PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT

URBANISME ET GESTION DE LA CROISSANCE

PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY

POLITIQUE D'URBANISME, D'ENVIRONNEMENT ET D'INFRASTRUCTURE

2. NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT (LRT) PROJECT (RIDEAU CENTRE TO BARRHAVEN TOWN CENTRE)

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY

RECOMMENDATIONS ARISING FROM 15 JULY 2005 APPROVED COUNCIL MOTIONS

PROJET DE TRONÇON NORD-SUD DU TRANSPORT EN COMMUN PAR TRAIN LÉGER (TTL)

(DU CENTRE RIDEAU JUSQU’AU CENTRE-VILLE DE BARRHAVEN)

ÉTUDE D’ÉVALUATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE

RECOMMANDATIONS DÉCOULANT DES RÉSOLUTIONS DU CONSEIL QUI ONT ÉTÉ APPROUVÉES LE 15 JUILLET

2005ACS2005-PGM-POL-0060 Somerset (14), Rideau-Vanier (12)

The Committee received a PowerPoint Presentation on the above-noted issue from Rejean Chartrand, Director of Economic Development and Strategic Projects, Planning and Growth Management (PGM); Helen Gault, Manager of Transit Service Planning and Development, Public Works and Services (PWS); and Sean Rathwell, P.Eng., McCormick Rankin Corporation. ENTRA Consultant, Dennis Fletcher, was also in attendance. A copy of the Presentation in both official languages is held on file with the City Clerk. Also, in attendance to answer questions on this issue were the following PGM staff: Ned Lathrop, Deputy City Manager, Dennis Jacobs, Director, Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy, and Vivi Chi, Manager, Transportation and Infrastructure Planning.

Following the Presentation, the Committee heard from the following delegations:

Hume Rogers, Mark Cuhaci, Michael Ivanich, and Ian Fisher, spoke as a group representing the Albert/Slater Coalition. A copy of their presentation in its entirety is held on file with the City Clerk. They feel that staff has failed to meet most of Council’s resolutions and therefore requested that Committee direct Council to withdraw the Environmental Assessment (EA) Submission until such time that an exhaustive tunnel, hub and spoke, or other reasonable solutions that address the longer term needs of the City’s public transit system, could be thoroughly reviewed. They also requested that the studies include an examination of both the costs and benefits of the alternatives, as well an examination of financing opportunities for public/private partnerships. They advised that the Coalition is prepared to work with the City to lobby other levels of government for additional funding that would be needed.

In response to questions and comments raised by Councillors, the members of the Coalition provided the following responses and clarifications:

§ The notion of having the businesses along Albert and Slater Streets help pay for a significant portion of either the tunnel or the hub and spoke option has only been discussed informally at some of their meetings, and there may be a number of them that would be prepared to consider that option, but a definite answer is not yet available. The Coalition has a number of corporations that are institutional investors that invest heavily into infrastructure projects now, and presenting this idea to them would not be unreasonable either.

§ The Coalition speaks on behalf of the eight of its members that are in the accommodation sector, but not on behalf of the entire Ottawa Gatineau Hotel Association (OGHA).

§ The Coalition has no information at this time to suggest that light rail transit (LRT) in the downtown would provide an immediate benefit to hotels that are not part of the Coalition. The OGHA has expressed its support for the Coalition’s submission to the Ministry of Environment (MOE), subject to the decision by Council to keep the Mackenzie King Bridge open, but they are also aware of the staff proposals being discussed at this meeting, and their position is one of support for the recommendations, provided the Bridge remains open.

§ With respect to the Coalition’s concerns about the budget for, and nature of streetscaping elements, staff held with individual members along the street where the actual stations would be located to resolve those issues.

§ With respect to the staff proposals about the issue of mixing cars and LRT on Mackenzie King Bridge, the Coalition is satisfied.

§ With respect to bus reduction issue, the Coalition’s concerns lie with whether staff’s numbers relate to bus drivers or volume of buses, i.e. the amount of volume that they take on the street, which is tied to the difference between a single 40-foot bus and an articulated bus.

§ The Coalition is not in a position to say whether there is a significant public consensus at this time that the City should be spending more than half of a billion dollars to build a tunnel, but given that the Coalition had asked the Mayor in an earlier meeting whether or not the tunnel was simply a financial issue to him and since he had responded that it was not, the Coalition had not gone to its delegates to look for mechanisms by which they might be able to assist in funding that tunnel.

