The Inter-Municipal Planning Subcommittee met on Thursday, March 11, 2004 at 9:33 a.m. in the Council Chambers, Regional Administrative Headquarters, 10 Peel Centre Dr., Brampton.

Councillor E. Moore presided.

1. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Councillor Moore noted that the presentation for Item 4a will be given by Peter Plumeau, Director of Urban and Metropolitan Planning, Wilbur Smith Associates rather than Arno Hart, as noted on the agenda.

Councillor Mahoney questioned why items 4a and 4c had been included on the agenda at all. In her opinion neither item met the terms of reference for consideration by this Subcommittee. In particular, she noted that item 4c was a General Committee report and her expectation was that it would be considered further by General Committee after the consultation process with area municipal staff had been completed.

In response, Nick Tunnacliffe, Commissioner of Planning noted that Item 4a was listed on the agenda as the existing terms of reference for the Subcommittee required a coordinated transportation work plan with the area municipalities. The study that has been undertaken with respect to Goods Movement is part of the on going Regional Official Plan Strategic Update and, at this time, they are seeking some political feedback on the work that has taken place.

In respect to Item 4c, Nick Tunnacliffe noted that the matter had been referred back to staff at the February 26, 2004 General Committee meeting for further consultation with area municipal staff. He advised that the consultation process was completed and both he and the Chief Administrative Officer had surmised that further discussions on this matter might best be dealt with at the Subcommittee level with area municipal staff present.

Councillor Mahoney disagreed with the assessment of Council's direction on item 4c and requested that the matter be withdrawn from the Inter-Municipal Planning Subcommittee (IMPSC) Agenda and brought back before General Committee as was the original intent.

Subcommittee members agreed with the removal of Item 4c from the agenda.

RECOMMENDATION IMPSC-5-2004:

That the agenda for the March 11, 2004 Inter-Municipal Planning Subcommittee be amended to note that the presentation listed as Item 4a will be given by Murray McLeod, Manager, Transportation Planning and Peter Plumeau, Director of Urban and Metropolitan Planning, Wilbur Smith Associates;

And further, that the agenda be amended to withdraw Item 4c from consideration;

And further, that the agenda for the March 11, 2004, Inter-Municipal Planning Subcommittee meeting be approved, as amended.

3. DELEGATIONS/PRESENTATIONS

4. REPORTS

a) Goods Movement (Oral)
Presentation by Murray McLeod, Manager, Transportation Planning and Peter Plumeau, Director of Urban and Metropolitan Planning, Wilbur Smith Associates

Received

Murray McLeod, Manager, Transportation Planning introduced the presentation noting the extensive consultation that has taken place between Regional staff, area municipal staff, industry representatives and the provincial and federal governments. He noted that Caroline deGroot from the Ministry of Transportation Ontario and Justin Terry from Transport Canada were in attendance.

Chair Kolb arrived at 9:50 a.m.

Murray McLeod noted that Goods Movement was one of five studies undertaken as part of the Regional Official Plan Strategic Update (ROPSU). In the near future, recommendations will be brought forward that will lead to modifications to the Region's Official Plan.

Peter Plumeau, Director of Urban and Metropolitan Planning, Wilbur Smith Associates provided an extensive overview of goods movement highlighting global trends, best practices, suggested action areas for Peel Region and the next steps involved in the process. He noted that Peel is a rapidly growing region supported by an extensive transportation system. He referred to Peel as a "supernode" for goods movement in central Ontario and highlighted the major transportation systems found throughout the Region. As a general assessment he suggested that Peel is in a relatively desirable situation, however, there are threats to Peel's goods movement industry that must be addressed.

Peter Plumeau stated that one of these threats is the lack of systematic data collection and planning. He noted there is insufficient information available on goods movement to support planning and suggested that the key to freight data access was the development of public-private partnerships. Other threats identified were the limited focus on critical freight corridors; arterial connections to goods shippers and receivers (the "last mile" issue); growing congestion; growing conflict between person movement and freight movement; and diminishing system reliability.

In terms of global trends in goods movement, Peter Plumeau noted that industry wants to move on demand which requires fast service and high capacity. As an example of "best practices" he noted the key concepts of transportation planning partnerships, urban design and smart growth and traffic and street engineering. He also outlined examples of how other jurisdictions have been dealing with similar issues to those faced by the Region of Peel.

Peter Plumeau highlighted some key considerations for any potential actions by the Region. He noted that goods movement is a critical element of Peel's economic vitality and that freight considerations must be integrated into transportation network improvements. He suggested that system reliability is a fundamental issue for today's logistics industry and that addressing roadway congestion will help support the Region's economy, goods movement and the quality of life. He emphasized, however, that resources are limited and there is a need to focus on strategic investments and improvements.

