Near-Term Transportation Investment Options
Options d’investissement à court terme dans les transports
ACS2007-PTE-POL-0050 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
The Committee
received a PowerPoint Presentation given by Peter Steacy, Program Manager,
Transportation – EAs, Planning, Transit and the Environment. He was accompanied by John Moser, Director,
Planning Branch and City Planner, PTE.
A copy of the Presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.
The Committee heard from the
following delegations:
David Jeans, Transport 2000 believes that the proposed projects leave
nothing for any further growth and would use half of the $400 million committed
funds. He opined that the extension to
the airport is important, and could be done immediately at a very low
cost. He pointed out reference to the
idea of doing this. He talked about the
train, Transport Canada Approval, Bombardier not making that specific model. He suggested that the Leitrim Park and Ride
be relocated to Armstrong Road. He
asked how much money of this is additional money and how much is set aside to
spend on other things. He believes that
transit progress should be parallel with bus, for example connecting Route #95
to the downtown.
Deputy City Manager Schepers confirmed the
Chair’s statement that once the TMP update is completed, there will be new
opportunities to discuss funding with all partners. Chair Cullen specifically referred to the $400 million in transit
funds mentioned by the delegation and asked if this could be set aside for
future transit projects. Ms. Schepers
responded that there was a time limit to this federal-provincial money.
Mr. Jeanes pointed out trains from
Fallowfield to Alexandria with VIA Rail costs $25. They have authority to provide this service within the City.
Chair Cullen asked the Committee to
approve that he write a letter to VIA Rail on behalf of the Committee
requesting that VIA provide this passenger service from Fallowfield Station to
Union Station. There was agreement that the Chair should do so.
Councillor Leadman asked staff to
respond to Mr. Jeanes’ suggestion on relocating the Bowesville Road Park &
Ride Facility to Armstrong Road, to which Mr. Steacy responded that this could
be looked at.
Councillor Legendre commented that
using that rail line from Fallowfield to make downtown two minutes faster is
not significant, and questioned the time saved. Councillor Legendre agreed that the Chair could write his letter
to VIA Rail regarding providing service but they might not be keen to do
so. Councillor Legendre then sought
clarification on the proposal of extending Leitrim for one third of the $40
million. Mr. Steacy responded that
by using existing infrastructure this should not cost more than $25 million to
do so – the $45 million is to pay for the train. Mr. Steacy suggested that there will be savings – the cost will
include rail construction, signalization, road crossing, station and platform
at the Leitrim Park and Ride Lot.
Charles Akben-Marchand, President, Citizens for
Safe Cycling began his
presentation by congratulating staff for assembling this report in such a short
timeframe.
Mr. Akben-Marchand feels that unlike many of
the other recent transit plans, this one is an assembly of individual pieces
that on their own improve Ottawa's Transit system. He also feels that it is not a big comprehensive plan whose
pieces must all fit together perfectly, and whose details are belaboured in
endless discussions of Council, and delayed further by endless EAs, plans and
studies. He stated that a 30% modal
split is not just transit, but it should also include cyclists. He informed Committee that in 2003, Berlin
had 6% of trips by bicycle, and set a target of 15% by 2012. Already, they are at 12% and on track to
exceed their goal. In Victoria, the
amount of trips is 4.6% and rising, surpassing Ottawa's traditional role as the
North American leader in bicycle trips for medium-to-large cities. Unlike other cities, where the number of
trips taken by bicycle has gone up, Ottawa's is stagnant at just under 2%. He advised that some figures indicate that
cycling is actually going down slightly.
He noted the following points:
·
While this item
claims to pertain to "priority transit projects," the
Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge and the related projects constitute $105 million in
car infrastructure. Specifically, the
phrase in the report "until such time that a separate transit bridge is
required" seems to indicate that we will see a repeat of the Woodroffe Avenue
debacle.
·
Woodroffe Avenue
through the greenbelt originally was a two-lane road. A bus lane was added in each direction, using transit money. Last year, a parallel, bus-only stretch of
Transitway was installed along this same stretch--again with transit
money--making the bus lanes redundant.
While the bus lanes did not suffer from congestion, and the buses travel
no faster now through the Transitway than they did on those lanes, the bus
lanes now are general traffic lanes.
These traffic lanes were bought and paid for exclusively with Transit
money.
·
With specific
regard to cycling, he expressed concern that the only cycling spending was $2
million for rural pathways, plus other pathways incorporated "as
appropriate". While this is an
important investment, he questioned if this imply that there will be no cycling
investment in the city, where a majority of bicycle trips take place.
·
This report
suggests the construction of bus-only Transitway facilities constructed along
Woodroffe Ave. where the right-of-way exists.
He concurs with this and hopes that this will mean more space for
cyclists along this stretch of Woodroffe.
·
Lastly, with
specific regards to the report, it says that environmental implications
"will be addressed," but it does not say how. He asked that these be reported on and
brought back to Committee or Council for public scrutiny.
·
The Algonquin
pedestrian overpass and the Rideau Street redevelopment are good opportunities
to accommodate cyclists.
·
Concerned that
the Ottawa Cycling Plan will only be implemented "based on available
funds". Need to make sure that
those funds are available.
·
Over the last few
years, cycling capital investments have dwindled to $0 in 2007, despite
projections in the Universal Program Review of 2004 that these investments
would be increasing each year.
