Transportation and Transit Committee/
Comité des transports et des services de transport en commun

MINUTES 48 / PROCÈS-VERBAL 48

Wednesday, 16 July 2003, 9:30 a.m.
le mercredi 16 juillet 2003, 9 h 30



Present / Présents:	Councillors / Conseillers  M. Meilleur (Chair / Présidente), C. Doucet (Vice-Chair / Vice-président), E. Arnold, A. Cullen, J. Harder, P. Hume, J. Legendre, P. McNeely

Absent / Absent :	Councillor / Conseillère R. Bloess (Regrets / excuses)


DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST /
DÉCLARATIONS D'INTÉRÊT	

There were no declarations of interest.


CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES /
RATIFICATION DU PROCÈS-VERBAUX

Minutes 47 and Confidential Minutes 13 - Wednesday, 18 June 2003 were confirmed.


DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
SERVICES D'AMÉNAGEMENT

PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY
POLITIQUES D'URBANISME, D'ENVIRONNEMENT ET D'INFRASTRUCTURE 

1.	TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN / PLAN DIRECTEUR DES TRANSPORTS
ACS2003-DEV-POL-0033

The following submissions were received and are held on file:

a.	P. MacFarlane submission dated 8 May 2003
b.	M. Aubin submission dated 8 July 2003
c.	R. Tolmie submission dated 3 May 2003
d.	Letters of support for a pedestrian overpass connecting the Train Station to Jet Form Park from:  Canadian Tire, Beauregard Printers, Bona Building & Management Co. Ltd., Ottawa Lynx, H. Schade and M. Methot
e.	P. Feltmate submission dated 16 July 2003
f.	City Centre Coalition letters dated 14 & 15 July 2003
g.	Transportation Advisory Committee submission dated 16 July 2003
h.	I. Henderson submission dated 16 July 2003

In his opening remarks, Ned Lathrop, General Manager, Development Services stated that the anticipated increase in population over the next 20 years will have huge impacts on land use and the transportation system in the city and it is very important, therefore, that Council lock into a future vision for rapid transit.  He noted that as part of it's approval of the Official Plan, Council endorsed higher densities within the city, with an emphasis on a high quality transit service in order to achieve a 30% modal split.  As stated in the Transportation Master Plan (TMP), the city can grow with a minimum possible creation of new roadway systems and would delay or defer, as long as possible, the construction of those roadway systems, in lieu of a viable and effective rapid transit system.  However, if that transit system cannot be achieved, he advised that the City would have to build two more arterials in each of the north-south and east-west directions, beyond those already shown as possibilities in the current TMP.

Mona Abouhenidy, Program Manager, Transportation Policy/Funding provided a Powerpoint presentation to the committee.  A copy is held on file.

The following public delegations were received:

Leonard Poole, President, Community Council of Overbrook expressed strong support for the construction of a pedestrian overpass linking the OC Transpo station at the VIA Train station to Coventry Road, a key transportation link that has been identified by staff and included in the TMP.  A copy of his presentation was previously distributed to committee members, and is held on file.

Mike McDermott, Chair, Taxi Advisory Committee welcomed the reference to the taxi industry in Section 9.7, although he thought it was too brief and limited and was concerned that the use of language in the Plan may not be sufficient to ensure that the objectives are put into effect and adhered to.  He explained that the taxi industry would like to be involved as the plan is put into action in the coming months and years, as they feel the demographics of the City point to the fact that the on-demand taxi service is becoming more of a necessity for many and not just an option for those that can afford it.  They suggest tying in taxis with the transit system so that passengers will have ready access to complete their journeys at the end of their bus ride.  The industry feels there is additional work to be done on such issues as the use of dedicated bus lanes and on traffic circulation priorities, such as exemptions from no turns, exemptions or allowance for reasonable stopping and no-stopping areas to drop off passengers.  The TAC's aim is to ensure that the taxi industry will be recognized as an integral part of the public transportation network in this growing city, as it already is in other cities.

Councillor Legendre inquired how the TMP could be improved to address these concerns, and the delegation explained that Section 9.7 should include some reference to the ultimate need, if necessary, for the City to use it's regulatory and planning authority to ensure that appropriate objectives are put into place and properly monitored.  The industry feels that the City should be able to apply pressure where it is necessary.  While he supported the proposal, the councillor suggested it should be generic and focused on the sector as a whole that serves the general public.

David Bell, Chair, Transportation Advisory Committee believed that more work needs to be done to make this a stronger, more useful document and the TRAC does not believe it adequately describes the important transportation issues the City faces.  They also feel the Plan is flawed in that it does not accommodate a.m. peak downtown commuter traffic, and seems to accept that congestion is a 'given', which is a philosophy that is inconsistent with the current City policy.  He also made the following comments:

-	the treatment and timing of light-rail transit must be given priority so that it precedes development, not responds to it after the fact; TRAC believes the expansion of light-rail and improvements to the south, east and west should be moved forward in Phase 1 and that there should also be a way to achieve these transitions, while maintaining the existing service;

-	the Plan treats interprovincial links too lightly, noting that the three future transit river crossings, which were originally protected for in the Rapid Transit Expansion Study (RTES), have been eliminated in the TMP;

-	there is minimal mention of the Queensway in the future plans for improvement, and as a major link in this City, there should be discussion on what the City believes should be the future role of this corridor;

-	while TRAC believes the TMP makes a strong link between air quality and greenhouse gases, it needs to identify the transportation impacts on air quality or smog and how these will be reduced in future years.

In summary, the TRAC recommends the following:

1.	The TMP needs to be a strategy for the future that has the support and acceptance of the various stakeholders in the communities.  The consultations should be carried out with a broad range of interest groups and the general public with an emphasis on bringing in an environmental focus.

2.	The O-train light rail concept for public transportation is a key piece to the strategy and its development should be accelerated and not de-emphasized.

3.	There needs to be a stronger discussion of the current transportation issues and funding challenges, which would be important in further discussions with future funding partners.

4.	The TMP should be based on a transportation system philosophy and move away from the current accommodating a.m./p.m. peak downtown auto and transit focus.

A copy of his written submission is held on file.

In response to some of the advisory committee's concerns about future transit river crossings, Councillor Cullen noted there was no mention in the Plan of the rail bridge crossing at Lemieux Island.  Mr. Lathrop indicated that the RTES was amended to include the possibility of that link and it is now under active consideration as part of the Interprovincial Transit Study.  If the study reveals that there is a more concrete understanding of how it is going to work, then the TMP can accommodate them.

In view of the number of road projects vs. transit projects in the Plan, Councillor Doucet wondered how the City would be spending 75% of its funds on transit.  He was also concerned that many of the roadway projects would be completed in the near future, whereas the transit projects are several years away from completion.  In response to these comments, Mr. Lathrop advised that the cost of one transit project could equate to almost all of the roadway projects and there is no way to accelerate the time-frame at the moment.

In response to questions posed by Councillor Arnold, Mr. Bell indicated that the TRAC believes the Plan is based on increasing automobile use into the downtown core because many of the tools that were being used to develop it, tend to be urban commuter a.m./p.m. peak kinds of models.  They feel that the TMP focuses more on how to deal with that demand, than on how to deal with the new centres being developed throughout the region.  In response to these comments, Mr. Lathrop stated that the use of the screen lines for a.m./p.m. peak is a tool, which tries to simplify the identification of the major traffic movements.  Further, the TMP is intended to be a system that supports the development of the town centres; however, an integrated city needs a good transportation network across the city as well as a network that supports the town centres and the dispersed development referred to in the Official Plan.  While he agreed with these statements, Mr. Bell offered that the TRAC did not get this impression from the Plan and he reiterated their suggestion to strengthen the words in the document.

Alayne McGregor was concerned that the 1995 Origin-Destination (OD) Survey was the main basis for the modal share numbers in the Plan, but stated the cycling community feels that the survey was flawed and inaccurate, especially given the change in the city since that time, and in particular, cycling demographics.  She suggested therefore that an OD survey be conducted in 2005, with the entire consideration of modal share numbers in the report being deferred to allow time for re-examination by staff.

