Appendix B_Pages59to.. - Ligne de la Confédération

Transcription

TRANSIT TECHNOLOGY
• November 18, 2009 Transit Committee
• November 25, 2009 City Council
L’interprétation simultanée est offerte dans les deux langues
officielles pour toute question à l’ordre du jour si la demande
est faite au moins 24 heures à l’avance en téléphonant au
service d’information du comité visé.
Transit Committee
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES /
RATIFICATION DU PROCÈS-VERBAL
Comité du transport en commun
AGENDA 39 / ORDRE DU JOUR 39
Minutes 37 – 21 October 2009
Wednesday, 18 November 2009, 9:30 a.m.
Joint Minutes 11 - – Joint Transit and Transportation Committee Meeting – 8 October 2009
le mercredi 18 novembre 2009, 9 h 30
Procès Verbal 37 – 21 octobre 2009
Andrew S. Haydon Hall, 110 Laurier Avenue West
Procès-verbal conjoint 11 de la réunion du Comité du transport en commun et du Comité des
transports – 8 octobre 2009
Salle Andrew S. Haydon, 110, avenue Laurier ouest
COMMUNICATIONS
Committee Coordinator/Coordonnatrice du comité :
COMMUNICATIONS
Rosemary Nelson, 580-2424, ext. 21624 [email protected]
Committee Members / Membres du comité:
Chair / Président : Councillor / Conseiller A. Cullen
Vice-Chair / Vice-présidente : Councillor / Conseillère M. Wilkinson
Councillors / Conseillers G. Bédard, R. Bloess, C. Doucet, C. Leadman
Thompson
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
J. Legendre, D.
Responses to Inquiries: / Réponses aux demandes de renseignements:
TTC 14-09
Calling All Stops / Annonce de tous les arrêts
TTC 15-09
Route Displays / Affichage du circuit
TTC 16-09
Bayshore Transit Station – Increased Travel time for Express Buses / Station Bayshore –
Augmentation du temps de déplacement des autobus express
TTC 19-09
Transplan 2009 Ward 15 / Transplan 2009, quartier 15
TTC 20-09
NCC Commitment to Transportation Needs / Adequacy of the City’s Information on
Transportation Needs - Lansdowne Park Partnership Proposal
TTC 21-09
Costs to Renovate the Civic Centre/Dismantle Outdoor Stadium - Lansdowne Park
Partnership Proposal / Coûts nécessaires pour la rénovation du Centre municipal et le
démantèlement du stade extérieur – Proposition de partenariat du parc Lansdowne
TTC 23-09
Concerns re Bus Route 5 / Préoccupations concernant le circuit d’autobus no 5
DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT
You can read this document on line at http://www.ottawa.ca
Simultaneous interpretation in both official languages is
available for any specific agenda item by calling the
committee information number at least 24 hours in advance
of the meeting.
Ce document peut être consulté à
l’adresse électronique suivante: http://www.ottawa.ca
INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES & COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY
SERVICES D’INFRASTRUCTURE ET VIABILITÉ DES COLLECTIVITÉS
TRANSIT SERVICES
SERVICE DE TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN
1.
CANADIAN URBAN TRANSIT ASSOCIATION PRESENTATION – TRANSIT VISION
2040 – A BLUEPRINT FOR THE FUTURE
PRÉSENTATION DE L’ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE DU TRANSPORT URBAIN –
VISION DU TRANSPORT EN COMMUN 2040 – PLAN DÉTAILLÉ POUR L’AVENIR
CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
service de transport en commun aux secteurs en expansion de la ville de même que le
financement de ces services; et que le Conseil adopte un règlement de mise en oeuvre.
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER
DIRECTRICE MUNICIPALE ADJOINTE
4.
That the Transit Committee receive a verbal presentation on the above-noted subject.
RAIL SYSTEM SELECTION REPORT
RAPPORT SUR LA SÉLECTION D’UN SYSTÈME FERROVIAIRE
Que le Comité du transport en commun prenne connaissance d’une présentation
verbale au sujet susmentionné.
ACS2009-ICS-TRA-0017
13
That Transit Committee recommend that Council approve that the Rail technology for
the City’s Rapid Transit Plan be Light Rail Transit (LRT).
INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES & COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY
Que le Comité du transport en commun recommande au Conseil d’approuver que la
technologie ferroviaire pour le Plan de transport en commun rapide de la Ville soit celle
du transport en commun par train léger sur rail (TLR).
TRANSIT SERVICES
2.
PRIORITY SEATING – MANAGING THE FRONT OF THE BUS
CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
SIÈGES PRIORITAIRES – GESTION DE L’AVANT DE L’AUTOBUS
BUREAU DU DIRECTEUR MUNICIPAL
CITY CLERK’S BRANCH
01
DIRECTION DU GREFFIER MUNICIPAL
That the Transit Committee receive this report for information.
5.
Que le Comité du transport en commun prennent connaissance du présent rapport.
3.
EXPANSION OF URBAN TRANSIT AREA INTO NEW DEVELOPING AREAS
RAPPORT DE SITUATION - DEMANDES DE RENSEIGNEMENTS ET MOTIONS DU
COMITE DU TRANSPORT EN COMMUN POUR LA PÉRIODE SE TERMINANT LE 10
NOVEMBRE 2009
EXTENSION DU SECTEUR DE TRANSPORT URBAIN AUX ZONES EN VOIE
D’AMÉNAGEMENT
STATUS UPDATE – TRANSIT COMMITTEE INQUIRIES AND MOTIONS FOR THE
PERIOD ENDING 10 NOVEMBER 2009
08
That the Transit Committee recommend Council approve the revisions to the boundary
of the Urban Transit Area detailed in this report to be effective on January 1, 2010, to
provide for the provision and funding of transit service in expanding areas of the city,
and that Council enact an implementing By-law.
Que le Comité du transport en commun recommande au Conseil d’approuver les
révisions à la limite du secteur de transport urbain décrites dans le présent rapport de
façon qu’elles entrent en vigueur le 1er janvier 2010, afin d’assurer l’extension du
ACS2009-CMR-CCB-0064
17
Que le Comité du transport en commun prenne connaissance de ce rapport.
(f)
CITY OPERATIONS
OPÉRATIONS MUNICIPALES
en ce qui a trait au litige avec New Flyer.
ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE
DÉVELOPPEMENT ORGANISATIONNEL ET RENDEMENT
6.
QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORT TO COUNCIL, Q2: APRIL - JUNE 2009
RAPPORT TRIMESTRIEL SUR LE RENDEMENT PRÉSENTÉ AU CONSEIL POUR LE
2IÉME TRIMESTRE, AVRIL-JUIN 2009
ACS2009-CCS-TTC-0018
CITY WIDE / À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
les conseils qui sont protégés par le privilège du secret professionnel de l'avocat, y
compris les communications nécessaires à cette fin,
21
1.
That the Transit Committee receive this report for further review and discussion of the
service areas’ performance results, as outlined in Document 1.
Que le Comité du transport et commun reçoive le présent rapport aux fins d’un examen
plus approfondi et d’une discussion des résultats sur le rendement des secteurs de
service, tel qu’il est énoncé au Document 1.
IN CAMERA ITEMS*
NEW FLYER INDUSTRIES CANADA ULC BUSES DAMAGED BY DRAGGING
BRAKES – IN CAMERA – SOLICITOR-CLIENT PRIVILEGE – SETTLEMENT TO
RESOLVE LITIGATION MATTER - REPORTING OUT DATE: AFTER RESOLUTION
OF THE MATTER
AUTOBUS DE NEW FLYER INDUSTRIES CANADA ULC ENDOMMAGÉS PAR DES
PIÈCES DE FREIN TRAÎNANTES – À HUIS CLOS - SECRET PROFESSIONNEL DE
L’AVOCAT- RÈGLEMENT EN VUE DE RÉSOUDRE UNE QUESTION DE LITIGE –
DATE DE COMPTE RENDU : APRÈS LA RÉSOLUTION DE LA QUESTION
ACS2009-CMR-LEG-0028
POINTS EN HUIT CLOS*
That the meeting of the Transit Committee move In Camera, pursuant to Section 13 (1):
(a)
the security of the property of the City;
(e)
litigation or potential litigation, affecting the City, including matters before
administrative tribunals; and,
(f)
the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including
communications necessary for that purpose,
with regards to litigation with New Flyer.
Que la réunion du Comité des transports se déroule maintenant à huis clos, conformément à
l’alinéa 13 (1) :
(a)
la sécurité des biens de la Ville;
(e)
les litiges actuels ou éventuels ayant une incidence sur la Ville, y compris les questions en
litige devant les tribunaux administratifs; et,
* NOTICE / AVIS *
In Camera Items are not subject to public discussion or audience. Any person has a right to
request an independent investigation of the propriety of dealing with matters in a closed
session. A form requesting such a review may be obtained, without charge, from the City’s
website or in person from the Chair of this meeting. Requests are kept confidential pending
any report by the Meetings Investigator and are conducted without charge to the Requestor.
Les points indiqués à huis clos ne sont pas soumis aux audience ni aux discussions
publiques. Toute personne a le droit de demander une enquête indépendante sur la
légitimité de régler certaines questions au cours d’une séance à huis clos. Pour ce faire, le
demandeur put se procurer, sans frais, le formulaire approprié en visitant le site Web de la
Ville ou en s’adressant en personne auprès du président de la réunion en question. Les
demandes restent confidentielles dans l’attente du rapport éventuel de l’enquêteur et
n’entraînent aucuns frais pour le demandeur.
INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED
INFORMATION DISTRIBUÉE AUPARAVANT
A.
ELEVATORS AT TRANSIT STATIONS
Transit Committee
ASCENSEURS AUX STATIONS DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN
ACS2009-ICS-TRA-0016 IPD
B.
FOUR ADDITIONAL ARTICULATED BUSES FOR 2009 WITH NO ADDITIONAL
FUNDING
DISPOSITION 39 / SUITE A DONNER 39
Wedensday, 18 November 2009
QUATRE AUTOBUS ARTICULÉS POUR 2009 AYANT AUCUN FINANCEMENT
ADDITIONNEL
Le mercredi 18 novembre 2009
NOTICES OF MOTION (FOR CONSIDERATION AT SUBSEQUENT MEETING)
AVIS DE MOTION (POUR EXAMEN LORS D’UNE RÉUNION SUBSÉQUENTE)
Note: 1. Due to the urgency of Items 1, 3 and 4, Council will be requested to consider these items at its
meeting of 25 November 2009 in Transit Committee Report 33
INQUIRIES
2. Other reports requiring Council consideration will be presented to Council on 9 December
2009 in Transit Committee Report 33-A.
DEMANDES DE RENSEIGNEMENTS
OTHER BUSINESS
AUTRES QUESTIONS
Nota : 1. Compte tenu qu’il est urgent de traiter les articles 1, 3 et 4, on demandera au Conseil d’étudier
ces articles, contenu dans le rapport no 32 du Comité du transport en commun, lors de sa
réunion du 25 novembre 2009.
ADJOURNMENT
2. Les rapports nécessitant l’examen du Conseil seraient normalement présentés au Conseil le 9
décembre 2009 dans le rapport no 33-A du Comité du transport en commun.
LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE
NEXT MEETING
1.
CANADIAN URBAN TRANSIT ASSOCIATION PRESENTATION – TRANSIT VISION 2040 –
A BLUEPRINT FOR THE FUTURE
PROCHAINE RÉUNION
16 December 2009
Le 16 décembre 2009
PRÉSENTATION DE L’ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE DU TRANSPORT URBAIN – VISION
DU TRANSPORT EN COMMUN 2040 – PLAN DÉTAILLÉ POUR L’AVENIR
That the Transit Committee receive a verbal presentation on the above-noted subject.
Note: 1. Reports requiring Council consideration will normally be presented to Council on 9
December 2009 in Transit Committee Report 33.
Nota : 1. Les rapports nécessitant l’examen du Conseil seraient normalement présentés au
Conseil le 9 décembre 2009 dans le rapport no 33 du Comité du transport en commun.
RECEIVED
That the Transit Committee recommend that Council endorse CUTA’s Vision 2040 for putting
green transit at the centre of communities.
CARRIED
2.
NOVEMBRE 2009
That the Transit Committee receive this report for information as amended by the following:
1.
That the new stroller policy be amended so that:
RECEIVED
a.
An open stroller carrying a child must be placed in a wheelchair position if
available.
b.
Should a wheelchair position not be available, open strollers will be allowed in the
aisle unless they interfere with other passengers or with the safe movement of
passengers within the transit vehicle.
c.
6.
Should an open stroller be in a wheelchair position and a person using a wheelchair
boards and needs that position, the customer with the stroller will be required to
move.
That the Transit Committee receive this report for further review and discussion of the service
areas’ performance results, as outlined in Document 1.
RECEIVED
RECEIVED, as amended
INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED
3.
INFORMATION DISTRIBUÉE AUPARAVANT
D’AMÉNAGEMENT
CARRIED
That Transit Committee recommend that Council approve that the Rail technology for the
City’s Rapid Transit Plan be Light Rail Transit (LRT).
RECEIVED
5.
RECEIVED
B.
