Open Council

The 12th Meeting of the Civic Works Committee

Open Council

The 12th Meeting of the Civic Works Committee

September 13, 2022, at 12:00 PM

Original link

The meeting was called to order at 12:00 PM with Councillor E. Peloza in the Chair; it being noted that the following Members were in remote attendance: Mayor E. Holder, Councillors J. Helmer, M. van Holst, and P. Van Meerbergen.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That Items 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.7 and 2.8 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

2.1   3rd Report of Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee

2022-08-17 ITCAC Report 3

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the 3rd Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on August 17, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.2   Bradley Avenue Extension - White Oak Road to Jalna Boulevard (West Leg)

2022-09-13 SR - Bradley Avenue Extension - Full

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated September 13, 2022, related to the Bradley Avenue Extension (White Oak Road to Jalna Boulevard (West Leg)) - Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Addendum and Notice of Addendum:

a)    the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Addendum: Bradley Avenue Extension Executive Summary, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE ACCEPTED;

b)    a Notice of Addendum BE FILED with the Municipal Clerk; and,

c)    the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Addendum BE PLACED on public record for a 30-day review period. 

(2022-T05)

Motion Passed

2.4   Draft Connected and Automated Vehicle Plan

2022-09-13 SR - Draft Connected and Automated Vehicles Strategic Plan - Full

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated September 13, 2022, related to the Connected and Automated Vehicle Plan:

a)    the draft Connected and Automated Vehicle Plan, as summarized in the Executive Summary, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE RECEIVED;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to proceed with additional public and stakeholder engagement to further inform the document; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare a final Connected and Automated Vehicle Plan for Council approval. (2022-T10)

Motion Passed

2.5   Harris Park Erosion Control Structure Replacement - RFP22-097

2022-09-13 SR - Harris Park Erosion Control Structure Replacement - Full

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated September 13, 2022, related to RFP22-097 Harris Park Erosion Control Structure Replacement:

a)    Matrix Solutions Inc. BE APPOINTED Consulting Engineers to complete consulting services for the Harris Park Erosion Control Structure Replacement, with the estimate on file, at an upset amount of $562,665 including 20% contingency (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 15.2(e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this work;

d)    the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with the consultant for the project; and,

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2022-E21)

Motion Passed

2.7   Agreement - Thames River Experimental Stream Science Facility at Adelaide Pollution Control Plant

2022-09-13 SR - Agreement Thames River Experimental Stream Science Facility at Adelaide Pollution Control Plant - Full

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report, dated September 13, 2022, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 27, 2022, to:

a)    authorize the Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law, being an Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and the University of Waterloo for the use of space at the Adelaide Pollution Control Plant for a research experiment (termed a Mesocosm); and,

b)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Agreement. (2022-E03)

Motion Passed

2.8   Closing Emerson Avenue Cul-de-sac

2022-09-13 SR - Closing Emerson Ave

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated September 13, 2022, related to the Closing of the Emerson Avenue Cul-de-sac:

a)    the closing of the Emerson Avenue cul-de-sac on Registered Plan 914 BE APPROVED; and,

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 27, 2022, to stop up and close the Emerson Avenue Cul-de-sac;

it being noted that any future conveyance of the close road allowance will be subject to the retention of a combined services easement for storm and sanitary sewers. (2022-T09)

Motion Passed

2.3   Windermere Road Improvements - Environmental Study Report

2022-09-13 SR - Windermere Road Improvements Environmental Study Report - Full

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated September 13, 2022, related to the Windermere Road Improvements Municipal Class Schedule C Environmental Assessment:

a)    the Windermere Road Improvements Environmental Assessment Study BE ACCEPTED;

b)    a Notice of Study Completion for the project BE FILED with the Municipal Clerk; and,

c)    the Environmental Study Report BE PLACED on the public record for a 30-day review period;

it being noted that the project implementation timing will be reconsidered in the future Development Charges Background Study and multi-year budgeting processes due to the increased project cost estimate and a capital budget amendment will be brought forward with the 2023 Budget Update to identify only near-term pre-engineering funds to maintain project progress. (2022-T06)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

2.6   Oxford Street West Improvements - Environmental Assessment Study

2022-09-13 SR - Oxford Street West Improvements - Environmental Assessment Study - Full

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by E. Holder

That the staff report, dated September 13, 2022, with respect to an Environmental Assessment Study related to the Oxford Street West Improvements, BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration to determine how to proceed with the matter. (2022-E05)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Deferred Matters List

2022-09-13 CWC DEFERRED MATTERS as at August 15 2022

Moved by M. van Holst

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the Civic Works Committee Deferred Matters List as at August 15, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 1:04 PM.

Full Transcript

Transcript provided by Lillian Skinner’s London Council Archive. Note: This is an automated speech-to-text transcript and may contain errors. Speaker names are not identified.

View full transcript (1 hour, 20 minutes)

[15:59] Good afternoon, this is the 12th meeting the Civic Works Committee held virtually and council chambers is open to the public they want to come in and view. London, the city of London is situated in the traditional lands of the Nishnabeg, Haudenosaunee, and Landelmach, in Adondwandran people. We honor and respect the history, languages and culture, the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis and Inuit people today. As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. If I could please ask committee members to put their screens on.

