recognize that for important environmental reasons, Kettle Island and the corridor along the Aviation Parkway are inappropriate for the Interprovincial crossing.

Marie Blythe-Hallman reiterated many of the concerns previously voiced in opposition to a crossing at Kettle Island, adding that:

· It would not remove truck traffic from King Edward and would add a second truck route in the downtown

· There would be a risk of contaminating Gatineau’s water supply from a spill of hazardous materials because Kettle Island is located upstream of Gatineau’s water intake

· This corridor would route hazardous materials and 18 wheelers through communities

· It would increase car and truck traffic in established residential neighbourhoods and make worse already congested roads in the downtown, thereby increasing the danger to cyclists and pedestrians

· It would negatively impact the environmentally significant Kettle Island which is owned by the Nature Conservancy of Canada

On a personal note, Ms. Blythe-Hallman explained that she used to live in a house that was situated 50 m from the Queensway and she and her young son developed illnesses from exposure to the traffic. The affects to their health from this proximity were also shared by other residents in the form of cancer, epilepsy, thyroid disease, autism, colitis, allergies, et cetera. She remarked on the improved health she and her son have experienced since moving to Manor Park. A copy of her written submission is held on file.

Al Crosby did not believe the recommendation of the NCC consultant reflects the facts concerning the Kettle Island corridor. He spoke to what he believed was a failing of the public consultation process and advised that while he had participated in that process, he had not received answers to any of the questions raised. He therefore suggested the Committee and Council not approve or endorse in principle, any of the NCC’s recommendations until these concerns are properly addressed. He further suggested that there be an independent evaluation of the study. Additional details of his presentation are contained in his written submission, a copy of which is held on file.

Mauril Bélanger, MP, Ottawa Vanier believed there are other options that should be looked at as suggested by other delegations. He was most disappointed that only one option is being moved forward and suggested the City should look at a crossing on the basis of transit and the need to remove heavy truck traffic from the downtown. He proposed that such a the crossing should be further east, such as at the Canotek industrial park, which would create new economic development.

David Gladstone spoke in support of pursuing the use of existing rail corridors to move people, instead of focusing on building a bridge that is not anticipated to be built for many years.

Derek Chase referred to the impacts of having a crossing at Kettle Island and asked the Committee to reject the report recommendation in favour of a crossing at Lower Duck Island for the following reasons:

· While this connection would affect 79 dwellings and five businesses in Gatineau, using the eastern part of Park Beauchamps would allow Boulevard Lorrain to be by-passed, thereby avoiding this disruption

· This corridor can handle 90% of the 2031 am peak hour demand of the Kettle Island crossing and 94% of the truck traffic forecast for 2031

· It would involve a relatively short connection on the Ontario side to link it with Highway 174; space is available beside the Rockcliffe Parkway at Greens Creek

· It would not require disrupting the growing community of Rideau-Rockcliffe and would avoid usurping the Aviation Parkway to link up with the Queensway; travel distance to the Queensway would also be shorter

· As traffic increases, a direct linkage of the Lower Duck Island bridge connection with Highway 417 to Montreal would be feasible; trucking from Gatineau would have direct access to that highway and the residents of Orléans would be able to access the City’s centre by the “inner ring road” formed by Hunt Club Road to the Airport.

Peggy DuCharme, Downtown Rideau BIA made note of the fact that the OMB had previously ruled that truck traffic would be removed from the King Edward Avenue corridor by designing any new interprovincial crossing to accommodate trucks in a safe and efficient manner. While the BIA is not supporting any particular location at this time, she advised that they support any choice to eliminate truck traffic on King Edward Avenue and Rideau Street. She pointed out that at the time trucks were permitted to use these corridors (over 40 years ago), it was supposed to be an interim situation. She indicated that the studys’ interpretation of the ruling, on completing a new transportation trucking corridor based on the new bridge will remove most of the cross border movement of goods from King Edward Avenue.

Responding to her presentation, Mr. Taylor advised that what was quoted from the OMB decision is accurate and that it was the consultant’s interpretation that the King Edward corridor be removed from the truck route and that the new corridor would be designated the truck route. However, should Council prohibit trucks from King Edward, he believed the majority would use the Chaudiere Bridge, as opposed to a more easterly crossing.

