Report to/Rapport au:

Transportation and Transit Committee/

Comate des transports et des services de transport en commun

and Council/et au Conseil

16 December 2003 / le 16 décembre 2003

Submitted by/Soumis par: Rosemarie Leclair, General Manager/Directeur général

Transportation, Utilities and Public Works/

Transport, services et travaux publics

Contact/Personne ressource: Michael J. Flainek, P. Eng., Director/Directeur

Traffic and Parking Operations Branch/ Circulation et Stationnement

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

Ref N°: ACS2002-TUP-TRF-0042

SUBJECT: MACKENZIE AVENUE AND SUSSEX DRIVE – TRAFFIC AND SECURITY MEASURES

OBJET: L’AVENUE MACKENZIE ET LA PROMENADE SUSSEX – MESURES DE SÉCURITÉ ET DE CIRCULATION

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That Transportation and Transit Committee recommend Council approve:

1. The conceptual design for MacKenzie Avenue and Sussex Drive in the vicinity of the Embassy of the United States of America, as shown in Annex 3 (Drawing # 020766-PH6).

2. That staff undertake the detailed design and construction of the recommended design.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité des transports et des services de transport en commun recommande au Conseil d’approuver:

1. l’étude de définition pour l’avenue MacKenzie et la promenade Sussex aux abords de l’ambassade des États-Unis, tel qu’il est illustré dans l’annexe 3 (Dessin no 020766-PH6);

2. que le personnel conçoive le plan détaillé et entreprenne les travaux de réaménagement.

BACKGROUND

At its meeting of 15 May 2002, the Transportation and Transit Committee passed the following motion:

“That the City of Ottawa request that the RCMP and the Embassy of the United States consult with the City of Ottawa for the speedy removal of the barriers on Sussex Drive and MacKenzie Avenue, and report back to Committee.”

The Vienna Convention directs the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to ensure adequate security at all embassies in Canada. The RCMP has indicated that additional measures to ensure security around the Embassy of the United States of America (U.S. Embassy) are required while the threat to the Embassy remains at its current level. Therefore, given the Transportation and Transit Committee directive, the City of Ottawa has initiated a Class Environmental Assessment Study (EA) (Schedule B) to identify the appropriate solution(s) for Sussex Drive and MacKenzie Avenue in the vicinity of the U.S. Embassy.

ANALYSIS

Existing Conditions

Sussex Drive and MacKenzie Avenue are located in the westerly section of the By Ward Market as shown in Annex 1. The U.S. Embassy is located between these two roadways. Small businesses abut Sussex Drive to the east, while Major’s Hill Park is to the west of MacKenzie Avenue.

Both Sussex Drive and MacKenzie Avenue are three lanes wide with a posted speed limit of 50 km/hr. However, since 6 November 2001, at the direction of the RCMP, jersey barriers have been placed on the west side of Sussex Drive and the east side of MacKenzie Avenue, thereby reducing the number of lanes on each roadway to two active lanes. The existing roadway geometry is shown in Annex 2.

Pedestrians

Sidewalks are present on both sides of both roadways. An eight-hour pedestrian/traffic count at the intersection of Murray Street and Sussex Drive, conducted on 19 July 2002, indicated that 2,351 and 587 pedestrians walked on the east and west sides of Sussex Drive, respectively. Another count at the intersection of MacKenzie Avenue and Murray Street, conducted on 22 June 2001, indicated that 61 and 833 pedestrians walked on the east and west sides of MacKenzie Avenue, respectively. During the three-year period ending 31 August 2002, there were no reported collisions involving pedestrians on Sussex Drive and on MacKenzie Avenue between York Street and Murray Street.

Cyclists

Prior to the installation of the jersey barriers on 6 November 2001, there were no special provisions for cyclists on either roadway. Cyclists had to share the road with vehicles. The eight-hour count at the above-mentioned intersections indicates that 343 cyclists traveled on Sussex Drive and 233 cyclists traveled on MacKenzie Avenue. During the three-year period ending 31 August 2002, there were no reported collisions involving cyclists on Sussex Drive and on MacKenzie Avenue between York Street and Murray Street.