[16:35] I do have Councillor Fife Millar in chambers with me. Councillor Van Hollis has joined us. We are waiting on Councillor Halmer, Councillor Van Merbergen in the mayor still. I will like to take a moment to welcome Jerry as our committee clerk, as Audrey has moved on and Jerry is all ours. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats or communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact cwc@london.ca, or 519-6121-2489, extension 2425.

[17:16] I see that Councillor Van Merbergen has joined us. So that just leaves Councillor Halmer and Mayor Holder absent. I will look to committee for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, our consent item consists of 2.1 through 2.8, looking to committee members to see if they would like anything called separate. Councillor Van Hollis. Madam Chair, if perhaps you would pull 2.3, Windermere Road improvements.

[18:00] Thank you, Councillor. So 2.3 is pulled. Okay, I’ve been informed that 2.6 needs to be pulled as well. What are the clerk’s direction? Looking to see if anything else further needs to be pulled. Councillor Van Merbergen.

[18:38] Thank you, Chair. I’d like to ask questions on 2.2, but I don’t need to vote on it separately. Perfect, absolutely. Someone’s not muted. I’ll re-mute. No, you’re good, Paul. I’m not higgling you, just somebody else in the background. So we’ll find who that is. And welcome to Councillor Hill here today for joining us. Looking for someone to move items 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.7 in, 2.8. Okay, moved by Councillor, 5-Milar, seconded by Councillor Van Merbergen.

[19:15] Welcome, Councillor Halmer. Just checking to make sure you had no disclosures of pecuniary interest, he’s good. And just to let you know, 2.3 and 2.6 has been pulled. Separate, did you anything else pulled? Okay, and then it’s just Mayor Holder that we’re missing. I will start by asking Mr. McCray for item 2.4. If a member of your staff, we’ve mentioned it yesterday, just to give any brief two-minute contact summary of this project for the draft connected in automated vehicle plan.

[19:53] Thank you, Madam Chair. As a new engineer with our Traffic Engineering Division has led the good work on this plan and is here to provide a short context introduction to what’s being presented today. Thank you, welcome, John. Two to three minutes would be perfect. I’ll keep this brief, Madam Chair. So with respect to the connected and automated vehicle plan, as Council may know, it was one of these strategic items as part of this council term.

[20:26] This plan in particular, I just want to provide a few brief points to this draft plan and really it’s about getting additional public feedback and consultation at the stage. So the Federal Provincial and other municipal agencies, including Toronto and Ottawa have been preparing for the arrival of connected and automated vehicles, including the MTO pilot program, supporting the testing of these technologies on Ontario roads, which has been around since about 2016, with a few amendments to that regulation. This draft CAV plan takes into consideration the specific context of the city of London, both the challenges and opportunities that likely will need to be addressed when appropriate, is likely that the CAV technologies will emerge in the next couple of decades, and while there is uncertainty as to their full impacts and timing is prudent to be proactive and plan for when CAV technologies become more commonplace.

[21:19] It’s important to educate the public on CAV technologies and the impacts to London to gain feedback from the Londoners in the way we plan for CAVs in our community and to understand the potential opportunities we have with institutions such as Western and Fanshawe, agencies including the National Research Council of Canada here in London, the MTO and industry, which also includes various manufacturers in the London area. Connected and automated vehicle, this connected and automated vehicle vehicle plan will be used as the basis for a future implementation plan and potential programs and pilots to help London prepare for CAV technologies when appropriate.

[21:57] And lastly, input from partners agencies in the public has been an important component of the creation of this plan and consequently committee is presented with a draft of this plan with a recommendation that additional consultation occurred prior to finalizing so that as of this stage, we can go back out there. We actually have something on the plate that people can look at, review, critique and we’ll then return back to council and the next year to finalize this. Thank you for that context and overview. Welcome, Mayor Holder.

[22:30] This is, everyone for committee is now present and item 2.3 and 2.6 has been called separate. Everything else is currently on the floor and I have Councillor van Merbergen next on my list as I believe he had questions pertain to item 2.2. Yeah, thank you, Chair. This is obviously a very positive step forward in terms of the widening of that section of Bradley between White Oak and Geoma.

[23:03] My more pressing question is going into the future as we expand westward with Bradley. What kind of timelines are we looking at? I know there’s a section of Bradley, I guess it’s between Warren Cliff and Wonderland that’s there now, but right now it’s disjointed. When will it be a solid connection that takes us right to Bostwood? Mr. McCray. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[23:37] Garfield Dales is on the call and I’ll let him explain the long-term facing of the project. Thank you and through the Chair. So we are actively working on the engineering design for the extension of Bradley from White Oak Road to Morncliffe and that would allow us to proceed with the tendering of that project for construction as early as 2023 subject to the final approvals. The further extension between Wonderland and Bostwick is a longer-term project.

[24:13] The current development charges study indicates 2028 timing for that project. However, we will need to look at that in coordination with a number of other growth projects in the area and likely as part of the next development charges study and the mobility master plan. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much for that. I mean, it’s certainly good news for the connection that takes, I guess it’s White Oak to Morncliffe. So that’s for next year, that’s excellent.