Public delegations were completed at 6:20 p.m.

Prior to proceeding to questions of the consultant, Councillor Legendre suggested the Committee deal with his Motion, which called for the full report to be brought forward before the Committee proceeds. Councillor Cullen made note of the fact that the summary report is before the Committee and includes 15 appendices which are available on the web. When asked what the difference was in terms of the information presented, Mr. Taylor confirmed that all the technical reports are completed and posted to the web and that the only part that is not on the web is the compilation of data that has been done in the last two weeks. The councillor therefore did not see the effect of the Motion unless it is for the purpose of delaying consideration of the item and he confirmed he has not heard any substantive difference of what is before the Committee and what is available to the public and what the full EA report says.

Responding to a question posed by the Chair, Mr. Taylor confirmed that the Committee has all the information necessary to make a decision and that the Committee has received all the technical investigations. The Chair stated that the Motion speaks to the full EA study report and questioned whether there was anything in the report presented this morning that is different. Mr. Taylor advised that there is no new information and that all the information is contained in the technical report. The Chair posited, therefore, that the Committee had or has access to all the information. Mr. Taylor confirmed that all the information has been available.

At 6:35 p.m., the Chair adjourned the meeting for a dinner break. The meeting resumed at 7:20 p.m. with the following members in attendance: Chair McRae and Councillors Bédard, Bloess, Cullen, Leadman, Legendre, Thompson and Wilkinson.

Returning to discussion about his Motion, Councillor Legendre stated that the report is not complete because a portion has yet to be translated. Mr. Lapointe advised that all the documents are on the web in French and English and the consultant will be distilling from all those documents the main report and it is that report which is not yet available. He confirmed that early in January, all the relevant information was available on the web in both languages.

Councillor Legendre was of the opinion that gathering together all the information into one report has value and is what should have been presented. Mr. Lapointe agreed that this was not the case. In response to a question posed by the councillor, Ms. Chi understood that the councillor had preferred to see all the details and staff had expressed that to the consultant. The councillor emphasized that what he proposes was not a stall tactic because there is no value in doing that. He was fighting for some respect that those federal agencies should show the municipality.

Councillor Leadman agreed, adding that it is a courtesy and the Committee should accommodate Councillor Legendre’s request. She recognized that due process had been lost in 2007 when Council had voted for a corridor at Kettle Island and given all that the community has said today, she believed the ward councillor should be supported in his convictions and that a slight delay is something that can easily be accommodated.

Councillor Thompson stated that there had been members of the public who spoke today in favour of moving forward with Kettle Island as the preferred option and he could not support the Motion because he did not feel it is the right thing to do. He believed the report is an exhaustive one and he did not see how delaying consideration would provide additional information.

Councillor Wilkinson stated that when dealing with an EA, Council would not normally get all the technical background reports and believed that having to wait for that when they are available on the web is just a delaying tactic. She did suggest, however, that Committee and Council should support consideration of Lower Duck Island as an option in addition to Kettle Island, going forward. She believed that if that corridor ends up being a better route then that is what should be supported. Mr. Lapointe advised that it is a possible outcome.

Councillor Bédard inquired whether staff received the final version of the report and Ms. Chi advised they have not – with the exception of all the technical information. The councillor presumed that was why there is no staff recommendation before the Committee for consideration. Ms. Chi explained that staff saw a draft of the final report, but not the final of Volume 1. She elaborated by stating City staff are part of the study team and have enough information to formulate a recommendation to the Committee, as was detailed in the Deputy City Manager’s memo dated 5 January to Council. When asked if what was in the staff memo was their recommendation, Mr. Marc advised that the purpose of the presentation today is to request the City to accede to the NCC’s request of endorsement to proceed to Phase 2 and that is what is contained in the staff memo of 5 January.

Ms. Chi elaborated further by stating that in that memo, staff agree with the study recommendations and that it was their opinion that protecting all other corridors was not required at this point, pending additional study.

Councillor Bédard was of the opinion that that is why the Committee should send it back, so Council can get a decision of whether the City should examine the possibility of looking at a second option in the east end. He believed the Committee should not deal with this now because not even staff have received the final report and can only make preliminary recommendations. He questioned how the Committee was to make a recommendation to Council if it has not seen the final report.

