Therefore be it Resolved that the previously allocated funding for the North South LRT project, (200-Fed/200-Prov/200-Mun) and any new transit funding from the recently announced Building Canada Plan be allocated to the following projects:

a. Completing the Transitway as per Council’s approved Strategic Direction

b. Construction of the Downtown Transit Tunnel

c. Implementation of rapid transit using the Cumberland Transitway alignment

d. Implementation of the LRT to the City’s south-eastern growth area.

Further be it resolved that the projects in this strategic plan be implemented as the approvals (Environmental Assessment or otherwise) are obtained and with the concurrence of funding partners; and

Further be it resolved that the City communicate to the Province of Ontario and the Federal Government that these projects are City Council’s priority projects for transit funding under the National priorities section of the Building Canada Plan; and

Further be it resolved that the approved priorities be communicated to all Federal and Provincial Representatives and the appropriate Federal and Provincial Staff.

3. Direct staff to enter into discussions with the Federal and Provincial agencies on funding for these priority transit projects;

4. Direct staff to report back on the status of these negotiations, funding availability and financial implications.

Recommandations modifiÉes dES ComitÉS conjoints

Que le Conseil :

1. Prenne connaissance du présent rapport sur l’examen de la proposition de TLR d’Urbandale;

2. Approuve ce qui suit :

Attendu que le rapport d’Urbandale, le rapport du groupe de travail du maire sur les transports, le Plan directeur actuel des transports (PDT) et l’examen actuel du PDT donnent l’assise d’une stratégie de suivi des transports en commun.

Attendu que la stratégie de suivi exigera, pour certains éléments, une planification ultérieure et d’autres évaluations environnementales, que les approbations de planification et d’évaluation environnementale nécessaires sont déjà achevées pour d’autres éléments de la stratégie et prêts à mettre en œuvre si le financement est disponible.

Attendu que, afin de financer les principales améliorations du transport en commun, notamment, l’achèvement du Transitway selon l’orientation stratégique approuvée au Conseil, l’aménagement du tunnel du transport en commun au centre-ville, la mise en œuvre du transport en commun rapide à l’aide du tracé du Transitway de Cumberland et la mise en œuvre du TLR vers les secteurs sud-est en expansion de la Ville, il faudra de toute évidence un autre investissement de la part des gouvernements provincial et fédéral.

Attendu que le gouvernement fédéral a annoncé le « Plan d’infrastructure Chantiers Canada », une nouvelle source de financement des principales priorités nationales de l’énergie verte, de l’eau, des égouts, des autoroutes nationales et du transport en commun essentiels.

Attendu qu’une somme estimée à 1,876 milliard de dollars sera disponible pour financier les principales priorités nationales en Ontario.

Il est donc résolu que le financement attribué auparavant au projet du tronçon nord-sud du TLR (200-Fed/200-Prov/200-Mun) et tout nouveau financement du transport en commun du Plan d’infrastructure Chantiers Canada récemment annoncé soient affectés aux projets suivants :

a. achèvement du transport en commun selon l’orientation stratégique approuvée au Conseil,

b. aménagement du tunnel du transport en commun au centre-ville,

c. mise en œuvre du transport en commun rapide à l’aide du tracé du Transitway de Cumberland,

d. mise en œuvre du TLR vers le secteur sud-est en expansion de la ville.

Il est en outre résolu que les projets de ce plan stratégique soient mis en œuvre à mesure que l’on obtient les approbations (évaluations environnementales et autres) et l’assentiment des partenaires du financement.

Il est en outre résolu que la Ville informe la province de l’Ontario et le gouvernement fédéral que ces projets sont des priorités du Conseil municipal pour le financement du transport en commun selon la section des priorités nationales du Plan d’infrastructure Chantiers Canada.

Il est en outre résolu de communiquer les priorités approuvées à tous les représentants fédéraux et provinciaux et au personnel provincial et fédéral approprié.

3. Enjoigne le personnel d’amorcer des négociations avec les organismes provinciaux et fédéraux compétents aux fins du financement de ces projets de transport en commun prioritaires;

4. Charge le personnel de présenter un rapport sur l’état des négociations, les fonds disponibles et les répercussions financières.

Documentation

1. Deputy City Manager, Planning, Transit and the Environment report dated 6 November 2007 (ACS2007-PTE-POL-0063).

2. Extract of the Draft Joint Minutes 4, Transportation Committee and Transit Committee, 21 November 2007 (To be distributed separately prior to Council).