With respect to roadway projects, Ms. McGregor felt that the widening of Carling Avenue and Richmond Avenue would only lead to an increase in speed-related problems, and suggested that the Fisher Avenue project be moved from the 'Widening' group to the 'Other Projects' group, in which its needs can be accommodated.

John Brennan felt that the Plan promotes and is reliant on transit, and that the downtown core is implied as one of the highest priority areas.  He suggested that the modal splits would not significantly increase in any part of the city with the transit improvements planned.  He was also concerned that approximately 75-80% of capital spending will go towards improvements to transit, when only 17-30% of travellers will use it, whereas the bulk of commuters will only benefit from about 25% of the planned spending.  He was pleased to see the statement in the Plan that additional roadway projects will proceed if transit modal split targets are not met.

David Jeanes, Transport 2000 expressed concern about the shortness of time members of the public had to review the latest version of the Plan and was displeased with the lack of public consultation and presentation regarding the TMP.  He was especially concerned that the TMP incorporates the implementation plan for light rail - information taken from the Ottawa Rapid Transit Expansion Program Implementation Strategy (ORTEP) - which is not yet available to the public, except in summary form.  He suggested that there are new rules in this Plan, which would have prevented the implementation of the O-Train project because it is mandated that electric light rail and low-floor light rail vehicles are to be procured.  Mr. Jeanes commented that this is not consistent with the findings of the RTES which included the rapid transit technologies studied and recommended to go forward:  bus rapid transit, light rail transit and diesel light rail transit.  He added that it was identified that appropriate choices would need to be made according to the corridors; however, the TMP has limited that explicitly to two technologies, which he felt was inappropriate, because it is based on an un-reviewed document.  With respect to the interprovincial corridors, Mr. Jeanes pointed out that there had been some mention of protecting the Prince of Wales Bridge (across Lemieux Island), but the Ontario Municipal Board issued a decision in 1999 ordering the Region to protect that corridor for transit in its Official Plan, which has now vanished from this new Plan.

In closing, Mr. Jeanes believed that there is still too much of a focus on the suburbs to downtown seamless commute, although there is no data in the document on what percentage of downtown employees are using transit today, nor is there an update on the percentage of the City's jobs that are downtown.  He emphasized that if the City is to achieve its objectives, it must better understand how its staff are travelling and how it should build a network of transportation - roads and transit - based on a much better understanding of what people need.

In response to a question posed by Councillor Legendre, the General Manager explained that there is the implication there will be a transit link across Lemieux Island as a result of the analysis of the RTES.  There are transportation corridors as well with regards to the roadway projects, and the principle of that corridor is being considered in the Plan.  Mr. Jeanes explained that the point he was trying to make was that the transit service has been extremely successful in meeting its objective of serving the downtown employment market and it has provided a seamless way of doing that; however, to achieve a 30% transit modal share, the City has to look at the whole region and to consider that more than 75% of the jobs are not in the downtown core.  Mr. Lathrop stated that the principle of that has been laid out in the Rapid Transit Expansion Program, especially the east-west light rail proposal.  He pointed out, however, that the principle of maintaining and sustaining the expanding downtown core cannot be ignored in developing the rapid transit system.  He also agreed that the integration with the City of Gatineau is extremely important and that much of what the City is attempting to do in encouraging the interprovincial transit study, is to make it more seamless, possibly to the extent of using existing interprovincial rail bridges.

David Gladstone, Chair, City Centre Coalition believed the TMP to be flawed because it does not describe current transportation problem areas in the city.  The Coalition would like the TMP to:

a.	maintain the existing O-Train service;
b.	remove the road project in the Alta Vista Transportation Corridor;
c.	incorporate air quality targets into planning Ottawa's transportation system; and,
d.	extend the O-Train service to Gatineau

Mr. Gladstone went on to state that the Coalition feels there are major omissions in the Plan, including studies and analyses which had been carried out, as well as pertinent information about the Queensway, interprovincial transportation, prioritization policies with respect to walking, cycling and transit, and monitoring mechanisms.  They recommend:

1.	That the pathway from the Bayview O-Train station to the NCC's Ottawa River pathway be built in 2003, with a pathway linking Bayview Station to the Tom Brown Arena and the community of Hintonburg in 2004.

2.	That staff be directed to review the TMP in 2004 to allow for continued public consultation and discussion.

A copy of Mr. Gladstone's written submission is held on file.

Jon Legg, Action Sandy Hill expressed the group's appreciation for the work that has gone into the TMP, but submitted the following concerns:

1.	The manner in which staff responded to one of their comments submitted on the draft TMP, specifically dealing with funding and priority as related to construction of new roads and new non-road transit.  He noted that the summary of their point and how it was answered did not reflect the important point they were attempting to make.

2.	Action Sandy Hill does not believe staff took seriously enough, the suggestion put forward by the Alta Vista Drive Residents' Association concerning the importance of monitoring the impact of emissions on air quality.

3.	The City should aim for a higher transit target than the proposed 30%.

A copy of his presentation is held on file.

Cam Robertson pointed out the importance of getting rapid transit to new developments before the roads are expanded.  He expressed concern with regards to the inconsistencies in the data about transit modal split that was used for the TMP, and wondered if the correct information had been used in determining the future target.

In response to questions posed by Councillor Harder, Mr. Robertson agreed that if the City is to aim for a higher transit modal split target, it is crucial to attract people moving into the suburbs to public transit.  He also felt that it is crucial to think of it not only in terms of transportation, but also in terms of land use and diversity in the same general area.  He went on to say that the Central area should also be improved on in terms of public transit so that a better modal share can be achieved there as well.

Diane Dupuis, Chair and Anne Lavender, Vice Chair, Cycling Advisory Committee presented a PowerPoint presentation detailing the committee's position with respect to the TMP.  Overall, they thought the TMP was a very solid document that reflected a lot of hard work by staff, but they felt that it lacked accountability to the taxpayer and was in need of a more strategic framework for monitoring and evaluation purposes.  A copy of their presentation is held on file.

In considering the report before committee, Councillor Cullen referred to Table 3 in the agenda, which detailed the modal split for walking and cycling.  He noted that the total of those two modes by 2021 is only 13%, whereas Table 1, which details the modal split for transit and automobiles, shows a total of 100%.  Mr. Lathrop suggested it might be easier if a table were created illustrating the modal shares of all person trips and agreed that such a table would be created in addition to the existing tables in the report.  In response to a request by the councillor, staff also agreed that information could be brought forward in the fall on the car-pooling and area traffic management studies.

Following up on some of the concerns raised during the public presentations, and in particular by the representative from the TRAC, Councillor Arnold wondered whether staff could review the document to ensure the language accurately reflects the intent of the Plan and that this be clarified prior to the item rising to Council.  Dennis Jacobs, Director of Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy, indicated staff could certainly undertake to put forward some additional wording, but did not share the opinion that the Plan lacked clarity.  He confirmed that the intent is to ensure there is a balance of transportation in both delivery and movement in the community and is not simply a suburb to downtown approach.  The councillor suggested it could be easily accomplished by adding a clarifying paragraph to the Executive Summary to ensure the intent is clear.  The councillor specifically suggested that part of the lack of clarity is with the interchangeable use of the words 'downtown' and 'inside the greenbelt', which are two very different concepts.  She believed the Plan must be very precise when that is discussed.

With regards to the Bayview path and the link to the Tom Brown Arena, Councillor Arnold noted there is a multi-use pathway shown in Map 1 as the extension of Preston Street, which goes across the Prince of Wales Bridge and connects to Gatineau.  When asked whether or not the pathway can be constructed this year, Rob Orchin, Manager, Mobility Area and Traffic Management advised that the connection from the current O-Train station at Bayview to the NCC pathway along the Ottawa River is currently a project being examined.  And, while he could not comment on the specific connection to the Arena, he confirmed that such a pathway would be the subject of a subsequent review process the City would have to undertake.

