Report to/Rapport au :

Joint Transportation and Transit Committee

Réunion conjointe du Comité des Transports et du Comité du Transport en Commun

15 April 2008 / le 15avril 2008

Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/Directrice municipale adjointe,

Planning, Transit and the Environment/Urbanisme, Transport en commun et Environnement

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Vivi Chi, Manager/Gestionaire

Planning Branch/Direction de l'urbanisme

(613) 580-2424 x21877, vivi.chi@Ottawa.ca

City Wide/à l'échelle de la Ville

Ref N°: ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0016

SUBJECT:	TMP UPDATE: DOWNTOWN TRANSIT SOLUTION & RAPID TRANSIT NETWORK – RECOMMENDATIONS

OBJET :	MISE À JOUR SUR LE PLAN DIRECTEUR DES TRANSPORTS : SOLUTION POUR LE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN AU CENTRE-VILLE ET RÉSEAU DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN RAPIDE DANS LE CENTRE-VILLE – RECOMMANDATIONS

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That this report be received and tabled for public consultation and future consideration by the Joint Transportation and Transit Committee meeting on May 21, 2008; and

2. That, subject to public consultations, the following recommendation be tabled at the May 21, 2008 meeting of the Joint Transportation and Transit Committee:

That the Joint Transportation and Transit recommends that City Council approve Option 4 as the preferred downtown transit solution and future rapid transit network.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

1. Que le présent rapport soit soumis et déposé aux fins des consultations publiques et de son examen futur à la réunion du Comité conjoint du transport et du transport en commun le 21 mai 2008;

2. Que, sous réserve des consultations publiques, la recommandation suivante soit déposée à la réunion du Comité conjoint du transport et du transport en commun le 21 mai 2008 :

Que le Comité conjoint du transport et du transport en commun recommande au Conseil d’approuver l’option 4 comme solution privilégiée en ce qui a trait au transport en commun au centre-ville et au réseau de transport en commun futur.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Assumptions and Analysis

This report presents the primary rapid transit network component of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) update for Committee’s and Council’s consideration and approval. The phasing or implementation plan (including possible interim solutions, and development of secondary transit corridors) will be assessed over the coming months and will be subject of another round of public consultation and reporting to Committee and Council in Fall 2008.

The review of the rapid transit system began in the Fall 2007, starting with a series of high-profile public consultation events on the transportation vision with particular emphasis on transit. The proposed Transportation Vision and a summary of the consultation are attached as Documents 1 and 2. Key transit comments received include:

· Support for a public transit system that is convenient and reliable;

· Transfers are acceptable provided that service is frequent and waiting areas are pleasant;

· Strong support for a downtown transit tunnel;

· Continuing interest in caring for the environment;

· Need to develop a transit plan that is affordable.

Following the visioning exercise, surface, elevated and tunnel connections through the downtown were assessed and only the tunnel option was deemed to be feasible. Four network options, all with a tunnel facility, were developed with combinations of bus and/or rail based transit systems. Agencies, business groups, and the public were extensively consulted on the four network options.

A strong majority of those who participated in the consultation events prefer the rapid transit network Option 4 (Figure 7). This network has a light rail transit (LRT)-based tunnel with rail transit in an east-west direction between Baseline and Blair transitway Stations. The network also includes a north-south rail line from downtown to Bowesville, including a link to the Airport. Extensions to all suburban nodes from the rail terminus points will continue to be on the Transitway.

The recommended rapid transit network Option 4 represents the minimum light rail and bus-based system that is required to serve the City to the year 2031, with an anticipated population of 1.136 million by that time. Its most significant feature that sets this plan apart from previous plans is the LRT tunnel through the downtown and the conversion of the Transitway to LRT between Baseline and Blair Stations. This grade separation will ensure reliable transit service through the downtown, which will encourage transit ridership and result in the City meeting its transit modal split target of 30 per cent. The transit tunnel could also be a major catalyst for partnerships with the private sector to create a vibrant community with services connected to active transit stations below ground. The network is also flexible in that it does not preclude future extensions of the LRT to the suburbs should it be deemed financially prudent to do so. In the meantime, BRT corridors to the suburbs can continue to be built so that early rapid transit service can be brought to these communities. The consultant’s technical report on the network development is attached as Document 3.

Options have also been left open to integrate with the Société de transport de l'Outaouais (STO) bus-based transit services. STO integration will be addressed through the City’s upcoming Downtown Transit Tunnel Planning and Environmental Assessment Study and the Interprovincial Transit Integration Strategic Planning Study (the latter to be led by the National Capital Commission (NCC) with joint partnership of the City of Ottawa and STO/Gatineau).

Staff also engaged an international team of respected transit and urban planning professionals to conduct a technical review of the proposed primary rapid transit network. The Peer Review Panel’s report and a brief background description of the panel members is attached as Document 4. Key findings of the Panel include:

· 30 per cent modal split target is achievable;

· Option 4 is recommended, however LRT corridors should be limited to inside the Greenbelt area (with BRT connections to the designated outlying Town Centres);

· LRT connection to the Airport is recommended because Ottawa is the nation’s capital;

· Transit investment should be contained within the current urban boundary and that only basic mobility (e.g. Para Transpo) be provided beyond;

· Aggressive management of land use and growth is required to complement the massive transit investment program that is envisaged for Ottawa;

· STO should continue to operate on-street in downtown Ottawa if possible.

Next steps in the TMP update relating to transit planning include examining the secondary corridors (grey lines depicted in Figures 4,5,6, and 7) and developing an implementation/priority plan. In setting the priority plan, the following factors need to be considered for each of the projects/corridors in the transit network:

· Ridership;

· Status of planning work to date;

· Ease of implementation (minimize disruption, opportunities to integrate with development, etc.);

· Logical sequencing of projects to maximize transit benefits;

· Opportunities to implement interim solutions/staging;

· Affordability (funding, available cash flow).

Financial Implications:

The preliminary cost estimate for the primary transit corridors in Option 4 (in 2008 dollars) is approximately $4B and the annual operating cost in year 2031 would be approximately $434M. The costs are subject to detailed planning and environmental assessments and system configuration. Secondary transit corridors still need to be developed and costs estimated. Estimated cost does not include costs for STO solutions, inflation, property acquisition or additional costs for unforeseen circumstances.

The current Long Range Financial Plan includes a total funding envelop of approximately $2.1B for rapid transit over the 10 years of the plan. This forecasted budget includes the anticipated minimum 1/3 contribution each from the Federal and Provincial governments. Discussions are continuing with the funding agencies.

Public Consultation/Input:

The consultation program to-date has consisted of two main phases:

Phase 1 took place throughout September to December 2007 and focussed on informing and seeking feedback from citizens about various transportation related challenges and opportunities facing Ottawa. Within this context, the TMP Vision and Guiding Principles were reviewed and key information was collected with respect to the development of a preferred rapid transit network. Document 2 further summarizes the consultation process and outcomes from Phase 1.

Phase II consultations began March 3 and concluded March 31, 2008 as an exercise to inform and seek feedback from the public about four Downtown Rapid Transit Network Options and their implications on the overall transportation systems. A number of activities were undertaken including open houses, discussion groups, stakeholder focus group sessions, online consultation and a Mayor’s streeter survey. Feedback received is summarized in Chapter 8 of Document 3.

BACKGROUND

During the 1970s, the former Region began a program to implement a rapid transit system. This program led to the construction of the initial 31-kilometre Transitway network (the sections from Baseline Station in the southwest to Blair Station in the east and South Keys Station in the southeast). Since the completion of these initial sections, several extensions and use of freeway shoulder lanes have been planned, parts of which have been implemented. To complement the Transitway system, an eight-kilometre diesel light rail service, commonly known as the O-Train, was introduced in 2001 between Greenboro and Bayview Stations. Today, the City has 46 kilometres of rapid transit system (in exclusive rights-of-way and shoulder lanes), which has been a key factor in Ottawa attaining enviable transit ridership levels. Ridership has reached over more than 120 riders per capita – highest in North America of comparable-size cities.

This success, however, has led to the system reaching its capacity in the downtown area and has contributed to congestion problem and reliability issues especially in the winter months. The lack of transit capacity in the downtown area has been a topic of discussion for many years. Previous studies have identified the eventual need for a grade separated rapid transit facility through the downtown. Regional/City Council decided to continue with further extensions of the bus Transitway outside of the Central Area first, leaving the expensive grade separation of the downtown section until later. This “outside-in” approach to Transitway development helped with the early establishment of Ottawa’s high transit ridership.

The 2003 Rapid Transit Expansion Study (RTES) identified the implementation of a light rail transit (LRT) service from the downtown (Rideau Centre) to Riverside South (Limebank Station) as the top priority project. RTES reviewed the concept of a downtown transit tunnel and concluded that the proposed on-street LRT corridor, combined with operational improvements along the Albert and Slater Street Transitway, would provide the required transit capacity within the 2021 planning period.

The plan to proceed with the North-South LRT was approved by Council in November 2005 with a condition of reducing the number of buses operating on Albert and Slater Streets by 30 per cent. This condition would have resulted in consolidating and reducing the number of direct-to-downtown express routes.

However, in December 2006, due to non-fulfillment of conditions, the Project Agreement for the N-S LRT Project was terminated in accordance with its terms. One of the principle reasons leading to the decision not to proceed with the contract award for the North-South Corridor LRT project was concern over the proposed mixed operation of the LRT with buses and general traffic on Albert and Slater Streets.

In January 2007, Mayor O’Brien formed a Task Force to study the City’s transportation priorities. In June 2007, the Mayor’s Task Force delivered a report entitled “Moving Ottawa”. The report covered a wide range of transportation issues, but focused on the development of a future rapid transit plan. The Task Force recommended an east-west rail tunnel bored through the downtown with diesel-electric trains operating on a city-wide network that would switch to electric mode while in the tunnel.

In November 2007, Council approved the scope of work for the Downtown Ottawa Transit Tunnel Planning and Environmental Assessment Study. Furthermore, Council identified the completion of the Transitway, construction of the downtown tunnel, implementation of rapid transit using the Cumberland Transitway corridor and the implementation of the LRT to the south-eastern growth area as the City’s priority projects for transit funding.

The update of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP), which is being undertaken in conjunction with the five-year review of the Official Plan, provides an opportunity to reassess the City’s growing transit need to 2031, also keeping in mind the City’s vision for a transit system beyond the planning horizon.

This report summarizes the technical work leading to the proposed network and technology options, public feedback received as well as the recommended option for the downtown and its implications on the rest of the network. The analysis and recommendation presented in this report are one component of a larger study to update the TMP.

DISCUSSION

Transportation Vision and Guiding Principles

Throughout the Fall of 2007, the TMP Vision and Guiding Principles were reviewed through the following new and unique public consultation activities:

· Educational materials ‘White Papers’;

· Online Consultation (Beyond Ottawa 20/20, Ottawa Talks, etc.);

· Streeter Surveys;

· Stakeholder-based Focus Groups;

· The City Café event;

· A Transportation Master Plan Interactive Workshop.

What We Heard

· Overall, a significant majority of people felt that the existing TMP Vision and Guiding Principles continues to remain valid and that only modest changes should be considered with respect to: the natural environment; performance measurements; implementation timelines; affordability; and land use planning.

· People want a transit system that is efficient, convenient, reliable and comfortable.

· Interest in the idea of a downtown transit tunnel is strong. Many people believe that a tunnel is needed immediately while others believe further study is required to examine potential alternatives.

· A strong majority of people believe the City should consolidate express routes and expand feeder-line-haul service to improve transit speed and reliability through the downtown provided that transfers are convenient, quick, reliable and comfortable.

This led to the development of the following revised TMP Vision Statement (in box below) and its accompanying Guiding Principles, as summarized in Document 1.

Transportation Vision

In 2031, Ottawa’s transportation system will enhance our quality of life by supporting social, environmental and economic sustainability in an accountable and responsive manner.

Feedback from this phase of consultation influenced the development of the downtown rapid transit options as presented later in this report. Document 2 provides a complete summary of public comments received.

Development of the Downtown Rapid Transit Network

Planning Assumptions (population, employment)

Projections of Ottawa’s long-term growth are fundamental to the City’s assessment of future infrastructure needs. As part of the Official Plan review, the City’s current 2021growth projections were comprehensively re-examined for the new 2031-planning horizon. The development of these new growth projections considered the Greater Ottawa-Gatineau Area (including adjacent municipalities) to ensure that the magnitude and the extent of the commuter shed were included in the overall assessment of growth for Ottawa.

The City’s population is projected to grow by approximately 30 per cent to reach 1,135,700 by 2031 (an additional 265,000 persons). Employment is expected to grow by approximately 35 per cent to reach 703,000 (an additional 180,300 jobs). The 2031 population and employment levels for major growth areas, and the percentage increase over current population and employment levels are summarized in Figure 1. By 2031, approximately 52 per cent of the population and 72 per cent of employment will be located in areas inside the Greenbelt.

Figure 1. 2031 Population and Employment Projection by Major Growth Area

Future Travel Demand

The requirements for transportation systems is fundamentally linked to where people live and work, with the most significant demands occurring during peak commuter travel times. Therefore, the travel demand analysis efforts have been focused on the morning peak hour as it represents the time of the day when road networks experience increased levels of congestion and is the busiest hour for transit use.

The 2031 morning peak hour travel demand forecast was determined using a computer-based long-range transportation demand model (TRANS model). The model was recently redeveloped to incorporate the state-of-the art modeling practices and calibrated against the 2005 Origin-Destination Survey.

Main findings of the forecast modeling, as summarized in Table 1, include:

1. Total travel by all modes will increase by about 38 per cent during the morning peak hour.

2. Non-motorized trips (walking and cycling): City-wide, morning-peak hour trips is forecast to grow by about 50 per cent, from 23,700 to 35,400 trips.

3. City-wide growth in trips by automobile during the morning peak hour is forecasted to increase by approximately 24 per cent (from 146,600 to 182,300 trips) which is less than the rate of population growth. The growth in auto vehicle use is largely to destinations outside the Greenbelt. City-wide morning peak hour mode split will decrease from 77 per cent to 70 per cent.

4. City-wide growth in travel by public transit during the morning peak hour is forecasted to increase by approximately 76 per cent (from 44,500 to 78,300 trips). City-wide transit mode split is forecast to increase from 23 per cent to 30 per cent by 2031.

