1. STRANDHERD-ARMSTRONG BRIDGE – CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL

le pont strandherd-armstrong – renvoi du conseil municipal

Committee recommendation as amended

That City Council approve:

1. That the two immediate Near-Term investment options in the Mayor’s Task Force on Transportation, namely the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge and the completion of Terry Fox Drive from Kanata Avenue to Flamborough Drive, as they are currently designed, be formally submitted to the Federal and Provincial Governments for cost sharing infrastructure funding; such funding not to come from funds identified for transit projects.

2. That the Chair of the Transportation Committee write to the National Capital Commission, Parks Canada, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to consult and confirm the process and timelines for the timely approval of the bridge design plans.

Recommandation modifiÉe dU ComitÉ

Que le Conseil municipal approuve :

1. Que les deux options d’investissement à court terme retenues par le Groupe de travail du maire sur les transports, lesquelles visent respectivement, selon leur conception actuelle, le pont Strandherd-Armstrong et le projet d’achèvement de la promenade Terry Fox entre l’avenue Kanata et la voie Flamborough, fassent l’objet d’une demande officielle de partage des coûts de ces infrastructures auprès des gouvernements fédéral et provincial, étant entendu que les fonds accordés ne proviendront pas des montants réservés aux projets de transport en commun.

2. Que la présidente du Comité des transports écrive à la Commission de la capitale nationale, à Parcs Canada et au ministère des Pêches et des Océans afin de les consulter et de confirmer le processus et l’échéancier relatifs à l’approbation opportune des plans de conception du pont.

Documentation

1. Transportation Committee report dated 13 September 2007 (ACS2007-CCS-TRC-0016)

2. Email dated October 5, 2007 from Vivi Chi, Manager, Transportation and Infrastructure Planning, Planning, Transit and the Environment in response to questions from Councillor Doucet about cost information on the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge as well as the approaches leading up to the bridge.

3. Email dated October 5, 2007 from Vivi Chi, Manager, Transportation and Infrastructure Planning, Planning, Transit and the Environment in response to questions from Councillor Legendre about priority setting with respect to the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge.

4. Extract of the Draft Minutes 12, Transportation Committee, 3 October 2007

Report to / Rapport au:

Transportation Committee / Comité des transports

and Council/et au Conseil

13 September 2007 / le 13 septembre 2007

Submitted by / Soumis par: City Council / Conseil municipal

Contact / Personne-ressource : Anne-Marie Leung, Committee Coordinator /

Coordonnatrice du comité,

City Clerk’s Branch / Direction du greffe

580-2424, Ext. / poste : 21385, Anne-Marie.Leung@ottawa.ca

City Wide / À l'échelle de la Ville

Ref N°: ACS2007-CCS-TRC-0016

SUBJECT: STRANDHERD-ARMSTRONG BRIDGE – CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL

OBJET: le pont strandherd-armstrong – renvoi du conseil municipal

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That the Transportation Committee recommend that City Council direct staff to formally submit the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge as it is currently designed to the Federal and Provincial Governments for cost shared funding.

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité des transports recommande au Conseil municipal de demander au personnel de soumettre officiellement le projet du pont Strandherd-Armstrong, avec sa conception actuelle, aux gouvernements fédéral et provincial afin d’obtenir un financement partagé des coûts.

BACKGROUND

City Council, at its meeting held on 12 September 2007, considered a report from the Deputy City Manager, Planning, Transit and the Environment dated 26 July 2007, entitled Near-Term Transit Investment Options - See Attachment 1 - ACS2007-PTE-POL-0050.

At that time, City Council also considered the Joint Transportation Committee and Transit Committee recommendations dated 15 August 2007 – See Attachment 2 – Extract of Joint Minutes 3 of 15 August 2007.