FOUR ADDITIONAL ARTICULATED BUSES FOR 2009 WITH NO ADDITIONAL
FUNDING
QUATRE AUTOBUS ARTICULÉS POUR 2009 AYANT AUCUN FINANCEMENT
ADDITIONNEL
ELEVATORS AT TRANSIT STATIONS
ASCENSEURS AUX STATIONS DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN
That the Transit Committee recommend Council approve the revisions to the boundary of the
Urban Transit Area detailed in this report to be effective on January 1, 2010, to provide for the
provision and funding of transit service in expanding areas of the city, and that Council enact
an implementing By-law.
4.
A.
STATUS UPDATE – TRANSIT COMMITTEE INQUIRIES AND MOTIONS FOR THE PERIOD
ENDING 10 NOVEMBER 2009
RECEIVED
Transit Committee
TTC 19-09
Transplan 2009 Ward 15 / Transplan 2009, quartier 15
TTC 20-09
NCC Commitment to Transportation Needs / Adequacy of the City’s Information on
Transportation Needs - Lansdowne Park Partnership Proposal
TTC 21-09
Costs to Renovate the Civic Centre/Dismantle Outdoor Stadium - Lansdowne Park
Partnership Proposal / Coûts nécessaires pour la rénovation du Centre municipal et le
démantèlement du stade extérieur – Proposition de partenariat du parc Lansdowne
TTC 23-09
Concerns re Bus Route 5 / Préoccupations concernant le circuit d’autobus no 5
MINUTES 39 / PROCÈS-VERBAL 39
Wednesday 18 November 2009, 9:30 a.m.
RECEIVED
le mercredi 18 novembre 2009, 9 h 30
INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES AND COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY
Andrew S. Haydon Hall, 110 Laurier Avenue West
Salle Andrew S. Haydon, 110, avenue Laurier ouest
Present / Présents : A. Cullen
(Chair
/
Président),
M.
Wilkinson
(Vice-Chair
Vice-présidente ), G. Bédard, R. Bloess, C. Doucet, C. Leadman, J. Legendre
Regrets / excuses:
/
D. Thompson
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
TRANSIT SERVICES
1.
CANADIAN URBAN TRANSIT ASSOCIATION PRESENTATION – TRANSIT VISION 2040 –
A BLUEPRINT FOR THE FUTURE
DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT
PRÉSENTATION DE L’ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE DU TRANSPORT URBAIN – VISION
DU TRANSPORT EN COMMUN 2040 – PLAN DÉTAILLÉ POUR
No declarations of interest were filed.
L’AVENIR
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES /
RATIFICATION DES PROCÈS-VERBAUX
Minutes 37 of the Transit Committee meeting of Wednesday, 21 October and Joint Minutes 11 of the Joint
Transit and Transportation Committee Meeting of 8 October 2009 were confirmed.
Michael W. Roschlau, President and CEO, Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA) provided a
PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is held on file. The objectives of the project are to:

Build a common view of the nature of change likely to take place in Canadian communities
by 2040
COMMUNICATIONS

Identify challenges and opportunities that changing communities may pose for transit
COMMUNICATIONS

Describe transit’s future role in providing mobility and economic, social and environmental
benefits

Identify strategic directions for the transit industry, government and other stakeholders
Responses to Inquiries: / Réponses aux demandes de renseignements:
TTC 14-09
Calling All Stops / Annonce de tous les arrêts
TTC 15-09
Route Displays / Affichage du circuit
TTC 16-09
Bayshore Transit Station – Increased Travel time for Express Buses / Station Bayshore –
Augmentation du temps de déplacement des autobus express
Councillor Bloess questioned whether CUTA gets involved with trying to identify emerging technologies
that cities can examine before making decisions in that regard. Mr. Roschlau explained that one of CUTA’s
roles is in information sharing, networking and making sure its members are at the cutting edge of what is
going on. He noted that each community is unique and the decisions that need to be made around the
specific approach to development expansion and technology are very local ones in terms of what meets the
specific needs of the community. CUTA does not get involved in decisions of that level, other than to
ensure members are aware of the choices and the pros and cons of each option.
Moved by C. Doucet
Whereas the City of Ottawa wishes to reduce its urban imprint and road construction and
reconstruction costs;
Whereas the Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA) Transit Vision 2040 is a necessary and
needed national vision that will help the City of Ottawa achieve its local transit and transportation
goals;
Be It Resolved that Council endorse CUTA’s vision for 2040 for putting green transit at the center of
communities.
CARRIED
2.
The following correspondence was received and is held on file :
a.
R. McGarry, Public Safety Canada e-mail dated 16 Nov (in support of proposed stroller
policy)
b.
L. Beamer e-mail dated 16 Nov (in support of proposed stroller policy)
c.
K. Ketchum e-mail dated 16 Nov (opposed to stroller policy)
d.
A. Mills e-mail dated 13 Nov (opposed to stroller policy)
The following correspondence was not received prior to the meeting but was distributed to all
members of the Committee. A copy is held on file:
e.
A. Markey e-mail dated 18 Nov (opposed to stroller policy)
Vicky Kyriaco, Manager, Transit Marketing and Customer Service gave a detailed overview to
outline and explain the reason for the proposed changes. With particular reference to the change in
the stroller policy, she confirmed that a driver would never refuse a person boarding with a stroller
during inclement weather. A copy of her presentation is held on file.
The committee received comments from the following delegations:
David Jeanes commended staff for the consultation work they put into this policy. He referred to the
positive experiences he has had on Route 16, which is a popular bus for people with disabilities and
mothers with strollers because it was one of the first low-floor routes in the system. He remarked
that the re-evaluation referred to in the staff presentation will be very important because people with
special needs must not be discouraged from using transit, particularly since the City is encouraging
many of the trends that are creating the need for parents with children to travel longer distances.
Mr. Jeanes was concerned that some people who are now successfully using the buses will be forced
off because they will be unable to meet these constraints, and he suggested that a careful watch of
the situation is important.
Jan Lam Spoke specifically to the proposed stroller policy. He said that as a frequent transit user, he
has witnessed a number of occasions where parents with strollers (as many as five strollers), block
the aisle of the bus. This is a hazard because they prevent the movement of passengers and decrease
the standing room on already crowded buses. He believed implementing a stroller policy would:
•
ensure the safety of all passengers
•
provide clarity for those who intend to bring a stroller on board
•
minimize passenger and operator disputes because everyone would be aware of what is and is
not permitted
Mr. Lam preferred having the strollers folded up before boarding and that they remain folded for the
duration of the trip, but he was willing to support staff’s proposed rules and guidelines to permit only
strollers that could be folded and that they be placed in the wheelchair position, provided there are no
wheelchair users on board. Prior to the policy being implemented and, to ensure it is implemented
smoothly, he encouraged having an extensive public awareness campaign.
Hannah Rogers, mother of a three year old and a three month old child, explained how difficult it would be
to fold her stroller prior to boarding because she would be carrying the youngest and have to fold the stroller
and keep watch on her other child at the same time. She uses an umbrella stroller as often as possible,
because they are smaller and easily folded, but these are not well equipped to move in snowy conditions and
therefore, during the winter months she opts for a more durable and larger stroller. She reminded
Committee members that many parents rely on the bus to take their kids to and from day care or school
every day, and this policy would create a serious impediment for them. She felt that single mothers and
lower-income people would be especially impacted because they often do not have the choice of using other
forms of transportation. She suggested finding a better solution, even if it means taking away some of the
seats at the front of the bus.
In response to a question posed by Councillor Bédard, Ms. Rogers advised that two strollers can usually fit
in one wheelchair bay and she hoped operators would allow that practice. She acknowledged that
sometimes strollers cannot be brought on board if the bus is too crowded or already has some on board, but
most of the time people are very obliging and she has witnessed very few problems.
Ms. Kyriaco interjected that provided the strollers are small enough, they can be double or triple parked in
the wheelchair bay; however, if a wheelchair user boards, those strollers would have to be folded and
stowed and the users would need to find seats.
When asked by Councillor Wilkinson to comment on the fact she would have to move from the wheelchair
bay if a wheelchair user boarded the bus, Ms. Rogers explained that people with strollers are very obliging
to people with wheelchairs when they get on, and she has not personally witnessed an incident to the
contrary. She did not agree with the suggestion to allow them to use the bay, until such time as a person
who is designated that space boards.
Councillor Legendre acknowledged that the problem is most difficult when the buses are crowded and
questioned whether parents with strollers choose to do their outings in off-peak hours as much as possible.
Ms. Rogers indicated that parents typically choose to avoid travelling on the bus during rush hour, but this is
not always possible. The councillor suggested the message could be reinforced to those using strollers to
avoid travelling during those peak times as much as possible.
Viviane Oser provided a visual presentation to demonstrate the challenges faced by a person using a
standard stroller in winter. As a social worker with low-income families she is opposed to the proposition
of a stroller policy because it targets such families who rely on public transit as their main mode of
transportation. In turn, they may not venture out during the winter months, leading to isolation and
depression. She was also concerned about allowing for only one open stroller at a time, because it might
mean a lengthy wait (this would be especially difficult during bad weather) for the parent who is unable to
board. She asked the Committee to plan for a way that welcomes everybody.
Councillor Bédard requested clarification that strollers in the wheelchair bay do not have to be folded if the
by is not full. Ms. Kyriako explained that the idea is to enforce the policy prior to boarding, so there is no
discussion once the stroller comes on board. The operator would evaluate whether there is a wheelchair
position available prior to the parent boarding so they can instruct the customer whether s/he could come on
board with an open or folded stroller. She further clarified that the policy is designed to keep strollers out of
the aisles because they impede the safe movement of passengers, including those with mobility devices.
She remarked that such devices and aids are covered under legislation.
Responding to additional concerns raised by the councillor, the General Manager advised that during
inclement weather, anybody will be accepted on board, as is the policy today and the operator has to manage
it afterward. However, what staff is recommending with this policy is that bus drivers will be trained to
explain to customers that they have to fold the strollers to come on board because there is no place available.
He went on to state that part of an operator’s training will reinforce that when a person boards with a
mobility device, including strollers, the driver is obligated to wait until that person is seated before pulling
away from the stop.
John Crysler, a resident of Centretown, expressed support for previous speakers who listed concerns about
the proposed stroller policy, adding that it sends a message to operators that people with strollers are less
welcome than others. He noted there are buses in other jurisdictions that have additional space for stowing
strollers and he was concerned that there has not been much vision shown in this process, and no attempt to
find a solution so that everyone can ride the bus safely and with some degree of comfort, rather than pitting
groups against each other.
Councillor Legendre inquired where parents are expected to stow their folded strollers and Ms. Kyriaco
advised that there is space behind the pads for wheelchair positions, as well as space under the seats. She
added that a stroller can be kept next to a person’s legs, which will keep it out of the aisles. The General
Manager confirmed that stowing a stroller on the storage area above the wheel well is not recommended as
it is high a stroller stored there could become a projectile on the bus.
Julie Begbie advised that she chose not to buy a second car for the family because OC Transpo serves here
transportation needs. However, if she is asked to fold and stow her stroller before boarding a bus, the
message she would take from that is ‘don’t bother, buy a car’. She acknowledged that there are other large
items, such as the grocery carts that take up room in the aisles and these are not addressed in the policy. She
pointed out that it would be nearly impossible to fit a standard type stroller underneath the seats and
suggested that doing so will only interfere with people already sitting on those seats and who will likely be
reluctant to move to allow someone to do this. She concluded by stating the policy does not solve the issue
and discourages people from using public transportation.
In response to questions posed by Councillor Leadman, Ms. Begbie advised that she usually rides Routes 1
and 2 on Bank and Somerset streets but tries to avoid peak periods when these routes are busiest. When she
wanted to board a bus with a stroller, the operators never refused her access and they are generally good to
let others know when a stroller is getting on or off. She remarked that there are often issues with standing
passengers being in her way after she boards the bus, because if she puts her stroller in the folded up
wheelchair bay, the operator allows more passengers in but then she gets blocked when trying to get out.
However, she noted that when she has to get out, the operators are normally helpful in facilitating the
process, and passengers are generally cooperative, even in rush hour.
Councillor Leadman asked staff how the policy would address the shopping carts referred to by the
delegation, noting these are most often used by seniors and present the same type of issue as strollers. Ms.
Kyriaco explained that shopping carts and other wheeled devices, not including mobility devices, were
originally included in the policy but when the advisory committees were consulted, they asked that shopping
carts not be included. In response to concerns expressed by the councillor, Mr. Mercier advised that while
everyone could sympathize with the tension surrounding this issue, some of the decisions that have been
made (e.g. the introduction of the new hybrid buses) will move out some of the older buses that have
narrower aisles. He reminded Committee that it will be very important for staff to monitor the situation, and
as things move forward, perhaps creating even more space will have to be the solution, as the needs on the
transit system are changing over time.
Daiva Greenidge explained that since she was diagnosed with breast cancer, she has faced challenges caring
for herself and her young daughter and the thought of not being able to bring her on the bus in the stroller
and having to hold her when she is not well herself is difficult to comprehend. She wondered how this
policy would affect pregnant women who also have young children in strollers. If the policy was put in
place, taking the bus would no longer be an option for her.
Brianne Marvin remarked that her young son is quite rambunctious so keeping him in the stroller on the bus
is more of a safety concern for her. She felt that limiting access to transit for youth with children will deter
their desire to continue going to school or to the programs that would benefit them. The transit system is a
huge benefit for young parents and people that do not have a lot of money. She remarked that she could
have given up on many things when she became a parent at 18, but having the transit system has helped her
a great deal to give back to the community and to be a successful person.