§ Albert and Slater Streets are currently at capacity, and adding LRT will increase volume in that area by 11%, which will not make for an efficient system. Rerouting buses to other nearby streets will also not work. The only viable option is start work on a solution now while there is time.

§ The Coalition does not see how the East-West LRT will aid in reducing congestion on Albert and Slater Streets.

§ The proposal to look at the tunnel option as a separate study to come forward in approximately 18 months does not meet the Coalition’s concerns.

§ In the discussions between staff and the Coalition, the estimate that staff provided for a hub and spoke system was approximately $150-200 million for implementation, the most significant portion of that being for additional trains and track that would be required.

§ The issue of transfers with respect to a hub and spoke system is a significant issue that may have some impact on ridership, but if LRT flows directly through the downtown without being clogged up by buses, it may end up being a net saving in time for riders.

§ The 11% increase in volume that was referred to in their presentation is a calculation based upon the City’s numbers plus the addition of the increased volume, including LRT, based on 12 LRT vehicles per hour and each LRT vehicle being 3 standard equivalents.

In response to questions from Councillors arising from the delegations’ comments, staff provided the following clarifications:

· The interpretation of the numbers has been the issue between staff and the Coalition. There will be a full 30% reduction in bus volume. Staff does not dispute the Coalition’s numbers and point with respect to bus length.

· The staff recommendations, if approved as a group, along with technology and design improvements will achieve the reduction target and lead to a smoother, more efficient system.

· Staff feels they have been very clear with the Coalition in acknowledging the need to look at a long term plan and the investments needed to accommodate future capacity and growth. They have also expressed to the Coalition their comfort with the fact that the Federal Government is flowing money to the City that should allow the City and future Councils to make those timely investments.

· The extension to the University would require an amendment to the EA, but the remainder of the new service concept that is being proposed to Committee and Council is really a transit system operating strategy for the future, and is not an EA issue. The implementation of the new service concept starts in 2006, with funding requested in the 2006 budget, and if the funding is in place, this should provide a level of comfort to this Council about commitment to the service concept as development proceeds in the years ahead.

· Staff will look at, over time and as required, all the various types of technology that would be required for either type of tunnel solution.

· If Council desires to remove all of the buses from the downtown, a broader discussion would be required, as it would mean looking at converting the current bus based transitway into LRT for most of its length. Staff would not recommend building huge transfer stations so close to core because this would not be an efficient use of funds and the transfers would have a serious impact on ridership. Staff would normally look at the issue each time it reconsiders the OP and the TMP, although a clearer picture of the issue may evolve as the discussion occurs on the extension of the East-West line.

David Gladstone, Chair, City Centre Coalition (CCC) spoke in opposition to the staff recommendations and requested that the EA Submission to the Ministry of the Environment be withdrawn. He felt that a very substantial amount of work remains to be done, especially with respect to providing an Interprovincial Crossing. The CCC is also concerned about the lack of discussion and details on how the construction phase would affect O-Train Service, and about the lack of adequate community consultation. On a personal note, Mr. Gladstone advanced his support for a downtown tunnel. He also distributed copies of his letter to the Minister of the Environment dated 26 October 2005 with respect to the EA, a copy of which is held on fie with the City Clerk.

In response to questions from Councillor Cullen, Mr. Gladstone clarified that the CCC requests that a proper EA be carried out that includes the tunnel option, and in addition to the cost of the tunnel, the EA would need to address the issues raised by the Albert/Slater Coalition - namely the congestion of the core, the compatibility of those streets to LRT and/or a mixed use system, and the investments already made into the transit system in that area.

David Jeanes, Transport 2000 distributed copies of his submissions to Ministry of the Environment, dated 27 and 28 October 2005 with respect to this EA. A copy of those submissions is held on file with the City Clerk. Transport 2000 feels that all of the previous reports on this project should have been part of this EA. He was pleased to note that this study addresses many issues identified by Transport 2000 early on, but is not happy about the lack of public consultation thus far. Mr. Jeanes informed that he had actually been ejected from one of the staff meetings with the business community that he had attended as an observer for Transport 2000. He suggested that elements of this project are not being properly studied and/or are being improperly communicated, such as:

- How LRT can contribute to the future transit potential of Albert and Slater Streets;

- Capacities;

- Environmental impacts; and

- That ridership in the morning westbound direction and the afternoon eastbound direction of the LRT will be pretty close to zero because there is nowhere to generate passengers for the return trips of the North-South light rail vehicle.

