Transportation and Transit Committee/

Comité de transports et des services de transport en commun


Minutes 5/Proces-verbal 5


Wednesday, 18 April 2001, 9:30 a.m.

le mercredi 18 avril 2001, 9 h 30


Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West

Salle Champlain, 110, avenue Laurier ouest





Present : Councillors M. Meilleur (Chair), C. Doucet (Vice-Chair), R. Bloess, J. Harder, A. Cullen, J. Legendre, E. Arnold, P. Hume, P. McNeely



Declarations of Interest


No declarations of interest were received.



Confirmation of Minutes


The Minutes of the Transportation and Transit Committee of 04 April 2001 were confirmed.






Ref N°: ACS2001-CCS-TTC-0003



Rose Leclair, General Manager, provided a detailed overview of the Capital Budget.  A copy of her presentation is held on file ACS2001-CCS-TTC-0003.  To assist in its deliberations, the committee also received the following supporting documentation:


Document 1 - Proposed 2001 Infrastructure Rehabilitation Program

- R. Leclair, General Manager, TUPW report dated 19 Mar 01 (received and tabled with the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee on 21 March 2001)


Document 2 - Comparison of Annex ‘C’ and TUPW 2001 Capital Request

- R. Leclair, General Manager, TUPW memo dated 11 Apr 01


Document 3 - 2001 Capital Budget – Supplementary Information

- L. Russell, Director of Financial Services memo dated 11 Apr 01


Ms. Leclair indicated that approval of the pages in the Capital Budget document includes the program details from the Proposed 2001 Rehabilitation Program report (Document 1) as amended by Item 2 of today’s agenda.  Document 3 also amends portions of the budget.  Councillor Legendre asked staff to provide a breakdown of the percentage of program needs being met this year.


Councillor Legendre asked if staff will be providing clarification to the individual budget pages with respect to Document 2.  Ms. Leclair advised that that document was provided in response to a request from members of Council and was to compare the budget presented by the Ottawa Transition Board with what staff is proposing.  Unless there are specific questions on changes, there would be no reference made to that document.  The councillor requested clarification on the fact that some of the projects listed in Document 2 show funding which is subtracted from the proposed amount.  The General Manager explained that the original program had more monies and staff has assessed how much work can be completed this year and therefore the adjustments are based on the amount of work that will actually be carried out in 2001.  The councillor understood how that could apply to many projects, however, some transitway projects included in Document 2 should not be any different because it was already a one-tier responsibility.  He surmised, therefore, that in those particular instances, it is as a result of the transition process.  Ms. Leclair indicated that in a normal budget process, forecasts are prepared well in advance and prior to preparing the current budget, staff would review each project, refine any information and put in the final figures; in this particular case, however, that part of the process was not undertaken, so any adjustments are only showing up in the process now.


Councillor Doucet was surprised that only 13 buses will be added to the existing fleet this year.  Dr. Helen Gault, Manager, Transit Schedule and Service Development, clarified that they will also be increasing the number of articulated buses by 30 so the total capacity is increasing by 3% more customers.  Chair Meilleur noted that even though ridership has increased by 7%, OC Transpo does not plan to add any extra buses.  She indicated that the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee had received a very informative presentation yesterday on the purchase of additional buses and suggested the same presentation be made at Council on 9 May when it considers the Capital Budget.


Councillor Doucet was concerned that the Corporate Services Committee deals with issues pertaining to the replacement of fleet.  Ms. Leclair explained that the new city has adopted a centre of expertise model and while transit operation is run by the TUPW Department, the expertise with respect to fleet rests with the Corporate Services Department.  As the user Department, however, TUPW has input into what the fleet group does.  The councillor expressed his concerns with this system, noting the issue of accountability for transit does not appear to rest with the right department.


With respect to the rehabilitation of Bank Street between the Rideau River and the Rideau Canal (page 6 of Document 2), Councillor Doucet asked that the project name or the project description include “street scaping study” and that before any rehabilitation is undertaken, that this study be completed.  Ms. Leclair confirmed that a street scaping study is part of the project estimate, but agreed to amend the document accordingly before it rises to Council.