Mr. Akben-Marchand provided some examples of
things that the City could be doing to invest in cycling:
·
Routes and
signage for cyclists. A friend of his
commented to him yesterday that he tried going to Osgoode but ended up in
Manotick.
·
Expanded Rack
& Roll service. Kingston started
putting bike racks on buses four years after Ottawa did (Ottawa--1999, Kingston
2003), and now they have racks on all of their buses, plus they have a longer
season than we do. We need to catch up
to them.
·
The layaway on
the Mackenzie-King Bridge needs to be fixed to keep motorists from parking in
the bike lane, especially since the bridge is no longer slated to be rebuilt
for the North-South Light Rail Transit.
·
Various urban
cycling improvements can and should be made, including those in the Ottawa
Cycling Plan.
·
Better bicycle
parking is needed year-round, so people have a place to park at their
destinations.
·
We need to work
better with the Province to develop the Ontario Bicycle Route, which is modeled
after the recently opened province-wide Route Verte in Quebec, and have signed,
colour-coded routes like Prescott-Russell does.
·
While in the past
we have been a leader in the annual Commuter Challenge, this year there was
barely any attention paid to it, and we lost to Winnipeg.
·
With cycling
infrastructure, if you build it, they will come, but you need to promote
cycling to the populace to build up the modal split.
Councillors Thompson and
Harder applauded Mr. Akben-Marchand’s presentation.
Councillor Thompson expanded upon the importance
of shoulders on rural roads and the conversion of low-use roads to more
cycling-friendly facilities.
Councillor Harder commented that the idea to
eventually build a second transit-only bridge to duplicate the
Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge has been dead for a long time. In response, Mr.
Akben-Marchand said that he was merely bringing the comment "until such
time that a separate transit bridge is required" to the attention of the
Committee, and suggested that if this was no longer the case, Council should investigate
how it got into the report and ensure that it does not show up in the future.
In response to Councillor Doucet’s question,
Richard Hewitt, Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services (PWS) provided
details on the cycling budget. On the
status of the Ottawa Cycling Plan, Rob Orchin, Manager, Transit Priority, PWS
advised that a Cycling Plan advised that the initial plan was too expensive and
that it was undergoing revisions to reduce the cost impact of the report. The Councillor expressed his desire that the
Ottawa Cycling Plan be presented with options based on different levels of
investment, and not just one recommendation.
Councillor Legendre asked about the Kingston's
transit service, and why OC Transpo's Rack & Roll service falls behind
Kingston's. Mr. Steacy replied that
Kingston's bus service is not typically used as a comparator to OC
Transpo. Councillor Legendre commented
at his surprise that he was getting a lesson on transit from someone his junior
regarding the spending of transit funds to expand roads. He indicated his desire that whenever
transit facilities are converted to general traffic facilities, that the
transit budget be 'reimbursed' for this conversion. The Councillor also asked staff to confirm the history of the Woodroffe
Transitway extension story in a memorandum to him and to clarify the issue of
road funding going to transit. Mr.
Orchin agreed to provide the Councillor with that information.
Cheryl Doran, Save Our
Greenspace, using a PowerPoint
Presentation (on file with the City Clerk) thanked Committee for the
opportunity to once again present to the Joint Transportation Committee and
Transit Committee. Her concern, her
appeal to the Joint Committee, is to recognize and take advantage of the missed
opportunities, arising from this staff plan.
She feels that the City is missing:
·
A tremendous
business opportunity,
·
An environmental
opportunity, and
·
We are all
missing the positive political recognition flowing from the first two.
From a business perspective:
·
360,000 airport
passengers/ month
·
Take a
conservative estimate of only 10% of the passengers using the train in the
first year
·
That means 36,000
/month
·
@ $3.00/ride =
$108,000 /month from one transit stop
·
As the ridership
estimate is extremely conservative there is significant potential for greater
revenue without further capital investment
·
This estimate
doesn’t even consider the fact that over 8,400 employees work full and part
time shifts at the airport
·
Also consider
that we are the last of the G8 Capital cities to connect the downtown and
airport by rail
·
This contrasts
with the proposed plan for a station not linked to anything but a P & R for
1200 people
·
1200 per day is
your maximum capacity
·
And as there are
on average 21 work days per month your ridership will be just over 25,000 per
month at maximum capacity, additional growth would require additional capital
investment
·
If this was a
private sector activity - we would go for maximum ridership with the least
capital investment – servicing the airport
·
From a taxpayer
perspective - we should be doing the same; especially as the capital investment
for a parking lot in the greenbelt would be the same as a world-class airport
terminal connection.
·
An even more
strategic business plan would utilize the existing parking capacity of the
airport as a P and R, since it is only 2 km away from the proposed
location. That way you would still get
the 1200 commuters combined with the airport passengers for over 62,000
riders/month with the same capital investment.
·
It is smart,
strategic investments such as this that we should be taking advantage of since
no other stop along any of the proposed corridors in the Mayor’s task force
report offers as much ridership potential as this one at the Airport terminal.
Environmentally, she believes that we are
missing opportunities:
·
If we take the
rail to the airport instead of building a park and ride in the middle of the
greenbelt and wetlands, instead of turning it into a parking lot
·
As you are aware
this wetland is also habitat for species at risk, for the greater public
interest we/you should be taking steps to preserve this habitat not destroy it
·
Right now there
is a single track through this wetland, realistically there will have to be a
capital investment to upgrade this track so there will be an environmental
impact on the wetland
·
I am not aware of
any high capacity lines in the world that operate on one line, so as much as we
pretend that this project can operate on a single rail line, it cannot so
additional capital investment will be required, which by extension will cause
significant environmental impact.