Councillor Chiarelli questioned whether there were times when Ms. Marvin actually abandoned trips or
didn’t get on the bus because of stroller issues and she advised that she had not, but she was aware of a lot
of other parents who had given up because their young children get uncomfortable when they have to stand
and wait at a bus stop for an extended length of time.
bar because a parent would not move her open stroller from the one wheelchair bay on the
bus
•
speaking from experience, and despite what they are being told, drivers do start to move
before someone with a mobility assistive device gets seated, or secured, in the case of a
wheelchair
•
the new decal does not portray a wheelchair, which could be interpreted that wheelchairs
were not welcome.
Catherine Gardner voiced the following concerns:
•
the Accessibility Advisory Committee considers strollers as wheelchairs
•
many parents with strollers will sit on the seats in the wheelchair bay and place the stroller in
front of them and sometimes the stroller is filled with groceries while the children are in the
bus seats; she believed the seat should be flipped up so the stroller can fit compactly into the
space
•
the next two rows behind what is now priority seating would also be considered priority
seating under this new policy and questioned why those seats could not also be flip-ups to
accommodate another stroller; if the policy is not effective, those seats would revert back to
general use, thereby taking away priority seating
•
people with strollers and disabilities do not want to be pitted against each other in their desire
for space at the front of the bus
•
questioned the legal ramifications if a young child incapable of supporting his/her head, is
injured as a result of the parent not being able to keep the child in the stroller
•
instead of spending $154,000 to put decals on the seats, she suggested putting them on the
walls or windows first to see if it would suffice and, if not, paint the bars and the back of the
seat in the priority seating area to make it stand out
•
the policy might lead to ‘stroller rage’, as parents with strollers and wheelchairs queue at
stops and know that the possibility of boarding or boarding without folding the stroller is
limited; there will be delays incurred while parents fold strollers as they are about to board,
causing anger with some passengers and affecting the timing of the route.
Councillor Wilkinson asked if staff had investigated having additional flip-up seats, as Ms. Gardner
suggests and Mr. Mercier advised that it would be an option to request a change to the seating
configuration when purchasing any future buses. For the current articulated fleet and the new hybrid
buses that are coming in, it would require a replacement of those seats. And, if the demand for the front
area of the bus continues to grow as it has been, it is one of the alternatives that will have to be
evaluated.
Daniel Oickle believed the policy was good because it calls for respect for all. He had the following points
to raise:
•
carrying a baby in a sling/carrier, as he and his wife had done with their son, would solve the
issue, with the child sitting on the parents lap when they are old enough to do so; he told of
one experience he had where he was forced to sit between the wheel wells and hold onto the
Chair Cullen read out the following Motions as proposed by Councillor Bédard:
1.
That the new stroller policy be amended so that ‘An open stroller carrying a child
must be placed in a wheelchair position if available.
Should a wheelchair position not be available, open strollers will be allowed in the
aisle unless they interfere with other passengers or with the safe movement of
passengers within the transit vehicle’.
2.
That the new stroller policy be amended so that “Should an open stroller be in a
wheelchair position and a person using a wheelchair boards and needs that position,
the customer with the stroller will be expected to move’.
Councillor Bédard indicated that the second Motion would only apply if the first Motion was approved,
because the way the policy states that if a person with a stroller is using the wheelchair area, they have to
fold their stroller. What would occur with this Motion is that the person could move into the aisle if it does
not interfere with other passengers.
Councillor Legendre asked for clarification with respect to the use of the Priority Seating Card.
Ms. Kyriaco explained that this card, which has been in existence for some time, is currently used by
anyone with a disability (including those with invisible disabilities) and staff encourages anyone who
requires priority seating to apply for that card. She confirmed that while it is not required as proof of need,
it is an additional tool to help customers communicate with others that they wish them to vacate the priority
seat for them. The councillor believed the card should not be emphasized in future communications, and
that greater emphasis be placed on using good manners and being cooperative.
Councillor Leadman made note of the fact that part of the $154,000 cost of implementing the policy is to put
decals on the seats and she asked whether a less expensive method of communicating the point had been
considered. Ms. Kyriaco explained that other methods had been considered, such as putting striped tape
along the bars, but the feedback received from the Bus Technical Advisory Committee was that it would
eventually get picked off by customers, leading to an incomplete look and a cleanliness issue. The idea is to
visibly demonstrate that a different type of activity occurs at the front part of the bus. The councillor asked
that staff bring back an annual report to the Committee on successes and issues to be addressed and the
General Manager advised that staff will look at it after a year to measure success in terms of improving the
environment and safety on the bus.
When asked to which advisory committee the public should speak to about issues related to this policy, the
Chair suggested that they approach the Pedestrian and Transit Advisory Committee to make their comments
known.
Councillor Wilkinson pointed out that the goal is to encourage more people to use the bus, and at the same
time taking on more users that need priority seating and she suggested the policy goes a little overboard in
that it discourages new people from coming on, which would affect growth. Mr. Mercier explained that the
intent of the policy is to create a larger area of the bus that is more conducive to individuals who need public
transit or who are supporting public transit. To meet the demand, the first step is to expand the front area
and provide a clear set of guidelines. He offered that riders generally do work together and tend to
cooperate.
The councillor remarked that the environment must not only be workable but also safe and she questioned,
therefore, the reason for requesting that a child be removed from the stroller so the stroller could be folded
before boarding. She felt this could potentially be dangerous and asked why the strollers could not simply
be folded, once the parent has boarded the bus. Ms. Kyriaco explained that while the communication about
folding and stowing occurs before the stroller is brought on board, the customer could wait until boarded to
do so; the operator would be advised to wait until that process has been completed before moving away
from the stop.
Councillor Wilkinson thought the policy should be changed so that the folding and stowing ‘should’ occur
on-board, not that it ‘could’. She also noted that the process would cause time delays and suggested there is
still some balancing to be done with both the policy and how the routes are designed. She would support
moving forward with making more seats available, but would not support allowing only one unfolded
stroller on a bus at any given time because it is quite difficult to fold many strollers.
When asked to comment on the first Motion, Mr. Mercier indicated that it reflects the current situation. The
reason staff brought the report forward is to try to move towards improving an environment that has led to
conflict and safety issues. The policy sets rules so the operator can give direction to a client and avoid the
situation where clients are arbitrating and the operator must try to sort out conflict after the fact on the bus.
In speaking to his first Motion, Councillor Bédard commented that the policy proposed by staff is rather
onerous, difficult and unacceptable for those with small children. He believed this Motion would satisfy
what staff is recommending in that strollers would have to use a wheelchair position if one is available, but
if it is not, the aisle could be used, so long as it did not hinder other passengers and their safe movement on
the bus. He added that it would still give the operator the authority to request a stroller to be folded and
stowed if the bus is too full.
Councillor Bloess inquired what this Motion would do for the operator and Ms. Kyriaco advised that
maintaining the status quo would mean the current problems will continue and the operator will continue to
get caught in the middle. She reiterated the fact that some buses are delayed because operators have to
negotiate with customers who are in disagreement about who gets the space.
Councillor Wilkinson was supportive of the Motion but suggested it should say there should be at least two
strollers in a wheelchair position where possible because the bays are big enough to accommodate two of
many types of strollers at a time. She was worried that the second part of the Motion puts too much onus on
the driver to continuously check whether there is enough space in the aisle to allow a stroller to remain
opened there. She said any stroller in an aisle completely blocks it and therefore automatically interferes
with other passengers. She requested that the Motion be divided for voting purposes and that it be further
amended by adding: “but must be given up immediately if a wheelchair comes on board” after the words “if
available”. Should that occur, she suggested that the stroller could stay on the bus.
Councillor Bédard asked staff to verify whether the present policy stipulates that an open stroller carried
onto a bus must be placed in a wheelchair position. Mr. Mercier confirmed that that is the current policy, as
is indicated by the current signage onboard. When asked whether the current policy allows open strollers in
the aisle, Mr. Mercier clarified that they are, at the operator’s discretion. The councillor suggested therefore
that in that case, there is no change in the new policy.
Conversely, the Chair posited that there are two changes: the change in terms of priority seating to another
program and, as part of that program, there must be space available for the stroller before an operator will
allow it on the bus. He added that that space is defined as use of the wheelchair position or folding and
stowing the stroller. Mr. Mercier confirmed this and explained that the proposed policy will obligate
parents with strollers to fold and stow if there is no space available, whereas the current policy leaves that at
the operator’s discretion and is not a consistent practice.
Councillor Bédard chose to proceed with his Motion, saying it is necessary to allow for opened strollers to
be brought on the bus, and if there is no wheelchair position available to still come on board opened,
provided that it does not interfere with the passengers or the safe operation of the vehicle. He posited that
asking that the stroller be folded before boarding would be more a problem than anything else.
The Chair remarked that the bus has a finite capacity, with competing demands for the limited space at the
front of the bus. He emphasized that the main complaint of passengers on the bus is the issue of strollers
blocking access and believed this policy is necessary to determine how to resolve conflicts when they occur,
not after the fact. He acknowledged that there is no dispute that accessibility on the bus should be provided
to all users. He explained that while the Committee did not have to accept the new policy, whereby the
status quo would continue, staff have provided an opportunity to try and ensure that the safety of passengers
and ease of access is a priority.
Moved by G. Bédard
That the new stroller policy be amended so that ‘An open stroller carrying a child must be placed in a
wheelchair position if available.
CARRIED
Should a wheelchair position not be available, open strollers will be allowed in the aisle unless they
interfere with other passengers or with the safe movement of passengers within the transit vehicle’.
CARRIED
YEAS (5):
R. Bloess, G. Bédard, J. Legendre, C. Leadman, C. Doucet
NAYS (2):
M. Wilkinson, A. Cullen
The Chair announced that the report would not rise to Council unless otherwise directed by Committee.
*
Note: At the time of this ruling, the Chair believed the matter would end at Committee, but was
advised by legal staff following the meeting that, as a result of the Motions adopted by the
Committee, which effectively amended an information report, there was a requirement to bring the
report forward to Council. The Chair later advised members of the Committee via e-mail that the
3.
With respect to his second Motion, the councillor amended it to read: “will be required to move” rather
than “will be expected to move”.
Moved by G. Bédard
That the new stroller policy be amended so that “Should an open stroller be in a wheelchair position
and a person using a wheelchair boards and needs that position, the customer with the stroller will be
required to move’.
CARRIED
Speaking to his Motion about de-emphasizing the Priority Access Card, Councillor Legendre suggested that
the success of this campaign would be on people cooperating with each other and showing good manners.
He stated that people need to be made aware that just because they bought a bus ticket or bus pass, it does
not allow them to be disrespectful or to inconvenience others who are in more need of a seat. He suggested
that for the proposed decal, the priority seating card graphic be replaced with a representation of a person
who might need priority seating.
Ms. Kyriaco reiterated the fact that this particular card was designed as a communication tool to assist
people who cannot easily verbalize their needs and to assist people with invisible disabilities to demonstrate
their eligibility for priority seating. Currently, the broader public do not know what this card is. Further,
having the priority seating decal is a communications tool for other passengers to recognize priority seating
and staff do not support removal of this particular depiction from the decal.
Some councillors deemed the card to be important and should in face be emphasized to ensure the general
public are made more aware of it. Councillor Legendre explained that his Motion speaks to the
communications aspect of this policy only.
Moved by J. Legendre
That the priority seating card not be emphasized in the communication campaign to be rolled out in
2010, specifically that reference to the priority seating card will be removed from the decals and
replaced by one of the following: person carrying a child, person using a walker, et cetera.
LOST
YEAS (1):
J. Legendre
NAYS (5):
R. Bloess, G. Bédard, C. Leadman, M. Wilkinson, A. Cullen
RECEIVED, as amended
D’AMÉNAGEMENT
Councillor Wilkinson agreed to put forward a Motion on behalf of Councillor Desroches,
recommending temporary removal of the River Bend community from the Urban Transit Area, and
that costs to operate transit service on River Road be funded from property taxes collected in Rural
Transit Area A, rather than the Urban Transit Area. The councillor was not in support of that
Motion, however.
Speaking to the Motion, Councillor Desroches explained that it is as a result of feedback from the
River Bend community, which is not subject to the same transit service as other areas of Riverside
South. He recognized there have been some operational difficulties in serving this community. He
noted that north of this community, there is an area that is not in the urban area and there are no
plans to bring it into the UTA. Therefore, the community feels they are being treated differently.
He indicated that his Motion speaks to the ‘temporary’ removal of the River Bend community, until
such time as some of the operational issues regarding service to the area are resolved.
Catherine Gardner supported the Motion and explained that she was aware of a couple of situations
where residents using Para Transpo to addresses in the community of River Road, were told they had
to start paying additional fare for the service (as much as five extra bus tickets in addition to the ones
she already had to pay). She wondered how the zones are being calculated and how it will impact
Para Transpo users, noting many users are forced to take Para because they cannot get safely to a bus
stop or are in an area that has only rural bus service, which is often not accessible.
In response to her query, Pat Scrimgeour, Manager, Transit Service Design verified that this report
does not address Para Transpo issues. The one change it would make is that a particular area
illustrated in Document 1 would now be in Zone 1 for Para Transpo fares, because it is part of the
UTA. That same area would no longer be in Zone 2 as it is today, as part of the Rural Transit Area.
