Transportation Committee

Comité des transports

Minutes 30 / Procès-verbal 30

Wednesday, 15 April 2009, 9:30 a.m.

le mercredi 15 avril 2009, 9 h 30

Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West

Salle Champlain, 110, avenue Laurier ouest

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

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT

No declarations of interest were filed.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES /
Ratification dU PROCÈS-VERBaL

Minutes 29 of the Transportation Committee meeting of Wednesday, 4 March 2009 were confirmed.

COMMUNICATIONS

Responses to Inquiries: / Réponses aux demandes de renseignements:

TRC 02-09 Enhanced Services re Snow Removal on Sidewalks / Amélioration des services : déblayage de la neige des trottoirs

RECEIVED

POSTPONEMENTS AND DEFERRALS

REPORTS ET RENVOIS

CITY OPERATIONS

OPÉRATIONS MUNICIPALES

PUBLIC WORKS

TRAVAUX PUBLICS

1. PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK AT THE INTERSECTION OF KING EDWARD AVENUE AND CATHCART STREET

PASSAGE POUR PIÉTONS À L'INTERSECTION DE L'AVENUE KING EDWARD ET DE LA RUE CATHCART

ACS2008-PWS-TRF-0034 RIDEAU-VANIER (12)

John Manconi, General Manager of Public Works, Phil Landry, Manager of Traffic and and Safety Services and Tom Fitzgerald, Program Manager of Traffic Engineering spoke to a PowerPoint presentation, which is held on file.

Councillor Legendre inquired about the questions posed to the outside consultants regarding installing the signals at Cathcart. Mr. Manconi advised that John Buck, former Manager of Safety and Traffic Studies led the review initially but noted the consultants were asked to review the directions that were given by staff and to assess all the different parameters of traffic safety management and feasibility.

The councillor followed up further with respect to the measures taken in addition to making the installation safe. Councillor Bédard indicated the only other option is to reduce the speed in addition to having photo radar. He stated the following in Document 1, Section 3.3.3:

“Given the results of our speed surveys sighted earlier and the comprehensive nature of the speed management measures already in place when those measurements were taken in our opinion that it is highly unlikely that any additional speed management measures short of photo radar will add any additional increment of speed reduction to that of what is actually being achieved.”

Marc Aubin, King Edward Avenue Task Force spoke in support of the installation of a crosswalk at Cathcart with, if required, appropriate safety measures, but expressed frustration with the way staff had dealt with the process. He elaborated that when Council agreed to implement the crosswalk, staff ignored comments made by the Task Force, the Councillor’s office and the community. He believed there were critical facts omitted from the report and a lack of desire to find solutions in making this crosswalk work. He posited that staff and the consultants made the argument that if a crosswalk were installed and stopped motorists were backed up from the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge, trucks with conventional braking systems would not have enough sight distance to stop. He argued, however, that since the late 1990s, all new trucks in North America changed their brakes to an antilock system (ABS), which is a much better form of braking system and since 1999 most trucks that had conventional braking systems have been decommissioned. He estimated that approximately 261 trucks a day on King Edward would still have the conventional braking system.

Mr. Aubin indicated that the Task Force had provided several suggestions, including installing a red light before the curve that could be activated by the crosswalk light at Cathcart, but staff had never responded to them. He was in support of the ward councillor’s comments regarding reducing the speed limit on the curve, adding that this would technically increase the sight distance for stopping if vehicles were driving at the posted speed limit. He was also in support of photo radar.

Mr. Landry explained that it would be difficult to get motorists to stop at a red signal on the curve because there is no conflicting traffic at that point and he believed it would be difficult to enforce. Instead, drivers may interpret it as a malfunctioning type of signal cycle. The councillor suggested that the way to slow down traffic at this point is with a sharp curve so that motorists have to slow down, thereby eliminating the need for photo radar. Mr. Manconi agreed this could work.

Angela Rickman, President, Lowertown Community Association spoke to the issue of risk assessment, as was carried out by the consultants on this crossing location, and suggested that if the question is whether or not it is safe to install a crosswalk given the conditions of the roadway, then perhaps the answer is to look at alternatives. By way of background, Ms. Rickman explained that before this roadway was revitalized, the City held consultations with the community and presented a plan to smooth out the curve. The community was very concerned with the speed of traffic coming off the curve because it was already moving too quickly and it was felt that smoothing the curve out would allow traffic to travel more quickly. The consultant at the time suggested that one of the ways to reduce speed was to install a crosswalk and the City subsequently built the infrastructure for this at Cathcart Avenue. She was therefore surprised that the same consultant (DELCAN) is now opposed to the crosswalk because of the dangers it poses. She recalled a meeting with staff before last Christmas at which time staff was concerned about trucks having adequate time to stop. And yet, the City has installed similar signals at other locations, e.g., Bank Street in front of Lansdowne Park and the retirement home.

Ms. Rickman went on to state that they carried out a pedestrian study in November 2008 and a crossing here would not only assist in getting people across the street, but would slow the traffic as well. They advocated for a T intersection or a roundabout but were told these would not work. She supported photo radar, which could be part of the solution, and emphasized that a long-term solution to slowing down traffic was crucial.

Councillor Doucet asked staff why traffic would slow down for photo radar but not at intersections where people need to cross the road. Mr. Manconi offered that they are assuming trucks will stop for photo radar, but that is an assumption only. The councillor felt that safety to area residents is more important than traffic and noted he did not support the staff report. He felt that alternatives should have been found.

Chris Bradshaw spoke as a resident of Sandy Hill and as a member of the Ottawa Seniors Transportation Committee (Council on Aging). The main points of his presentation are outlined below:

· The fact that a number of consultants were turned down while doing the follow up work suggests they did not feel they could accomplish what was asked of them, which was to support the original staff position.

· He did not see the analysis done to determine what the demand is for a pedestrian crossing at this location, i.e., How many people have a walking dependent life style? How many people have walking disabilities? Where are the facilities? It seems to have failed the warrant system, but the consultant suggests there would be such a high demand for crossings here, they would need to build a fence in the middle of the median to prevent people from crossing.

· He agreed there was nothing more effective for a traffic calming measure than to have a curve. If this is the problem and the solution is what staff, is proposing, he wondered why there was an exit at Dalhousie? He commented that there is no curve to slow motorists down, and the speed limit drops from whatever it is on the bridge to 50km/h at exactly the same point for the traffic and yet there is about one-fourth the amount of distance.

· Everything about this report speaks to the fact that this is a capacity problem and the City has used the powerful road users as a threat against vulnerable road users.

· There is no attempt to define the alternative pathways that people will use.

Peggy DuCharme, Downtown Rideau BIA understood the concerns re ‘sight line distance’ and the issues noted in the report by the consultants; however, she noted examples in other cities in similar situations where flashing warning signals have worked very effectively. She also thought measures to slow the traffic before approaching the curve was reasonable. She commented on over/underpasses and suggested considering the city’s climate, high density of social services, agencies and homeless population that would create an entrapment area.

In considering the report, Councillor Legendre asked about the status of the hierarchy of transportation modes in the Transportation Master Plan (TMP). He believed that the first priority is pedestrians, followed by cycling, transit, and motor vehicles. Steven Boyle, Senior Project Manager, Transportation Planning advised that the TMP (approved in November 2008) does not include a statement that specifically says that pedestrians come first in all situations and at all times. He elaborated further, by stating that the TMP and the Strategic Directions section of the Official Plan, speak of the modes staff would like to give preference to, but it also recognizes many other factors. Also, the TMP has a whole sub-section on road safety. Therefore, staff, in reviewing site plans, subdivisions, various planning applications, et cetera, does try to apply that priority as stated as a hierarchy, but much is dependent on the situation.