Ms. Chi explained that staff have enough information and that what is contained in their memo is the advice they can provide via Council to the lead partners on this study. She confirmed that by making the statements in the memo, staff concur with the study findings and that while they have seen several English versions of Volume 1, she did not think anything in the final version would change their opinion.

Chair McRae inquired again about what was available and Mr. Taylor stated that everything on the web is complete; there is no new information in the binders which are available to the Committee members today. He confirmed that only Volume 1 is not on the web because it is not available in both official languages.

The Chair stated that Councillor Legendre has moved a Motion asking the Committee to refuse making a recommendation pending receipt of the full report. She indicated that she had asked earlier whether the information contained in the Phase 1 report is available and whether there was any information that Committee members have not seen yet or could not have had access to. Mr. Taylor advised there is not. In light of this, the Chair determined that staff would have had all the information to make a recommendation and she wondered if staff concurred with moving forward with a recommendation to Kettle Island. Ms. Schepers indicated that staff agree with the conclusion that Kettle Island is the preferred alternative and to accede to the request from the NCC to seek Council’s endorsement and proceed to Phase 2. She explained that the purpose of her memo was to give Council an overview and to articulate the information that Kettle Island comes out as a priority.

Following some additional discussion on the matter and the Motion before the Committee, the Chair expressed disappointment that the final report is not currently before the Committee and suggested that in future, full documentation should be available.

Councillor Legendre reiterated his concern that not all the information is on the web and he was very angry that it was not and did not think Councillors should have to search the web looking for all the documents. He found this to be very offensive and did not believe the City should be treated this way.

Chair McRae suggested that in the event that there is new information that was not made available at the meeting she would speak to Legal staff about it.

Moved by J. Legendre

WHEREAS the NCE-Roche Study is currently unavailable; and,

WHEREAS the current procedure shows a deep disrespect of four governments by a federal crown corporation; and,

WHEREAS this study involves one of the most important decisions to be taken in the National Capital Region;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Transportation Committee recommend to Council that the City of Ottawa request that the National Capital Commission provide the full environmental assessment Phase 1 report prior to seeking an endorsement.

LOST

YEAS (3): G. Bédard, J. Legendre, C. Leadman

NAYS (5): R. Bloess, M. Wilkinson, A. Cullen, D. Thompson, M. McRae

Following this, a number of questions were posed to the consultant who provided the following information:

· Members of the Steering Committee could change their weighting if others convince them to do so; there was a very large difference between members with respect to the weighting of cost

· It is not unexpected that their weighting was completely opposite to the public perspective; the difference of only 6% between Lower Duck Island and Kettle Island does not necessarily mean that both corridors should be considered because there is always a measure of differences and when there is, they look at the trade-offs, which were considered by the evaluation

· Responding to the suggestion that if they had used the public perspective, the score would have been different, he indicated that a region-wide survey was conducted of all the weights and random polls are made, but the people being called may not know all the information

· It is difficult to get one community to do an evaluation because of their perspective and so, they opted instead to have comment sheets in order to obtain a balance for all the communities

· When the Chaudiere Bridge is replaced, it will narrow the crossing corridors identified; it is a substantial issue for the trucking industry to have to cross at only one bridge if they were closest to another and they have to travel all the way back

· The Prince of Wales Bridge was not evaluated as a crossing but will be a candidate as a truck route; they also looked at the potential for rail along that corridor to reduce inner city truck travel

· With regards to the status of the land claims made by the Algonquin First Nations, there is a land claim in Ontario going forward, but not in Quebec; confirmation was given that they would continue discussions with them into the future

· It would not be prudent planning if the City were to recommend not to protect corridors in the Official Plan because it could limit the development of that corridor; he agreed that it was not realistic to have this hanging over the heads of the west-end communities when a crossing is not envisaged in their foreseeable lifetime

· With regards to what kind of impact the Kettle Island corridor would have on the RCMP property, the consultant explained that the horses would be relocated to another pasture and there was no data available that could identify the threshold of the noise that would affect these animals.

Following the period of questions to the consultant, the Committee received a series of Motions for consideration. Mr. Marc explained which order consideration should take place and the resulting impacts of subsequent Motions if preceding Motions are approved.