·
The plan also
calls for diverting water from the east side of the tracks to the west side
·
This action, all
by itself, completely changes the dynamics of the wetland, and will negatively
impact species at risk habitat.
·
I have mentioned
in other presentations the concept of Ecopassages. This is where the world is headed, and it addresses the issues
just mentioned
·
We have the
opportunity for an ecopassage, at virtually no capital cost if we go to the
airport.
·
This is an
excellent segway to the missed opportunity – Recognition
Positive Recognition for the City of Ottawa:
·
Take credit for
protecting habitat by using recognizing the potential and using an ecopassage.
·
In fact, Ottawa
will be Canada’s first LRT ecopassage.
·
You will have
other agencies/jurisdictions coming here wanting to see what you have done
·
You also won’t
have critics saying that the City doesn’t have any regard for the environment.
·
We all want
Ottawa to be a world-class city, but building a commuter rail line within 2 km
of the airport but deliberately not going there will be seen by the rest of the
world as short-sighted.
·
By going to the
airport in a strategic business move you will not have any critics saying that
you can’t manage taxpayer money wisely; you have the best business case ever by
going to the airport and combining the station with a park and ride
·
Talk about
strategic urban planning, and Ottawa can be a model of how it is done.
·
And we will join
the other G8 capital cities in having a rail link to the airport, but not just
a link – a link involving ecopassages, environmental protection, sound business
decisions, and revenue generation.
·
This can be a
tremendous success story for Ottawa; let’s not lose the opportunity.
·
We all want
Ottawa to be a world-class city, but building a commuter rail line within 2 km
of the airport but deliberately not going there will be seen by the rest of the
world as short-sighted.
·
At a time when
our federal and provincial governments are moving to protect species at risk,
and encourage the reduction of GHG, the City of Ottawa, the capital of Canada,
can say “that’s exactly what we have accomplished by using this alignment today
not in 2014”.
·
In so doing, we
would have preserved habitat, provided multi-use recreational and educational
opportunities
·
There will be no
doubt of Ottawa being a world-class city.
Councillor McRae asked Ms. Doran
what would she like to see instead. Ms.
Doran recommended going along the airport parkway and using the airport as a
major transportation hub.
Councillor Leadman questioned Ms.
Doran on the Park & Ride. Ms. Doran
believed this was negotiable and there are other Canada Lands available. Councillor Leadman re-directed her question
to staff – Ms. Schepers replied that this had not been investigated.
Councillor Legendre, looking at the
statistics being provided, congratulated Ms. Doran for her presentation.
David Gladstone, Founder of the
Friends of the O-Train (FOTO)
advised that he had many concerns with the subject report, starting with the
absence in it of any clear statement of engineering responsibility for its
content and recommendations. He
believes that no one can question that decision on substantial investments of
taxpayer funds must be based on analyses documented by qualified engineering
professionals. He feels that once the
engineer responsible for the report is established, he or she must be asked to
revise it to include comprehensive analyses of current conditions, including the
bus congestion on the downtown Transitway and the very substantial use of King
Edward Avenue, Rideau, and Wellington by STO buses. The impact of the high numbers of buses in downtown Ottawa on the
efficiency and reliability of the city’s transit and overall transportation
systems, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions needs to be established in
order to provide a solid basis for examining the available options.
He also believes that once the base line is
established, options can be described and assessed. He submitted that one option, which he will term ‘enhanced status
quo’ – continued reliance on buses for both local and arterial service - would
be seen as simply not working. Not only
is the downtown Transitway at capacity, but the bus corridor used by the STO
through has reached the same state.
He noted that over the past year, two studies – FOTO’s
Practical Plan and the Mayor’s Task Force on Transportation - presented to the
Ottawa community have pointed out the many advantages offered by expanding
O-Train service on existing railway lines which cross Ottawa and Gatineau and
by providing a LRT (either surface or underground) loop through downtown with
transit hubs at Hurdman and Bayview.
This approach is, inexplicably, not described in the staff report. It must be fully assessed and compared with
the ‘enhanced status quo’ approach. In
a similar vein, the reasons for the success of the Bayview-Greenboro O-Train
service, started in October 2001, need to be described.
He suggested that the required engineering report
must, of course, be prepared with full stakeholder involvement, including the
NCC, the City of Gatineau, and the STO, and with provision for community
comment. He sees no reason why the work
should not be transparently linked to the on-going study of Interprovincial
Crossings. An ‘independent’ study of
downtown transit by the City of Ottawa makes no sense given the central role of
the STO, not to mention the obvious links between downtown and outside-downtown
transit service. He also suggested that
passenger and freight service across the Prince of Wales railway bridge needs
to be incorporated.
He concluded his comments by pointing out two specific
issues where Committee could provide useful direction to City staff:
1.
A request to VIA Rail to sell tickets for travel between the Fallowfield
and Ottawa train stations.
2.
Ensure that the railway line north of Bayview station, across the Prince
of Wales railway bridge until the location of Le Casino du Lac Leamy remain an
active railway line available for light rail transit use.
