Wednesday 15 June 1994

Township of Seymour Act, 1994, Bill Pr124, Mrs Fawcett

Joan Fawcett, MPP

Raymond Mikkola, solicitor, Algonquin Power Corporation Inc.

Young Men's Christian Association of Cambridge Act, 1994, Bill Pr120, Mr Cooper

Derek Fletcher, MPP

Donovan Pavey, solicitor, Young Men's Christian Association of Cambridge

Bill Irving, president, United Kingdom Club of Cambridge

Town of Orangeville Act, 1994, Bill Pr119, Mr Tilson

David Tilson, MPP

Patricia Sproule Ward, solicitor, town of Orangeville

City of Toronto Act, 1994, Bill Pr43, Mr Marchese

Rosario Marchese, MPP

Peter Tabuns, councillor, city of Toronto

Dennis Perlin, city solicitor, city of Toronto

Wayne Jackson, transportation director, department of public works and environment, city of Toronto

Bent Hudson, representative, Ontario Traffic Conference

Leslie Kelman, assistant director, traffic branch, municipality of Metropolitan Toronto

Doug Moffatt, executive director, Canadian Courier Association

Pat Curran, manager, public relations, CAA Toronto

Joan Doiron, trustee, Toronto Board of Education

Steve Ellis, councillor, city of Toronto

George Sawa

Hamish Wilson


*Chair / Présidente: Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND)

*Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente: MacKinnon, Ellen (Lambton ND)

*Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L)

*Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND)

*Hansen, Ron (Lincoln ND)

*Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND)

*Hodgson, Chris (Victoria-Haliburton PC)

*Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)

*Mills, Gordon (Durham East/-Est ND)

*O'Neil, Hugh P. (Quinte L)

Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND)

*Ruprecht, Tony (Parkdale L)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND) for Mr Perruzza

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Dadamo, George, parliamentary assistant to Minister of Transportation

Hayes, Pat, parliamentary assistant to Minister of Municipal Affairs

Clerk / Greffière: Grannum, Tonia

Staff / Personnel: Klein, Susan, legislative counsel

The committee met at 0937 in committee room 1.

The Chair (Ms Christel Haeck): I remind all in attendance today that this room does some rather strange things with noise. For the Chair's assistance, try to keep your individual caucuses or conversations to a minimum. If you feel you have to have a long discussion with someone, I would ask you to go out in the hall. I ask everyone to be considerate of all members and all other witnesses and participants who are here this morning.

I would also like to remind all presenters, the people who are listed as interested parties particularly, that in the interests of time the clerk has already advised you that your presentations must be short. I'm referring particularly to Bill Pr43, where we have a great many interested parties who wish to come forward. The clerk and her staff have reminded you that your presentations should be between one and two minutes long. I appreciate the fact that you will do that for us all.


Consideration of Bill Pr124, An Act respecting the Township of Seymour.

The Chair: Our first order of business is to call Bill Pr124. I ask Mrs Fawcett to come forward with her applicant and when she is seated to feel free to make some opening remarks and to introduce the applicant.

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have with me Raymond Mikkola, the solicitor representing the Algonquin Power Corporation. What we are going to ask this morning is that because of events that have happened just recently, the people would like a little more time. I believe they have already spoken to the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Some more deliberations have to take place and we would really appreciate a deferral at this moment. We would like this deferred until next week. If you would like more information, I'm sure Mr Mikkola can answer any further questions.

The Chair: Mr Mikkola, do you have anything more to add? Some members are prepared to make that motion for you if that meets with your needs right at this time.

Mr Raymond Mikkola: Yes. Thank you.

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Is a week's deferral what you're asking for? Did I hear one week?

Mrs Fawcett: Yes.

Mr Fletcher: So this would come back next Wednesday. Do we have a full agenda next Wednesday?

The Chair: A very full agenda, Mr Fletcher. In fact, I have a letter, which I will ask the clerk to distribute to all members, that relates to our committee time next week, to actually extend it to accommodate the many bills before us.

Mr Fletcher: Parliamentary assistant, is a week's deferral satisfactory with the ministry?

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Yes, it is satisfactory with the ministry.

Mr Fletcher: Then I move a one-week deferral.

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): As far as we're concerned, that's fine also.

The Chair: The motion before members is for deferral of one week. Would members indicate if they are in agreement. Agreed.


Consideration of Bill Pr120, An Act respecting the Young Men's Christian Association of Cambridge.

The Chair: Our next order of business is Bill Pr120. Mr Fletcher will be acting on behalf of Mr Cooper.

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I was just talking to Mr Cooper. He was going to be here for 10 o'clock because some of the members are usually here at 10 o'clock. I think there's a little confusion because it's 9:30.

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): They knew a week ago.

The Chair: The only concession I could make, if members are in agreement, is that we revise the agenda and call Bill Pr119 first.

Mr Hayes: Madam Chair, I understand they want to defer this until the fall.

The Chair: Oh, I see. There may be a deferral here as well. Mr Fletcher?

Mr Fletcher: On behalf of Mr Mike Cooper, MPP for Kitchener-Wilmot, I'm pleased to present Bill Pr120, An Act respecting the Young Men's Christian Association of Cambridge. With me is Donovan Pavey, who is a solicitor. He will be carrying it from here.

Mr Donovan Pavey: At this time I would request a deferral of this bill as a result of discussions with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Finance. We would like to approach Waterloo region and also the Waterloo County Board of Education to obtain their support. It will take some time to do that because of their heavy agendas and the upcoming summer months. I'm asking for a deferral until the fall of this year.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Pavey. I believe we have an interested citizen here.

Mr Bill Irving: Since they've asked for a deferral, there's probably no use putting my argument at the minute, but I'd like it noted that the United Kingdom Club of Cambridge objects to the YMCA at this time getting any tax-free status due to a conflict we have with Cambridge council. We believe that council has no credibility in the method it's using to grant tax-exempt status. However, since it's deferred at the minute, I'll put my argument aside.

The Chair: Mr Irving, I appreciate your comment. I would ask that in the interim you work with Mr Pavey and the city to try to resolve those issues. Obviously, you will have some months in which to do that.

Mrs MacKinnon: I'll move a motion that it be deferred until the fall.

The Chair: There's a motion on the floor for a deferral. All those in favour, please indicate. So done. I hope it can be amicably resolved.


Consideration of Bill Pr119, An Act respecting the Town of Orangeville.

The Chair: Our next order of business is Bill Pr119. Mr Tilson, along with the applicant, please.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I would like to introduce to you the delegation from the town of Orangeville to make its presentation with respect to this private bill. Pat Moyle is the chief administrative officer for the town of Orangeville. Mary Rose is the mayor of Orangeville. Patricia Sproule Ward is the solicitor for the town of Orangeville. Janice Gooding is the reeve of the town of Orangeville. Patricia Sproule Ward will be making the presentation to the members of the committee.

Ms Patricia Sproule Ward: As the committee may know, the town of Orangeville was incorporated by private legislation in 1873. It was incorporated in that way because it did not meet the population requirements under the predecessor to the Municipal Act, which would allow a village to be erected into a town. Part of the bill said that the town was to be treated as if it had been incorporated under the Municipal Act, but another section in the bill stated that the town council was to be composed of a mayor, a reeve and two councillors from each ward.

The town of Orangeville has consistently governed itself as if it had been governed by the Municipal Act and in fact since 1898 has elected its councils subject to the provisions of the Municipal Act and what is allowed in terms of the composition of council since that time.

What we're asking for today is to have the constituent legislation from 1873 amended so that the specific provision stating that council is to be composed of a mayor, reeve and two councillors from each ward be repealed and, in its place, a section indicating that the composition of council shall be governed by the Municipal Act.

In addition to that, we are then asking that the council for this upcoming election, in order to provide certainty for its electors, shall be composed of a mayor, reeve, deputy reeve and six councillors at large, which is how the council has been composed since -- I'm not sure of the exact date, but certainly since the turn of the century.

As well, we're asking that a clause be inserted so that if there is any question as to how council was composed, no action, resolution or bylaw passed by the town of Orangeville since its incorporation in 1873 be deemed invalid only because of the composition of council.

The Chair: I would at this point ask if there are any other interested parties who wish to come forward to speak to this particular bill. Seeing none, I would ask Mr Hayes, the parliamentary assistant to Municipal Affairs, to make comments.

Mr Hayes: The Ministry of Municipal Affairs does not have any objections to this bill.

The Chair: Are there any questions on behalf of the members at this time?

Mr Hansen: I haven't any questions, but if Mr Tilson brought this forward, he must have investigated quite closely, so we'll support it.

The Chair: I'm quite sure he's happy for that Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.


Mrs MacKinnon: How many more times do we have to have bills come before us like this to spend our time on, when it seems to me there should be some provincial legislation that would just take care of the whole thing?

The Chair: I would ask, at this point, the parliamentary assistant to respond to Mrs MacKinnon's question.