Councillor Bédard proposed the following:

WHEREAS King Edward Avenue is a six lane urban arterial road accommodating 50,000 vehicles per day, including approximately 2,800 trucks per day of which 850 are classified as heavy trucks;

WHEREAS King Edward Avenue is located in a densely populated residential neighbourhood downtown;

WHEREAS between 2002 and 2007, there were approximately 1,568 accidents on King Edward Avenue, with 197 injuries and four fatalities;

WHEREAS since 2007, there have been two additional fatalities, the most recent of which was the death of a 49 year old woman, killed in a collision with a truck;

WHEREAS the 85^th percentile motor vehicle operating speed is recorded on the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge in the southbound direction as 92 km/h in a 60-km/h zone;

WHEREAS the 85^th percentile motor vehicle operating speed recorded at the entry curve to Kind Edward Avenue was 62 km/h in a 40-km/h zone;

WHEREAS the City of Ottawa wishes to protect its citizens, reduce accidents and mortality caused by excessive speeds;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Ottawa undertakes to have the speed limit on the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge on the Ontario side reduced from 60 km/h to 50 km/h and the speed limit at the entry curve to King Edward Avenue be reduced from 40 km/h to 30 km/h;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the speed limit on Kind Edward Avenue be reduced from 50 km/h to 40 km/h from Sussex Drive to Mann Avenue;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Ottawa aggressively pursues the Province of Ontario to permit the City of Ottawa to install on an exceptional basis, photo radar technology on King Edward Avenue to reduce the excessive speeding on the road.

The councillor recalled that a memo dated June 2007 was sent to committee indicating “neither our professional engineering code of ethics nor the Highway Traffic Act will permit a pedestrian signal be installed under such circumstances”. He reminded members that at that time, Council decided to find engineers to determine ways of accomplishing this project and asked staff to outline the steps they took in order to do this. Mr. Manconi reported that they brought in consultants and asked others as well. He emphasized that the key piece to this infrastructure is that in the Highway Traffic Act, a professional engineer is required to “stamp” the drawings in order to proceed. And, as noted in the report, both the Vice-President of Itrans and the senior partner of McCormick Rankin advised not to proceed and did not stamp the drawings. Staff concurred with the consultant and are therefore unable to proceed with signal installation. Ernest McArthur, Legal Counsel acknowledged the accuracy of this decision.

In a further question by Councillor Bédard, Mr. Manconi explained that a professional engineer stamp is a designation from the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario. They have code of ethics and requirements ensuring due diligence, safety and that design work associated with a piece of infrastructure meets applicable legislation acts and best practices.

Mr. Manconi noted that a resident at a community meeting had suggested installing way-finding signs to channel people to the new underpass and staff have agreed to act on that. With regards to Councillor Bédards’ motion, he advised that staff could proceed with the speed reduction, but was not confident the province would act on the resolution for photo radar.

Councillor Legendre questioned if an engineer’s stamp was necessary for what is proposed in the motion and if it was legal. Mr. Manconi confirmed that it was not necessary for an engineer’s stamp and offered to consult with legal and provide information to members prior to the Council meeting.

Moved by Councillor Bédard:

WHEREAS King Edward Avenue is a six lane urban arterial road accommodating 50,000 vehicles per day, including approximately 2,800 trucks per day of which 850 are classified as heavy trucks;

WHEREAS King Edward Avenue is located in a densely populated residential neighbourhood downtown;

WHEREAS between 2002 and 2007, there were approximately 1,568 accidents on King Edward Avenue, with 197 injuries and four fatalities;

WHEREAS since 2007, there have been two additional fatalities, the most recent of which was the death of a 49 year old woman, killed in a collision with a truck;

WHEREAS the 85^th percentile motor vehicle operating speed is recorded on the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge in the southbound direction as 92 km/h in a 60-km/h zone;

WHEREAS the 85^th percentile motor vehicle operating speed recorded at the entry curve to Kind Edward Avenue was 62 km/h in a 40-km/h zone;

WHEREAS the City of Ottawa wishes to protect its citizens, reduce accidents and mortality caused by excessive speeds;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the speed limit on Kind Edward Avenue be reduced from 50 km/h to 40 km/h from Sussex Drive to Mann Avenue;

CARRIED

Councillor Bédard recounted that when he brought this forward in 2007, it was on the understanding there would be a crosswalk at Cathcart and King Edward Avenue, as per the approved 2002 environmental assessment (EA). This was supported by the community and approved by Council. Subsequently, however, Council learned that it could no longer be done and in many ways, he felt that the EA was misleading.

That Council’s approval of the recommendations contained in Councillor Bédard’s Report ACS2007-CCS-TRC-002 that “a pedestrian operated traffic signal be installed at the intersection of King Edward Avenue and Cathcart Street, and that funds be allocated from the King Edward Capital Project” be rescinded.

CARRIED, as amended

DIRECTION TO STAFF

That staff provide Committee Members with technical information that was requested throughout the discussion of this item prior to City Council.

2. MUNICIPAL PARKING MANAGEMENT STRATEGY AND GOVERNANCE REVIEW

STRATÉGIE MUNICIPALE DE GESTION DU STATIONNEMENT ET ANALYSE DE LA GOUVERNANCE

ACS2009- COS-PWS-0009 City Wide / À l'échelle de la ville

A memorandum from the Business Advisory Committee dated 14 April 2009 was circulated to the committee and is held on file with the City Clerk and Solicitor.

John Manconi, General Manager of Public Works, Mary Gracie, Coordinator, Strategic Support, Glen Ford, Deputy Treasurer/Controller and Anne Peck, Senior Legal Counsel provided a PowerPoint presentation outlining key points regarding the terms of reference, results of focus groups, statement of principles, objectives and the recommendations. A copy is held on file.

Randall Kemp, a commercial property owner from the West Wellington/Hintonburg community area and member of the Wellington West Business Improvement Area (BIA) said he had been involved in neighbourhood parking issues for more than 15 years, having participated in the previous parking study conducted there. He supports the Parking Management Strategy, but wished to advance the following requests:

· it is critical to involve the BIA and community associations in the decision-making process to implement paid parking because it can be a very divisive process. The greater the involvement from the community, the easier the implementation.

· enforcement ought to be fair and consistent’; suggested that ‘flexible’ be added to the Strategy because an hour of parking costs $3 but the fine for being five minutes over the limit is $40. He contended this leads to a loss of customers for local businesses because the enforcement measures that result in multiple fines, not necessarily the amount of the fines, offend them. Enforcement needs to be part of the discussion if paid parking is to be implemented in his community.

· he desired on-street long-term parking for commercial users, noting there are no options for long-term parking in his community, which is a problem that will only worsen with time. He acknowledged the dilemma of off-street parking and implementation of paid parking, referencing Westboro Village, which is desperately in need of more parking, but it will have to be in the form of off-street parking. He wanted to avoid that situation for the West Wellington/Hintonburg community, emphasizing that off-street parking solutions must be part of the strategy for the area.

· with respect to the grant for parking revenues, he suggested a percentage of the revenues should be offered to local businesses based on the amount of revenues they generate through their customers

· with respect to Pay and Display (Item 3 on today’s agenda), he favored a state-of-the-art system that is proven and reliable. He suggested it must be flexible and be able to easily incorporate cell phone and Internet technology, acknowledging that the problem is trying to integrate Pay and Display and enforcement satisfactorily. He had no suggestions to offer for such a system, but encouraged parking staff to look at options as they arise.

Councillor Leadman asked the delegation to expand on his comments about developing off-street long-term parking, specifically whether he had suggestions for opportunities to do so other than by surface parking lots. Mr. Kemp explained that under current funding models there are next to no opportunities to create such parking solutions. He said the community entered into a preliminary discussion with a developer who is proposing an eight-story building in the community, but it is not economically viable to provide a long-term parking garage in his building. He was not sure what the solution could be but expressed interest in ‘recycled parking’; for example, the Great Canadian Theatre Company’s peak hours are the same as the off-peak hours for the Holland Cross office building, but people are not aware of those options. He said there are also parking spots in the residential community that are not being utilized and suggested a permit process might be a consideration to create 20-30 spots.

The councillor noted the staff report does not mention opportunities for City (as well as community) engagement as developments come forward and she asked staff whether this could be part of the Strategy in moving forward. Mr. Manconi confirmed this, adding that with the recent departmental re-organization there will be a manager of parking who will report directly to him, the responsibility of whom it will be to seek out these types of opportunities and work with planning staff accordingly. He also confirmed that local traffic/parking studies could be used to identify emerging parking problems.