Transit

OC Transpo operates two bus routes (Route 306 in off-peak period and Route 3 in PM peak period) on both Sussex Drive and MacKenzie Avenue. Bus stops are located along both roads on the east side of Sussex Drive and the west side of MacKenzie Avenue.

Automobiles

The eight-hour turning movement count also revealed that 8,851 vehicles traveled on Sussex Drive. It should be noted that there were 9,940 vehicles that traveled on Sussex Drive in 2001 (an 11% reduction in traffic from 2001 to 2002). 7,441 vehicles traveled on MacKenzie Avenue. During the three-year period ending 31 August 2002, 2 mid-block collisions were reported for Sussex Drive, and 3 mid-block collisions were reported for MacKenzie Avenue.

DISCUSSION

The Environmental Assessment will address the roadway modifications that have taken place as a result of the security issues/concerns brought forward by the RCMP and consider the impacts associated with alternative solutions, in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Planning and Design Process.

The RCMP is continually reviewing the threat to the U.S. Embassy, and there may be a time in the future, that the existing transportation network (3 lanes of traffic) would provide an acceptable level of security. Therefore, it is desirable that any modification scheme be constructed with removable materials, so that the current road configuration may be restored at a later date.

Three security alternatives were reviewed, including:

· Do nothing (no security measures – 3 lanes of traffic on Sussex Drive and MacKenzie Avenue);

· Increase security by using physical measures without encroaching on the roadway (relocate Embassy, blast wall, increase the height of the sidewalk); and,

· Increase security by using physical security measures that encroach on the roadway (i.e. close the road, move the curb line away from Embassy).

Design Proposal

The technically preferred solution is to increase the separation distance between the Embassy and the roadway traffic by extending the curb line out, onto the traveled portion of the road, effectively removing one lane of traffic from both MacKenzie Avenue and Sussex Drive. Annex 3 illustrates the technically preferred solution. A letter from the RCMP indicating that this solution is the only one that meets their security requirements is provided in Annex 4.

It is proposed that the jersey barriers be replaced with a more aesthetic treatment that would include planters. The comprehensive design of the planters will take place in the detail design phase of this project. This will leave two lanes of traffic on both Sussex Drive and MacKenzie Avenue. The lane widths on both roads would be 4.5m for the curb lane (suitable as a shared use cycling facility) and 3.75m for the adjacent lane.

The current concept proposes that a bulb-out be constructed on the northwest corner of Murray Street and Sussex Drive. This will eliminate the current safety concern associated with vehicles on Sussex Drive switching from the middle lane to the left-turn lane as they pass through the intersection at Murray Street. As well, it will force eastbound motorists on Murray Street turning left onto Sussex Drive to turn into the through lane and not the left-turn lane, which currently occurs.

A Traffic Operational review was undertaken to determine the impact on the road network by removing one lane of traffic from Sussex Drive and MacKenzie Avenue. Annex 5 illustrates the traffic operations study area along with the recommended lane configuration.

It is proposed to extend the existing lane reduction on MacKenzie Avenue north to Murray Street, whereby the existing shared left and through lane on the north side of this intersection will become a left-turn only lane. Signage will be placed on Sussex Drive north of St. Patrick Street to indicate that the southbound lane closest to the median is a left-turn lane at MacKenzie Avenue and Murray Street.

Removing one lane of traffic has reduced the theoretical capacity of these two roads. However, the analysis indicates this lane reduction does not cause affected intersections to fail, in fact the analysis indicates that the area has experienced marginal improvement. This can be attributed to the change in the signal timing at the intersection of Sussex Drive and St. Patrick Street to address the queuing problems that arose after the installation of the jersey barriers on Sussex Drive. The second factor is that there are fewer vehicles travelling on Sussex Drive and MacKenzie Avenue in 2002 than there were in 2001.

Design Features

The preferred alternative of providing a greater separation distance between the US Embassy and the traffic lanes by using planters ensures that the security requirements for the US Embassy are maintained while creating a more aesthetically pleasing environment for the area. This option also allows for their removal and re-use at a later date should it be deemed by the RCMP that this security requirement is no longer needed.