Finally, he urged
Committee not to follow the approach used in approving the North-South LRT
Project, and to insist on proper engineering reports, before mandating staff to
proceed with investments in transit, including funding requests to the Federal
and Ontario Governments.
Lyon Sachs, Mary Jarvis &
Morrison Renfrew, Urbandale Corporation, using PowerPoint Presentation jointly submitted a proposal for rapid
transit in the City of Ottawa prepared by Mr. Renfrew, P. Eng., Engineering
Management Consultant, with funding provided by Urbandale Corporation.
Mr. Sachs, President, Urbandale
Corporation, started by stating that the decision to initiate this city-wide
study is based on Urbandale Corporation’s commitment to the transit oriented
design of Riverside South and a concern for improvements to transit in both the
East and in the West.
The following is the Submission that was presentation to the Committee, copy of which is on file with the City Clerk:
Urbandale is the principal owner of the Riverside South community,
Kanata Lakes, Kanata Town Center, Kanata Village Green and Bridlewood; and
lands in the Trim Road/Innes Road area.
While we are well aware of the advantages that an efficient transit
system would bring to these Urbandale properties, we sincerely believe that our
interests are consistent with those of the broader community and that the
recommendations contained in the proposed plan will ultimately benefit all
residents of our city.
When decided to initiate this study, we asked people in the industry to identify a consultant with worldwide experience in municipal transportation projects. This led to Mr. Morrison Renfrew, currently based in Ottawa, who has participated in similar projects in many of the world’s major cities. Mr. Renfrew was also peripherally involved in the previous Ottawa L.R.T plan as a sub-consultant to one of the consultants.
Mr. Renfrew’s report proposes modifications to the previous plan in order to improve the cost effectiveness and efficiency, providing savings, which could go towards the additional proposed work.”
Mr. Sachs concluded his presentation by asking Committee to accept this brief in the spirit in which it is being proposed, as a constructive suggestion about a very important issue.
Mr. Renfrew then gave a detailed presentation on the proposed plan to the Committee, as follows:
Background
In December 2006, the Ottawa Light Rail Transit Project (OLRT) was cancelled after approximately 3 years of preparatory activity. The OLRT Project incorporated surface operation in the Central Business District (CBD), which did not provide relief from bus congestion. The alignment in the south was not optimal and in addition there were several areas where substantial costs could have been saved without adversely affecting performance.
The OLRT scheme proposed a route starting in Barrhaven, crossing the Rideau River on a future 6-lane bridge with a grade-separated crossing of River Road. It then looped south of Armstrong Rd. through a future subdivision from where it continued northeast past the large maintenance facility. It proceeded north, by-passing the airport, continuing through a twinned tunnel under Dow’s Lake. At Bayview, it turned east through the CBD on Albert and Slater streets, terminating on the western edge of the University of Ottawa.
The problems with this concept included:
a) The CBD surface operation in mixed traffic generated variable delays requiring the twinning of the Dow’s Lake tunnel and a consequent increase in the fleet requirement.
b) The propagation of CBD delays caused timetable variability throughout the system.
c) Trip time from Woodroffe (40 mins.) and River Road (38 mins.) to the CBD was excessive for the purpose of attracting car users.
d) Utility relocation away from the tracks was required in the CBD.
e) The transfer between BRT and LRT at LeBreton was problematic.
f) Maintenance and operating costs escalated due to the increased fleet.
The focus of the analyses in this report has been to identify how the issues, which led to the cancellation, can be resolved in order to permit the establishment of progress toward a regional rapid transit network within a feasible cost framework. It appears that a significantly less expensive system can be achieved on the basis of existing rights-of-way plus a realistic investment in extensions beyond the urban core. The resultant integrated BRT / LRT system can be implemented within a decade and will satisfy the immediate objectives of the city to increase the utilization of transit vs. the automobile.
Requirements for a rapid
transit network - Private rights-of-way (RoW) operation
The availability of RoW is fundamental to creating a rapid transit network. Ottawa is fortunate that, due to some far-sighted investment and recent commitments, the city has a substantial inventory of rights-of-way suitable for transit. These include the transitways, the N-S rail corridor, recently dedicated corridors in suburbia and E-W rail corridors (both active and abandoned), which have available capacity.
It was the lack of a suitable RoW through the Central Business District (CBD), which was the cause of the major performance problem of the OLRT. Due to the unpredictable delays caused by mixed traffic the departure times of the trains from the CBD were subject to considerable variation from the timetable. This eliminated the possibility of single track operation of the Dow’s Lake tunnel, imposed additional capacity demands at certain stations where delayed trains required a stopping berth to enable recovery of the operations and resulted in an increased fleet of LRV’s.
In order to attract new riders service levels must be substantially
better than automobile travel. The
primary metrics are:
• Travel times, which are both fast and consistent.
• Transfer wait time between modes or routes must be short and predictable.
The use of 100% private RoW will reduce the trip times, which will
encourage additional switching from automobiles to rapid transit. It will also
minimize the LRV fleet due to better utilization and reduce the probability of
damage to trains from surface traffic. Coordination of bus and LRT transfers
will be maximized due to accurate timetable operation.
Productivity
Higher productivity
(lower cost per passenger-km) is necessary to reduce subsidy levels while
maintaining service quality. The capacity provided during the daily demand
cycle should track the ridership demand.
Urban integration
Incremental growth of the network coverage at a controlled capital cost, with minimum disruption to the residents and businesses, will be provided to facilitate urban growth linked to transit availability.