Motion 1

That the Transportation Committee recommend that Council endorse the Interprovincial River Crossings EA Study recommendation that no west end river crossing be carried forward to Phase 2 of this EA Study.

Councillor Cullen stated that this is a stand-alone Motion and felt it could be dealt with separately. Mr. Marc did not agree and the councillor argued that it would be difficult to justify going forward with a western EA when there is no rationale. He hoped this would be without controversy and would simply be adopted.

Councillor Legendre stated that the NCE-Roche study was too onerous to protect all corridors and did not identify which corridors ought to be protected. Ms. Chi advised that at the end of Phase 1 is the identification of corridors as the consultant has recommended to identify additional corridors. The councillor remarked that if it made good sense to narrow the choice then it makes sense to do more work and clarify and protect what is justified to be protected. Ms. Chi agreed with this assessment. The councillor did not feel it was the City’s responsibility to select the locations to protect.

When asked by the Chair if staff support Motion #1, Ms. Chi advised that at the conclusion of Phase 1, staff could not conclude what to do with the west-end so there is no further work to be done with this study. She added that the study did not specifically say that no west-end river crossings were being carried forward to Phase 2 and because there is not enough information, she supported the Motion.

Councillor Cullen noted that this is no reference whatsoever with Phase 1. Mr. Marc clarified that the Committee cannot carry forward with west-end river crossings when Motion #5, if approved, might request additional study after Phase 1 and it is not known how that will impact on Phase 1.

Moved by A. Cullen

That the Transportation Committee recommend that Council endorse the Interprovincial River Crossings EA Study recommendation that no west end river crossing be carried forward to Phase 2 of this EA Study.

CARRIED

Motion 2

That the Transportation Committee recommend to Council that no corridors in the west end be designated in the City of Ottawa's Official Plan for possible future river crossings until 2028, when a new environmental assessment may be undertaken to review the need for such a river crossing.

Councillor Cullen explained that from what he has read, there is no requirement for a west-end crossing for the next 20 years and unless Council makes a different recommendation, he did not believe communities should have this hanging over their heads. He believed this Motion would give that assurance.

Councillor Leadman believed that the point of protecting a corridor is to limit development. She noted that the west-end corridors, overall, are protected in the Official Plan and Mr. Marc confirmed this, adding that Council has not spoken to the issue in this term. He added that doing otherwise would be a direction to staff to bring forward a report on the issue of corridor protection. The councillor believed the corridors should be protected and urged Committee members to reject the Motion.

Chair McRae wondered whether, in the event the Committee rejects Motion 2 and supports Motion 3, the Planning and Environment Committee would be in a position to overturn those recommendations if a follow-up report is brought forward. Mr. Marc confirmed it did, adding that it relates to the Transportation Master Plan because they are going to be discussed in the Official Plan.

Moved by A. Cullen

That the Transportation Committee recommend to Council that no corridors in the west end be designated in the City of Ottawa's Official Plan for possible future river crossings until 2028, when a new environmental assessment may be undertaken to review the need for such a river crossing.

CARRIED

YEAS (5): R. Bloess, M. Wilkinson, A. Cullen, D. Thompson, M. McRae

NAYS (3): G. Bédard, J. Legendre, C. Leadman

Motion 3

Whereas while the west did not score as high in need and effect as an east end bridge, the need to protect and continually review the need for a west end interprovincial bridge should be undertaken as part of a long-term transportation strategy.

Be It Resolved That Transportation Committee Recommend to City Council that all corridors in the west end be retained and protected in the City of Ottawa’s Official Plan from future development with the exception of the Lac Deschenes and Britannia Corridors

This Motion from Councillor Leadman was deemed redundant as a result of approval of Motions 1 and 2.

Motion 4

That the corridor for the Lower Duck option 6 or 7 be protected and included in Phase 2 for evaluation.

Councillor Wilkinson reiterated her previous comments that it would logical to look at two options and would address the concerns of the communities who are so opposed to Kettle Island as a crossing location.

Councillor Bédard supported the Motion, stating that it would be beneficial to people in Ontario for a crossing at Lower Duck Island. Overall, he found that most advantages for a crossing at Kettle Island are on the Quebec side, except for a reduction of 40% truck traffic on King Edward Avenue. He felt it would be a positive approach to have more than one option moved forward.