The following is the Motion, which was referred to the October 3, 2007 Transportation Committee Meeting:

Moved by Councillor S. Desroches

Seconded by Councillor J. Harder

WHEREAS the stand alone Strandherd Armstrong bridge was considered for funding using the Federal and Provincial funding formally allocated to North South LRT; and

WHEREAS the stand alone Strandherd Armstrong bridge is planned as part of the City’s Transportation Master Plan; and

WHEREAS in light of the original intent of the Federal and Provincial LRT funding and despite the fact that the stand alone Strandherd Armstrong bridge would facilitate public transit and contain transit priority, the project may be ineligible for Federal and Provincial Transit Funding; and

WHEREAS the Mayor and other Members of Council have publicly stated that both the Provincial and Federal Governments have a role to play in funding infrastructure and alleviating Ottawa’s infrastructure gap; and

WHEREAS federal officials have publicly encouraged the City of Ottawa to submit the Strandherd Armstrong Bridge to the Federal Government for funding:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that staff be directed to formally submit the Strandherd Armstrong bridge as it is currently designed to the Federal and Provincial Governments for cost shared funding.

CONSULTATION

This item will be advertised in the local dailies as part of the Public Meeting Advertisement on Friday preceding the Transportation Committee Meeting.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The Long Range Financial Plan shows $16.6 M in existing authority for the construction of the bridge. The estimated bridge cost is in the order of $48 M. Additional funds would be required for the widening of the Strandherd Drive and Earl Armstrong Road approaches.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Attachment 1 ACS2007-PTE-POL-0050 – Near-Term Transit Investment Options (previously distributed and held on file with the City Clerk)

Attachment 2 Joint Transportation Committee and Transit Committee – Extract of Joint Minutes 3 of 15 August 2007 (previously distributed and held on file with the City Clerk)

DISPOSITION

Planning, Transit and the Environment Staff to take appropriate action as directed by the Council.

Email dated October 5, 2007 from Vivi Chi, Manager, Transportation and Infrastructure Planning, Planning, Transit and the Environment in response to questions from Councillor Doucet about cost information on the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge as well as the approaches leading up to the Bridge.

-----Original Message-----

From: Chi, Vivi

Sent: October 05,2007 8:33 PM

To: Doucet, Clive

Cc: McRae, Maria; Cullen, Alex; Leadman, Christine; Bedard, Georges; Bloess, Rainer; Legendre, Jacques P; Thompson, Doug; Wilkinson, Marianne; Schepers, Nancy; Moser, John; Leung, Anne-Marie

Subject: Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge & Approaches: Costs

Councillor Doucet,

At Transportation Committee on 3 October 2007, you asked for cost information on the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge as well as the approaches leading up to the bridge.

The bridge structure is estimated to be $48M of which a portion will be for transit (we've assumed 1/3 use of the bridge for transit, and therefore 1/3 of the cost is $16M). The west approach (a widening of Strandherd (from the bridge to Woodroffe)) would be in the order of $35M, of which about $12M will be used to construct transit lanes. The east approach (a widening of Earl Armstrong (from the bridge to Limebank)) would be about $22M. Although there won't be transit lanes on Earl Armstrong, buses can still operate on the road to access the park-and ride.

In summary, the bridge structure and its approaches are in the order of $105M ($28M of this amount is for transit needs). The total cost was previously presented to the Joint Transportation and Transit Committee on 15 August 2007 as part of the Near-Term Transit Investment Options report.

Sincerely,

Vivi Chi, P.Eng.

Manager, Transportation & Infrastructure Planning

Planning, Transit & the Environment Department

Email dated October 5, 2007 from Vivi Chi, Manager, Transportation and Infrastructure Planning, Planning, Transit and the Environment in response to questions from Councillor Legendre about priority setting with respect to the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge.

-----Original Message-----

From: Chi, Vivi

Sent: October 05,2007 9:46 PM

To: Legendre, Jacques P

Cc: McRae, Maria; Cullen, Alex; Leadman, Christine; Bedard, Georges; Bloess, Rainer; Doucet, Clive; Thompson, Doug; Wilkinson, Marianne; Schepers, Nancy; Moser, John; Leung, Anne-Marie

Subject: Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge: Priority Setting

Councillor Legendre,

At the Transportation Committee meeting of 3 October 2007, you asked about the priority setting for the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge. It is a Phase 1 project in the 2003 TMP (page 89), which means it should be in place by around 2008 - based on forecasted need. The TMP grouped projects into 3 general phases: Phase 1 (by about 2008), Phase 2 (by about 2013), Phase 3 (by about 2021).