Mr Hayes: I thought she asked you the question.

The Chair: You're the parliamentary assistant, and be careful; I have the gavel.

Mr Hayes: In this particular case, this was private legislation to begin with, and it changed to turn that around, I guess, to revise it. Whether it was an error or not made back in 1988, it's outside the Municipal Act is really what it is, so that's why this is necessary.

Mrs MacKinnon: Am I to believe this is restructuring, but what this particular municipality wants as opposed to the restructuring we might order?

Mr Hayes: No. This is not really restructuring. It's changing the complement of the members of their council.

Mrs MacKinnon: I don't have any problem with that. It just seems to me we have a lot of these coming before us all the time.

Mr Hayes: No, not like this one.

Mrs MacKinnon: Oh, well, it's my job.

The Chair: Since there are no additional questions at this time, I would ask if members are ready to vote.

There is an amendment coming forward and it is currently being drafted. Perhaps we could have a quick five-minute recess to allow legislative counsel to take care of that.

The committee recessed from 0951 to 0958.

The Chair: I would like to call the standing committee on regulations and private bills back to order. We'll give it a minute for order to actually be achieved.

The clerk is currently distributing legislative counsel's amendments, and the town, I believe, is in agreement with them. It's just cleaning up a couple of points of language. I would ask at this point for members to indicate if they are ready to vote on the bill. Agreed.

Since the amendment is relating to section 4, I will ask if sections 1 through 3 carry. Carried.

Mr Fletcher: I move that section 4 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Actions, resolutions and bylaws of councils not invalid

"4. No action taken, resolution made or bylaw passed by a council of the corporation before this act comes into force is invalid by virtue only that the council may not have been properly constituted."

The Chair: All members have heard the motion at this point. Please signify if you are in favour. Agreed? Anyone opposed? Seeing none, it's carried.

Shall section 4 carry, as amended? Agreed.

Shall sections 5 through 7 carry? Agreed.

Shall the preamble carry? Agreed.

Shall the title carry? Agreed.

Shall the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? Agreed.

Very good. The bill is carried, and I want to thank the various council members and the CAO from Orangeville for your time. I hope this meets your expectations. Thank you to Mr Tilson as well.


Consideration of Bill Pr43, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

The Chair: Our next order of business is Bill Pr43. I would ask Mr Marchese to come forward and introduce the applicants.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I'd like to introduce a number of people. Peter Tabuns is councillor, city of Toronto. We have Dennis Perlin, city solicitor, and Wayne Jackson, department of public works and environment, city of Toronto.

I'd like to say a few words before I leave the floor open for the others to make some comments, but in sponsoring the bill and in supporting it, I want to take one moment or two to say why. Obviously, the request to have a change in the Highway Traffic Act to allow the city of Toronto to be able to reduce the speed limit in some areas to 30 kilometres per hour, particularly in areas where there are traffic calming measures, in my view, is a good thing for a number of reasons.

The first point, however, I want to make is that change is difficult all of the time. Whenever we introduce a particular change, some people are upset by it, and some people obviously think this is a silly measure. I don't believe it's a silly measure. I think, on balance, that introducing such a measure will do a number of good things for the citizens of Toronto. In my view, it will make it a more livable city. Reducing traffic makes it a more pedestrian, people-oriented kind of measure. There is an instinct with drivers to drive five or 10 kilometres above the speed limit, and by reducing it to 30 kilometres an hour in areas where we are introducing traffic calming measures, it makes it, in my view, a lot safer.

For the king of the road, the car, it's very difficult to be able to force it to slow down, and the driver himself or herself hates to be slowed down, but in the overall interest of citizens, in the overall interest of safety, this is good for everyone in the city of Toronto. Where it has been introduced in other parts of the world, I understand it has saved many lives. To make it a more livable city for people, to make it safer and to save lives, I think this is an important measure for us to be supporting.

The Chair: May I ask which of the delegation from Toronto would wish to speak first?

Mr Peter Tabuns: I'll be speaking first, Madam Chair. Mayor Rowlands isn't able to attend the committee today and, in her absence, has requested that I provide the committee with an overview of the legislation proposed by the city of Toronto respecting the implementation of the 30-kilometre-per-hour speed limits as an adjunct to traffic calming measures.

Each year, the city of Toronto and councillors such as myself receive requests from local residents respecting particular traffic problems in their neighbourhoods. Many of the problems are due merely to the greater volume of traffic on Toronto streets as a result of commuters from the area and neighbouring municipalities.

Some of these problems are magnified for a particular neighbourhood due to the discovery by motorists of a shortcut off the main arterial roads. Often resident groups will work together with the city to try and address these problems by implementing a traffic management plan. Sometimes such a plan may involve an alteration to the highway, such as the installation of planter boxes which may limit vehicular access, or involve the widening of a sidewalk or narrowing of the street.

The city is receiving more support for lower speed limits in residential areas and in particular where a neighbourhood or residents of a particular street are contemplating the implementation of traffic calming measures.

Traffic calming measures, together with a reduced speed limit of 30 kilometres per hour, will allow the city to exercise more control over vehicular use in the city and may be a catalyst to discourage unnecessary vehicular use.

Traffic calming is only one of a number of initiatives which the city's been implementing over the last number of years with respect to changing driver behaviour. The city of Toronto believes this legislation is necessary as an additional safety feature in implementing traffic calming measures within the city and can demonstrate that, with careful planning, the streets of Toronto can be utilized by pedestrians, bicycles and other vehicles more equitably and more beneficially.

I would like to speak briefly. There are a number of misconceptions about what we're doing and what we've proposed. It must be a slow month for news, because I got phoned by all kinds of radio stations yesterday with a wide variety of questions. There are a few things I want to clarify for the committee. One, we're not proposing to reduce speed on a wholesale basis in Toronto. The day after you pass this legislation, you won't find driving down Yonge Street that it's now 30 kilometres per hour.

Our focus is residential streets where there is community support and where the roadway has been modified for traffic calming. There are a number of conditions that would be attached to any street where we would reduce the speed limit.

We hope to reduce the impact of traffic, noise, pollution and safety problems. The European experience, starting first in Germany and spreading to Switzerland, Holland and now Britain, is that traffic calming, packaged with what's called in Germany a Tempo 30 area really does cut air pollution by 10% to 50%, reduce fatalities and reduce injuries about 50%, and reduce noise. In Ontario, we have traffic calming now and we do it usually with stop signs, with turn restrictions, with mazes, with additional traffic lights. I've talked to some members who were formerly city councillors who went on to get away from traffic and parking problems, and I sympathize with those members, because we know the outcome of those measures: We get more stop-and-go traffic, we get more noise, we get more frustrated drivers.

We're looking to an approach that allows for a steady flow of traffic with a lower speed, which is the tradeoff in the residential areas. When you look at the European experience, they have reduced the number of stoplights and signs and replaced them with physical barriers and a lower speed limit. Initially in Germany when they first brought this in there was very low acceptance by drivers. I think one poll showed about 27%. After implementation, drivers polled approved by 67%, because you can do away with things like traffic mazes.

In any event, one other question that's come up is this whole question of whether or not this is enforceable. We have adopted the same position as European traffic planners, and that's that you can't just put 30 kilometres per hour down on a wide, straight, empty street and expect people to respect it. It won't happen and people would just simply ignore that law, which is why we are saying that we would not be proposing this for a street that was not modified to make it difficult to travel at a high rate of speed.

Anyway, I hope that clears up some misconceptions. I know Mr Perlin and Mr Jackson can go into more detail than I've gone into, but I'm happy to answer questions. I'll present Mr Perlin now, solicitor for the city of Toronto, who will provide some further background information.

Mr Dennis Perlin: I want to take just a couple of minutes in terms of the structure of the bill. You'll see a significant number of amendments that are coming forward after discussions with the ministries of Transportation, Municipal Affairs and the Solicitor General, and the Metro police and Metro, from what was, as you can see, a simple bill that gave us power to pass a bylaw with respect to 30 kilometres to one that makes very clear the position that Councillor Tabuns has put forward, so you will see in the new section 1 that 30 kilometres can only be put into effect if the street has been designated with street calming measures and street calming measures are in effect. You'll see the revised section 1 that way, that the street has to be signed appropriately, what would be the penalties. This is a bylaw that will be a bylaw offence, not under the Highway Traffic Act, but the penalties will be only those that would be applicable to somebody who was convicted under the Highway Traffic Act, so it's the same number, so many dollars over a kilometre etc applies, not the maximum $5,000 limit of a municipal bylaw offence. Then the powers are made clear in terms of only a police officer being able to enforce it, not, for example, a bylaw officer. So a moving violation can only be a police officer. Those are the amendments that are coming forward.

Most important, the final amendment, which is that this has a sunset, is a two-year proposal to see if it works. We've come to you before. For example, I was here about two years ago, you may remember, on vending and whether or not taking vending vehicles away etc, would cause great violence in the streets etc. It didn't and you were kind enough the next year to remove the sunset, but it had a sunset.