He added that the areas recommended for change in the report are those where the Para Transpo fare
would be reduced to be the same as the rest of the UTA.
Chair Cullen asked staff to speak with Ms. Gardner offline to address her specific situation.
Speaking to the Motion, Councillor Wilkinson noted that there are certain policies that speak to
providing bus service to the UTA as it grows and this particular area already receives some peak
hour bus service. By comparison, a large area of her ward gets similar service, but pays full UTA
taxes. Therefore, she was not in favour of removing an area in the urban area, that has some service
now (and will get more as it develops and is integrated into Riverside South).
Councillor Bloess echoed this position, adding that he recalled the same situation occurring in the
east urban community where there were areas paying considerable transit taxes, and the solution was
to get service to or through the area as it grows.
While he understood these concerns, Councillor Desroches indicated that there is some significant work
required to improve the service there, e.g., getting lighting on the pathways in Claudette Cain Park; making
the connection to Riverside South; having a possible turn-around on River Road, et cetera, and he was
seeking some temporary tax relief for this community until such time as those pieces come together. He
noted there are several homes on River Road that are not considered part of the growing community of
Riverside South and he requested clarification that they not be brought in at this time. Mr. Scrimgeour
confirmed that the intention is to bring in new developed areas and not to make any change for the existing
rural residential properties along that section of River Road, south of Earl Armstrong.
Ernest McArthur, Legal Counsel, advised that before voting on the Motion, it should be amended to remove
the word “temporary” because the Motion would require an amendment to the By-law, and the By-law
cannot be amended temporarily. Unless there was a fixed term given, he advised that the word be removed.
Councillor Desroches agreed with the Chair’s suggestion to remove the word ‘temporarily’.
Moved by M. Wilkinson
WHEREAS the River Bend community in South Gloucester is remote from the rest of Riverside
South, separated by River Road, Claudette Cain Park, and a stormwater retention pond
AND WHEREAS the River Bend community has more in common with the adjacent older Honey
Gables community than it does with the rest of Riverside South
AND WHEREAS the River Bend community is presently part of the Urban Transit Area but does not
directly receive any more transit service than the adjacent Honey Gables community
AND WHEREAS property taxes to fund transit service and transit infrastructure should be collected
in the areas where residents benefit
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the boundaries of the Urban Transit Area be revised to
remove the River Bend community -- specifically, the properties with addresses on Riversedge
Crescent, Tewsley Drive, and Trailgate Street, and 622 and 636 River Road -- from the Urban Transit
Area and placed instead in Rural Transit Area A
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the costs to operate transit service on River Road be
funded from property taxes collected in Rural Transit Area A rather than the Urban Transit Area.
LOST
YEAS (0):
NAYS (4):
R. Bloess, C. Leadman, M. Wilkinson, A. Cullen
That the Transit Committee recommend Council approve the revisions to the boundary of the Urban
Transit Area detailed in this report to be effective on January 1, 2010, to provide for the provision
and funding of transit service in expanding areas of the city, and that Council enact an implementing
By-law.
CARRIED
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER
DIRECTRICE MUNICIPALE ADJOINTE
4.
Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability,
provided a brief overview of the item since it was last tabled at the Committee meeting of 21
October. A copy of the presentation is held on file.
Ms. Schepers further advised that the councillor sponsors (the Chair and Councillors Legendre,
Leadman and Bédard) met with staff to work on this report
David Jeanes, Transport 2000 expressed particular concern about the lack of public consultation on
this matter, noting the public had no access to the presentations made at the June technology
symposium; the staff presentation(s) given to the Committee have not been provided to any of the
public advisory groups; and, he was not aware if the Pedestrian and Transit Advisory Committee has
seen his material yet.
Mr. Jeanes was also concerned about having a single vehicle model fleet, adding that the expert
panel questioned this concept when they commented on the plan, because they felt a different
vehicle would be required for lower traffic to the south as compared to the east-west. Further, the
number of conclusions is based on looking at projects that have yet to happen, i.e., Evergreen in
Vancouver, a downtown transit tunnel in Calgary do not exist yet. Mr. Jeanes did not believe that
some statements belonged in the report, i.e., removing STO buses from downtown Ottawa and the
potential use of the Prince of Wales Bridge for those buses, because they are to be addressed in the
Interprovincial Transit Study, and there has been no public report or discussions on this matter.
Mr. Jeanes concluded his statements by reminding Committee that LRT is being introduced because
only rail can meet the capacity requirements of the downtown and it is the only way to control
soaring labour costs. However, he did not see enough discussion about this in the report.
When asked to comment on the delegation’s comments about having a single vehicle type fleet, Ms.
Schepers explained that having more than one type of vehicle raises the question of where they
would be housed and maintained. She offered that it also becomes problematic with the number of
spares that would have to be on hand in order to provide continual service. The City is fortunate that
the LRT technology being recommended can accommodate both higher and lower capacities.
In response to questions posed by Committee members, Mr. Jeanes did not believe having one
vehicle type would be of benefit because it would deny Council the advantages of other vehicle
types and new technologies (e.g., double-decker buses were acquired for use in the city to address a
specific need). He offered that European maintenance facilities service light rail vehicles from
different manufacturers in the same yards.
5.
STATUS UPDATE – TRANSIT COMMITTEE INQUIRIES AND MOTIONS FOR THE PERIOD
ENDING 10 NOVEMBER 2009
NOVEMBRE 2009
Mr. Jeanes also noted that the type of technology being recommended was not ‘catenary’ as
described by staff, because that term applies to the more intensive infrastructure normally found on
mainline electrified railways or on high speed sections of light rail. Ottawa’s LRT will operate with
a single conductor wire that would be very visually un-intrusive. When asked to comment on which
groups should have seen this report, he explained that it was on the published agenda for the agency
consultation group and the public consultation group for the DOTT, which was prior to the Open
House, but it was not actually presented at that Open House. In addition to PTAC, which he
mentioned earlier, it should have been presented at these venues, as well as the business consultation
group for the DOTT. He also suggested that because of the potential impact on the Interprovincial
Transit Study, it should go to the advisory committee for that group as well, since this report is
prejudging the outcome of that study.
Councillor Legendre made note of the fact that staff had responded to TTC Inquiry 24-09 which
spoke to an article in Le Droit, but stated it was not reflected as an inquiry that had been responded
to under “communications” on this agenda, nor was it reflected in this report so there was no
opportunity to discuss it. The Chair advised that the response was not sent out in time to meet the
cut-off time for the agenda and it would be listed on the next one.
The councillor indicated he wanted to see the new response that staff had prepared because the initial
one was inadequate.
David Gladstone made reference to the O-Train and it’s success and commented that Council should
be extending this service on existing railway lines rather than moving to a new technology. He
reminded Committee that the thousands of people that use the O-Train are not using buses through
the downtown core or using private automobiles. He could see no feasible replacement for the
current O-Train, and suggested that any kind of replacement is going to cause major disruptions.
RECEIVED
CITY OPERATIONS
The Chair noted that this report was tabled on 21 October to permit circulation. It was posted to the
City’s website and was part of the Public Open House on 26 October for the DOTT. He noted that
there was a technical briefing open to the media and councillors on 12 November and it is here
before the Committee after allowing almost a month for the public to review and provide their
feedback.
That Transit Committee recommend that Council approve that the Rail technology for the
City’s Rapid Transit Plan be Light Rail Transit (LRT).
OPÉRATIONS MUNICIPALES
ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE
DÉVELOPPEMENT ORGANISATIONNEL ET RENDEMENT
6.
CARRIED
Councillor Legendre referred to Measure 3 which reflected “On-time service performance” and interpreted
the text to the right of the table to reflect that there has been no progress in this particular area at all. The
General Manager advised that last April, the measurement was changed and they discovered that drivers are
always trying to focus on being on time - not early, not late and by doing that, the probability is that they
will be early sometimes because they are now being measured continuously to determine on-time
performance. And so, what they have been trying to do is to slow drivers down to get them to target a twominute late standard. The union has been very supportive of the message because it provides better service
and reduces the stress to the driver. He explained that if the driver is given a visual clue to be on time, more
often than not they are early from time to time and they plan to make some changes in the future to the
system but now they are in a major campaign to break the psychology of trying to be always on time
because it is impossible at all times. We would rather they run a couple of minutes late.
That the Transit Committee approve the addition of the Confidential Agenda
and the item contained therein for consideration by the Committee at today’s
meeting, pursuant to Section 84(3) of the Procedure By-law (being By-law No.
2006-462).
CARRIED
Responding to a question on the matter by Councillor Bloess, Mr. Mercier explained that they are taking the
actual time at all aspects of the route to examine the reliability of each trip in the system and adjusting
schedules accordingly. It has been discovered that some routes have too much slack at times so the drivers
have to really slow down to stay on time and they now have the data to calibrate them properly and should
result in marked improvement by April both in service design and in operating practices.
In response to questions posed by Councillor Wilkinson, Mr. Mercier explained that they are meeting the
service requirements to a much greater extent, although it is still not where they would like it to be because
there are 16% more trips in the system. He added that having more buses in the system has made it more
robust and customers are generally seeing a more reliable service.
That the Transit Committee receive this report for further review and discussion of the service areas’
performance results, as outlined in Document 1.
RECEIVED
1.
NEW FLYER INDUSTRIES CANADA ULC BUSES DAMAGED BY DRAGGING BRAKES –
IN CAMERA – SOLICITOR-CLIENT PRIVILEGE – SETTLEMENT TO RESOLVE
LITIGATION MATTER - REPORTING OUT DATE: AFTER RESOLUTION OF THE MATTER
AUTOBUS DE NEW FLYER INDUSTRIES CANADA ULC ENDOMMAGÉS PAR DES PIÈCES
DE FREIN TRAÎNANTES – À HUIS CLOS - SECRET PROFESSIONNEL DE L’AVOCATRÈGLEMENT EN VUE DE RÉSOUDRE UNE QUESTION DE LITIGE – DATE DE COMPTE
RENDU : APRÈS LA RÉSOLUTION DE LA QUESTION
ACS2009-CMR-LEG-0028
CARRIED
LAUNCH OF NEW OC TRANSP WEBSITE
Vicky Kyriaco, Manager, Transit Marketing and Customer Service gave a brief demonstration of OC
Transpo’s new website. She advised that customer feedback had been positive.
TRANSIT RIDERSHIP
The General Manager of Transit Services provided a brief update on ridership statistics. He advised
that their budget was based on returning to the fall of 2008 service levels and they are within 1% of
their ridership trend they had committed to Committee and Council.IN CAMERA ITEMS POINTS EN HUIT CLOS
That the item be deferred to the next meeting.
AUTRES QUESTIONS
8.
OTHER BUSINESS
7.
INQUIRIES
DEMANDES DE RENSEIGNEMENTS
Councillor Wilkinson submitted the following:
Why student passes are not available to full time students studying at private institutions, e.g. the academy
of Massage and Health Education? Would OC Transpo permit such institutions to be added to the list now
used (OSAP list) based on an application, a certified copy of the private college registration, credited
financial statement etc?
Could OC Transpo review route 63 which goes through the Park and Ride in the morning but not in the
afternoon causing longer times in the morning and confusion from afternoon users when it leaves Hwy 417
at Terry Fox - and consider having it go directly to downtown in the morning, bypassing the Eagleson Park
& Ride? The bus drivers on that route should be asked for their views on this as well.
Report to/Rapport au :
ADJOURNMENT
LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE
Transit Committee
The meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
and Council / et au Conseil
20 October 2009 / le 20 octobre 2009
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/Directrice municipale adjointe,
Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability/Services d 'infrastructure et Viabilité des
collectivités
Contact Person/Personne ressource : Alain Mercier, General Manager/Directeur général, Transit Services/
Services de Transport en commun
613-842-3636 x2271, [email protected]
City Wide/à l'échelle de la Ville
Original Signed by
Original Signed by
R. Nelson
Councillor A. Cullen
Ref N°: ACS2009-ICS-TRA-0017
SUBJECT:
RAIL SYSTEM SELECTION
OBJET :
RAPPORT SUR LA SELÉCTION D’UN SYST ÈME FERROVIAIRE
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That Transit Committee recommend that Council approve that the Rail technology for the City’s Rapid
Transit Plan be Light Rail Transit (LRT).
RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité du transport en commun recommande au Conseil d’approuver que la technologie
ferroviaire pour le Plan de transport en commun rapide de la Ville soit celle du transport en commun
par train léger sur rail (TLR).
Committee Coordinator
Chair
BACKGROUND
The selection of the appropriate rail system technology for the City of Ottawa is a major component of the
2008 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) process.
To select the appropriate transit system for the City of Ottawa a set of principles that reflect the goals of the
Council approved TMP were applied. The recommended rail system technology must:
DISCUSSION
The Delcan rail technology study compares the two rail technology options based on a set of criteria that
reflected the above noted principles. The following table summarizes the comparison of the technology
options:
•
Accommodate the predicted passenger volumes: Ensuring that operational efficiency and running
costs are optimized.
•
Provide conditions to easily implement the first increment and all subsequent phases of the system.
•
Fit into Ottawa’s urban environment: Ensuring that the vehicle and system design support achieving
the City’s urban and environmental vision.