Councillor Bédard asked the delegation to clarify whether his concerns were with enforcement or with providing a means to pay fines on the spot and reduce the amount of the fine accordingly. Mr. Kemp explained that he views enforcement as the barrier to implementing paid parking in communities where it currently does not exist. He said the issue is not the $3/hr required to park on a commercial street; rather, once there is paid parking in the community, the enforcement staff will have a much more efficient process by which to write tickets. He suggested the punishment does not fit the crime and the solution is the Pay and Display system. The hurdle, he pointed out, is finding reliable technology to allow parking enforcement officers to communicate with the people monitoring the Pay and Display systems so that both parties are aware when a person uses a cell phone to increase the amount of time on his parking stub. Likewise, the system could provide a small window of time in which to reduce the amount of a parking ticket if paid at the Pay and Display machine within the allotted timeframe, and both parties would need to be able to receive that information.

In response to further questioning from Councillor Bédard, Mr. Kemp said he agreed that if a person is two hours or so over the allotted parking time, s/he should pay the full fine, but the full fine should not apply to a person who returns to the vehicle only five or ten minutes late. There should be an opportunity to reduce the penalty.

Councillor Bloess felt there is already some flexibility in the enforcement, noting that as the paid time expires at a meter there is a cushion built in to allow one to return and top up before incurring a penalty. He thought that future technology might allow for a ‘lessening of the punishment’, as suggested by the delegation, but recognized there is not much opportunity to do so currently.

With respect to Mr. Kemp’s suggestions on revenue sharing, Councillor Bloess thought it would be a great way of co-opting the BIAs into the program, noting their resistance to some of the parking strategies. He referenced a previous discussion between himself and Mr. Kemp about how turnover helps a business area and how parking fees should be tied into the land use of an area. Mr. Kemp agreed that turnover drives business into an area, and there are studies to suggest that one parking space will generate $1000 worth of revenue for a typical commercial linear street.

The councillor surmised that if one person ties up a parking spot for an entire day (whether because of no or low fees) it would not allow for the generation of business in an area that owners would like to see. Mr. Kemp replied that it is his experience that most of the money a person spends on a linear commercial street is likely spent in the first 15 minutes (not including restaurants) and a one-hour parking on commercial linear streets and two-hour parking on side streets is probably ideal.

Gerry LePage, Bank Street Promenade BIA said the BIA could neither support nor oppose the strategy because they had not had sufficient time to properly review and discuss it because there had only been one business day since its release prior to the holiday weekend. He believed it would be a great disservice not to defer this, given the public participation that has been engaged all along. Mr. LePage also referred to the request of the Ottawa Business Advisory Committee (BAC) to defer the matter.

Councillor Leadman pointed out that staff had put forward the recommendations at a consultation session prior to the technical briefing, which the delegation had attended, laying out all of the issues raised. At that time, staff provided the timelines associated with the report coming forward, and she questioned whether he was still present when the timelines were discussed. Mr. LePage confirmed he was aware of the timeline but was not aware the BIA would have one business day to respond to the final report. He further confirmed that he had not been invited to attend the technical briefing held on April 6. Mr. Manconi advised that as per protocol from the City Clerk’s office, a Public Service Announcement was issued on the technical briefing.

Councillor Leadman inquired whether the staff presentation given today was significantly different than the formation delivered at the technical briefing. Mr. Manconi explained that the same presentation was delivered at the technical briefing. The councillor expressed confusion as to why the technical briefing was poorly attended, noting that only four councillors and the Wellington West BIA were present. She pointed out there was plenty of opportunity for a BIA to engage its Board and asked the delegation if, as the Strategy was being developed, the BIA advised their Board what it was agreeing to at each step in the consultation. Mr. LePage confirmed they did, noting that he had sent councillors the BIA’s response to the latest update. That response, which indicated the BIA’s position with respect to the update, also entailed comments on the Auditor General’s report.

Mr. LePage asserted that the BIA did not receive any notification of the technical briefing, noting further that his Executive Assistant had telephoned the Program Manager, Parking Operations and Development a couple of days before the briefing to request a copy of the report and was told it would not be available until late afternoon on 9 April. He advised that the Bank Street BIA had been very thorough in its analysis of the work staff had done and there is no reason they would not carry out the same analysis now if given the time.

Councillor Leadman reminded Mr. LePage that she had sent an email to all BIAs, and received no response, about discussion that had taken place at the Council meeting of the previous week regarding the Auditor General’s report and his evaluation of the status of the Parking Management Strategy against his own recommendations. He was extremely favorable of the report, feeling it touched on all of his recommendations and noting that it is an evolving document. The councillor pointed out that the document is a reflection of the input provided by the BIAs and is not based on a staff position. She acknowledged that the timing of the report is tight but pointed out that staff had alerted the BIAs to that previously. She agreed changes could be made to the report, but was not in favour of deferring the matter to a later date.

The Chair advised that if the Committee decided to defer this item, it would not be brought back for consideration until the end of May due to the volume of other business that must be considered at the next meeting. This would result in the earliest time it could rise to Council would be 10 June. She added that the General Manager has indicated that, given the parameters that Council has now imposed on him through the Auditor General, if this is delayed until June, he would not have enough time to start implementing the strategy that the Auditor General will start auditing within two months of its implementation.

Councillor Leadman agreed that in addition to that impact, there would also be a negative impact on some BIAs by deferring certain recommendations contained within the report.

Lori Mellor, Preston Street BIA reiterated similar concerns about the process as were stated by the previous delegation. She stated that the BIA has been involved with staff for more than a year and are very impressed with their willingness to listen. That being said, with all of the time and resources the BIAs have invested, she felt it would have been reasonable to allow the stakeholders to have a last look at the final document before releasing it. Given the current circumstances, the BIA could not support the Strategy because although they had reviewed the report, there are four other supporting papers that need to be studied and she related how she could not go to her Board in support of the report, without having first read that documentation. With regards to the technical briefing, she advised that she was only made aware of it the morning of the briefing and was unable to attend due to a previous commitment.

Chair McRae reminded everyone that there had been significant media coverage about the Strategy leading up to the Technical Briefing and afterwards.

Councillor Leadman inquired whether the background documentation to the report formed part of the consultation with stakeholders that transpired throughout the year. Ms. Gracie explained that all of those elements were discussed, including the specific wording of the objectives and principles. Mr. Manconi further clarified that the supporting documentation is basically a synopsis of the input received throughout the public consultation process.

Councillor Holmes remarked that her understanding of a technical briefing is that it’s meant for councillors and their staff and the media are invited. She asked for clarification. Chair McRae advised that Mr. Manconi had committed to verify that information during the committee’s lunch recess and report it back to members.

Peggy DuCharme, Downtown Rideau BIA indicated almost total support of the documentation she had seen so far, although she supported the other BIAs in their concerns about timelines. She was alerted by chance that the report was coming forward, and otherwise would not have known to contact staff, who provided the clarifications she requested. While fairly comfortable with the report, she submitted the following concerns:

· there is very little municipal parking in the city; specifically, Downtown Rideau essentially has no municipal parking, on or off street and the report makes no concession to alleviate that situation

· she would be in support of economic viability but the Rideau Centre and other area businesses are huge taxpayers who are not receiving any economic support from the City through parking to ensure viability

· on-going demonstrations in the downtown are causing major disruptions to local tax-paying businesses and nothing is being done to support them

· during the transit strike Rideau Street was the only street on which the City refused to allow parking; Council continues to allow transit to dictate what it is economically viable for everybody in the city, especially the significant tax-paying property members who need the City’s support and help.

Ms. DuCharme concluded by asking Committee to consider recommending to Council immediate priority assistance for Rideau Street, suggesting that a study is not required to provide evening on street parking in the area. Rather, they only need agree on a time (she suggested 6:30 p.m.) to allow it for weekdays and weekends. She was not concerned with the cost to be charged for this interim parking, noting the situation is urgent because people are illegally parking at present while they visit retail, cultural and dining establishments in the area. She asked that this be put in place until the area parking study is completed and the maximum parking capacity for the community is known. A copy of her written submission, which contains additional comments, is held on file.