The councillor referred to Motions circulated by Councillor Cullen with respect to the Prince of Wales Bridge and asked the councillor to amend these to include the Chaudiere and Portage connections as other options to be investigated.  Mr. Lathrop advised that those bridges are not confirmed links at this point in time and were therefore not reflected in the TMP.  He suggested that should the committee decide to add wording in the Plan stating that the study to be undertaken would look at a variety of corridors, staff could make that adjustment, but he did not want to establish them on a schedule (Map 5).  The councillor believed that under the RTES they were identified as 'conceptual or potential links' and she wanted to ensure that the TMP reflects that the City is indicating the strong desire to have a network that connects to both sides of the river.  And, where those bridges are already in place, that the municipality wants to protect those as potential rights-of-way for rapid transit.  Mr. Lathrop suggested the addition of the following text to the Plan might address these concerns:  "...until such time as the finalization of the study and the final choices are made."  The councillor agreed to the addition of this wording.

Councillor Legendre recognized that the current modal transit split is 17%, but noted that the target set in 1997 was 20%.  He inquired what the target was prior to the 1997 TMP and was advised by staff that 1997 was the first year a TMP was established.  Mr. Jacobs advised that the transit strategy that had come forward that initiated the construction of the transitway may have contained targets, but he indicated that none were reflected in the Official Plan the way that they were after the initial TMP in 1997.  The councillor asked that staff provide him with the information if it is available.

Councillor Legendre asked for a staff comment in response to the concern expressed by one of the presenters about the elimination of three interprovincial transit links.  Staff advised that specific interprovincial transit links are not identified in the current TMP, pending the results of the Interprovincial Transit study.  However, text in the TMP itself states that based on that study, links for interprovincial transit will be identified and would be added to the Plan.  They were also awaiting the results of the Interprovincial Bridge Study before including rail transit on Map 4.

Councillor Legendre suggested adding Rideau Street/Montreal Road to the list of roads at page 60 of the TMP which have the most potential for supporting carpool lanes.  In view of the fact that Montreal Road currently has a bus-only lane in the peak direction, he would have thought the capacity of that corridor could be increased during those periods by making it available as a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) road.  Ms. Abouhenidy explained that one of the criteria used in selecting those corridors was that they would not conflict with transit service.  Subject to further investigation, however, she suggested that additional links could be included, as this is simply a preliminary estimate.

While he liked the vision expressed in the plan, Councillor Doucet believed there was a disjunction between what the Plan states it will achieve, and how the city is actually being created.  To support his concerns, he noted that Section 5.2 (Sidewalks and Pedestrian Crossings) does not include a 'pedestrian' project, despite the fact there are 22 very large road projects.  He inquired as to the status of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Study and was advised by staff that the results of that Study were incorporated into the Plan, at Section 4.2.  However, the councillor stated that the study itself had not been brought forward and recalled another staff person advising him that the study was in fact not completed.

Councillor Doucet advised further that the Guidelines for Traffic Management have been delayed until the Fall, even though those guidelines are key to putting forward the traffic plans throughout the city.  He noted that the draft that had originally come forward was based on volume and capacity, but there were levers in that study to rebalance the streets such as community integrity and safety.  The General Manager of Transportation, Utilities and Public Works, Rosemarie Leclair confirmed that the TDM study is progressing and will be brought forward to committee in the Fall.  Similarly, the Area Traffic Management Study is also progressing, but as a result of feedback from several members of Council and the public, the report was delayed being brought forward in order that it could take into consideration the comments received.  While she recognized the validity of what the councillor was saying, she indicated that the next steps following approval of the TMP is the interpretation and operationalization of the vision in that Plan.

Councillor McNeely noted that one of the significant road requirements is an east-west facility between Highway 416 and Highway 417 and inquired whether that would be the Vars to Kars study currently underway by the MTO.  Staff advised that the TMP identifies a deficiency in the east-west network and the requirement would be to have this link somewhere inside the Greenbelt, as part of the long-term vision for the City.  If, however, the modal splits cannot be reached or exceeded, as that 20-year time horizon draws closer, staff will re-analyse that requirement.

The councillor referred to a statement at page 4 of the report that "travel demand across the Inner Area Cordon will increase by 86% due to an increased concentration of jobs within the Inner Area and an increased number of households outside the Greenbelt".  In the long term, he recognized that employment nodes have to be moved to the east and wondered if the City is getting away from balanced development when this type of statement is included in the report.  Mr. Lathrop stated that balanced development is key to how the City needs to grow and noted that there will be employment growth in the east, west and south.  He added that the fact that the federal government is reluctant to place their employment nodes beyond the Greenbelt is an issue staff discuss with them at every opportunity.

Councillor McNeely indicated there are four major road projects that affect Orléans, including:  the Highway 417 study from 416 to Anderson Road, the Vars to Kars ring road, the environmental assessment (EA) for the urgently-needed Innes to Walkley connection and the EA for the interprovincial bridge which will be underway shortly.  Until such time as these studies are complete, therefore, residents of the east end are forced to deal with the congestion at the split on Highway 417.  He wanted to ensure that when the information on those studies is available, that the committee and Council have the opportunity to review the TMP because those studies are critical to what happens to that community.  Ms. Abouhenidy indicated the TMP would be reviewed and staff would be monitoring the Plan regularly and if required, amendments can be brought forward.

Councillor Harder questioned whether this Plan is affordable and what choices would be available to the City if funding from the senior levels of government is not forthcoming.  Mr. Lathrop responded by stating that should this occur, a lot of the growth scenarios being projected are in question in terms of capacity.  He added that while the Long Range Financial Plan examined different scenarios, including public-private partnerships and how the City can raise more money from gas taxes, et cetera, one of the critical comments in that Plan is the City may have to limit growth and that is a real possibility if some of this funding is not provided.

Councillor Harder indicated that during the budget process, Council approved a certain amount of money for EAs, one of which was for Greenbank Road.  However, she requested clarification to the news she heard from a member of staff, that the City is no longer going to do EAs for roadwork.  Mr. Lathrop was not aware of any decision that was made that allows the City not to do EAs for roadwork because it is a requirement that has to be done.  He suggested, however, that what the councillor might have heard is that there is some question about doing EAs in advance of a project actually being on a construction schedule.  The councillor was concerned about the EA for Greenbank Road because it is in Phase 1 and she did not believe the City was moving on this project fast enough.  She noted the support for the inclusion of the Southwest Transitway from Berrigan to Market Place Mall at Strandherd/Greenbank and acknowledged this was discussed at budget.  She asked that staff provide her with the information on where those funds are now going to be spent.

The councillor further noted that the extension of the Southwest Transitway from Fallowfield Station to Berrigan, would not occur until 2013 (Phase 2), despite the fact there will be 100,000 people living in South Nepean by then.  She remarked that if the City is truly serious about a 30% transit modal split, it couldn't be accomplished if the transitway is not extended until after this area is built out.  Mr. Lathrop explained that the reprioritization of the EAs were done as part of bringing forward the adjustments necessary to make the $22M savings earlier this summer.  He confirmed that any EAs currently underway have not been affected and no one is making decisions that are not either budget based or based on Council direction.

Councillor Harder questioned whether the Strandherd Bridge would be for light rail, bus rapid transit or automobiles or a combination of all three.  Mr. Lathrop indicated there would be separate bridges for transit and road, even though it is not identified as two structures.  The councillor thought that since it is the road portion being recommended for construction in Phase 1, it would not preclude buses from also using that link.

Chair Legendre referred to the section of Hunt Club Road shown on Map 4 and inquired why it and some of the other transit priority routes did not extend further to create better connectivity in the network.  Mr. Orchin indicated that when staff examined the transit priority network, they looked at existing roads and their capacity, as well as where the delays to transit were occurring.  He agreed to provide a response to the councillor's specific question re Hunt Club prior to the item rising to Council.

Councillor Deans stated that the community in Riverside South is growing at a rate of over 50% annually with a projected population of 16,000.  However, while the EA for Limebank Road is complete, it not being recommended for funding until Phase 2 (beyond the 10-year planning horizon) because light rapid transit is the first priority.  However, by the time that road is expanded, there will be nearly 45,000 residents living there so she had some difficulties understanding how the TMP could be made to work for this community.  Assuming the ORTEP report is adopted, the General Manager confirmed that the priority is to bring light rapid transit to the south; the dilemma is that the options being shown in the ORTEP report include extending light rail down to Leitrim.  While he acknowledged that extending to Limebank is obviously the preferred solution, and assuming the City receives $300M from the senior levels of governments, the ultimate option would be to extend light rail from Lebreton Station to Leitrim.