5. Transit mode split, for morning peak hour, is forecasted to increase from 46 per cent to 55 per cent for trips destined to the Inner Area, from 26 per cent to 36 per cent for trips destined to inside the Greenbelt and from 9 per cent to 19 per cent for trips destined to outside the Greenbelt

6. Transit mode split is forecasted to increase from 24 per cent to 29 per cent for trips originated from outside the Greenbelt.

Table 1. Growth in Travel by all Modes of Travel (Morning Peak Hour)1

Ottawa Travel² AM Peak Hour	2006			2031			Percentage Growth
Ottawa Travel² AM Peak Hour	Person Trips	Mode Share³	Mode Split⁴	Person Trips	Mode Share	Mode Split	Percentage Growth
Walking/Cycling (Non-Motorized)	23,700	11%	-	35,400	12%	-	49%
Transit Riders	44,500	21%	23%	78,300	26%	30%	76%
Private Auto Trips	146,600	68%	77%	182,300	62%	70%	24%
Total - All Trips	214,800	100%	100%	296,000	100%	100%	38%

1. Individual area transit mode split values are summarized in Appendix D of Supporting Document 3

2. Includes all travel originating or destine to Ottawa

3. Mode share is the percentage of trips made by one mode, relative to total trips made by all modes

4. Mode split is the percentage of trips made by one mode, relative to total trips made by motorized modes

Primary Travel Desire Lines:

Figure 2 shows the 2031 predicted primary travel flows (i.e. greater than 1,700 trips/hour) as well as the transit mode split between different planning areas. The width of the arrows indicates the magnitude of travel (number of morning peak hour person trips) and the colour of the arrow indicates the transit mode split (the darker the colour, the higher the transit mode split).

Figure 2. Primary Desire Lines (2031 morning peak hour)

As demonstrated in Figure 2, during the morning peak hour, Ottawa’s Inner Area will continue to be the most significant destination for travel since more than one-quarter of Ottawa’s 2031 employment base will be located inside the Inner Area. However, as a result of the significant planned growth in the urban areas outside the Greenbelt, other strong travel demand between other areas of the city will emerge, such as: from Orleans to AltaVista area; from Kanata to Bayshore and Merivale areas; and from Barrhaven to Merivale, Bayshore and Kanata areas.

Urban areas located outside the Greenbelt will continue to be attracted to transit to reach Ottawa’s Inner Area with average mode splits reaching 70 per cent (i.e. during the morning peak hour, 70 per cent of trips from the suburban areas to the Inner Area will be by transit). Transit mode splits for the other primary travel demand between other urban areas are predicated to be in the mid 20 per cent to 30 per cent range.

Downtown Transit Ridership

The configuration of the rapid transit network will dictate the corridor that transit customers will take and the directions through which they enter downtown. Riverside South/Leitrim residents as well as some Barrhaven residents could be carried north on the current O-Train corridor through Carleton University and Bayview Stations and enter the downtown from the west. The other option would be for Riverside South/Leitrim residents to use the current Southeast Transitway corridor to enter the downtown from the east. Each of these options would have different ridership implications on the capacity requirements for the downtown. The downtown transit demand for these two options is shown in Figure 3. The peak passenger demand would range between 13,700 and 15,600 passengers per hour. Option to fully integrate transit customers from Gatineau could potentially add up to 8,500 passengers per hour.

To visualize the scale of the problem in the downtown core, up to 347 standard buses at 10 seconds apart or 223 articulated buses at 16 seconds apart would be required to carry the 15,600 potential transit riders per hour entering downtown using Ottawa transit system. In addition, 252 standard buses or 162 articulated buses would be required to carry future morning peak hour transit customers coming from the City of Gatineau.

It is clear that the downtown will continue to be the bottleneck of the system and addressing the downtown transit congestion will need to be a priority if the City were to achieve the 30 per cent transit mode split target. The following section describes the different options that were investigated to provide the required capacity to accommodate future transit demand in the downtown area.

2006 Transit Demand

2031 Transit Demand

Figure 3. Existing and Future Transit Demand in the Downtown Area (morning peak hour)

Alternatives for serving the downtown

Various options to provide the necessary transit capacity to accommodate anticipated transit demand in the downtown were assessed:

· Surface options

· Elevated option

· Tunnel options

Surface Options

The theoretical capacities of the bus-only lanes on Albert and Slater Streets are 195 buses per hour per direction. In the last five years, in responding to severe delays to service in the downtown, transit service has been modified to reduce the number of buses from over 200 to no more than 180 buses per hour to maintain service reliability. However, with the current operating strategy and with transit ridership continuing to grow, it will be impossible to accommodate the growth in ridership without exceeding the physical capacity of the two streets.

The following measures to increase the potential capacity of the downtown Transitway are examined:

· Consolidating express routes;

· Use of additional bus-only lanes on each of Albert and Slater Streets;

· Dedicating Mackenzie King Bridge for transit only;

· Use of other downtown streets such as Wellington Street, Queen Street and Laurier Avenue;

· Increasing the use of high-capacity buses such as double-deck or double-articulated vehicles.

Each of the above measures would have unfavourable traffic impacts and would create a negative on-street environment that would be unattractive to pedestrians and cyclists, and unacceptable to the adjacent business and property owners. Adding more buses on the streets would jeopardize the reliability of the transit operation especially during winter months. In addition, the analysis shows that even combining all of the above measures does not offer the required capacity to accommodate 2031 ridership demand.

Light-Rail Transit (LRT) surface option was also examined. It is estimated that a two-car LRT vehicle, operating every one minute, would be required to carry future transit demand. This frequency is much higher than the 2.0- to 2.5-minute minimum practical frequency for rail operation. Using longer trains will not be possible because the required platform length will necessitate the closure of adjacent property access points. Therefore, the LRT-only surface option is not an acceptable downtown transit solution for the long term.

Two concepts of a combined bus and LRT operation were examined during the North-South Corridor LRT project EA Study: one direction of LRT and BRT on each of Albert and Slater Streets; and two directions of LRT service on one street and two directions of BRT service on the other street. The two-direction concept was deemed to be unsafe. The one-direction concept of LRT and BRT on separate lanes was rejected as it would have significant impact on business due to the loss of the left-hand curb lane used for parking, loading, delivery and taxi zones. The one-direction concept of LRT and BRT on the same lane was deemed feasible and would be sufficient to carry the anticipated demand (20 two-car LRT and 180 buses on each street during peak hour). This was an appropriate solution at that time given that the funding envelop for the North-South LRT project was limited. The EA noted that a grade separation should not be precluded, as it would be required at some point in the future to ensure reliability of service. Due to concerns related to the reliability of the combined LRT/BRT operation, Council directed staff to reduce the number of buses by a minimum of 30 per cent by 2009 and evaluate the possibility of removing up to 100 per cent of buses. In order to remove large volumes of buses, more bus-to-bus transfers will need to be introduced. This reduced and modified service, however, would not accommodate the transit demand being forecasted for the 2031-planning horizon.

Based on the above, it is clear that there is no feasible surface-only transit solution in the downtown area without severely impacting adjacent businesses, having an undesirable urban environment and severely impacting the reliability of transit service.

Elevated Option

An elevated option for downtown was considered in the 1988 “Central Area Transitway Grade Separation Feasibility Study”. The Study found that an elevated solution would create a visual barrier through downtown, reduce direct sunlight to street level and would have very high capital costs to integrate stations into existing adjacent buildings. Also, the elevated solution would require significant utility relocation, and would have high operating and life-cycle costs due to exposure to the elements. For the above reasons, the elevated solution was not recommended.

Tunnel Options

A tunnel can resolve many of the current surface operating problems, as it would allow unconstrained flow through the downtown and hence improve the reliability of transit service. It will also provide weather-protected amenities for transit customers, improve pedestrian and cycling operations, reduce street noise and emissions, and present opportunities to enhance the street environment. A range of transit technologies that may be incorporated in the tunnel was considered. They include bus-only, LRT-only, and combination of bus and LRT. These different options are discussed in more details in the next section.

Combined surface/tunnel options were also considered. There are two main options: Bus-only tunnel with LRT on the street; or LRT tunnel with buses operate on the surface. However, since both options will require extensive financial investment in building the tunnel component and since the tunnel can provide the necessary capacity to fully accommodate future demand, there is no need to continue surface operation for anything more than local routes for the ultimate network. This would maximize the use of the tunnel and will improve the return on the investment.

Primary Rapid Transit Corridors – Network Options with Tunnels

The approach that is taken is to build a network from the core out — addressing downtown congestion and determining the best way to serve communities in the west, south and east. Therefore, four alternative core rapid transit networks, each incorporating a tunnel option, have been developed to determine the most appropriate long-range rapid transit network and technology to serve Ottawa. These options are:

· Network Option 1: BRT Tunnel - Bus based

· Network Option 2: BRT/LRT Tunnel – Bus based with North-South LRT

· Network Option 3: LRT Tunnel - East and West downtown LRT

· Network Option 4: LRT Tunnel - East and West downtown LRT plus North-South LRT

The four options are illustrated in Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7 with existing corridors shown as solid lines and future extension as dashed lines. The broad grey arrows represent other possible complementary rapid transit corridors, which will be evaluated following Council’s decision on the primary transit network.

All options will require the move to a feeder-line-haul operation with major transfer points to be at Baseline, Lincoln Fields, Hurdman and Blair Stations. The basic difference between each of the above options is the extent to which LRT is incorporated. The following sections describe briefly each of the four options.

Option 1: BRT Tunnel - Bus based

This option is based on the existing bus Transitway with extensions to outlying suburban areas in the east, west and south. It incorporates an underground bus tunnel through the downtown and keeps the existing diesel-powered O-Train service from Bayview Station to Greenboro Station.

To address emission concerns in the tunnel, low emission buses such as hybrid-electric buses are assumed to be used on the main feeder-line haul. Also, to simplify passengers boarding in the downtown area, consolidating of some express buses will be required which will result in more transfers from bus to bus for some residents. An articulated bus running every 18 seconds through the downtown tunnel is required to accommodate the projected 2031 peak hour transit ridership demand.

Option 2: BRT/LRT Tunnel – Bus based with North-South LRT

This option is based on the existing bus Transitway with extensions to outlying suburban areas in the east, west and south and the addition of a twin-track electric North-South LRT line from Bowesville Station to the downtown and the University of Ottawa with a connection to the airport. A joint-use LRT/bus tunnel through the downtown is incorporated to accommodate both the east-west buses and the North-South LRT trains. Similar to Option 1, consolidation of some express services and the introduction of low-emission buses on the main feeder-line haul will be required. A combination of two-car LRT trains running every 3 minutes and 45 seconds, and articulated buses running every 22 seconds through the downtown tunnel is required to accommodate the projected 2031 ridership demand.

The LRT is extended beyond the Greenbelt to Bowesville to reach the preferred location for a rail maintenance yard, which was approved as part of the North-South Corridor LRT EA Study. The existing Walkley yard has several operational issues dealing with its size and access, additional cost and environmental liability that prohibit its use for the North-South LRT corridor. An advantage of the extension is to serve the Riverside/Leitrim communities as they are currently not served by any form of rapid transit service.

Option 3: LRT Tunnel - East and West downtown LRT

This option is based on an LRT-only tunnel through the downtown, which requires a conversion of the Transitway between Baseline Station and Blair Station to twin-track electric LRT. It also includes Transitway extensions to outlying suburban areas in the east, west and south. The existing diesel O-Train would continue in operation as it does today from Bayview Station to Greenboro Station. Train sets of four-cars each need to run every 2 minutes and 18 seconds through the downtown tunnel to accommodate the projected 2031 transit ridership demand.

Bus to LRT transfers will mainly occur at Baseline, Lincoln Fields, Hurdman and Blair Stations. Baseline Station directly serves Algonquin College and is the focal point for the development of the Nepean Centrepointe lands as well as provides a direct connection to the Southwest Transitway. Lincoln Fields Station provides a direct connection to the West Transitway, as well as to transit routes operating on Carling Avenue. Hurdman Station is already a major transfer facility, located at the connection of the East and Southeast Transitways. Blair Station is at the convergence point of the East and Cumberland Transitways, and is surrounded by employment and retail developments.

It should be noted that for Option 3, the Southeast Transitway is extended to provide direct service to Riverside South residents destined to downtown. For this reason, Option 3 is not a staging option for Option 4.

Option 4: LRT Tunnel - East and West downtown LRT plus North-South LRT

This option is essentially the same as Option 3 except that the O-Train is converted to twin-track electric LRT and extended to Bowesville Station with an LRT connection to the airport. Riverside South residents would travel to the downtown on the North-South LRT line. This option will require four-car LRT trains running every two minutes and four seconds through the downtown tunnel to accommodate the projected 2031 transit ridership demand.

Bus to rail transfers will occur at Baseline, Lincoln Fields, Bowesville, Hurdman and Blair Stations. Further LRT extensions east, west and southwest are possible and can be considered, but the segments from Baseline to Blair Stations and from Bayview Station to Bowseville Station have been selected as the minimal segments required for a successful operation. .

Figure 4. Network Option 1: BRT Tunnel - Bus based

Figure 5. Network Option 2: BRT/LRT Tunnel – Bus based with North-South LRT

Figure 6. Network Option 3: LRT Tunnel - East and West downtown LRT

Figure 7. Network Option 4: LRT Tunnel - East and West downtown LRT plus North- South LRT

Capital and Operating Costs for Different Network Options – Primary Transit Corridors

Preliminary capital cost estimates for each of the four options are provided in Table 2, in 2008 dollars. These estimates include engineering and contingency costs, but make no allowance for property costs. Details are included in Appendix G of Supporting Document 3. They are subject to refinement through further detailed planning work and environmental assessments, as appropriate.