When we're introducing new measures, if the sunset measures don't work, so be it, the bill would automatically come to an end. So if it's going to continue, it'll only continue with you at the Legislature saying so.

The last thing we have for you, and perhaps the clerk of the committee can hand them out, is that some people have asked me, "What are traffic calming measures?" We have some cross-sections in the report. I believe you have a copy of the supplementary report that was handed out in which council adopted the traffic calming policy for the city on May 30, but I don't believe the map was attached and perhaps I can hand that out, along with an actual cross-section of the first traffic calming project, which is Balliol Street-Mount Pleasant in Toronto, and it shows an actual street. One of these diagrams shows you some measures. This one on Balliol Street shows you an actual cross-section of the street.

Finally, we aren't going to see a lot of these projects. The Balliol project itself, for example, cost about $300,000 to do, and a number of other projects will cost significantly less, but we are talking in the thousands of dollars. It's not something you can just do overnight. We're not going to see a massive number of them in the next couple of years, so you shouldn't expect that this is going to be a floodgate or something before you have a chance to review it to see how it's been working on these limited number of streets for the next two years.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Perlin. I would say that members have actually your report dated May 30 and we have this sort of schematic here, but from my own package, I don't think we have the Balliol Street map, so that would be useful for members.

Mr Hansen: Yes, it's right here.

The Chair: No, this is not the Balliol, this is just basically the series of diagrams of the traffic calming measures. There's another street map, I believe, that Mr Perlin referred to, which the clerk is distributing for everyone's interest. I hope you brought some extras because I suspect there are other people who will be interested.

Mr Perlin: Yes, there may be a few left.

The Chair: There may be a few extras. Okay, very good. Mr Jackson, at this point, did you have any additional comments to make?

Mr Wayne Jackson: Yes, I do. Thank you, Madam Chair, for inviting me here today to discuss this matter. The control of traffic through residential areas is not new to the city of Toronto. In fact, we've been involved in this game for well over 20 years. What is new is the method we now propose to use to control traffic.

Typically, residents' complaints about traffic on their streets are twofold. First of all, there's the traffic volume and/or there is the speed of traffic. In the past, we've addressed these complaints by a number of methods. We have prohibited movements on to certain streets either the entire day or for parts of the day. We have closed streets entirely. We have created one-way mazes.

These methods certainly have reduced the volume of traffic on these streets in question. However, they didn't necessarily reduce the speed and they always came at a cost. The cost was usually a high inconvenience, not only to the residents but also to service people and other people who had legitimate business in the area.

What we tried to do was to keep the good parts of this traffic control policy and get rid of the not-so-good parts. The method that holds the most promise at this point is what's called traffic calming. Traffic calming is usually thought of as the implementation of physical changes to local residential streets which slow down motor vehicles or reduce traffic volumes to make neighbourhoods safer and more community oriented.

These changes affect drivers' perceptions of the street and influence driver behaviour so that they drive more slowly. A traffic calming scheme typically includes some or all of the following measures: raised sections of road, changes of surface, texture or colour, road and lane narrowings, bicycle lanes, chicanes, traffic circles.

There are major advantages to traffic calming over our previous attempts at traffic control. Right off the bat, for the most part, roads are left open and accessible to all road users the entire day. At slower speeds, drivers have more opportunity to react to situations which may cause collisions, and even in those cases where there is a collision, the severity of the collision is usually reduced because of the slower speeds involved. This of course is particularly important in relation to pedestrians and cyclists. Traffic calming will contribute, along with other city initiatives, to a cleaner, greener and quieter environment, and traffic calming will help reduce the car domination of our neighbourhoods.

As Mr Perlin has said, council has endorsed traffic calming as an effective way of reducing traffic impacts on residential neighbourhoods in the city. In fact, council has gone so far as to endorse a pilot project incorporating many of the abovenoted traffic-calming measures. We've distributed the Balliol pilot project. Construction will begin on Balliol in August of this year and be finished by the end of October.

In preparation of both our traffic calming policy report and our pilot project work, we have enlisted the input of all emergency services, including the police department, we have talked to Metro Toronto, we've talked to the cycling community, we've talked to city and Metro planning departments; we've gone far and wide to get acceptance of the plan.

This is where the 30-kilometre-per-hour-speed-limit request comes in. Traffic calming tries to convey to the motorists that they are welcome to share the road in question, but they are asked to respect the fact that the roadway is a part of a residential community, where the actions of one group of users can adversely impact the health and enjoyment of other groups of users. The intention is to use the 30-kilometre-per-hour regulation as part and parcel of traffic calming schemes.

By itself, without the inclusion of other traffic calming measures, the 30-kilometre-per-hour regulation would be ineffective. However, in concert with the various traffic calming measures noted earlier, the 30-kilometre-per-hour regulation will guide motorists in the appropriate speed to travel the traffic calmed street. As can be seen from the Balliol example that I have distributed, the horizontal and vertical elements of the traffic calmed roadway are designed to demonstrate to the motorists that speeds in excess of 30 kilometres an hour are inappropriate.

In summary, I wish to make the following points: The 30-kilometre-per-hour regulatory speed limit is a part of a larger traffic calming initiative now being undertaken by the city of Toronto. There is a percentage of the population that will obey speed limit signs. We wish to capture this group of motorists. I'm not convinced enforcement is an issue in this matter. I remind you that every street in the city now has a speed limit which is enforced to the best of the abilities of the police.

There has been some discussion around using warning signs instead of the regulatory speed limit signs. In this regard, I note that the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for the province of Ontario, when discussing warning signs, states that:

"Warning signs, when used, shall indicate in advance conditions upon or adjacent to a street or highway that are potentially dangerous to the road user. However, the misuse of warning signs will promote disrespect for these, as well as other traffic control devices, and the use of such signs should therefore be kept to a minimum."

This aptly conveys my hesitation about using warning signs and my corresponding request for the regulatory 30-kilometre-per-hour speed limit.

The Chair: As we have a number of people who have already indicated they wish to speak to this, I'm going to use a strategy I've used on another occasion and try to group people. At this point, I would ask these four people to vacate those chairs and those microphones and call the following people forward: George Dadamo, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation; Bent Hudson, the Ontario Traffic Conference; David Kaufman, director of traffic and planning for the municipality of Toronto; and Gordon Perks, the Better Transportation Coalition.


Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): In terms of asking questions to the previous deputants, they're going to come again, obviously, right?

Mr Fletcher: Yes.

Mr Ruprecht: But in terms of the process after the new deputants have spoken, what's the process? Are there other ones after that?

The Chair: Basically, I have a long list of people here, as you probably have a list as well. We will get all of their presentations first. As questions come to you, please feel free to raise your hand. I have you down on the list of questioners. Then we will ask those people to come up to answer the queries as you raise them.

Mr Ruprecht: So they're all going first.

The Chair: We're going to have all of the people raise these concerns first so that we can get them on the table, and possibly some of your questions, as a result, will be answered and possibly it will reduce some repetition and concern.

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): I'm pleased to be here this morning on behalf of Transportation Minister Gilles Pouliot as we begin committee discussions on this private member's bill presented by the honourable member for Fort York.

As you know, private member's Bill Pr43 would allow the city of Toronto to introduce the designation of 30-kilometre-per-hour speed limits together with some traffic calming measures. Let us first preface the ministry's position by reminding you that safety on our roads is a top priority for this government. We are committed to making Ontario roads the safest in North America, and from that commitment we expect tangible results and we of course expect to save lives.

Road safety is a complicated issue. We approach it comprehensively. Government initiatives, such as graduated licensing of new drivers, RIDE campaigns, seatbelt campaigns and construction and maintenance of our highways to the safest standards possible are designed to save lives, reduce injuries and also cut the annual $9-billion cost of collisions.

We realize, as you do, that road safety is a principal concern of the city and is the catalyst for the introduction of this bill. To that end, we support the efforts of the municipalities in finding new ways to deal with traffic problems in residential areas by exploring traffic calming measures.

Some of those traffic calming examples -- traffic circles, road narrowing, speed humps, change in colour and texture of the road surface, street closures and one-way streets -- are intriguing, but they need further definition and investigation.

One reason these traffic calming measures are interesting is that by their very design they have the potential to force people to slow down and to adjust their driving habits and they are not laws which need enforcement. The city of Toronto's proposal includes speed-limit reductions to 30 kilometres per hour and traffic calming measures. Lowering the speed limit is not a traffic calming measure; it would require consistent enforcement in order to work. We don't know whether traffic calming measures do work or how they work, but this would give us an opportunity to find out together. Traffic calming measures are relatively new in Ontario and neither the province nor municipalities has much experience in this area. These measures are still very much experimental.

Because of this experimental purpose, it is appropriate to include a sunset clause in the proposed amendment. A sunset clause is advantageous and appropriate when we are testing something new which requires a legislative amendment, and the clause indicates the amendment is only in force for a specified period.

