1. 2001 TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSIT
COMMITTEE CAPITAL BUDGET
REVIEW / EXAMEN DU BUDGET D'IMMOBILISATIONS
DE 2001 POUR LE
COMITÉ DES TRANSPORTS ET DES SERVICES DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN
Ref N°: ACS2001-CCS-TTC-0003
Rose Leclair, General Manager, provided a detailed
overview of the Capital Budget. A copy
of her presentation is held on file ACS2001-CCS-TTC-0003. To assist in its deliberations, the
committee also received the following supporting documentation:
Document 1 -
Proposed 2001 Infrastructure Rehabilitation Program
-
R. Leclair, General Manager, TUPW report dated 19 Mar 01 (received and tabled with the Corporate Services and Economic Development
Committee on 21 March 2001)
Document 2 - Comparison of Annex ‘C’ and
TUPW 2001 Capital Request
- R. Leclair, General Manager, TUPW memo dated 11
Apr 01
Document 3 - 2001 Capital Budget –
Supplementary Information
- L. Russell, Director of Financial Services memo
dated 11 Apr 01
Ms. Leclair indicated that approval of the pages in
the Capital Budget document includes the program details from the Proposed 2001
Rehabilitation Program report (Document 1) as amended by Item 2 of today’s
agenda. Document 3 also amends portions
of the budget. Councillor Legendre
asked staff to provide a breakdown of the percentage of program needs being met
this year.
Councillor Legendre asked if staff will be
providing clarification to the individual budget pages with respect to Document
2. Ms. Leclair advised that that
document was provided in response to a request from members of Council and was
to compare the budget presented by the Ottawa Transition Board with what staff
is proposing. Unless there are specific
questions on changes, there would be no reference made to that document. The councillor requested clarification on
the fact that some of the projects listed in Document 2 show funding which is
subtracted from the proposed amount.
The General Manager explained that the original program had more monies
and staff has assessed how much work can be completed this year and therefore
the adjustments are based on the amount of work that will actually be carried
out in 2001. The councillor understood
how that could apply to many projects, however, some transitway projects
included in Document 2 should not be any different because it was already a
one-tier responsibility. He surmised,
therefore, that in those particular instances, it is as a result of the
transition process. Ms. Leclair
indicated that in a normal budget process, forecasts are prepared well in
advance and prior to preparing the current budget, staff would review each
project, refine any information and put in the final figures; in this particular
case, however, that part of the process was not undertaken, so any adjustments
are only showing up in the process now.
Councillor Doucet was surprised that only 13 buses
will be added to the existing fleet this year.
Dr. Helen Gault, Manager, Transit Schedule and Service Development,
clarified that they will also be increasing the number of articulated buses by
30 so the total capacity is increasing by 3% more customers. Chair Meilleur noted that even though
ridership has increased by 7%, OC Transpo does not plan to add any extra
buses. She indicated that the Corporate
Services and Economic Development Committee had received a very informative
presentation yesterday on the purchase of additional buses and suggested the
same presentation be made at Council on 9 May when it considers the Capital
Budget.
Councillor Doucet was concerned that the Corporate
Services Committee deals with issues pertaining to the replacement of
fleet. Ms. Leclair explained that the
new city has adopted a centre of expertise model and while transit operation is
run by the TUPW Department, the expertise with respect to fleet rests with the
Corporate Services Department. As the
user Department, however, TUPW has input into what the fleet group does. The councillor expressed his concerns with
this system, noting the issue of accountability for transit does not appear to
rest with the right department.
With respect to the rehabilitation of Bank Street
between the Rideau River and the Rideau Canal (page 6 of Document 2), Councillor
Doucet asked that the project name or the project description include “street
scaping study” and that before any rehabilitation is undertaken, that this
study be completed. Ms. Leclair
confirmed that a street scaping study is part of the project estimate, but
agreed to amend the document accordingly before it rises to Council.
Councillor Cullen expressed some concern that
nearly $70M of this budget is geared towards private vehicles but only $22M+
will be put towards transit, despite the fact the City is behind in terms of
meeting current demand. He asked when
committee would be looking at setting priorities to meet the modal split
targets set out in the Official Plan.