If funds were not forthcoming for road and transit infrastructure, Councillor Deans asked whether growth would be limited in Riverside South.  Mr. Lathrop confirmed that was an option, but one that is not necessarily restricted to that community, since there are other growth areas in the city.  Given the rate of expansion in this area and combined with the length of time envisioned to bring rail or a road solution to that community, the councillor believed the TMP and ORTEP reports did not offer the solution to the growth in Riverside South and that Motions would be brought forward on her behalf to specifically address those issues.

Chair Meilleur wondered why the Alta Vista Transportation Corridor only appeared under 'road projects' in the TMP when the current EA was to look at road and transit options.  Mr. Lathrop confirmed that the assessment done as part of the EA was to look at such options, and the comprehensive overview conducted as part of the RTES examined the possibility of whether it should be a stand-alone transit corridor.  However, it was determined that this corridor would not be suitable for a rapid transit only corridor, although it is viable as a joint roadway/bus transit corridor, which is the option being brought forward as part of the EA.  He added that by adopting an aggressive rapid transit program, the City moves the need to create some of these new roadways into a later time period.  The Chair opined that the City would not achieve the intended modal split if it continues to build roads.  She agreed with the comments expressed by the councillor for Riverside South because there is a need to provide public transportation to that community, but well before the proposed timeframe.

Councillor Cullen proposed that Map 5 be amended to include the Lemieux Island, Portage and Chaudière bridges as possible candidates for rapid transit interprovincial crossings.  As mentioned earlier in the meeting, Mr. Jacobs indicated staff would add some text to reflect the fact these were candidate corridors, as opposed to specifically identifying them.  This option was preferred because as soon as these bridges are put on the map they become the corridors.  And, by referring to them in the text of the TMP and identifying them as candidates, it better reflects what the intention of any study of that area would be.

Moved by A. Cullen

That Map 5 be amended to include the Lemieux Island Rail Bridge, the Portage Bridge and the Chaudière Bridge as possible candidates for rapid transit interprovincial crossings.

	LOST

YEAS (4):	A. Cullen, J. Legendre, E. Arnold, C. Doucet
NAYS (4):	J. Harder, P. Hume, P. McNeely, M. Meilleur

Councillor Cullen referred to the concern raised by one of the delegations about ensuring that the City properly captures the information they are seeking for an origin-destination survey and proposed the following:

That staff be directed to report back to the Transportation and Transit Committee by February 2004 on:

* the timing of the Origin-Destination Survey
* methods to ensure that the Origin-Destination Survey and other City surveys of transportation use measures that properly measure short trips, combined-mode trips, and non-motor vehicle trips.

And that staff consult with the appropriate advisory committees in developing the Origin-Destination Survey.

Councillor Harder wondered whether this was necessary and affordable and whether or not staff would be doing this in any case as part of the ongoing work.  Mr. Lathrop preferred to take the Motion under advisement so that staff have an opportunity to review it and report back.  It was then suggested that the Motion be referred to staff and Councillor Cullen concurred with this direction.

Moved by A. Cullen

That staff be directed to report back to the Transportation and Transit Committee by February 2004 on:

* the timing of the Origin-Destination Survey
* methods to ensure that the Origin-Destination Survey and other City surveys of transportation use measures that properly measure short trips, combined-mode trips, and non-motor vehicle trips.

And that staff consult with the appropriate advisory committees in developing the Origin-Destination Survey.

	REFERRED TO STAFF

Moved by Councillor Cullen:

That staff ensure that the 2005 Origin-Destination Survey be conducted at a time of year which will not be affected by serious weather variability, such as early snow accumulation.

	REFERRED TO STAFF

Councillor Cullen proposed that Policy 2 of Section 7.2.2 Fares and Funding be amended to read:  Set passenger fares in a manner that meets the key service objectives described in Section 7.2.1 and review fares annually.  He noted that what is implied in Policy 2 is that fares will be increased to keep up with inflation.  However, this has a negative impact on those people who can least afford it and who generally do not experience cost of living increases.  And while Council expects fares to keep pace with inflation, somehow it does not do the same for the taxes that support transit.  He made note of the fact that in 2001, the transit levy was $318.75, in 2002 it was $336 and this year it was $306.34 and suggested therefore, that rather than building in an automatic formula that only penalizes the users, he suggested it simply be reviewed on an annual basis.

Councillor Harder did not support the Motion because the City has to be flexible in setting transportation goals and where the funds come from to support those goals.  She did not think it was appropriate therefore to put some criteria in that might allow someone to stop Council from fulfilling its goals.  She emphasized the need to have the flexibility in order to make this Plan work.

Ms. Leclair indicated that what the TMP reflects is essentially a policy decision made by the former RMOC as a result of the KPMG review, in terms of trying to support where the municipality wants to go with its transit goals.  She believed that as the City falls behind in revenue sources, it translates to an erosion of service.

Councillor Cullen acknowledged that the City should ensure there is the revenue flow to support the system; however, he emphasized that the language in the Plan only focuses on approximately half (fares) of the revenue source and reiterated the fact that the transit levy has not kept pace with inflation.  He was prepared to accept the fact that revenues be adjusted annually so they are kept constant in real dollars because that would apply to both fares and the levy and suggested amending his Motion to read as follows:  That Policy 2 of Section 7.2.2 Fares and Funding be amended to read:  Set transit revenues in a manner that meets the key service objectives described in Chapter 7.2.1 annually such that transit revenue is kept constant in real dollars.

Councillor Legendre suggested amending it further to include the words "at least", recognizing the need to increase the monies going to transit.

Moved by A. Cullen

That Policy 2 of Section 7.2.2 Fares and Funding (page 47), be amended to read:  Set transit revenue, including fares, in a manner that meets the key service objectives described in Chapter 7.2.1 annually such that transit revenue is, at least, kept constant in real dollars.

								CARRIED

Moved by A. Cullen

That Policy 1 of Section 7.2.4. Interprovincial Transit Service (page 48), be amended to read: Seek to provide seamless coordination of transit services and fares with the STO.

								CARRIED

Moved by A. Cullen

That Policy 1a) of Section 5.2 Sidewalks and Pedestrian Crossings (page 36), be amended to add:  including recognition of demographic shifts, such as population aging.

								CARRIED

Moved by A. Cullen

That Section 5.3 Multi-Use Pathways (page 37), be amended by adding the following new Policy 7:  Design multi-use pathways to minimize conflicts between cyclists, pedestrians, and other multi-use pathway users.

CARRIED with J. Harder dissenting


Moved by A. Cullen

That Section 7.2.4 Interprovincial Transit Service (page 48) be amended to add to Policy 2:  including the possible extension of LRT service across such bridges as the Lemieux Island Rail Bridge, the Portage Bridge or the Chaudière Bridge, to create an integrated GO (Gatineau-Ottawa) Light Rail Transit Service.

								CARRIED

Councillor Cullen proposed that Policy 1 of Section 7.6.2 be amended to read:  "Consider buying as soon as practible electrically-powered light rail cars, and investigate opportunities for the clean generation of electricity to power them."  While he believed in the intent of the existing wording, he did not want to be locked in to this technology, if the City does not get the necessary funding and alternatives have to be reviewed or the current system has to be extended.  When asked whether this would negatively affect the City's position with the senior levels of government to obtain funding for electric light rail, Mr. Lathrop advised that there are significant costs associated with extending the existing O-Train.  The intent of the wording in the TMP is to focus on one technology and he suggested the Motion be deferred, pending consideration of the ORTEP report.  The councillor was prepared to accept deferral.

With regards to the use of the term 'clean generation of electricity' in this Policy, Councillor Legendre did not believe this was pertinent to the TMP and suggested it be removed because it diminishes the credibility of the focus of the Plan.  Staff explained that the terminology was included because Calgary had pioneered being able to power their train fleet by the use of clean energy.

Councillor Doucet expressed support for the wording as it stands in the Plan, as long as it does not preclude the City buying diesel trains.  He believed there is the possibility there would be enough money to move forward with a diesel option, but did not believe the municipality would have the funding to move with an electric option within the 10-year horizon.  Mr. Lathrop explained that the intent of that statement is that Ottawa will buy electrically powered light rail cars and not continue with the diesel-electric option.