[24:46] In terms of getting the connection right through to Bostwick, obviously the sooner the better because the congestion that’s piling up in South London is extraordinary. And that type of construction and road work will provide a lot of relief as well on Southdale. So for residents of the South end and indeed all Londoners, I think these are very positive developments. And thank you very much for the information. Thank you and Mr. Dales.

[25:21] If you just confirm that the city has now finished with all the land acquisitions for this section as I am assuming that the hope is to get in there and do all the contract and construction at once for the gel and a portion of the widening and then right through for the White Oaks Road to Morncliffe section. Yes, through the chair. So the property acquisition process has been underway for some time, including the exploration of the necessary property for that project to proceed. So I think we’re in a good position as it relates to the property required for that project.

[26:00] Thank you. Thank you as the word counselor. We always appreciate the city going in once and doing the construction and not coming back multiple times. So thank you for that. Councilor Van Merberg and that concludes your questions. Yes, it does. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Van Holst, next. Councilor Van Holst, we cannot hear you. Okay, thank you, Madam Chair.

[26:34] Questions on a number of items, but first with respect to item 2.1, I wanted to extend Council’s thanks to Cheryl Ruth who has submitted a resignation for the committee. And I wanted to thank her for many years of work in helping the city plan its transportation strategies. Moving on to 2.2, then my question was about the choice for cycling and pedestrians and wondering if a multi-use pathway was considered along this route.

[27:22] To staff? Through the chair. So as part of the environmental assessment process, we did look at a number of alternatives in terms of cycling facilities along this corridor. The final recommended alternatives do include Boulevard cycling facilities along Windermere Road. We are also looking to extend the cycling facilities south from Windermere along Richmond, potentially connecting to— Sorry, no, 2.3 is pulled.

[28:03] I believe we’re talking about 2.2. Councilor, if you just wanna clarify that for Mr. Dayhouse? Yes, I’m like, I’m a number of questions for 2.3, but this was just for 2.3. Oh, I’m sorry, my apologies. So for Bradley Avenue, yes, we are looking at providing Boulevard cycling facilities within the limits of the project and then to the future in terms of extending those facilities further east as well. Okay, and Madam Chair, I can continue on that.

[28:41] My question is regarding winter maintenance for these things. So if we’ve got a cycling track and a sidewalk, I believe that we would have to clear the sidewalks. What about the cycling tracks? Mr. Dayhouse or Mr. McCray? Yeah, thank you Madam Chair. I’ll help with the operational aspects. The minimum maintenance standards dictated through provincial legislation have required for cycling facilities with between the curves, so on the road and also for sidewalk.

[29:26] They are, the minimum maintenance standards are silenced on Boulevard paths. So it is an item that is sort of on our radar, I should say, and we’re looking for opportunities and assessing potential future budget amendment cases business cases to create funding to provide at least a minimum level of service for these Boulevard paths that both exist on some corridors and/or being happy.

[30:06] Okay, thank you for that. Mr. McCray, just to let you know, you’re a little bit choppy. Maybe you’re just a little bit too far back from the mic. So if anyone wants anything repeated, please just say so. Councilor Van Hulse, please proceed. Okay, thank you Madam Chair. So then I guess my question is with respect to the multi-use pathways. If we’re trying to, and we clear some of those on the Thames Valley Parkway, and that’s appreciated, but my concern is that if we’re putting two tracks, pedestrian and a cycle track, if you will, on road, then it’s gonna take twice as much time, twice as much fuel to clear those and wondering if, certainly in terms of perhaps climate, if we might be better off in that perspective, as well as cost with multi-use pathways.

[31:09] And so perhaps Madam Chair, through you, I could ask a comment from our staff. Hey, Mr. McCray. We assess the most appropriate cycling and infrastructure using the latest provincial guidance. And it is the current Ontario traffic manual related to cycling facilities was just recently updated. And that is certainly a consideration that we use, exactly what you’re saying and for some corridors where there’s space limitations and I guess key to this is reduced or lower pedestrian numbers that we would consider to mind all of our thoughts of projects specific to us.

[32:10] Thank you, Mr. McCray. You’re still a little bit garbly. I’ll also note with the Councillor that ideally, this corridor connects into the bus rapid transit plan to coming to the South London area. So some residents are quite excited for that. Councillor Vanholz, please proceed with your questions. Okay, perhaps one more then. I should ask about the number of pedestrians we might expect to be walking along this corridor, pointing out that I think our best goal in terms of climate and active transportation are walkable neighbourhoods.

[32:47] So we want to try and provide all the amenities possible in a neighbourhood so we don’t necessarily have to provide long sidewalks as something separate from a multi-use pathway between those neighbourhoods on long stretches. So I wonder is there, is there some thought about how much this would be used by pedestrians? Mr. McCray. I’m not sure if Mr. Dales came up.

[33:25] Mike and his audio might be better than mine, but I guess the chair makes a good point if there are connections as far as considerations with respect to continuity throughout the corridor and then certainly higher pedestrian volumes in closer proximity to the rabbit transit corridor on Wellington Street, Wellington Road, sorry. Mr. Dales, anything to add in? Just for the Madam Chair, that as part of our climate emergency screening that we undertake for each of our projects, active transportation and the provision of sidewalks and pedestrian facilities meeting the current accessibility requirements that certainly is a primary consideration as part of our various environmental assessment processes.