There are several road projects listed in the TMP as Phase 1 projects. To understand how these projects relate to each other as priorities within that phase, one would have to reference the background documents for the TMP. Specifically, the document titled "Transportation Master Plan: Roadway Requirements and Staging Plan" (July 2003, publication number #19-71), provided below:

(*Note from City Clerk’s staff: This document has been previously distributed and is held on file with the City Clerk)

Page 12-13 of the document describes how the project staging plan was developed - i.e. the principles that were followed for rating project priorities. Figure 13A (page 14) lists projects in order of approximate year that they are needed for the first 10 years of the planning period. Nine projects were identified ahead of Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge (by 2005). Another 6 projects, including the Bridge were identified as needed by 2006.

Projects that are listed ahead of the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge in the document, and which have not been constructed (or partly constructed) are:

- Alta Vista Corridor (Nicholas to Riverside) - awaiting Ministry approval of the EA

- Richmond Road (Carling to Golden) - start of EA was cancelled by Council

- Carling Avenue (Richmond-Holly Acres) - Council removed this from the draft TMP and therefore it is not shown in the final 2003 TMP

- New East-West Road( Rideau River to Highway 417 East) - analysis identified a need for a corridor north of Hunt Club, even with the proposed future widening of the Queensway, but given the lack of a feasible corridor, no planning work has been initiated

Furthermore, staff was asked to comment on Mr. David Jeanes' statement that the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge was inserted at the last minute into the final TMP as a Phase 1 project. In reviewing our notes, the draft TMP that was distributed for public review was dated March 2003. Between that release date and the final presentation to Transportation Committee in July 2003, refinement of the screenline traffic analyses (demand and capacity assessments) continued. Consequently, there were several projects (not only the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge) that were moved from Phase 2 into Phase 1. The TMP (with its refined priority list of projects) was approved by Transportation Committee in July and subsequently approved by Council in September 2003.

Sincerely,

Vivi Chi. P.Eng.

Manager, Transportation & Infrastructure Planning

Planning, Transit & the Environment Department

STRANDHERD-ARMSTRONG BRIDGE – CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL

le pont strandherd-armstrong – renvoi du conseil municipal

ACS2007-CCS-TRC-0016 City Wide / À l'échelle de la Ville

Councillor Wilkinson advised that she intended to put forth the following amendment to the report recommendation: ‘That the two immediate Near-Term investment options in the Mayor’s Task Force on Transportation, namely the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge and the completion of Terry Fox Drive from Kanata Avenue to Flamborough Drive, as they are currently designed, be formally submitted to the Federal and Provincial Governments for cost sharing infrastructure funding; such funding not to come from funds identified for transit projects.’ She explained that her reasoning is that there were two immediate priorities identified and she felt one should not be treated differently than the other. She further noted that she had collaborated with Councillor Desroches on this motion, the mover of original Council motion, and that they had both spoken with federal representatives on this matter to see what can be done.

Councillor Cullen requested staff comment on Councillor Wilkinson’s amendment. Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager, Planning, Transit and the Environment (PTE) responded that it is correct that the two items noted were identified as priorities by the Mayor’s Task Force, but staff is not aware of the details of any new funding program and as such she felt this might be a bit premature in terms of an application. She acknowledged, however, that in terms of indicating intent, if Council wishes to do so, there might be some direction or information that the Federal and Provincial Governments could share in response.

In response to Councillor Cullen’s questions on the existence of such Federal Program and if these projects would be on the list for submission, John Moser, Director, Planning Branch & City Planner, PTE responded that both projects would be included as they are both in the in the existing Transportation Master Plan (TMP), although the Bridge is a nearer priority than is the Terry Fox.

Councillor Cullen assumed that if there is a Federal Funding Program in place prior to the 2008 budget and these two projects were submitted, the Capital Project would be debated as part of the 2008 Capital Program Budget, since the City’s contribution would be part of the 2008 or a subsequent budget. Mr. Moser responded that staff already has direction from Committee and Council to bring forward the Terry Fox as part of the 2008 Budget discussion.

Councillor Desroches reminded Committee Members that the Environmental Assessment for this Bridge has already been completed and the design phase is underway. It is being designed with transit features for bus rapid transit and a future potential rail capacity. He commented that the debate is not about whether to build a bridge but about talking to the Federal Government about the eligibility of this project for federal infrastructure funding. It was his understanding from staff that once Council decided not to move forward with Light Rail Transit (LRT), the Bridge would have some problems meeting the eligibility criteria for the transit funding. He reiterated that this is about going after Federal and Provincial Funding, wherever possible, for key infrastructure projects, in keeping with recently identified Council priorities. At the Councillor’s request, Ms. Schepers confirmed that the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge would be on their Top 10 List of Projects that would come forward now and into the future.