Report to/Rapport au :

Joint Meeting - Transportation Committee/Transit Committee

Réunion conjointe du Comité des transports et du Comité du transport en commun

and Council / et au Conseil

06 November 2007 / le 06 novembre 2007

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

Planning, Transit and the Environment/Service de l'urbanisme, du transport en commun et de l'environnement

Contact Person/Personne-ressource : Vivi Chi, Manager/Gestionnaire, Transportation and Infrastructure Planning/Planification, Transport et infrastructure

Planning Branch/Direction de l’urbanisme

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

City Wide

Ref N°: ACS2007-PTE-POL-0063

SUBJECT:	REVIEW OF URBANDALE CORPORATION’S LRT NETWORK PROPOSAL AND NEAR-TERM TRANSIT INVESTMENT OPTIONS

OBJET :	EXAMEN DE LA PROPOSITION DE TLR D’URBANDALE CORPORATION ET OPTIONS D’INVESTISSEMENT À COURT TERME DANS LES TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That the Joint Transportation and Transit Committee recommend Council:

1. Receive this report on the review of the Urbandale LRT Network proposal;

2. 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 on funding for these priority transit projects;

4. Direct staff to report back on the status of these negotiations, funding availability and financial implications.

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité conjoint des transports et des services de transport en commun recommande au Conseil :

1. de prendre connaissance du présent rapport sur l’examen de la proposition de TLR d’Urbandale;

2. d’approuver la liste de projets de transport en commun (tableau 1) à titre de priorités à mettre en œuvre prochainement;

3. d’enjoindre le personnel d’amorcer des négociations avec les organismes provinciaux et fédéraux compétents aux fins du financement de ces projets de transport en commun prioritaires;

4. de charger le personnel de présenter un rapport sur l’état des négociations, les fonds disponibles et les répercussions financières.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Assumptions and Analysis:

This report documents the technical and planning review of the Urbandale LRT Network Proposal as directed by the Joint Transportation and Transit Committee at its meeting of 15 August 2007. The report also re-introduces and updates the near-term transportation investment options that were being considered at the 15 August 2007 meeting when Urbandale presented its proposal.

The Urbandale proposal seeks to reduce the scope of the original North-South LRT project so that savings (through cost-deferrals) can be used to partially offset the cost of constructing other sections of the LRT network – notably a tunnel through the downtown and an extension to the VIA Station. The concept of a transit tunnel through the downtown is consistent with Council’s recent decision to get underway with the environmental assessment study. The downtown transit tunnel will become the foundation for the entire network and the technology operating in the tunnel must integrate within the broader network. Detailed evaluation of other corridors will be completed as part of the work on the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) update.

Urbandale’s cost saving estimates were difficult to confirm because there was little detail provided as to how the numbers were derived. Furthermore, additional detailed analysis is required to justify the viability of the Phases 1A and 1B projects proposed. These analyses include: a revised ridership study (since the project scope has changed, especially for the scaled-down Phase 1A), run-time simulations (since a single-track tunnel under Dows Lake is proposed, and to confirm service operations and vehicle requirements), more in-depth costing (particularly for the downtown tunnel in Phase 1B), a business case, etc. The Federal and Provincial agencies will not agree to fund this newly-scoped project until due diligence takes place through the completion of the detailed analyses and in particular the business case assessment.

Urbandale’s reduced scope proposal for the North-South corridor has the LRT project starting at Bayview Station and terminating at River Road. Starting the project at Bayview has merit in that it would not interfere with any associated work on the transit tunnel through the downtown. If the intent is to defer as much costs as possible so that other links in the system can be implemented, then a potential alternative for the southern ending point of the project could be at Bowesville Station where a Park-and-Ride will be located. Extensions of the LRT line to Riverside South (River Road) and to Barrhaven Town Centre could be carried out at a later date as appropriate.

The Urbandale proposal suggests other extensions of the LRT line such as the corridor to Cumberland and the extension through to Bayshore. These extensions are significantly different from those of the approved rapid transit network in the 2003 TMP. While this report comments on those proposed corridors, a proper analysis of a city-wide rapid transit network (both BRT and LRT) is currently being undertaken as part of the TMP update with public engagement in the development of transportation planning principles and vision as a first step.