Criteria
Description
Light
Metro
LRT
Manual
Driver
Automated
Driverless
•
Minimize capital costs: To ensure that stakeholders and citizens have a good return on investment.
>20,000 pphpd
Best
Fair
Poor
Best
•
Minimize the lifetime operating and maintenance costs while maximizing ridership: Ensuring low
fares and taxes.
Maximum
passenger capacity
in the core
Low passenger
capacity in the
extensions
>5,000 pphpd
Good
Best
Good
Poor
Poor
Best
Required
N/A
•
Be able to respond to future land use changes within the City: Providing flexibility of operations to
accommodate future city planning and operational changes.
•
Take advantage of the most current proven technologies: Providing operational efficiencies and high
reliability.
•
Be proven in service: Minimizing implementation risk and increasing operational reliability.
•
Be suitable for the climate in Ottawa: Ensuring that the vehicle can withstand the weather extremes
in Ottawa.
Ability to build a
non-segregated
system in lowdensity areas
Comparative total
system capital cost
All Phase 1
network,
infrastructure
and vehicle fleet
Good
Best
Good
Fair
Comparative life
time operating and
maintenance costs
All Phase 1
network,
infrastructure
and vehicle fleet
Best
Good
Poor
Good
Proven in service
At least 5 years
in revenue
service
Good
Good1[1]
Good
Good1
Suitable for the
climate in Ottawa
Operated in a
climate similar
to Ottawa
Good
Good
Good
Good
June Technology Forum
On June 19 and 20, 2009 the City hosted a LRT Technology Forum to discuss light rail transit technology
options in the development of the new transit vision. The Forum brought together representatives of
manufacturers and transit agencies from across North America to discuss various types of transit systems,
best practices and lessons learned, with the objective of identifying optimal rail technology solutions for
Ottawa. This event was attended by a number of City Councillors, senior City staff, and a number of key
stakeholders from various federal, provincial and municipal agencies (NCC, Transport Canada,
Infrastructure Ontario, Société de transport de l’Outaouais, etc)
This forum also gave an opportunity for the public to participate in mini-workshops to help define the goals
and requirements of the system that helped form the principles necessary for successful rail technology
selection.
The result of this technology forum was the identification of the two rail technology options appropriate for
City of Ottawa for further consideration: Light Rail Transit (LRT) and a Light Metro technology.
To determine which rail technology will best serve the City’s future transportation needs the City
commissioned Delcan to undertake a study to examine the rail technology options – LRT and Light Metro –
and also to consider whether the systems should incorporate a driverless or driver-based operational control
technology.
1[1]
In order to meet the 2031 core capacity requirement, the vehicles associated with the LRT
system will require operation with less distance between them. This requires a modern Automatic Train Control (ATC) system
based on a Communications Based Train Control (CBTC) system.
The study reveals that the implementation of a high capacity Light Metro style system could, as LRT is
implemented in suburban areas, divide Ottawa’s transportation network which would result in a fragmented
network. This dual mode network is not desirable given the overall associated costs.
The choice of a Light Metro system would effectively increase overall lifecycle costs due to the higher
capital costs of segregation in the western corridor, which would offset any operational efficiencies.
In contrast, an LRT system permits a more efficient capacity match for the ridership prediction throughout
the main core and outlying regions maximizing the overall flexibility in continuing to grow the system up to
and beyond 2031.
The LRT system provides capacity in the downtown core, but will necessitate the use of automatic operation
to maintain operational efficiency with higher ridership in later years.
The rail systems technology recommendation also reflects Council’s direction in approving the North-South
LRT EA and the Riverside South Community Design Plan (CDP). These documents identified the
technology selection for the future North South Corridor as LRT. The integration of this technology to the
Tunney’s Pasture to Baseline corridor was an important consideration in the development of a technology
recommendation.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Once implemented, as shown in the Transit Services 10-Year Tactical Plan, the implementation of the rapid
transit plan will realize $25 Million annual operational saving.
The rapid transit plan, in concert with future Council decisions, will combine to realize the $100 Million in
annual operating savings identified in the Transit Services 10-Year Tactical Plan and the goal set out in the
City’s fiscal framework of moving to a 55 per cent revenue/cost ratio.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1
October 2009 Rail System Selection Study prepared by Delcan
DISPOSITION
With Council approval, staff will continue the development of the City’s Rapid Transit Plan with LRT as
the technology for implementation.
In conclusion, Light Rail (LRT) is recommended as the preferred technology choice for deployment in
Ottawa as it:
•
Has less impact on the urban fabric and allows the ability to integrate both non-segregated and
segregated systems
•
Provides the necessary capacity for the ridership predictions in the main core,
•
Can accommodate low passenger capacity in the extensions outside of the main core,
•
Has lower total system capital costs than Light Metro,
•
Can accommodate Ottawa weather conditions
CONSULTATION
Public consultation on the design principles was sought as part of the June 2009 LRT Technology Forum.
At the same forum, representatives of manufacturers and transit agencies from across North America were
consulted. Tabling this report will provide an opportunity for the public to comment on the recommendation
as part of the October 26, 2009, DOTT Open House and at the November 18, 2009, Transit Committee
meeting.
OTTAWA CITY COUNCIL
25 NOVEMBER 2009
ANDREW S. HAYDON HALL
10:00 a.m.
AGENDA 79
1.
Prayer
2.
National Anthem (Councillor J. Harder)
3.
Announcements/Ceremonial Activities
LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
There are no legal/risk management impediments to the tabling of this report at the Transit Committee
meeting of October 21, 2009.
•
Recognition - École Polytechnique Day of Remembrance in Ottawa
•
Recognition - Announcement of the City of Ottawa's Official Olympic Torchbearer
4.
Roll Call
5.
Confirmation of Minutes
Confirmation of Minutes of the special meeting of 12, 13 and 16 November 2009 and the regular and In
Camera meetings of 16 and 17 November 2009.
6.
Declarations of interest including those originally arising from prior meetings
7.
Communications
•
That Council receive the following report: 2009 Interim Follow-up to the 2008 Audit of the
Parking Function.
3.
Responses to Inquiries
•
8.
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL (OAG) - AUDIT OF THE INCREMENTAL COSTS
OF THE TRANSIT STRIKE 2008-2009
BUREAU DU VÉRIFICATEUR GÉNÉRAL (BVG) - VÉRIFICATION DE L'INCIDENCE
FINANCIÈRE DE LA GRÈVE DES TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN 2008-2009
17-09 – Annual Spending on First Aid Training
Regrets
Councillor C. Leadman (City Business) has advised she will be absent from the Council meeting of
25 November 2009.
That Council receive the following report: Audit of the Incremental Costs of the Transit Strike
2008-2009.
9.
Tabling of the following reports from the City Auditor General:
1.
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL (OAG) - 2008 ANNUAL REPORT AND 2008
DETAILED AUDIT REPORTS
BUREAU DU VÉRIFICATEUR GÉNÉRAL (BVG) - RAPPORT ANNUEL DE 2008 ET
RAPPORTS DE VÉRIFICATION DÉTAILLÉS 2008
10.
Motion to Introduce Reports
(Councillors G. Bédard and S. Desroches)
City Clerk and Solicitor
1.
STATUS UPDATE - COUNCIL INQUIRIES AND MOTION FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 28
OCTOBER 2009
RAPPORT DE SITUATION – DEMANDES DE RENSEIGNEMENTS ET MOTIONS DU
CONSEIL POUR LA PÉRIODE SE TERMINANT LE 28 OCTOBER 2009
1. That Council receive and table the 2008 Annual Report and 2008 Detailed Audit Reports
from the OAG at its meeting on November 25, 2009, for referral to the appropriate
Standing Committee, and for subsequent consideration and approval of the audit
recommendations by Council at a meeting in 2010 once budget deliberations have been
completed.
That Council receive this report for information.
Committee Reports
2. That Council receive, in-camera, confidential portions of the Audit of Traffic Operations and the
Audit of Moonlighting and Corporate Risk Issues - Traffic Operations Division, as those portions
of information should not be publicly disclosed in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of
Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA).
3. That Council, after consideration and approval, refer all audit recommendations where
management is in disagreement to the Audit, Budget and Finance (ABF) Committee,
including those recommendations where management has indicated agreement, and where
the OAG considers that discussion is still required at ABF Committee.
2.
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL (OAG) 2009 INTERIM FOLLOW-UP TO THE 2008
AUDIT OF THE PARKING FUNCTION
BUREAU DU VÉRIFICATEUR GÉNÉRAL (BVG) - SUIVI INTÉRIMAIRE 2009 DE LA
VÉRIFICATION DE LA FONCTION STATIONNEMENT DE 2008
COMMUNITY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORT 47
2.
CRIME PREVENTION OTTAWA – STRATEGIC PLAN 2010-2012, ACTION
REPORT 2008-2009; REPORT ON THE OUTCOMES OF THE 2008 CPO
FUNDED PROJECTS AND REPORT ON CPO FUNDING ALLOCATIONS
2009
PRÉVENTION DU CRIME OTTAWA – PLAN STRATÉGIQUE 2010-2012,
RAPPORT D’ENQUÊTE 2008-2009; RAPPORT SUR LES RÉSULTATS DES
PROJETS FINANCÉS PAR PCO EN 2008 ET RAPPORT SUR LES
ALLOCATIONS DE FONDS DE PCO DE 2009
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
That Council:
1.
Receive this report for information
2.
Approve a change to the Crime Prevention Ottawa Terms of Reference increasing the
number of members of the Board of Directors from 12 to 13;
3.
PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT, BUILDING CODE SERVICES
BRANCH - DELEGATED AUTHORITY - SIGN MINOR VARIANCES
URBANISME ET GESTION DE LA CROISSANCE, SERVICES DU CODE DU
BÂTIMENT- DÉLÉGATION DE POUVOIRS - DÉROGATION MINEURE AU
RÈGLEMENT SUR LES ENSEIGNES
COMMUNITY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORT 47A (IN CAMERA)
1.
APPOINTMENT TO THE CRIME PREVENTION OTTAWA BOARD OF
DIRECTORS – IN CAMERA – PERSONAL MATTERS ABOUT AN
IDENTIFIABLE INDIVIDUAL
That Council:
1.
NOMINATION AU CONSEIL D’ADMINISTRATION DE PRÉVENTION DU
CRIME OTTAWA– À HUIS CLOS – DISCUSSION DE NATURE
PERSONNELLE SUR UNE PERSONNE RECONNAISSABLE
To be dealt with In Camera.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE REPORT 60A
1.
2.
RESIDENTIAL FLOOD RELIEF
AIDE AUX VICTIMES DES INONDATIONS RÉSIDENTIELLES
Approve an amendment to the Permanent Signs on Private Property By-law to
authorize the Director of Building Code Services to approve minor variances for signs
provided that:
(a)
the Director take into consideration the process outlined in this report, and,
(b)
the Ward Councillor of the ward in which the sign, subject of the application for
minor variance, is located supports the minor variance and has not lifted the
delegated authority.
CONFIRM
PROCESS
VARIANCES AS SET OUT IN THIS REPORT.
THE RECOMMENDED
FOR REVIEW AND CONSULTATION FOR SIGN MINOR
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE REPORT 61
ZONING - 3628 NAVAN ROAD
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED
ZONAGE - 3628, CHEMIN NAVAN
That Council approve:
1.
2.
3.
The Residential Compassionate Grant Policy for Sewer Backups as a Result of a
Significant Rainfall Event as set forth in document 1;
That Staff be directed to prepare an application form for this grant as well as information for
the website and for those inquiring about the grant program and publicize the availability of
this grant and its immediate deadlines;
(This matter is subject to Bill 51)
1.
An amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to extend the temporary use zoning of part of
3628 Navan Road from DR[1606] - Development Reserve Zone, Exception 1606 to
DR[1606] - Development Reserve Zone, Exception 1606, for an additional two years, as
shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 2.
2.
That the City Solicitor obtain an order for operations at the Navan Recycling Yard to
cease and desist immediately should the MOE suspend or revoke Certificate of Approval
#4414-782KX9 permitting and governing the use".
That this grant program be funded from the Wastewater Reserve Fund.
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW
CORRECTIONS - NINTH REPORT
2008-250:
ANOMALIES
AND
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
MINOR
That Council approve the revisions to the boundary of the Urban Transit Area detailed in this
report to be effective on January 1, 2010, to provide for the provision and funding of transit
service in expanding areas of the city, and that Council enact an implementing By-law.
RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE GÉNÉRAL 2008-250 : ANOMALIES ET CORRECTIONS
MINEURES – NEUVIÈME RAPPORT
3.
The amendments recommended in Column 3 of Document 1, to correct anomalies in Zoning By-law
2008-250, as amended by the following:
a.
The addition of Item 23 (85 Range Road) to Document 1, and the addition of the associated
location map to Document 2;
b.
The insertion of the location map of 4269 Limebank Road in Document 2, immediately
following the map for 491, 495 Richmond Road;
c.
That there be no further notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
That Council approve that the Rail technology for the City’s Rapid Transit Plan be Light
Rail Transit (LRT).
11.
That Council approve the Bulk Consent Agenda attached as Document 1.
12.