In this case, a sunset clause will allow time for the traffic calming measures along with the 30-kilometre-per-hour speed limits to be studied and evaluated by the city in conjunction with the ministry. If at the end of the two-year period the city can show that 30-kilometre-per-hour speed limits are appropriate and effective for use together with traffic-calming measures, then appropriate legislative action can be taken at that time.

We suggest a sunset date of two years from proclamation. This will give the city the opportunity to establish the speed limit for a street, sign it and evaluate it. It will also give the city one more year to remove the sunset clause if it is shown that lower speed limits along with traffic calming measures do indeed work.

To decide if they are appropriate, and it's crucial that we know whether or not they will work before we proceed full speed ahead, there are two other considerations we would like the city to think about: consider defining traffic calming measures so drivers will know what to expect and consider using 30-kilometre limits together with traffic calming measures. The two shouldn't be used separately from one another. At the risk of repeating, we have to approach this very comprehensively.

Let me close by saying there's no doubt that speeding is a real problem and a very serious concern. We agree that safer residential streets are an objective which ought to be pursued on an experimental basis, and I think this bill offers one way of achieving that goal, because the issue of road safety, as I said earlier, is one of the government's chief considerations. Speeding is also an issue for all of us, one we grapple with every day in this province.

As we approach the issue seriously, we approach the solution seriously, and that means analysing proposals like traffic calming measures together with lower speed limits carefully. It also means having the ability to ensure that, if unsuccessful, the act will not require further legislation intended to put an end to the experiment.

The ministry supports the city's objectives and this bill. I'm confident that this bill will meet our concerns and that the city will benefit from the approach to road safety.

Let me close also by saying that we have many staff from MTO here this morning who will be able to answer any questions that anyone will have and we'd be delighted to do so.

Mr Bent Hudson: I'm here today representing the Ontario Traffic Conference and in the time available to me, I wish to record on behalf of the membership and the board of directors the conference's strong opposition to the proposed legislation which would enable the city of Toronto to designate 30-kilometre speed zones on public roadways. The conference regards the proposed legislation as unwarranted as it would relate to current traffic engineering practices and criteria.

By way of background, the Ontario Traffic Conference, since its inception in 1950, has been an organization dedicated to the safe and efficient movement of persons and goods on the streets and highways of Ontario. The membership of this organization is unique in that it encompasses over 90% of the municipalities in Ontario having a population of 5,000 or more. Members include engineering personnel, police, elected officials and suppliers of traffic and parking control products and services.

Due to its broad range of expertise, the conference has been active for many years in advising and assisting the Ministry of Transportation in projects as diverse as the preparation of the Ontario Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, handicapped parking policies, pedestrian crossover standards, school crossing protection and all-way stop warrants.

In recent years, the membership of the conference has been most concerned with what can generally be categorized as the unwarranted use of traffic control devices, often described as political warrants, which has in many municipalities resulted in a proliferation of all-way stop controls and 40-kilometre-per-hour speed zones, both of which are intended to deter speeders and limit through or shortcut traffic.

Unfortunately, however well-meaning, this arbitrary imposition of lowered speed limits has quite simply not proven effective in reducing prevailing travel speeds but has served to create lawbreakers out of a majority of the motoring public and create a great deal of disrespect for traffic laws in general and placed an unreasonable enforcement pressure upon limited police resources.

Traffic engineering professionals have consistently determined that the majority of motorists will operate their vehicles at a rate of speed which they judge reasonable and prudent given the prevailing road, vehicle and weather conditions, regardless of posted speed limits. Speed regulations, as with most laws, should to a great degree be self-regulating, with enforcement effort being directed only to the few irresponsible motorists who will unfortunately be in evidence on most streets and highways.

Our opinion is that the 30-kilometre speed limit, if it's permitted in the city of Toronto, will constitute an unreasonable and virtually unenforceable law and will certainly qualify as an unwarranted use of traffic control devices.


It is acknowledged that the requested legislation is confined to the city of Toronto and is intended for application in local residential areas designated for traffic calming. We have, however, in perusing the provided background material, identified nothing of a technical supportive nature to justify the city's 30-kilometre-per-hour proposal. Traffic calming techniques, if of an extensive physical and geometric nature, may very well effect reduced travel speeds. The impact of such initiatives upon speed, however, should be assessed prior to considering the incorporation of a companion maximum legal speed.

Our concern, and indeed our expectation, is that should this breakthrough legislation be approved for the city, then demands for similar treatment will surely follow within other municipalities in Ontario. Our position is that the current 40-kilometre-per-hour prescribed speed as the lowest permitted by the Highway Traffic Act for public highways in Ontario adequately serves the needs of municipalities if and when it is determined, through engineering studies, that a speed limit reduction from the statutory 50 kilometres per hour is warranted.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to address this committee.

Mr Leslie Kelman: My name is Les Kelman, appearing on behalf of Metropolitan Toronto on behalf of David Kaufman.

We initially had concerns about the bill as it was initially formulated, but since that time we have participated in a number of discussions with officials from the city of Toronto, and the amendments that have been introduced have addressed the vast majority of concerns that we had from a metropolitan perspective.

The one remaining issue that is of concern to the metropolitan corporation is more a matter of implementation rather than the bill itself. If I examine the European experience and the way in which traffic calming has been introduced, traffic calming is actually defined quite clearly, and there is a minimum set of requirements that one would need to introduce.

It may be advisable to introduce some of the detailed elements of what we would term "warrants" into the bill, so that the requirements for the city of Toronto to introduce certain physical features on to the roadway would need to be there, would need to be clearly defined, before the accompanying speed limits could be introduced at the same time.

As most people are aware, the transportation network in the Metro area is a combination of local roads and Metro roads, and while we encourage all of the local municipalities in terms of traffic calming measures -- anything that they do to improve the safety of pedestrians, cyclists, drivers and passengers we will fully support -- the outcome has to be a balanced transportation network.

As well as introducing these measures on the local roads and even perhaps reducing the speed limits, at the same time we have to ensure that the arterials -- these are the roadways under the Metro jurisdiction -- are as attractive as possible. It's a balanced system, it's a tradeoff, and in trying to ensure that traffic is not using the local neighbourhoods, we have to do the utmost to ensure that they stay on the arterials. This is the only way in which we can achieve a balanced transportation system to the benefit of everyone.

Therefore, what we would like to see is some of the requirements for traffic calming introduced so that there is some sort of consultation process, so that the impact of the neighbourhood's features is balanced against what we're trying to do on the arterials. That's really the only comment, the only concern, we have from a Metro perspective at this time.

The Chair: I appreciate all your remarks at this time. I would ask these folks to vacate the chairs. I'm going to call the following people. Is Gordon Perks in the audience? No. We have Doug Moffatt, Joan Doiron, Steve Ellis and Pat Curran, if you could come forward, please, if you're in the room. I'm going to start with you, sir, if you would please introduce yourself for the purposes of Hansard and make your presentation.

Mr Doug Moffatt: My name is Doug Moffatt. I'm executive director of the Canadian Courier Association. I'll be, hopefully, very brief. Initially this bill, as it was drafted, was unworkable in our estimation, and I have some concern that the amendments I think are the amendments are the amendments you folks think are the amendments.

I'm concerned that the bill seems to be attracting bits and pieces as it goes through, and certain folks are establishing that this amendment is part of it and other folks are establishing that other amendments are part of it. We need to see at some point a clean, updated copy of exactly what it is.

The gentleman who spoke for Metro said most of the things I was concerned with at this time. We are prepared to support the movement of the bill. We question whether 30 kilometres per hour or 18 miles an hour is a realistic number to use, but it's a test and we'll support it.

The definition of "traffic calming" is something that is missing and needs to be part of the final piece of work so that those municipalities or others who expect to see traffic calming and 30-kilometre speed limits implemented in various places will know exactly what they're buying into when the proposal is brought forward.

It seems to us that this is a part of possibly workable legislation. Our greatest fear, however, is that the city of Toronto has embarked in other areas on measures which, say, do away with cars and delivery vehicles and trucks, and that is not a workable position. Those people who propose that this is simply part of that kind of legislation are wrong.

We would ask that your committee make sure that this is treated as a measure to improve road safety in those designated areas only and that the definition be clearly set out. Under those circumstances, we would support the legislation.

Ms Pat Curran: I'm Pat Curran. I'm manager of public relations for CAA Toronto. We thank you for the opportunity to comment on the speed limit law.

The Canadian Automobile Association policy 5.3 on the regulation of speeds states, "All motor vehicles should be driven at speeds reasonable and prudent under prevailing conditions with the legal maximum and minimum limits."

Regulatory speed limits should be kept under constant review, using the most effective modern techniques and formulae for determining and enforcing safe and realistic speeds, taking into consideration the effect of speed upon safety and energy conservation.