[34:16] Councillor? Thank you. And in the screening tool, do we look at the cost of clearing these in the winter and the potential for having to clear something else? For instance, clear a sidewalk and a cycle track and maybe my last question for clarification, just respect to the provincial guidelines. These are just guidelines. So a decision like a cycle track and a walkway versus a multi-use pathway.

[35:02] I think those, and perhaps you can confirm, those would be just decisions that would be left up to the municipalities, would they not? Mr. Whoever would like this one, Mr. Dales? So through the chair, as Mr. McCurry mentioned, so we do take the guidance, a provincial guidance in terms of the type of facility. And when we look at a shared type facility between cyclists and pedestrians, the expected use of that facility is a primary consideration in making that determination around the type of facility that we will recommend.

[35:45] Thank you, Council, are you satisfied for now? Thank you, well, it was just the one other question regarding our climate screening tool. Are we actually looking at the winter maintenance of the facilities we put in and the possible duplication of snow clearing? Staff. So through the chair, we don’t explicitly look at the maintenance requirements associated with the facility.

[36:23] I expect from a climate resiliency perspective, that is something that we look at at a very high level in terms of the need to meet the current requirements as Mr. McCurry had spelled out. Thank you, Councilor Van Holst, if you’re good, I’m gonna move on to Councilor Five Miller. Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. I do have questions on other items. Absolutely. I’m gonna come back to those later. Perfect, please proceed. Thank you, Chair, and through you, on item 2.5, the Harris Park erosion control.

[37:00] I’m wondering if we might get an idea of the actual physical design that we’re looking at putting in there, whether that’s been decided or whether that’ll be decided down the road. Ms. Ramelow? My apologies, I was having the chair as having technical problems. Could you repeat this question? Absolutely. On item 2.5, the Harris Park erosion control, my question is around the actual design of what’s going to go in there, whether or not that’s been decided yet.

[37:45] So the chair, no, that has not been decided. That will be part of the assignment to look at the various options and decide what will work best there. Thank you, just one more question on that. It is the plan, when I looked at the map, is the plan at all to change the actual flow of the river or will the new wall that’s going to go in, follow the flow that is there right now? My understanding is that it would not be looking to alter any of the flow in the river at this point.

[38:22] This is to maintain and restore the river bank in its location. We do take hydrology and so on into account when we’re looking at these things. If there are options— (indistinct) We might look at that, but this is not meant to alter the hydrology of the river itself. Thank you, and one last question, assuming some of the environmental impacts when we get down there of nested species and such, I assume those will be dealt with appropriately at that time?

[39:00] Yes, so any project along the road in this section and where there’s potential to be working in the water requires considerable monitoring and so on, that is all outlined as part of the permitting that is required through the province and the federal government and is determining that permitting and the protection and restoration requirements is part of the design phase. Thank you very much. Those are all my questions, Madam Chair, thank you. Thank you.

[39:34] Councilor Van Holst still has his hand raised, so I will return to him if anyone else has any further questions or comments, including visiting counselors, please indicate such as currently Councilor Van Holst as my last speaker before we call the question. No, thank you, Madam Chair. So perhaps since we were just speaking with Ms. Ramlow on the Harris-Bark erosion control structure replacement, it seems like there was the potential for some design elements that would be, may provide more amenities for the people using the park and talked about for fishing and boat launch.

[40:25] And so I wondered what, if those could be described or there’s some, can we expect something more than rocks in a wire grid and there’s my question. Ms. Ramlow? Absolutely, through the chair, yes, we will look at all those recommendations. So of course this area was looked at with the One River Management Plan as well. So we will look at some of those recommendations that came into there and what’s appropriate to include or make future provision for you.

[41:02] In terms of what we could expect it to look like, giving baskets that we have now are not typically favored at this point anymore for it as a technical solution. So I would doubt that, but again, we will look at what the actual treatment that Shoreline will be through the design process and make that final call then. But we will also be looking at those opportunities to improve access to the river as part of that Shoreline treatment. Thank you, Councilor Van Host.

[41:35] Thank you. And as a follow-up rhetorical question, the Ms. Ramlow isn’t the first person I’ve seen with instruments in the background. I hope I’m not missing out on the engineering department jam sessions, ‘cause I think those would be fun. Let me move on to, we pull 2.6 and we’ve got 2.3. Right, well, Madam Chair, I think that’s, oh, I did want to talk about the draft connected automated vehicle plan.

[42:17] And I’m glad that you asked our staff to describe that a bit because we didn’t mention it separately and I think it’s certainly worth doing that. So we’re gonna send this out to the residents for comment and maybe my question will be, what is required for the connected part of this? So I see in the diagrams or your little graphics, you’ve got some towers transmitting and I’m wondering what’s needed is, have we got, are we gonna need more towers?

[43:01] And if so, what might that be like? To staff. Through the chair, I can answer that question. So with respect to the connected piece, so first of all, this plan itself is more of a high-level plan. Just talking about identifying the needs that we need to consider as it’s appropriate within the technology emerges. But with the connected piece itself, some of these graphics, just to borrow and should perhaps not be as literal as the artist might make them out to be.