In response to the above-noted concerns, Mr. Manconi advised that he would be meeting with the ward councillor, the Rideau Street BIA and the By-Ward Market BIA and that staff has already been mobilized to look at the parking studies for those two areas, as well as the area traffic study, so they can be combined and reviewed for synergies and solutions. He said this would be a top priority.

Councillor Leadman noted this has been an ongoing problem and would bring forward direction (for Committee’s approval) to establish some parking protocols with the Downtown Rideau BIA. Mr. Manconi advised he would need some time to work out the timelines because there is a backlog of traffic issues to be dealt with. He agreed to provide Committee members with those timelines, prior to the next meeting.

With regards to the delegation’s concern that she was unaware the report was being brought forward today, the Chair suggested that in future, for issues of such importance, staff should undertake to send a reminder email to the BIAs in a timely fashion.

Councillor Bloess took issue with Ms. DuCharme’s comments that the City is giving too much preference to transit in terms of the Rideau Street corridor. He recalled that Committee had recently dealt with a report that considered splitting OC Transpo route #2, but it was held back for six months due to discussions on four parking spots that would be affected, a delay that disadvantaged about 150,000 riders over that period of time. He thought her statement was inconsistent because the City is trying to deal with parking issues in the downtown core while trying to drive transit business into the core, which would help local businesses. Ms. DuCharme responded by stating that staff had told the BIA that the issue could be revisited in April and request the decision to be reversed, but it has not happened. She feared they would miss the next public consultation timeline on that and be stuck with the current situation permanently, which was the BIA’s original concern. She explained that as a result of buses parking on the side street, which the BIA tried to prevent, the buses are now wrapping around the corner onto Rideau Street (off Nicholas) into a turning lane, and they are queuing up to turn the corner and stack. As a result, all that can be seen at the intersection of Rideau and Dalhousie in the last six months is a constant rotation of buses looping on every approach, which is backing up traffic. Buses are now parking on Rideau Street as drivers take breaks, and they are parking in business loading zones, which creates a great deal of friction between business owners and bus drivers. She said complaints are constantly being emailed to councillors on this issue.

Chair McRae directed staff to add this to their list for their meeting with the group.

tOM Trottier, President, Citizens for Safe Cycling took the opportunity advise Committee members that all City cycling courses have been cancelled as of today because there was no contract or money in the budget to promote cycling. There are no experienced City staff remaining to deal with cycling and he suggested looking into getting emergency activity to coordinate and reinstate the cycling courses and promote them in both schools and to the public.

With regards to his comments on the Parking Management Strategy, Mr. Trottier illustrated on photographs, how cyclists are using parking meters to lock up their bicycles, and he suggested adding a ring to the posts. He indicated that approximately 30% of traffic is caused by people looking for parking spaces and referred to the book ‘Traffic’, which provides great detail on this matter. He suggested that parking revenues should pay for the road used, not just for BIAs and that more bicycle parking be provided at transitway stations to facilitate getting to work in a dual modal function. He believed that bike parking should be built along with motor vehicle parking and recommended that when building a parking lot, space for bicycles should also be included. Mr. Trottier further suggested enforcing the zoning requirements for bicycle parking and noted that Great Canadian Theatre Company (GCTC) does not have bicycle parking, even though they are required to have 30 spaces.

Councillor Bloess agreed with the comments regarding the lack of bicycle education and courses and advised that the City released requests for proposals but no bids have been received. Mr. Trottier was aware that neither the Envirocentre nor the instructors put in a bid for the $25,000 contract. He added that the City cancelled the Citizens for Safe Cycling $80,000 grant, which is unfortunate, given it allowed them to run an office and employ one full time staff.

Councillor Leadman spoke to the issue of a bicycle-parking ring on parking meters and, referencing the Integrated Street Furniture policy, asked that staff enlighten the Committee. Mr. Manconi advised that it is part of staff’s implementation to work with the BIA’s and ward councillors. He offered to communicate with the delegation to identify potential locations for bike racks. He confirmed that the parking meter posts would stay and the feasibility of adding rings to the posts is currently being reviewed.

Councillor Leadman thanked Mr. Trottier for highlighting the issue about no bicycle parking at the GCTC, but confirmed the City has been communicating with them about this for a number of months.

Councillor Cullen referred to the organizational restructuring that was rolled out, noting that there was a commitment made to provide opportunities for councillors to see more directly how the reorganization is going to work. Mr. Manconi informed the Committee that cycling is part of the Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability Department, but offered to clarify that when staff brings forward the information. In response to a follow up question by the councillor, Mr. Manconi offered to confirm at a later date as to the timelines for reporting back to Committee on this issue. The councillor indicated he would be putting forward an inquiry as a result of the concerns raised about the status of the cycling education programs.

Councillor Doucet asked what the implementation strategy is on the bicycle plan and when it would be rolled out. Chair McRae felt that this issue was off-topic but agreed that it was raised by the delegation and suggested that staff respond offline to the councillor.

Allan Shields spoke from a written submission and explained that his role as the “Parking Angel” is to help motorists and tourists by educating them and handing out pamphlets. He posited that the City should not be making a significant amount of money from parking by making the signs too complicated. He observed that 300,000-400,000 parking tickets were issued in 2008, amounting to approximately $15-18M in fines. He provided examples of tourists and residents visiting patients at hospitals et cetera who often get tickets. He wondered why Ottawa did not have a tourist pass, which the City of Gatineau has had for 20 years.

Following a mid-day recess, the meeting resumed at 1:45 p.m. with Councillor Wilkinson in the Chair.

A/Chair Wilkinson directed the Committee’s attention to the staff report and advised of a number of amendments put forward. The first motion, from her, was as follows:

That By-law No. 2003-530, the Traffic and Parking By-law, be amended to permit two motorcycles to park in one on-street parking meter space;

a. Despite the above, where the parking meter space is parallel to the curb line, the angle for parking each motorcycle, relative to the curb, must not exceed 45 degrees; and,

b. That staff monitors the use of on-street parking stalls by motorcycles, and report findings as part of the Parking Management Strategy Annual Report.

Councillor Bloess agreed with the motion in principle but questioned how it would be determined who would pay the meter. Ms. Gracie advised that it did not matter as long as it was paid. However, should the meter run out, both vehicles would be ticketed. She noted that this method has been successful in other cities.

In considering the report, Councillor Leadman advised that she had raised several questions at the technical briefing relating to the report, one with respect to the inconsistency on how revenues are demonstrated in the Parking Management Strategy (PMS) and in the Pay and Display model. She indicated she would be bringing forward a motion to address this inconsistency. She was aware that Councillor Holmes had a similar motion and suggested staff reviews both before the Committee votes.

The councillor put forward another motion relating to governance in terms of having the parking authority reviewed. She suggested that a year after the PMS is put in place, a comparative be done to see how the City is functioning, including efficiencies and revenues.

Councillor Cullen touched on two issues, one relating to the governance options. He referred to the staff report and presentation and noted that staff came to the conclusion there was no reason to proceed with establishing a parking authority. Mr. Manconi agreed and explained that their approach was to get all the fundamentals together, do the basics correctly and then look at parking authority at the next governance review. The councillor was not convinced that it is worth pursuing, aside from the fact that it exists in other circumstances.

With respect to the local area parking studies, the councillor noted the report indicates that staff will be carrying out local area parking studies, beginning with the By-Ward Market. He asked if staff would advise Committee as to which areas these studies will be. Ms. Gracie walked through the process, noting the criteria that are included in the rate-setting guideline as to which areas staff is going to review first. When asked if staff already knew some of the locations, Ms. Gracie reported that Downtown Rideau would be next on the list, followed by a number of others who are interested, which staff are scoping out. A priority list will be compiled. Also, there are some Community Design Plans coming forward and staff would like to have the resources in place to dovetail with those, which will also help set priorities. The councillor wanted to ensure that he would have the opportunity to represent his constituents who are having problems in popular business areas, to raise the issue when the department puts forward its annual work plan.

Councillor Holmes provided amendments to the Parking Stakeholder Consultation Group and Mr. Manconi advised that he there are no major issues, other than some logistics, with respect to the Terms of Reference for the Committee structure.