Councillor Cullen expressed some concern that nearly $70M of this budget is geared towards private vehicles but only $22M+ will be put towards transit, despite the fact the City is behind in terms of meeting current demand.  He asked when committee would be looking at setting priorities to meet the modal split targets set out in the Official Plan.  Ms. Leclair advised that that amount relates to road construction and the actual operation; the budget that relates to fleet ($58M) is included under the Corporate Services Department budget.  Therefore, the total funding for transit is actually closer to $80M in capital for 2001.


With respect to staff reporting back with a plan of how the Department is going to achieve the Official Plan objectives, Ms. Leclair expected that would be part of the Transportation Master Plan review to be undertaken by the Development Services Department.  From that review, TUPW will be operationalizing and looking at those priorities.  She indicated that the one thing staff have been unable to do for this budget is to re-look at what the goals are for the new city and where money should be spent in terms of achieving those goals.  And, while transit was obviously a high priority at the former Region, there was no ability or an interest at the local level for transit.  Therefore, staff needs to step back and take a look at how TUPW responds to the new city’s goals and how it will refocus spending plans and priorities.


When asked for a breakdown of the estimated total of $80M for transit, Ms. Leclair indicated this total includes $22M set out in the Capital Budget before committee, $31.8M approved by Corporate Services Committee yesterday for replacement buses and $27M approved by Council in January for the purchase of new buses.  Councillor Legendre suggested that in view of the confusion surrounding this budget, staff should be directed to report back to explain why all transit matters are not brought before this committee.  From his perspective, the way the budget is presented this year does not provide the whole picture for the councillors to completely understand the situation and he believed this was extremely important for accountability.


Councillor Arnold inquired why the Cycling Facilities Improvement Program (page 13 of Document 2) shows no funding for 2001, even though the former RMOC budget had allocated $375,000 for this year.  Further, at page 14, the former City of Ottawa’s Comprehensive Cycling Plan indicates zero.  With respect to the latter, Ms. Leclair explained that the budget document was put together for the Transition Board by examining what was actually forecasted in the previous municipal budgets and for the former municipality, there were no funds associated with that program to bring forward and that is why “0” is shown in the document.  The councillor was concerned that even though this document looks at the capital forecast from the previous municipalities, what it should illustrate is the actual from 2000, particularly, if there was a willingness from previous councils to maintain the spending on particular items.


Councillor Arnold requested clarification with respect to funding for audible pedestrian signals (page 14 of Document 2), noting the former RMOC had estimated $50,000 but it was not clear to her if the amalgamated budgets from some of the other municipalities included funding for these signals.  Ms. Leclair advised that Nepean would have included $25,000 and the former city of Ottawa had a program to replace some signals to the value of $80,000 for a total of $155,000.  She indicated that the budget before committee is for replacement and corrective action for signals.


Councillor Harder noted that there are a lot of programs which are not listed in the budget document and she asked who chose which projects came forward and were any of those listed ones that the former municipalities had included as projects they would like to complete, but for which funding was not provided in their budgets.  Ms. Leclair explained that the lists of projects were submitted by the treasurers of the former municipalities and were based on a forecasted budget.  Staff dealt with the issue of how much funding was actually available to do all of those projects and following some refinement to the lists, in consultation with the program staff from the various municipalities, the lists were finalized in terms of funding availability and priorities.


As a general comment, Councillor Harder suggested future budget documents provide councillors with the ability to more easily track programs, since some are broken down into several departments which makes it very difficult not only for committee members, but for members of the public to understand.  The General Manager agreed to take the councillor’s suggestion under advisement in conjunction with Finance staff.