He felt that it will just bring problems into the downtown from the south end and is not contributing to an overall transit solution. He suggested that the light rail vehicles that will be moving largely empty in one direction, are moving in the direction that could completely relieve the pressure of out of service (deadhead) buses, a suggestion that he already advanced to staff but he feels it has not been addressed.

In response to question from Councillors, staff informed that Mr. Jeanes’ expulsion from the Albert/Slater business meeting occurred because the meeting was set up as a working group, by invitation only. It was to address the specific concerns of the Albert/Slater business community, as directed by Council. The business community did not convey to staff any indication that they had invited Mr. Jeanes to attend as their guest or as a consultant. Mr. Jeanes stated that he was informed that the business community had requested the City to invite Transport 2000 to the meeting, which staff declined. Mr. Jeanes also informed that he had requested that staff set up a similar meeting with Transport 2000 to discuss their concerns, but that meeting has not occurred.

Matt Morgan-Brown, Under Pressure Collective (an anti-poverty group) expressed concerns about transparency of decisions made by municipal government and the public involvement in those decisions. He spoke on transit fare increase, Ottawa and Gatineau now being the highest fares in Canada.

In response to Councillor Cullen, who thought that a report on a fare structure would be brought forward to Committee, Dr. Gault advised that a report, including the fare structure was provided to Council at the time when the fare increase was approved. Councillor Cullen feels that the public needs to see the fare structure, and if necessary, he will place a Notice of Motion to deal with the fare structure at the next meeting. Dr. Gault advised that the fares are set for the December 1st increase and are based on the structure received by Council at the time the fare increase was approved.

Gerry LePage, Bank Street Business Improvement Area (BIA), thanked staff and the consultant for their due diligence in addressing Council’s motions. The following summarizes the main points put forth by Mr. LePage:

§ The BIA is pleased to see a recommendation to extend the LRT line to the University of Ottawa.

§ As vehicular traffic on MacKenzie King Bridge is contingent upon successfully securing a public-private partnership to develop a parking facility and integrate the light rail transit station, the BIA asked that discussions between the City and the University be given the highest priority in order to meet the prescribed timelines for the North–South LRT line. He asked that the five million dollars required for the track extension and station be included in the 2006 Capital Funding Budget.

§ The BIA strongly recommends that the Committee direct staff to undertake a feasibility study to determine the viability of cars running in the dedicated bus lane on Mackenzie King Bridge during non-peak hours. The BIA believes that a significant reduction of bus lines and frequency after peak hour bus operation would be sufficient to accommodate automobile traffic in the bus only lanes.

§ The BIA feels there remain significant concerns regarding the multi-modal transportation configuration proposed for Albert/Slater, noting that a failure to achieve at least a 30% reduction in buses will likely lead to gridlock, increased air pollution, and the possible elimination of one or two car lanes in order to facilitate a more efficient transit system and reduce congestion, which would, in turn lead to accessibility problems for businesses located along those corridors.

§ The BIA asks that City monitor traffic conditions on Albert and Slater Streets and report to Committee and Council on a yearly basis and as opposed to every three years, and that the report be available to stakeholders.

§ With regard to the Ottawa Downtown Underground Transit Feasibility Study, the BIA asks that the Committee direct staff to look at alternative methods of financing the tunnel, such as the possibility of imposing a levy on all commercial properties located on the Albert / Slater corridors. This mechanism would be similar to how a BIA levies its members for capital projects.

§ The BIA believes that the probability of a tunnel would diminish greatly as soon as the LRT tracks are laid down.

Staff provided the following remarks on the validity of the delegation’s comments:

· Car traffic would be allowed in the LRT lane on the bridge.

· Feedback on an annual basis would be possible, without formal reports.

· Bus service would not change dramatically every six months. The level of service in the fall is maintained through the winter months, when concerns would arise.

In response to Councillor El-Chantiry’s question on financing the tunnel through a levy to commercial properties, Mr. LePage advised that one of the major stumbling blocks is the funding of the tunnel. Staff has followed through on alternative methods of financing. Other cities have a similar approach, and he suggested they be contact for details to determine a viable solution. He feels that if the business community is adamant about the tunnel, it would be prudent to look at other options to finance it - those who benefit the most should pay a share of the costs.