Effective de-congestion of the urban core will improve the commercial and residential environment.
The
proposed modifications to the OLRT (New LRT)
The New LRT (NLRT) system (refer to Map1 on file with the City Clerk) is
based on the OLRT Project. It uses the basic N-S alignment (in the initial
phase) with modifications to increase the speed (which will attract more riders)
and reduce the capital cost. The modifications proposed (refer to Map 2 on file
with the City Clerk) include:
a) The southern Phase 1 termination at River Road and Armstrong Rd.
b) Proceed along Armstrong Rd instead of the southerly route through the subdivisions.
c) Reduce the scale of the maintenance facility at Bowesville (refer to pages 12 and 13).
d) Maintain the existing single tunnel under Dow’s Lake with train control by the signalling system (refer to page 11).
e) Establish Bayview as the system hub station.
f) A tunnel under the CBD to the east of the Canal with stations serving the CBD and Ottawa University.
g) A transfer stop at Hurdman.
h) Continue east to terminate Phase 1B at the VIA Rail station.
The
advantages of the NLRT revisions
a) The travel time from River Road will be reduced by 3 minutes due to the Armstrong Rd alignment and the elimination of (probably) 2 station stops.
b) A quick passage, free of congestion, through the CBD.
c) Effective integration with other modes at Bayview and the VIA station.
d) Interfaces efficiently with the Mayor’s Task Force recommendations.
e) Faster speed will reduce the fleet size.
f) Costly utility relocation will be eliminated.
g) Any necessity for a second bridge structure at Strandherd-Armstrong is removed.
h) Faster speeds and improved feeder bus access on Armstrong Road.
i) Eliminates the grade separation at River Road.
BRT and LRT will operate jointly on sections of the transitway (refer to
Page 10) to provide an economical gateway to the east and west. From Bayview
the transitway will provide fast access to a street alignment and a western
park-and-ride (anticipated to be located at the 416/417 junction). The VIA
station access will be from the south side. The VIA station is not only
convenient to rail passengers but also offers an efficient possible easterly
route crossing the 417 on the existing rail RoW which conforms to the City of
Ottawa Transportation Master Plan.
REVISED Cost savings from NLRT
$M |
|
Elimination of grade separation at River Road |
|
Elimination of loop south of Armstrong Road |
|
Reduced maintenance facility |
|
Elimination of second tunnel under Dow’s Lake |
|
Elimination of surface travel through CBD |
|
Total estimated savings |
189 |
Estimated costs for phases 1A and 1B |
$M |
Target cost River Road to Bayview inclusive of NLRTcost savings |
638 |
Bayview to west portal of the tunnel; 3 kms twin bore tunnel; 3 underground stations |
350 |
Contingency for underground conditions and protection of existing structures |
50 |
East portal to VIA station using transitway via Hurdman |
45 |
Additional rolling stock due to Phase 1B |
28 |
Total Phase 1A & 1B (including tunnel
contingency) |
1111 |
The
implementation strategy for NLRT
The proposed implementation for the network is based on a phased approach (refer to Map 2) to minimize the delays between segments coming into service:
a) Phase 1A is the building of the N-S line between Bayview and River Road, based on the already-approved EA and the preliminary design and field work already completed. This is expected to be operational within 3 years from Notice to Proceed. The O-train shut-down interval is expected to be considerably reduced due to the elimination of the second tunnel construction.
b) Phase 1B (refer to Map3) is a 3 km CBD tunnel with the western portal at Le Breton and the eastern portal beside the transitway south of the Ottawa U. transitway station. Three underground stations will be located at Kent, Metcalfe and Union Station to serve the CBD, Rideau Centre and University of Ottawa. Phase 1B will then utilize the transitway (which will be equipped with a vehicle control system) through Hurdman and on to the VIA station where it will connect with the proposed commuter services. The total length of Phase 1B will be approximately 6.5 kms. The tunnel completion will overlap with Phase 1A and will be between 5 and 6 years including the EA and design tasks prior to construction.
Phase 2 will have 3 elements (due to the time constraints details could not be developed):
a) the west extension will be a shared-use BRT / LRT corridor from Bayview which will subsequently diverge to a road alignment and proceed to a park-and-ride at the intersection of 416 and 417;
b) the east extension from the VIA station to Blackburn Hamlet and Trim will use the abandoned railway RoW to the 417 and will then proceed east;
c) the reserved RoW from River Road to Barrhaven Town Centre will be utilized when the passenger demand develops.
It was later noted that the only change to the
alignment through Riverside South occurs west of Limebank Road where the
alignment would shift onto the south side of Earl Armstrong and that Map 1 is
schematic.
At the request of Chair Cullen for her comments on the
Urbandale Proposal, Deputy City Manager Schepers acknowledged that there are
some very excellent elements that need to be explored.
In response to Councillor Legendre’s question, Mr.
Renfrew noted that in the Essen BRT-LRT, using guided buses, this was not a
necessary feature for common lane operations in Essen. The Table total in the presentation is $1.1
Billion.
In response to Councillor Desroches’ question, Mr. Sachs advised that the Community Design Plan for Riverside South was built on the idea that there would be a strong transit system in that community. Councillor Desroches asked how does this would affect the planning of Riverside South. Mr. Sachs responded that everything is related to everything else, and the engineering firm must design the whole project as if some form of rapid transit is going through.