Councillor Bloess indicated that Annex C of the Capital Budget document refers to the rehabilitation of Innes Road between Tauvette and Beddoe at a cost of $608,000 (Phase 3 of 4); however, in Document 2, the same project is shown at $130,000 less for a total of $478,000 and he wondered how this priority got reshuffled since it contradicts what the Capital Budget document illustrates.  He indicated there are two phases left to complete to bring this road up to appropriate standards since it currently functions at a rural standard (ditches on both sides and no sidewalks), and yet it travels through an urban community with high-density housing.  Ms. Leclair responded by stating that the funding showing for 2001 is to undertake the design for Phases 3 and 4, with construction coming forward in 2002.  The funding was reduced because there was an affordability issue and decisions had to be made for a recommended budget; this was a difficult process because each of the former municipalities had their own priorities.


Councillor Bloess referred to the resurfacing of St. Joseph Boulevard (page 4 of 6 of Document 1) at a cost of $500,000, although he recalled that in 2000, the Region had approved close to $1M for the same purpose.  Although this item was postponed due to some other works that were being considered as part of the rehabilitation of the roadway and a contribution was being made from the lower tier municipality, the 2001 budget does not truly reflect the funds being allocated to that project.  Mr. Kelly Martin of the TUPW Department advised that the $500,000 referenced is strictly for the resurfacing component; there is another component of work being undertaken on St. Joseph Boulevard which is a water main replacement and incorporated in that is some funding from the former municipality to deal with some boulevard works.  He believed this is an updated estimate and reflects what staff believe is the cost to do the overlay between the limits of the water main replacement and Gabriel Street at the eastern limit of that project.  He estimated that the total for the resurfacing and the water main work would be in excess of $1M.  The councillor asked that staff confirm the figures available for St. Joseph Boulevard in total because they are contained in several parts of the budget and makes it difficult to piece together.


Also on the Resurfacing Program, Councillor Bloess noted that Valewood Crescent is being recommended for deferral again, even though it has been deferred for approximately three years.  He explained that the road is in desparate need of repair since the growth in the area has escalated and the construction traffic has had a tremendous impact on the road as a result of that development.  Mr. Martin indicated this project was formerly slated for overlay by the former City of Gloucester and is currently shown just below the funding line.  He believed it is one of the likely candidates to be moved forward as one of the top priorities in 2002.


Councillor McNeely wanted assurance there are sufficient funds in the Resurfacing Program to ensure the city’s roads are sustainable.  Ms. Leclair advised that $15M has been allocated for resurfacing projects and this reflects an annual shortfall of $5000 in terms of what would be required to respond to need.


Councillor Bloess asked if there will be street lighting provided on Mer Bleu Road and staff indicated this is the priority under the funding brought forward by Gloucester.  The councillor wondered if there was money coming forward also from the former City of Cumberland because there was a cost-sharing arrangements originally in place between the two municipalities.  Ms. Leclair indicated the money from Cumberland can be found in the first item under the Street Lighting Program in Document 1, but she did not know whether or not those funds were preallocated to specific projects.


With respect to traffic calming, Councillor Stavinga expressed concern about how projects will be funded, particularly in 2002.  She noted that Goulbourn was moving forward on a high priority traffic calming plan for John Street because this residential street is being used as a high collector road for events in the Corel Centre.  Further, the development north of Palladium Drive adds increasing pressure on this roadway which was never designed to handle such traffic volumes and she believed there was a need for the Huntmar Road extension to relieve that pressure.  She was very concerned that this project would be perceived as the last on the list because of previous projects begun by the former city of Ottawa and the Region and she wanted assurance that all projects will be evaluated on their merit.  Further, she suggested that there be flexibility in the criteria that are used, keeping in mind that one size does not fit all, especially given the fact that conditions are different in the rural areas.


In response to these concerns, the General Manager advised that staff will be developing a report to bring forward to committee that will address how these projects will be managed.  She added that a work management system for this particular area of study is required, as well as the need to define how much should be put into studies vs. how much should be put toward implementation.  Councillor Stavinga hoped the criteria includes an analysis of other documents that state the need, such as the Official Plan.