The Councillor referenced another motion with regards to the Percent for Art program; she noted that the report recommends $2M and over, but was recommending an amendment to “$500,000” and over. Staff supported the amendment.

The councillor had another amendment, which spoke to “parking utilization levels at or above 85% will not automatically trigger an increase in parking meter rates”. Mr. Manconi explained that the Municipal Act requires Committee to set rates and he suggested that Legal staff speak to that particular issue. He believed the motion to be irrelevant as it is in the report. Councillor Holmes felt the BIAs would be comforted if the motion were to be considered.

Selling off the surface parking lots was the subject of the next motion, which Councillor Holmes referred to and believed that it was a recommendation of the Auditor General. She felt that some of them may be mixed-use possibilities of parking-at-grade and housing-above or basketball courts and pointed out that there may be needs that other departments may be interested in, rather than just moving to a straight divesting. Ann Peck, Senior Legal Counsel confirmed that it was a recommendation from the Auditor General and it would be required to go back through Council to be dealt with. In response to a follow-up question by the councillor, Ms. Peck advised that parking lots should be reviewed through the local area parking study. It was agreed that the Auditor General would more appropriately deal with this motion.

Councillor Holmes’ last motion was with respect to the tourism pass. She surmised that the Ottawa Tourism Authority is quite interested in filling hotels, but questioned why staff was opposed to it. Ms. Gracie advised that staff conducted a best practice search and determined that it was not used very often, as it is subject to fraud. Consultation with Ottawa Tourism and Ottawa-Gatineau Hotel Association revealed they did not see any value in it. Mr. Manconi clarified that staff do not oppose such a pass, but given the feedback received from the stakeholders they assumed there was no interest, but offered to review it annually. Councillor Holmes indicated she would instead submit it as an inquiry.

Councillor Legendre referenced Councillor Wilkinson’s motion regarding motorcycle parking and suggested that Smartcars should be allowed to park perpendicular to the curb and be charged a half-rate for that parking. Ms. Gracie indicated that staff is currently looking at smaller vehicles having reduced rates, adding that Smartcars have designated spaces in some cities and pay a reduced rate in others because they take up less room. Alternate modes of transportation and charging based on the size of the vehicle is appropriate, although there are logistical issues to work out with respect to the Pay and Display program. Councillor Wilkinson clarified that the motorcycle parking was only temporary until Pay and Display was installed.

Councillor Bloess touched on disabled passes and how easily accessible it is to purchase fake ones. He noted that the report makes no mention of this and asked staff to comment. Troy Leeson, Manager, Parking Enforcement, advised that staff recently piloted a project where officers determined there was considerable abuse of the permits. They have trained officers on pursuing charges for the fraudulent use of permits, display of permits, photocopying fraudulent permits and so on. In response to a further question from the councillor, Mr. Leeson advised that officers have the ability to ascertain certain information from the permit itself that will give them information on the driver that should be operating that vehicle.

Councillor Bloess was pleased to hear that the issue was being addressed and said the policy was never intended to give somebody carte blanche, it was intended more as a service convenience. There are disabled parking spots in certain malls, but on the street itself, the policy has been that one can park a long period, so long as they are not impeding a fire lane or a hydrant. He asked if staff were thinking of putting some sort of time limit. Mr. Leeson advised that the by-law is currently structured so they are only permitted a maximum of four hours at one location, whether or not it is a no-parking zone, expired meter or one, two, or three-hour location. The intent of that permit is to provide a quality of life to attend to business and appointments and people are taking advantage of it by parking at one location for four hours and then moving to another four-hour spot.

A/Chair Wilkinson questioned if consideration had been given to having a member of Council on the Parking Strategy Consultation Group (PSCG) in order to share information. Ms. Gracie explained that they took direction from the Clerk’s office on how to set up the Group, which was modelled after the Taxi Stakeholder Consultation Group. In response to a follow-up question from the councillor, Mr. Manconi clarified that everything will be vetted through Committee, through the annual work plan and reports back from the meetings, as requested by Councillor Holmes. He added that anything associated with Council policy and mandate will be brought forward to the Transportation Committee. The rate structure is delegated to himself and the Deputy City Manager (Steve Kanellakos), in consultation with the Ward Councillor and the BIA.

A/Chair Wilkinson turned her attention to the $5,000 for the BIAs (Recommendation 8) and quoted the report, saying that the funds must be used for tangible items such as promotional material, bicycle parking and public art. She argued that none of that has anything to do with meters. Mr. Manconi explained that they are trying to promote what was approved in the Transportation Demand Management Plan, so the linkage into cycling, walking and making the area more pedestrian-friendly is what the stakeholders and staff are looking for. He added that it would apply to the whole city but the starting point is the areas with metered parking. He suggested Council could give staff direction that each BIA receives the grant, should they so desire. The Acting Chair indicated she would ask that “up to” be added before $5,000 in the recommendation.

In response to a question posed by Councillor Leadman, Ms. Gracie advised that if an area wants to come on board, staff would know the counts in their area. For example, staff already have counts for Wellington west from the Community Design plan (CDP), and have historical studies for other areas that demonstrate utilization rates, which would line up for a local area parking study. Staff would consider all information in looking at the best way to manage parking for an area.

The councillor argued that those studies were done for the CDP and not for utilization rates, and there are big differences in a CDP study because its purpose and timing is different. She added that a true parking study is one that is designed for a specific intent and one that is developed through working with a community to create an appropriate study that will give them the required information. Mr. Manconi suggested that she advise if a BIA wants to be brought in, now that there is clarity on the mandate and the structure.

The Committee then considered the motions put forward:

Moved by Councillor Doucet:

WHEREAS Document 2 “Parking Stakeholder Consultation Group TOR” includes a description of the Groups’ membership;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT membership be amended in the terms of reference to include three community associations and one place of worship.

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor Doucet:

WHEREAS Document 2 “Parking Stakeholder Consultation Group TOR” includes a description of the Groups’ meetings;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the meetings be amended to read:

“The Parking Stakeholders’ Consultation Group will meet on a quarterly basis or more when required at the request of the General Manager of Public Works or his/her designate or as requested by a majority of parking stakeholder consultation group members.

CARRIED

Councillor Wilkinson stepped down as A/Chair when Chair McRae returned to the meeting.

On behalf of Councillor Holmes, Councillor Doucet put forward the following motion:

WHEREAS staff are opposed to the recommendation from the Arts, Heritage and Cultural Advisory Committee to expand the Percent for Art program towards all city parking development projects;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the percent for art program be expanded to City parking development projects in excess of $500,000.

In response to a question from Councillor Leadman, Mr. Manconi said that the infrastructure would be subject to site plan and zoning. He believed Councillor Holmes wanted to engage the arts community by helping the City to bring it to a higher level, especially for pedestrian access points. It is an opportunity to assist the arts community and continue to build a better piece of infrastructure.

Councillor Legendre questioned if there was potential in this program for collecting a fund. He suggested that staff provide a response for the Council meeting. He then spoke in support of the motion.

Councillor Holmes suggested that there is still a long way to go with the parking structures and even a small amount of money like this would get an interesting mural on an inside wall in a parking garage, and perhaps with some good lighting, it could make people (women in particular) feel safer. She posited that people prefer to park outside because the inside parking garages are not attractive and the public needs to feel comfortable.

Moved by Councillor Doucet:

WHEREAS staff are opposed to the recommendation from the Arts, Heritage and Cultural Advisory Committee to expand the Percent for Art program towards all city parking development projects;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the percent for art program be expanded to City parking development projects in excess of $500,000.

CARRIED

YEAS (5): A. Cullen, J. Legendre, C. Doucet, C. Leadman, M. McRae

NAYS (3): R. Bloess, M. Wilkinson, D. Thompson

Councillor Leadman proposed the following:

That City staff be directed, in the first annual report on the Parking Management Strategy, to review the parking governance model with a comparison with the parking authority.

Councillor Legendre was not opposed to this review but thought that one year after implementation of the Parking Management Strategy is not sufficient time and he preferred to have a review after the three-year mark. He requested this be a friendly amendment, to which Councillor Leadman agreed.