Councillor Desroches expressed concern with the
Mayor’s Task Force proposal using the O-Train to skim the community because the
nature of that system would change the type of housing and building density
around the train station, to which Mr. Sachs agreed.
Councillor Deans recognized the merit in this
proposal and that it represents an investment of time and money. She believes that we need more study of this
high level proposal. It addresses some
key problems and starts to address the possibility of building to a regional
system later on. Mr. Sachs agreed with
the Councillor’s statement that this proposal would be a modification of the
original LRT plan.
Councillor Deans asked if Council wanted to
give priority consideration to this proposal how would one go about having
staff review it from a feasibility and legal standpoint. In response, Deputy City Manager Schepers
replied that Council would have to direct staff to do so. Staff would need at least six weeks to come
back with a preliminary report –early October would be the earliest. Ms. Schepers also noted Council’s direction
to staff to update the Transportation Master Plan (TMP), and staff will bring
forward recommendations. She flagged
the secondary plans and noted that a number of elements have not had proper consultation.
At the request of Councillor Wilkinson for any
costing data for Phase 2, Mr. Sachs advised that this is not possible without
knowing exactly what Phase 2 would be.
Councillor Wilkinson expressed concern with it
starting at Bayshore in the west and asked the delegations not to ignore the
west. She felt that this proposal could
be a way to mend some fences for the North-South LRT and indicated that she
would be proposing a motion.
In response to Councillor Wilkinson for her
comments, Ms. Schepers does not recommend adopting the proposal as is
today. She suggested that Committee and
Council need the vision that would be clearer in the fall. By October, Committee and Council can look
at the proposal and determine what it means as far as contracts, legal issues
and processes already started. She
advised that in the process of looking at the east west and north south,
Council needs to focus on addressing the downtown problem first, of which this
proposal could be a solution.
Ms. Schepers confirmed that staff would look
into integrating this proposal with the Mayor’s Task Force Recommendations, and
the TMP Update.
Mayor O’Brien
expressed some ambivalence to this proposal versus the Task Force
Proposal. He found it intriguing that
it could be done locally, however questioned the advantage to Ottawa from the
strengthening of the Canadian Dollar’s perspective. Mr. Renfrew agreed with the Mayor, noting that there has
been some fluctuation between the Euro and the US Dollar. The Mayor asked the delegation to look
further into this. Mr. Sachs responded
that the cost is the supply of equipment and the other is the civil work –
concrete and work.
In terms of
integrating for a regional transit, with 20-25 municipalities and townships,
Mr. Renfrew agreed with the Mayor and advised that it would integrate well with
the regional municipalities, creating many opportunities.
Councillor Holmes asked about station locations
and asked if Bayview was looked at.
Mr. Renfrew noted that it would be advantageous to connect the
buildings and looked at Lyon, Metcalfe, O’Connor and just south of Union
Station. However, Urbandale would
prefer central stations accessible from all sides, suggesting that $350M with a
$50M contingency fund would cover the three stations; stay underground through
the Canal until east of the Ottawa University Campus and come up south of
Catherine.
Councillor Holmes asked Ms. Schepers how to
confirm these figures. In response, she
advised that it was not possible to cost it out until an EA is completed along
with the design phase. She also advised
that she could not confirm the accuracy of this in 6 weeks, but could provide
an estimate. She could not also confirm
how it fits into the downtown network because the designs have not yet been made. She suggested that the process should look
at the full transit system, and whether this proposal can be accommodated. She advised that there is a lot of work to
be done and noted the need to consult on all of this. She felt that this would be a significant change in the transit
services.
Councillor Bloess referred to the $50 million
contingency; hooking up Hurdman Station to the VIA Station, avoiding popular
areas and detouring south – the reason he is suggesting this is because it is
costly for an underpass. Mr. Renfrew
stated that it makes sense to stay closer to popular areas.
Councillor McRae questioned the value of doing
the LRT and talked about consideration of the Walkley Road Station. She advised that she would be supporting
Councillor Wilkinson’s motion.
Councillor Legendre questioned Mr. Renfrew
about going under the National Art Centre and the noise issue involved. Mr. Renfrew felt that this could be
addressed.
Councillor Cullen questioned if the Urbandale
proposal was a variation to the previous North South LRT. He asked if Urbandale was seriously in its
suggestion of using Byron Avenue as an LRT route. Mr. Renfrew did not know how the National Capital Commission
would re-act to LRT on the Ottawa River Parkway and that the map showed this as
just a little kink.
Councillor McRae inquired on the timeframe for
getting a useful, viable LRT system (from Armstrong to Bayview) – is it 3
years? Mr. Sachs confirmed this.
In response to Councillor Legendre’s request for staff comment on the one third of the $45M figure cost for the extension to Armstrong Road, Mr. Steacy advised that staff estimate includes rail construction as well as the vehicle, signalization, road works, the station and platform, a pedestrian overpass at the Airport Parkway, modifications to the maintenance facility at Walkley Yards, etc.