Councillor Arnold stated that the former City of Ottawa did not have a traffic calming budget because such efforts were only funded when roads were rehabilitated.  Such a piecemeal fashion however, did not lend itself to a comprehensive traffic management system and she recognized the need to find ways to fund the measures demanded by the community.  She questioned what percentage of the roadway rehabilitation budget actually goes towards roadway modifications that could be interpreted as traffic calming measures and also, when the work plan in terms of prioritizing that work come forward.  Ms. Leclair confirmed that traffic calming is built into road reconstruction programs for a total of $31M but was not sure what percentage of that budget includes traffic calming.  She indicated that staff could provide information to the committee on what studies are being addressed this year.  With respect to other programs that have traffic calming/community safety type elements in them, she indicated that both the Mobility Area Traffic Management Program and the Traffic Safety Program have funds to cover such expenses.  She added that the Department has recently compiled a list of what funding was available in the various municipalities and a report on how to manage that demand will be brought forward to committee later this year.


Councillor Arnold suggested that it would probably be appropriate to look at the possibility of building into subdivision agreements a requirement to do the mitigation.  Further, where massive growth is being approved in an area, there should be a requirement to look at what the impacts are on adjacent neighbourhoods and if there are costs associated as a result of those developments, those should be borne by the development.  She suggested this issue should also be discussed by the Planning and Development Committee.


Councillor Cullen questioned whether committee will receive a status report on “works in progress” and Mr. Russell, Director of Financial Services indicated that staff are in the process of compiling that information and a report is scheduled to go to the Corporate Services Committee in May.  The councillor asked that the specific portions of that report as they pertain to the Transportation and Transit Committee and to the Environmental Services Committee, be submitted for the information of those committees.


The committee received the following public delegations:


Sharleen Girouard spoke to the committee as a user of Para Transpo and submitted a petition with 762 signatures of people encouraging the city to declare Para Transpo a mandatory service, which is essential to all Para Transpo customers.  She emphasized the difficulties disabled people have experienced as a result of the strike and the impact it has had on their daily lives.  Many of those issues are not only serious, but also life-threatening and the city should get involved.  She indicated that families and friends can help out for so long, but everyone has their own commitments and people who are physically challenged have been educated to lead independent lives.  She strongly recommended that Para Transpo be declared an essential service.


Brett Delmage, Interim Ottawa Cycling Committee, indicated that supporting cycling transportation today is a concrete way to support the quality of life in neighbourhoods throughout the city.  He stated that the current approach to cycling in the city-wide Transportation Master Plan and Official Plan (OP) arises as a result of affordability and quality of life.  Mr. Delmage referred to a report entitled “The Total Cost of Travel” which was prepared as part of the OP and which determined that taxpayers save $1200 for each person that travels by bike instead of by car.  Therefore, supporting cycling as an alternative in conjunction with public transit is a positive way to control future road costs.  Cycling compliments and supports public transit and a study conducted in the 1990’s determined that people who cycle are more likely to use OC Transpo than someone who owns a car as their primary choice for transportation.  He concluded by stating that in order to increase the number of trips made by OC Transpo, the city must plan to support complimentary travel modes.


Alayne McGregor, President, Citizens for Safe Cycling agreed that any money spent on road resurfacing would substantially increase her comfort level on her bicycle.  She asked for the committee’s support for a Mobility Area and Traffic Management Program specifically, the transportation demand management projects, which their organization and other groups have worked on with staff to support initiatives on cycling-specific projects.  She emphasized the importance of continuing this work to meet modal splits set out in the Official Plan.  Although funds from the former municipalities of Ottawa ($150,000) and Gloucester ($5000) as well as from the RMOC ($375,000) were put into established cycling budgets, that total funding is not reflected in this year’s budget for the new city.  (The former city of Nepean had a cycling budget a few years ago, but it was incorporated into the general roads budget).  Ms. McGregor was particularly concerned about the reducing funding because one of the basic promises of amalgamation was that there would be no loss of service and yet this budget will result in a service reduction of 30% for cyclists.  On behalf of Citizens for Safe Cycling, she encouraged committee to put an additional $155,000 back into the cycling budget for 2001, for a total of $530,000.