Catherine Gardner expressed concern about the lack of discussion and consultation with the disabled community in this process. She questioned the capability of mixing trains, buses, cars and individuals on Mackenzie King Bridge, and was concerned whether wheelchairs, scooters, and strollers would be able to navigate the train tracks on the bridge and get on and off the platforms easily. She also noted that there have been operational problems with many of the elevators already in place at transit stations. She asked that quick bus routes be implemented to appeal to more people and she was concerned that the new routes will require more transfers, which may prove very difficult for the disabled if all buses are not the low floor model. She questioned whether ParaTranspo would still be able to do pick-ups and drop-offs along Albert and Slater Streets. She was concerned about the fare structure, and wondered whether people without a pass would have to pay express, O Train and bus fares if their trips included all three. She noted that there have been a number of developments and new buildings, such as the War Museum, that are not accessible to disabled community, and she wanted affirmation that the disabled community would be consulted on this project.

In response to questions arising from the delegation’s presentation, staff provided the following comments:

· Nearly 68% of the present bus fleet is accessible, but the system will be fully accessible by 2009.

· Vehicles will be low floor, boarding will be from the same elevation, crossing of Mackenzie King Bridge will remain accessible, and all of this will be incorporated into the formal design.

· While some of the elevators in the transitway stations do break down, there will be new technology at the new stations.

· Representatives from the disabled community were consulted as part of formal consultation on light rail. There were extensive consultations, a number of focus groups, and many open houses, and consultation will continue on an ongoing basis as the detailed designs are being developed. There will also be reviews from crime prevention and environmental perspectives, and the WISE Group would be involved as the design emerges.

The Committee received the following correspondence, which are held on file with the City Clerk:

1. E-Mail from Dale Ford received on 1^st November 2005.

2. E-Mail from David Gladstone received on 1^st November 2005.

3. E-Mail from Meg McCallum, Executive Director, ByWard Market BIA received on 1^st November 2005.

4. E-Mail from David Lay received 1^st November 2005.

In response to questions from Councillors, staff provided the following comments:

· The report in front of the Committee includes staff findings after having gone out and looked at a system change, which generically moves the City from an express based system to a hub and spoke system.

· OC Transpo Staff anticipated that this system change was going to have to happen at some point in time and were going to go through a system wide review to identify how that would be done with a report back later on this year or early next year. That now has been moved up because of the Albert/Slater Coalition’s questions on the North-South LRT impact and the potential of reducing the density of service on Albert and Slater Streets.

· The results of that system review were either to go from nothing to 100% hub and spoke or something in the middle.

· The report demonstrates what that something in the middle would possibly look like - some express and some basically the hub and spoke service.

· The recommended route network for 2009 is only a concept and is not a detailed plan. There will be consultation with communities, and changes are going to be discussed with affected communities and councillors. There is definitely room to make changes to accommodate concerns.

· There will be frequent local feeder bus routes to major transit hubs such as Bayshore Station, Lincoln Fields Station, Baseline Station, and an improved transit exchange at Bells Corners.

· There will be fewer express routes operating directly to downtown under the recommended concept.

· The concept shows express routes to downtown from Kanata, Orleans, and the north part of Barrhaven, but the details of which express routes would continue to operate would be decided through more detailed planning work and through consultation with the transit customers that would be affected, over the next four years.

· There will be significant changes to the pattern of operation of the entire existing service throughout the entire local community.

· There is a very clear need to reduce the number of people standing waiting for buses at the bus stops and more frequent services will reduce waiting times and speed up the operation through the central area.

· The direction of Council was a catalyst, and staff has moved some routes on to Queen Street to get to the exact 30% bus reduction on Albert and Slater Streets, but there are very minimal changes over and above what staff absolutely thought was the minimum that needs to do to make sure that the service runs smoothly.

· The feeder service that would go to the transitway stations and the LRT stations is going to be more frequent. The service going to transfer points would be improved.

· An additional transfer would be introduced into the system, but if made a convenient process so that people know and understand that they can get a bus every ten minutes instead of every 20 minutes, then the impact on ridership would tend to be less.

· Staff believes that specific issues in specific communities could be resolved through consultation, and feels optimistic that there would be solutions through discussions.

· The Albert/Slater Coalition’s concern with respect to noise was never raised at any of the meetings held to discuss issues of concern with staff. Staff would be happy to address this issue with the business group.