Councillor Cullen stated that because the City is responding to the NCC consultant recommendation, he did not think it is fair to have another community location added to the list of the crossings. Those communities who came out with the initial and final report, did not see Lower Duck Island recommended and he questioned how fair it would be to proceed with this option, which is not ranked as high as Kettle Island. Further, he believed it unlikely to change the ranking or the results and would therefore not alter the outcome of Phase 2.

Moved by M. Wilkinson

That the corridor for the Lower Duck option 6 or 7 be protected and included in Phase 2 for evaluation.

CARRIED

YEAS (5): M. Wilkinson, G. Bédard, J. Legendre, C. Leadman, M. McRae

NAYS (3): R. Bloess, A. Cullen, D. Thompson

Motion 5

WHEREAS the NCE-Roche Study is recommending that the City of Ottawa protect all nine remaining crossing options to provide flexibility in selecting other future crossing locations; and,

WHEREAS such ongoing unsupported protection of all nine remaining crossing options “will prolong a sense of uncertainty within the community and at the same time will limit any development potential at these sites”; and

WHEREAS City staff find it unjustified to protect all corridors and staff do not see sufficient material in the study which would suggest reasons that some of the corridors merit protection; and,

WHEREAS City staff firmly believe that further analysis is required prior to protecting other crossing corridors and that completion of Phase 1 is the logical vehicle to accomplish this strategic planning need;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Ottawa request that the NCC extend Phase 1 of the NCE-Roche Study to allow for further analysis “to narrow the choices and justify the location of additional crossings in the east.”

In speaking to his Motion, Councillor Legendre stated that he had noted what Legal staff had suggested with respect to adding “in the east” to his Motion, because of an earlier Motion approved. He suggested that if the Committee and Council are going to approve the consultants recommendations, it make sense to keep options open in the future and also not to do so in a blanket fashion and actually identify which ones really merit protection in the future. He indicated that staff support this Motion.

Responding to a question posed by Councillor Bloess, Ms. Chi explained that this Motion speaks to extending Phase 1 and she could not say whether or not the City would want to protect any corridor because that is part of Phase 1.

Moved by J. Legendre

WHEREAS the NCE-Roche Study is recommending that the City of Ottawa protect all nine remaining crossing options to provide flexibility in selecting other future crossing locations; and,

WHEREAS such ongoing unsupported protection of all nine remaining crossing options “will prolong a sense of uncertainty within the community and at the same time will limit any development potential at these sites”; and

WHEREAS City staff find it unjustified to protect all corridors and staff do not see sufficient material in the study which would suggest reasons that some of the corridors merit protection; and,

WHEREAS City staff firmly believe that further analysis is required prior to protecting other crossing corridors and that completion of Phase 1 is the logical vehicle to accomplish this strategic planning need;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Ottawa request that the NCC extend Phase 1 of the NCE-Roche Study to allow for further analysis “to narrow the choices and justify the location of additional crossings in the east.”

LOST

YEAS (1): J. Legendre

NAYS (7): R. Bloess, M. Wilkinson, A. Cullen, G. Bédard, D.Thompson, C. Leadman, M. McRae

Motion 6

WHEREAS the Phase 1 Summary Report informs us that the proposed bridge fails to relocate heavy truck transport from King Edward Avenue, a requirement of the City’s Official Plan, and a concern which was recognized and endorsed by the NCC; and,

WHEREAS the Phase 1 Summary Report predicts that while 2555 trucks, some of which will carry hazardous goods, will continue to use King Edward Avenue and travel through the communities of Lowertown and Sandy Hill, the proposed bridge will have another 1725 trucks travelling through other residential communities; and,

WHEREAS the Phase 1 Final Summary Report (5 January 2009) fails to take into account any of the 1,688 public comments made during the 4^th phase of Public Consultation (Lansdowne Park 25 September – 10 October 2008), as evidenced by lack of changes or explanations in the Final Summary Report; and,

WHEREAS the consultants’ Public Consultation Process failed to meet the basic standards of the City’s Public Consultation Guideline, in that the Final Summary Report provides no evidence of public concerns having been heard or recognized in the weighting of criteria; and,