Ms. Leclair advised that that amount relates to road construction and
the actual operation; the budget that relates to fleet ($58M) is included under
the Corporate Services Department budget.
Therefore, the total funding for transit is actually closer to $80M in
capital for 2001.
With respect to staff reporting back with a plan of
how the Department is going to achieve the Official Plan objectives, Ms.
Leclair expected that would be part of the Transportation Master Plan review to
be undertaken by the Development Services Department. From that review, TUPW will be operationalizing and looking at
those priorities. She indicated that
the one thing staff have been unable to do for this budget is to re-look at
what the goals are for the new city and where money should be spent in terms of
achieving those goals. And, while
transit was obviously a high priority at the former Region, there was no
ability or an interest at the local level for transit. Therefore, staff needs to step back and take
a look at how TUPW responds to the new city’s goals and how it will refocus
spending plans and priorities.
When asked for a breakdown of the estimated total of $80M for
transit, Ms. Leclair indicated this total includes $22M set out in the Capital
Budget before committee, $31.8M approved by Corporate Services Committee
yesterday for replacement buses and $27M approved by Council in January for the
purchase of new buses. Councillor
Legendre suggested that in view of the confusion surrounding this budget, staff
should be directed to report back to explain why all transit matters are not
brought before this committee. From his
perspective, the way the budget is presented this year does not provide the
whole picture for the councillors to completely understand the situation and he
believed this was extremely important for accountability.
Councillor Arnold inquired why the Cycling
Facilities Improvement Program (page 13 of Document 2) shows no funding for
2001, even though the former RMOC budget had allocated $375,000 for this
year. Further, at page 14, the former
City of Ottawa’s Comprehensive Cycling Plan indicates zero. With respect to the latter, Ms. Leclair
explained that the budget document was put together for the Transition Board by
examining what was actually forecasted in the previous municipal budgets and
for the former municipality, there were no funds associated with that program
to bring forward and that is why “0” is shown in the document. The councillor was concerned that even
though this document looks at the capital forecast from the previous
municipalities, what it should illustrate is the actual from 2000,
particularly, if there was a willingness from previous councils to maintain the
spending on particular items.
Councillor Arnold requested clarification with
respect to funding for audible pedestrian signals (page 14 of Document 2),
noting the former RMOC had estimated $50,000 but it was not clear to her if the
amalgamated budgets from some of the other municipalities included funding for
these signals. Ms. Leclair advised
that Nepean would have included $25,000 and the former city of Ottawa had a
program to replace some signals to the value of $80,000 for a total of
$155,000. She indicated that the budget
before committee is for replacement and corrective action for signals.
Councillor Harder noted that there are a lot of
programs which are not listed in the budget document and she asked who chose
which projects came forward and were any of those listed ones that the former
municipalities had included as projects they would like to complete, but for
which funding was not provided in their budgets. Ms. Leclair explained that the lists of projects were submitted
by the treasurers of the former municipalities and were based on a forecasted
budget. Staff dealt with the issue of
how much funding was actually available to do all of those projects and
following some refinement to the lists, in consultation with the program staff
from the various municipalities, the lists were finalized in terms of funding
availability and priorities.
As a general comment, Councillor Harder suggested
future budget documents provide councillors with the ability to more easily
track programs, since some are broken down into several departments which makes
it very difficult not only for committee members, but for members of the public
to understand. The General Manager
agreed to take the councillor’s suggestion under advisement in conjunction with
Finance staff.
Councillor Bloess indicated that Annex C of the
Capital Budget document refers to the rehabilitation of Innes Road between
Tauvette and Beddoe at a cost of $608,000 (Phase 3 of 4); however, in Document
2, the same project is shown at $130,000 less for a total of $478,000 and he
wondered how this priority got reshuffled since it contradicts what the Capital
Budget document illustrates. He indicated
there are two phases left to complete to bring this road up to appropriate
standards since it currently functions at a rural standard (ditches on both
sides and no sidewalks), and yet it travels through an urban community with
high-density housing. Ms. Leclair
responded by stating that the funding showing for 2001 is to undertake the
design for Phases 3 and 4, with construction coming forward in 2002. The funding was reduced because there was an
affordability issue and decisions had to be made for a recommended budget; this
was a difficult process because each of the former municipalities had their own
priorities.