· The site for the yard is between the existing track and the Airport Parkway, which is well over 400 meters from the residential neighbourhood, thus would not be an issue. The train track and the ongoing operations of the train will be between the yards. The yards are not like freight yards, but are just overnight storage for the vehicles after they are washed and cleaned up.

· The rail cars would be assembled anywhere outside the country. They may be shipped whole or they may be mostly assembled outside with the final fit up - which is the seats and some of the final interior elements could be assembled here, which would not be a noisy operation.

· With respect to Slide 21 of the Presentation, staff would be happy to abide by the Committee’s recommendation on the monitoring process.

· The National Capital Commission owns most of the property around the Hurdman Station.

· Currently at Hurdman, there are 9,000 to 10,000 passengers a day, boarding buses at Hurdman (that is over the whole weekday). In 2009, if all of the buses coming from the east and the southeast would stop at Hurdman and transfer at something else to go into downtown (whether it is LRT or other buses) there would be something in the order of 8,000 to 8,500 people transferring in the peak hour.

· There is no station that this City operates today that comes anywhere close to those sorts of volumes.

· In order to handle that number of people multiple bus stops would be needed for transferring between modes.

· Sending people up along great walkways or tunnels then to rail lines is not advisable, but having the boarding area compact with one on top of the other would require a large land take. Then the staging area for all the buses to be parked around the edge would be much larger than the existing one at Hurdman, to be duplicated at Bayview.

· The recommendations in front of Committee address various concerns. It is not just the reduction in bus volumes; it is a number of elements that together deal with the issue.

· The value of the new technology, such as the SmartCard System, the Passenger Information System, and perhaps as importantly the reduction in number of express routes on a higher frequency should not be underestimated.

· Conceptually for those that do board buses on these streets now, when you have a choice of 32 express routes coming every 15-20 minutes, plus all of your 90 series, and you are on the sidewalk with a crowd of people around you, it is an interesting dynamic that happens on the sidewalk and on the platform trying to board the system. By reducing the express routes and increasing the frequency there would not be the same number of people on the platform.

· Everything would move much faster; with the SmartCard System, you do not have to put a ticket; you do not have to show your pass, as you board you are registered on the system.

· All of the recommendations coming together will give a very different system than what currently is. Staff feels very confident that this will buy many years of improved service and the only way for this to be sustainable is that if Council continue to invest into the transit system on a regular basis.

· With respect to Slide 29 of the Presentation dealing with the extension of the North-South LRT corridor onto University of Ottawa property, staff would enter into discussions with the University over the coming weeks on this matter, as well as the four heritage buildings at issue and to initiate a public-private partnership to develop an underground parking facility.

· Staff would be proposing changes to the express routes in 2006 and would be talking about express route changes in 2007 and 2008, at which time there will be construction work downtown in any event.

· There will be a reduction of peak hour service, but the frequency of remaining service will be greatly improved and the local feed system will not be what people understand as the current local route. People think in terms of the local route as a 20-30 minute frequency – implicit in what is being recommended to Committee today is local feeder routes will operate anywhere between 7 minutes and 14 minutes.

· The frequency and the local feeder buses will come as a package. It would not be one at the expense of the others.

· In the east end, the transfer station at Jeanne d’Arc would be significant.

· One needs to really look at the whole picture, and communications would clearly to cover the whole package.

· With respect to the charts on pages 22 and 38 on the reduction of buses on Albert/Slater Streets, staff noted that these numbers are developed with the light rail system in place. A lot of people that are currently travelling from the south and east will actually be coming in from the west with the new concept, thus a movement to assist in the most difficult direction of travel. Staff is also is accommodating a very large increase in ridership with fewer vehicles.

· Staff is aware that Arts Court is looking at redeveloping that precinct and using the space on Waller Street for a joint development. Mr. Chartrand, who is also responsible for that project would be looking at both developments as one to evaluate the potential of both developments as one large development.

· The results of the Origin-Destination Survey, the Interprovincial Rapid Transit EA, the East-West Corridor LRT EA, and the Carling Avenue & Rideau/Montreal EAs, expected in 18 months, would serve as input and key element to initiate the Tunnel Study and the 2008 Official Plan and TMP reviews.

· The recommendations before the Committee would accommodate growth in the downtown corridor for the next 20 years so long as Committee and Council keep making timely investments on the transit network. And if these timely investments are not made, then this will certainly have serious implications in the downtown core.