WHEREAS independent engineering analyses of the consultants’ data have shown that reasonable rebalancing of weightings to reflect the values that the citizens of Ottawa put on homes and communities would result in another crossing location being recommended; and,

WHEREAS other crossing locations would not impact on seven (7) of the City’s ecologically important Urban Natural Areas; and,

WHEREAS a bridge located further east than Kettle Island would contribute more significantly to inter-provincial commercial transport, and economic development in the east end of the region; and,

WHEREAS a bridge located further east than Kettle Island would contribute more significantly to efficient public transit connections; and,

WHEREAS the Final Summary Report has been shown to contain numerous inconsistencies and questionable methodology,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT because an east-end crossing located at the Kettle Island Corridor would not be in the best interests of the citizens of Ottawa, the City reject proceeding with Phase II as recommended in the Final Summary Report.

Some councillors indicated their support for the Motion, stating there were problems with this study and the hope Phase 2 would not suffer the same problems. There was a desire to come to a final conclusion for a crossing that Council can endorse. Others suggested that the Committee cannot recommend looking at another option as it has done this evening by recommending Lower Duck Island for consideration, and at the same time reject the study report, as this Motion dictates.

When the question was posed to the consultant, Mr. Taylor advised that it would be up to the study partners to modify or reject the recommendations of City Council.

Moved by J. Legendre

WHEREAS the Phase 1 Summary Report informs us that the proposed bridge fails to relocate heavy truck transport from King Edward Avenue, a requirement of the City’s Official Plan, and a concern which was recognized and endorsed by the NCC; and,

WHEREAS the Phase 1 Summary Report predicts that while 2555 trucks, some of which will carry hazardous goods, will continue to use King Edward Avenue and travel through the communities of Lowertown and Sandy Hill, the proposed bridge will have another 1725 trucks travelling through other residential communities; and,

WHEREAS the Phase 1 Final Summary Report (5 January 2009) fails to take into account any of the 1,688 public comments made during the 4^th phase of Public Consultation (Lansdowne Park 25 September – 10 October 2008), as evidenced by lack of changes or explanations in the Final Summary Report; and,

WHEREAS the consultants’ Public Consultation Process failed to meet the basic standards of the City’s Public Consultation Guideline, in that the Final Summary Report provides no evidence of public concerns having been heard or recognized in the weighting of criteria; and,

WHEREAS independent engineering analyses of the consultants’ data have shown that reasonable rebalancing of weightings to reflect the values that the citizens of Ottawa put on homes and communities would result in another crossing location being recommended; and,

WHEREAS other crossing locations would not impact on seven (7) of the City’s ecologically important Urban Natural Areas; and,

WHEREAS a bridge located further east than Kettle Island would contribute more significantly to inter-provincial commercial transport, and economic development in the east end of the region; and,

WHEREAS a bridge located further east than Kettle Island would contribute more significantly to efficient public transit connections; and,

WHEREAS the Final Summary Report has been shown to contain numerous inconsistencies and questionable methodology,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT because an east-end crossing located at the Kettle Island Corridor would not be in the best interests of the citizens of Ottawa, the City reject proceeding with Phase II as recommended in the Final Summary Report.

LOST

YEAS (2): J. Legendre, M. McRae

NAYS (6): R. Bloess, M. Wilkinson, A. Cullen, G. Bédard, D. Thompson, C. Leadman

Motion 7

Moved by R. Bloess

That the Transportation Committee recommend that Council endorses the NCC proceeding to Phase 2 of the Interprovincial Crossings EA.

CARRIED, with J. Legendre dissenting

Motion 8

Moved by C. Leadman

WHEREAS the NCC has requested the Transportation Committee to endorse the Interprovincial Crossing Study Phase 1 to move forward to Phase 2; and,

WHEREAS the final report was not available in a consolidated format which would be the proper and normal process;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Transportation Committee Chair be directed to communicate via letter to the NCC that future presentations and reports for consideration by the Transportation Committee be supported by complete and translated documentation prior to meeting.

CARRIED

That Transportation Committee and Council receive this report for information.