CANADIAN URBAN TRANSIT ASSOCIATION PRESENTATION – TRANSIT
VISION 2040 – A BLUEPRINT FOR THE FUTURE
PRÉSENTATION DE L’ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE DU TRANSPORT
URBAIN – VISION DU TRANSPORT EN COMMUN 2040 – PLAN DÉTAILLÉ
POUR L’AVENIR
Motion to Adopt Reports
TRANSIT COMMITTEE REPORT 33
1.
Bulk Consent Agenda
13.
Notices of Motion (For Consideration at Subsequent Meeting)
14.
Notice of Intent from the City’s Meeting Investigator to submit an investigation report for
consideration at the 9 December 2009 Council meeting.
15.
Motion to Introduce By-laws
Three Readings
a)
A by-law of the City of Ottawa to amend By-law No. 2002-521 to add the names of certain private
roadways.
b)
A by-law of the City of Ottawa to amend By-law No. 2009-95 regarding parkland dedication.
c)
A by-law of the City of Ottawa to change the name of a municipal highway in the City of Ottawa
(Big Horn Way; Keatley Road; Ottawa Road 29).
d)
A by-law of the City of Ottawa to designate certain lands at 153 Salisbury Street as being exempt
from Part Lot Control.
e)
A by-law of the City of Ottawa to designate certain lands at 401 and 415 Piccadilly Avenue as being
exempt from Part Lot Control.
f)
A by-law of the City of Ottawa to designate certain lands at 1210 Merivale Road as being exempt
from Part Lot Control and to repeal By-law No. 2009-316.
That Council endorse CUTA’s Vision 2040 for putting green transit at the centre of
communities.
2.
D’AMÉNAGEMENT
g)
A by-law of the City of Ottawa to amend By-law No. 2008-250 of the City of Ottawa to change the
zoning for the property known municipally as part of 3628 Navan Road.
h)
A by-law of the City of Ottawa to amend By-law No. 2005-439 respecting permanent signs on
private property.
i)
OTTAWA CITY COUNCIL
zoning for the neighbourhood of Merivale Gardens and the properties known municipally as 471,
473, 491 and 495 Richmond Road, 4269 Limebank Road, 329 March Road, 4048 Carling Avenue,
part of 200 Somerset Street, 492,506, 508, 510, 512, 514, 530, 538, 544 and part of 10 Rideau Street,
172 and 174 Cobourg Street, 2115, 2127, 2131 and 2147 Belcourt Boulevard, 3686 and 3688 Navan
Road, 55 Colonel By Drive, and to correct anomalies in the by-law.
25 NOVEMBER 2009
ANDREW S. HAYDON HALL
10:00 a.m.
j)
zoning for the property known municipally as part of 85 Range Road.
16.
Confirmation By-law (Councillors G. Bédard and S. Desroches)
The Council of the City of Ottawa met at Andrew S. Haydon Hall, 110 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa, on 25
November 2009 beginning at 10:00 a.m.
17.
Inquiries
The Mayor, Larry O’Brien presided and the Deputy City Clerk led Council in prayer.
18.
Adjournment (Councillors G. Bédard and S. Desroches)
The National Anthem was performed by Roshan Karavally.
MINUTES 79
Announcements/Ceremonial Activities
RECOGNITION - ÉCOLE POLYTECHNIQUE DAY OF REMEMBRANCE IN OTTAWA
Simultaneous interpretation of these proceedings is available.
Please speak to the attendant at reception.
The Mayor declared December 6, 2009 as École Polytechnique Day of Remembrance in the City of Ottawa.
Erin Williams, Executive Director, Ottawa Coalition to End Violence Against Women and Valerie Collicott,
Women’s Events Network, accepted the framed proclamation from the Mayor.
RECOGNITION - ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE CITY OF OTTAWA'S OFFICIAL OLYMPIC
TORCHBEARER
Mayor O’Brien announced that Mélissa Brunet, a resident of Blackburn Hamlet and the recipient of the 2009
Citizen of the Year – Youth Award, had been selected as the City of Ottawa’s Official Olympic Torchbearer.
NOTICE
Roll Call
In Camera Items are not subject to public discussion or audience. Any
person has a right to request an independent investigation of the
propriety of dealing with matters in a closed session. A form requesting
such a review may be obtained, without charge, from the City’s website
or in person from the Chair of this meeting.
Requests are kept
confidential pending any report by the Meetings Investigator and are
conducted without charge to the Requestor.
ALL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT EXCEPT COUNCILLOR C. LEADMAN.
Confirmation of Minutes
The Minutes of the special meeting of 12, 13 and 16 November 2009 and the regular and In Camera meetings
of 16 and 17 November 2009 were confirmed.
Declarations of interest including those originally arising from prior meetings
No declarations were received.
Communications
The following communications were received:
•
1.
Responses to Inquiries
•
17-09 – Annual Spending on First Aid Training
Regrets
2.
That Council receive, in-camera, confidential portions of the Audit of Traffic
Operations and the Audit of Moonlighting and Corporate Risk Issues - Traffic Operations
Division, as those portions of information should not be publicly disclosed in accordance
with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA).
Councillors C. Leadman (City Business) advised she would be absent from the Council meeting of 25
November 2009.
Motion to Introduce Reports
3.
MOTION NO. 79/1
That Council receive and table the 2008 Annual Report and 2008 Detailed Audit
Reports from the OAG at its meeting on November 25, 2009, for referral to the
appropriate Standing Committee, and for subsequent consideration and approval of the
audit recommendations by Council at a meeting in 2010 once budget deliberations have
been completed.
Moved by Councillor G. Bédard
That Council, after consideration and approval, refer all audit recommendations where
management is in disagreement to the Audit, Budget and Finance (ABF) Committee,
including those recommendations where management has indicated agreement, and
where the OAG considers that discussion is still required at ABF Committee.
Seconded by Councillor S. Desroches
MOTION NO. 79/2
That the report from the Auditor General entitled “Office of the Auditor General (OAG) - 2008
Annual Report And 2008 Detailed Audit Reports”, be received and tabled.
And that the reports from the Auditor General entitled “Office of the Auditor General (OAG) 2009
Interim Follow-Up to the 2008 Audit of the Parking Function” and “Office of the Auditor General
(OAG) - Audit of the Incremental Costs of the Transit Strike 2008-2009”, the report from the City
Clerk and Solicitor entitled “Status Update – Council Inquiries and Motions for the Period Ending 28
October 2009”, Community and Protective Services Committee Reports 47 and 47A (In Camera),
Planning and Environment Committee Report 60A, and Transit Committee Report 33 be received
and considered;
And That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to receive and consider Planning and Environment
Committee Report 61, because of the urgency of the matters contained therein (specific reasons for each
item set out below).
(Item 1 - if not approved by Council on November 25, the current temporary use by-law will expire
before the new temporary by-law is passed. Item 2 – because it corrects a zoning change not intended by
Council, and this should be carried out as quickly as possible.)
CARRIED
City Auditor General
1.
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL (OAG) - 2008 ANNUAL REPORT AND 2008
DETAILED AUDIT REPORTS
BUREAU DU VÉRIFICATEUR GÉNÉRAL (BVG) - RAPPORT ANNUEL DE 2008 ET
RAPPORTS DE VÉRIFICATION DÉTAILLÉS 2008
BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council resolve In Camera pursuant to Procedure By-law 2006-462,
Subsections 13.(1) (b) personal matters about an identifiable individual, including staff, (d) labour
relations or employee negotiations, and (f) the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-and- client
privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, with respect to the confidential portions
of the Audit of Traffic Operations and the Audit of Moonlighting and Corporate Risk Issues - Traffic
Operations Division included in the Auditor General’s report - Office of the Auditor General - 2008
Annual Report and 2008 Detailed Audit Reports.
CARRIED
Council resolved In Camera at 12:15 p.m.
IN CAMERA SESSION
IN COUNCIL
Council resumed in open session at 1:55 p.m.
Upon resuming in open session, Mayor O’Brien indicated Council had met In Camera to receive a briefing
from the Auditor General and the City Clerk and Solicitor on matters related to the confidential portions of
the Audit of Traffic Operations and the Audit of Moonlighting and Corporate Risk Issues - Traffic
Operations Division included in the Auditor General’s report - Office of the Auditor General - 2008 Annual
Report and 2008 Detailed Audit Reports. There were no votes taken other than to give direction to staff or
to deal with procedural matters.
The City Auditor General’s report Office Of The Auditor General (OAG) - 2008 Annual Report And 2008
Detailed Audit Reports, was then put to Council and RECEIVED, TABLED and REFERRED by the following
Motion:
City Clerk and Solicitor
1.
STATUS UPDATE - COUNCIL INQUIRIES AND MOTION FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 28
OCTOBER 2009
MOTION NO. 79/3
RAPPORT DE SITUATION – DEMANDES DE RENSEIGNEMENTS ET MOTIONS DU
CONSEIL POUR LA PÉRIODE SE TERMINANT LE 28 OCTOBER 2009
Moved by Councillor S. Qadri
Seconded by Councillor J. Harder
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Audits be referred to the appropriate Standing
Committee for review and that the City Clerk and Solicitor work with the Auditor General, the
City Manager and Committee Chairs to determine the Committee routing, and inform Council as
soon as the schedule is determined.
CARRIED
2.
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL (OAG) 2009 INTERIM FOLLOW-UP TO THE 2008
AUDIT OF THE PARKING FUNCTION
BUREAU DU VÉRIFICATEUR GÉNÉRAL (BVG) - SUIVI INTÉRIMAIRE 2009 DE LA
VÉRIFICATION DE LA FONCTION STATIONNEMENT DE 2008
That Council receive this report for information.
RECEIVED
COMMUNITY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORT 47
1.
ACTION OTTAWA: RE-ALLOCATION OF CANADA-ONTARIO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDS FROM DOVERCOURT CO-OPERATIVE
TO THE OTTAWA MISSION
ACTION OTTAWA : RÉAFFECTATION DU FINANCEMENT DU
PROGRAMME CANADA-ONTARIO DE LOGEMENT ABORDABLE DE LA
DOVERCOURT CO-OPERATIVE À THE OTTAWA MISSION
That Council receive the following report: 2009 Interim Follow-up to the 2008 Audit of the
Parking Function.
RECEIVED and REFERRED by Motion No. 79/3 (See Item 1 above)
3.
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL (OAG) - AUDIT OF THE INCREMENTAL COSTS
OF THE TRANSIT STRIKE 2008-2009
That Council approve the following:
1.
In accordance with the 2009 Action Ottawa Selection Committee, direct staff to request
authorization from Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to allocate to Holland
Properties Association, for the provision of 18 affordable rental housing units, $700,000
of 2003 Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program funding that was previously
allocated to Dovercourt Housing Co-operative.
2.
Direct Staff to negotiate with Holland Properties Association a Municipal Housing
Project Facilities Agreement to provide for a grant of $10,000.00 from the City in lieu of
building permit fees subject to: (i) Holland Properties Association executing a
contribution agreement with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing that
provides for funding under the 2003 Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program for
the project, (ii) the Municipal Housing Facilities By-law (2006-1), and, (iii) Council
enacting a Municipal Housing Project Facilities By-law for this project.
3.
That the City Clerk and Solicitor be authorized to forward the project specific
Municipal Housing Project Facilities by-law directly to City Council for enactment in
BUREAU DU VÉRIFICATEUR GÉNÉRAL (BVG) - VÉRIFICATION DE L'INCIDENCE
FINANCIÈRE DE LA GRÈVE DES TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN 2008-2009
That Council receive the following report: Audit of the Incremental Costs of the Transit Strike
2008-2009.
RECEIVED and REFERRED by Motion No. 79/3 (See Item 1 above)
accordance with the Municipal Housing Facilities By-law 2006-1, subject to successful
negotiation and execution of the Municipal Housing Project Facilities Agreement.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE REPORT 60A
1.
RESIDENTIAL FLOOD RELIEF
CARRIED
AIDE AUX VICTIMES DES INONDATIONS RÉSIDENTIELLES
2.
CRIME PREVENTION OTTAWA – STRATEGIC PLAN 2010-2012, ACTION
REPORT 2008-2009; REPORT ON THE OUTCOMES OF THE 2008 CPO
FUNDED PROJECTS AND REPORT ON CPO FUNDING ALLOCATIONS
2009
PRÉVENTION DU CRIME OTTAWA – PLAN STRATÉGIQUE 2010-2012,
RAPPORT D’ENQUÊTE 2008-2009; RAPPORT SUR LES RÉSULTATS DES
PROJETS FINANCÉS PAR PCO EN 2008 ET RAPPORT SUR LES
ALLOCATIONS DE FONDS DE PCO DE 2009
1.
The Residential Compassionate Grant Policy for Sewer Backups as a Result of a
Significant Rainfall Event as set forth in document 1;
2.
That Staff be directed to prepare an application form for this grant as well as information for
the website and for those inquiring about the grant program and publicize the availability of
this grant and its immediate deadlines;
3.
That this grant program be funded from the Wastewater Reserve Fund.
That Council:
CARRIED with Councillors S. Desroches and G. Hunter dissenting.
1. Receive this report for information
2. Approve a change to the Crime Prevention Ottawa Terms of Reference increasing the
number of members of the Board of Directors from 12 to 13;
2.