· These timely investments include the Interprovincial bridges by 2021, which will reduce traffic coming into the downtown, and speaking from an overall transportation perspective, it would release capacity within the transportation network within the downtown. These would also include the East-West LRT and the expansion of critical transitway infrastructure.

· The timely investments would track ridership improvement, employment, and population growth and must keep pace with the growth.

· It is very difficult to play the “what if?” scenario game. That is why we have a TMP and an OP that take place every five years in order to be able to update, re- adjust our population numbers, take a look at how the congestion factors are building, do the Origin-Destination Survey, but in the end, any system has to be viewed at one point in time as a comprehensive system – it cannot be designed as a system that has 100% of this and 0% of that.

· We will need Interprovincial bridges, and those things over time will come. From a cost-benefit analysis and from where we sit now, staff has demonstrated that there is capacity. Staff has designed a system with the need for two bridges and will eventually look, some time in the future, post 2021, at a tunnel, but in effect, the capacity in the system and the growth of the system is the cost effective way to proceed as shown in the TMP.

· Staff agrees that the Albert/Slater area will be totally congested by 2009, but also points out that the system will operate more smoothly and efficiently by 2009, even assuming whatever ridership and population growth that will occur between now and then, and the reason for this is the combination of the reduction in bus volume, the cross-town routes, and the new technology, which will provide for a much faster boarding operation, bus volume reductions and fewer express routes.

· The RTES and the TMP looked at the capacity of all routes, identified what would be needed to run an east-west bus rapid transit system through Albert and Slater Streets, looked at the implications of bringing LRT into the downtown, and it concluded that a tunnel, which is both a higher capacity and more expensive option, would likely be required in future but not at this point in time. Staff will search for the exact reference to these findings within the appropriate document and/or the Minutes of past TRC meetings and pinpoint it for Councillor Legendre, as per his request.

· The triggers that would indicate the need for a tunnel exist now, capacity being one of them, but the solution that staff is proposing at this point in time resides more in setting up a new service concept for the operating side of the system, i.e. having fewer but more frequent express routes in the downtown, in addition to new technology that will improve boarding times and improve the flow of traffic, that would be sufficient for the next 20 or so years.

· The Origin-Destination Survey is a telephone survey that began in September of this year and will conclude at the end of November 2005. 25,000 households from Ottawa and Gatineau are being interviewed regarding their travel patterns.

· One of the benefits of the LRT system coming in from the west side of downtown is that it will help with the elimination of deadhead buses as the number of express route services are reduced.

· The Mackenzie King Bridge is capable of supporting LRT and cars without having any structural work done, although there will be some mostly aesthetic improvements.

· The issue of mixing LRT and cars has not been looked at in detail, but with the trains at 5-minute frequencies and the vehicles in a following rather than intersecting pattern, staff do not anticipate safety problems.

· The transitway can quickly be converted into light rail but the majority of the cost to do it is all in the track, the alignment, the corridor, curbs, grades, and etcetera, not in the additional trains, and the investment would yield very few additional passengers on the same route.

· Staff will look at putting another bus shelter at Jeanne D’Arc Blvd this winter, as per the ward councillor’s request.

· Staff needs the Interprovincial Rapid Transit EA to be substantially completed, as with the other studies previously mentioned, before determining if and how to proceed with a tunnel study.

· The Interprovincial Transit Study is being started this fall – an 18 to 24 month effort.

Chair Stavinga then read the motions put forward:

Moved by Councillor M. McRae:

Amend Recommendation 5

BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to monitor traffic on Albert and Slater and report back to Committee and Council on an annual basis, and informally on a bi-annual (i.e. twice per year) through a verbal report.

Moved by Councillor J. Legendre: (similar to the one above)

That the monitoring of the mass transit situation on Albert and Slater be on annual basis with a report to Committee and Council.

Chair Stavinga asked that the two Councillors combine the two motions in one.

Moved by Councillor A. Cullen:

Amend Recommendation 6:

Amend the Terms of Reference – Ottawa Downtown Underground Transit Facility Study so that this study is completed before the end of 2006.

Councillor Cullen slightly revised his motion to read –

Amend Recommendation 6:

Amend the Terms of Reference - Ottawa Downtown Underground Transit Facility Study so that this study is initiated in 2006, and completed by 2008.