Table 2. Capital and Operating Costs for Different Network Options (millions $)

Section	Description		Alternative 1	Alternative 2	Alternative 3	Alternative 4
Central Downtown	Bayview to Hurdman (excluding Tunnel)		$49	$68	$112	$112
Central Downtown	Downtown Tunnel		$780	$1032	$555	$555
West Downtown	Baseline to Bayview		$22	$22	$237	$237
East Downtown	Blair to Hurdman		0	0	$97	$97
South Downtown	Bayview to Bowesville Includes Airport Link		$100	$435	$100	$435
South Transitway	Barrhaven Town Centre to Bowesville		$100	$100	$100	$100
West Transitway	From Southwest Transitway to Kanata		$338	$338	$338	$338
Southwest Transitway	Cambrian to Baseline		$180	$180	$180	$180
Southeast Transitway	Greenboro to Hurdman Includes Hospital Link		$44	$44	$44	$44
East Transitways	Blair to Trim and Blair to Millennium		$239	$239	$239	$239
LRT Maintenance Facility				$100	$100	$200
Bus Maintenance Facility			$300	$240	$120	$120
Infrastructure Sub-Total			$ 2,152	$ 2,798	$ 2,222	$ 2,657
LRT Vehicles			0	$140	$750	$890
BRT Vehicles*		Initial Fleet	$800	$720	$400	$320
BRT Vehicles*		Replacement Vehicles	$600	$540	$200	$160
Vehicles Sub-Total			$1,400	$1,400	$1,350	$1,370
			$3,552	$4,198	$3,572	$4,027
			$ 485	$ 472	$ 453	$ 434

Note 1: Cost estimates are subject to verification through EA studies and system design

Note 2: Estimates do not include costs for STO solutions, inflation, property acquisition and additional cost for unforeseen circumstances

Note 3: Vehicle costs are estimated over 30 years

Note 4: Operating costs are to accommodate the demand at the end of the planning horizon (2031)

Opportunities for STO Service Integration

La Société de transport de l’Outaouais (STO) currently operates approximately 120 buses serving 4,400 peak hour transit passengers through Ottawa’s central core on the Rideau/Wellington Street corridor. The combined operation of STO interprovincial and OC Transpo transit on the Rideau/Wellington corridor is currently nearing capacity with little room for growth.

This interprovincial ridership demand is expected to increase to 8,500 peak hour passengers by 2031, which translates to approximately 250 standard buses in the peak hour. STO currently uses mostly standard buses to service their interprovincial passengers. STO has plans for a future BRT operation in a freight rail corridor in Gatineau and does not anticipate any need to convert to rail transit service within the planning horizon.

Four very preliminary options were developed to show how interprovincial STO service might be integrated in downtown Ottawa with the primary rapid transit network options described above.

Option A: Surface Transit - STO would continue to operate on the surface in downtown Ottawa. However, with a projected 250 buses per hour in the peak direction, a single corridor will not provide enough capacity. Therefore, STO buses would require more streets in Ottawa’s downtown on which to operate. This is not an acceptable option and solutions have to be developed.

Option B: Shared Transit Tunnel – STO buses cannot be accommodated in the bus tunnels proposed for rapid transit network Options 1 and 2 because of the limited bus tunnel capacity. For network Options 3 and 4, a wider LRT/BRT tunnel would be required to accommodate STO buses with an estimated additional construction cost of $475M.

Option C: Separate Transit Tunnel - a separate bus tunnel for STO services could be built with an estimated additional construction costs of $610M.

Option D: Transfer to Ottawa LRT – for rapid transit network Options 2, 3 and 4, there is capacity in the tunnel to accommodate additional STO passengers if they transferred to the Ottawa LRT system. Additional trains would be needed to accommodate the extra STO passengers. Transfer point could be located either in Ottawa or in Gatineau. Estimated additional construction cost could range between $35M for a transfer point in Ottawa to $190M for a transfer point in Gatineau.

A more detailed analysis will be undertaken to select the preferred option for interprovincial rapid transit service through the upcoming joint NCC/Ottawa/Gatineau-STO Interprovincial Rapid Transit Strategic Integration Study, and the Downtown Transit Tunnel Planning and EA Study.

Evaluation of Options

The four rapid transit network options are assessed using a common set of evaluation criteria. These criteria are grouped under four general categories: Transportation; Natural Environment; Social/Cultural Environment; and Costs.

Transportation:

· Transit ridership attraction

· Accommodating forecast transit ridership by 2031

· Accommodating transit growth beyond the planning horizon

· Operating issues that may impact service reliability

Natural Environment

· Air quality and greenhouse gas emissions

· Biophysical environment (amount of salt use during winter operation)

Social / Cultural Environment

· Urban form (intensification and redevelopment opportunities)

· Access to key destinations

· Tourism and national capital image

· Noise and vibration

Costs

· Capital construction costs

· Vehicle costs (including replacement)

· Operating Costs

The results of the relative evaluation of the four network options are presented in Table 3

Table 3. Evaluation Summary of the Different Network Options

		Alternative 1 Bus Based	Alternative 2 Bus with NS LRT	Alternative 3 EW LRT	Alternative 4 EW and NS LRT
Transit and Transportation
Transit Ridership Attraction	Base ridership of 76,400 trips (Growth of 31,900) Limited potential		Ridership of 76,900 trips (Growth of 32,400) (2% more than Alternative 1) Some potential	Ridership of 78,700 trips (Growth of 34,200) (7% more than Alternative 1) Greater potential	Ridership of 79,200 trips (Growth of 34,700) (9% more than Alterative 1) Greatest potential
Accommodating Forecast Transit Ridership	Theoretically could operate at capacity Requires stations with; · 4 bus bays · Fare pre-payment · Bus platoons		Buses may be accommodated but will operate close to theoretical capacity NS LRT vehicles can easily be accommodated Mix of bus and LRT traffic is unbalanced	LRT vehicles can be accommodated	LRT vehicles can be accommodated
Accommodating Transit Growth Beyond the Planning Horizon	No flexibility to accommodate growth beyond the planning period		Minimal room for additional buses LRT component has additional capacity but it is not required for this option	Has room for growth. Longer trains and more frequent service could be provided	Has room for growth. Longer trains and more frequent service could be provided
Operating Issues	Operating at capacity will mean that the service reliability is substantially reduced Small delays will cascade through the system causing larger delays well after the first delay is cleared		Buses will be operating close to capacity, which may alleviate some of the reliability issues however the loss of the passing lane will affect service Allowing buses to use the LRT lane will require reduced operating speed, affecting capacity	Signalized system will operate well	Signalized system will operate well
Natural Environment
Air Quality and GHG emissions		682,900 kg CO 63,900 kg HC 515,500 kg NOx 33,300 kg SOx 11,800 kg PM 88,875 t CO2	646,900 kg CO 60,400 kg HC 489,400 kg NOx 31,600 kg SOx 11,100 kg PM 84,227 t CO₂	557,300 kg CO 52,200 kg HC 421,700 kg NOx 27,200 kg SOx 9,600 kg PM 72,559 t CO2	512,000 kg CO 47,800 kg HC 387,300 kg NOx 25,000 SOx 8,800 kg PM 88,875 t CO2
Excavated Material		Tunnels: 390,000 cu. m. Stations: 3 standard stations	Tunnels: 390,000 cu. m. Stations: 3 larger stations (to accommodate extra platforms)	Tunnels: 140,000 cu. m. Stations: 3 standard stations	Tunnels: 140,000 cu. m. Stations: 3 standard stations
Salt Use		Highest use	Second highest use	Second lowest use	Lowest use
Social / Cultural Environment
Property and Development Criteria		Continuation with the current technology will encourage similar property and development patterns	Introduction of some LRT will encourage more development in those areas	Substantial LRT network will encourage a substantial amount of property and development interest	Largest LRT network with the greatest potential to encourage property and development interest
Capital Image		No improvement to Capital Image	Improves Capital Image somewhat	Fosters very good Capital Image	Fosters best Capital Image
Public Support		No support	No support	Some support	Substantial support
Direct Airport Service		Provides bus access to the Airport	Provides rail access to the Airport	Provides bus access to the Airport	Provides rail access to the Airport
Noise and Vibration		Largest proportion of the network is bus-based Highest impact	Less bus-based activity than Alternative 1, however busiest routes remain bus-based Second highest impact	Similar to Alternative 4, but with more bus-based service in the south Second lowest impact	Smallest proportion of the network is bus-based Lowest impact
Costs
Capital Construction Costs		$ 2,152 M	$ 2,798 M	$ 2,222 M	$ 2,657 M
Vehicle Costs (including replacement)		$1,400 M	$1,400 M	$1,350 M	$1,370 M
Total Capital Costs		$3,552 M	$4,198 M	$3,572 M	$4,027 M
Operating Costs		$485 M	$472 M	$453 M	$434 M

Public and Agency Consultation

Consultations began March 3 and concluded March 31, 2008 as an exercise to inform and seek comments from the public on the four Downtown Rapid Transit Network Options and their implications on the overall transportation system. A number of activities were undertaken to provide flexible and convenient opportunities for the public and agencies to provide comments to the City, as listed below:

· Open Houses held at various locations throughout the City, including a public presentation at City Hall followed by a questions and answers period;

· Registered Discussion Groups as part of each Open House;

· Stakeholder Focus Group Sessions;

· City Advisory Committee Briefings

· Online Consultations;

· Internal and External Agency Group Meetings;

· Mayor’s Streeter Survey.

In total, approximately 1200 written submissions were received during the month of March, which shows the great interest in this planning exercise.

What We Heard

A summary of the consultation effort and feedback is attached in Chapter 8 of Document 3.

In general, a strong majority of the public and stakeholders indicated Option 4 as the preferred long-term transit solution for Ottawa (approximately 70 per cent of all comments received supported Option 4). The respondents believe that Option 4 provides the highest quality of transit service; is the best approach for urban intensification; has the lowest operating costs; has optimum long-term transit growth capacity; has the most positive environmental, social and economic impacts; and projects the most favourable perception of Ottawa as the Nation’s Capital City.

While there was also support for Option 3 (approximately 22 per cent of all comments received) many suggested that this alternative could serve as a ‘staged’ implementation for ultimately developing Option 4. It should be noted, however, that Option 3 would only be a staging of Option 4 if the existing O-Train were to be extended further south to connect Riverside South to downtown, otherwise the direct route to downtown for these residents would be the extension of the Southeast Transitway as depicted in Option 3.

There was little to no support for Option 1 and Option 2 (approximately three per cent of all comments received). People found these options to be the least sustainable and economically viable networks for the future.

Few people were either undecided or did not prefer any of the four options (approximately 5 per cent of all comments received). Additional key issues included:

Extension of LRT Service

Many people suggested that the LRT corridors shown in Option 4 should extend further to serve urban communities beyond the Greenbelt such as Kanata, Barrhaven and Orleans. Several people also suggested a northern LRT extension to the City of Gatineau.

Response: The options presented illustrate the recommended minimum LRT service requirements and do not preclude future additional LRT service extensions. Adding more LRT service will increase capital costs. For the projected transit demand volumes to 2031, it is not necessary to extend the LRT lines beyond what is depicted in Option 4.

Corridor Locations

Some people mentioned that existing rail lines should be utilized. Others suggested that providing LRT corridors inside the Greenbelt would result in less suburban sprawl and greater urban intensification. Some people questioned the feasibility of the corridors identified in Option 4 such as using the Ottawa River Parkway.

Response: In general, most of Ottawa’s existing rail lines are not located close to where many people live or work and would be more appropriate for a regional commuter system than for urban transit. The options do not preclude the development of a commuter system using existing rail lines in the future. All corridors identified in the options, including the use of the Ottawa River Parkway, are subject to Environmental Assessments and functional designs.

Interprovincial Integration

Several people suggested a need for greater transit integration between the City of Ottawa and the City of Gatineau. Ideas ranged from developing a single interprovincial system to more integration between the two transit networks. Both the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and the Ontario Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal (PIR) recommended greater coordination between the Interprovincial River Crossing Environmental Assessment, STO’s Rapibus System Plan, and the National Capital Commission Transit Study.

Response: City of Ottawa, City of Gatineau, STO, MTO, MTQ and the NCC are frequently involved in joint transportation planning studies. This coordination is on going. Staff appreciates the importance of a coordinated effort while also respecting the autonomy between our different cities.

Urban Design

Many people commented that they want an attractive and well-designed transit system with comfortable and accessible transit stations that are well integrated with development. Personal security and safety are also concerns. The idea of consolidating express routes and expanding feeder-line-haul service is acceptable if transfers are convenient, quick, reliable and comfortable (enclosed heated shelters).

Response: Station features and integration will be addressed during the design stage of each approved project. The City of Ottawa Urban Design Guideline and the Transit-Oriented Development Guidelines provide very good direction for urban design. The City’s Transit Service Policies identify standards for quick and reliable service.

Environmental and Human Health Impacts

Many people stated that Option 4 would have the most positive environmental and human health impacts. Greenhouse gas emissions were a major concern for many people from both a natural environment and human health perspective. People suggested that a transit tunnel that is well integrated with adjacent developments would improve the downtown environment, particularly during the winter months.

Response: Opportunities to integrate with development will continue to be investigated through out all planning phases of each project.

Social, Mobility and Accessibility Impacts

Several people noted mobility and accessibility concerns associated with new transit stations and a downtown transit tunnel. Other people commented that improvements to our transit system are a priority as a way to improve mobility for people that do not drive (i.e. aging population, students, etc) and that transit improvements, particularly an LRT system, would help to improve Ottawa’s perception as a great world-class national capital city.

Response: Mobility and accessibility will continue to be major considerations in the planning and design phases of each project. All transit stations will be wheelchair accessible and will include elevators, as provincially mandated.

Economic and Financial Implications

Many people mentioned that they support Option 4 because it has the lowest operational costs and the greatest potential for land value uplift and attracting new development. Several people suggested that additional funding is required from senior levels of government. Some people, including the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and the Ontario Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal (PIR), recommend a more detailed analysis of the costs and benefits. Both MTO and PIR also recommend additional short-term transit investments to address immediate transit challenges. People stated that operational costs are an important consideration as operational costs are mainly funded locally through fares and taxes. Increasing future fuel costs associated with a bus-based system was also a noted concern.

Response: Costs (capital and operating) will be refined as each project advances forward from strategic planning to detailed planning (and environmental assessments), design, and implementation phases. Cost-benefit analyses for each project will be undertaken as this is typically a condition of funding from senior levels of government.

Technology Choice

Most people said they prefer electric LRT technology rather than hybrid electric-diesel or hydrogen, as it is perceived as a more sustainable, non-fossil fuel approach. A few people suggested that a subway or an elevated monorail system should be considered.

Response: Environmental impacts associated with various technologies are part of the evaluation criteria for assessing the different network options. An elevated solution was not recommended due to the major aesthetic and physical impacts as detailed in the Document 3 and the RMOC Central Area Transitway Grade-Separation Feasibility Study (1988). An LRT system provides sufficient capacity for the projected transit demand volumes to year 2031 and also provides more service flexibility than a subway.