In preparation for this report, preliminary rapid transit network concepts were quickly developed in order to have a better understanding of what priority project options are available to the City at this time. Candidate projects should not preclude the development of the downtown tunnel nor prematurely eliminate potential technologies within the tunnel and by extension the remaining rapid transit network. Committee was presented with a list of candidate projects at its 15 August 2007 meeting. A revised list of projects (Table 1) is included in this report.

Financial Implications:

The near-term transit investment projects shown in Table 1 are included in the draft budget submission. This list will be adjusted, as required, to reflect Council’s decision on the recommendations of this report as well as decisions pertaining to the 2008 Capital Budget.

It is assumed that the Federal and Provincial governments will contribute 2/3 of the total funding required. Currently, the $400M for the original North-South LRT Project has been set aside by these agencies for transit projects in Ottawa. It is reasonably assumed that with the necessary justification, this funding envelope could be re-directed to the transit projects listed in Table 1. It is expected that new funding programs will be created in the future to continue to help municipalities with infrastructure needs.

Following negotiations with the Federal and Provincial agencies, staff will report back to Committee on the availability of funding mechanisms and the full financial implications of these projects with respect to development charges and tax supported reserves.

Public Consultation/Input:

No public or agency consultation took place during the review of the Urbandale LRT Network proposal. As the TMP and other supporting planning studies progress, there will be opportunities for public engagement on the development/refinement of the City’s rapid transit network and identification of future project priorities.

Hypothèses et analyse

Le rapport documente l’examen des aspects techniques et liés à l’aménagement de la proposition de TLR d’Urbandale, conformément aux directives formulées à la réunion du 15 août 2007 du Comité conjoint des transports et des services de transport en commun. En outre, il présente à nouveau et met à jour les possibilités d’investissement à court terme envisagées pendant cette même réunion, au cours de laquelle les représentants d’Urbandale ont soumis leur projet.

La proposition d’Urbandale vise à réduire l’envergure du projet initial de couloir nord‑sud du TLR afin de réaffecter les sommes économisées grâce au report des charges à la compensation partielle des coûts de construction d’autres tronçons du réseau, notamment un tunnel au centre‑ville et un prolongement jusqu’à la gare de VIA. Ce tunnel est conforme à la décision récente du Conseil municipal de lancer une étude d’évaluation environnementale. Comme le tunnel deviendrait la pierre angulaire du réseau de TLR, la technologie employée doit être compatible avec l’ensemble de ce dernier. Une évaluation détaillée des autres tronçons sera réalisée dans le cadre des travaux de mise à jour du Plan directeur des transports (PDT).

Les économies pressenties par l’équipe d’Urbandale sont difficiles à confirmer, car peu de précisions ont été fournies sur les calculs effectués. Il faut également procéder à des analyses approfondies afin de justifier la viabilité des projets proposés pour les étapes 1A et 1B, en prenant soin d’y inclure une révision de l’étude sur l’achalandage (puisque l’envergure du projet a changé, surtout l’étape 1A, qui a été réduite), des simulations de durée des trajets (pour tenir compte du tunnel à voie unique proposé sous le lac Dow et confirmer le fonctionnement du service et les besoins des véhicules), une méthode plus détaillée de calcul des coûts de revient (surtout pour le tunnel du centre‑ville, à l’étape 1B), une analyse de rentabilisation, etc. Aucun ministère fédéral ou provincial n’acceptera de subventionner le projet révisé tant que la Ville ne fera pas preuve de diligence raisonnable dans la réalisation des analyses détaillées, en particulier l’analyse de rentabilisation.

La proposition révisée d’Urbandale prévoit un corridor nord‑sud allant de la station Bayview jusqu’au chemin River. Il s’agit d’une idée intéressante, car un terminus à Bayview ne nuirait pas aux travaux connexes pour le tunnel du centre‑ville. Si l’objectif visé consiste à reporter autant de frais que possible de façon à étendre le réseau, le terminus sud pourrait plutôt être la station Bowesville, où un parc‑o‑bus sera aménagé; il serait possible de prolonger ultérieurement le TLR jusqu’à Riverside‑Sud (chemin River) et au Barrhaven Town Centre.