[43:37] But with respect to our traffic signal upgrades that have been undertaken for the past two years, known internally as the TIMS program, we have been replacing a lot of these pieces of the technology to bring it to more modern standards. So for example, allowing signal phase and timing data to be at least the ability to broadcast that sort of piece through this type of equipment or with our transit signal priority system, which is another piece of our specific TIMS program, being able to help with the transit and connect to that.

[44:13] There are elements not currently in scope, which could be expanded upon at a future date to test that sort of technology, whether it’s something that connects to these vehicles and allows them to travel more efficiently or things like that. But again, we’re still at a very strategic level with this. However, there are some synergies with our current upgrades that we can explore at a later date. Thank you. Council, are you satisfied? Not yet, Madam Chair. Okay. I have a few more questions about that. So will this, I guess my first question is in terms of our TIMS program, where might that be in place already?

[44:56] Are we at a point where it is? To staff, John, you’re muted. All right, thank you, Madam Chair. To the chair, with our current TIMS program, we have been in the process of rolling out the intersection computers or controllers, if you will, to our 400 plus intersections.

[45:31] And that is largely done with the exception of some specific cases we need to manage. And with the transit signal priority piece, that is currently being rolled out, I think we’re about 60% or so done rolling out that piece. We still have to implement a lot of, it’s kind of like we’ve upgraded to the new system, and then we’re gonna have to go back and look at the fine tuning of it. And at some point in the future, when it’s appropriate, we’ll have to explore the new features we have available to us. So again, these are still operational features we need to delve into when the timing is appropriate.

[46:06] Thank you, Councilor Vanholst. Okay, so it seems like we’ve got the hardware or much of the hardware in place. We just haven’t turned on the new features that you could correct me if I’m wrong. But I’ll ask the next question as well. The, for the connected vehicles, is it gonna be a 5G network that will need many transmission points? Mr. Costenek.

[46:40] That’s through the chair. It’s sort of a similar piece. So there’s a few competing technologies right now in terms of how that would go out, whether it’s 5G or some sort of a short, more short range standard. But the industry is very much emerging still. So I don’t really want to try to predict as to which direction these things are gonna go. However, we are keeping close tabs on what’s emerging in the industry. And I think when we feel in a position where it’s comfortable to explore that further when it’s a little more stabilized, I think at that point we’ll have to explore how that specifically gets implemented here and whether it’s through provincial standards or direction from the federal level.

[47:22] Again, a lot of this stuff is still to be determined and we’ll just have to continue to monitor. Thank you, Councilor. Okay, thank you. I might have one request for our future report would be just to list some of those possibilities because I know that there would be opportunities for London depending on which technology is picked. And I say that from a perspective of as a board member from London Hydro. So that would be valuable to know and maybe be ahead of, okay.

[48:00] Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I don’t think I’ve got any further questions that I’ll ask about this sign in now. I’ve just got item 2.3, so. Okay, perfect. And Mr. Acostnik has heard your request for the future report to identify technologies they looked at. I have no further speakers on my list. So doing a final call for that, it’s been moved and seconded, calling the question. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

[48:51] Okay, item 2.3, looking for a mover and a seconder before we take questions if that’s okay. Councilor Fife Miller as a mover, count the mayor as a seconder and I’ll start my speakers list with Councilor Vanholst. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a slightly number of questions about this item. And some concern about the configuration, especially the right hand turn from Woundemir Westbound onto Richmond, because there’s a very steep curve.

[49:35] So maybe that’s 110 degrees turn with these aprons on here. And I brought a report to this committee recently and it outlined some of the complaints of those coming off a river road that had a similar configuration. So that’s my first right flag on this. But I want to go through some of the items on here.

[50:16] I’ll start with, I think, page 19 of our printed report. And we’ve got a number of problem statements here. So they were, the first one talks about the area, intersection automatically accommodating in the full range of growing users. And perhaps I’ll first ask what to define what that means, and what is that our anticipation of how this is going to be used.

[50:54] But perhaps I could get a little clarification from staff. Mr. McRae. I’ll invite to this project is to let the environmental assessment. Perfect, thank you, Mr. Dales. Thank you and through the chair. So the reference to a full range of users is really reflecting our commitment to look at our quarters from a complete streets perspective.

[51:30] So that would be including users of all ages and abilities, those using sustainable modes as well in terms of pedestrian cyclists, transit and motorists as well. So it’s really that comprehensive review of our corners from all of those lenses. Councillor. Okay, thank you. The other two were the OADA compliance and sewers and water mains. So those are the three problems that were stated.

[52:06] And are those stated in order? Which one of those was driving, most driving this upgrade? Mr. Dales. Yes, thank you and through the chair. So the problem statement is really, those points aren’t in really a prioritized manner. It’s really again, demonstrating the comprehensive review that’s undertaken as part of the environmental assessment to look at the full needs within the corridor, not only from a mobility perspective, but also a coordination perspective in terms of underground infrastructure and being able to bring the project forward in a coordinated and cost effective manner that considers sort of the full range of needs within the corridor.

[53:02] Councillor. Okay, thank you. And so the second one, can you tell me specifically how it was not in compliance with AODA? So through the chair, in terms of the current requirements related to accessibility needs and really where we see some of our challenges are at the intersections. So when we’re looking at things like drop curves, tactile plates, various design features that would help to promote compliance with the AODA requirements and the current practices that are being applied across the province.