Peter Plumeau outlined the potential for the development of partnerships and the protection and enhancement of freight corridors. He highlighted some early action initiatives which he referred to as "low hanging fruit" type projects. Namely, he suggested that improvements to intersection truck turning radius requirements and signal retiming/coordination could be effective tools. Land use policy and planning tools will also be essential to support efficient and safe goods movement, he noted.

Murray McLeod advised of the next steps to be undertaken from a Regional planning perspective. He noted that staff will continue to work with the area municipalities to develop recommendations and finalize a report to Council or IMPSC. Staff will also continue to participate in the Ministry of Transportation Ontario's (MTO) Freight Advisory Forum and will work with industry, Transport Canada, MTO and the area municipalities to address priority issues for Peel.

Councillor Paterak questioned whether anything could be done to encourage "time shifting" or requiring drivers to operate at off peak hours. In response, Peter Plumeau noted the time sensitivity of many deliveries, advising that the industry operates with the goal of economic efficiency. He noted that Orlando Florida faced similar problems in the downtown area and attempted to address the issue with a change in regulations and zoning to require buildings to have the ability to accept off hours deliveries. This requires the construction of safe/protected loading areas. Another alternative he noted would be to establish neighbourhood delivery centers which would allow the timing of deliveries to be spread out.

Murray McLeod stated that the tendency is to blame truckers for the congestion on the roads but noted that they are only serving the requirements of the shippers/receivers. If the shippers/receivers were to make accommodations for accepting deliveries at off peak hours, the situation may be improved.

Chair Kolb questioned what other regions in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) are doing to address similar issues. He stressed the need for Peel to be aware of what other regions, the province and the federal government are doing on this issue. In response, Tom AppaRao, Director, Transportation Planning stated that he understands Peel to be farther advanced in the analysis of the situation. He noted it would be appropriate for Peel Region to take the lead in this regard as Peel is the goods movement hub in the GTA.

Councillor Lyons inquired as to the experience in the United States, questioning whether they offered any incentives (i.e. reduced toll rates) for goods movement at off peak hours. Peter Plumeau noted that there is little positive experience in the States in this respect. He noted that the approach there is more of a restrictive one than one which offers incentives for compliance. Murray McLeod added that when it comes to decisions on goods movement, economic factors are frequently the prime consideration. He noted, for instance, that the higher price of fuel in Europe has contributed to shifting the movement of goods into off peak hours when congestion is reduced and less fuel is used as a result.

Councillor Moore questioned whether any scenario or contingency planning was taking place and whether staff has considered the multitude of "what if" questions. In this regard, Tom AppaRao commented that this study has been part of the long range transportation planning framework. At this stage, staff is developing transportation planning policies that are focused on long term goals. To form these policy directions staff will come back with firm recommendations on what might be done to address the issues with an emphasis on partnerships.

Councillor Moore questioned whether this process would include some sort of public awareness campaign. She noted that individuals, such as those ordering goods on-line, should be made aware of the connection of this activity to traffic congestion. Peter Plumeau again noted the Orlando Florida example advising that staff there alerted the press to proposed initiatives as a positive way to educate the public and increase awareness.

Councillor Moore questioned what the timing was for a report to Council on this issue. Tom AppaRao advised that more work was still required on the technical report which they hoped to finalize within a month or two. Following that, a report would be prepared with recommendations for the consideration of Committee or Council.

Councillor Stewart requested that staff ensure that a long range perspective be adopted. She considered some of the initiatives suggested to simply be band-aids on the problem and emphasized the need to address conflict on the roads.

John Wouters, Chair, Transportation Committee for the Mississauga Board of Trade commented that it is equally important to consider cross-border goods movement in this study and noted that Queens Park involvement in tackling this issue would be essential.

b) Updated Terms of Reference for the Inter-Municipal Planning Subcommittee (IMPSC)

RECOMMENDATION IMPSC-6-2004:

That the updated terms of reference for the Inter-Municipal Planning Subcommittee as outlined in Appendix I of the joint report of the Commissioner of Planning and Commissioner of Corporate Services and Regional Solicitor, dated February 20, 2004, titled "Updated Terms of Reference for the Inter-Municipal Planning Subcommittee" be approved;

And further, that Corporate Policy Number G20-03 be amended to update the terms of reference for the Inter-Municipal Planning Subcommittee.

Nick Tunnacliffe, Commissioner of Planning noted that the Regional Official Plan Strategic Update Technical Advisory Committee (ROPSU TAC) had recently met to discuss the proposal to update the terms of reference and had come to a general agreement. This has been outlined in the report of the Commissioner of Planning, dated February 20, 2004, titled "Updated Terms of Reference for the Inter-Municipal Planning Subcommittee".