Councillor Bloess referred to the resurfacing of
St. Joseph Boulevard (page 4 of 6 of Document 1) at a cost of $500,000,
although he recalled that in 2000, the Region had approved close to $1M for the
same purpose. Although this item was
postponed due to some other works that were being considered as part of the
rehabilitation of the roadway and a contribution was being made from the lower
tier municipality, the 2001 budget does not truly reflect the funds being
allocated to that project. Mr. Kelly
Martin of the TUPW Department advised that the $500,000 referenced is strictly
for the resurfacing component; there is another component of work being
undertaken on St. Joseph Boulevard which is a water main replacement and
incorporated in that is some funding from the former municipality to deal with
some boulevard works. He believed this
is an updated estimate and reflects what staff believe is the cost to do the
overlay between the limits of the water main replacement and Gabriel Street at
the eastern limit of that project. He
estimated that the total for the resurfacing and the water main work would be
in excess of $1M. The councillor asked
that staff confirm the figures available for St. Joseph Boulevard in total
because they are contained in several parts of the budget and makes it
difficult to piece together.
Also on the Resurfacing Program, Councillor Bloess
noted that Valewood Crescent is being recommended for deferral again, even
though it has been deferred for approximately three years. He explained that the road is in desparate
need of repair since the growth in the area has escalated and the construction
traffic has had a tremendous impact on the road as a result of that
development. Mr. Martin indicated
this project was formerly slated for overlay by the former City of Gloucester
and is currently shown just below the funding line. He believed it is one of the likely candidates to be moved
forward as one of the top priorities in 2002.
Councillor McNeely wanted assurance there are
sufficient funds in the Resurfacing Program to ensure the city’s roads are
sustainable. Ms. Leclair advised that
$15M has been allocated for resurfacing projects and this reflects an annual
shortfall of $5000 in terms of what would be required to respond to need.
Councillor Bloess asked if there will be street
lighting provided on Mer Bleu Road and staff indicated this is the priority
under the funding brought forward by Gloucester. The councillor wondered if there was money coming forward also
from the former City of Cumberland because there was a cost-sharing
arrangements originally in place between the two municipalities. Ms. Leclair indicated the money from
Cumberland can be found in the first item under the Street Lighting Program in
Document 1, but she did not know whether or not those funds were preallocated to
specific projects.
With respect to traffic calming, Councillor Stavinga
expressed concern about how projects will be funded, particularly in 2002. She noted that Goulbourn was moving forward
on a high priority traffic calming plan for John Street because this
residential street is being used as a high collector road for events in the
Corel Centre. Further, the development
north of Palladium Drive adds increasing pressure on this roadway which was
never designed to handle such traffic volumes and she believed there was a need
for the Huntmar Road extension to relieve that pressure. She was very concerned that this project
would be perceived as the last on the list because of previous projects begun
by the former city of Ottawa and the Region and she wanted assurance that all
projects will be evaluated on their merit.
Further, she suggested that there be flexibility in the criteria that
are used, keeping in mind that one size does not fit all, especially given the
fact that conditions are different in the rural areas.
In response to these concerns, the General Manager advised that
staff will be developing a report to bring forward to committee that will
address how these projects will be managed.
She added that a work management system for this particular area of
study is required, as well as the need to define how much should be put into
studies vs. how much should be put toward implementation. Councillor Stavinga hoped the criteria
includes an analysis of other documents that state the need, such as the
Official Plan.