Councillor Bloess asked whether the delegations were in support of funds from the cycling budget being applied to a road rehabilitation or reconstruction project where cycling lanes are to be included.  Mr. Delmage confirmed he would support that, adding that there has always been extensive co-ordination work by staff and the former cycling committee to dovetail with other works being done in order to achieve the most value for the money.


Nicholas Patterson agreed with the comments raised by the delegation that spoke about the Para Transpo strike.  He asked that the vision for the new city of Ottawa be set by the elected representatives.


Roseline Gauthier, Vice-president, School Council, Jeanne Sauvé French Immersion School submitted a brief to the committee detailing their request for a sidewalk on Gardenway Drive, from Latour Street to Esplanade Avenue, opposite Jeanne Sauvé School in Orléans.  She indicated that the community has been concerned about the lack of safe access for children attending the school since 1994.  Last year, the City of Cumberland made it a priority for construction, however, the early winter and the concern parents had with respect to their children crossing the road during the construction, delayed the project until after June of this year.  Ms. Gauthier added that a traffic calming study recommended the sidewalk, as well as a four-way stop, but given the curve in the road the latter was not an option for the community.  She indicated that currently when children cross to go to the other side of the road, they are on someone elses’ land and in the winter when there are snowbanks, they are forced to be in the street because there is nowhere else to stand.  As the representative for approximately 1000 homes in the community and in light of the number of children attending this school (550) and the fact there are six other schools that use this road and in light of increasing traffic, Ms. Gauthier urged committee members to support their request.


Following up on these comments, Louise Panneton, School Trustee advised that the Board has shown its commitment to this project by financing part of the realignment of the entrance to the school.  They are looking for the committee’s support to ensure funds are provided to undertake at least the first phase of this project in the next year.


The General Manager indicated this request would be classified as a new sidewalk and there is $30,000 in that program available for city-wide projects.  This request, however, is estimated to cost $81,500.  She added that there are two other locations for sidewalks identified from Cumberland so they brought forward approximately $150,000 for those three locations, with annual funding set at $30,000.


When asked to clarify the cost of the project, Ms. Gauthier advised that the realignment is estimated to cost $35,000 which is their share of the project and the Board has agreed to pay the other half and $85,500 is what it will cost for the construction of the sidewalk.


Councillor McNeely reiterated the fact that this project was identified by Cumberland as a priority and was supposed to have been done last year.  The community was promised a sidewalk and with shared funding being provided by the Board and he indicated his intention to bring forward a Motion for the committee’s consideration.


Councillor Bloess agreed the city should accept responsibility for the sidewalk, but questioned whether it is expected to pay for half of the realignment of the entranceway, which he believed is the responsibility of the school.  The General Manager explained that the partnership with the Board had the municipality contributing $35,000 and that funding is provided for under the 2001 Proposed Traffic Safety Program.


The Committee reviewed the Capital Budget as follows and where there was no discussion or amendments as per subsequent budget documents, the budgets for the individual programs were carried as presented.


Road Reconstruction

Pg. 269 (as amended by the revised pages in the 2001 Infrastructure Rehabilitation Program, Agenda Item 2)


Councillor Cullen noted that Britannia Road was not included in this program and for that and other projects that will not be done this year, he questioned whether a priority listing was available so councillors can estimate approximately when certain roads would be done.  He further questioned whether committee will receive an analysis of the current, intermediate and future needs of road reconstruction projects.  Mr. Hewitt, Director, Infrastructure Services advised that staff are currently working on getting the prioritization together and that information will probably be available at the end of the year.  The councillor indicated he would contact the Director with specific reference to the status of Britannia Road.


The Committee approved the Road Reconstruction Program budget as amended by the Proposed 2001 Infrastructure Rehabilitation Program report dated 6 April 2001 (ASC2001-TUP-INF-0007).


Resurfacing Program

Pg. 271 (as amended by the revised pages in the 2001 Infrastructure Rehabilitation Program, Agenda Item 2)


Councillor Bloess indicated that references to both Fourth Line Road and Kemp Road (page 2 of 6 of the Resurfacing Program detailed in Document 1), should reflect the fact they are both only in Ward 2.