Construction and Phasing Implementation

People commented about disruptions to transit service during the construction period and are concerned about reduced transit ridership while the transit infrastructure is being built. Some people questioned the need to twin the tunnel under Dows Lake and the impacts on ridership this would have during the construction period.

Response: There will always be disruption to transit service and general traffic whenever major transportation projects are constructed. A comprehensive plan will be developed to mitigate as much of the negative effects as possible. This work will be undertaken closer to the timing of project implementation.

Ridership

Several people suggested that ridership should be the primary criterion for evaluating the four transit options, including the implementation-phasing plan of the preferred option. People mentioned that Option 4 would lead to the highest ridership due to its reliability and attractiveness.

Response: Ridership is a key evaluation criterion in assessing the various network options.

Peer Review

The City of Ottawa engaged a Peer Review Panel of respected professionals with decades of transit and urban planning experience to carry out the technical review of the proposed primary rapid transit network.

The Panel examined the transit network in place today and that proposed by the TMP study team in terms of their effectiveness in serving Ottawa’s existing and future travel demand. The Panel assessed the reasonableness of the study’s assumptions, methodologies, findings and conclusions pertaining to corridor locations, technology and estimated cost including the proposed downtown transit options.

The Panel’s report is included as Document 4. Key comments/recommendations made by the Panel with respect to the primary rapid transit network include:

· The 30 per cent peak hour modal split target appears achievable in light of current 23 per cent transit mode split;

· Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) alone will not provide the all-day mobility and urban development that are needed for future success;

· Light Rail Transit (LRT) corridors should be limited to inside the Greenbelt area with Bus Rapid Transit connections to the designated outlying Town Centres;

· Significant concerns about reliability of transit surface operation as well as the visual and mobility barrier presented by transit vehicles and passenger volumes making downtown public environment less attractive;

· LRT should operate in a tunnel through downtown with a two-corridor LRT system that includes an east-west line from Blair Station to Baseline Station, and a north-south line from Bayview to the Ottawa International Airport;

· Rapid transit corridors should be fully segregated to the greatest extent possible (providing good travel time and reliability);

· The existing O-Train corridor should be converted to a double-track LRT, with the line extended south only to the airport;

· STO buses should operate on-street in downtown Ottawa if possible into the future;

· No Transitway development beyond the Kanata, Barrhaven, and Orleans Town Centres;

· Transit investment should be contained within the current urban boundary and that only basic mobility (e.g. Para Transpo) should be provided beyond;

· Commuter rail network in the Ottawa region and beyond is not justified through 2031;

· Ottawa’s Greenbelt is a major asset and it should always be a permanent defining feature of the City as Canada’s Capital;

· The projection of 80 per cent of population growth and 58 per cent of employment growth to 2031 to occur outside the Greenbelt is a major concern – should focus population growth inside the Greenbelt to achieve a more efficient transit system;

· Aggressive land use and growth pattern are required to complement the massive transit investment program that is envisaged for Ottawa.

RECOMMENDATION

Recommended Rapid Transit Network Option

Based on the technical evaluation of the different core network options and feedback from the public as well as advice from the Peer Review Panel, it is recommended that Option 4 be selected as the preferred long-term core rapid transit network option. While the long term capital cost of this option is the most expensive, it provides a number of major benefits to the City including:

· The lowest annual operating costs;

· The highest annual ridership;

· The lowest negative impact on the environment as a result of the lowest greenhouse gas emissions and the least amount of winter salt contamination;

· The best overall quality of rapid transit service over the entire city;

· The best overall image of the city as a world capital including a direct and attractive rail connection from the airport to downtown and the parliament precinct for visiting tourists and world delegations; and

· The highest quality of transit service to key city destinations.

This recommendation is consistent with the Peer Review Panel recommendations with respect to the primary rapid transit work. The only exception is that the Peer Review is recommending terminating the North-South LRT at the airport with no further extension to Riverside South. Staff recommendation is to extend the line to Bowesville to connect to the preferred location for a rail maintenance facility.

NEXT STEPS

The TMP Update will continue with further transit planning matters upon Council’s approval of the primary rapid transit network. These next activities include developing:

Secondary Transit Corridors

These are shown as grey links on the various network options. They are intended to link the primary corridors, enhance transit service coverage, and provide flexibility and choice for transit users. Potential secondary corridors to be examined are Carling, Rideau/Montreal, Baseline, Hospital, OCR rail and VIA rail corridors. Results of the analysis will be subject to public review in early Fall 2008.

Implementation Plan:

Following the approval of the primary rapid transit network in May 2008 and the identification of the secondary corridors, a priority implementation plan to year 2031 will be developed in order to move forward with the transit implementation program in a staged approach. Developing the implementation plan will consider the following:

· Ridership (corridor demand, easing downtown transit congestion, enhance level of service for existing riders and attracting new riders);

· Status of the planning work;

· Difficulty of construction, potential complexity of design, uncertainty of location;

· Logical sequencing – e.g. need to connect to a maintenance facility;

· Staging flexibility (possible interim solutions);

· Minimize service disruption during construction;

· Support smart growth objectives of intensification and redevelopment.

Tunnel Planning and EA Study:

This study will be undertaken concurrently with the TMP. The consultant selection process is underway. It is expected that the study will start in late Spring. The Study will be undertaken in accordance with the new accelerated Environmental Assessment Process for Public Transit Projects (expected to be in place by June 2008). With the likelihood of requirements for federal permits and property, and with the City pursuing federal funding, the Study will also have to comply with the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). The Study will be using the technical work completed to date for the TMP which confirmed an LRT tunnel as the preferred solution.

Land Use and Transportation Demand Management Policies

As the City develops its rapid transit network, a commitment to complementary land use and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) policies will be made, including:

· Identify density targets for areas adjacent to rapid transit stations, especially at mixed-use centers;

· Ensure that type of development at rapid transit stations is transit supportive;

· Increase the overall accessibility of the rapid transit station;

· Revisiting the Zoning By-law to ensure that intensification targets can be met and “up” zone if necessary to facilitate intensification;

· TDM measures to change behaviour and promote transit as a more sustainable mode of travel;

· Fare policy to help spread transit peak demand to minimize capital and operating costs.

Other TMP Update Tasks:

· Assess road infrastructure needs

· Assess other modes (cycling, pedestrian) and their infrastructure requirements

· Identify budgetary needs for infrastructure and programs for all modes

· Identify project priorities for all modes

· Develop implementation plan

· Update TMP policies

· Consult with public and agencies in late September/early October

· Prepare draft TMP for tabling in November 2008 to coincide with the tabling of the draft Official Plan

CONSULTATION

The TMP consultation objectives have been to engage, in a meaningful way, a broad range of citizens and stakeholders in a dialogue around Ottawa’s long-term transportation planning.

Towards this effort, the consultation program has consisted of two main phases, as summarized in Document 2 and in Chapter 8 of Document 3.

Phase 1

Phase 1 took place throughout September to December 2007 and focussed on informing citizens in new and unique ways about various transportation related challenges and opportunities facing Ottawa. Within this context, the TMP Vision and Guiding Principles were reviewed and key information was collected with respect to the development of a preferred rapid transit network. Document 2 further summarizes the consultation process and outcomes from Phase 1.

Phase II consultations began March 3 and concluded March 31, 2008 as an exercise to inform the public about the four Downtown Rapid Transit Network Options and their implications on the overall transportation systems. A number of activities were undertaken to provide flexible and convenient opportunities for the public and agencies to provide comments to the City, as summarized below and further outlined in Chapter 8 of Document 3.

· Four Open Houses held at various locations throughout the City;

· Registered Discussion Groups as part of each Open House;

· Stakeholder Focus Group Sessions;

· City Advisory Committee Briefings;

· Online Materials and Consultations;

· Internal and External Agency Group Meetings;

· Mayor’s Streeter Survey.

Open Houses

Four Public Open Houses were held during the first week of March in various locations across the city. In total, approximately 400 individuals attended the Open Houses and 156 comment sheets were completed and submitted at the events.

Registered Discussion Groups

Registered Discussion Groups were conducted between 7:00 and 8:00 p.m. at each of the Public Open Houses. In total, 152 people participated in the discussion groups. The format involved up to eight participants seated at each table and supplied with information and maps of the four Downtown Rapid Transit Networks. Technical facilitators led the discussions at each table and all comments and input was collected on flips charts.

Stakeholder Focus Group Sessions

Three Stakeholder Focus Group Sessions were held at City Hall during the first week of March 2008. Participants were organized into an Industry, Economic or Downtown group according to their various interests and areas of expertise. Each session included a presentation of the four transit options followed by an open discussion.

City Advisory Committee Briefings

A number of the City of Ottawa Advisory Committees with an interest in transit and transportation were invited to participate in a briefing on the Downtown Rapid Transit Network Options. Several Advisory Committee members also participated in the Public Open Houses and Registered Discussion Groups.

Online Materials and Consultations

The Beyond Ottawa 20/20 website (www.ottawa.ca/beyondottawa2020) has been extensively used to promote the TMP update process, including all Public Open House materials, online feedback forms and additional background information. All information has been provided in both official languages. In total, 631 written submissions were received in the month of March via the online comment form, fax, mail and email.

Internal and External Agency Group Meetings

The City hosted two meetings with various agencies during the first week of March 2008 that included representatives from different levels of governments, crown corporations and private interest groups. The primary objective of the agency meetings was to provide information about the four Downtown Rapid Transit Network Options. Each meeting included a presentation and was followed by an open discussion.

Mayor’s Streeter Survey

A Streeter Survey was conducted with the Mayor during the week of March 17, 2008 to provide a brief snapshot of the public's awareness and opinions of the City's long-term transit plans. The locations were selected to capture a diverse set of opinions, mostly from transit users. The survey team approached people at transit stops, bus stops, park and ride lots, and sidewalks and asked a series of brief questions. In total, 401 surveys were completed.

Further Consultation

Following the tabling of the recommended rapid transit network on 16 April 2008, further consultation will be undertaken to seek public feedback on the recommendation. Events include:

· Six city-wide ward consultations between April 21 and May 6, inclusive

· Online interactive consultations through OttawaTalks

· Online Feedback Form

Inputs received though these consultation events will be presented to Joint Transportation and Transit Committee on May 21.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The capital cost estimates included in the report are preliminary and will be subject to detailed planning and EA work. The costs do not include the secondary transit corridors – still to be developed and costed. It does not include costs for STO solutions, inflation, property acquisition and additional cost for unforeseen circumstances.

For the purpose of estimating the capital and operating costs for transit vehicles, LRT vehicles and standard propulsion buses are assumed. These estimates will be subject to detailed analysis of system specifications, LRT and bus standards and operating strategies.

This proposal continues a significant investment in transit infrastructure, which will require major funding commitments by all levels of government for the program to be implemented. Recent discussions with the federal and provincial governments indicate serious interest in rapid transit projects in Ottawa. Staff will continue to negotiate for funding from both levels of governments.

Currently the City’s Long Range Financial Plan identified transit capital growth needs of $2.1B within the next 10-year period (2007-2016). This amount assumed a minimum of 1/3 funding each from Ontario and Canada. Besides provincial and federal grants, potential funding sources could include: development charges, gas taxes, transit reserve fund, and debt.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1. Transportation Master Plan Updated Vision and Planning Principles

Document 2. Summary of Phase 1 Consultation on Transportation Vision and Planning Principles (September – December 2007), January 2008 (PACE)

Document 3. Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications, April 2008 (McCormick Rankin, Delcan) (on file with the City Clerk and on the City’s website)

Document 4. Peer Review Panel Report, April 2008.

Special Attachment: Recommended Vision for the Downtown Rapid Transit Network

Vision recommandée pour le réseau de transport en commun rapide au centre-ville

DISPOSITION

The Planning, Transit and the Environment Department will continue with the transit-planning component of the TMP Update – specifically to assess the complementing secondary transit corridors and to develop an implementation/priority plan. The public will be consulted in early Fall 2008 on these new findings. Concurrently, the TMP Update team will also look at the needs of other modes that make up the City’s transportation network – this too will be available for public review and comment in the Fall.

TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATED VISION AND

PLANNING PRINCIPLES DOCUMENT 1

In 2031, Ottawa’s transportation system will enhance our quality of life by supporting social, environmental and economic sustainability in an accountable and responsive manner.

SUMMARY OF PHASE 1 CONSULTATION ON TRANSPORTATION

VISION AND PLANNING PRINCIPLES DOCUMENT 2

The mandate of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Study Consultation Strategy is to engage, in a meaningful way, a broad range of citizens and stakeholders in Ottawa. The programs completed between September and December 2007 to assist in achieving this objective have included:

· Educational Background ‘White Papers’;

· Online Consultation Opportunities (Ottawa Talks);

· Streeter Surveys;

· Stakeholder-based Focus Groups;

· The City Café event;

· A Transportation Master Plan Interactive Workshop

Over the course of the first phase of consultations members of the public have contributed a significant amount of input. Some of the overall themes can be summarized as follows:

· Need a transit system that is efficient, convenient, reliable and comfortable.

· Residents of Ottawa continue to support placing emphasis on sustainable modes of transportation (walking, cycling, carpooling and transit) when creating our future transportation infrastructure, including the need to support access to multi-modal transportation systems (e.g. Park & Rides, cycling and pedestrian access to transit, etc.).

· The use of more sustainable modes of travel through incentives, education, and other positive means of stimulating behavioural change is encouraged. This carrot approach was preferred to ‘stick’ methods to discourage or change behaviour, such as through tolls and higher parking fees.

· Many people felt that the existing Transportation Master Plan, with its accompanying planning principles, remains valid although some aspects should be modified. New elements need to be added to reflect an increased emphasis on the environment, performance measurement, implementation timelines, affordability and the importance of links to land use planning.

· There was an expressed desire to see the Transportation Master Plan’s planning principles reference unique Ottawa-specific issues such as: heavy truck problems downtown; the City’s urban-rural balance; and, the need to better co-ordinate transportation planning with Gatineau.

· Interest in the idea of a tunnel downtown is strong; some members of the public believe that we need the tunnel immediately while others felt that due to costs the project should be deferred until other transportation concerns are resolved.

· Only a few citizens identified costs as an important factor in the decision-making process.

· Feeder-line-haul service is acceptable if transfers are convenient, quick, reliable and
comfortable (enclosed heated shelters)

· The big message heard was that the general public want action on resolving Ottawa transportation problems.

What has happened so far?