Councillor Arnold stated that the former City of Ottawa did not
have a traffic calming budget because such efforts were only funded when roads
were rehabilitated. Such a piecemeal
fashion however, did not lend itself to a comprehensive traffic management
system and she recognized the need to find ways to fund the measures demanded
by the community. She questioned what
percentage of the roadway rehabilitation budget actually goes towards roadway
modifications that could be interpreted as traffic calming measures and also,
when the work plan in terms of prioritizing that work come forward. Ms. Leclair confirmed that traffic
calming is built into road reconstruction programs for a total of $31M but was
not sure what percentage of that budget includes traffic calming. She indicated that staff could provide
information to the committee on what studies are being addressed this
year. With respect to other programs
that have traffic calming/community safety type elements in them, she indicated
that both the Mobility Area Traffic Management Program and the Traffic Safety
Program have funds to cover such expenses.
She added that the Department has recently compiled a list of what
funding was available in the various municipalities and a report on how to
manage that demand will be brought forward to committee later this year.
Councillor Arnold suggested that it would probably be appropriate
to look at the possibility of building into subdivision agreements a
requirement to do the mitigation.
Further, where massive growth is being approved in an area, there should
be a requirement to look at what the impacts are on adjacent neighbourhoods and
if there are costs associated as a result of those developments, those should
be borne by the development. She
suggested this issue should also be discussed by the Planning and Development
Committee.
Councillor Cullen questioned whether committee will receive a
status report on “works in progress” and Mr. Russell, Director of
Financial Services indicated that staff are in the process of compiling that
information and a report is scheduled to go to the Corporate Services Committee
in May. The councillor asked that the
specific portions of that report as they pertain to the Transportation and
Transit Committee and to the Environmental Services Committee, be submitted for
the information of those committees.
The committee received the following public delegations:
Brett Delmage, Interim Ottawa
Cycling Committee, indicated that supporting cycling transportation today
is a concrete way to support the quality of life in neighbourhoods throughout
the city. He stated that the current
approach to cycling in the city-wide Transportation Master Plan and Official
Plan (OP) arises as a result of affordability and quality of life. Mr. Delmage referred to a report entitled
“The Total Cost of Travel” which was prepared as part of the OP and which
determined that taxpayers save $1200 for each person that travels by bike
instead of by car. Therefore,
supporting cycling as an alternative in conjunction with public transit is a
positive way to control future road costs.
Cycling compliments and supports public transit and a study conducted in
the 1990’s determined that people who cycle are more likely to use OC Transpo
than someone who owns a car as their primary choice for transportation. He concluded by stating that in order to
increase the number of trips made by OC Transpo, the city must plan to support
complimentary travel modes.
Alayne McGregor, President,
Citizens for Safe Cycling agreed that any money spent on road resurfacing
would substantially increase her comfort level on her bicycle. She asked for the committee’s support for a
Mobility Area and Traffic Management Program specifically, the transportation
demand management projects, which their organization and other groups have
worked on with staff to support initiatives on cycling-specific projects. She emphasized the importance of continuing
this work to meet modal splits set out in the Official Plan. Although funds from the former
municipalities of Ottawa ($150,000) and Gloucester ($5000) as well as from the
RMOC ($375,000) were put into established cycling budgets, that total funding
is not reflected in this year’s budget for the new city. (The former city of Nepean had a cycling
budget a few years ago, but it was incorporated into the general roads
budget). Ms. McGregor was particularly
concerned about the reducing funding because one of the basic promises of
amalgamation was that there would be no loss of service and yet this budget
will result in a service reduction of 30% for cyclists. On behalf of Citizens for Safe Cycling, she
encouraged committee to put an additional $155,000 back into the cycling budget
for 2001, for a total of $530,000.
Councillor Bloess asked whether the delegations were in support of
funds from the cycling budget being applied to a road rehabilitation or
reconstruction project where cycling lanes are to be included. Mr. Delmage confirmed he would support that,
adding that there has always been extensive co-ordination work by staff and the
former cycling committee to dovetail with other works being done in order to
achieve the most value for the money.
Nicholas Patterson agreed
with the comments raised by the delegation that spoke about the Para Transpo
strike. He asked that the vision for
the new city of Ottawa be set by the elected representatives.