AMENDMENT TO FRONT-ENDING AGREEMENT FOR GLOUCESTER EAST
URBAN COMMUNITY STORM WATER MANAGEMENT POND 1 AND OVERSIZED TRUNK SEWERS
CARRIED
COMMUNITY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORT 47A (IN CAMERA)
1. APPOINTMENT TO THE CRIME PREVENTION OTTAWA BOARD OF
DIRECTORS – IN CAMERA – PERSONAL MATTERS ABOUT AN
IDENTIFIABLE INDIVIDUAL
NOMINATION AU CONSEIL D’ADMINISTRATION DE PRÉVENTION DU
CRIME OTTAWA– À HUIS CLOS – DISCUSSION DE NATURE
PERSONNELLE SUR UNE PERSONNE RECONNAISSABLE
That Council approve the following appointment to the Crime Prevention Ottawa Board of
Directors for a Term Ending in January 2014, pending approval of the recommendation to
change the Terms of Reference of Crime Prevention Ottawa increasing the number of
members of the Board of Directors from 12 to 13:
Chantal Bernier, Janet Crupi, Jo-Anne Poirier, Lucya Spencer and Irvin Waller.
CARRIED
MODIFICATION DE L’ENTENTE DE FINANCEMENT PRÉALABLE
RELATIVEMENT AU BASSIN 1 DE GESTION DES EAUX PLUVIALES DE LA
COMMUNAUTÉ URBAINE DE GLOUCESTER EST ET AUX GRANDS
COLLECTEURS SURDIMENSIONNÉS
That Council approve an amendment to Council's approval to enter into a Front-Ending Agreement with
the Richcraft Group of Companies for cost reimbursement for the design and construction of the East
Urban Community storm water management Pond 1 and over-sized trunk sewers, located south of Innes
Road and east of Pagé Road, to reflect land costs as specified in the new Development Charge By-law,
By-law 2009-225, resulting in an additional authority of $1,637,000.00 for land acquisition.
CARRIED
3.
PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT, BUILDING CODE SERVICES
BRANCH - DELEGATED AUTHORITY - SIGN MINOR VARIANCES
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW
CORRECTIONS - NINTH REPORT
URBANISME ET GESTION DE LA CROISSANCE, SERVICES DU CODE DU
BÂTIMENT- DÉLÉGATION DE POUVOIRS - DÉROGATION MINEURE AU
RÈGLEMENT SUR LES ENSEIGNES
RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE GÉNÉRAL 2008-250 : ANOMALIES ET CORRECTIONS
MINEURES – NEUVIÈME RAPPORT
2.
ANOMALIES
AND
MINOR
That Council:
1.
2008-250:
Approve an amendment to the Permanent Signs on Private Property By-law to
authorize the Director of Building Code Services to approve minor variances for signs
provided that:
The amendments recommended in Column 3 of Document 1, to correct anomalies in Zoning By-law
2008-250, as amended by the following:
(a)
the Director take into consideration the process outlined in this report, and,
a.
The addition of Item 23 (85 Range Road) to Document 1, and the addition of the associated
location map to Document 2;
(b)
the Ward Councillor of the ward in which the sign, subject of the application for
minor variance, is located supports the minor variance and has not lifted the
delegated authority.
b.
The insertion of the location map of 4269 Limebank Road in Document 2, immediately
following the map for 491, 495 Richmond Road;
c.
That there be no further notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
CONFIRM
PROCESS
VARIANCES AS SET OUT IN THIS REPORT.
THE RECOMMENDED
FOR REVIEW AND CONSULTATION FOR SIGN MINOR
CARRIED with Councillors E. El-Chantiry and R. Bloess dissenting and Councillor G. Hunter
dissenting on recommendation a.
CARRIED
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE REPORT 61
TRANSIT COMMITTEE REPORT 33
ZONING - 3628 NAVAN ROAD
1.
ZONAGE - 3628, CHEMIN NAVAN
CANADIAN URBAN TRANSIT ASSOCIATION PRESENTATION – TRANSIT
VISION 2040 – A BLUEPRINT FOR THE FUTURE
PRÉSENTATION DE L’ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE DU TRANSPORT
URBAIN – VISION DU TRANSPORT EN COMMUN 2040 – PLAN DÉTAILLÉ
POUR L’AVENIR
(This matter is subject to Bill 51)
1.
2.
An amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to extend the temporary use zoning of part of
3628 Navan Road from DR[1606] - Development Reserve Zone, Exception 1606 to
DR[1606] - Development Reserve Zone, Exception 1606, for an additional two years, as
shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 2.
That the City Solicitor obtain an order for operations at the Navan Recycling Yard to
cease and desist immediately should the MOE suspend or revoke Certificate of Approval
#4414-782KX9 permitting and governing the use".
CARRIED
That Council endorse CUTA’s Vision 2040 for putting green transit at the centre of
communities.
CARRIED
2.
D’AMÉNAGEMENT
Moved by Councillor S. Desroches
Seconded by Councillor D. Deans
That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to consider and approved the following motion, as the
Environmental Review Tribunal is scheduled to start this week.
That Council approve the revisions to the boundary of the Urban Transit Area detailed in this
report to be effective on January 1, 2010, to provide for the provision and funding of transit
service in expanding areas of the city, and that Council enact an implementing By-law.
CARRIED with Councillors R. Jellett and B. Monette dissenting.
3.
MOTION NO. 79/5
WHEREAS the City of Ottawa has no plans to introduce diapers and sanitary products as part of its
organics program; and
WHEREAS the experience of other jurisdictions to date is that there have been odour problems in the
vicinity of depots which process diapers and sanitary products; and
WHEREAS the Ministry of the Environment certificate of approval for the Orgaworld site does
not permit the processing of diapers and sanitary products; and
WHEREAS the Ministry of the Environment certificate of approval (air) requires the cessation of
operations if complaints cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of the District Manager;
That Council approve that the Rail technology for the City’s Rapid Transit Plan be Light
Rail Transit (LRT).
WHEREAS Orgaworld Canada Ltd. has appealed to the Environmental Review Tribunal to remove
the limitation set out in its certificate of approval that serves to prohibit the processing of diapers and
sanitary products, and
WHEREAS Orgaworld Canada Ltd. has further appealed to the Environmental Review Tribunal to
remove the condition respecting the cessation of operations if complains cannot be resolved to the
satisfaction of the District Manager;
CARRIED with Councillors B. Monette and G. Hunter dissenting.
Motion to Adopt Reports
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council confirm its support for the application by the
City Clerk and Solicitor to the Environmental Review Tribunal to seek standing on and in
opposition to the appeals by Orgaworld Canada Ltd.
MOTION NO. 79/4
That the reports from the Auditor General entitled “Office of the Auditor General (OAG) 2009
Interim Follow-Up to the 2008 Audit of the Parking Function” and “Office of the Auditor General
(OAG) - Audit of the Incremental Costs of the Transit Strike 2008-2009”, the report from the City
Clerk and Solicitor entitled “Status Update – Council Inquiries and Motions for the Period Ending 28
October 2009”, Community and Protective Services Committee Reports 47 and 47A (In Camera),
Planning and Environment Committee Reports 60A and 61, and Transit Committee Report 33, be
received and adopted as amended.
CARRIED
Pursuant to Subsection 1 (2) of Procedure By-law 2006-462, Suspension of the Rules of Procedure LOST on a
division of 16 YEAS to 7 NAYS (18 votes required) as follows:
YEAS (16):
Councillors D. Thompson, S. Qadri, M. McRae, A. Cullen, D. Deans, D. Holmes, M.
Bellemare, S. Desroches, P. Feltmate, G. Bédard, J. Legendre, M. Wilkinson, C. Doucet, G.
Brooks, P. Hume and R. Bloess.
NAYS (7):
Councillors R. Jellett, J. Harder, B. Monette, E. El-Chantiry, R. Chiarelli, G. Hunter and Mayor
O’Brien.
Notices of Motion (For Consideration at Subsequent Meeting)
MOTION
Motions requiring Suspension of the Rules of Procedures
Moved by Councillor S. Desroches
Seconded by Councillor D. Deans
WHEREAS the City of Ottawa has no plans to introduce diapers and sanitary products as part of its
organics program; and
2009 – 384
A by-law of the City of Ottawa to amend By-law No. 2002-521 to add the names of certain
private roadways.
WHEREAS the experience of other jurisdictions to date is that there have been odour problems in the
vicinity of depots which process diapers and sanitary products; and
2009 – 385
A by-law of the City of Ottawa to amend By-law No. 2009-95 regarding parkland
dedication.
WHEREAS the Ministry of the Environment certificate of approval for the Orgaworld site does
not permit the processing of diapers and sanitary products; and
2009 – 386
A by-law of the City of Ottawa to change the name of a municipal highway in the City of
Ottawa (Big Horn Way; Keatley Road; Ottawa Road 29).
WHEREAS the Ministry of the Environment certificate of approval (air) requires the cessation of
operations if complaints cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of the District Manager;
2009 – 387
A by-law of the City of Ottawa to designate certain lands at 153 Salisbury Street as being
exempt from Part Lot Control.
WHEREAS Orgaworld Canada Ltd. has appealed to the Environmental Review Tribunal to remove
the limitation set out in its certificate of approval that serves to prohibit the processing of diapers and
sanitary products, and
2009 – 388
A by-law of the City of Ottawa to designate certain lands at 401 and 415 Piccadilly Avenue
as being exempt from Part Lot Control.
2009 – 389
A by-law of the City of Ottawa to designate certain lands at 1210 Merivale Road as being
exempt from Part Lot Control and to repeal By-law No. 2009-316.
2009 – 390
A by-law of the City of Ottawa to amend By-law No. 2008-250 of the City of Ottawa to
change the zoning for the property known municipally as part of 3628 Navan Road.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council confirm its support for the application by the
City Clerk and Solicitor to the Environmental Review Tribunal to seek standing on and in
opposition to the appeals by Orgaworld Canada Ltd.
2009 – 391
A by-law of the City of Ottawa to amend By-law No. 2005-439 respecting permanent signs
on private property.
MOTION
2009 – 392
change the zoning for the neighbourhood of Merivale Gardens and the properties known
municipally as 471, 473, 491 and 495 Richmond Road, 4269 Limebank Road, 329 March
Road, 4048 Carling Avenue, part of 200 Somerset Street, 492,506, 508, 510, 512, 514, 530,
538, 544 and part of 10 Rideau Street, 172 and 174 Cobourg Street, 2115, 2127, 2131 and
2147 Belcourt Boulevard, 3686 and 3688 Navan Road, 55 Colonel By Drive, and to correct
anomalies in the by-law.
2009 – 393
change the zoning for the property known municipally as part of 85 Range Road.
WHEREAS Orgaworld Canada Ltd. has further appealed to the Environmental Review Tribunal to
remove the condition respecting the cessation of operations if complains cannot be resolved to the
satisfaction of the District Manager;
Moved by Councillor J. Legendre
Seconded by Councillor B. Monette
That in future, tabling of the Auditor General’s reports include a public summary presentation at
Council.
Notice of Intent from the City’s Meeting Investigator
Notice of Intent from the City’s Meeting Investigator to submit an investigation report for
consideration at the 9 December 2009 Council meeting.
By-laws
Three Readings
CARRIED
Confirmation By-law
MOTION NO. 79/7
MOTION NO. 79/6
THAT By-law 2009-394 to confirm the proceedings of Council be enacted and passed.
That the by-laws listed on the Agenda under 15 – Motion to Introduce By-laws, be read and
passed.
CARRIED
Inquiries
From Councillor E. El-Chantiry with respect to procurement for the new bus garage.
Transit Committee Report 33
Comité du transport En Commun - rapport 33
Adjournment
To the council of the City of Ottawa
Au conseil de la Ville d’Ottawa
Council adjourned the meeting at 2:20 p.m.
25 November 2009
le 25 novembre 2009
The transit committee met on 18 november 2009 and submits the items contained in this Report for the
information and/or approval of Council at its meeting of 25 november 2009.
Le comitÉ du transport En Commun s’est réuni le 18 novembre 2009 et soumet les articles du présent
rapport au Conseil pour information et/ou approbation lors de sa réunion du 25 novembre 2009.
Present / Présences :
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
Chair / Président : A. Cullen
Members / Membres : G. Bédard
R. Bloess
C. Doucet
C. Leadman
J. Legendre
M. Wilkinson
Index
No./No
1.
Item
CANADIAN URBAN TRANSIT
ASSOCIATION PRESENTATION –
TRANSIT VISION 2040 – A
BLUEPRINT FOR THE FUTURE
Page
Article
1
PRÉSENTATION DE L’ASSOCIATION
CANADIENNE DU TRANSPORT
URBAIN – VISION DU TRANSPORT
EN COMMUN 2040 – PLAN
DÉTAILLÉ POUR L’AVENIR
5
EXTENSION DU SECTEUR DE
TRANSPORT URBAIN AUX ZONES
EN VOIE D’AMÉNAGEMENT
14
RAPPORT SUR LA SÉLECTION D’UN
SYSTÈME FERROVIAIRE
2.
EXPANSION OF URBAN TRANSIT
AREA INTO NEW DEVELOPING
AREAS
3.
REPORT ACS2009-ICS-TRA-0017
3. Rail System Selection
SUBJECT:
Rail System Selection
OBJET :
RAPPORT SUR LA SELÉCTION D’UN SYSTÈME FERROVIAIRE
Rapport Sur La Seléction D’un Système Ferroviaire
Committee Recommendation
That Council approve that the Rail technology for the City’s Rapid Transit Plan be Light Rail
Transit (LRT).