[53:46] Councillor. Okay, so in that instance, I’m gonna think you mentioned the drop plates and the drop curves and the tactile plates. And I see those going in intersections everywhere as well as, and obviously it would need to be at the pedestrian crossings. So, okay, thank you. So now when we say it’s safe for all ages, are we designing this for children as well? Mr. Dales.

[54:23] Through the chair. So we do take an approach particularly with our active transportation facilities and the design and planning of those facilities to accommodate all ages and abilities. So really again, that full range of users and that really drives a lot of the decisions that are related to the type of cycling facilities that we’re providing within our projects. Councillor. Okay, thank you. So I mean, it’s nice to say all ages and users, but I’d like to know what’s the lowest age and the lowest level of ability that we’re designing for?

[55:05] And I’m asking this because I don’t know that we really need design for children everywhere. But if you would, what age and lowest level of ability, are we trying to design for? So through the chair. So we would be looking at, particularly with our room, our cycling facilities and really the approach, in many cases of looking at protected facilities that would be separated somehow from the driving lanes and those would be to promote use by children, by cyclists that may have a lower confidence level and it may not be comfortable in mixed traffic or in scenarios where they’re in a shared type of facility with vehicles.

[56:04] Thank you. Councillor, anything further? Okay, well, yes. So I would question, Madam Chair, if all our intersections need to be designed to that level, ‘cause I think parents simply wouldn’t take or wouldn’t want children necessarily to be in those places. So this might be one of those. I also like to get or start a line of questioning, just around these protected aprons, I think they’re called.

[56:50] Where did that idea originate? I know it’s appeared in the city and I really haven’t heard that much positive about them. So I wonder if staff could describe where this came from and how it’s come to be in London. Mr. Dales. So through the chair, earlier we had referenced some of the standards that are being developed at a provincial level related to active transportation and protected intersections.

[57:31] So that’s really where we take our guidance in terms of the design and application of these standards for protected intersections. Councillor. Okay, thank you, sir. These have been implemented in other cities with some degree of success. And I guess how much are we obliged to put these in at the intersections? I realized that the province puts out, can put out guidelines and they’ve done so.

[58:10] And I haven’t agreed with a number of guidelines the provincial, the province has put out, noting that they’re there for the adoption, but they’re not rules. So I could ask that response. Mr. Dales, we’re going to take this response and then Councillor Helmer has indicated his hand and has not had an opportunity to speak to this item. Then Councillor Helmer will ask his questions and then Councillor Vanholz, we can return to you as your five minutes has passed, but we will certainly come back.

[58:48] Mr. Dales. Through the chair, we do look at the application of protected intersections. We actually have a number of existing intersections that where we have in the last few years have provided protection. I would agree it’s not, we aren’t able to include this at all intersections. It’s important to understand the context in terms of locations that we do, you incorporate these facilities, but it is to answer the Councillor’s question.

[59:26] Yes, we’re seeing that many jurisdictions across the province and country are implementing these types of protected intersections. Thank you, Councillor Helmer. Thank you. I just wanted to say on the issue of the protected lanes and the protected intersections, as somebody who has used those lanes myself, riding my bike on my own, and also with my two year old daughter in a bike seat in front of me, I can tell you I really like them.

[1:00:00] And they’re extremely good in terms of protecting cyclists from their surrounding traffic, especially in the intersections, which are the most dangerous parts of the road system. Having the physical separation from vehicles that are in many cases, thousands of pounds that even at low speeds, if they were to bump into us, would cause significant damage is really helpful because they will hit the curb before they hit me or my daughter. And so I’ve used them on Colburn Street, I’ve used them on Dada Street.

[1:00:32] They’re excellent improvements. This is an area Richmond and Windermere, where I do cycle on my own in mixed traffic. And I don’t cycle with my daughter because it’s frankly not safe enough. And if I do go through there, I would do something like go up on the sidewalk to avoid traffic and break our by-law. So I think it’s safety improvements along here to protect road users like cyclists are actually really critically important. If we’re going to try and encourage more people to cycle, we have to build safer infrastructure.

[1:01:08] And the whole focus of Councilor Vanholz, questions used to be, how can we make the least safe infrastructure possible for cyclists? I just don’t. I just don’t agree. Point of personal privilege. So Councilor Vanholz, please proceed. Yes, Madam Chair, I think that’s not at all what my line of questioning is about. I appreciate the Councilor’s comments. But I have seen cyclists simply avoid these all together. And so instead of taking the inside turn, just simply go around them, around them completely.

[1:01:51] And so there’s some of my questions. And I have heard a number of comments that question these things. Now, it’s not a matter of whether or not we’re providing safe infrastructure or not. It’s a matter of, is this a good plan? And is it a good design? So I’m not against these. But in an instance— Point of order chair. Yeah. Point of order chair. The Councilor’s got to speak to the point of privilege, it’s going on and on and on.

[1:02:26] I’d like you to finish the order if I could, please chair. This is ridiculous. So Councilor Vanholz, you had clarified that your questions were meaningful around design and usage and not about the least safe infrastructure. Is that adequate? Yes, Madam Chair. And sorry, I just did, I was planning to just continue with my line of questioning, but I should have left it, left it at that. It’s not, my goal is not to create the least safe infrastructure.