When asked what would happen if the City does not have the money for this new technology, Mr. Lathrop advised that the project would be revisited and, if necessary, amendments made to the TMP as well as to the ORTEP.

Moved by J. Legendre

That Policy 1 of Section 7.6.2 Vehicle Propulsion (page 54) be amended to remove reference to the clean generation of electricity.

								CARRIED

Moved by A. Cullen

That Policy 1 of Section 7.6.2 Vehicle Propulsion (page 54), be amended to read:  "Consider buying as soon as possible electrically-powered light rail cars, and investigate opportunities for the clean generation of electricity to power them."

	LOST

YEAS (3):	A. Cullen, J. Legendre, C. Doucet
NAYS (4):	E. Arnold, P. Hume, P. McNeely, M. Meilleur

Councillor Cullen requested a recorded vote on Policy 1 of Section 7.6.2, as amended, and the Policy was approved with the following vote:

YEAS (6):	J. Legendre, E. Arnold, P. Hume, P. McNeely, M. Meilleur
NAYS (2):	A. Cullen, C. Doucet

Councillor Cullen proposed That Section 14.1 Capital Works Plan, be amended to delete under Roads - Phase 1: Carling Avenue (Richmond Road to Holly Acres Road); and that Annex A be amended accordingly.  He explained that portions of Carling would be two lanes while others will be six lanes and he wondered why there would be a need to expand through this section when there is a bottleneck between March and Moodie.  He suggested that if the intent of the widening were to accommodate traffic coming across the Greenbelt, it would not do that because motorists will use other parallel links such as the Queensway, Timm Drive, and Richmond Road.  Deleting this widening would save the City $14.5M.

Mr. Jacobs did not support the Motion because staff has identified capacity issues in this particular area, which would require further analysis before removing anything.  The councillor inquired where the additional traffic is anticipated to come from that would warrant this widening and staff advised it would be exiting onto the arterial roads from Highways 417 and 416.  The councillor argued, however, that motorists coming from those highways would exit at Richmond and Pinecrest, not at Holly Acres and he did not think people were going to drive west, down Moodie Drive and then head in the other direction.  Mr. Lathrop posited that what the councillor raises may be an important point in terms of whether or not the deletion of the four-laning of Carling to Eagleson is a logical decision and suggested that an explanation could be provided in the Plan specifying why this expansion is necessary.  At the very least, he preferred that staff be given an opportunity to review the implications of removing the widening in more detail before proceeding further.  The councillor noted that by 2021, there will be an additional 5000 cars crossing the Eagleson screen line and the portion of Carling Avenue that is currently two lanes will be remaining as such and he therefore did not understand why another portion further west required widening.

With regards to the east-west travel, the Director of Traffic and Parking Operations, Mike Flainek, clarified that that component is also made up of north-south travel, which have to be considered because they are contributing to the east and westbound movements at the same time.  He added that removing a single corridor from the overall model has an implication on parallel links.  The councillor argued however, that if that were the case, Council would not have agreed to delete the modifications proposed for Carling at Pinecrest.

Mr. Lathrop implored committee that if this proposal to delete the widening is in question, then staff should be given an opportunity to review it in more detail and bring back a comprehensive analysis which would justify why this widening is in the TMP.  He was concerned about removing it now and finding out, too late, that there are serious implications of doing so.

Councillor Legendre agreed it was logical to receive more additional information and urged his colleague to accept that approach.  In terms of reviewing it further, he suggested Carling Avenue could be added to the list of roads being considered for carpool lanes.  Mr. Lathrop indicated staff would take a look at everything in that accord.  The councillor indicated his support for examining the option of a carpooling roadway, instead of the widening.

Councillor Harder agreed that more information was necessary before she would support deleting this widening from the Plan.  She suggested that if committee does not support the Motion, then she would definitely want to see a report showing statistics supporting staff's argument.

In his closing argument, Councillor Cullen emphasized that the community is totally opposed to this widening and their concerns were voiced during the City's review of the Official Plan.  They are concerned that traffic from growth areas is going to demand the widening of roads and the ultimate destruction of established communities.  He maintained this was a ward-specific issue and did not think it would destroy the 'bigger picture' for the TMP and is consistent with the Official Plan with regards to protecting neighbourhoods.

A Motion to defer was not brought forward.


Moved by A. Cullen

That Chapter 14.1 Capital Works Plan (page 89), be amended to delete under Roads - Phase 1: Carling Avenue (Richmond Road to Holly Acres Road); and that Annex A (page 109) be amended accordingly.

								CARRIED

YEAS (7):	J. Harder, A. Cullen, J. Legendre, E. Arnold, C. Doucet, P. McNeely, M. Meilleur
NAYS (1):	P. Hume

Councillor Cullen proposed That Richmond Road between Carling and Golden be deleted from Roads - Phase 1 of Section 14.1, Capital Works Plan.  He indicated that this portion runs through a residential area and if the committee were to adopt the TMP proposal, it would take parkland away from the Byron strip, which has a recreational path, berms and trees, which the community wants to retain.

Mr. Lathrop stated that staff have demonstrated the need to protect the corridor in this particular area and this kind of protection ensconced in the TMP will allow the City to take road widenings on development applications.  Further, this is part of a comprehensive growth program for the city and he suggested staff be given an opportunity to comment further before taking action on the Motion.

Moved by J. Harder

That the Motion be deferred to the next meeting.

	LOST

YEAS (3):	J. Harder, J. Legendre, M. Meilleur
NAYS (5):	A. Cullen, E. Arnold, C. Doucet, P. Hume, P. McNeely

When asked to explain why this particular road is needed to be retained and expanded, Ms. Abouhenidy indicated that this section of Richmond, together with Carling Avenue, are both one project because they are tied together.  She added that there is a need for an additional two lanes in this area and on Carling east of Richmond, it has already been taken by the future rapid transit, so staff chose to widen Richmond.  Conversely, for the Carling Avenue widening, west of Richmond, Richmond will be used by light rail or rapid transit so that portion of Carling was selected to be widened.

Councillor Cullen stated that the west transitway currently runs parallel to the very section of Richmond Road the TMP proposes to widen.  He therefore questioned why additional capacity would be added to a road, when the City is trying to encourage people to take transit.  He reiterated the fact that this portion of Richmond travels through a residential area and noted there will be no more development along this road.  Also, widening it will take away green space and affect the community's quality of life, ultimately damaging the distinctive characteristics of the various communities through which this section of Richmond travels.

In a small way, Councillor Doucet thought this is representative of the kinds of choices the committee and Council must make for the city.  He stated that the committee has a choice between maintaining green space and providing capacity for cars.  He understood staff's desire to preserve the ability to have an extra lane, when and if necessary, however, in this particular case, the choice comes down on the side of protecting that green space and the community and the City would have to learn to live with those three lanes if Council believes in the TMP.

Following on staff's earlier explanation, Mr. Lathrop emphasized that as a result of the creation of rapid transit on Carling Avenue, some lane capacity would be lost.  And, as part of a comprehensive transportation system, even though the Plan aims for a 30% modal split, there would still be 70% of the traffic needing to get around.  He stated this is preserving a right-of-way protection which is prudent, given a 30% modal split and given the fact that commerce has to move around the city and people will have to go to non-transit oriented sites by car.  While he added his support for improving transit, he stated it should not be done at the threat of the transportation network of the city where the appropriate right-of-ways are not protected on arterials and collectors.  In response to questions posed by the Committee Chair, he explained that when right-of-way requirements are identified in a transportation master plan, they could be protected on redevelopment, at no cost to the City.  With regards to this particular widening, he confirmed it is not 100% of the greenspace along Byron Avenue that would be removed.  He reminded committee that this is a key east-west route and it would be prudent to protect it.

Councillor Harder was cognisant of Council's challenge to increase public acceptance of non-automobile modes and more urban lifestyles.  However, the City must be realistic about providing for the various modes.  She was doubtful the City could achieve the modal split it is aiming for, and believed this widening should be retained, should it be needed sometime in the future.


Moved by A. Cullen

That Richmond Road between Carling and Golden be deleted from Roads - Phase 1 of Section 14.1, Capital Works Plan (page 89).