The following summarizes the main points put forth by councillors and staff with respect to the proposed motion and the report:

· Staff feels the motion is premature, is not cost effective, and is not feasible given that staff is already in a process of undertaking an East-West LRT EA, a Rideau/Montreal Road EA, a Carling Avenue EA, an Interprovincial Transit Study, an Interprovincial Bridge Study, and an Origin Destination Analysis, all of which would feed into the kind of background information needed for a tunnel analysis.

· Councillor Doucet questioned the affordability, feasibility, practicality and sensibility of a tunnel, especially at this point in time. He feels that the staff report makes sense in terms of the resources we have, although he does not think it ideal because he feels that we need to get the buses out of the downtown and that it can be done, particularly with electric light rail running east-west and finishing at the University of Ottawa. He feels that the transfer issue will not be a problem as long as the transfers are quick, and he suggests that transfer point volumes could be handled in future by extending light rail down the transitway so that the bus connects at various routes all the way along rather than at one or two huge transfer points. He feels that LRT should have gone to the airport and hopes that mistake will be corrected in the near future.

· Staff noted that the Terms of Reference for a study to determine the ways and means to construct a bus and/or LRT tunnel to accommodate longer term transit including Interprovincial transit need in the city core, as previously requested by Council, are being presented as one of the technical papers of this report.

· Staff advised that projected completion time for the Carling EA, the East-West EA, the Rideau Street EA, and the Origin Destination Analysis, would be in 18 months to 2 years. Mr. Lathrop also advised that the Official Plan review would start in 2007 and be ready for 2008. He feels there would be sufficient background information available from all these studies at that time to provide a reasonably intelligent analysis of the tunnel option, if that is the request of Council.

· Mayor Chiarelli suggested that Councillor Cullen consider a friendly amendment, which would take into account the timing so that the Ottawa Downtown Underground Transit Facility Study initiate when the other studies are substantially complete, so that a full debate can be had on the issue of a tunnel in the 2008 OP Update and TMP Update. Councillor Cullen agreed with the amendment by the notion of having the study as an input to the 2008 OP Update.

· The Mayor feels that the issue of looking at a tunnel is something that should be up for debate in 2008 taking into consideration these other studies. He acknowledged the problems that exist on Albert and Slater Streets, and he feels it is appropriate, given the nature of Council’s commitment to that business community, that we have some way to have this matter still on the agenda.

· Councillor Cullen revised his motion to read:

“Amend the Terms of Reference - Ottawa Downtown Underground Transit Facility Study so that this study is initiated in 2006, includes the findings of relevant studies and serves as an input to the 2008 Official Plan Review”.

· Staff cautioned that a lot of other work is already underway or planned for 2006, so this would be an additional budget request with extra resources required that have not yet identified for 2006.

· Councillor Legendre was pleased about the discussions around extending to the University of Ottawa, but he felt that staff have not adequately addressed the problems of Albert and Slater, given that part of the proposal for bus reductions is switching to articulated buses, and that LRT would still be mixed in with the present modes of transportation on those streets.

· Councillor Legendre feels that landscaping along those corridors does not address the serious problem in the downtown core. He is looking forward to see the East-West LRT EA and all the other studies coming forward, but is not encouraged because we seem to have a propensity in this city to do things in a less than fully correct way and that troubles him going ahead.

· Staff were just made aware of some of those formal objections submitted to the MOE, and is anticipating to receive formal correspondence within the next week from the Ministry. Staff would then look at every concern and would deal with them individually. Ultimately, the MOE would need to be comfortable and would have to make a decision as to whether the City has addressed the concerns raised in a reasonable fashion. Staff would definitely commit to do that.

· Mr. Lathrop reiterated his concerns with initiating the tunnel study in 2006, which are (1) there is not going to be much happening in 2006 and (2) there are going to be budget implications.

· Councillor Bédard feels that all the EAs should have been done at the same time to be able to deal with the big picture and this is just dealing with the whole transportation problems of downtown. However, he feels comfortable with the approach being used and the insistence on ensuring that there is going to be follow-up because there are recommendations to ensure that there is monitoring.