The construction of the bulb-out on the northeast corner of Murray Street and Sussex Drive will shorten the length of time a pedestrian is exposed to traffic.

The provision of 4.5m wide curb lanes on both roads will provide a facility for cyclists traveling on these two roads.

From an overall intersection level of service, all intersections in the study area remain the same or are slightly improved. No intersections will fail from the proposed measures. This can be attributed to improved signal timing along with less traffic traveling through this area.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

CONSULTATION

The proposed intersection modification falls under Schedule “B” of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects.

As required by the Municipal Act, Section 300, a notice of the proposed roadway modifications has been placed in Le Droit and the Ottawa Citizen for four consecutive weeks, starting 20 December 2002. Comments received will be made available at the Public Hearing.

An Open House was held on Tuesday, 26 November 2002, as required by the EA process. Preliminary design and traffic operations issues were presented, in addition to EA information. A summary of the comments received from the public is provided in Annex 6.

TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN

A guiding principle of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is the provision of a modal hierarchy with emphasis on walking, cycling, and transit use. This principle is reflected in the following features of the proposed intersection modifications that directly conform to the TMP.

1. The provision of the bulb-out on the northwest corner of Murray Street and Sussex Drive will reduce the crossing distance for pedestrians, which conforms to section 2.2.3 of the TMP.

2. The provision of a shared use cycling facility conforms to section 2.3.2.3 of the TMP.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The conceptual level cost estimate for planter installation, roadway modifications, detailed design, and construction supervision is $1, 025,000 (including GST).

Funds for the design and construction of the roadway modifications are being sought from the Government of Canada.

The Government of the United States of America has offered to fund this project up to $390,000 US subject to the acceptance by the US Department of State of the selected design, placement and structural integrity of the planters or other appropriate replacement barriers to be installed by the City. It is proposed to solicit their agreement to proceed with the detailed design and construction of Sussex Drive utilizing this US contribution. Detailed design and construction of MacKenzie Avenue would follow upon receipt of Government of Canada funding. In this manner, the security and aesthetic concerns of the adjacent By Ward Market neighbourhood may be addressed promptly, while the westerly Major’s Hill Park exposure of the US Embassy would remain protected by the jersey barriers.

There will be ongoing annual costs associated with the maintenance of these security measures. The magnitude of these costs is dependent upon the outcome of the final detailed design feature. Total reimbursement of these costs in principle has been requested of the Canadian Federal Government.

DISPOSITION

The Class EA undertaken has fulfilled the requirements under Schedule B. Under this schedule, the proponent must, identify the preferred alternative solution, publish a Notice of Completion, and provide for a 30-day public review period of the Class EA Study Report. Once, the 30-day review period is completed and assuming there are no “order requests to the Minister” (i.e. a bump-up request), then detail design of the preferred solution will begin, with construction expected to start in early Spring 2003.

ATTACHMENTS

ANNEX 1 Key Plan

ANNEX 2 Existing Conditions

ANNEX 3 Technically Preferred Solution

ANNEX 4 Letter from RCMP

ANNEX 5 Traffic Operation Study Area

ANNEX 6 Comments from Open House

ANNEX 1 – KEY PLAN

ANNEX 2 – EXISTING CONDITIONS

ANNEX 3 – TECHNICALLY PREFERRED SOLUTION

ANNEX 4 – LETTER FROM RCMP

ANNEX 5 – TRAFFIC OPERATION STUDY AREA

ANNEX 6 – COMMENTS FROM OPEN HOUSE

Question 1: Are you satisfied with the level of information and the manner in which it has been provided?

Comment received

No: Certainly there must be more than 2 options. No information was presented to indicate why the original bollards are not adequate.

Non: J’ai du demander des explications sur le fait qu’il y a déjà recommandation alors qu’on fait la présentation au public pour le première fois.

No: This is a fait accompli – we lose a traffic lane on each side of the embassy.

Yes: It is refreshing and commendable that the public is given an opportunity for input.