								LOST

YEAS (4):	A. Cullen, E. Arnold, C. Doucet, P. McNeely
NAYS (4):	J. Harder, J. Legendre, P. Hume, M. Meilleur

Councillor Cullen proposed:  That Richmond Road between Carling and Golden be deleted from Roads - Phase 1 of Section 14.1, Capital Works Plan.  Mr. Lathrop cautioned committee that the reason this project is listed in Phase 1 is because it is a priority in 2008.

Moved by A. Cullen

That Richmond Road widening project from Carling Avenue to Golden Avenue be moved from Phase 1 to Phase 3.

								CARRIED

YEAS (5):	A. Cullen, E. Arnold, C. Doucet, P. McNeely, M. Meilleur
NAYS (3):	J. Harder, J. Legendre, P. Hume

On behalf of Councillor Deans, Councillor Cullen proposed:  That Johnston Road, west of Conroy Road, to Bank Street, be redefined in the Classification Framework for City of Ottawa Roads in the Transportation Master Plan, from a Major Collector to a Collector Road.

Councillor Deans indicated that Johnston Road appears as a major collector on Map 6, when it was never intended to be designated as such.  In fact, it was constructed with a dip in order to deter people from using it as a short cut.  Mr. Jacobs indicated that the road being referred to was identified in that capacity in the Official Plan, and during the review of that Plan would have been the appropriate time to consider this Motion.  He indicated that to change it now in the OP would not simply be a technical amendment and would require public input.

Chair Meilleur therefore declared that the committee did not have the authority to deal with the Motion.

Councillor Harder proposed:  That the Southwest Transitway - Fallowfield to Berrigan be moved from Phase 2 to Phase 1.  She noted that there is work being done in 2004 on this piece of the extension, but in light of the anticipated increase (686%) in use of public transit in Barrhaven, she did not know how that could be accomplished if this extension is delayed.  She indicated she had not seen a reflection of funds for this project in the 2004 budget document.  Mr. Lathrop explained that staff recommended priorities based on the information they had, as well as in an attempt to address the needs in the various communities.  He added that staff is concerned about the priorities in this end of the city as well, and while he would not object to an acceleration of this project, he stated it is a question of what is affected as a result.

The councillor stated that if the Strandherd Bridge is listed in Phase 1 it will be a road for cars and for buses, and yet there is nowhere for the buses to connect with once they cross the river because there is no infrastructure for them now.  She emphasized that the various pieces have to be connected and there cannot be an important piece in Phase 2 when it needs to be done before the Strandherd Bridge connection in Phase 1.

Moved by J. Harder

That the Southwest Transitway - Fallowfield to Berrigan (page 90) be moved from Phase 2 to Phase 1.

								CARRIED

Councillor Doucet proposed that a streets aping and tree planting design be part of the reconstruction and new construction program for all city collector streets and above.  Both General Managers confirmed that what he proposes is already part of what is done in terms of designing and constructing streets.  Ms. Leclair suggested the Motion should be that staff incorporate that direction as part of their development of the design standards and guidelines.  The councillor stated however that he was bringing this forward because almost every collector street in the city centre wards is a pressure point from one end to the other and the roads have been widened over the years, without much attention given to the abutting communities.  He added that such widenings usually include the elimination of mature trees and the subsequent lowering of the quality of life on those streets.  He believed the City should make a commitment to having community participation in the design and indicated his preference to have the Motion dealt with as proposed, and not integrated into the standards report.

Mr. Lathrop reiterated that the General Manager of TUPW is reviewing all of the standards and would report back with a comprehensive approach so staff would know automatically that when a collector is built to a certain scale and size, that a specific amount of landscaping would be included.  While he indicated that approval of the Motion does not change the status quo, what would change is the quantifiable measures that would be before committee as part of those design standards.


Councillor Doucet explained that approval of the Motion simply makes a general commitment that staff would, on collector roads and above, work with the community to determine their side of the reconstruction.

Moved by C. Doucet

Be it resolved that a streetscaping and tree planting design be part of the reconstruction and new construction program for all city collector streets and above.

								CARRIED

Councillor Doucet proposed that the 2-metre minimum width for sidewalks on collector roads and above, not include the utility corridor, i.e., the pedestrian right-of-way is exclusive of light standards, benches, bus shelters, etc.  Chair Meilleur stated that if this Motion is adopted and a downtown street is subsequently reconstructed, it would mean that no street furniture could be placed there because generally, right-of-way widths in the inner core are narrower than in the suburban areas.

While he agreed with the intent, Councillor Cullen preferred to know how much difference this makes compared to the current policy and suggested it would be worthwhile for committee to refer the Motion to staff.

Moved by A. Cullen

That the following Motion be referred to staff:

Be it resolved that the 2-metre minimum width for sidewalks on collector roads and above, not include the utility corridor, i.e. the pedestrian right-of-way is exclusive of light standards, benches, bus shelters, etc.

								CARRIED

Councillor Doucet proposed:  That Fisher Avenue (page 109) be removed from 'Transit Priority Projects' and placed under 'Other Projects'.  He noted this was originally put forward by one of the delegations and suggested that since there was no objection by staff at the time, it should be considered.  The comment was made that neither staff nor the committee had to disagree with the delegation at the time her comments were submitted and the councillor subsequently withdrew the Motion.

On behalf of Councillor Deans, the following Motion (condensed) was put forward by Councillor McNeely:  That the construction of Limebank Road from Earl Armstrong Road to Riverside Drive be identified in the Transportation Master Plan as a key transportation project in Phase 1, about the year 2008.

Councillor Deans stated that the most rapidly growing community in Ottawa is projected to grow in the next 10 years by 52% annually.  She noted this community is outside the Greenbelt and is landlocked between the Rideau River and the Airport and was approved as a major growth area in the Official Plan.  And yet, the infrastructure to support this area, both transit and road, are well behind the development itself.  She urged committee members to move this project up on the priority list to reflect the reality of the growth, taking into consideration the EA for this widening is complete.

Councillor Legendre noted that Council's priority to serve that growing community is mass transit and did not know how much it would cost to move this road ahead on the list.  Staff advised that this project falls very close to the boundary between Phases 1 and 2 and in the Long Range Financial Plan it is identified for spending in 2009, which was the deciding factor for putting it into Phase 2.

Moved by P. McNeely

WHEREAS according to a recent consultant's report, the Riverside South Community is projected to have the highest annual rate of growth of the satellite communities, forecast to grow by an annual rate of 52% to the year 2011;

WHEREAS currently there are in excess of 1300 homes, with a projected build-out of 16,500 homes in the South Urban Community;

WHEREAS the South Urban Community is landlocked by the Rideau River to the west and the airport to the north, with an inadequate road network to the east;

WHEREAS River Road, serving the South Urban Community, is identified as a Scenic Route and is backed up daily with virtually no spare capacity in the morning peak hour;

WHEREAS the Transportation Master Plan identifies the projected timeline for the construction of Limebank Road from Earl Armstrong to Riverside Drive in 2013;

WHEREAS with continued growth in the South Urban Community the city needs to move ahead with some critical road links;


THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the construction of Limebank Road from Earl Armstrong Road to Riverside Drive be identified in the Transportation Master Plan as a key transportation project in Phase 1, about the year 2008.

	LOST

YEAS (4):	J. Harder, A. Cullen, P. Hume, P. McNeely
NAYS (4):	J. Legendre, E. Arnold, C. Doucet, M. Meilleur

Councillor McNeely put forward the following Motion on behalf of Councillor Deans:

Be It Further Resolved That the Transportation Master Plan be amended to reflect the LeBreton to Limebank priority in 2008-09.

The committee recognized that this Motion dealt with Item 2 on the agenda and would be held until consideration of that item.

Councillor Legendre proposed the following (condensed) Motion:  Be it resolved that Chapter 12 Environmental Protection be amended by including specific mention that the 30-minute averaging protocol (Leq - 30 min.), incorporated in the City's Official Plan, applies to the numbered sections 8, 9, 10 and 11.  He noted that Council adopted this principle during the Official Plan process and he wanted to have the same principle reflected in the TMP.  He explained that the thrust of the Motion is to ensure an appropriate measurement is adopted when measuring sound and did not change the level of the standards, but simply the way the measurement is done.  He explained that no one can perceive noise over a 16-hour period, whereas, people can integrate and understand 30 minutes of noise.