Roseline Gauthier,
Vice-president, School Council, Jeanne Sauvé French Immersion School submitted
a brief to the committee detailing their request for a sidewalk on Gardenway
Drive, from Latour Street to Esplanade Avenue, opposite Jeanne Sauvé School in
Orléans. She indicated that the
community has been concerned about the lack of safe access for children
attending the school since 1994. Last
year, the City of Cumberland made it a priority for construction, however, the
early winter and the concern parents had with respect to their children
crossing the road during the construction, delayed the project until after June
of this year. Ms. Gauthier added that a
traffic calming study recommended the sidewalk, as well as a four-way stop, but
given the curve in the road the latter was not an option for the
community. She indicated that currently
when children cross to go to the other side of the road, they are on someone
elses’ land and in the winter when there are snowbanks, they are forced to be
in the street because there is nowhere else to stand. As the representative for approximately 1000 homes in the
community and in light of the number of children attending this school (550)
and the fact there are six other schools that use this road and in light of
increasing traffic, Ms. Gauthier urged committee members to support their
request.
Following up on these comments, Louise Panneton, School Trustee
advised that the Board has shown its commitment to this project by financing
part of the realignment of the entrance to the school. They are looking for the committee’s support
to ensure funds are provided to undertake at least the first phase of this
project in the next year.
The General Manager indicated this request would be classified as a
new sidewalk and there is $30,000 in that program available for city-wide
projects. This request, however, is
estimated to cost $81,500. She added
that there are two other locations for sidewalks identified from Cumberland so
they brought forward approximately $150,000 for those three locations, with
annual funding set at $30,000.
When asked to clarify the cost of the project, Ms. Gauthier advised
that the realignment is estimated to cost $35,000 which is their share of the
project and the Board has agreed to pay the other half and $85,500 is what it
will cost for the construction of the sidewalk.
Councillor McNeely reiterated the fact that this project was
identified by Cumberland as a priority and was supposed to have been done last
year. The community was promised a
sidewalk and with shared funding being provided by the Board and he indicated
his intention to bring forward a Motion for the committee’s consideration.
Councillor Bloess agreed the city should accept responsibility for
the sidewalk, but questioned whether it is expected to pay for half of the
realignment of the entranceway, which he believed is the responsibility of the
school. The General Manager explained
that the partnership with the Board had the municipality contributing $35,000
and that funding is provided for under the 2001 Proposed Traffic Safety
Program.
The Committee reviewed the Capital Budget as
follows and where there was no discussion or amendments as per subsequent
budget documents, the budgets for the individual programs were carried as
presented.
Road Reconstruction
Pg. 269 (as
amended by the revised pages in the 2001 Infrastructure Rehabilitation Program,
Agenda Item 2)
Councillor Cullen noted that Britannia Road was not included in
this program and for that and other projects that will not be done this year,
he questioned whether a priority listing was available so councillors can
estimate approximately when certain roads would be done. He further questioned whether committee will
receive an analysis of the current, intermediate and future needs of road
reconstruction projects. Mr. Hewitt,
Director, Infrastructure Services advised that staff are currently working on
getting the prioritization together and that information will probably be
available at the end of the year. The
councillor indicated he would contact the Director with specific reference to
the status of Britannia Road.
The
Committee approved the Road Reconstruction Program budget as amended by the
Proposed 2001 Infrastructure Rehabilitation Program report dated 6 April 2001
(ASC2001-TUP-INF-0007).
Resurfacing Program
Pg. 271 (as
amended by the revised pages in the 2001 Infrastructure Rehabilitation Program,
Agenda Item 2)
Councillor Bloess indicated that references to both Fourth Line
Road and Kemp Road (page 2 of 6 of the Resurfacing Program detailed in Document
1), should reflect the fact they are both only in Ward 2.
The
Committee approved the Resurfacing Program budget as amended by the Proposed
2001 Infrastructure Rehabilitation Program report dated 6 April 2001
(ASC2001-TUP-INF-0007).
Structures
Pg. 273
Councillor Legendre indicated that reference to St. Laurent Bridges
being in Wards 13 and 18 is incorrect because it is only in Ward 18.
The Committee approved the Structures
budget as presented.