Dan Kennaley, Manager of Planning Policy for the Town of Caledon offered two comments. He requested an amendment to the subject report to clarify the Town's position summarized on page 3. He noted that it should reflect that Town staff perceives the role of the IMPSC to be that of resolving inter-municipal planning conflicts that cannot be resolved at the staff level. He further acknowledged that there has generally been an improvement in consultation between Regional and area municipal staff.

Councillor Mahoney questioned whether area municipal staff was consulted on items that would be included on the agenda for the Region's Inter-Municipal Planning Subcommittee. She questioned whether their consent was sought prior to the agenda being compiled and distributed or whether the agenda was set at the discretion of Regional staff. Arvin Prasad, noted that Regional staff has developed a good working relationship with area municipal staff through regular participation on the ROPSU TAC team. He advised that they were able to resolve most issues at the staff level and when issues were not able to be resolved a recommendation would be made to the Commissioner of Planning for the item to be included on the agenda of the IMPSC.

Nick Tunnacliffe continued by advising that there is general agreement among Regional and area municipal staff about which items to include on the IMPSC agenda. He noted, however, that this is a Subcommittee of Regional Council and presumably the Region will bring forward items that its staff recommends for inclusion on the agenda. By the same token, he emphasized, if area municipal staff request that an item or issue be added to the agenda, they would have the same opportunity to bring it forward at IMPSC as well.

Councillor Mahoney addressed the items included on today's agenda, noting that Item 4b on the Terms of Reference was appropriate for consideration by this subcommittee but questioned the validity of the listing of the other two staff reports. In particular, she reiterated her concern with the listing of item 4c, noting that this had been included at the discretion of the Commissioner of Planning and the Chief Administrative Officer. She questioned whether area municipal staff had been consulted on the inclusion of Item 4a on today's agenda. Nick Tunnacliffe advised that, in this case, the item had been discussed with area municipal staff at the recent ROPSU TAC meeting.

Councillor Mahoney conceded that in this case staff had been consulted on this item but requested that, in all future cases, staff at the local municipalities be consulted and that a consensus be reached on whether an item is to be listed on the IMPSC agenda. She noted that Item 4a, in her opinion, was not contentious and that there was consensus at the staff level about goods movement. Her desire was to ensure that only "value added" items be considered at the subcommittee level.

Tom AppaRao noted that Item 4a was not so much contentious as it was complex. The study outlined in the presentation is nearing completion and, because of the complexities involved, staff needed an opportunity to present their findings to this Subcommittee and obtain political input and direction at this stage. Area municipal staff in attendance confirmed that they had been consulted with respect to Item 4a on today's agenda and concurred that it was a complex planning matter. Robert Sasaki, Manager, Transportation Planning questioned, however, what direction was being sought today in respect to this item.

Roger Maloney, Chief Administrative Officer agreed that the question was timely and suggested that it would be appropriate to clarify the role of the Subcommittee. In this regard, he noted that frequently when reports are tabled at General Committee, Councillors are concerned that area municipal staff have not been sufficiently consulted and those reports are then deferred for further consultation. This Subcommittee provides a forum for obtaining input from municipal staff, he noted. Further, he suggested that Regional staff were not necessarily requesting direction from the Subcommittee but are getting input from Councillors and area municipal staff. This, in turn, makes the General Committee process run more smoothly. He noted that most items are not controversial because staff are working well together but stated that complex matters could be more fully considered by the IMPSC.

Councillor Mahoney reiterated her understanding that the Subcommittee had been developed during the last term of Council to address only those issues that could not be resolved at the staff level.

Councillor Moore stated that her understanding of bringing forward a revised Terms of Reference at this time is that staff at the area municipalities and the Region see value in the continuation of this Subcommittee to help make General Committee run more smoothly. The amended Terms of Reference will allow for the continuation of this Subcommittee once the Regional Official Plan Strategic Update has been completed. Meetings would be held on an "as needed" basis when staff agree that there is an issue that needs to be discussed.

c) Urban Transportation Showcase Program: Smart Commute Initiative

Withdrawn

5. COMMUNICATIONS

6. IN CAMERA MATTERS

7. NEXT MEETING

The next meeting date of the Inter-Municipal Planning Subcommittee is scheduled for Thursday, May 20, 2004 at 9:30 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Regional Administrative Headquarters, 10 Peel Centre Dr., Brampton

Please forward regrets to Elizabeth Corazzola, Legislative Co-ordinator, 905-791-7800, extension 4502.

8. OTHER BUSINESS

9. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 11:29 a.m.