	Moved by J. Legendre

Whereas the City's Official Plan has adopted the principle that noise measurements for road, rail and transit corridors will be based on 30-minute averages - Leq (30 min.) (Section 4.8.8;

Be it resolved that Chapter 12 Environmental Protection (page 81) be amended by including specific mention that the 30-minute averaging protocol (Leq - 30 min.), incorporated in the City's Official Plan, applies to the numbered sections 8, 9, 10 and 11.

									CARRIED


	Moved by J. Legendre

That the Noise Control Guidelines mentioned in the TMP be amended by including specific mention that the 30 minute averaging protocol (Leq - 30 min.), incorporated in the City's Official Plan, applies to the Guideline document within the City of Ottawa.

									CARRIED

	Moved by J. Legendre

That the TMP be amended by including specific mention that the 30-minute averaging protocol (Leq - 30 min.), incorporated in the City's Official Plan, applies to Policy 7 of Section 9.8 Goods Movement (pages 72-73).

									CARRIED

	Councillor Cullen proposed:  That the Alta Vista Parkway be moved from "Road Projects" to "Rapid Transit Projects".

	Councillor Hume reminded committee that Council had made a decision not to do anything regardless of what the outcome of the Alta Vista Corridor Study in any of the corridors except from Riverside Drive to the Ottawa Hospital Complex and suggested that if this Motion is going to jeopardize providing access to that health care facility, the committee should reject it outright.  Mr. Lathrop stated that this is a corridor assessment that is being done as part of an EA process.  As part of that and rising out of the TMP analysis, this is an issue of corridor protection for both a road and an associated bus-rapid transit.  Therefore, he did not think it could be removed from that particular section because the City may actually need it for the portion referred to by Councillor Hume.

	Councillor Cullen indicated his support for the protection of this corridor for transit use, not for strictly private vehicular use.  He believed the committee should focus on promoting public transit and not create that kind of additional capital to accommodate cars, particularly on a corridor such as this, where one of the primary values in the Official Plan is protection of greenspace.

	Mr. Lathrop advised that this corridor was always intended as a transportation corridor and has been protected as such for decades.  Notwithstanding that, he agreed that everyone values greenspace so the attempt here is to identify that this is a corridor that is being retained.  To that end, an EA process is currently ongoing which identifies in that corridor the possibility of road and transit use.  In the interim, however, he indicated that there is the very real potential that there will be a massive expansion around the hospital site and there is increasing demand for access to that site as part of the overall transportation system.  In reality, the status quo is what the TMP recommends to be retained.  He indicated that should the Motion be approved, the effect would be the corridor could only be used for transit purposes.

	Councillor Hume stressed that the Ottawa Hospital Complex is the biggest health care facility in eastern Ontario and what is being studied now is how to provide a comprehensive access point to that site using the Alta Vista Corridor.  However, if committee supports the Motion, the only use in the corridor will be transit and that is insufficient with respect to providing access to this major site.  Councillor Deans concurred, further noting that there is an EA underway that will make the determination on the most appropriate use for that corridor.

	Some concern arose when committee members realized the transit-only option for this corridor had been withdrawn as part of the EA.  Mr. Lathrop explained that the EA for the Alta Vista corridor started out by reviewing three options:  road only, road and transit or transit only.  However, halfway through that EA, the RTES was released and that study determined that there was no need for that corridor to be transit-only and that option was subsequently removed from the EA.  He assured committee that the study still looks at road and combined transit within the road right-of-way, but also being considered is a road project, which will remain as part of the entire EA.

	Councillor Arnold inquired why there are other portions of the corridor listed in Phases 2 and 3 as part of the implementation plan, recollecting that the only piece that was identified is the portion that accesses the hospital complex.  Mr. Lathrop explained that this is a 20-year master plan and it is not in the Long Range Financial Plan because that Plan is only a 10-year projection.  The fact that it shows up in the outer years is because that is when the TMP projects that the transportation demand will be there.  But, what is anticipated is that when transit is implemented to Riverside South, the City can potentially defer the demand for a road through the Alta Vista corridor.  If, however, the City does not meet it's projected targets of modal split, there is the threat in Riverside South that transportation problems will remain.  He was optimistic however that providing a high-quality transit service with light rail to that community would make it the default preference for the people in that community by which to travel.  The councillor suggested that the way to ensure that is not to build the other pieces of the corridor in Phases 2 and 3.

	Moved by A. Cullen:

That the Alta Vista Parkway be moved from "Road Projects" (page 108) to "Rapid Transit Projects" (page 106).

		LOST

YEAS (4):	A. Cullen, E. Arnold, C. Doucet, M. Meilleur
NAYS (4):	J. Harder, J. Legendre, P. Hume, P. McNeely

Councillor Legendre proposed the following (condensed) Motion:  Be it resolved that Council support the principle that necessary O-Train rail upgrades or transitions to electric-rail systems be accomplished in a similar manner, that is with no interruption in the rail service or at most minimum interruptions in off-peak periods (e.g. weekends).

Mr. Lathrop commented that the breadth of the problem with the O-Train is primarily around the construction of the grade separations at the diamonds (where they intersect with other track) and that kind of construction will cause delays and will result in having to redirect the service.  There are also delays in redirection in the service required to a certain extent depending on which option is selected in terms of the twinning of the line along its entire length.  He believed that the time is now to be able to actively look at how the City can transition that corridor into a long-term service that would not get disrupted.

Councillor Legendre stated that his Motion does not preclude any of those options, but noted it is simply a question of principle, philosophy and approach.  By way of example, he indicated that when a bridge in the core is replaced, it is an important enough corridor that the replacement can be accomplished one side at a time so as to ensure flow of traffic.  He simply wanted to adopt the same philosophy for the mass transit network, including rail that the City does for its road network.

Moved by J. Legendre

Whereas Clients of the O-Train have come to appreciate and rely on that service;

Whereas it is the usual practice, when undertaking major roadway rehabilitation projects, that the roadway corridor continue to provide uninterrupted service (e.g. Laurier Street Bridge, Cummings Bridge, Bytown Bridges);

Be it resolved that Council support the principle that necessary O-Train rail upgrades or transitions to electric-rail systems be accomplished in a similar manner, that is with no interruption in the rail service or at most minimum interruptions in off-peak periods (e.g. weekends).

								CARRIED

YEAS (4):	J. Legendre, E. Arnold, C. Doucet, M. Meilleur
NAYS (3):	J. Harder, A. Cullen, P. McNeely


Moved by J. Legendre

That Chapter 8.3 Carpool Lanes (page 60), be amended to include the Rideau Street/Montreal Road Corridor, between downtown and Blair Road, in the list of roads, which have the potential to support carpool lanes.

									CARRIED

Councillor McNeely proposed the following (condensed) Motion:  Therefore be it resolved that solving traffic problems at the split be a priority project for the City of Ottawa and that the Transportation Master Plan be updated when these studies are completed.  He noted that upon completion of the studies for the Highway 417 from Highway 416 to Anderson Road, the Vars to Kars Ring Road, the east end bridge EA and the EA for the Innes/Walkley connection, there is work to be done at the split on Highway 417 that is going to be very important to Orléans.  He wanted to have some record in the TMP that an update at that stage would be required.  Mr. Lathrop advised that it is just an update of the study that the councillor is seeking and staff have no objection to the Motion.

Councillor Cullen argued however, that the Motion is not simply asking that staff provide an update but that the actual TMP be updated.  He wanted to support what the councillor is requesting, and asked for clarification of the intent of the Motion.  The General Manager interpreted the Motion to mean that once the four studies were complete, staff would update the TMP.  And if arising out that this was created as a priority project, staff would then introduce it as such; he had not assume it would be a priority project in advance of those studies being done.  The councillor questioned whether the mover would agree to amending the Motion so that the last paragraph states:  "Therefore be it resolved that the TMP be updated following the completion of these four studies."  Councillor McNeely indicated there was more to it than that, stating that if those studies were complete, it would be fair to the east end, but they are all underway, and the City is being asked to approve the TMP now.