Sidewalk Rehabilitation
Pg. 275
Councillor Doucet proposed that
sidewalk rehabilitation be delayed until the new standards have been
established. When questioned whether
this could be accomplished, Mr. Hewitt advised that it would be a major problem
for the rehabilitation work that would be done in conjunction with road
reconstruction. Ms. Leclair added that
since committee will not receive the report on the establishment of sidewalk
standards until late summer/early fall the authority would be approved for the
deferred projects, but the actual work would not be programmed until the
following year.
Councillor Bloess
indicated that last year there was funding for sidewalk rehabilitation for
St. Joseph Boulevard, but noted it was not shown in Document 1. Mr. Martin clarified that some of those
funds relate to works in progress and he confirmed the money was still there.
Moved by C. Doucet
That sidewalk rehabilitation be delayed
where possible and with agreement of the ward Councillor until new standards
have been created, which will deal with sidewalk cuts and width and that the
money be forwarded into the 2002 budget.
CARRIED
YEAS: E. Arnold, R. Bloess, C.
Doucet, J. Harder, J. Legendre....5
NAYS: A. Cullen, P. Hume, P. McNeely, M. Meilleur....4
Councillor McNeely proposed the
following:
That
sidewalks on Gardenway Drive opposite Jeanne Sauvé French Immersion School be
constructed in 2001 in order to provide safety for the re-aligned school entrance
at an estimated cost of $81,500.
Councillor Harder
recognized the importance of this issue for the Ward councillor, but cautioned
committee that schools do not contribute to the funding of sidewalks when they
are on the other side of the road from the school. She anticipated there being other requests that may come up in
future and if sidewalks and other pedestrian accesses are not planned for based
on the city’s need, then this could become a very costly issue. Rob Orchin, Manager of Mobility Management
and Neighbourhood Studies Division confirmed there are many others that may
come forward, but advised that each municipality dealt with those issues
differently so it will take some time to sort it out.
Chair Meilleur
suggested direction be given to the General Manager of the Development Services
Department to ensure that when a site plan is approved for a school, that sidewalks be included as
part of that approval.
Councillor Harder
recognized that each of the former municipalities had a different process in
place that judged the merit of and providing the rankings for sidewalks and she
believed it would be worthwhile to get information on the delegation of
authority and how these requests were dealt with in the previous
municipalities. Such information would
enable councillors to judge the differences for themselves and determine which
is the best process. She suggested that
staff bring forward a report in this regard.
Moved by P. McNeely
That sidewalks on Gardenway Drive
opposite Jeanne Sauvé French Immersion School be constructed in 2001 in order
to provide safety for the re-aligned school entrance at an estimated cost of
$81,500.
CARRIED
The Committee approved the Sidewalk
Rehabilitation budget as amended by the foregoing.
Cycling Program
Pg. 277
Moved by E. Arnold
That the Cycling Program budget be
increased to reflect the amount allocated in 2000 by former municipalities for
a total of $530,000.
CARRIED
The Committee approved the Cycling Program
budget as amended by the foregoing.
Mobility and Area Traffic Management
Pg. 283
Councillor Doucet did not believe
the proposed amount for traffic calming ($1.972M) was enough to address
implementation and he felt it was irresponsible to come forward and prepare
traffic calming studies, but not to have the funding in place to support those
initiatives.
When questioned
what funds are available for traffic calming, Ms. Leclair advised that the
projects in this budget for 2001 are detailed at Tab 10 in Document 1. In addition, there is some general funding
under Transportation Demand Management and Area Traffic Management. A breakdown of funds in the latter program
include: $815,000 from the RMOC,
$52,000 from Kanata, $25,000 from Cumberland and $10,000 from Gloucester.
Councillor
Legendre was reluctant to support a Motion to increase the funds, if those
additional monies would not assist staff in proceeding with previously
initiated traffic calming studies.
Ms. Leclair advised that there is approximately $10M worth of
traffic calming demand studies that have not been implemented so any increase
in the budget would allow staff to move forward on the implementation of some
of those studies. As reported
previously, staff hope to bring forward a report to committee in June that will
give an indication of all the studies that currently exist and what is planned
to be funded from the existing dollars that are identified in this budget as
well as how to manage the demand in the future.