Our recommendation 5.3.1 on the regulation of speed states, "Provincial governments are encouraged to establish and enforce speed limits which have been determined to be positive measures to save lives, reduce the severity of injuries, decrease tension and conserve energy."


We at CAA Toronto believe that reducing the speed limit to 30 kilometres per hour on city streets would be unreasonable and unenforceable. Motorists will only obey the speed limits that they perceive as being reasonable. An unrealistically low set speed limit may also give a false sense of security to other road users, including pedestrians.

Further, we feel that such a low speed limit does not allow for the efficient operation of the motor vehicle and could have the detrimental effect of increasing fuel consumption and exhaust pollution. CAA therefore recommends that the urban speed limit law remain as it is presently. We thank you for the opportunity to comment.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Curran. I suspect the lady on your right is Ms Doiron. Perhaps you would introduce yourself if I've mispronounced your name and continue with your presentation.

Ms Joan Doiron: My name is Joan Doiron; the "i" is on the other side of the "r." It's an Acadian name, just for a little exercise in Canadian history.

The Chair: I understand the fun with names. My name is five letters and it presents some interesting problems as well.

Ms Doiron: Nobody can ever pronounce it.

The Chair: No problem.

Ms Doiron: I'm here on behalf of the Toronto Board of Education. I made some notes for myself, which I'll pass to your secretary afterwards, that I wrote actually with the previous writing of the bill. Now I'm much happier with what's here, of course, but I'll still read what I said originally.

The Toronto Board of Education has strongly supported the city's efforts to reduce speed limits and to traffic-calm our streets, particularly in our school communities. It is the desire of the board that children be encouraged to walk to school. Ideally, we would like the city, Metro and the province to work with school communities and boards to create a situation where most of our students walk or cycle to school.

This used to be the case. Surely it should be part of our collective policies to return our cities and communities to a condition where most community trips may be taken by walking, cycling and transit. Such a happy situation would help the province readily achieve its environmental objectives of reducing emissions and making our streets lively, interesting places.

As the previous speaker said, obviously, if you keep cars going at a slow speed, you do reduce emissions. Largely as a result of speeding motor vehicles taking more and more city space, children have been given less and less freedom to walk in their communities and to their schools. Speeding vehicles take a terrible toll through road kill and through maiming for life many hundreds of thousands of children and adults. That's got to speak a lot louder than just the convenience of the automobiles.

Slower vehicles take less toll, of course. British Columbia has recognized this for many years. There's been a 30-kilometre zone as standard in their residential school communities.

At the Toronto board, we were shocked to receive a letter from the Minister of Transportation on April 11 where all the above truths were ignored, while a preoccupation with "uniformity" was suggested as an ultimate good. Streets, after all, are not only for motor vehicles. Best used, streets surely are the means by which children and adults communicate with one another through walking and cycling and where car use is minimized to the most necessary vehicles.

Traffic calming, with lower speed limits and lower traffic volumes, will help reinforce our city neighbourhoods. Thus, as a representative of the Toronto board, I would like to urge you to support this permissive legislation you've got before you.

I just want to point something else out to you. I'll leave you a copy of this. This is a document we've had at the board several times about traffic calming. If people are concerned about the definition of it, here's a wonderful book to get at it. It is something that the city and the board itself are working very much on, because we have far too many accidents with our children.

There is a little document which shows you how, with 30 kilometres an hour, a child is not hurt anywhere near as much as with a 60-kilometre zone, for example. It says here:

"Reducing speed has the following effects:

"(1) Slower traffic emits less noise and fumes." There's the point I was making earlier.

"(2) There are less accidents.

"(3) Accidents that do happen are less severe." You'll have an example of one of our parents speaking later who will talk about that.

"(4) The capacity of existing road space is increased." If you've got faster cars, they need more space; slower cars need less space.

That's what I'd mainly like to say.

Mr Steve Ellis: I'm Councillor Steve Ellis from the city of Toronto. As with most legislative bodies, it's very rare when you have unanimity on any initiative or any bill. I represent the dissenting voice, the minority voice of city council. When this came through council, it wasn't the situation. Certainly there was a large majority who supported it but there were a few of us who didn't feel it was well-thought-out and didn't feel it was adequate.

I am somewhat happier with the proposed amendments to the bill because it was my view that the blanket request for allowing 30-kilometre zones throughout the city of Toronto was not practical, it wouldn't work and it would be contrary to public safety. We all know that we currently have speed limits. The speed limit is 50 kilometres an hour unless otherwise designated. We have a number of zones that are 40 kilometres and these are primarily around schools or in neighbourhoods where we are attempting to calm traffic. There is a 40-kilometre zone which is used quite widely in the city of Toronto, to pretty good effect. But this 30-kilometre zone, to allow this as a holus-bolus answer to the traffic speeding problems would not be the answer.

Quite interestingly enough, last evening I had a meeting in my constituency office with over 50 residents in a quiet neighbourhood region north of the Danforth in my area in east Toronto. Of the 50 people -- we discussed this traffic calming at quite a lot of length, and speed limits -- the consensus of almost everyone there, I think 49 out of 50, was that 30-kilometre zones will not work because there's not adequate enforcement, that they would be very happy if some of the police constables in the city of Toronto who are enforcing parking violations would be placed on radar and enforcing the current 40-kilometre zones throughout the city of Toronto, that the effect would be terrific and we would have much safer streets.

To bring in a 30-kilometre zone without adequate enforcement is completely fooling the troops. It's window dressing that will have no real effect on the safety of the streets of Toronto or any other municipality in Ontario where it's brought in.

My community is requesting stepped-up police enforcement of the current speed limits. We hope that through the Ontario Legislature and Metropolitan Toronto, which is the government that funds the police in our area, they will increase police spending and encourage the police to enforce the speed limits. Perhaps, if I can throw a novel idea out here, it may be that the Legislature might decide to exempt the police from Bob Rae days, which take a very serious toll on their manpower and womanpower in enforcing the laws that are there.

I am somewhat happy with the proposed amendments. I would request that if this committee does implement the 30-kilometre zones, it be very much in conjunction with traffic calming measures in areas, particularly around schools. There's consensus that we have a concern with safety around public schools and separate schools and high schools, that it is a real concern with children in the area, and we would certainly like to err on the side of a 30-kilometre zone if that will save some lives.

But to allow holus-bolus power to implement it throughout the whole city, it's ripe for abuse. There's no doubt there will be some overzealous councillors who will attempt to make their whole ward 30-kilometre zones, which will lead to confusion. Why implement laws for the Queen's highways that will not be adequately enforced?

I just wanted to raise those points.

The Chair: I'd like to thank this group of presenters for their information and I would at this point like to call Mr George Sawa, William Wallace and Hamish Wilson, please.


Mr George Sawa: My name is George Sawa. I would like to start by asking everybody in this room to basically look at the hard facts and not try to speak in the abstract. This is a picture of my son, who was hit by a car. Luckily he was not killed because the car was going slowly. Please note the indentation in his left cheek. I'll just pass it from here, please.

You realize that I support the bill. If I had my choice, I'd make it even slower than 30 kilometres for the pollution that the cars create and the noise that the cars create, and of course there are many senior citizens who can get killed by fast-moving cars, and young people. Many of us very soon will be senior citizens, and you should be quite concerned about the speed of the traffic.

I disagree very much with some previous speakers who said that you cannot enforce this 30 kilometres. Let me remind you that on St George Street by the University of Toronto two students have been killed in the last three years. We had the police car there enforcing the speed and the police car was catching a lot of speeders.

When they introduced bicycle lanes, the speed dropped immediately and there was no reason to spend money and bring a policeman to monitor the speed, so the speed can be enforced by creating bicycle lanes.

I endorse the bill.

Mr Hamish Wilson: I'm Hamish Wilson. I support legislative change that would allow for lower speed limits, ie, 30 kilometres an hour. Why? Speed kills. How much do we have invested in a life or a pet? I don't believe that we will add much, if anything, to the air pollution burden. More energy is used going from zero to 50 and beyond than is used from going from zero to 30 kilometres.

Faster speeds encourage resentment for stop signs and less heed being given to them. Speeding cars, in theory, require more expensive road space for stopping distance than slower cars. We would likely have smoother flowing traffic if we had closer to a steady state of flow rather than so much stop and then, zoom, go.

Now all levels of our governments, province, Metro and city, are or are talking about putting into place plans that support the more sustainable modes of getting about. Making the streets friendlier to pedestrians and cyclists does mean reducing the fear of being killed by a passing car.

What we're talking about is an efficiency improvement that would benefit everybody. I have here a poster from Holland that shows the road space as it's occupied by cars, then the people will get out of their cars, then they get on bikes and then they all get on the sidewalk. If we encourage a safer, more sustainable street so that these people feel more comfortable being on their feet, being in transit, being on their bikes, then we have more road space, and the cars that are on the road and the buses and the transit vehicles can get to where they're going with less hassle and less congestion, and that will improve our economy and the efficiency of people's time. So we're really talking about something significant here in terms of making our streets friendlier.