The Committee approved the Resurfacing Program budget as amended by the Proposed 2001 Infrastructure Rehabilitation Program report dated 6 April 2001 (ASC2001-TUP-INF-0007).



Pg. 273


Councillor Legendre indicated that reference to St. Laurent Bridges being in Wards 13 and 18 is incorrect because it is only in Ward 18.


The Committee approved the Structures budget as presented.



Sidewalk Rehabilitation

Pg. 275


Councillor Doucet proposed that sidewalk rehabilitation be delayed until the new standards have been established.  When questioned whether this could be accomplished, Mr. Hewitt advised that it would be a major problem for the rehabilitation work that would be done in conjunction with road reconstruction.  Ms. Leclair added that since committee will not receive the report on the establishment of sidewalk standards until late summer/early fall the authority would be approved for the deferred projects, but the actual work would not be programmed until the following year.


Councillor Bloess indicated that last year there was funding for sidewalk rehabilitation for St. Joseph Boulevard, but noted it was not shown in Document 1.  Mr. Martin clarified that some of those funds relate to works in progress and he confirmed the money was still there.


Moved by C. Doucet


That sidewalk rehabilitation be delayed where possible and with agreement of the ward Councillor until new standards have been created, which will deal with sidewalk cuts and width and that the money be forwarded into the 2002 budget.




YEAS: E. Arnold, R. Bloess, C. Doucet, J. Harder, J. Legendre....5

NAYS: A. Cullen, P. Hume, P. McNeely, M. Meilleur....4


Councillor McNeely proposed the following:


That sidewalks on Gardenway Drive opposite Jeanne Sauvé French Immersion School be constructed in 2001 in order to provide safety for the re-aligned school entrance at an estimated cost of $81,500.


Councillor Harder recognized the importance of this issue for the Ward councillor, but cautioned committee that schools do not contribute to the funding of sidewalks when they are on the other side of the road from the school.  She anticipated there being other requests that may come up in future and if sidewalks and other pedestrian accesses are not planned for based on the city’s need, then this could become a very costly issue.  Rob Orchin, Manager of Mobility Management and Neighbourhood Studies Division confirmed there are many others that may come forward, but advised that each municipality dealt with those issues differently so it will take some time to sort it out.


Chair Meilleur suggested direction be given to the General Manager of the Development Services Department to ensure that when a site plan is approved for a school, that sidewalks be included as part of that approval.


Councillor Harder recognized that each of the former municipalities had a different process in place that judged the merit of and providing the rankings for sidewalks and she believed it would be worthwhile to get information on the delegation of authority and how these requests were dealt with in the previous municipalities.  Such information would enable councillors to judge the differences for themselves and determine which is the best process.  She suggested that staff bring forward a report in this regard.


Moved by P. McNeely


That sidewalks on Gardenway Drive opposite Jeanne Sauvé French Immersion School be constructed in 2001 in order to provide safety for the re-aligned school entrance at an estimated cost of $81,500.




The Committee approved the Sidewalk Rehabilitation budget as amended by the foregoing.


Cycling Program

Pg. 277


Moved by E. Arnold


That the Cycling Program budget be increased to reflect the amount allocated in 2000 by former municipalities for a total of $530,000.




The Committee approved the Cycling Program budget as amended by the foregoing.


Mobility and Area Traffic Management

Pg. 283


Councillor Doucet did not believe the proposed amount for traffic calming ($1.972M) was enough to address implementation and he felt it was irresponsible to come forward and prepare traffic calming studies, but not to have the funding in place to support those initiatives.


When questioned what funds are available for traffic calming, Ms. Leclair advised that the projects in this budget for 2001 are detailed at Tab 10 in Document 1.  In addition, there is some general funding under Transportation Demand Management and Area Traffic Management.  A breakdown of funds in the latter program include:  $815,000 from the RMOC, $52,000 from Kanata, $25,000 from Cumberland and $10,000 from Gloucester.