Moved by Councillor Leadman:

That City staff be directed, in the third annual report on the Parking Management Strategy, to review the parking governance model with a comparison with the parking authority.

CARRIED

Councillor Leadman proposed the following:

WHEREAS presently indirect costs including snow clearing and road and curb lifecycle maintenance are applied against the net revenue of the parking program;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT indirect costs be deleted from the financial calculation so it is not applied against net revenue.

Councillor Holmes noted that Legal staff had rewritten the motion. She said she was nonplussed that the City makes $15M and ends up with $1M net, noting there is nothing that can be done with $1M net per year. She said the reason there was such a debate last year is because very few new spaces have been created.

Councillor Wilkinson felt that all costs should be looked at and said if this motion were to pass, the City would not charge for snow removal and such, which would be paid from other revenues, meaning taxpayers would be charged additional money in order to not have these charged against the parking. She added that there are life costs that are charged against buildings, and suggested adding life costs for parking lots and spaces.

In response to a question from Councillor Bloess, Mr. Manconi advised that the motion refers to the snow clearing and curb life cycle, amounting to $3.2M. The councillor found it interesting that costs are often compared with on street parking to private lots in the suburbs. There are costs to private lots, whether it is paving, owning it or, maintaining it, that amount to $3.2M, and those should not be ignored. He believed the report is very clear and urged Committee members to reject the motion.

Councillor Legendre raised several questions concerning the motion in terms of revenue, snow clearing and road life cycle maintenance. Mr. Manconi advised that the costs in the report are the premiums or direct costs associated with providing parking in an additional lane, curb maintenance, snow clearing and such that staff must do as a result of a parking stall being there. In addition, there is the premium associated with the life-cycle costs of having that additional space on that road allowance. Glen Ford, Deputy Treasurer/ Controller added that the objective was to identify all the associated and incremental costs that are incurred in the areas where parking revenue is being generated.

In response to a further question by the councillor, Mr. Ford explained that staff looked at the parking compounds that were created for parking. They also reviewed the creation of parking bays, where revenue is being obtained, and adding extra width for parking. These are the incremental costs that were incorporated in this analysis.

Councillor Legendre requested that staff provide the comparison, by the Council meeting, in terms of the amortization for that kind of asphalted surface versus the heavy traffic asphalted surfaces.

Councillor Leadman questioned how charges were allocated in terms of on-street parking and snow removal. Mr. Ford advised that the costs would all be recovered through the general tax rate, which would be the same for areas with metres. Councillor Leadman believed it was unfair that areas with meters are getting hit twice and believed this to be a flaw in the system. Mr. Manconi articulated that their review was based purely on numbers and acknowledged that councillors must make the difficult decision as to whether or not these premiums should be applied to areas with meters.

Councillor Leadman felt that the areas that have metered parking are being viewed from a different lens in terms of the level of service that is provided to them, even though they are still paying the same taxes as everyone else for the same service i.e., snow removal. She asked for clarification about the revenue source and the amount used to make the determinations. Mr. Ford advised that it was based on the parking meters and the amount was $7.7M. Councillor Leadman suggested that the number would need to be broken down and offered to raise this during the Pay and Display discussion.

Moved by Councillor Leadman:

WHEREAS presently indirect costs including snow clearing and road and curb lifecycle maintenance are applied against the net revenue of the parking program;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT indirect costs be deleted from the financial calculation so it is not applied against net revenue.

LOST

YEAS (4): Councillors J. Legendre, C. Doucet, C. Leadman, M. McRae

NAYS (4): Councillors R. Bloess, M. Wilkinson, A. Cullen, D. Thompson

Moved by Councillor Doucet:

That consultation with all stakeholders, including appropriate BIA’s, community associations, the Ward Councillor and places of worship, be undertaken regarding any parking fee increase, proposed as part of this City’s annual budget.

CARRIED

Chair McRae read the last portion of Councillor Wilkinson’s motion.

BE IT RESOLVED that:

1) The By-Law regarding motorcycles be amended to permit two motorcycles to park in one on-street metered parking space,

2) Despite No. 1, where the parking meter space is parallel to the curb line, the angle for parking each motorcycle relative to the curb must not exceed 45 degrees; and,

3) That staff monitor the use of on-street parking stalls by motorcycles and report findings as part of the PMS annual report.

In response to a question by Councillor Cullen, Mr. Manconi confirmed that this would include scooters and other kinds of motorized two-wheeled vehicles and that both would be ticketed should the meter run out.

Councillor Wilkinson reminded Committee members that this would only apply until the Pay and Display system is in place, because at that point, each vehicle will have its own space.

Councillor Legendre questioned if this was part of the study, fearing that it will be added without proper study. Mr. Manconi advised that it was missed in the report as a recommendation but had been raised as a new idea.

Moved by Councillor Wilkinson:

WHEREAS the preparation of the Municipal Parking Management Strategy involved consultation with a number of stakeholder groups including motorcycle enthusiasts;

AND WHEREAS motorcycle users expressed the opinion that parking requirements should reflect the fact that a motorcycle takes up less space on the road than a standard motor vehicle;

AND WHEREAS staff agrees that these vehicles can be parked more compactly then standard motor vehicles, thus increasing the availability of parking for all users;

BE IT RESOLVED that:

1) The By-Law regarding motorcycles be amended to permit two motorcycles to park in one on-street metered parking space,

2) Despite No. 1, where the parking meter space is parallel to the curb line, the angle for parking each motorcycle relative to the curb must not exceed 45 degrees; and,

3) That staff monitor the use of on-street parking stalls by motorcycles and report findings as part of the PMS annual report.

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor Wilkinson:

That Recommendation 8 be revised to read:

8. Approve an annual grant of up to $5,000 to each BIA that has metered parking, for initiatives that are in keeping with the Parking Management Strategy with budget funds being reallocated from the Parking Program advertising and promotion account to a Parking Program grant account.

CARRIED

That the Transportation Committee recommend that Council:

1. Approve the City of Ottawa Municipal Parking Management Strategy, attached as Document 1, which includes the following elements:

a. Parking Management Principles and Objectives

b. Funding Model

c. Parking Rate Setting Guideline

d. Performance Measures

e. Parking Function Accountabilities

2. Approve the continuance of the internal Governance Model and adopt the Parking Stakeholder Consultation Group Terms of Reference, attached as Document 2.

3. Approve the Standard Terms of Reference for Local Area Parking Studies, attached as Document 3.

4. Subject to approval of recommendation 1 and 2, direct staff to carry out the Implementation Plan, attached as Document 4, which builds the foundation for the new Parking Management Program, and includes the following elements:

a. Initiate a Local Area Parking Study for the By Ward Market in 2009

b. Establish the Parking Stakeholders Consultation Group

c. Amend the Tariff of Fees Bylaw to allow for a range of permitted parking rates

d. Restate the 2009 Budget in accordance with the adopted funding model

e. Undertake further Local Area Parking Studies in 2010

5. Subject to the approval of recommendation 1 and 2, approve that $75,000 for parking studies to be undertaken in 2009 be added to the list of 2009 one-time operating needs to be funded from Works in Progress capital closures.

6. Subject to the approval of recommendation 1, approve the establishment of a parking reserve fund with funds derived from parking fees and the sale of parking capital assets for parking related programs consistent with the Municipal Parking Management Strategy and enact a by-law to establish the reserve.

7. Subject to the approval of Recommendation 1, approve:

a. That the General Manager of Public Works and the Deputy City Manager of City Operations individually be delegated the authority to vary the on-street parking rates and the hours of parking by location provided that the variation of the rates is consistent with the Municipal Parking Management Strategy and is within the range approved by City Council as part of the annual budget and the local Ward Councillor, BIA, and Community Association concur;

b. That the existing delegation of authority to vary off-street parking rates be expanded to permit staff to alter rates for alternative modes of transportation, such as motorcycles, scooters, and auto-share vehicles provided that the variation of the rates is consistent with the Municipal Parking Management Strategy and is within the range approved by City Council as part of the annual budget.

9. Amend the “Parking Stakeholder Consultation Group TOR” membership to include 3 community association representatives and one place of worship representative.