La proposition suggère d’autres ramifications pour le réseau de TLR, notamment un tronçon allant jusqu’à Cumberland et un prolongement jusqu’à Bayshore, et le résultat différerait manifestement du réseau de transport en commun rapide approuvé dans le PDT de 2003. Il est question de ces projets dans le présent rapport, mais une analyse formelle est déjà en cours à l’égard d’un réseau de transport en commun rapide (TRA et RTL) dans le cadre de la mise à jour du Plan directeur des transports; un engagement public à élaborer des principes et une vision de planification des transports en a été la première étape.

En prévision du rapport, des concepts préliminaires de réseau de transport en commun rapide ont été préparés sans tarder afin de mieux comprendre les projets prioritaires déjà envisageables par la Ville. Les projets admissibles, dont les membres du Comité ont reçu la liste à la réunion du 15 août, ne devraient pas exclure l’aménagement d’un tunnel au centre‑ville ni écarter hâtivement les technologies applicables à celui‑ci et, par extension, au reste du réseau. Une liste révisée des projets (tableau 1) figure dans le présent rapport.

Répercussions financières

Les projets d’investissement à court terme dans le transport en commun présenté au tableau 1 sont inclus dans les prévisions budgétaires soumises. La liste sera corrigée au besoin en fonction des décisions du Conseil à l’égard des recommandations du présent rapport ainsi que du budget des immobilisations de 2008.

Selon les prévisions actuelles, les gouvernements fédéral et provincial subventionneraient deux tiers des travaux. Actuellement, les 400 millions de dollars destinés au projet initial de couloir nord-sud du TLR ont été réservés par les bailleurs de fonds au transport en commun à Ottawa, et nous pouvons présumer qu’en soumettant les justificatifs appropriés, cette enveloppe pourrait être réaffectée aux projets du tableau 1. Il est aussi possible que des programmes de subvention soient mis sur pied sous peu afin d’aider les administration municipales à combler leurs besoins en matière d’infrastructure.

Après avoir négocié avec les organismes fédéraux et provinciaux compétents, le personnel rendra compte au Comité des mécanismes de financement disponibles ainsi que de toutes les répercussions économiques des projets à l’égard des redevances d’aménagement et des services financés par les taxes.

Consultation publique/commentaires

Ni la population, ni les organismes n’ont été consultés pendant l’examen de la proposition de TLR d’Urbandale. Au fur et à mesure que l’élaboration du PDT et d’autres études d’aménagement connexes progresseront, il sera possible de tenir des séances publiques sur la conception et la mise au point du réseau de transport en commun rapide municipal et sur la détermination des projets prioritaires futurs.

INTRODUCTION

At the Joint Transportation and Transit Committee meeting of 15 August 2007, as a report on short-term investment opportunities was being considered, Mr. Lyon Sachs of the Urbandale Corporation presented a light rail network proposal for Committee’s consideration. Urbandale’s proposal is captured in a report titled An Affordable Solution for Rapid Transit in Ottawa (August 2007), prepared by Mr. R. Morrison Renfrew (Engineering Management Consultant).

The Joint Committee approved the following motion:

“ 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.”

The content of this report pertains to staff’s review of the Urbandale LRT Network proposal from a technical and planning perspective. This report also re-introduces and updates the near-term transit investment options that were presented at the 15 August 2007 meeting.

BACKGROUND

Urbandale Corporation is the principal landowner and developer of the Riverside South community. The Community Design Plan (CDP) for this area was approved by City Council on 22 June 2005 following a lengthy planning process with extensive consultation. One of the major transportation features of the CDP is the North-South LRT, which was developed to be highly integrated with the land use plan for this transit-oriented community. The Ministry of the Environment approved the environmental assessment for the North-South LRT project in May 2006, and Federal EA approval was received in July 2006.

The North-South LRT project that was to receive funding from the Province of Ontario and the Government of Canada extended from the University of Ottawa through to Riverside South, crossing the Rideau River on the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge to connect to the Barrhaven Town Centre. Through the downtown area, the LRT was to operate in a shared transit lane with buses on Albert and Slater Streets.

Due to the non-fulfillment of certain conditions, the Project Agreement for the LRT project was terminated in accordance with its terms in December 2006. On 12 September 2007, Council directed staff to initiate a study of a transit tunnel through the downtown. Meanwhile the review and update of the City-wide Official Plan (OP) and the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) are getting underway, with anticipated completion by early 2009.