Councillor Harder
referred to the Neighbourhood Traffic Studies at Tab 10 of Document 1 and
questioned if there was flexibility to move the $120,000 shown under the
heading “Road” to “Sidewalk”. The
General Manager advised that staff would look at what the recommendations of
the study were and determine, in conjunction with the community, what the
priorities are. She confirmed that if
the study recommended sidewalks, then a Motion to the same effect would not be
required.
Councillor Doucet
proposed the following Motion:
That the net
requirement for Mobility and Area Traffic Management Program be increased by
$1M to reflect previous commitments.
Some councillors
did not feel comfortable supporting an additional $1M and preferred to instruct
staff to report back on the impact of such a Motion and from where that
additional funding would come. Others
were reluctant to support it given the fact there is already a shortage in the
budget to carry out some existing programs.
Councillor Doucet
reiterated the fact there are over $10M worth of outstanding commitments
already and increasing it brings it up to $3M which is still only 30% of the
way towards addressing previous commitments.
He expressed concern that this program appears to have just stopped and
that all he was attempting to do was to put an emphasis in this program to show
the public the new city is serious about its commitments.
Chair Meilleur
made reference to the fact that Murray Street was not reflected in this budget
and while there had been no traffic calming study done, it was listed in the
Region’s previous budgets as one street to be included. She asked that it be put back into the
budget.
Moved by C. Doucet
That the net requirement for Mobility
and Area Traffic Management Program be increased by $1M to reflect previous
commitments.
CARRIED
YEAS: E. Arnold, A. Cullen, C.
Doucet, J. Legendre, M. Meilleur....5
NAYS: R. Bloess, J. Harder, P. Hume....3
The Committee approved the Mobility and
Area Traffic Management budget as amended by the foregoing.
Pg. 285
Councillor Harder referred to the
dangerous situation that exists on Merivale Road at McFarlane Road near the
railway crossing, whereby motorists queue on Merivale Road and actually stop on
the tracks. She indicated that signals
were recommended as an interim measure until a grade separation can be funded,
but noted this was not reflected in the program. Ms. Leclair explained that it was not listed because it is a
recent development and therefore was not provided for in the forecast. In terms of the funding issue, she stated
there is no confirmation as to whether or not there will be a contribution from
VIA Rail, noting the proposal is for $150,000 to come from the municipality and
$250,000 from the railway company. She
confirmed staff are very concerned about this safety issue and one of the
alternatives they would be exploring is in the Traffic Safety Program where
this matter, because of the nature of the problem, would probably rise as a
higher priority than another already planned for under that program.
Councillor Arnold
indicated that last year audible pedestrian signals were funded by the RMOC at
$100,000 and by the cities of Nepean and Ottawa at $15,000 and $80,000
respectively, for a total of $195,000.
The funding recommended this year however is only $155,000 and in
response to the numerous requests from the former Disability Issues Committee,
the councillor recommended that the same funding be provided in 2001.
Moved by E. Arnold
That the budget for audible pedestrian
signals be increased by $40,000 for a total of $195,000.
CARRIED
The Committee approved the Traffic Control
Devices budget as amended by the foregoing.
The Committee approved the OC Transpo –
Facilities budget as amended by the revised pages in the document entitled
“2001 Capital Budget – Supplementary Information” dated 11 April 2001.
There was some
general discussion about the way in which the budget was prepared and in
particular, why some portions of the transit budget is considered by another
committee. Councillor Doucet agreed to
put forward the following Motion which was originally submitted to the
Committee Chair by Councillor Legendre, who had to leave the meeting prior to
consideration:
That
Transportation and Transit Committee task senior management with preparing a
report to show clearly why important capital expenditures both for new stock
and facilities as well as for rehabilitation and replacement of existing stock
and facilities, should continue to be the responsibility of different
committees of Council.
Ms. Leclair advised that she would
take the direction to report back on bringing forward all elements of the
program to the one committee as opposed to what Departments report to this
committee. She realized that what is
being requested is the whole transit program, not just individual Departmental
components of the same program.