10. Amend the description of the Parking Stakeholders Consultation Group meetings to read:

The Parking Stakeholders Consultation Group will meet on a quarterly basis or more when required at the request of the General Manager of Public Works, or his/her designate, or as requested by a majority of Parking Stakeholder Consultation Group members.

11. Expand the ‘Percent for Art Program’ to city parking development projects in excess of $500,000.

12. Direct staff to undertake consultation with all stakeholders including appropriate BIAs, Community Associations, the ward Councillor and places of worship regarding any parking fee increase proposed as part of the City’s annual budget.

13. Direct staff in the third annual report on the Parking Management Strategy to review the parking governance model with a comparison with the parking authority.

14. Amend By-law No. 2003-530, the Traffic and Parking By-law, to permit two motorcycles to park in one on-street parking meter space;

a. Despite the above, where the parking meter space is parallel to the curb line, the angle for parking each motorcycle, relative to the curb, must not exceed 45 degrees; and,

b. That staff monitor the use of on-street parking stalls by motorcycles, and report findings as part of the Parking Management Strategy Annual Report.

CARRIED, as amended

3. pay and display – Ottawa Option Procurement Process

DISTRIBUTRICES DE BILLETS DE STATIONNEMENT - PROCESSUS D’ACHAT D’OPTION OTTAWA

ACS2009- COS-PWS-0008 City Wide / À l'échelle de la ville

John Manconi, General Manager of Public Works introduced Scott Caldwell, Project Manager, Glen Ford, Deputy Treasurer/Controller and Jeff Byrne, Manager, Strategic Projects. He reminded members that Council approved proceeding with the Ottawa Option and staff would present the results of the market-test, which will be the final stage of the process.

Mr. Caldwell spoke to a detailed PowerPoint slide presentation (held on file), which served to summarize the key points of the report.

Mike McDonald, ParkSmart reminded members that approximately a year ago there were a number of groups including ParkSmart, industry members and the BIA’s that challenged the whole fairness of the Ottawa Option concept and recalled that even though it was approved at Committee and Council, it was only by one vote. Council also recommended at that time, that the whole Ottawa Option policy be reviewed. He stated that they were very pleased with this recommendation as well as the new Ottawa Option policy as it showed a glimpse of fairness in that it put in the rules for Best And Final Offer (BAFO), if a superior proposal came in.

He went on to state that ParkSmart was therefore very disappointed when the report came forward, given that it still had the original Ottawa Option. He referred to the report that was presented on 9 February and quoted; “Issues of fairness and transparency - the original private sector participant right to match a superior counter-proposal has been viewed as being potentially restrictive to open competition. The inclusion of the procurement process known as BAFO between qualified proponents will add fairness and transparency to a process while ensuring best value for the City.”

Furthermore, the document produced for the RFS is very specific, which closes in on the specific issues that they will be assessing; under net present value, it leaves no room for innovativeness. In today’s presentation, staff touched on the fact that Council will look at things such as “pay-by-cell”, although other things that were recommended by Council in April 2008 are not included in the evaluation process. He also spoke of the Smart-card and the ability to have BIA cards used for loyalty, which will not be evaluated in this process.

Councillor Bloess noted that the challenge is finding some common way of evaluating all proposals and bringing the best one forward for the City. He questioned how the delegation would go beyond net present value to give a clear indication of what is the preferred option. Mr. McDonald responded by stating that there are a couple of ways, noting the net present value for the specific items are measurable; therefore, if everyone was to bid the same, net present value would be a perfect solution. However, once people start bidding beyond that, then a points system can be considered.

Councillor Bloess asked staff how they would capture the other elements beyond the financial realm. Mr. Manconi advised that he and several staff were involved in the first operational Ottawa Option regarding street lighting. He explained that a decision is required early on in order to move forward and this was the decision made by the technical team, based on the information they had and what other cities were doing. Council gave staff direction to look at alternate technologies, which have cost and service implications. The decision was made that net present value was going to be the evaluation criteria. In a further question from the councillor, Mr. Manconi explained that the net present value is the overriding decision point, with the technology enhancements as secondary. Mr. Byrne added that if all bids come in the same as per the original Ottawa option, then it would go to the original bidder.

Councillor Cullen contested that this report should not be approved given that it was approved on several occasions by just one vote. He reminded his colleagues that Councillor Doucet put forward a motion to terminate this process because of the unfairness that is inherent in the Ottawa option. The Ottawa option was to reward innovative proposals, give them a chance to come forward as unsolicited proposals and allow them to be able to participate in a unique process where there was not the ability to fairly compare to other proposals. The Ottawa option was permitting people to trump a procurement process by using this technique. Council has since changed this Ottawa option by discontinuing that ability to trump a process that would have otherwise gone through a regular procurement process.

He went on to explain that the motion that was narrowly defeated by one vote would have rejected the proposal, and directed staff to develop and initiate a new competitive procurement process for pay and display. He surmised that if the report failed at Committee and Council, he would re-introduce the motion that Councillor Doucet put forward in April. He went on to state that the Ottawa option includes a clause that allows Council to walk away and start again. He noted that they already heard from one competitor and could hear from others. He added that they could issue specifications for a system that covers what staff has presented and it would be a competition amongst the companies to win that bid.

Carey Thomson, Deputy City Solicitor stated that it is important to express this before Committee deals with this particular matter. From a legal perspective, he did not agree with comments made by Councillor Cullen and offered to elaborate, should the Committee wish to go in-camera. The other point he offered for Committee with regards to the old Ottawa option approved by Council in 2002, vs. the revised Ottawa option policy approved on 25 February 2009, is that under the “old” Ottawa option process, there was a requirement for the proposal to be innovative. On that issue, Council debated the matter considerably in April 2008 and as a result of that narrow vote in favour, he submitted that Council made a determination at that point that it was innovative.

Mr. Thomson further clarified that under the revised Ottawa option policy approved in February, there was no longer that innovative requirement and the policy was not intended nor was it specified by Council, to have retroactive application, and it was to speak from that date forward.

Moved by Councillor D. Thompson

That the meeting of the Transportation Committee move In Camera to consider this item, pursuant to section 13(1) f) receiving advice subject to solicitor/client privilege.

CARRIED

Upon resuming in open session, the Committee considered the staff recommendation.

Councillor Bloess recapped that this was a particular procurement process that was duly approved by Council. The item before the Committee is being considered under the former Ottawa option and from the discussions ensued at the meeting, there are certain concerns about it. He noted his concerns regarding the outcome and felt that the objective continues to be the importance of getting the best product for the taxpayers. He felt that at this stage, Council was bound by this and he would support the report.

Councillor Legendre summarized Councillor Bloess’ rationale that Committee did not have a choice, but reminded members that it is clearly stated in the report that there is a choice and urged councillors to vote against the staff recommendation.

Chair McRae indicated her support for the staff recommendation, adding that there is an opportunity if this passes for any proponent to match or better the bid that is on the table and she did not believe it to be prudent at this time to stop the Ottawa option.

That Transportation Committee recommend Council approve the attached Request for Submission which will serve as the basis for the next phase of the Ottawa Option procurement process.

CARRIED

YEAS (6): R. Bloess, M. Wilkinson, D. Thompson, C. Leadman, M. McRae, Mayor O’Brien

NAYS (3): A. Cullen, J. Legendre, C. Doucet

4. AIRPORT PARKWAY IN-SERVICE SAFETY REVIEW

EXAMEN DE SÉCURITÉ EN SERVICE DE LA PROMENADE DE L’AÉROPORT

ACS2009- COS-PWS-0006

Gloucester-Southgate (10), River/Rivière (16), Capital/Capitale (17)

That Transportation Committee recommend that Council approve the implementation of the recommendations outlined in the report.