Councillor Desroches inquired whether the City has actually applied for funding at the present time. Ms. Schepers explained that the City has not made a formal application for funding. It was included within the LRT Project, and there have been preliminary discussions relating to near-term and transit investment, which did include and flag the Bridge with some Bus Rapid Transit components, but no formal application has been submitted. The Councillor also inquired what has been the gist of the feedback from Federal Officials at this point on time. Ms. Schepers informed that in terms of the LRT Program Funding, which was really a transit based program, there was no certainty if it, or even the transit component, would be supported in the long-term and staff would have had to submit a business case and arguments for it as requested by both Federal and Provincial governments.

Councillor Doucet noted that the Strandherd Drive and Armstrong Road approaches were not being included and he felt they should be. He wondered when those costs would be available. Mr. Moser responded that staff has them now in terms of being able to give estimates of what the connections of both sides of it would be. Councillor Doucet requested that those figures be made available to Members of Council and the public so the total cost of the project could be known. Mr. Moser agreed to do so.

Councillor Doucet commented that under the old North-South LRT Proposal, the LRT Project, as per partnership funding with the Federal and Provincial Governments, would defray part of the costs of this Bridge. He felt that staff should also show the financial implications of not having the North-South Light Rail Line in place and that shared funding. Vivi Chi, Manager, Transportation and Infrastructure Planning, PTE responded that for the North-South Light Rail Project, it was assumed there was a component for the hardware for the rail features on the bridge. She said that staff could remove that component and talk about the total cost of the bridge as if it were a road bridge or for rubber-tired transit vehicles to use. Councillor Doucet thought those implications need to be understood for future debate on this matter. Ms. Chi offered to provide that information within a few days of this meeting.

Councillor Legendre requested that Ms. Chi provide information with respect to the priority status of the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge within the list of capital project priorities before the North-South LRT. In response to the Councillor’s questions, Ms. Chi informed that the Bridge is on the list in the TMP as a Phase 1 Project to be completed or in operation by 2008 and referred him to the appropriate page for this information.

The Committee then heard the following delegation:

David Jeanes stated that it is very important in applying for funding for the transit component of this Bridge that it be well represented as an integral part of the City’s transit system. He commented that the text in the report still puts the westward link to Chapman Mills ahead of improving the links north to Fallowfield. He believed that the Park & Ride in Riverside South, dedicated bus lanes on the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge, a link through the JDS Uniphase Site for the RCMP, and possibly the completion of Longfields Drive and into Fallowfield Transitway Station is much more important to the City’s needs than the east-west line. He said that the east-west link in Barrhaven was a political boondoggle right from the first and noted that the Rapid Transit Expansion Study (RTES) did not identify a major east-west flow there. He felt that although it would be nice to have, the north-south link in that area is the most critical, and if the case is made for the Strandherd Bridge as a transit facility because it links into the Woodroofe and Fallowfield Transitway, the case will be stronger. He also noted the report states that the link would be primarily for people travelling to the north and west, not going downtown; he is convinced that the route by bus on the transitway provides a faster route than would have been possible with light rail, and a much faster route will be possible by cars on congested roads. He felt that the City could make a good case for the transit component but it must be strong. He further pointed out that the inclusion of this Bridge as a Phase 1 Project in the TMP was not part of the draft plan or the consultations but was inserted in the final stage of approval before Council as a last minute reprioritization of the projects, in response to one letter from a member of the public.

Councillor Legendre questioned whether Mr. Jeanes, in his comments on the TMP, was referring to the mass transit aspect of the bridge or of the bridge itself. The Councillor asked Ms. Chi to provide an email to him, before the Council meeting at which this issue would be considered, addressing Mr. Jeanes’ comments about the inclusion of the Bridge in the TMP.