[1:03:00] Thank you. Are we good to proceed? This Councilor Vanholz done interrupting me. I am. I think he’s clarified his intention. Please proceed, Councilor Hummer. Yeah, I just wanted to clarify. I mean, it’s the overall series of questions. Do we need to build a sidewalk on Bradley? Should we be done protected lanes? Are these intersection improvements really necessary? Where is this stuff coming from? It gives me the overall impression that we’re looking to build less safe infrastructure. Like what is the minimum that we could possibly do?

[1:03:36] And that’s what I’m taking from your line of questions, Councilor Vanholz, whether that’s what you mean to imply or not, I guess is for you to clarify, but that’s what it seems like. So I wanted to say that because you’ve been going on and on in this meeting, answer. If we just keep it to item 2.3, Councilor Hummer, you were outlining your personal experience with the protected bike lanes with you and your daughter and how have you found them useful and that you support them? Anything to add to the benefit of the community? Thank you.

[1:04:09] Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I do have some more things to say. The other thing is these design sort of goals come from the EA study, like the parameters for that, which we approved two years ago. So we’ve talked about why do we need to do this project? We set out the scope for it two years ago and then staff and the consultants go away and work on those problems, which we approved as a council unanimously. So the time to bring up questions about what is the problem and how do we scope it is not when the thing is done and we’re like, here’s the solution.

[1:04:45] It’s two years ago when we’re like, what are the problems? And so I just wanted to say that too because it seemed like we’re revisiting the scope of the project after we unanimously approved, yes, these are the problems, yes, go ahead and do this project, design, do the EA and come back to us with a solution. Anybody else on this item that is not already spoken to it? Okay, Councilor Van Holst, I will go back to you as you have raised your hand and ask that you just keep your comments strictly to within what’s on the EA before us for the report.

[1:05:26] Okay, well, thank you, Madam Chair. So my concern or one of the big ones is the, as I pointed out at the very beginning, it’s that the aprons jutting out into the intersection and create the need for a very sharp turn. So that’s, so my question is how is a bus or a truck going to get around these?

[1:06:15] Hey, to staff and could you confirm if these are the same infrastructure that’s been recently put at Upper Queen Street and Commissioners? Through the chair. So the Councillor’s correct in that vehicle turning is a parameter that we look at in terms of the design of these islands. We do, and there’s different designs that can be applied in terms of truck turning aprons that would infrequently or trucks or bus turning that would infrequently allow for and provide for that turning capability for those vehicles while also providing separation for pedestrians and cyclists as well.

[1:07:05] So those are important considerations. They are something that we do take into account during the design of these different treatments at the curbs and the radii of the intersection. Thank you. I’ll just note that infrastructure has been built at Upper Queen and Rideout Street, somewhat different, but definitely extended more into the intersection than drivers we were previously used to. And residents are complaining that it’s making them go slower at intersections.

[1:07:39] So if that is staff’s intention of making people go slower for being mindful of pedestrians and cyclists, it is so far working in Ward 12. Councillor? So I guess my concern is that these will be run over in the turns and people that may think they were safe standing on, you may not be, that was the, those are the photos that I brought to our committee recently where you could see that their curve was very sharp and the truck tracks go over top of that a number of times.

[1:08:28] So I wondered if in looking at this where they’re not some other configuration that wouldn’t have created this new challenge. So that’s my concern. It seems that the design that we’ve had to create for safe cycling may have created some problems for operations, but I’ll go and check out the intersection the chair was discussing.

[1:09:07] Is it one that has the two roads meet at an angle other than 90 degrees? For part of it, yes, sorry. And Councillor just, if you had specific questions of if any of these have been built so far in the city, if you want to go out and see specific locations on site to see active transportation and vehicular use of it. Staff, is there anything similar that’s been built currently within the city?

[1:09:52] So through the chair, as the chair mentioned, the recent project at Upper Queen’s Rideout Commissioners is a good example, but is perhaps a little different in terms of the truck turning aprons that are provided. But yeah, there are examples that we could provide perhaps not from London, but from elsewhere that would provide further information for the Councillor. Thank you.

[1:10:24] Sorry, we just have a speaker who hasn’t spoke yet. Mr. Mayor. Thanks very much, Chair. I’m very concerned about what I need to be an abuse of council privilege in terms of spending so much time on things that frankly, I believe could be done by asking questions offline. And if there are things that are in the broader, absolute public interest to bring them forward. And I’m not sure the appropriate way to deal with this, but I’m going to suggest that we have discussion on this further, because quite frankly, this has been an extended discussion, some of it that has been very technical in nature and perhaps a great interest of certain council members to know, but we shouldn’t be doing our homework in council committee meetings, Chair.

[1:11:12] And at some point, we’re going to have to deal with this. Otherwise, we’re extending these meetings to the point of frankly, an abuse of, and waste of other council members time. So I’m not looking for feedback on that, just something that frankly, I’m finding very frustrating. And I suspect others who are a little shy may not have expressed that, but it’s certainly, I feel strongly about this. Thank you. Also, I cannot call the question as we could at council or another member couldn’t as we’re at committee in the five minute speaking time, doesn’t work the same way at committee versus council.