Yes: Except that I am not at all convinced that the present lane closures are necessary.

No: Would have liked a presentation explaining how the recommended solution was arrived at. Would have liked a forum at which to express concern directly to City staff responsible for the recommendations.

Yes and No: I suspect I am getting as much information as is possible. The central issue, however, is whether the risk assessment justifies the actions already taken – and being proposed. On this issue, I am receiving no information, just asked to accept on faith.

No: There is no information on what purpose the barriers are to achieve – what is the nature and risk of the threat – what is the value of existing posts/fence/construction of embassy to deal with these threats.

Minimal: I only found out about this info session on Friday, and only by calling a city councilor’s office. Was there a public notice?

Question 2: What are your thoughts on the recommended solution to achieve adequate security in the study area? Do you agree with the recommended solution?

Comment received

Yes: This is a good temporary solution. The only long-term solution of the problem would be to move the U.S. Embassy out of the central area (e.g. near the Rockliffe airfield or a similar suitable location). The present site poses far too high a risk to Parliament Hill and the market area.

Yes: We have not been unhappy with the erection of the concrete barriers in terms of traffic, except that they are not pretty to look at. In fact, two lanes of traffic seem to slow traffic down somewhat, which we see as a benefit! However, we do have a few concerns as detailed in question #3.

No: Why do the concrete barricades need to be so far from the curb? Some years ago this was a four-lane road. There should be 3 lanes of traffic and one for security protection. With the reduced lanes of traffic, during rush hour more cars will sit idling. If there are 3 lanes, the likelihood of cars or other vehicles wanting to breach security will lessen.

No: My feeling, despite the arguments presented in the proposed modifications, is that the extra few feet of pavement, on both Sussex and MacKenzie Drives will afford negligible added security for the American Embassy. Even this possible perception of added protection will do nothing to deter a determined terrorist.

No: I honestly feel that they are not necessary. The Federal Government should have thought of this before allowing the U.S. Embassy to be built in such a confined, central and potentially vulnerable location. I fail to see how the closure of one lane on each street adds any more protection to the building. These barricades are unnecessary and unsightly.

No: Any of the solutions provide only a perception of security. It would be impossible to provide total security to the Embassy if it remains in that location. The measures that are proposed to increase the sense of security will have a negative impact on the aesthetic and traffic design of the area while doing little to actually increase the level of security.

Yes and No: I am not happy with the loss of one traffic lane on Sussex and same on MacKenzie. If this loss is considered necessary for security reasons, the proposed solution looks to be the most aesthetic and easily removable solution.

No: I believe that there is enough room on Sussex to provide the needed security and still maintain the badly needed 3 lanes of traffic. After all, Sussex once had 4 lanes of traffic on site. Sussex is a critical artery and transportation flow on it needs to be maintained.

No: I seriously doubt that the third lane will ever be used again for traffic. The most powerful nation will continue to face threats. As a result, I favour a permanent solution that does not require closing one lane on part of the Confederation Blvd. I favour a blast wall with an attractive finish on the public side. It would be situated so as to still leave a sidewalk. It would appear similar to what is already in place on Sussex just north of Guigues. If an attractive cannot be built, then I believe the US Embassy should relocate to a site, which is not surrounded by roads – to conform with such US policy on location of embassies.

No: Barriers should be removed – an eyesore, an impediment to traffic, a menace to Ottawa’s By Ward Market.

Yes: If the solution is to erect a blast wall (where the steel grate fence is now).

No: If the idea is only to narrow the street by erecting “potted” shrubs. This would do nothing to reduce the impact of a blast from a terrorist vehicle - and isn’t that the concern?

Question 3: What are your thoughts on the recommended design for traffic operations?

Comment received

Make the traffic lanes traveling from St. Patrick to MacKenzie two lanes only with the right hand lane giving the option of crossing the bridge or continuing to the left to MacKenzie. Then make the far left lane a turn land only to continue around Murray. This would prevent the need for the two left lanes to merge and would only take a repainting of the lines.