In the fall of 2007, during Phase I of consultation, the goal was to reach out to the many voices around Ottawa in new and unique ways:

White Papers and Beyond Ottawa 20/20 (September 2007):

In September, the City launched its Beyond Ottawa 20/20 website, which included nine White Papers that highlighted a variety of different topics specific to growth management issues in Ottawa. Although two of the nine White Papers specifically outline transportation and transit issues, the nine papers together illustrate the synergies required to achieve a balanced growth management approach. The White Papers were also distributed to all City public libraries and the public was encouraged to review them and to provide comments, including any issues relevant to updating the Transportation Master Plan.

Ottawa Talks (October to December 2007):

In October, the Ottawa Talks portion of the Beyond Ottawa 20/20 website was launched to allow citizens to participate in real-time online dialogue concerning the issues and content of the nine White Papers. This portion of the website was available to citizens 24 hours a day for a total of two months. The site was visited by over 51,000 people during the two-month period and 769 dialogue submissions were made, of which, 306 pertained to the Transportation and Transit White Papers.

Key Trends

Public transit issues overwhelmingly dominated the discussions and topics raised within the Ottawa Talks forum. Rapid transit clearly constitutes the primary interest with the issues that generated the most discussion related to LRT or replacing BRT with LRT; downtown transit alternatives including a transit tunnel; and implementing a line-haul feeder route system. The interest outside of rapid transit can largely be categorised around making sustainable transportation modes more competitive; environmental sustainability; and financing transportation infrastructure.

Streeter Surveys (October 2007):

In October, ‘Streeter Surveys’ were conducted throughout the city allowing citizens to provide opinions on transit and transportation in a short face-to-face survey. The surveys were conducted at: transit stations; pedestrian walkways; shopping malls; office buildings; Park & Ride lots; and universities. Over 900 people participated.

Overview

The ‘Streeter Surveys’ involved a series of brief “intercept” interviews with residents randomly drawn from various areas within the City. Participants were interviewed face-to-face in public areas such as sidewalks and parking lots. An emphasis was placed on proactively reaching out to a diverse group of citizens that might not normally be involved in traditional consultation activities. The interviews were qualitative in nature, allowing for a conversational interaction between interviewer and respondent.

The goal was to achieve 300 completed surveys throughout the duration of the ‘Streeter Survey’ schedule, conducted between Wednesday, October 24th and Saturday, October 27th. Distribution and collection of the survey also occurred at the Rural Settlement Workshop on Saturday, November 3rd. Interviews were conducted in either English or French, so that residents had an equal chance of participating.

A notice was issued via the City’s media list inviting coverage at a specific location. This media event was well attended and resulted in positive radio, television and print coverage.

Participation in the survey far exceeded expectations, as 916 completed surveys were collected from fourteen locations throughout the city. The exercise provided a valuable snapshot of the general public’s mindset, and allowed for quick collection of data and collating of results. The data will be used to contribute to the City’s update of the TMP Vision and supporting planning principles.

Key Trends

Once the Streeter Surveys were completed, the surveys were reviewed, collated and analyzed to determine key trends. The following is a brief summary of what we heard.

· Fifty-seven percent of all respondents indicated that they felt their primary method of transportation was ‘good’. Of those that use transit as their primary method, 86 per cent positively rated that method as ‘good’ or ‘very good’, while 14 per cent rated it as ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’. Of those respondents that use private vehicles as their primary method of travel, 82 per cent rated their method positively as ‘good’ or ‘very good’, while 16 per cent rated it as ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’. Walking and cycling received a ‘good’ and ‘very good’ rating 95 per cent and 89 per cent of the time (respectively), from those that cited it as their primary mode of transportation.

· When asked to rank where the City should spend its money, the largest proportion of respondents (342) indicated that ‘Improving Transit’ should be the City’s highest spending priority. This was followed closely by 262 respondents wanting to see the City’s top spending priority to go towards ‘Decreasing Road Congestion’. ‘Road Maintenance’ received a top priority ranking from 171 respondents, ‘Cycling’ from 55, and ‘Walking Improvements’ from 40.

Focus Groups (October and November 2007):

Nine working focus groups were held throughout October and November. In each focus group, teams of citizens collaborated to come up with ideas and input on the various opportunities and challenges that the City faces in creating the transportation plan for the future. A total of 70 participants representing members of the public, community representatives, and industry and business groups, attended the focus groups which were held across the city between October 29^th and November 13^th.

Overview

The primary objective of the focus groups was to gain insight from participants on the existing Transportation Master Plan Vision (2003) and to gather responses to the various discussion topics outlined in the Transportation and Transit White Papers.

Focus groups provide the opportunity for citizens and stakeholders to engage in in-depth discussions surrounding particular topics. They are an effective participatory form of public engagement that allows for individuals and organizations to discuss issues in an interactive, face-to-face setting.

Participants at the focus groups were selected from two categories. The first included residents from the five geographical regions of the city (Central, West, East, South, and Rural). The second category was comprised of the various ‘voices’ that impact transportation decision-making at the city (Industry, Economic, Downtown, and Community).

Attendance at each focus group was drawn from an invitation list that was representative of the Ottawa population and geography. Existing stakeholder lists were supplemented by additional research to create a broad-based pool of potential candidates, consisting of a mix of individuals and organizations that had previously been involved in transportation-related consultation and those that had not.

Additional attendees were drawn from the City’s Advisory Committees as well as candidates that were recommended by City Councillor offices.

Upon confirmed attendance, a ‘homework’ exercise and copies of the two transportation-related White Papers were distributed to each participant via email.

The focus group sessions were designed to last two hours and were facilitated by a member of the PACE Consulting Team. A scribe and a member of the City of Ottawa staff were also present as observers.

The focus groups included a brief introduction to the TMP project, an open discussion surrounding the 2003 TMP Vision, team working sessions on the Transportation and Transit White Papers, open feedback opportunities on emerging ideas, and an opportunity for creative discussion around the topic of financing for transportation infrastructure. The focus group topics were developed based on the two Transportation White Papers.

Key Trends

Once the nine focus groups were completed, discussion notes were reviewed, collated and analyzed to determine key trends, areas of consensus, and areas of diverging views. The following is a brief summary of what we heard.

· The City needs to improve transit service to make it more attractive to the car user.

· Many agreed that the City should set an example of environmental stewardship but few felt that official targets would be effective.

· Several participants commented that the City is constantly having to react to growing subdivisions and instead should only develop subdivisions that have an extensive transit plan incorporated into them.

· There was varied support for the tunnel but generally more participants believed there was an immediate need for a tunnel rather than deferring it.

· Ideas emerged around the possibility of making transit transfer points areas of interest by including services, retail, grocery, libraries, etc.

City Café (November 2007):

A City Café was held at Lansdowne Park on November 24th to engage residents in the broader Official Plan review process, including the Transportation Master Plan update. Councillor Peter Hume provided the opening address followed by keynote speaker Rod Bryden. Approximately 200 people participated, by breaking into small groups of five or less to discuss the growth management challenges facing the City of Ottawa.

Interactive Technology-Assisted Event (December 2007):

A unique technology assisted event was conducted on December 4^th to outline to the public a synopsis of information gathered throughout the Phase I consultation period. There was also an opportunity for all attendees to utilize touch-pad technology to provide input on transportation and transit questions. In total, 101 individuals registered for the December 4^th event and 80 of those registrants attended the Interactive Workshop.

Overview

The Interactive Workshop was the concluding event of the Phase I consultation program. It was structured to allow the City to provide an update to citizens on issues and ideas that emerged through the various Phase I activities and to ask questions on key issues that required additional input. A total of fifteen questions were asked, inspired by the Transportation and Transit White Papers.

The primary objective of the event was to provide participants with a summary of the main points heard through the previous consultation events and to formulate a consensus by using a ‘touch pad’ voting mechanism. By pairing an in-depth PowerPoint presentation with the ‘touch pad’ technology, participants voted on various transportation related priorities and issues.

The use of the touch pad voting system was a new and innovative consultation method for the City, allowing for a participatory form of public engagement that permitted individuals to automatically provide input to questions posed. It went an additional step to allow citizens to immediately view the collective opinions of the other participants that attended alongside them.

The Interactive Workshop was divided into three sections: 1) Staff and Councillor welcome; 2) Staff presentation on the TMP review process and TMP Vision; and 3) the Technology-Assisted Interactive Session.

The first section included a welcome by Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager, Planning, Transit and the Environment; Councillor Maria McRae, Chair of the Transportation Committee; and Councillor Alex Cullen, Chair of the Transit Committee. Their remarks provided insight into the direction of Council and staff to conduct a thorough review of the 2003 Transportation Master Plan as a component of the 2008 Official Plan review. They also delivered a brief introduction to the TMP project, the Beyond Ottawa 20/20 “Ottawa Talks” website, the Streeter Survey, Focus Group consultations, and the City Café.

The second section consisted of a thorough review of the TMP Update by Steven Boyle, Planner III, Transportation - Strategic Planning Unit, Planning Branch. Mr. Boyle provided insight into the key objectives of the TMP Review Consultation Strategy, results from the various consultation activities, and a summary of the input collected on the 2003 Vision.

The final component of the evening was an interactive presentation that used touch pad technology provided by Duocom Audio-Visual Systems. Monique Stone, Senior Consultant at PACE Public Affairs & Community Engagement, facilitated the interactive session and provided context for each of the questions posed to the audience.

The technology also offered the ability to add ‘impromptu’ questions at the end of the session and participants took this opportunity to suggest four additional questions. These questions included location, age and gender of participants as well as a transportation related question.

Overall, attendees provided positive comments on the structure and focus of the interactive workshop. Of the 80 people in the audience, 77 consistently responded to the questions.

Key Trends

· 87 per cent of respondents believed that the City should proactively encourage intensification in areas where walking, cycling and transit can be made most attractive.

· 85 per cent of respondents believed that the City should consolidate express routes and expand feeder-line-haul service to improve transit speed and reliability through the downtown.

· 74 per cent of respondents believed that the City should re-allocate significantly greater resources to transportation system management and transportation demand management.

· 71 per cent of respondents believed that the City should plan roads to meet the average demand in the busiest three-hour period.

· 43 per cent of respondents believed that we need to study the downtown transit tunnel option fully and examine potential alternatives, while 38 per cent believed we need a tunnel now.

· 51 per cent of respondents believed that the City should set a strict target for reducing GHG emissions from transportation, and plan to do whatever is necessary to achieve that goal.

PEER REVIEW PANEL REPORT, APRIL 2008 DOCUMENT 4

Peer Review Panel Report, April 2008

Peer Review Report

Rapid Transit Plan Component

Ottawa Transportation Master Plan Update

1 Introduction and Scope of Services

Background

The City of Ottawa as part of its review of its Official Plan (OP), is updating its Transportation Master Plan (TMP). A consulting team comprised of McCormick Rankin/Delcan has been retained by the City to undertake the update including the development of a rapid transit plan. The work will provide the basis for the transit component of the 2008 TMP.

In conjunction with the TMP update, the City requested a peer review of the rapid transit plan. This report summarizes the results of the peer review, conducted in the City of Ottawa February 11-15, 2008.

The Peer Review Panel

The Peer Review Panel comprised five transit and land use planning experts with experience in Canada, the U.S. and the United Kingdom. A brief description of the panel is included below:

§ Paul Bedford (Principal, Paul Bedford & Associates, Toronto, Ontario). Former Chief Planner for the City of Toronto where he led the development and adoption of the new city-wide Official Plan for the amalgamated City of Toronto. He is currently the only non-elected municipal member of the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority Board of Directors.

§ Russell Chisholm (President, Transportation Management and Design, Inc., San Diego, California). Founder and President of TMD, a U.S. firm that specializes in urban rail and bus transit design, implementation and operation. Formerly held senior management positions with Dallas, St. Louis, and Riyadh transit systems.

§ Alan Danaher (Senior Principal, Kittelson & Associates, Orlando, Florida). Senior Principal with Kittelson & Associates, a U.S. transportation planning and traffic engineering firm, where he has led numerous bus and rail planning and operations studies. A leading authority on bus rapid transit (BRT) in the U.S.

§ Alan Jones (Associate, Steer Davies Gleave, London, UK). Associate with Steer Davies Gleave – an international firm, providing a range of services including transit planning. He has extensive experience in the development and delivery of a wide range of urban transit technologies including rail, light rail transit, bus rapid transit, bus, metros, and automated people-mover systems.

§ Glen Leicester (Principal, Shirocca Consulting, Vancouver, BC). Former Vice-President of Planning for TransLink (the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority) where he guided the planning of Metro Vancouver’s transport system with its highly integrated multi-modal network of rapid transit modes.

Scope of Services

The Peer Review Panel examined the current rapid transit network in Ottawa and that proposed by the consulting team in their report “Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications, First Draft February 6, 2008”. Specifically the Panel was asked to comment on the work of the consultants including:

1. The proposed transit modal split target and the forecasted transit demand

2. The proposed transit corridor locations (including the appropriateness of using existing/ abandoned rail corridors)

3. The proposed technology for the different components of the network

4. The various downtown transit options and the proposed recommended solution

5. The proposed operating strategy (e.g. feeder-line haul versus direct service with no transfer, etc)

6. The recommendations regarding the conversion of the Transitway system to LRT

7. The capital and operating cost assumptions for different technologies

8. The appropriateness of proposed facility types (e.g. exclusive and grade separated versus transit lanes on arterial roads)

9. The appropriateness of extending the transit system beyond the City’s urban boundary

10. The response to the Mayor’s Task Force recommendations

In addition, the panel was asked after the completion of the draft report to comment on rail technology for Ottawa. Specifically the panel was asked if it could see Ottawa needing a subway in the next couple of decades or even further out? Should Ottawa have different rail technologies for the Baseline to Blair section than the one for the other corridors (north-south line and Carling, Montreal). A response to the rail technology question is included in Appendix 1.

2 Existing Transit System – An Overview

Background

The City of Ottawa and its neighbour, the City of Gatineau, combine to make up Canada’s fourth largest urban region with a population of more than 1.15 million. The City of Ottawa is the nation’s capital and has a population of 870,000 as well as 520,000 jobs. Public transit service is provided by a City Transit Services Branch under the name OC Transpo, while the Societe de Transport de l’Outaouais (STO) provides bus service in Gatineau. Both operate cross river routes between the cities.