Councillor Legendre was reluctant to support a Motion to increase the funds, if those additional monies would not assist staff in proceeding with previously initiated traffic calming studies.  Ms. Leclair advised that there is approximately $10M worth of traffic calming demand studies that have not been implemented so any increase in the budget would allow staff to move forward on the implementation of some of those studies.  As reported previously, staff hope to bring forward a report to committee in June that will give an indication of all the studies that currently exist and what is planned to be funded from the existing dollars that are identified in this budget as well as how to manage the demand in the future.


Councillor Harder referred to the Neighbourhood Traffic Studies at Tab 10 of Document 1 and questioned if there was flexibility to move the $120,000 shown under the heading “Road” to “Sidewalk”.  The General Manager advised that staff would look at what the recommendations of the study were and determine, in conjunction with the community, what the priorities are.  She confirmed that if the study recommended sidewalks, then a Motion to the same effect would not be required.


Councillor Doucet proposed the following Motion:


That the net requirement for Mobility and Area Traffic Management Program be increased by $1M to reflect previous commitments.


Some councillors did not feel comfortable supporting an additional $1M and preferred to instruct staff to report back on the impact of such a Motion and from where that additional funding would come.  Others were reluctant to support it given the fact there is already a shortage in the budget to carry out some existing programs.


Councillor Doucet reiterated the fact there are over $10M worth of outstanding commitments already and increasing it brings it up to $3M which is still only 30% of the way towards addressing previous commitments.  He expressed concern that this program appears to have just stopped and that all he was attempting to do was to put an emphasis in this program to show the public the new city is serious about its commitments.


Chair Meilleur made reference to the fact that Murray Street was not reflected in this budget and while there had been no traffic calming study done, it was listed in the Region’s previous budgets as one street to be included.  She asked that it be put back into the budget.


Moved by C. Doucet


That the net requirement for Mobility and Area Traffic Management Program be increased by $1M to reflect previous commitments.




YEAS: E. Arnold, A. Cullen, C. Doucet, J. Legendre, M. Meilleur....5

NAYS: R. Bloess, J. Harder, P. Hume....3


The Committee approved the Mobility and Area Traffic Management budget as amended by the foregoing.


Traffic Control Devices Program

Pg. 285


Councillor Harder referred to the dangerous situation that exists on Merivale Road at McFarlane Road near the railway crossing, whereby motorists queue on Merivale Road and actually stop on the tracks.  She indicated that signals were recommended as an interim measure until a grade separation can be funded, but noted this was not reflected in the program.  Ms. Leclair explained that it was not listed because it is a recent development and therefore was not provided for in the forecast.  In terms of the funding issue, she stated there is no confirmation as to whether or not there will be a contribution from VIA Rail, noting the proposal is for $150,000 to come from the municipality and $250,000 from the railway company.  She confirmed staff are very concerned about this safety issue and one of the alternatives they would be exploring is in the Traffic Safety Program where this matter, because of the nature of the problem, would probably rise as a higher priority than another already planned for under that program.


Councillor Arnold indicated that last year audible pedestrian signals were funded by the RMOC at $100,000 and by the cities of Nepean and Ottawa at $15,000 and $80,000 respectively, for a total of $195,000.  The funding recommended this year however is only $155,000 and in response to the numerous requests from the former Disability Issues Committee, the councillor recommended that the same funding be provided in 2001.


Moved by E. Arnold


That the budget for audible pedestrian signals be increased by $40,000 for a total of $195,000.




The Committee approved the Traffic Control Devices budget as amended by the foregoing.


The committee did not consider pages 290 and 291 of the budget document as this program falls under the mandate of the Environmental Services Committee.


OC Transpo Facilities

Pg. 295 (as amended by the 2001 Capital Budget – Supplementary Information memorandum from the Director of Financial Services dated 11 April 2001)


The Committee approved the OC Transpo – Facilities budget as amended by the revised pages in the document entitled “2001 Capital Budget – Supplementary Information” dated 11 April 2001.