I would also quote from an excellent book, The Ecology of the Automobile, page 120, "Another study of a midtown Manhattan area showed that only 22% of the people were in vehicles but they occupied 66% of the available space." That isn't always the case, it isn't always just 22%, but I think the roads are public spaces, and we have to make sure that the benefits are shared more publicly.

I heard that the traffic conference person, I believe, was very concerned that this 30-kilometre-an-hour zone would spread throughout the province. I wonder why. Do people live throughout the province? I think so. It's a very basic human concern that the roads be made safe for crossing the street for elderly people, for children and for pets.

The Chair: Thank you to these presenters as well. Those are the people I've called who I've had some pre-confirmation as far as their wish to speak this morning is concerned. I would ask at this point, if there are any additional interested parties who wish to come forward, if they would do so at this time.

I would then ask Mr Hayes to make his comments with regard to concerns related to either the Ministry of Municipal Affairs or other ministries that you are aware would have a concern with this bill.

Mr Hayes: It is obvious that the Ministry of Transportation did have some concerns. As far as the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is concerned, we're rather neutral on this because of the recommendations from MTO, and as long as these amendments are accepted, then we will not be objecting to it.

The other point I'm going to have to make is that one of the questions we've had is whether we are going to entertain others now, after we pass this one. I can't speak on behalf of MTO, but I would certainly suggest that we would say that if this is going to be a pilot project, then let it be so and not deal with others until we find out the results of this. I have my personal views, but anyhow I'll finish there.

The Chair: Mr Dadamo, any concerns at this point, beyond what you've already stated?

Mr Dadamo: I said to a media representative in the hallway a couple of minutes ago that we should view this on a pilot project basis. I think most things the government tends to do is to work on pilot projects, and whether that becomes a six-month deal, a year or two years, we need to see numbers come back to us one way or the other.

I made it instinctively clear that this is a project that works in British Columbia. The Toronto Star reported yesterday in its article that it's not new to other parts of the world. If the numbers come back to us and suggest that we are indeed saving lives, if it instinctively slows people down on residential streets, if kids are not being hurt, then I think it's a good thing.

The terminology I would like to use, and perhaps I need some clearance from people from MTO here this morning, is that we view it as a pilot project and wait for those numbers to come back. As politicians, as grown-ups, and as people who are here trying to enact some laws for the province of Ontario, and indeed for other municipalities, we need to see those numbers come back and that will take some time.

The Chair: I would then ask Mr Mills with regard to his question, if he would pose it. Be sure to indicate who you wish to pose it to. We have had a number of people who have come before us.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I'd like to thank everyone who came here this morning to put their point of view across. I must say that I had a number of technical questions I was going to ask and they seem to have been very well answered. It just leaves me to say what I think about this. I think that's what we're here for as members of this committee.

First of all, I'd like to go back to some personal experience. I've seen this in the United Kingdom. It works. I do feel, and have felt, very comfortable walking about in such an area so that you don't have to keep constantly looking over your shoulder as you change directions.

I was impressed by the statistics that indicate -- and I know it -- that the slower you drive, the less likely the impact is going to seriously injure or kill someone, so that's a positive. I just jotted these things down as I listened to people.

Having been raised in a very close-knit residential area years and years ago, children must be able to feel safe to move about where they live. It's all very well to say, "Well, you've got parks and things like that," but children should feel comfortable to step outside of their door, on their street in a residential street, and play some of the games and do some of the things that they want to, free of the fear of traffic mowing them down.

Residents on residential streets demand that their streets be made as safe as possible and I think that's the focus of this government, that we are bound to make the roads all over Ontario safer. In my opinion, that includes the residential streets in Toronto. In my opinion, the residents who demand that their streets be made safe are absolutely right and we should do that.


I heard a comment that this won't be enforceable because you haven't got enough police etc. I happen to come from the old school of thought and upbringing that if you put some law into position and you indicate that the law is in position, ie, a 30-kilometre speed limit, most law-abiding citizens adhere to the signage and behave properly without having to have a policeman peer over their shoulder to enforce it, so I don't agree with that. Most law-abiding people obey the law. If they didn't, we would have anarchy in Ontario because we haven't got enough policemen to watch everybody.

What really is going to convince me to support this is that we're going to evaluate it over a couple of years and then the opportunity is to come back to this committee and say, "It's a go," as we did with your street-vending legislation. It worked well and that is the key thing we have to think of here. We're giving you the opportunity -- at least, I'd like to give you the opportunity -- and come back and re-evaluate it in two years' time.

With that, Madam Chair, thank you for the time to speak and I will be supporting this.

Mr Ruprecht: So what's your position?

Mr Mills: You know my position.

The Chair: Thank you. We have a bunch of comedians this morning.

Mr Ruprecht: Before I came in here this morning, I was dead set against this speed limit reduction for a number of reasons, and I'll ask some questions in a minute, but what I hear this morning, and if I'm not correct, someone later on can correct me, but the people who spoke somewhat against it -- first, of course, we heard from the Metro rep who said that while he was against the original proposal, because of the amendments things are nice and calm and there are no problems.

Then we heard from Ms Curran from the CAA, and she said that the CAA is against it. I thought, "For what reason are they against it?" We found out that they are against it because there may be a problem with pollution and the good workings of a motor vehicle, and that will be one of my questions.

Then we hear from Councillor Ellis, whose opinion I respect as well, and he says he is still against it but his fears are, to a great degree, mitigated because of the amendments that are being proposed today.

Having heard from the people who are against this legislation, I come to the conclusion that the majority of the opinions would be that the amendments, to a great degree, have mitigated the major problems here.

Here are my questions to the city of Toronto, and I don't know who wants to answer this: How many zones or streets do you have on your pilot plan now? Is Balliol the only project or, as Councillor Ellis says, is there going to be an onslaught of city councillors saying, "I want one on Cowan and I want one on 50 other streets"?

Mr Wayne Jackson: Presently, the only project we are planning to build is the one you have the plans for: Balliol. I should tell you, though, that at any time in the city in the last five years we've always had in the order of five to 10 residents groups interested in doing something about traffic. Typically, these take one to two years to come to a plan. We look to put two or three other plans in place within this pilot project period. I'm talking streets, not areas. Balliol is about three quarters of a kilometre long. I'm talking about that sort of order of magnitude.

Mr Ruprecht: So you're saying you're looking. In other words, you haven't figured out what other streets you're going to do it to in the next two years.

Mr Wayne Jackson: Not exactly. We certainly have a feel because the residents have come to us and we're sort of, I would say, 50% or 60% along the road on some other streets, but we're not sure. Each one's different. We don't know what will work there.

Mr Ruprecht: Right. So we can be sure there won't be many, right?

Mr Wayne Jackson: No.

Mr Ruprecht: In terms of the proliferation of street signs, one of the objections of course has been that there will be too many street signs. That might be part of the problem. Have you found in your studies that too many street signs clutter up the neighbourhood and lead to people not obeying the law?

Mr Wayne Jackson: Too many street signs have, actually, both of those effects. First of all, they just don't look nice. You get so many signs and eventually people start ignoring them. The interesting thing with Balliol, for example, is that we will be taking out stop signs because we are going to do traffic calming at intersections. Then all of a sudden, yes, we'll have to put up speed-limit signs, but we'll also be removing stop signs. In terms of total number of street signs, there won't be any major change.

Mr Ruprecht: Why are the traffic calming measures not sufficient? Why do you have to have additional street signs?

Mr Wayne Jackson: As somebody mentioned, there is a group of people who will obey the regulations set out; there is always a group as well that, regardless of what the regulation is in terms of speeding, they'll go faster.

I could design a street where, if you went over 30 down the street, you would whack into a pole or you would hit a planter box, that sort of thing. The problem is that I have to leave some margin of error. I can't assume that everybody driving down a street is driving like today when the sun's out, when the pavement's dry and when they're familiar with the street. If my mother is -- excuse me, my mother's a good driver, but she's not as good as my son -- driving at night, because she's lost a bit of night vision, and she's unfamiliar with the street, I want to leave a little bit of room for manoeuvre in case she makes a mistake.

The other aspect of it is that we have emergency vehicles to consider. Not necessarily that they can drive very quickly down the street, but the physical design -- if I want to get the speed down, I make the curves much sharper. That makes it so much more difficult for aerial trucks etc.

We've had the fire department out on Balliol. We've marked these measures out on the street. They've driven up and down. They've declared that they can go through there. By designing a street to ensure nobody goes above 30 physically, nobody's capable, I think is irresponsible on our part.

Mr Ruprecht: What about the main comment and objection of the CAA, saying that there is a possibility of greater pollution, and that there is a possibility that the motor vehicles don't operate at sufficiently high energy levels or whatever at 30 kilometres an hour?