Planning Framework

Ottawa 20/20 is an overarching growth management strategy that is intended to prepare the City for growth over the next two decades. The 2003 Official Plan (OP) is prepared within the context of Ottawa 20/20 and establishes overall city development policies; sets out the types and location of permitted land uses and identifies major transportation and other infrastructure investments to support the land use plan. The Transportation Master Plan (TMP) supports the growth management strategy by setting out a transport vision that includes focusing on transit, influencing travel demand, making efficient use of resources and forging a community partnership. The TMP, adopted by Council in 2003, is being updated by the City.

Land Use

The City of Ottawa is characterized by a strong central downtown and generally lower density residential development. A unique feature is the presence of a greenbelt that rings the city and separates the inner part from three outlying urban centres to the east, south and west. It is projected that over the next 25 years, 80% of the future population growth will occur beyond the greenbelt while only 20% will occur within the contiguous part of the city inside the greenbelt. Employment today is highly centralized within the greenbelt accounting for 82% of the city’s total. Over the next 25 years, 42% of the future employment will take place within the greenbelt and 58% will occur outside. The strong growth in population in the outer part of the urban area coupled with continued growth in employment within the greenbelt will increase overall travel demand, lengthening trip times and distance, and putting pressure on transportation facilities across the greenbelt.

Existing Transit Provision

The City of Ottawa’s current transit system is structured around the rapid transit network comprising 34 kms of segregated busways and an eight km light rail line. Supporting the rapid transit facilities is an extensive network of local and express bus services providing service to within 400 metres of 95% of the city’s urban population during peak periods. Ridership in 2006 reached 92 million and with more than 120 rides per capita, Ottawa is rated among the highest in North America. STO in neighbouring Gatineau provides an extensive network of local buses as well as commuter services into downtown Ottawa. The City of Gatineau is developing a bus-based rapid transit system called Rapibus.

The bus-based rapid transit system has served the City of Ottawa very well over the past two decades. Local buses circulate within the low density outer urban neighbourhoods and then travel the busways providing fast, one-seat rides for commuters into central Ottawa. Frequent and fast rapid bus routes provide a high level of service on the busways and have resulted in development around key stations, although the development appears in many cases to be less well integrated without easy station assess. Outside the Greenbelt, station development is much less intense with predominantly suburban retail and residential development.

Key Issues

§ Within downtown Ottawa, the rapid transit buses operate on a one-way couplet with bus lanes. The volume of buses during the weekday p.m. peak period is nearing the maximum that can be accommodated.

§ The strong focus on peak period downtown trips results in an under utilization of the infrastructure at other time periods of day and in the reverse peak direction.

§ The bus rapid transit system is labour intensive with high operating costs compared to light rail systems. This is exacerbated by the high peaking of the system.

Review of Past Studies and Summary of Proposals

The Panel reviewed a number of studies and summarized the proposals.

Study	Date	Proposals
Rapid Transit Expansion Study (RTES)	February 2003	§ Proposed a major expansion of the rapid transit system including LRT § Identified expansion of LRT into downtown Ottawa and to Limebank (Riverside South) as the highest priority project § Proposed at grade LRT operation in downtown Ottawa
Official Plan (OP)	May 2003	§ Emphasis on compact, integrated land uses to encourage shift from auto travel to walking, cycling and transit § 90% of growth to be accommodated in areas designated within urban boundary § Large undeveloped lands within urban boundary serve as locations for new communities, providing for mix of housing types and better balance of jobs and housing § Development of mixed use centres outside central area § Central area will be enhanced by providing for a range of uses, quality community design and strengthening residential uses
Transportation Master Plan (TMP)	September 2003	§ Proposed a transit modal split target of 30% in p.m. peak hour § Major expansion of the rapid transit network including 100 kms of new electric rail and 42 kms of busway extensions § Expansion of bus and rail fleets § Development of a comprehensive transportation demand management strategy
Moving Ottawa – Mayor’s Task Force on Transportation	June 2007	§ Expansion of rapid transit by use of existing rail corridors to build an integrated, region-wide, light rail system § East-west bored tunnel under downtown § Converting the Government Conference Centre into a downtown rail hub (Union Station) § Building rail rapid transit to connect Gatineau and Ottawa

Study

Date

Proposals

Rapid Transit Expansion Study (RTES)

February

2003

§ Proposed a major expansion of the rapid transit system including LRT

§ Identified expansion of LRT into downtown Ottawa and to Limebank (Riverside South) as the highest priority project

§ Proposed at grade LRT operation in downtown Ottawa

Official Plan (OP)

May

2003

§ Emphasis on compact, integrated land uses to encourage shift from auto travel to walking, cycling and transit

§ 90% of growth to be accommodated in areas designated within urban boundary

§ Large undeveloped lands within urban boundary serve as locations for new communities, providing for mix of housing types and better balance of jobs and housing

§ Development of mixed use centres outside central area

§ Central area will be enhanced by providing for a range of uses, quality community design and strengthening residential uses

Transportation Master Plan (TMP)

September

2003

§ Proposed a transit modal split target of 30% in p.m. peak hour

§ Major expansion of the rapid transit network including 100 kms of new electric rail and 42 kms of busway extensions

§ Expansion of bus and rail fleets

§ Development of a comprehensive transportation demand management strategy

Moving Ottawa – Mayor’s Task Force on Transportation

June

2007

§ Expansion of rapid transit by use of existing rail corridors to build an integrated, region-wide, light rail system

§ East-west bored tunnel under downtown

§ Converting the Government Conference Centre into a downtown rail hub (Union Station)

§ Building rail rapid transit to connect Gatineau and Ottawa

3 Response to the Scope of Services Questions

Introduction

This section of the report addresses the Peer Review Panel’s response to the ten questions posed in the Scope of Services for Peer Review Services. This response is based on the results of the panel review of all relevant documents and information provided by City staff the week of February 11, 2008, a field review of the existing transit system and development conditions around the transit system, and discussion amongst panel members.

An over-arching concern noted by the Panel was the basis on which the latest transit proposals had been developed. These appear to rely on long-term (2031) ridership forecasts for a peak hour only. This approach leads to high cost solutions designed only to address peak hour conditions. The Panel was also concerned at the lack of any cost: benefit analysis or wider option evaluation being applied to test, compare and appraise alternatives against clearly defined Transit Plan (and wider Official Plan) aims, objectives and targets.

The detail of the Panel’s five day discussions and suggestions have also been developed in the absence of any appraisal tools. However, this is addressed in the section covering Conclusions and Recommendations.

Question 1: Proposed Transit Modal Split Target and Forecast Transit Demand

Response: The Panel strongly feels that transit system improvements should be designed for a wider set of travel conditions than just for the a.m. peak hour. Addressing off-peak and overall daily transit modal split target in addition to peak hour would be appropriate. The 30% peak hour modal split goal appears achievable in light of the current 23% peak hour transit share in Ottawa. However, this target appears to be driven by transit supply conditions as opposed to transit demand reflecting changes in land use and potential further densification patterns. With respect to the regional travel demand model, there appears to be no distinction between BRT and LRT ridership within corridors where similar service levels are provided, given similar speeds are assumed. There is also nothing in the model addressing particular comfort and convenience factors for BRT vs. LRT. Modifications to the travel demand model should be made to create more sensitivity in the characteristics of these different premium transit modes. For such an analysis, daily/weekly/annual ridership and revenue forecasts should be available for each option, together with capital and operating costs to allow basic cost: benefit calculations to inform the option choice process. Wider criteria informing a more comprehensive appraisal would also be appropriate.

Question 2: Proposed Transit Corridor Locations (including the appropriateness of using existing/abandoned rail corridors)

Response: The Panel strongly feels that the transit corridors should be limited to within the Greenbelt area, with connections to the designated outlying Town Centres. These transit corridors should be fully segregated to the extent possible (providing good travel time and reliability), with transit needing to have priority over traffic in highway corridors. With this approach, transitway corridors would not be developed beyond the outlying town centres, such as the proposed Transitway extensions to north Kanata, Stittsville, south of Barrhaven Town Centre, and east to Trim/Millennium. In these corridors, bus operations on-street would be more appropriate, with bus lanes and intersection signal priority to the extent possible. At such time as these extended corridors developed or were developing a linear pattern of higher density urban centres, then segregated transit options could be considered. Until such time, it is suggested that the rights-of-way be preserved.

Segregated Transitway investment should be focused within the Greenbelt. The Carling Avenue and Rideau Street/Montreal Road corridor would be appropriate for streetcar development, to attract further development in the central portion of Ottawa south and east of downtown. A BRT line on Baseline Street connecting Baseline with Hurdman would also be appropriate. Both the Carling, Rideau/Montreal and Baseline corridors should have segregated transit running way with at-grade operation and signal priority at intersections. With respect to existing/abandoned rail corridors, the existing O-Train corridor should be converted to a double-track LRT, with the line extended south to the airport. The existing Ottawa Central Railway east-west corridor could also be a BRT or rail corridor in the future, but not developed until after the Carling, Rideau/Montreal and Baseline corridors closer to downtown are developed. Abandoned rail corridors only work effectively if you can cluster urban density development around key stations, where there is a need for an integrated approach where land must be available for development.

Question 3: Proposed Technology for Different Network Components

Response: The Panel makes the following recommendations with associate rationale in Table 1 for a particular technology in each segment of the transit network:

Table 1 – Proposed Technology for Different Rapid Transit Network Segments

Network Segment	Segment Limits	Appropriate Technology	Comments
Central Downtown	Bayview to Hurdman	LRT – OC Transpo in Tunnel LRT or BRT - STO	Tunnel configuration for OC Transpo and provision for STO needs further assessment
West Downtown	Bayview to Baseline	LRT	Intermediate and terminal station development desired
East Downtown	Hurdman to Blair	LRT	Intermediate and terminal station development desired
South Downtown	Bayview to Bowesville	LRT to airport BRT to Bowesville	Direct service from airport to downtown desired; protect r-o-w to Bowesville
South Transitway	Bowesville to Barrhaven	Segregated BRT	Barrhaven served by SW Transitway, but protect r-o-w for South BRT
West Transitway	SW Transitway to Kanata	Segregated BRT	To Kanata Town Centre (Terry Fox) only. Preserve r-o-w to Stittsville and North Kanata
SW Transitway	Cambrian to Baseline	Segregated BRT	To Barrhaven Town Centre only. Preserve r-o-w for Cambrian
SE Transitway	Greenboro to Hurdman	Segregated BRT or LRT	BRT could be tied to Baseline BRT, LRT could provide east rail feeder to downtown - this helping to balance LRT loads in tunnel
East Transitway	Blair to Trim/Millennium	Segregated BRT to Orleans, On-street BRT to Millennium	To Orleans Town Centre. Preserve r-o-w for potential Transitway to Trim and Millennium

Question 4: Various Downtown Transit Options and Proposed Recommended Solution

Response: The Panel makes a later finding and recommendation that the City adopt LRT for the basic urban line-haul network inside of the Greenbelt with BRT feeder services connecting with the urban area outside. We don’t believe that BRT will provide the all-day mobility and urban development that are needed for future success.

Surface (OC Transpo)

Each of the three surface options [all bus, all LRT, or bus/LRT] present issues with daily delivery of capacity. While we believe that vehicle capacity issues can be addressed in theory[1], we have significant concerns about the daily reliability of such a surface operation, especially during winter months. We have further concerns regarding the visual and mobility barrier presented by such surface transit vehicle and passenger volumes making the downtown public environment significantly less attractive.

Surface operation is an interim solution at best; not recommended as a permanent solution.

The current situation can be enhanced in the short-term at low cost to allow time for an underground tunnel option to be more fully evaluated.

Tunnel (OC Transpo)

Consequently, the panel believes that LRT should operate in a tunnel through downtown. The final configuration of a tunnel – one or two tunnels and final alignment – should be addressed in a refined Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Impact Statement for the downtown.

STO

STO, in the Panel’s opinion, should operate on-street in downtown Ottawa if possible into the future. The reasons for this are three-fold: 1) the expense of developing a separate tunnel for STO buses or LRT if surface operations can meet throughput and reliability thresholds; 2) the impacts on capacity if STO buses operate inside the OC Transpo LRT tunnel(s); and 3) if LRT to Gatineau were to be developed, again there would be capacity issues if STO and OC Transpo LRT shared the same tunnel(s)[2], as well as the much added expense to develop the transitions for STO vehicles in and out of the tunnel(s).

Question 5: Proposed Operating Strategy

Response: The Panel feels that a feeder-line haul system, with local bus and BRT as the feeder, and LRT as the line-haul, would be appropriate. Major transfer centres should include Blair and Hurdman (east side), Baseline and Lincoln Fields (west side) and Confederation/Heron (south side). All of these major transfer centres should be urban activity centres with high-density mixed use development. Outside of the Greenbelt, park-n-ride should be an option to access the Transitway extensions, ideally with shared parking integrated with transit-oriented development adjacent to stations.

Question 6: Recommendations Regarding Conversion of Transitway System to LRT

Response: The Panel feels the following major components need to be included in a Transitway conversion plan to LRT: 1) Keep OC Transpo buses on Albert/Slater while a downtown tunnel(s) is built (should be bored to minimize disruption) 2) For outlying Transitway sections, construct LRT tracks in centre of corridor, in short segments – extend platforms and preserve existing side platform configuration and pedestrian connections 3) buses will need to divert temporarily to street system during construction – should be limited to night time construction in short segments to the extent possible 4) potentially construct LRT track in busway pavement to allow for emergency vehicle use and possible facilitation of bus access during construction and 5) check Transitway geometry (horizontal and vertical) to accommodate low-floor LRT.