Funding from the Province and Federal governments ($200M each) would have been available for the North-South LRT project and is still reserved for the City for use on transit projects, but with the Federal condition that the funds must be expended by 2013. A new business case analysis would have to be submitted for the review of these funding agencies if the City proposes new transit projects for consideration. The business case would have to be approved prior to the execution of any contribution agreement.

On 15 August 2007, staff presented to the Joint Transportation and Transit Committee a list of candidate transit projects (Table 1) that could be implemented in the near-term to address existing and future demand of the quickly developing communities across the city. The list respects Council’s previous directions to staff (e.g. Cumberland Transitway; West Transitway extensions etc.) and addresses several of the City’s 2007-2010 Strategic Directions (to complete the Transitway by 2015, to attain 30% transit modal split by 2021, and to require transit-oriented communities to achieve a sustainable, healthy, and active City).

At the moment, there are no new transit funding programs being offered by the upper-tier governments. Potentially, funds that had been set aside for the North-South LRT project could be redirected to the priority projects that Council endorses – however, this would have to be confirmed through further detailed discussions with the Federal and Provincial governments with the requisite detailed business case analysis to demonstrate value for the funding agencies.

On 12 September 2007, Council deferred the approval of the list of candidate projects pending the review of the Urbandale LRT proposal, which included an LRT project in the North-South LRT corridor, an LRT tunnel through the downtown and other LRT extensions easterly and westerly.

Furthermore, on 3 October 2007, the Transportation Committee approved a motion for staff to formally submit to the Federal and Provincial governments for cost sharing of the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge as well as Terry Fox Drive (Kanata Avenue to Flamborough Drive). This subsequently was approved by Council on 24 October 2007. Consequently, Table 1 was revised because the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge, along with its approaches (i.e. the widening of Strandherd (Woodroffe to Prince of Wales), and Earl Armstrong (River Road to Limebank)) will be part of a separate funding request process.

DISCUSSION

Approach

This report has three main sections:

A. City-wide Rapid Transit Network Planning (to provide context for the review)

B. Review of the Urbandale LRT Network Proposal;

C. Near-Term Transit Investment Opportunities (to present “action plan” choices)

A. City-wide Rapid Transit Network Planning

Urbandale’s LRT proposal, with its downtown tunnel and its priority and longer-term phasing plan, was submitted to the Joint Committee for consideration. To properly assess the proposal and determine priorities for the City, one needs to look at the plan in the context of an overall rapid transit network, including a transit tunnel within the core.

While a tunnel concept had been thought about since the 1970s, the 2003 TMP does not include a transit tunnel through the downtown within the planning period. It was deemed that transit could continue to operate (albeit at capacity) on the surface to year 2021 and that the significant cost of the tunnel could be deferred to another time. The current TMP update and Council’s direction to get underway with an EA Study for the transit tunnel has in effect changed the 2003 rapid transit network. The transit tunnel will be the most fundamental component of the network, serving as a focal point for an integrated downtown solution for the majority of transit users in the core, including STO. The findings of the transit tunnel EA study, along with the rapid transit corridors already in operation, will directly affect the rapid transit network and future transit corridor development and choice of technology for each.

Without the benefit of a thorough analysis of an updated and approved TMP (transportation planning principles and vision will be presented in late Fall 2007 to the public for consultation through the TMP update process), several preliminary rapid transit network concepts were quickly developed in order to have a better understanding of what project priority options are indeed available to the City at this time.

The network concepts included a downtown tunnel for buses (BRT) only, LRT only, and for both BRT and LRT. The options build on the excellent system from which the City currently benefits. These preliminary network concepts are shown in Document 1 and are intended to be illustrative only. As the TMP update proceeds, and with the engagement of the public, there may be other options developed and/or modifications to the ones presented here. The choice of which transit technology (bus, light rail, or both) to include in the tunnel must work effectively within the overall rapid transit network and therefore will impact the selection of technologies for other links of the network, and thus on cost. Components of the Urbandale plan are reflected in these network concepts.

B. Review of the Urbandale LRT Network Proposal

General

A meeting (with follow-up phone conversations and e-mails) was held on 22 August 2007 with Mr. Morrison Renfrew (Urbandale’s consultant) to provide further clarification on the proposal, including assumptions that were made. The consulting firms of Marshall Macklin Monaghan (MMM) and McCormick Rankin Corporation (MRC) assisted with staff’s review. The detailed notes of the technical and planning review are included with this report as Documents 2 and 3.