[1:11:52] I will remind all Councillors that this was our consent agenda. And ideally, just trying to keep it tight as we’re coming up on an hour and probably about 20 some minutes on this one item. Councillor Van Holst, is there any specific questions you have remaining that would allow you to support versus not support on item 2.3? Madam Chair, I’ll support this now. And my goal was to get enough information to see if there was perhaps some way to mitigate what I saw here as a concern that I’ve heard from residents in my ward in similar situations.

[1:12:38] So, and I realized that I could have done some of this offline. So, I apologize to the committee. It’s a busy time and I’ll say that I encountered this. I read the report later than I would have liked to. So, very, I’ll leave it at that. I’ll support this now. I’ll look forward, I’ll look for some more information and from our staff and check out these things.

[1:13:14] Thank you, Councillor Van Holst. I’m happy to meet you on site in ward 12. But what I have going on, I believe, Councillor Lewis has some new things along his bike lanes as well if you wanted to see him. Mayor Holder, do you have anything further, your hands up before I call the question? I shall put it down, thank you, Chair. Thank you, calling the question. Let’s take the vote, the motion carries, six to zero. Mayor Holder, your hand is down.

[1:13:49] Perfect, we’re on to item 2.6. I’m going to call on Ms. Westlake Powers to tell us what we have to change with this one in order to move forward. Thank you, through the chair. In our review of the agenda in preparation for today’s meeting, it was highlighted that this may be a restricted act for this council. And I was in touch with finance and that is indeed the case. So, my apologies for the timing on this and I don’t have a clear recommendation in terms of the referral or deferral that would be required.

[1:14:31] It’s either to the next council if it’s not time sensitive. So, I would look to staff who wrote the report about that. Or if it is timely and needs to be addressed at this time, I would suggest that committee needs to refer this to the city manager for disposition in accordance with the delegation by law that was passed a few weeks ago. Thank you, Ms. Chair. Do you want this directed to civic administration if it’s timely versus to the next council? Yeah, sorry, we got Kelly’s flashing and I have you.

[1:15:11] So, Mr. McCrae, please proceed. Sorry, hopefully my audio is okay. This report, this is a consult assignment for a long-term infrastructure planning. With a schedule that can absorb a delay. So, it’s fine to refer this back to civic administration while we determine the correct path forward. Okay, so the committee clerk is just writing up some lovely new wording. That she’ll read out as soon as she’s done typing it.

[1:15:48] Looking to committee as that wording is being prepared for us to see if there’s gonna be any questions or comment on this item. Okay. That the matter be referred back to the civic administration for next steps. Ms. Wetzlake, is that adequate for you? I would suggest we refer back to civic administration to be brought forward to the next council. Okay, and so it shall be written.

[1:16:21] Mr. McCrae, you’re good with that for the next council, realizing that’s November, December? Sorry, to prolong the discussion that nobody in term administrative process is available to us. So, you want the current city manager and civic administration to make a decision now versus waiting to December to implement this contract appointment?

[1:17:05] I’ll leave it up to the city clerk to determine the— I think it was the question of can you wait three, four months on this or do you want action taken on it now? I was suggesting that we could wait one to comment about the best process. I’m fine with the wording. Okay, sorry, Mr. McCrae, you’ve broken up. Ms. Cher, do you have any, sorry, I’ve seen you on screen and Mr. McCrae’s broken up.

[1:17:41] Do you have a preference on if civic administration authorizes us now when it goes to them or if it waits to the new council? Madam Chair, given that we’ve got a bit of confusion on our end with having this on the schedule, which I apologize for. Could we potentially just refer this back to staff for evaluation of the best way to approve? It can either go to the city manager if there’s a requirement to award it immediately and I’ll let Mr. McCrae and his team take a closer look at that or if it can be, wait, if it can wait, we’ll bring it back to the new term of council. Okay, so we’re gonna have it go back to civic administration to determine if it’s gonna wait to the new council or come to the next CWC meeting and we could always defer it there to city manager.

[1:18:23] We’re getting some fancy wording just hold with us for a moment. Okay, the committee clerk’s just gonna, I can read it out, I can read.

[1:19:01] That the matter be referred back to the civic administration to determine how to proceed with the matter. It’s gonna be a little bit more polished and wordy but that’s the intent of it. Ms. Westlake Powers has approved that. Staff seems to be in agreement with it. I have a thumbs up. I have a thumbs up that Councillor Fyffmalar is going to move that. I would need a seconder for that in Mayor Holder. I have no current questions or comments. I am going to do a final call for questions and comments. No.

[1:19:35] Oh, sorry, did I say that? That’s okay, you did say that out loud. No questions for anyone says Mayor Holder and everyone seems to be in agreement. So I’m calling the question. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Scheduled items, no items for direction. The deferred matters list will be updated for our next committee cycle, as a few timelines are changing.

[1:20:12] So we’ll get to see those at the next CWC. Looking for a mover and a seconder of the deferred matters list. Moved by Councillor Van Holst, seconded by Councillor Van Merbergen. Looking for any questions? Seeing none, calling the question. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. So to the end of the 12th meeting, the Civic Works Committee looking for a motion to adjourn. Moved by Councillor Halmer, seconded by Councillor Van Merbergen.

[1:20:46] A hand vote of all in favor of departing today. The committee clerk confirms we can all go about our day. Thank you very much, and I wish you a wonderful week.