Recommandation du comité
Que le Conseil approuve que la technologie ferroviaire pour le Plan de transport en commun rapide
de la Ville soit celle du transport en commun par train léger sur rail (TLR).
Documentation
1. Deputy City Manager Report, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability dated 20 October
2009 (ACS2009-ICS-TRA-0017).
That Transit Committee recommend that Council approve that the Rail technology for the City’s
Rapid Transit Plan be Light Rail Transit (LRT).
RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité du transport en commun recommande au Conseil d’approuver que la technologie
ferroviaire pour le Plan de transport en commun rapide de la Ville soit celle du transport en commun
par train léger sur rail (TLR).
BACKGROUND
The selection of the appropriate rail system technology for the City of Ottawa is a major component of the
2008 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) process.
2. Extract of Minute, 21 October 2009
3. Extract of Draft Minute, 18 November 2009
To select the appropriate transit system for the City of Ottawa a set of principles that reflect the goals of the
Council approved TMP were applied. The recommended rail system technology must:
Report to/Rapport au :
· Accommodate the predicted passenger volumes: Ensuring that operational efficiency and running costs are
optimized.
Transit Committee
· Provide conditions to easily implement the first increment and all subsequent phases of the system.
· Fit into Ottawa’s urban environment: Ensuring that the vehicle and system design support achieving the
City’s urban and environmental vision.
and Council / et au Conseil
20 October 2009 / le 20 octobre 2009
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/Directrice municipale adjointe,
· Minimize capital costs: To ensure that stakeholders and citizens have a good return on investment.
Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability/Services d 'infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités
· Minimize the lifetime operating and maintenance costs while maximizing ridership: Ensuring low fares
and taxes.
Contact Person/Personne ressource : Alain Mercier, General Manager/Directeur général, Transit Services/
Services de Transport en commun
· Be able to respond to future land use changes within the City: Providing flexibility of operations to
accommodate future city planning and operational changes.
613-842-3636 x2271, [email protected]
City Wide/à l'échelle de la Ville
Ref N°: ACS2009-ICS-TRA-0017
· Take advantage of the most current proven technologies: Providing operational efficiencies and high
reliability.
· Be proven in service: Minimizing implementation risk and increasing operational reliability.
· Be suitable for the climate in Ottawa: Ensuring that the vehicle can withstand the weather extremes in
Ottawa.
June Technology Forum
On June 19 and 20, 2009 the City hosted a LRT Technology Forum to discuss light rail transit technology
options in the development of the new transit vision. The Forum brought together representatives of
manufacturers and transit agencies from across North America to discuss various types of transit systems,
best practices and lessons learned, with the objective of identifying optimal rail technology solutions for
Ottawa. This event was attended by a number of City Councillors, senior City staff, and a number of key
stakeholders from various federal, provincial and municipal agencies (NCC, Transport Canada,
Infrastructure Ontario, Société de transport de l’Outaouais, etc)
This forum also gave an opportunity for the public to participate in mini-workshops to help define the goals
and requirements of the system that helped form the principles necessary for successful rail technology
selection.
Criteria
Description
Comparative total
system capital cost
All Phase 1
Good
network,
infrastructure
and vehicle fleet
All Phase 1
Best
Comparative life
time operating and network,
maintenance costs infrastructure
and vehicle fleet
Manual
Driver
Automated
Driverless
Best
Good
Fair
Good
Poor
Good
Proven in service
At least 5 years Good
in revenue
service
Good[1]
Good
Good1
Suitable for the
climate in Ottawa
Operated in a
Good
climate similar to
Ottawa
Good
Good
Good
The result of this technology forum was the identification of the two rail technology options appropriate for
City of Ottawa for further consideration: Light Rail Transit (LRT) and a Light Metro technology.
To determine which rail technology will best serve the City’s future transportation needs the City
commissioned Delcan to undertake a study to examine the rail technology options – LRT and Light Metro –
and also to consider whether the systems should incorporate a driverless or driver-based operational control
technology.
Light Metro LRT
DISCUSSION
The Delcan rail technology study compares the two rail technology options based on a set of criteria that
reflected the above noted principles. The following table summarizes the comparison of the technology
options:
Criteria
Description
Maximum passenger >20,000 pphpd
capacity in the core
Low passenger
capacity in the
extensions
Ability to build a
non-segregated
system in lowdensity areas
>5,000 pphpd
Light Metro LRT
Best
Good
Fair
Best
Manual
Driver
Automated
Driverless
Poor
Best
Good
Poor
The study reveals that the implementation of a high capacity Light Metro style system could, as LRT is
implemented in suburban areas, divide Ottawa’s transportation network which would result in a fragmented
network. This dual mode network is not desirable given the overall associated costs.
The choice of a Light Metro system would effectively increase overall lifecycle costs due to the higher
capital costs of segregation in the western corridor, which would offset any operational efficiencies.
In contrast, an LRT system permits a more efficient capacity match for the ridership prediction throughout
the main core and outlying regions maximizing the overall flexibility in continuing to grow the system up to
and beyond 2031.
The LRT system provides capacity in the downtown core, but will necessitate the use of automatic operation
to maintain operational efficiency with higher ridership in later years.
Poor
Best
Required
N/A
The rail systems technology recommendation also reflects Council’s direction in approving the North-South
LRT EA and the Riverside South Community Design Plan (CDP). These documents identified the
technology selection for the future North South Corridor as LRT. The integration of this technology to the
Tunney’s Pasture to Baseline corridor was an important consideration in the development of a technology
recommendation.
In conclusion, Light Rail (LRT) is recommended as the preferred technology choice for deployment in
Ottawa as it:
· Has less impact on the urban fabric and allows the ability to integrate both non-segregated and segregated
systems
· Provides the necessary capacity for the ridership predictions in the main core,
· Can accommodate low passenger capacity in the extensions outside of the main core,
· Has lower total system capital costs than Light Metro,
· Can accommodate Ottawa weather conditions
CONSULTATION
Public consultation on the design principles was sought as part of the June 2009 LRT Technology Forum.
At the same forum, representatives of manufacturers and transit agencies from across North America were
consulted. Tabling this report will provide an opportunity for the public to comment on the recommendation
as part of the October 26, 2009, DOTT Open House and at the November 18, 2009, Transit Committee
meeting.
Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability provided a
verbal update on the Transit Plan and the timelines associated with various aspects of the project. Her
presentation also included a selection of drawings that would be shown at the open house scheduled for 26
October, featuring the various stations with rail.
Councillor Legendre made note of the fact that the current VIA Rail Station includes a covered walkway for
pedestrians between the bus and train, but the proposed station drawing does not include such a protected
walkway. He urged staff not to diminish the standard of that connection that exists today, in the future. He
was also seeking assurance that senior staff would be available to answer questions of the public at the open
house. The Manager of Transportation Planning confirmed they will be advertising the fact that there is a
presentation at the open house, to be followed by a question and answer period.
In her presentation on the report, Ms. Schepers advised that light rail transit (LRT) is the recommended
preferred technology choice for deployment in Ottawa as it:
· Has less impact on the urban fabric and allows the ability to integrate both non-segregated and segregated
systems
LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
· Provides the necessary capacity for the ridership predictions in the main core
There are no legal/risk management impediments to the tabling of this report at the Transit Committee
meeting of October 21, 2009.
· Can accommodate low passenger capacity in the extensions outside of the main core
· Has lower total system capital costs than Light Metro
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
· Can accommodate Ottawa weather conditions
Once implemented, as shown in the Transit Services 10-Year Tactical Plan, the implementation of the rapid
transit plan will realize $25 Million annual operational saving.
The rapid transit plan, in concert with future Council decisions, will combine to realize the $100 Million in
annual operating savings identified in the Transit Services 10-Year Tactical Plan and the goal set out in the
City’s fiscal framework of moving to a 55 per cent revenue/cost ratio.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 October 2009 Rail System Selection Study prepared by Delcan, previously distributed and held
on file with the City Clerk.
DISPOSITION
With Council approval, staff will continue the development of the City’s Rapid Transit Plan with LRT as
the technology for implementation.
A copy of each presentation is held on file.
The Chair noted that electric rail comes in a variety of types and wanted assurance that the choices that will
be before Council will still be consistent with electric rail technology. Ms. Schepers confirmed this
understanding. The Chair presumed therefore, that when Council makes its choice, it will have an impact on
some of the environmental assessments currently being dealt with because of the nature of the system, land
requirements et cetera. Ms. Schepers confirmed that it is a consequence of the technology decision.
Councillor Legendre wanted assurances that the preferred technology choice will be made clear because it
was evident at the forum in June as well as in the presentation given today, that there is some confusion
between what that choice would be, i.e., heavy, light, metro. He wanted to make sure the language was clear
and consistent with respect to what Metro and LRT mean. The Chair agreed that the Technology Forum
held in June was very informative with respect to what the best practices were across the continent and he
too recognized the unfortunate confusion surrounding the preferred technology. He complimented staff on
the amount of work done to date on this important file.
Extract Draft Minutes: October 21, 2009
ACS2009-ICS-TRA-0017 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
1. That the Rail System Selection Report be received and tabled at the October 21, 2009 Transit
Committee Meeting, for subsequent consideration on November 18, 2009, followed by deliberation
and consideration by Council at a subsequent meeting.
2. That Transit Committee recommend that Council approve that the Rail technology for the City’s
RECEIVED AND TABLED
The Chair referred to the Council-adopted process of having councillor sponsors for major reports, who will
work with staff and report back on 18 November. Councillors Bédard and Leadman agreed to be the cosponsors.
Extract Draft Minutes: November 18, 2009
ACS2009-ICS-TRA-0017 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, provided a
brief overview of the item since it was last tabled at the Committee meeting of 21 October. A copy of the
presentation is held on file.
Ms. Schepers further advised that the councillor sponsors (the Chair and Councillors Legendre, Leadman
and Bédard) met with staff to work on this report.
David Jeanes, Transport 2000 expressed particular concern about the lack of public consultation on this
matter, noting the public had no access to the presentations made at the June technology symposium; the
staff presentation(s) given to the Committee have not been provided to any of the public advisory groups;
and, he was not aware if the Pedestrian and Transit Advisory Committee has seen his material yet.
Mr. Jeanes was also concerned about having a single vehicle model fleet, adding that the expert panel
questioned this concept when they commented on the plan, because they felt a different vehicle would be
required for lower traffic to the south as compared to the east-west. Further, the numbers of conclusion are
based on looking at projects that have yet to happen, i.e., Evergreen in Vancouver, a downtown transit
tunnel in Calgary do not exist yet. Mr. Jeanes did not believe that some statements belonged in the report,
i.e., removing STO buses from downtown Ottawa and the potential use of the Prince of Wales Bridge for
those buses, because they are to be addressed in the Interprovincial Transit Study, and there has been no
public report or discussions on this matter.
Mr. Jeanes concluded his statements by reminding Committee that LRT is being introduced because only
rail can meet the capacity requirements of the downtown and it is the only way to control soaring labour
costs. However, he did not see enough discussion about this in the report.
When asked to comment on the delegation’s comments about having a single vehicle type fleet, Ms.
Schepers explained that having more than one type of vehicle raises the question of where they would be
housed and maintained. She offered that it also becomes problematic with the number of spares that would
have to be on hand in order to provide continual service. The City is fortunate that the LRT technology
being recommended can accommodate both higher and lower capacities.
In response to questions posed by Committee members, Mr. Jeanes did not believe having one vehicle type
would be of benefit because it would deny Council the advantages of other vehicle types and new
technologies (e.g., double-decker buses were acquired for use in the city to address a specific need). He
offered that European maintenance facilities service light rail vehicles from different manufacturers in the
same yards.
Mr. Jeanes also noted that the type of technology being recommended was not ‘catenary’ as described by
staff, because that term applies to the more intensive infrastructure normally found on mainline electrified
railways or on high speed sections of light rail. Ottawa’s LRT will operate with a single conductor wire that
would be very visually un-intrusive. When asked to comment on which groups should have seen this report,
he explained that it was on the published agenda for the agency consultation group and the public
consultation group for the DOTT, which was prior to the Open House, but it was not actually presented at
that Open House. In addition to PTAC, which he mentioned earlier, it should have been presented at these
venues, as well as the business consultation group for the DOTT. He also suggested that because of the
potential impact on the Interprovincial Transit Study, it should go to the advisory committee for that group
as well, since this report is prejudging the outcome of that study.
David Gladstone made reference to the O-Train and it’s success and commented that Council should be
extending this service on existing railway lines rather than moving to a new technology. He reminded
Committee that the thousands of people that use the O-Train are not using buses through the downtown core
or using private automobiles. He could see no feasible replacement for the current O-Train, and suggested
that any kind of replacement is going to cause major disruptions.
The Chair noted that this report was tabled on 21 October to permit circulation. It was posted to the City’s
website and was part of the Public Open House on 26 October for the DOTT. He noted that there was a
technical briefing open to the media and councillors on 12 November and it is here before the Committee
after allowing almost a month for the public to review and provide their feedback.
That Transit Committee recommend that Council approve that the Rail technology for the City’s
CARRIED
[1] In order to meet the 2031 core capacity requirement, the vehicles associated with the LRT
system will require operation with less distance between them. This requires a modern Automatic Train
Control (ATC) system based on a Communications Based Train Control (CBTC) system.