Mike Rushton, Director of
Physical Resources, Algonquin College made the following four points on behalf of Algonquin College regarding
the Pedestrian Bridge (Baseline Station-Algonquin College) that is on the list
of Near-Term Transit Investment Options being considered by Committee today:
1. Urgency:
The College is relieved to see the Pedestrian Bridge on a list for
implementation in the near term. The
planning for this project has been underway for five years with Councillor
Chiarelli and City Staff. The need has
existed for 20 years and has become more poignant each year, as Algonquin has
been consolidating all of its Ottawa Campuses into one at Woodroffe and
Baseline now totalling 16,000 students and growing each year. The College would therefore make the case
that this is a very high priority for implementation among the other projects
on your list and should be implemented within the next year – hopefully by the
start of the Fall 2008 Semester. To
that end, the College is prepared to be a partner with the City by contributing
$400K to this project and accepting responsibility for daily cleaning and
security.
2. Safety:
The crossing of Woodroffe Avenue from Baseline Transit Station by
students to the College takes place in bus loads of 80 every few minutes from
7:30-10:30 am daily totalling 500-1000 per hour returning to Baseline Station
from 2:00-6:30 pm in somewhat smaller numbers.
This daily movement of students across an increasingly busy Woodroffe
Avenue at peak traffic periods is the #1 safety hazard for students at the
College.
3. Increasing Transit Use and Reducing Parking
Demand: Currently the modal split
is approximately 40% of the College’s 16,000 students and 2,000 staff. The College believes that the potential to
increase this split is held back by the lack of a safe crossing for larger
numbers of pedestrians from Baseline Station to the College. The plans for the Pedestrian Bridge include
a very direct connection to the second storey pedestrian network in the College
with a weather-proof cover almost immediately after they disembark from
buses. This, the College believes, will
encourage transit use and remove parking demand at the Woodroffe Campus.
4. Convergence
of CentrePointe Development Plan and College Expansion Plans: The draft CentrePointe Development Plan
clearly welcomes and provides for the potential of the College to expand its
facilities onto City lands adjacent to the Baseline Transit Station and to
connect the Baseline Station to the College by way of a Pedestrian Bridge. There is an immediate need for the College
to expand its facilities to meet the Ottawa community demand for Construction
Industry Professionals, Health Professionals and other key sectors of Ottawa
area economy. The College has a plan
for a $100M expansion of the Campus to meet this community need.
Council in June 2007 passed a resolution that
supported this expansion and asked City Staff to work with the College to find
ways in which the City could provide practical support to this expansion. Clearly, this Pedestrian Bridge project is
vital to the safe expansion of the College and to link the College to the
CentrePointe lands such that the College and the City can contemplate where the
College’s facilities in the CentrePointe development can be constructed in the
very near future.
In this respect, the College sees the
construction of the Pedestrian Bridge and the adjustments to the Baseline
Station as vital to creating a build-able site for College facilities
integrated into the Baseline Station to contribute to the mixed use objectives
of the CentrePointe Development Plan and to create potential for partnerships
with Industry and Commercial and Retail businesses.
In response to Councillor Legendre’s question,
Mr. Rushton confirmed that the College is prepared to give $300K for building
modifications and the connection to the bridge, as well as $400K for
construction plus $250K per year for cleaning and maintenance of the facilities.
Klaus Beltzner, Friends of the
O-Train (FOTO) noted that
today is significant because Committee is now hearing not only from Transit
Advocates but also from an expanded downtown coalition this morning and from a
major developer, Urbandale, this afternoon of the growing impatience with the
City's multi-year planning process that is to be followed before any of the
critical transit issues can be solved.
He also noted that today is significant because Committee is starting to
react and express its own dissatisfaction with the slowness of the
process. He believes that, in this
regard, Committee has already set aside staff's process recommendations this
morning, and instead, has instructed staff to immediately start the Tunnel EA
and restart the Interprovincial EA. He
suggested that this afternoon Committee needs to consider whether staff should
review the Urbandale proposal now or allow it to join the other proposals, such
as FOTO and Mayor’s Task Force for review later according to staff's multi-year
planning process.
In this regard, he urged Committee to take
action that would move forward now rather than to wait years before solutions
to these problems could be discussed.
He feels the City is suffering from these planning delays while everyone
is expecting action now. He stated that
the analysis paralysis has to stop, already having all the information needed
from existing documents to get on with solving these problems. He concluded by urging Committee to take
action on the downtown problem now.
Charles Matthews, Self and
Access Now expressed concern
about the following:
·
Transit fleet
acquisition stating that not all buses being acquired are accessible.
·
O-Train Services
– out of the 38 aspects of O-Train not being accessible previously raised with OC
Transpo, there are still 20 aspects not addressed.
He urged Committee to take into
consideration its procurement practices to promote accessibility as per the Accessibility
for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA).
The Committee also received the following
correspondence, copy of which is on file with the City Clerk:
·
Letter dated 10
August 2007 addressed to the Mayor and Members of Council from S. Lyon Sachs,
President, Urbandale Corporation, Re. An Affordable Solution for Rapid Transit
in Ottawa.
·
E-Mail received
on 14 August 2007 from David Gladstone requesting that no decisions be taken
until City engineering staff prepare and circulate for stakeholder comment a
proper engineering report describing options for increasing the modal share for
transit use in Ottawa.
·
Comments from
David Gladstone, Founder, Friends of the 0-Train.
·
Letter dated 15
August 2007 from Scott Hodge, President, Riverside South Community Association.
After discussion and questions, the Committee considered the following motions:
Moved
by Councillor J. Legendre:
That in accordance with Section 84(3) of By-law No. 2006-462 - “(3) Except as otherwise decided by a two-thirds vote of the members of Committee present and voting, the Committee shall not consider any report, Information Previously Distributed memorandum or any matter, that has not been distributed to the members with the Agenda” - the rules of procedure be suspended to consider the Urbandale Report on An Affordable Solution for Rapid Transit in Ottawa.