Councillor Harder articulated that she had been very involved with the Strandherd Bridge process for some time, dating back to her time with the City of Nepean. At her request, staff confirmed that $16 million has already been saved for this project. Staff also confirmed that in 2001, during the Rapid Transit strategy planning, there was a plan to build two bridges. The Councillor noted that she had expressed serious doubt at that time that there would be money available for two bridges, which Ms. Chi also confirmed. She felt that this bridge is a seriously needed near-term project to disperse the traffic volume in the Barrhaven area and urged Committee Members to support the proposed motion. In response to the Councillor, Ms. Schepers advised that she was not aware of any funding program that would constitute the road portion of the bridge and that staff identified it potentially as near-term and as transit-related in part, something that is yet to be decided at a joint meeting of the Transportation and Transit Committees and then Council. She added that the response from the Federal and Provincial Governments to date has been lukewarm as to whether the terms and conditions would make the Bridge eligible for funding under that program. When asked by the Councillor whether funding was in place for the Bridge when the City had the $400 million, Ms. Schepers confirmed that it was included as part of that project.

Councillor Bédard questioned how the Bridge fits into the bus transit plans for the City. Ms. Chi responded that buses could always run on any roadway or bridge facility built by the City as part of the local service and noted that it would depend on what happens with Riverside South. Part of the intention was to have bus operation on the Bridge and there would be connections on the east side to Park & Ride facilities, and on the west side, it would link up to the southwest transitway facilities, particularly the Fallowfield Park & Ride. It could be used as a component of the overall transit service network.

Councillor Doucet felt the Bridge would not work well to alleviate much of the traffic problem that exists today and might actually exacerbate the problem. He suggested that building it or any new bridge would be a mistake, especially given the amount of money that would have to go into it, money he thought would be better invested in existing infrastructure.

Councillor Bédard speculated that since the North-South LRT, which was supposed to service that community, was not approved the City would be extending bus services to the community to deal with the influx of people coming into that area. He felt the Bridge would be very helpful from that point of view. Ms. Chi agreed and noted that there would still be the Park & Ride lots to connect to and the buses would need the Bridge.

Councillor Legendre advised that he found the section of the TMP that lists the Bridge as a Phase 1 Project, but noted a multitude of other projects also in Phase 1. He requested the email that he had previously requested, explains where the Bridge is in terms of overall priority compared to the other projects in Phase 1.

Councillor Harder felt that Committee Members were being very parochial with respect to the Strandherd Bridge and its implications for their own wards. She urged Councillors to make decisions based on the benefit to the overall City, not on individual wards. She reiterated that there were no financial implications associated with submitting the Bridge Proposal to the Federal and Provincial Governments, and that further, there is no other solution at this point other than the Bridge to deal with the traffic problems in that part of the City.

Councillor Bédard articulated that he would support the recommendation given the fact that light rail has not been approved and that the Bridge would be a good alternative route for buses and a realistic measure.

Councillor Deans commented that this issue relates to the rapid growth in the south end of Ottawa and how the City will deal with it in the future. She felt it would be wise to have a forum on the TMP update in order to come up with a new plan to deal with these types of issues.

Councillor Desroches noted that he and Councillor Harder would be hosting a forum for the southwest community to deal with transportation issues because of the cancellation of LRT. He expressed appreciation for the views that had been expressed today but he reiterated that this debate was not about the merits of the Bridge, but about going after Federal and Provincial Funding.

Agreeing with Councillor Desroches’ comments, Councillor Wilkinson noted roads are needed to make the City’s transportation and transit systems work. She urged Committee to support her motion and noted that she would also be proposing a second motion, pending approval of her proposed amendment, with respect to writing a letter on this matter.

Moved by Councillor M. Wilkinson:

That the two immediate Near-Term investment options in the Mayor’s Task Force on Transportation, namely the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge and the completion of Terry Fox Drive from Kanata Avenue to Flamborough Drive, as they are currently designed, be formally submitted to the Federal and Provincial Governments for cost sharing infrastructure funding; such funding not to come from funds identified for transit projects.

CARRIED

YEAS (6): Councillors M. Wilkinson, A. Cullen, G. Bédard, J. Legendre, D. Thompson, C. Leadman

NAYS (2): Councillors R. Bloess, C. Doucet

Moved by Councillor M. Wilkinson:

That the Chair of the Transportation Committee write to the National Capital Commission, Parks Canada, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to consult and confirm the process and timelines for the timely approval of the Bridge design plans.

CARRIED

The Committee then considered the report recommendation as amended by the foregoing motions.

That the Transportation Committee recommend that City Council approve:

CARRIED, as amended