Question 7: Capital and Operating Cost Assumptions

Response: The Panel feels the following modifications/additions to the capital and operating cost estimates are appropriate:

Capital Cost/Downtown:

Need breakdown of costs for downtown tunnel and stations
$40 million per station appears to be bare bones given depth of stations – pathway costs between stations and key buildings should be included – need to address public art, security, fare collection (ticket vending machines)
Need to include costs to complete street surface designs, particularly for central city streetcar and any relocation of STO

Capital Cost/Outlying

Need breakdown of station element costs to address public art, security, fare collection system (ticket vending machines)
Major transfer points require complete rebuild with integration with adjacent land use

Capital Cost/LRT Maintenance Facility and Control Centre

Breakdown of costs needed
Need for two facilities to reduce deadhead and address emergencies – major facility for heavy maintenance and operating centre, minor facility for overnight storage and minor maintenance
Facilities should be more central to network

Operating Costs

Use of Calgary LRT vehicle costs reflects older vehicle – need to review costs from newer systems with low-floor vehicles

Question 8: Appropriateness of Proposed Facility Types

Response: The Panel feels that LRT should be developed in a two-corridor system for OC Transpo that includes an east-west line from Blair to Baseline, and a north-south line from Bayview to the Ottawa International Airport. With this treatment, LRT for OC Transpo should operate in a tunnel through downtown. The final configuration of a tunnel – one or two tunnels and final alignment – should be addressed in a refined Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Impact Statement for the downtown. STO buses, in the Panel’s opinion, should operate on-street in downtown Ottawa if possible into the future. The reasons for this are three-fold: 1) the expense of developing a separate tunnel for STO buses 2) the impacts on capacity if STO buses operate inside the OC Transpo LRT tunnel(s) and 3) if LRT to Gatineau were to be developed, again there would be capacity issues if STO and OC Transpo LRT shared the same tunnel(s), as well as the much added expense to develop the transitions for STO vehicles in and out of the tunnel(s). Beyond the LRT system in Ottawa, BRT should be developed to the designated outlying town centres in fully segregated right-of-way. As mentioned previously, streetcar would be most appropriate for the Carling-Montreal corridor, and BRT for the Baseline corridor, with both ideally operating in an at-grade median transitway with signal priority at intersections.

Question 9: Appropriateness of Extending Transit System Beyond Urban Boundary

Response: The Panel strongly feels that premium transit should be limited to designated corridors inside of the Greenbelt and only extend outside of the Greenbelt to connect with designated outlying town centres. There should be no Transitway development beyond the Kanata, Barrhaven, and Orleans town centres. The focus should be on developing enhanced premium transit within the Greenbelt, and use it to further intensify land use within the central city, including transit-oriented development around premium transit stations, thus encouraging reverse commuting and more off-peak utilization of the LRT and BRT system.

The Panel also feels that transit investment should be contained within the current urban boundary and that only basic mobility (e.g. Paratranspo) should be provided beyond.

Question 10: Response to Mayor’s Task Force Recommendations

The Mayor’s Task Force Report had positive attributes in presenting a big vision, addressed links to Gatineau, recognized the need for a transit tunnel in downtown Ottawa, and presented a set of decision criteria. However, the concept of developing a comprehensive commuter rail system using bi-mode vehicles within the Ottawa region and extending this system well beyond the urban boundary is out of scale with what should be objectives to concentrate further development in the central city and in the outlying town centres. There is nothing in the Task Force plan that talks about a compact urban area. The report also does not include any ridership projections or capital and operating costs. Also bi-mode trains in the panel’s opinion have inherently higher operating and maintenance costs. The bottom line – a super commuter rail network in the Ottawa region is not justified through 2031.

4 Ottawa Rapid Transit Plan-Interim Conclusions

Overview

Ottawa’s Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system has served the city well and has been able to offer the majority of riders a non-stop one seat trip from home to work. However, given the major downtown congestion issues associated with the tremendous volume of on-street buses and the anticipated population growth of 265,000 and employment growth of 181,000 to 2031, BRT does not have the long-term ability to adequately serve Ottawa’s future transportation needs and those of the capital region. It is now time to develop and embrace a new transit vision that will serve Ottawa for the 21^st century that is in keeping with the aspirations of Canada’s capital city.

The Core Problems

Despite its ability to move large volumes of people, the existing BRT system is focused on commuters in the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Ridership throughout the remainder of the day falls off dramatically resulting in inefficient use of infrastructure and resources. This approach to Transitway development has been called an “outside in” approach because it serves very low density development from the outside and moves people from these areas in towards the downtown.

Second, the Official Plan’s goals of promoting urban intensification and increased mixed-use development in designated areas outside of the downtown have not materialized to the degree anticipated. The major stations located within the Greenbelt at Blair, St. Laurent, Hurdman, Greenboro and Bayshore stations are often associated with suburban shopping malls, big box retail, with residential and office development not often well integrated into the transit system. In many cases these supportive land uses are not readily accessible from the Transitway stations by convenient, attractive pedestrian and bicycle access.

Third, the downtown street system is reaching a saturation level during peak periods with a continuous train of buses jockeying for passengers on Rideau Street/Wellington Street and the one-way couplet of Albert and Slater Streets. Future projections for 2031 indicate a total of 340 OC Transpo standard buses (or 223 articulated) and 250 STO standard buses (or 162 articulated) serving Gatineau per hour, per direction during the weekday peak hour would be needed to accommodate ridership demand. This level of service translates into an articulated bus every 14 seconds for OC Transpo service and an articulated bus every 22 seconds for STO service which is simply not sustainable operationally. In addition, the on-street negative impacts of this level of congestion on the streetscape and pedestrians would be extremely poor in the downtown area.

Strengths

A review of the four core network scenarios contained in the McCormick Rankin and Delcan “Transportation Master Plan Infrastructure Requirement Study” dated February 2008, highlighted the success of the BRT system but also demonstrated the need to embrace a higher order transit mode to meet Ottawa’s growth expectations. The existing BRT and rights-of-way network make it relatively easy to convert this facility into an LRT system with very little land acquisition required. This is a major cost saving.

Ottawa’s Greenbelt is a major asset of the capital. It was originally established to contain development and remains largely intact. Despite growth outside the Greenbelt and recent public discussion of allowing development within the actual Greenbelt, the Panel’s view is that it should always be a permanent defining feature of the city and capital region.

Weaknesses

The disconnect between land use and mobility leads to long distance commuting and results in a lost opportunity to use transit as a valuable city-building tool. The current peak hour commuter focus of the system results in outbound buses having to travel long distances beyond the Greenbelt to pick up passengers from low-density suburbs.

A major concern is that 80% of population growth and 58% of employment growth to 2031 is projected to occur outside the Greenbelt thereby further exacerbating the existing inefficient commuter nature of the transit system. With ever rising fuel and operating costs expected over time, the transit system will be stretched further to cover a larger geographic area that sprawls further outward.

Opportunities

Ottawa has an opportunity to use its next generation of transit to help shape a more sustainable, prosperous and beautiful city. This can be achieved by linking land use decisions to the future rail-based LRT and by launching an urban streetcar line linking the numerous underdeveloped sites located along the city’s inner main street corridors with the downtown.

To encourage more balanced travel patterns, the City of Ottawa should enter into discussion with the federal government to examine the potential to locate future employment sites outside of the downtown within the Greenbelt at LRT stations such as Baseline and Blair.

In addition, all major government and private sector employers need to embark on aggressive Transportation Demand Management programs to create a menu of shared work trip options, including staggered or flexible work hours, employer van or car pools, home-work options and the availability of secure bicycle storage and change room facilities to collectively manage the work trip demand with a minimum of expenditure. These kind of measures not only reduce the number of single person vehicles on the road but can also produce significant reductions in the demand for costly parking facilities.

Challenges

Ottawa is at the crossroads of making a 100-year decision regarding its next level of transit investment. It needs to be bold yet responsible and it needs to have high aspirations that represent a signature to the nation and the world about Canada’s capital. Major investment in a rail-based system within the Greenbelt should be made along with a total re-vitalization of the public realm and streetscape on core priority streets and a major financial commitment to public art within the new downtown underground stations and their surface portals. This must be an essential part of the budget consideration.

Perhaps the most significant challenge facing Ottawa today may be the need to exercise strong and consistent political will to stick to a transit city vision and commit the necessary expenditures over time to transform Ottawa into more of a sustainable and compact city. This will necessitate not only moving people but also moving people’s minds.

Interim Conclusions

The Peer Review Panel supports the need to develop a rail-based LRT system and the need to build a tunnel in the downtown to integrate the next generation of transit into the fabric of the city core. New downtown underground stations should capture the future aspirations for the capital in their commitment to quality, beauty and urban design and should provide opportunities to connect into the surrounding office buildings through a well designed pedestrian path network, together with an improved surface public realm and streetscape. A Downtown Movement Strategy, including all transit modes, pedestrians, cyclists and general, service, delivery and emergency road traffic should be considered to coordinate and design all of these components.

Land use planning beyond the Greenbelt should adopt a more aggressive urban vision in order to transform the existing suburban shopping centre environment of the designated Town Centres in Kanata, Barrhaven and Orleans into significant places of concentrated retail, residential and office activity. They should evolve into places that share the characteristics of small downtowns catering primarily to walking, cycling and transit as opposed to the private automobile.

5 Planning for Ottawa’s Rapid Transit Future- An Alternative View

It was the Peer Review Panel’s view that a clear and powerful transit vision for Canada’s capital city region must encompass a high quality showcase for 21^st Century urban life. While the Official Plan reflects this aspiration, major transit investment will be needed to bring it to life. The Panel’s capital city transit vision is rooted in “green” values where the Greenbelt remains intact forever. It is rooted in the development of a more compact city within the Greenbelt where it would be possible to conduct daily life cycle activities without depending on a car and where a substantial increase in the full range of housing choices needed throughout one’s life is available from rental apartments to nursing homes. It is rooted in a much greater variety of employment opportunities located in the true urban nodes within the Greenbelt and where mixed-commercial uses line the many kilometres of main street corridors that serve Ottawa’s neighbourhoods. The Panel’s vision is also anchored in the need to ensure that Ottawa successfully evolves from a commuter city to a transit city where transit performs a strong city-building role. To this end, the panel also endorses consideration of a policy limiting expansion of the urban boundary outside of the Greenbelt with further development focused within the Greenbelt and within the existing outlying town centres within the current urban boundary.

In short, the Panel believes that a major investment in both LRT and an urban streetcar network coupled with completion of the bus-based Transitway system to the outer town centres represents the opportunity to re-shape how the city looks, feels and acts over the coming 100 years. Future transit and land use planning needs to be from the “inside out” not the “outside in”. The physical characteristics of a more compact Ottawa would be seen in 3-5 storey mixed-use main street buildings replacing underutilized one storey car-dominated single-use buildings. It would be felt by the transformation of streets for pedestrians with a much greater diversity of sidewalk amenities and public spaces. It would also result in Town Centres that would behave like the downtowns of small Ontario cities (Urban Activity Centres) rather than car-dominated suburban shopping malls and big box stores.

Finally, a strong transit city vision that is successfully integrated with land use planning will act as an insurance policy to help future proof the city and region against the inevitable challenges that lie ahead with energy consumption and oil peaking. A strong transit city will also enable Ottawa to be more flexible and more adaptable to unforeseen changes in the economy. Now is the time to take stock of where Canada’s capital has been and where it wants to go in the future. Ottawa has much to be proud of and is a very livable city but the Panel believes that it must seize the window of opportunity to transform itself into a sustainable transit city that leaves the smallest environmental footprint possible and that fosters an ecologically sound society.

6 An Ottawa Rapid Transit Action Plan

A Growth Management Plan featuring Rapid Transit

As described in earlier sections of this report, the Panel’s recommendation is that Ottawa’s rapid transit plan should be closely tied to a wider land use/transportation growth plan. The need for this integrated approach will become increasingly important as the World’s major cities focus on the need to develop growth models that are sustainable and able to respond to future uncertainties including the impacts of climate change, energy availability and cost, the demographics of a growing but aging population and other factors. All these likely changes point toward the need for a growth strategy that provides a more compact city plan with a greater role for transit, offering a genuine transportation choice.

The Compact City plan envisages a higher density, mixed use land use, with a shift over time away from single-family housing. This will provide more local services that are accessible by foot or bicycle or transit. The auto will still be a travel option but the hierarchy of priorities will be the pedestrian, the cyclist, the transit user and then the car user.

The recommended focus on the further (higher density) development of the city within the Greenbelt, and a real urban form of development in the Town Centres outside the Greenbelt will establish a land use and growth pattern that will be complementary to the massive transit investment program that is envisaged for Ottawa.

The scale of the proposals that Ottawa is facing have already been described as a set of 100- year decisions. This should not discourage the initiative, but it does highlight the importance of developing the overall plan in some detail before starting on its implementation. There is now a need to assemble a clear vision and way forward for the delivery of the Rapid Transit Plan and related land use policies. The current 5 year review of the Official Plan is most timely and should consider a phased implementation program for transit investment with a focus on projects within the Greenbelt along with a series of measures and safeguards outside the Greenbelt in order to focus the true urban scale development required in the longer term.

Ottawa Rapid Transit Plan: An Integrated Solution

The Rapid Transit Plan should integrate all public transportation modes, combined with a package of transportation demand management (TDM) measures as well as the complementary land use policies. The challenge therefore is to define a way forward that fits with current commitments and which also sets out the basis of the Integrated Solution.

The proposed “Integrated Solution” public transportation components include light rail transit (LRT), segregated bus rapid transit (characterised by its own right of way), on-street BRT (with reserved lanes within the highway or street), streetcar (LRT-style vehicles operating in segregated and mixed traffic environments), and standard bus services. All of these need to be integrated into a comprehensive network with transfer points between modes where required. These transfer points in turn can be developed more as focal points for urban development and mixed use “people-friendly” environments rather than limited transit transfer points.

The specific recommendations of the panel for an Integrated Transit Solution (Figure 1) were:

Light Rail Transit (LRT)

This report has concluded that the main transitways should be converted to light rail transit operation, providing a network with an East-West line running through the downtown via a new tunnel(s), connecting Blair to Baseline. The network should also include a North-South line, replacing the O-Train service[3] to connect Hurdman via the tunnel to Bayview and the Ottawa International Airport. There is also an option to connect Hurdman to Confederation/Heron. It is assumed that the section of LRT alongside the Ottawa River Parkway would be segregated from other traffic.

The Light Rail Transit system would include the following components: modern low-floor, level-boarding light rail vehicles; low-floor platforms at all stops; steel wheel/steel rail technology with overhead electric power supply; comprehensive station designs (fully accessible, CCTV and help points, shelter and waiting facilities, system information and timetables, etc.); an operations and control centre; maintenance facilities; park and ride facilities; major transfer centres (see later discussion); integrated (smartcard) ticketing with other transit modes; maximum segregated right of way with priority over all other traffic; and high quality landscaping and public art features.

The Panel is not recommending LRT past the Greenbelt through the 2031 time horizon.

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

BRT takes the two forms consistent with current Ottawa transit planning: segregated BRT and on-street BRT. The Panel’s proposals for BRT focus on connections from the LRT Transfer Centres to the designated Town Centres outside the Greenbelt. Beyond the Town Centres services would be provided by on-street BRT facilities including dedicated lanes and signal priority at intersections. There is also a role for BRT in providing faster inner Greenbelt travel on major corridors (the bus analogue to streetcars) as part of an integrated network.