Moved by P. McNeely

Whereas, there are several studies underway that significantly affect transportation in the east and of Ottawa, including:

1.	The 417 study from 416 to Anderson Road
2.	The Vars to Kars Ring Road
3.	The East End Bridge Environmental Assessment
4.	The Environmental Assessment for the Innes/Walkley connection;

And whereas, the results of these studies will identify needed road improvements in Ottawa's East End;

And whereas, it has been identified that Light Rail Transit is 15 to 16 years in the future for Orleans, though the area continues to enjoy significant growth;

And whereas, the split at the junction of highways 174 and 417 is already operating at or near capacity during the a.m. and p.m. rush hours;

Therefore be it resolved that solving traffic problems at the split be a priority project for the City of Ottawa and that the Transportation Master Plan be updated when these studies are completed.

								CARRIED

YEAS (7):	J. Harder, J. Legendre, E. Arnold, C. Doucet, P. Hume, P. McNeely, M. Meilleur
NAYS (1):	A. Cullen

Councillor Doucet proposed the following (condensed) Motion:  Be it resolved that the twinning of the Airport Parkway be deleted from the Transportation Master Plan.  He noted the TMP includes 70 roadway expansions but only 5 transit projects and by continually expanding roads, it adds immediate capacity to an already enormous system.  The twinning of the Airport Parkway, he believed should be cancelled at this stage because the southeast transitway runs parallel to the Parkway and is expected to be the prime mover of people from north to south.

Mr. Lathrop stated this is a case of corridor protection and the argument the councillor used about the transitway paralleling the Parkway cannot be supported, given the fact Highway 174 parallels the main transitway going out to Orléans, and there is a need for both of those facilities.  And, while he shared the councillor's hope that transit can be as successful as staff and Council thinks it will be, he reiterated the fact that this is about corridor protection and about retaining that option within the TMP.

Councillor Deans understood the concern from downtown communities about linkages, but she believed there is a reality that Council has to bear in mind that this is a 20-year plan and corridors should be protected to ensure they are in place should they be required.  She emphasized that within that 20-year period, the population projection is anticipated to grow from 790,000 to over 1.3 million and even if the City can meet the aggressive modal split target, it still means 70% of the population will be using vehicles or other forms of transportation for travel.  Given that the most aggressive growth is occurring in many of the southern-most communities and bearing in mind this area is in dire need of adequate transportation linkages, she believed it would be irresponsible for Council to turn a blind eye to the 20-year possible need of a growth community.

Councillor Cullen reminded committee that the Airport Parkway was designed to serve the Airport, not as a major north-south route to connect those communities in Riverside South to the downtown.  He recognized there is a need for those transportation links, but reiterated that the City moves people, not cars.

The General Manager indicated it was important to keep this corridor in the TMP because this Plan is public information and is what people depend on to purchase houses, build businesses, et cetera.  He did not believe Council could avoid stating that in the long-range growth of the City, this is the comprehensive transportation network the City of Ottawa thinks it may need if there is a 30% modal split.

Councillor Legendre indicated he would support the Motion, but believed it was responsible for the City to 'indicate' what is the likeliest to happen in the future.  He did not believe that twinning of the Parkway is the most likely scenario and suggested mass transit would be the option.  He posited that people should not be given false hope for the expansion of that roadway, especially given the fact that twinning is totally opposite to what is put forward in the TMP.

Councillor Harder reminded committee that the number one challenge they were advised about was increasing the public acceptance of non-automobile modes.  She opined that Council should not reject those opportunities that may be needed in the future, especially with the anticipated growth in the south end of the city.

Moved by C. Doucet

Whereas the first priority for light rail expansion is the North-South line with service to the airport, yet twinning the airport parkway remains in the Transportation Master Plan;

Whereas the parkway runs parallel to the North-South line;

Whereas it does not make sense to expand a single occupancy vehicle roadway at the same time that millions are being spent on a parallel transit service;

Be it resolved that the twinning of the Airport Parkway be deleted from the Transportation Master Plan.

								CARRIED

YEAS (5):	A. Cullen, J. Legendre, E. Arnold, C. Doucet, M. Meilleur
NAYS (2):	J. Harder, P. Hume

In considering the report as amended, Councillor Hume indicated his dissents on the following:

a. Map 5 Rapid Transit Network - Hurdman to Innes Link
b. Bus Rapid Transit - Hurdman to Innes Link (Hurdman - Hospital - Innes/Blair) at page 91

That the Transportation and Transit Committee recommend Council:

1.	Approve the City of Ottawa Transportation Master Plan (TMP), dated June 2003 (Document 1), as amended.

2.	Direct staff to establish a monitoring program and report to Council on a regular basis on progress made toward achieving the TMP objectives and to update the infrastructure phasing as necessary.

								CARRIED

YEAS (6)	A. Cullen, J. Legendre, E. Arnold, C. Doucet, P. Hume, M. Meilleur
NAYS (1)	J. Harder

2.	OTTAWA RAPID TRANSIT EXPANSION PLAN (ORTEP) IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY / PLAN D'EXPANSION DU TRANSPORT EN COMMUN RAPIDE - STRATÉGIE DE MISE EN OEUVRE
ACS2003-DEV-POL-0036	

Given the lateness of the day, the pending loss of quorum and the significance of the item, Councillor Legendre preferred the item be put off to the next meeting at which time the matter could be properly considered and debated.  The General Manager was anxious to proceed and wanted to move forward as fast as possible which was the direction originally given by committee.

	Moved by A. Cullen

	That this item be deferred to the next meeting.

									LOST

	YEAS (3)	J. Harder, A. Cullen, J. Legendre
	NAYS (4)	E. Arnold, C. Doucet, P. Hume, M. Meilleur


	Moved by A. Cullen

	That the meeting be adjourned.

									CARRIED

	YEAS (4)	J. Harder, A. Cullen, J. Legendre, C. Doucet
	NAYS (3)	E. Arnold, P. Hume, M. Meilleur

The Chair indicated she would determine when the report would be brought back, and would advise committee members accordingly.

That the Transportation and Transit Committee recommend that Council receive the Consultant's report (dated July 2003) and direct staff to:

1. Proceed immediately with the Environmental Assessment for the priority O-Train Expansion LRT line from Rideau Centre to Limebank (Riverside South), thus allowing the city to proceed with the option deemed most appropriate once funding mechanisms have been confirmed;

2. Proceed with the Environmental Assessment on the East-West LRT corridor;

3. Continue to negotiate with the Federal and Provincial Governments to receive at least 1/3 funding from each level of government for the priority O-Train Expansion LRT line;

4. Explore public-private partnerships for rapid transit in other jurisdictions and bring forward a recommended approach for the City of Ottawa;

5. Continue negotiations for acquisition of the CP Rail corridor between Leitrim Road and the Prince of Wales Bridge;

6. Continue negotiations and undertake the necessary due diligence studies to acquire property for a required maintenance and storage yard for the priority O-Train Expansion LRT line;

7. Prepare a detailed Ottawa Rapid Transit Expansion Program (ORTEP) financial plan for 2004 for inclusion in the 2004 budget deliberations; and


8. Include ORTEP project costs in the upcoming Development Charges By-law review.

POSTPONED


ADJOURNMENT
LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE

Committee adjourned the meeting at 5:50 p.m.

























_________________________		_________________________
Committee Coordinator			Chair

TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSIT COMMITTEE
MINUTES 48
16 JULY 2003
2
COMITÉ DES TRANSPORTS ET DES SERVICES DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN
PROCÈS-VERBAL 48
LE 16 JUILLET 2003




Notes:	1.	Underlining indicates a new or amended recommendation approved by Committee.
2. Reports requiring Council consideration will be presented to Council on 27 August 2003 in Transportation and Transit Committee Report 48.

Nota :	1.	Le soulignement indique qu'il s'agit d'une nouvelle recommandation ou d'une recommandation modifiée approuvée par le Comité.
2.	Les rapports nécessitant un examen par le Conseil municipal seront présentés au Conseil le 27 août 2003 dans le rapport 48 du Comité des transports et des services de transport en commun.