There was some general discussion about the way in which the budget was prepared and in particular, why some portions of the transit budget is considered by another committee.  Councillor Doucet agreed to put forward the following Motion which was originally submitted to the Committee Chair by Councillor Legendre, who had to leave the meeting prior to consideration:


That Transportation and Transit Committee task senior management with preparing a report to show clearly why important capital expenditures both for new stock and facilities as well as for rehabilitation and replacement of existing stock and facilities, should continue to be the responsibility of different committees of Council.


Ms. Leclair advised that she would take the direction to report back on bringing forward all elements of the program to the one committee as opposed to what Departments report to this committee.  She realized that what is being requested is the whole transit program, not just individual Departmental components of the same program.


Councillor Hume noted that maintenance of the transit fleet is currently carried out by the Corporate Centre of Expertise which reports to the Corporate Services Committee and the question that should be addressed is whether or not it is appropriate that the person responsible for ensuring the bus fleet gets on the road, does not report to the Director of Transit Services.  He did not believe it was appropriate to have the revenue fleet reporting and structured that way.  He was of the opinion that the centres of expertise create tremendous confusion and does not serves transit particularly well.  The councillor suggested that the report being requested should not only address the reporting relationship as it relates to Council, but the fundamental question of who do these people report to, relative to the organizational structure.  On that note, he believed the revenue fleet for OC Transpo should report to Mr. Diamond because as a councillor, he holds the Director of Transit Services accountable.  He suggested broadening the direction to staff to include not only what committees it reports to, but the actual structure of fleet services as it relates to the business units.


Moved by C. Doucet


That Transportation and Transit Committee task senior management with preparing a report to show clearly why important capital expenditures and related management reporting and accountability structures, both for new stock and facilities as well as for rehabilitation and replacement of existing stock and facilities, should continue to be the responsibility of different committees of Council and Departments.




Transition Costs

Pg. 400


The Committee approved Items 1 and 2 under Transportation, Utilities and Public Works.


That the Transportation and Transit Committee consider, for recommendation to Council the 2001 Capital Program and 2002-2003 Capital Forecast as presented to the Committee.


CARRIED as amended

(R. Bloess dissented)


2. PROPOSED 2001 infrastructure rehabilitation program /



Ref N°:ACS2001-TUP-INF-0007



That the Transportation and Transit Committee consider, for recommendation to Council the Proposed 2001 Infrastructure Rehabilitation Program report dated 19 March 2001 (ACS2001-TUP-INF-0004), Appendix A, (received and tabled with the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee on 21 March) as amended by the bolded changes in the attached revised programs:


1. 2001 Proposed Integrated Road, Sewer and Water Program

2. 2001 Proposed Road Reconstruction Program

3. 2001 Proposed Resurfacing Program

4. 2001 Proposed New Initiatives Program (to be deleted)

5. 2001 Proposed Environmental Initiatives Program (moved to Appendix ‘B’)






Ref N°:ACS2001-CCS-TTC-0004



Councillor Arnold distributed copies of her Motion, which reflected deletion of the restaurant name because it would be changing in the future, as well as the change in the time the patio would be required to close.  She also submitted copies of correspondence received in support of the proposed encroachment.  This material is held on file ASC2001-CCS-TTC-0004.


Moved by E. Arnold


That the Transportation and Transit Committee recommend to Council that the General Manager of Transportation, Utilities and Public Works be instructed to issue a temporary encroachment permit to allow an outdoor patio within the Beech Street road allowance at 371 Preston Street, to be reviewed on a yearly basis and renewed subject to no complaints from the community regarding this operation and subject to the same conditions which are applied to all outdoor patios for which temporary encroachment permits are issued, in addition to the following conditions:


1. that this outdoor patio shall be required to close at 12:00 a.m.;


2. that the General Manager of Transportation, Utilities and Public Works report to the Transportation and Transit Committee if any noise related complaints are received regarding the operation of this outdoor patio; and


3. that in the event that the permit is revoked or not renewed, the owner be required to reinstate the portion of the public property occupied by the patio to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Transportation, Utilities and Public Works.


CARRIED as amended





The Committee adjourned the meeting at 2:35 p.m.





















_________________________ _________________________

Committee Coordinator Chair