Councillor Hume
noted that maintenance of the transit fleet is currently carried out by the
Corporate Centre of Expertise which reports to the Corporate Services Committee
and the question that should be addressed is whether or not it is appropriate
that the person responsible for ensuring the bus fleet gets on the road, does
not report to the Director of Transit Services. He did not believe it was appropriate to have the revenue fleet
reporting and structured that way. He was
of the opinion that the centres of expertise create tremendous confusion and
does not serves transit particularly well.
The councillor suggested that the report being requested should not only
address the reporting relationship as it relates to Council, but the
fundamental question of who do these people report to, relative to the
organizational structure. On that note,
he believed the revenue fleet for OC Transpo should report to Mr. Diamond
because as a councillor, he holds the Director of Transit Services accountable. He suggested broadening the direction to
staff to include not only what committees it reports to, but the actual
structure of fleet services as it relates to the business units.
Moved by C. Doucet
That Transportation and Transit
Committee task senior management with preparing a report to show clearly why
important capital expenditures and related management reporting and
accountability structures, both for new stock and facilities as well as for
rehabilitation and replacement of existing stock and facilities, should
continue to be the responsibility of different committees of Council and
Departments.
CARRIED
Transition
Costs
Pg. 400
The Committee approved Items 1 and 2 under
Transportation, Utilities and Public Works.
That the Transportation and Transit Committee consider, for
recommendation to Council the 2001 Capital Program and 2002-2003 Capital
Forecast as presented to the Committee.
CARRIED
as amended
(R. Bloess dissented)
2. PROPOSED 2001
infrastructure rehabilitation program /
PROPOSITION DE PROGRAMME DE REMISE EN ÉTAT DE
L’INFRASTRUCTURE DE 2001
Ref
N°:ACS2001-TUP-INF-0007
That the Transportation and Transit Committee consider, for
recommendation to Council the Proposed 2001 Infrastructure
Rehabilitation Program report dated 19 March 2001 (ACS2001-TUP-INF-0004), Appendix
A, (received
and tabled with the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee on 21
March) as amended by the bolded changes in the
attached revised programs:
1. 2001 Proposed Integrated Road, Sewer and Water Program
2. 2001 Proposed Road Reconstruction Program
3. 2001 Proposed Resurfacing Program
4. 2001 Proposed New Initiatives Program (to be deleted)
5. 2001 Proposed Environmental Initiatives Program (moved to
Appendix ‘B’)
CARRIED
3. TEMPORARY
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT - 371 PRESTON
STREET /
PERMIS D’EMPIÈTEMENT TEMPORAIRE – 371, RUE PRESTON
Ref N°:ACS2001-CCS-TTC-0004
Councillor Arnold distributed copies
of her Motion, which reflected deletion of the restaurant name because it would
be changing in the future, as well as the change in the time the patio would be
required to close. She also submitted
copies of correspondence received in support of the proposed encroachment. This material is held on file
ASC2001-CCS-TTC-0004.
Moved by E. Arnold
That the Transportation and Transit Committee
recommend to Council that the General Manager of Transportation, Utilities and
Public Works be instructed to issue a temporary encroachment permit to allow an
outdoor patio within the Beech Street road allowance at 371 Preston Street, to
be reviewed on a yearly basis and renewed subject to no complaints from the
community regarding this operation and subject to the same conditions which are
applied to all outdoor patios for which temporary encroachment permits are
issued, in addition to the following conditions:
1. that this
outdoor patio shall be required to close at 12:00 a.m.;
2. that the General Manager of Transportation,
Utilities and Public Works report to the Transportation and Transit Committee
if any noise related complaints are received regarding the operation of this
outdoor patio; and
3. that in the event that the permit
is revoked or not renewed, the owner be required to reinstate the portion of
the public property occupied by the patio to the satisfaction of the General Manager
of Transportation, Utilities and Public Works.
CARRIED as amended
ADJOURNMENT
The Committee adjourned the
meeting at 2:35 p.m.
_________________________ _________________________
Committee Coordinator Chair