RECEIVED

As mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, Councillor Legendre indicated he wanted the Committee to go in camera to receive advice from Legal staff with regards to exposure the City is facing because of potentially having a pre-determined result with the Motion adopted by Council in 2007. Mr. Marc advised that he could respond to this question in open session. He reminded Committee that the City is not conducting the EA itself and therefore, it is an entirely different situation. In this case, the City is a commenting body and the fact Council made a decision in 2007 (before the studies were done) does not attract any liability to the City, nor cause the process led by the NCC to be biased.

Councillor Legendre stated that staff have been participants in this study and the point of the Motion is that he wanted to discuss the extent staff would have received that 2007 Motion as a direction because they were participants. And as such, he believed a case could be made that they were directed by Council before the process even started. Mr. Marc confirmed that as a body, Council was not a participant and that as he understood, Ms Chi was a participant as a professional and that is a different role.

The Chair asked the Senior Legal Counsel to provide a ruling whether or not the Committee should go in camera to discuss this issue and Mr. Marc advised there was sufficient information at this time to warrant moving in camera if that was the wish of the Committee.

Moved by J. Legendre

That in accordance with Procedure By-law 2006-462, the Transportation Committee resolve In Camera pursuant to Subsections 13 (1) (f), the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, with regards to the matter on the agenda today.

LOST

YEAS (3): J. Legendre, D. Thompson, C. Leadman

NAYS (5): R. Bloess, M. Wilkinson, A. Cullen, G. Bédard, M. McRae

INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED

INFORMATION DISTRIBUÉE AUPARAVANT

A. INTERPROVINCIAL CROSSINGS ANNOUNCEMENT – PHASE 1 REPORT

ANNONCE DES LIAISONS INTERPROVINCIALES – RAPPORT DE LA

PHASE 1

ACS2009-ICS-ECO-0007-IPD CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

RECEIVED

ADJOURNMENT

LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE

The Committee adjourned the meeting at 11:50 p.m.

Original Signed by Original Signed by

R. Nelson Councillor M. McRae

_____________________________ _____________________________

Committee Coordinator Chair

ANNEX A

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC

a. Letter of Understanding between East End Community Association Presidents representing the East End of Ottawa dated 7 January; signed by: Beacon Hill North Community Association; Blackburn Hamlet Community Association; Cardinal Creek Community Association; Chapel Hill South Community Association; Convent Glen Community Association; Fallingbrook Community Association; Queenswood Heights Community Association; Riverwalk Community Association; The Villages Community Association; Councillors for Wards 1, 2 and 19; and Member of Parliament for Ottawa-Orléans

b. Rockcliffe Yacht Club letter, undated

c. M. Bouzigon and S. Lachance letter dated 7 January 2009

d. L. Sheehy submission dated 8 January 2009

D. and S. Allin e-mail comments dated 8 January 2009

e. K. Thompson and M. Leblanc e-mail comments dated 8 January 2009

f. M. Blais letter dated 9 January 2009

g. Johns e-mail comments dated 9 January 2009

h. Roads and Cycling Advisory Committee letter dated 9 January 2009

i. S. LaRochelle-Côté e-mail comments dated 9 January 2009

j. C. Credico e-mail comments dated 10 January 2009

k. D. Miller e-mail comments dated 11 January 2009

l. K. Beltzner e-mail comments dated 11 January 2009

m. Joint King Edward Avenue Task Force/Lowertown Community Association letter dated 11 January 2009

n. J. Morin e-mail comments dated 12 January 2009

o. R. Ramonat e-mail comments dated 12 January 2009

The following public submissions were received on 13 January:

1. K. MacDonald 15. B. Desbordes

2. I. Sullivan 16. K. Palmer and M. McGrath

3. J. Misha 17. I. Bron

4. C. Cheng 18. G. and J. Riddell

5. L. Roy and MF Cantin 19. M. Kretschmar

6. L. Broadbent 20. V. Chevrier

7. J. Young 21. P. Crête

8. R. Sullivan 22. JF Siroit

9. K. Wu 23. J. Hruska

10. C. Siegel 24. JP Immarigeon

11. J. Cheng 25. M. Maher

12. J. Montminy 26. P. Dunphy

13. M. Roach 27. H. Arsenault

14. C. O’Connor

The following public submissions were received on 14 January:

1. L. and D. Hodge

2. The McNaughtan family

3. T. Zalusky