· Mayor Chiarelli feels that the purpose of this round of Committee and Council is substantially addressing the concerns of the Albert/Slater Coalition. However, he noted that this group of business people with concerns does not represent all of the businesses in the downtown core and all of the businesses on Albert and Slater Streets. He noted as stated by Mr. Rogers that the Ottawa-Gatineau Hotel Owners Association is supporting the staff recommendations, if implemented and approved, will remove its objections. He then lists briefly the objections from the Albert/Slater Coalition – cars being removed from Mackenzie King Bridge and they have been put back on, with a very significant effort on the part of management and in a creative solution that would improve the North-South Light Rail to be able to bring the system right into the University of Ottawa. On the issue of streetscaping, this group has indicated complete satisfaction with the responses from staff. On the issue of bus reduction, there was a target set on the part of Council to achieve the 30% reduction. That has not been totally achieved but there has been very significant improvement in this area. There is a question or debate on how you count the buses; there has been significant movement. This group that has had nine working meetings with our staff and in those meetings acknowledged that there was no practical way to reduce it by more. The only alternative was a tunnel, which is not supportable at this time. Committee and Council will agree to keep that option on the agenda assuming that there are technological changes, which will make it possible given the challenges on the type of equipment, the need to have to split trains from buses, etc. There has been a willingness on the part of the owners on Albert and Slater Streets to help pay for the tunnel, which needs to be worked out into the process. The Mayor thinks that staff has done a wonderful job responding to the concerns of the Albert/Slater business people. He also thinks that the majority of businesses downtown by their absence here and in the debate, are supportive of light rail, as shown by the Ottawa-Gatineau Hotel Owners Association that is satisfied with the proposed solution. He reminded Committee that the City has invested heavily in transit and this would be reflected in the budget submissions next week - spending on transit is four times more than spending on roads. New stations were built and stations were expanded, which are huge investments, and Council will continue to make these investments, and when the need is there we will find the ways and means to connect it to the airport. And if the technology changes and it makes sense to do a tunnel in eight or ten years, the Council of the day in their wisdom will make that decision. He believes the outcome of these recommendations is very positive, and acknowledged that these enhancements would not have occurred without the engagement of the Albert/Slater Coalition. He recommends that the Committee recommendations be approved.

· Councillor Cullen noted his support for light rail and is pleased to see this project move forward. He recognized that it has not been a perfect process because the EA did not include a tunnel option. He noted that it would be determined in 2008 whether or not this is going to be an option to pursue in the future. He commended staff for the responses provided to address issues that were raised. However, he feels that there are still some outstanding questions that this particular project is still sensitive to - the ability to achieve a transit target rate; whether or not in the future we would be able to get an Interprovincial bridge; the East-West Light Rail; the Montreal Road and Carling Avenue EAs. He noted his support to move forward with the report.

· Chair Stavinga concurs with many of the comments already expressed by Councillor Doucet and Mayor Chiarelli with regards to the support of the report, but noted her disagreement with regard to the amendment to Recommendation 6 proposed by Councillor Cullen. She expressed concern that in supporting this motion, it would mean additional pressure to the Capital projects in the 2006 budgets or alternatively bumped something off. She appreciates that this is a discussion to be undertaken in the context of Budget 2006, but she certainly is not going to contribute to that pressure and to what will already be a difficult budget. She does not see the need to accelerate this study into the 2006 budget, so will not be supporting that amendment to Recommendation 6.

The Committee then considered the following motions:

Moved by Councillor M. McRae:

Be it resolved that staff be directed to monitor traffic on Albert and Slater Streets and report back to the Committee and Council on an annual basis, and informally on a bi-annual basis (i.e. twice per year) through a verbal report.

CARRIED

Councillor Legendre withdrew the following motion given the nature of the aforementioned motion.

Moved by Councillor J. Legendre

That the monitoring of the mass transit situation on Albert / Slater be on an annual basis with a report to Committee and Council.

WITHDRAWN

Moved by Councillor A. Cullen:

Amend Recommendation 6

Amend the Terms of Reference – Ottawa Downtown Underground Transit Facility Study so that this study is initiated in 2006, includes the findings of relevant studies, and serves as an input to the 2008 Official Plan Review.

CARRIED

YEAS (6): Councillors R. Bloess, A. Cullen, J. Legendre, M. McRae, D. Thompson, Mayor B. Chiarelli

NAYS (4): Councillors G. Bédard, E. El-Chantiry, C. Doucet, J. Stavinga

The Committee then approved the following recommendations contained in the staff report dated 21 October 2005, as amended by the preceding motions:

That the Transportation Committee recommend Council:

1. Receive the findings of the technical studies (Documents 1 and 2) that were undertaken to respond to Council’s six resolutions approved at its 15 July 2005 meeting on the North-South Corridor LRT (Rideau Centre to Barrhaven) Environmental Assessment Study;

RECEIVED