Delivery of goods to businesses on Sussex is difficult with only two lanes unless vehicles “mount” the curb on Sussex in an effort not to block lanes of traffic. This is very difficult if proper snow removal on sidewalks does not take place.

Je déplore le fait qu’on perd toujours une voie carossable.

Give us back the lanes or provide a line of accountability so that people we elect, advised by independent security experts, can tell us whether or not these modifications are needed.

Do not implement the proposed traffic changes. Open up both Sussex and MacKenzie Streets to their former full traffic flow.

I think that this whole scenario is completely unnecessary and is the result of the Federal Governments lack of foresight. What about the wishes and needs of the citizens of Ottawa? This is, after all, our city. What about the concerns and safety of those who live and work in the general vicinity. Democracy is ailing in Ottawa and in Canada.

The recommended traffic design does little more than try to make the best of a bad situation. The worst thing that can be done for traffic in the area is eliminate lanes on Sussex or MacKenzie. There are already dedicated turning lanes on both streets. The “design for traffic operations” is a poor attempt at hiding the real issue, which is the need to preserve the streets as they were originally designed.

Is this design able to address the current problem I encounter traveling south on Sussex/MacKenzie in the morning peak hour? Both lanes from Sussex have to feed into I lane on MacKenzie, the other MacKenzie lane being full of vehicles coming from the Alexandra bridge.

This is virtually the same question as above! However, I will take the opportunity to say that I think the modifications to Clarence are acceptable. The extension on the curb into Sussex on the northwest corner at Murray is not! The traffic to Hull (Gatineau) is already backing up and clogging Sussex. This will only bring things to a stand still.

Traffic circulation should be restored to previous condition – remove the barricades.

Erect a blast wall where the fence is now and return the “normal” traffic flow.

Question 4: Other Comments

Comment received

There are other methods of attack that must be considered and prevented. For example, attack by a hot air balloon loaded with explosives or an attack on the Embassy by mortars or missilery from the surrounding area.

Byward and Clarence intersection is not properly aligned. No trucks after 11:00, no U-turns, delay at Murray and Sussex –signal with NB traffic on east side, who will maintain the trees/planter?

I think protection for the Embassy is necessary given our bad times – however, make the “guards” visually interesting a la Tha Voa Buren (?) multi-leveled sculptures in Paris. You could have planters of varying heights or paint the barriers cheerful colours.

We would like to receive information of construction time, any impact construction of planters would have on traffic and business, and insure that pedestrian traffic, and access to the businesses would continue. The current construction of barriers on Clarence at York have impeded customer traffic, reduced business, and made deliveries on Sussex difficult. It would be very nice to have something nicer to look at, and would improve the look of the street to have planters rather than ugly concrete barriers. Thanks!

Move the Embassy to the old City Hall.

Je voudrais qu’on fasse une étude sur la suggestion que j’ai faite. C’est de construire des murets qui chevau cherient les poteaux existants et ensuite faire une recommandation avec d’autres suggestions.

Any attack against the Embassy, whether by a passing cyclist or automobile, or (equally possible) from the air, is not going to be put off course by a few extra feet of asphalt – with or without flower pots! The barriers are a daily, in-your-face, aggravation.

Remove the barriers permanently! I can’t see how their removal would add any danger or hazard to the Embassy. P.S. I am a 70 yr. old native of Ottawa and therefore I feel that I have a sound right to speak up.

If we must keep the barricades, let us organize a contest with artists who could paint the barricades with a theme that would be determined by the City. No graffiti, but art work. An example could be the four seasons in Ottawa, Ottawa the Capital City, the prime Ministers of Canada. Who knows?

Will this EA process and comments received have any effect on the outcome of this issue? Didn’t the City’s Transportation Committee already approve the recommended solution?

Whatever solution adopted should ensure that our ceremonial route remains handsome and not ugly to the eye. The current cement barriers are highly ugly and I would maintain ineffective. They simply take up too much room and are impeding traffic. NOTE: the more idling cars in traffic jams, the more air pollution. Streets that flow properly will help us get to our Kyoto objectives!

If we allow these to stay, it will be an encroachment of public property by foreign power and a precedent for other embassies.