Mr Wayne Jackson: The greatest contributor to pollution and the greatest contributor to gasoline wastage is the stop-and-start action of motor vehicles. On Balliol we have three intersections where we presently have all ways stop conditions. We will remove those for Balliol.

I think, and I stand to be corrected, probably the most efficient speed of operating a vehicle is in the 50-kilometres-per-hour range if you don't have to start and stop, if you can go continuously. The difference between 50 and 30 in terms of gasoline wastage is very small.

The major difference is stopping, or at least coming to a rolling stop. In fact, I did the little check on Balliol and by going 30 versus going 40, going 40 and stopping after three intersections you will use three times as much gasoline. So the traffic calming measures will reduce the amount of gasoline used and therefore will reduce the fumes and also the noise at intersections, which is a great deterrent to local residents.

Mr Ruprecht: Madam Chair, I've changed my mind. I've got one comment to Mr Hayes, because Mr Hayes makes a lot of sense when he says if we can --

Mr Fletcher: Hold it.

Mr Ruprecht: He does, occasionally.

Mr Hansen: How are you voting on this?

The Chair: Excuse me. Would the comedians sort of put it in neutral here and let Mr Ruprecht --

Mr Fletcher: Tony, can you say we all make common sense?

Mr Ruprecht: You might all make common sense after this vote.

Mr Hayes was saying that in terms of the process of this committee, we all know what happens here. We're getting people coming to this committee almost on a weekly basis from other municipalities because we have agreed to accept one bill or one law in one municipality; in others, we haven't. This is one of the major problems. Mr Hayes is pointing out that if we agree to accept this in the city of Toronto, there will be others who are going to come to us.

Mr Mills: Why not?

Mr Ruprecht: Why not? That could be a problem, obviously, because we haven't found out what the conclusion of the pilot project will be; that's why. That's why I would agree with Mr Hayes and ask the Chair that Mr Hayes's comment should be included as an amendment, if possible, to say that we will not accept any other motion --

Mr Hansen: Then you'll vote for it?

Mr Ruprecht: -- from any other municipality unless and until this pilot project is over and we've seen the results of the study.


The Chair: Order, please. I don't believe we're in a position of doing that. Members are going to be in a position, when a bill comes forward, to ask some very pointed questions of whichever community is going to come and try out this particular proposal.

How many years has the city of Toronto worked to get this to the table? I don't think most communities, with councils obviously being as fractious as this group, are going to achieve that kind of consensus to bring about this kind of change overnight. I would suspect that in all likelihood we're not going to get that kind of full-tilt response from municipalities across the province in the next few months. I think it's going to take some time for it to work through, and we're not going to be able to come down with a rule like this.


Mr Hayes: I know what Mr Ruprecht is saying and I don't disagree with him, but I don't think we can just automatically say that we will not hear other presentations. My recommendation would be a strong recommendation to the committee that if others are coming forward similar to this, that we certainly consider that there is a pilot project here, and I would recommend that we would not pass similar ones until we see how effective this bill is. I would make that recommendation, but we cannot put it down that we will not listen to other people, that's all I'm saying -- and also subject to the Ministry of Transportation, with the presentation it's made.

Mr Fletcher: Just a few things about the pilot project: How many streets are we looking at in the pilot project, and where are these streets? Just one street and that's it?

Mr Wayne Jackson: As I mentioned earlier, at this point we just have Balliol as a pilot project, but I think maybe two or three others.

Mr Fletcher: Okay, and for a two-year period this will be monitored. I know that water and electricity flow where the least resistance is. With one project over a two-year period, watching the flow, the traffic is going to move to another area where they can access wherever they wish to go. You will get a reduction in the amount of traffic on that road, but it doesn't mean there's a reduction in traffic elsewhere in the city. It's just moving to an area where there's the least amount of resistance as far as people who wish to get from point A to point B at a greater rate of speed are concerned.

Mr Wayne Jackson: That's very true. In fact, our old style of traffic control absolutely resulted in that. When I cut off access to street A, they had nowhere else to go but streets B and C. The big difference with traffic calming is they still have street A to use.

Part of our monitoring program will be not just looking at Balliol; we will have to look at the streets two, three, four, north and two, three, four south, as well as the arterial streets. If traffic does migrate to other streets, we have to at least define that and come back and report on that.

Mr Fletcher: Okay, yes, as long as the other streets are being monitored at the same time.

There are some arguments that, "I don't care what speed the vehicle's going; if you get hit by one, it's going to hurt," and the possibility of death is there, even if it's 40 kilometres, 30 kilometres, 15 kilometres. It's always going to be a possibility, the way that the vehicle hits a person.

I'm not so sure about the safety aspect. It's okay for pedestrians being able to move about, but I always think of kids and kids usually are running around and not paying attention. I shouldn't say "usually." That happens, running around and not paying attention between parked cars and what have you, running into the side of a car. So I'm a little leery. Is the bottom line just traffic control? Is it to slow the traffic down? Is there too much traffic within the city streets?

Mr Wayne Jackson: Maybe some people would say there's too much traffic, but from my perspective, I feel my purpose in life at the city is for the safe operation of the street, and I feel particularly concerned about the safety of children.

Studies have shown that children under the age of 12 really don't have a good sense of speed-distance relationships. It sounds like kind of an old age. You would think they would know by then, but they really don't. This always worries me because if I'm not out protecting them, who is?

The reduced speed, especially on residential streets, because that's what we're talking about here, is really intended to just -- and "calm" is a good word -- calm the whole environment down too. It doesn't mean that if a child runs out in front of a car and the motorist has no chance to react, that child is not going to get hurt. There are studies that show if a child is hit by a vehicle going in the five- to 10-kilometre-per-hour range, there is a good chance of survival. At 50, forget it; it's as simple as that, and in the 30 the chance of survival correspondingly goes up. That's really what we're after.

Mr Fletcher: I can support the bill with the amendments as far as the sunset clause is concerned, with the sunset clause. It would be interesting to see, at the end of two years, the results of the study, especially with relation to the other streets and where the traffic is going and what measures can be taken.

Mr Hansen: I always like to see some new projects coming from the city of Toronto -- I've supported quite a few of them -- and new ideas for doing things. I was reading a few articles in the Toronto Star. I went to the library just to take a look at the issue as it started. I believe there was a phone-in survey in Toronto that showed that 67% were against lowering the speed limit to 30 kilometres an hour.

Also in the Star, on June 7, on the bottom line of a ghost writer, there isn't the name of the person who wrote it: "Advice to the legislative committee: Don't waste time with two-year sunset clauses; just kill the silly idea outright." Then in another article, at the very bottom, it says, "The public is invited to air concerns at hearings today, at Queen's Park, before the standing committee on regulations and private bills."

I can see that the residents of Toronto have had an opportunity to come forward. I would say a lot of the phone calls that came in on that survey were people who maybe lived on the highway who would never change, but what about these citizens who live on some of these highly populated neighbourhood streets that need some control? I can see the city of Toronto wouldn't be going ahead to calm these streets and the cost involved in brickwork, cement work etc -- I don't think the money would be wasted at all if it saves one or two children's lives in a period of time.

The other thing is that on controlling the speed, you can always post a sign at the very beginning that says "Monitored by Photo-Radar." I imagine that would slow them right down to 30 kilometres an hour.

You sort of answered on alternative routes. I think that'll be looked into and upgraded to take traffic so it's not just going off that street on to another street and have concerns from another neighbourhood, because you'll have another neighbourhood after you. I see that you've already answered that question.

The other thing was that Mr Ellis, in an article that was in the Toronto Star also, dated June 14, I believe was talking about Dundas Street. That is a busy street. But the other thing too is that taking that as a typical street, and let's say we're going to calm that area, what about the speed of streetcars? Would the speed of the streetcars remain the same or would they be slowed down? I'm going to go through the whole thing so you can answer all at once, if you want to take notes there.

I have to agree with the stop signs. Stop signs are being used in a lot of municipalities to slow traffic, to satisfy residents. They slow traffic, but what happens if a child runs out and somebody winds up running a stop sign? The child expects people to stop for that stop sign, even though they see the car coming. I think stop signs are not the total answer, very costly to be putting up, and there is the amount of work that goes through municipal governments just to erect one stop sign.

The other thing is, if it's traffic lights, the cost of installing traffic lights and the maintenance is far higher than the lower speed limit. What I would like to do is -- I hope there's no patent pending on all this literature you've given me -- give it to some of my municipalities to take a look at and to contact the city of Toronto.

I will be supporting this one because I think the municipalities, even rural, that I support would like to have a downtown area which is livable, walkable, enjoyable and safe.


Mr Wayne Jackson: I'll deal specifically first with the speed of streetcars. There are a number of issues here. First of all, streetcars are on arterial streets. We're talking about local residential streets. Second of all, streetcars are on metropolitan roads. I have no purview over that. We won't be going after them. Third of all, the city of Toronto's policy is to encourage alternative methods of travel to the automobile.