§ Town Centres of Kanata, Barrhaven and Orleans : only existing or in-process segregated Transitway. We believe that planned Transitway not already committed should wait for the transition of the single Town Centres into linear corridors of multiple Urban Activity Centres. However, all rights-of-way should be preserved for potential future transition to exclusive Transitways.

§ Areas outside of the Town Centres and Airport: on-street BRT in all cases. The Panel suggests that the future exclusive rights-of-way also be preserved.

§ Arterial on-street BRT inside of the Greenbelt: Baseline Road between Confederation/Heron and Baseline stations. Depending upon the mode option noted above under LRT, the BRT could terminate at Confederation/Heron (LRT) or continue to Hurdman (BRT) to provide an east-west link connecting the major centres outside of the downtown.

Streetcars

Streetcar investment is also proposed within the Greenbelt, with lines to be developed for the Carling and Rideau/Montreal corridors. The streetcar system would be used to accelerate urban regeneration in the corridor where a higher density mixed-use development form should be encouraged. The Portland Streetcar and its catalytic effect in the Pearl District is a good example of the type of impact envisaged for Ottawa. The streetcar system would run on a mix of alignments including segregated running in the central median or mixed street traffic.. The vehicles could either be single-car low floor light rail vehicles (approx. 30 metre long) or smaller streetcars (approx. 20 metre long) as used in Portland, Tacoma etc. The choice will be a function of ridership demand, capital and operating cost and a full cost/benefit analysis/wider appraisal, with the full LRVs requiring greater capital costs for trackbed etc. Streetcars also enjoy a host of delay reduction strategies (to maximize return on the investment) including on-street lanes, signal priority, special level boarding platform stations, off-vehicle fare payment (TVM/proof of payment), and advanced transit operations and passenger information technology.

Standard Bus

The “Integrated Solution” for Rapid Transit also encompasses Ottawa’s standard bus service network. All the transit modes should be reviewed to develop a multi-mode tiered public transportation network with easy and convenient transfer encouraged by simple fares and ticketing arrangements, (including smartcards), information and marketing. Although these aspects are beyond the scope of our brief they should not be overlooked as all the recent successful rapid transit projects in Europe and Asia have adopted this holistic approach.

Transfer Centres

Transit Transfer Centres are where customers on the feeder transit services (BRT) from outside the Greenbelt transition to the line-haul LRT transit of the urban core. They are envisioned as significant urban places beyond simple transit functionality. The Transfer Centres should be Urban Activity Centres and fully integrated into their respective communities. Since an important outcome is the development of a more transit centric urban form, the Transfer Centres can and should be models for fully integrated Urban Activity Centres with a rich mix of commercial, retail, institutional and residential in the form of a density pyramid (highest density focused right at the station). Five principal transfer centres will be needed: Blair, Hurdman, Confederation/Heron, Lincoln Fields, and Baseline.

Downtown Movement Strategy

A Downtown Movement Strategy is a critically needed component to the overall reshaping of transit in the downtown. Transit tunnels require significant discussion of how the portals interact with adjacent buildings and with the downtown pedestrian and bicycle plans. Bus and streetcar surface operations require developing an integrated plan that also addresses pedestrian and bicycle movements as well as other vehicles (general traffic, parking, and truck loading). In addition, this work is also needed as a new step in implementing the overall Downtown Plan. Consequently, the Panel strongly recommends development of a Downtown Movement Strategy that embraces all modes.

Travel Demand Management (TDM)

The role of Travel Demand Management (TDM) and fare policy in helping spread peak period demand was immediately noted by the Panel based on a review of the extreme peaking of ridership during a very short (less than two-hour) maximum peak period. This extreme peaking is largely responsible for the high volumes of buses on the streets today and the need for high levels of transit into the future (2-minute LRT service is forecast) and their associated operating and capital costs. In discussions with City staff during the on-site visit it was found that some passive TDM had been undertaken, but it is clear from the transit ridership data that it has not had an appreciable impact on reducing peak demand. The Panel believes that a more active TDM effort tied with changes in fare policy could produce needed changes in the demand patterns that will both reduce peak needs (or delay the need for further increases) with significant savings for the City. It is not believed that TDM will result in enough change in peak demand to eliminate consideration of the move to LRT/Streetcar or the tunnel, but it will certainly buy time for the City to fully consider its options.

Implementation Plan

It is clear from the discussions held with City of Ottawa staff that there is an immediate need to confirm the details of the Rapid Transit Plan given imminent consultation dates in March and City Council meetings set for April. However, the panel remains concerned that there is a lack of adequate strategy and project appraisal and evaluation to support the decisions that are soon to be made.

Recognising these timescales and issues it is recommended the following program be considered.

Immediate Actions (next 3-6 months)

Work up detail of revised Rapid Transit Plan
Evaluate provision for a minimal carbon footprint during planning, design, construction and operation of the future rapid transit system. Space remaining in Transitway corridors should be used for “green projects” and public art highlighting Canada’s unique attributes, and a showcase for Ottawa, Canada’s Capital City.
Update consultation material to show revised plan, highlighting integrated elements, and need to maximise return on Rapid Transit investment
Define set of Rapid Transit Plan aims, objectives, targets, outputs and outcomes. Develop key performance indicators, tied to wider Official Plan and City Vision/objectives.
Develop strategic appraisal and evaluation methodology/tools.
Strategic appraisal/evaluation to take no more than 6 months to complete from April Council decision.
Develop set of short, medium and long-term Rapid Transit Plan components, including plan for STO.
Launch consultation as “1^st phase” seeking inputs to wider (technical) evaluation. The consultation phase thus becomes part of the appraisal methodology.
The April ’08 Council meeting then endorses the Rapid Transit Plan, subject to the results of the consultation and completion of the strategic appraisal/evaluation process. The message is “we want to make speedy progress, but we are also making 100-year decisions and want to make sure we have it right, and will maximise the benefit from our investment. We also want public views to inform our decisions”.
Undertake detailed engineering/geo-technical studies of the downtown LRT tunnel with independent expert cost estimates from tunnel contractors. Identify final number and location of stations and capacity of platforms required (4- or 6-car trains?)
Develop full LRT system specification including vehicles (suitable for tunnel operation), stations (underground and surface), right of way (including operation requirements through designated parkland), power supply, including sub-stations, overhead line design/catenary/side-centre poles etc., control centre, maintenance yard, secondary overnight storage/light maintenance facility.
Develop ridership forecasts for peak hour, peak period (both a.m. and p.m.), inter-peak extrapolated to all day estimates, weekend forecasts, and annual ridership projections. Generate revenue forecasts.
Prepare socio-economic Impact report, including catchment analysis, access to jobs, training, education, health, retail and leisure opportunities
Conduct Multiple Account Evaluation including wider appraisal addressing environment, accessibility, health, integration, economy, safety, community impacts. Conduct cost: benefit analysis and risk assessment as part of this evaluation.
Develop more detailed capital and operating cost estimates, particularly related to downtown tunnel and LRT maintenance facility.
Develop a set of rapid transit system development phasing plans required for consultation.
Undertake similar implementation planning for BRT, streetcar, standard bus, information, branding, fares & ticketing, way-finding, transfer points, public art, smartcards, etc.

Medium-term Actions (6-18 months)

Develop LRT/Streetcar Construction Report including construction methods, phasing, work sites, maintenance & control centres, transitway conversion, O-Train replacement, construction, deliveries, working hours, transitway conversion phasing, tunnel construction phasing/duration, testing, commissioning, trial running, shadow timetable operation. Opening date(s)/phased opening.
Develop LRT/Streetcar Operations Report including base operation, peak operation, outline timetable, fleet requirements (including spares), staffing (including drivers, station/system staff, maintenance, management & administration, security etc.), assumptions on maximum speed, commercial speed, station dwell times, end-to-end run times, transfer point protocols, safety procedures, fares & ticketing. Operating costs including staff, power etc.

7 Conclusions and Recommendations

The conclusions the Panel has drawn are based on a limited 5-day Peer Review visit to Ottawa where the Panel reviewed a range of documents and inspected the current transit system. Within those constraints the conclusions are necessarily high-level and will require further detailed development to ensure a robust way forward.

Ottawa is clearly a prosperous and successful capital City with high employment and quality of life. It is also forecast to grow considerably over the next 25 years. These conditions present a series of challenges for the City and for its Rapid Transit system. The Transitway network has been a major contributor to the City’s success but it is now 20 years old and running at maximum capacity in the downtown during peak periods.

The analysis undertaken to date has focused only on accommodating the peak period demands in the long-term. The Panel questions this “predict and provide” approach which, as the analysis demonstrates has resulted in some very expensive tunneled transit solutions. The lack of any detailed appraisal or evaluation also makes the selection of the correct transit investment package a high risk exercise.

For these reasons the Panel has developed a wider context to the challenge. This starts with a wider consideration of the existing and future roles, form and function of Ottawa. Forecasts of population and employment growth occurring outside the Greenbelt are questioned as this form of development, followed by transit investment plan will lead to an inefficient end point with longer trip journeys and an expensive transit network to build, operate and maintain. The Panel’s proposition is for a Capital City; a Compact City; an Adaptable City. This will focus on a higher density and mixed land use inside the Greenbelt, with development outside the Greenbelt focused on “real” urban scale/form development in the Town Centres. This will provide a land use that is not so auto-dependent and creates the conditions where transit becomes a real transportation choice beyond just the commute trip to downtown. The higher density and mixed land use will shorten trips, increase ridership and result in a more efficient and “better value for money” transit investment. It will also create more interesting and diverse communities and neighbourhoods, and will be more sustainable in the long term in relation to climate change, energy, and socio-demographic challenges.

The Panel recommends a detailed consideration of the Rapid Transit Plan that has been outlined in this report. The “Integrated Solution” approach will provide a comprehensive network linked to the view of a new Ottawa focused on development within the Greenbelt. A clear set of Aims, Objectives, Targets, Outputs and Outcomes is essential, as is an appraisal and evaluation framework with which to test the development of the Plan to support informed decision-making.

The final recommendation is that the Action Plan (as set out in Section 6) is given early attention as a way of taking forward the Rapid Transit Plan for Ottawa.

^[1] For instance, a bus-only improvement scenario involving (a) A/B stop pattern on Albert/Slater; (b) double deck buses (three door; dual stream); (c) off-vehicle fare collection; and (d) TDM to reduce the maximum peak demand (which is very concentrated in 90-120 minute period) can realistically provide needed capacity. For a rail-only improvement scenario, 3-car or 4-car trains operating every 1.8 or 2.5 minutes, respectively, are needed to handle forecast demand.

[2] The panel was concerned about one of the STO LRT options presented (one-way or bi-directional operation in downtown Ottawa) that included STO LRT sharing one or both OC Transpo LRT tunnels. Given the forecast OC Transpo LRT frequency of service operation (1.8-2.5 minutes depending upon train size), having significant STO LRT traffic entering, exiting, and crossing the mainline OC Transpo tracks presents a significant risk to operational reliability and throughput. Careful analysis and simulation modeling would be needed prior to any recommendation of joint track operations.

[3] The single track O- Train will need double-tracking to support the forecast service frequencies; in addition the line will need electrification to support effective tunnel operations.

	Heavy Rail (SkyTrain)	LRT
Capital Costs	Capital costs were 12% to 25% higher than LRT. The primary difference is the higher cost of construction due to the need to fully separate the right-of-way (more elevated, tunnelled or fenced in segments).	Tunnel costs for LRT were slightly higher than SkyTrain due to the need to accommodate overhead catenaries. LRT vehicle costs were also higher due primarily to the requirement for more vehicles because of lower average operating speeds.
Operating Costs	The operating costs were 17% higher to 33% lower in the three studies. In all cases SkyTrain had lower labour costs due to automation but in the one example where it was higher than LRT, this was attributed to higher station and guideway operating and maintenance costs.	Operating costs are for the most part higher than the heavy rail (SkyTrain) due to higher labour costs as LRT requires drivers.
Operating Speeds	In all cases average operating speeds were higher due to exclusive rights-of-way.	Generally lower average operating speeds due to semi-exclusive rights-of-way.
Frequency	In all cases there were better frequencies due to automation. SkyTrain tends to use smaller trains operating more frequently.	Frequency was generally less due to the use of larger trains to reduce driver costs.
Ridership	In all cases modeled ridership was higher due to better frequency and operating speeds (travel times).	Modeled ridership was lower due to less frequency and lower operating speeds.
Capacity	In all cases there was higher maximum passenger capacity due to higher frequencies and exclusive right-of-ways	Lower maximum passenger capacity due to lower frequencies on semi-exclusive rights-of-way

Report to/Rapport au :

SUBJECT:

OBJET :

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Assumptions and Analysis

Financial Implications:

Public Consultation/Input:

BACKGROUND

DISCUSSION

Transportation Vision and Guiding Principles

What We Heard

Development of the Downtown Rapid Transit Network

Figure 1. 2031 Population and Employment Projection by Major Growth Area

Table 1. Growth in Travel by all Modes of Travel (Morning Peak Hour)1

Downtown Transit Ridership

Figure 3. Existing and Future Transit Demand in the Downtown Area (morning peak hour)

Alternatives for serving the downtown

Primary Rapid Transit Corridors – Network Options with Tunnels

Figure 4. Network Option 1: BRT Tunnel - Bus based

Figure 5. Network Option 2: BRT/LRT Tunnel – Bus based with North-South LRT

Figure 6. Network Option 3: LRT Tunnel - East and West downtown LRT

Capital and Operating Costs for Different Network Options – Primary Transit Corridors

Opportunities for STO Service Integration

Evaluation of Options

Natural Environment

Table 3. Evaluation Summary of the Different Network Options

Natural Environment

Public and Agency Consultation

Extension of LRT Service

Corridor Locations

Interprovincial Integration

Urban Design

Environmental and Human Health Impacts

Social, Mobility and Accessibility Impacts

Peer Review

RECOMMENDATION

Recommended Rapid Transit Network Option

NEXT STEPS

Secondary Transit Corridors

Implementation Plan:

Tunnel Planning and EA Study:

Land Use and Transportation Demand Management Policies

Other TMP Update Tasks:

CONSULTATION

Phase 1

Further Consultation

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

DISPOSITION

Appendix 1