CARRIED

5. bronson avenue IN-SERVICE road safety review

examen interne de la sécurité routière sur l’avenue bronson

ACS2009-COS-PWS-0007 River/Rivière (16), Capital/Capitale (17)

That Transportation Committee recommend and Council approve:

1. That staff finalize the implementation of all low, medium and high cost strategies identified in the report;

2. That the northbound curb lane on Bronson Avenue on the approach to the Colonel By Drive off-ramp be designated as right turn only;

3. That the proposed roadway modification, as shown in Document 3, be constructed to physically prevent northbound motorists on Bronson Avenue in the curb lane on the approach to the Colonel By Drive off-ramp, from proceeding through this right-turn lane;

4. That in 2009, staff undertake the preliminary design for an asphalt pathway, as shown in Document 5, on the west side of Bronson Avenue, between Colonel By Drive and Brewer Way, as outlined in this report; and,

5. That the funding required to undertake the safety improvements for an asphalt pathway on the west side of Bronson Avenue, between Colonel By Drive and Brewer Way, be included for consideration in the draft 2010 budget.

CARRIED

6. Waiver of the Signs on City Roads By-law to permit the temporary installation of wayfinding signs during preston street reconstruction

DÉROGATION AU Règlement CONCERNANT les enseignes sur les routes de la ville AFIN DE PERMETTRE L’INSTALLATION TEMPORAIRE de panneaux directionnels pendant les travaux de reconstruction de la rue preston

ACS2009-CCS-TRC-0004 SOMERSET (14)

Councillor Legendre stated that because the City is reconstructing Preston Street, it should be paying for the signage. He therefore proposed that Recommendation b be amended to read as such. Staff advised that this was a BIA initiative and they had not requested the City to pay for it.

Ward councillor Diane Holmes commented that the Preston Street BIA is prepared to pay for these unique and friendly signs, to show that Little Italy is alive and well and continue to be opened for business.

Peter Childs spoke in opposition to the report, noting the following:

· He was concerned with the process of the proposal and the size and frequency of the signs.

· During last year’s construction, the BIA convinced the construction manager to pay for similar signs and did not consult with affected citizens.

· This year the BIA will pay for the signs and still the residents have not been consulted.

· He was concerned that the Dalhousie Community Association may not be aware of the proposal.

· The report does not include his comments sent to the ward councillor and staff.

· The signs are the largest that are allowed under the by-law and would be located at every block, creating visual clutter.

· He urged the Committee to direct staff to prepare guidelines and policies in order to accommodate more requests.

Responding to the concern of visual clutter, John Manconi, General Manager, Public Works explained that the signs would be located on Rochester Street, which is the detour to get to Preston Street. The signs would be up for the duration of the construction period only.

Councillor Leadman expressed concern of the possibility of other BIAs requesting these types of signs, referencing other areas such as Richmond Road and Wellington Street, which have gone through construction and had way finding signs along certain corridors.

Lori Mellor, President, Preston Street BIA informed the Committee that last year, the BIA had difficulty with the signage and the detour signs left the patrons confused, which resulted in seven businesses closing. The ward Councillor contacted approximately 400 homes in the neighbourhood, making people aware of the signs and asking for comments and suggestions. Unfortunately only two responses were received, one for and one against the signage. She advised that the Dalhousie Community Association approved the signage. The total budget for the signs is $15,000, which includes the artwork and location planning. The cost for the physical signs is $8,000 (includes labour and installation). Construction is scheduled to begin on 2 May 2009; therefore the signs will need to be made quickly. She noted that a tender has been done to get the prices for the signs and the artwork is ready. All that is required is the permission from the City.

Chair McRae was pleased the BIA was willing to do this for patrons who want to go to Preston Street. The signs would also be important for the safety of residents.

Councillor Wilkinson was concerned the signs were more for advertising, but acknowledged they would be helpful during the construction period. Ms. Mellor understood the councillor’s concern and explained that was why the BIA was willing to pay for the signs themselves.

When asked by Councillor Leadman why the signs were inadequate last year, Ms Mellor explained that the detour routes had changed and that made the signs inaccurate. For this year, the signs are designed in a way that, if the detour routes change, the signs can be easily moved to reflect the change. When asked who paid for the signs last year, Ms. Mellor indicated that the City paid for them.

The councillor proposed an amendment to include the cost up to $8,000. Councillor Legendre mentioned the reasoning for his motion is that the construction will be affecting business in a poor economic climate and that it should not be the main preoccupation of the Committee to set a cost limit on this issue. Chair McRae commented that if Committee is going to set a precedent, it should be more specific and with this explanation, the councillor accepted the amendment.

Moved by Councillor Legendre:

That Recommendation b be amended as follows:

The signs be fabricated, installed, maintained and removed by the City of Ottawa at the cost of up to $8,000.

CARRIED

That the Transportation Committee recommends that Council approve the waiver of Section 4 of By-law No. 2003-520, the Signs on City Roads By-law to permit the installation of a temporary wayfinding sign system during the reconstruction of Preston Street provided that:

a. The sign system is comprised of “Business Listing” signs, placed along Rochester Street or other routes as agreed to by staff, and “Advanced Notice” signs placed in advance of the Preston Street construction area on Gladstone, Somerset W., Albert, Raymond and at Carling at Booth and Carling at Champagne,

b. The signs be fabricated, installed, maintained and removed by the City at the cost of up to $8,000,

c. The signs shall only be placed during the reconstruction of Preston Street; and,

d. In accordance with the City’s Tourism and Public Service Signs Policy the dimensions of the signs are no greater than 60cm in width and 90cm in height.

CARRIED, as amended

7. sTATUS UPDATE - TRANSPORTATION committee INQUIRIES AND MOTIONs - for the period ending 31 MARCH 2009

RAPPORT DE SITUATION - DEMANDES DE RENSEIGNEMENTS ET MOTIONS DU COMITE DES TRANSPORTS POUR LA PÉRIODE SE TERMINANT LE 31 MARS 2009

Councillor Legendre referred to his outstanding motion regarding the process to amend the default speed limit on local residential streets to 40 km that he put forward in 2006. It referred to the status update that a report will come forward in Q3 of 2009, which means it will be a full three years from when the motion was passed, asking for this report. When the councillor raised the matter in December 2008 with staff, Mr. Manconi, General Manager of Public Works suggested at the time that the report might come forward sooner.

Mr. Manconi advised that this portfolio has a huge backlog and explained that immediately following the councillor’s request in December, he reviewed a draft report, which provided much negativity. He recalled that this committee had been clear in the past that it wanted options and scenarios as opposed to staff noting reasons why certain things cannot be done. He advised that the Manager of Traffic and Safety Services has been tasked with looking at every option that is viable to the City. The General Manager further offered to meet with councillors individually, in order to find opportunities to some of the issues listed in this report.

That the Transportation Committee receive this report for information.

RECEIVED

NOTICE OF MOTION (FOR CONSIDERATION AT SUBSEQUENT MEETING)

AVIS DE MOTION (POUR EXAMEN LORS D’UNE RÉUNION SUBSÉQUENTE)

Councillor / Conseillère D. Holmes

WHEREAS the City’s 2009 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) budget lacks funding for workplace programs designed to reduce the use of single occupancy vehicles during peak hours;

AND WHEREAS EnviroCentre’s ecoMobility service is designed to reduce the use of single occupancy vehicles in commuting to work;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Transportation Committee recommends to Council that the City of Ottawa contract EnviroCentre to ensure that City workplaces (up to a total of 20 workplaces) with more than 25 employees and less than 100 employees participates in the ecoMobility service for $500 per workplace, including;

· an online employee survey to determine current modal split;

· customized reports detailing the most feasible TDM strategies to implement at each City workplace;

· facilitation of better commuting options through workshops, seminars and online motivational tools;

· measurements of modal shift, including vehicle reduction, use of more sustainable commuting options, and resulting CO2 reductions.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if this pilot project succeeds in measured reductions in the use of single occupancy vehicles during peak hours by increasing the use of TDM measures in these workplaces, EnviroCentre will be asked to propose to the Transit Committee and/or the Transportation Committee, ways in which this service could be expanded to cover City workplaces with more than 100 employees.

INQUIRIES

DEMANDES DE RENSEIGNEMENTS

Councillor Holmes asked that the Parking Branch investigate further the use of Tourism Passes.

Councillor Cullen inquired what the status was of the City’s cycling courses for 2009 and what alternatives are being considered.

ADJOURNMENT

LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE

The Committee adjourned the meeting at 5:25 p.m.

Original Signed By Original Signed By

C. Langford Councillor M. McRae

_____________________________ _____________________________

A/Committee Coordinator Chair