We've shown this on King Street, for example. On King Street, we have designated the streetcar lanes solely for streetcars and taxis during the peak hour, just to move streetcars. On Bay Street, we've designated the curb lane solely for buses in an effort to encourage transit use. So we just won't be going after streetcars in terms of speed reduction.

I'm sorry, there may have been other questions that I've forgotten.

Mr Hansen: No, that's it. Most have been answered.

Mrs MacKinnon: First of all, I notice that we have approximately five or six amendments. I wondered (a) Have those who have been speaking to us seen these amendments? (b) Do they agree with them? (c) If they have seen them and they have agreed with them, yes, I will be supporting the bill, providing of course the sunset clause is there.

Mr Perlin: The amendments were all faxed on Friday of last week to the people. The people who were here, at least the organizations, did receive it on Friday, our indication is. Now whether the individuals per se -- for example, the fax that went to Mr Moffatt, I don't know if he actually saw it, but it did go on Friday. So we have sent it. I don't believe the Canadian Automobile Association came, because it wasn't on our list at the time, but everyone else was sent it on Friday.

We have not heard from people whether they do or don't, but you did hear for example from the Canadian Courier Association indicating that with the amendments, which made it clear that this has to be in conjunction with traffic calming, that there is a two-year sunset etc, it was less concerned about it than when it was presented as a wide-open ability for the city to just reduce to 30. So I think they've seen it, except for the Canadian Automobile Association.

Mr Marchese: I just want to comment on the comments of Mr Ruprecht with respect to restricting this only to the city of Toronto. I don't think as a committee we should contemplate doing that, but rather suggest that if a city council from Windsor or Hamilton wishes to pursue this in the same way that Toronto is, and there is a majority of council that says, "This is what the residents want," for us to restrict it to Toronto alone would be a problem.

There's a sunset clause that's being applied here in my view as opposed to a pilot. Therefore, if another city council would like to pursue this, I would say that it should come forward and we should hear it in the same way that we're hearing the city of Toronto. The sunset clause presumably would apply to them two years from now, or a couple of months from now, when others begin to have an interest in this. I would hate to see us contemplate the idea of a restriction simply for the city of Toronto, because I think that would be a mistake.

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I seem to have got the sense from some speakers, and I think it's also in the Toronto Star today, that reducing the speed limit reduces the capacity of roads for the number of cars that can go through. I think this is in fact not the case. Could you comment on that?

Mr Wayne Jackson: The capacity of any roadway is usually dictated by the intersections of the streets. You rarely have a midblock capacity problem; it's always at intersections. You can attest to that if you drive around. Where do you stop? You stop at intersections. You usually don't stop midblock. So reducing the speed limit is not going to affect our ability to carry the volume of traffic that needs to be carried on that road. There's no problem that way.

Mr Frankford: In fact you notice this more on major highways with a lot of traffic lights. That encourages the pulses of traffic and considerable slowing up when the capacity increases, which I can see on Kingston Road in my area every day.

Mr Wayne Jackson: Exactly. What you're talking about is the platoon of traffic. You get a green light and you get 20 vehicles, and then you get another pulse. In a traffic-calm street, you should just get a nice smooth flow.

Mr Frankford: So one would anticipate that drivers probably won't be avoiding it, but they will see it as a way of smoothly flowing through.

Mr Wayne Jackson: To be honest with you, I don't anticipate any change in the volume of traffic on Balliol. What I'm looking for is a real reduction in speed.

The Chair: Mr Hayes has a question, and then with the permission of members, I'd like to ask one quick one, but Mr Hayes first.

Mr Hayes: Mr Jackson, how long have you been dealing with this problem? How long has this been a problem?

Mr Wayne Jackson: Traffic control?

Mr Hayes: Yes.

Mr Wayne Jackson: In the city? Well, as I mentioned earlier, it's been 20-some-odd years.

Mr Hayes: I just wanted to make the point to the councillor, Mr Ellis, that you've been dealing with this problem and it has been a problem for 20 years. The social contract's only been in effect for two years.

Mr Wayne Jackson: Okay.

Mr Hayes: I just wanted to make that point.

The Chair: Now my question. Are members in agreement? Thank you.

You indicated that you're going to be removing a range of stop signs on Balliol, but obviously, just looking at the map, you still have a number of intersections to deal with. You're assuming that people will give way in the appropriate manner. How are you, at that intersection, going to give a sense to a particular vehicle that they have the right of way and may proceed without having some sort of stop sign in place?

Mr Wayne Jackson: The intersections on Balliol are all four-way stops, so what I intend to do is take the stop signs off the traffic calm street, Balliol, mainly because now they're going slower. So you still have two-way stops as streets come in. Who knows, five, 10 years down the road, whether we can get rid of those as well, but that's not for the pilot project.

The Chair: I appreciate that. I wasn't sure how you were going to deal with the total intersection. That answers my question.

At this point may I ask if members are ready to vote. Agreed.

Mr Hansen: How are you going to vote now?

Mr Ruprecht: I said I was against it.

Mr Hansen: Well, where are you now?

The Chair: Order, please. We've been very good so far. Let's not lose it in the last five minutes.

Mr Mills: I move that section 1 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Bylaws re traffic control

"1(1) The council of the corporation of the city of Toronto may pass bylaws to designate streets or parts of streets which have traffic calming measures in effect for the purpose of this act.

"Bylaws re 30 km/hr rate of speed

"(2) Despite section 195 of the Highway Traffic Act and in addition to its powers under subsections 128(2) and (3) of that act, the council of the corporation of the city of Toronto may by bylaw designate any street or part of a street designated by bylaw under subsection (1) as having a 30 kilometre per hour speed limit."

The Chair: Members have heard the motion. All those in favour, please signify. I'm sorry, Mr Frankford, you're not subbed into this committee.

Clerk of the Committee (Ms Tonia Grannum): He is.

The Chair: Oh, he is. I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of that. My mistake. So that amendment carries.

Shall section 1, as amended, carry? Carried.

Mr Mills: I move that section 2 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Location of signs

"2. A bylaw passed under subsection 1 shall set out the location" --

Mrs MacKinnon: Excuse me, that just says "under section." It doesn't say "subsection."

The Chair: Mr Mills, would you please start over again for us.


Mr Mills: I move that section 2 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Location of signs

"2. A bylaw passed under section 1 shall set out the location for the placement of the requisite signs on the designated street or part of a street."

The Chair: Members have heard the motion. All those in favour, please signify. The amendment is carried.

All those in favour of section 2, as amended? That's carried.

Mr Mills: I move that section 3 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Signs required

"3. Despite subsection 128(11) of the Highway Traffic Act, no bylaw passed under this act becomes effective until the requisite signs are placed on the designated street or part of a street."

The Chair: All members have heard the motion. All those in favour of the amendment? Agreed.

Shall section 3, as amended, carry? Agreed.

Mrs MacKinnon: I move that section 4 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:


"4. A bylaw passed under section 1 may provide for a penalty for the contravention of that bylaw, which penalty shall not exceed the penalty as provided in subsection 128(14) of the Highway Traffic Act."

The Chair: All members have heard the motion. Please signify --

Interjections: Agreed.

The Chair: No opposed? Okay.

Shall section 4, as amended, carry? Carried.

Mrs MacKinnon: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:


"4.1 A bylaw passed under this act may be enforced by a police officer, who may exercise the powers set out in subsection 216(1) of the Highway Traffic Act."

The Chair: All members have heard the motion. Agreed.

Shall section 4.1 carry? Carried.

Mrs MacKinnon: As amended.

The Chair: No, it's new.

Mrs MacKinnon: I move that section 5 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:


"(2) This act is repealed on the second anniversary of the day it receives royal assent."

The Chair: All members have heard the motion. Please signify your agreement. Agreed.

Shall section 5, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall section 6 carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? Agreed.

Thank you to members and thank you to the city of Toronto and all witnesses.

Mr Hansen, you had a comment to make?

Mr Hansen: I hope all government whips will know that I sit as Chair of a committee at 3:30 in the afternoon on Wednesday, so I'll be absent from this committee if you're going to go on that late, so as Chair, could you see that I have a replacement?


The Chair: Just one moment. Ladies and gentlemen, could you please quickly and quietly vacate this room? We have some other business to take care of.

Mr Hansen, if you would just hang on to your thought for a moment, the noise level, as you know, escalates rather high.

I would like to draw everyone's attention, if I may just follow up on Mr Hansen's comments, that we have 12 bills before us next week. I would suggest that we start at 9:30. In order to accomplish the business of that day before we finish for the summer, I would ask, if members are in agreement, that we ask the House leaders for permission to sit in the afternoon, and if members may have a conflict, as Mr Hansen does, that appropriate substitutions take place.

Mrs MacKinnon: I won't have a problem.

The Chair: Agreed?

Mr Hansen: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you. Please remember, we will be starting at 9:30. It may mean that you have to have some substitutions made, but we will endeavour to get through the 12 bills as quickly as possible.

We are adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1136.