CARRIED
Councillor
Wilkinson put forward the following motion:
That
this Committee receive the report from Urbandale, support the approach in the
report, and direct staff to report back to the Committee, prior to the end of
September, on the appropriateness of the corridors, recommendations on
modifications of the corridors including expansion to Kanata and across the
Strandherd Bridge to Barrhaven, and a timetable to undertake any additional or
modifications of studies to implement such a network.
That
the list of projects in Table 1 of the report on Near-Term Transit Investment
Options be modified as follows:
a)
Fund the Transitway from Bayshore to Moodie drive;
b)
Fund the Transitway from Woodroffe to Bayshore as soon
as the EA is finalized as per the recommendation in the Rapid Transit
Environmental Assessment report is completed;
c)
Prior to approving any of the other projects in Table
1, other than those that have already received Council approval in the 2007
Budget, that the Committee receive the report on the Urbandale proposal.
That
Recommendation No. 2 of the Report on Near-Term Transit Investment Options be
deferred until the report on the Urbandale Project is dealt with by Committee –
The Councillor agreed to withdraw this part of her motion after some
discussion.
After
a lengthy discussion, the Committee considered the aforementioned motions, as
follows:
Moved
by Councillor M. Wilkinson:
That the Committee receive the
report from Urbandale and direct staff to report back to the Committee by
October 2007 on the appropriateness of the corridors, recommendations on
modifications of the corridors including expansion to Kanata and across the
Strandherd Bridge to Barrhaven, and a timetable to undertake any additional or
modifications of studies to implement such a network.
CARRIED
YEAS (9): Councillors Bloess, Wilkinson, Legendre, Doucet, Thompson,
Leadman, McRae, Mayor O’Brien, Chair Cullen
NAYS
(0):
Moved by Councillor M. Wilkinson:
That the
list of projects in Table 1 of the report on Near-Term Transit Investment Options
be modified as follows:
a) Fund the Transitway from Bayshore to Moodie Drive.
CARRIED
YEAS (7): Councillors Bloess, Wilkinson, Doucet,
Thompson, Leadman, McRae, Chair Cullen
NAYS (1): Councillor Legendre
b)
Fund the Transitway from Woodroffe to Bayshore as
soon as the EA is finalized as per the recommendation in the Rapid Transit
Environmental Assessment Report is completed.
CARRIED
YEAS (6): Councillors Bloess, Wilkinson, Doucet, Thompson, Leadman,
McRae
NAYS
(2): Councillor Legendre, Chair Cullen
c)
Prior to approving any of the other projects in
Table 1, the Committee receive the staff report on the Urbandale proposal.
CARRIED
Chair Cullen dissented.
Moved by Councillor D. Thompson:
d)
That Federal and Provincial infrastructure funding
be sought for the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge and related roadwork.
CARRIED
YEAS (7): Councillors
Bloess, Wilkinson, Doucet, Thompson, Leadman, McRae, Chair Cullen
NAYS (1): Councillor Legendre
Moved by Councillor J. Legendre:
That the
following proposed City-Wide Transit projects be recommended to Council for
approval:
·
Smart Card -
$ 15 Million
·
New Bus Garage - $ 60 Million
·
Transit Fleet Acquisition (2009). - $ 46 Million
And,
under the Central Area / Inside the Greenbelt,
·
Central Area Station Improvements- $ 5 Million.
CARRIED
YEAS
(7): Councillors Bloess, Wilkinson,
Legendre, Doucet, Thompson, McRae, Chair Cullen
NAYS (1): Councillor Leadman
Councillor Doucet put forward the following motion to amend Recommendation No.1 of the Report:
Whereas the
recent plan from Urbandale called “An Affordable Solution for Rapid Transit in
Ottawa” includes an electric LRT proposal from Bayview to Riverside South as
Phase 1A;
Whereas
electric light rail from Bayview to Riverside South has already been approved
in an EA;
Whereas
this north-south rail corridor remains in the Transportation Master Plan, there
is no other alternative to it, and it will be required under any scenario in
the future;
Whereas the
twinning of the track under Dow’s Lake would cost relatively little compared to
boring a double track tunnel through downtown which is Phase 1B of “An
Affordable Solution for Rapid Transit in Ottawa”, and the benefit of this
transit investment would be huge compared to comparable road expenditures;
Be It
Resolved that near-term transit investment options include this Phase 1A
portion of “An Affordable Solution for Rapid Transit in Ottawa” with the
inclusion of twinning of the Dow’s Lake tunnel.
After some discussion by the Committee, Councillor Doucet withdrew his motion.
Moved by Councillor J. Legendre:
Be It
Resolved that Recommendation No.2 be amended to clarify that the funding sought
from senior governments be identified as transit-specific funding or
road-network-specific funding, and specify the sharing that is assumed for any
transportation components that are intended to serve both modes.
CARRIED
That the Joint Transportation
and Transit Committee recommend Council:
1. Approve
the list of transit projects (Table 1) as priorities for implementation in the
near future.
3. Direct
staff to enter into discussions with the Federal and Provincial agencies to
negotiate funding for these priority projects and report back to Committee on
the status of these negotiations and funding availability and financial
implications.
CARRIED,
as amended.