Cost Deferrals

Overall, the Urbandale proposal seeks to reduce the scope of the North-South LRT project so that savings (through cost-deferrals) can be used to partially offset the cost of constructing other sections of the LRT network – notably a tunnel through the downtown and an extension to the VIA Station.

Urbandale’s cost saving estimates were difficult to confirm because there was little detail provided as to how the numbers were derived. Thus, a direct analysis of the proposed cost savings was not possible. However, by performing a high level review based on the concepts of the Urbandale proposal, and the already reported upon Contract cost information for the North-South LRT project, it appears that:

· The proposal is missing some cost elements such as cost escalation and twinning the track from the maintenance facility to River Road;

· The bottom line cost projections are on the low end of an expected range of costs;

· Other project costs besides the Contract cost were not considered (property, utilities, City project management, etc.).

The Urbandale proposal assumes that there will be no major utility relocation costs if a downtown transit tunnel were to be built. It is premature to assume this as there is likely to be utility costs for the following areas: downtown portal tunnel accesses, downtown station accesses, changes in LeBreton Flats. There are also utility costs elsewhere in the corridor from Bayview to Bowesville, at the maintenance facility, and other utility crossings beyond Bowesville Station.

Ridership

While the Urbandale proposal describes a priority Phase 1A project (Bayview to River Road), it does not elaborate on the effects on ridership due to this reduced project scope. Ridership is one of the critical factors in justifying the merits of a project for funding consideration. The existing ridership study for the North-South LRT project would have to be re-evaluated for any project of a different scope.

O-Train Shut Down

The Urbandale proposal states that the O-Train shutdown period would be considerably reduced due to the elimination of a second tunnel under Dow’s Lake. The proposal also relies on the fact that the existing tunnel can be waterproofed quickly using injection-grouting techniques. There are however, other factors that affect the continued operation of the O-Train:

- Rideau River Bridge at Carleton University requires a replacement of the deck to accommodate twin tracks;

- Access to the maintenance yard at Walkley is not possible while the Rideau River Bridge is under construction

- The rock cut immediately north of the Dow’s Lake Tunnel needs to be widened to accommodate twinning of the track;

- Construction of two new grade-separations where the O-Train corridor crosses active rail lines;

- Testing and commissioning of the new operating system prevents O-Train service in the same corridor - to ensure safety and to avoid liability issues

Therefore, the shutdown period for the O-Train would be approximately the same as described for the North-South LRT project (from start of construction through to start of revenue service of the new LRT line) – regardless of whether one tunnel or two is constructed.

Timelines for Implementation

The Urbandale proposal does not elaborate on timelines (particularly for the priority Phase 1A project from Bayview to River Road) other than to provide a general idea of how long construction could take place once a Notice to Proceed is given. There are very specific tasks that need to be completed before any priority project, however it is defined, can get underway with construction, for example: run time simulations to confirm service operations and vehicle requirements, detailed costing, ridership analysis, development of a business case, discussions with funding partners, property negotiations, development partnership discussions, follow-up with EA addendum approvals, resolution of regulatory and operating authority, procurement negotiations, and obtaining construction and access permits.

In examining the physical elements of the proposed network, it became evident through discussions with the Urbandale consultant that some sections had comparatively more detailed analysis (North-South corridor from Bayview to Barrhaven Town Centre) than others (extensions emanating from the North-South corridor). For this reason, the technical review was divided into 2 sections so that comparisons can be made to the North-South LRT Project and the longer-term transit corridors shown in the TMP:

1. Bayview to Barrhaven Town Centre;

a. Bayview to River Road (Urbandale’s Phase 1A)

b. River Road to Barrhaven Town Centre (Urbandale’s Phase 2); and

2. Other easterly and westerly links/extensions beyond Bayview (Urbandale’s Phases 1B and 2).

A summary of the key issues comparing the Urbandale proposal and the City’s North-South LRT project and rapid transit network is described below. This summary also includes a description of modifications to the Urbandale proposal as per the Joint Committee directions of 15 August 2007. The modifications/alternatives specifically relate to Urbandale’s Phase 1A project.

1 (a). Bayview to River Road

Bayview Station

Urbandale’s proposal shows Bayview Station as an interim terminus for the North-South LRT line. This is a very appropriate approach because it would allow the Downtown Transit Tunnel Environmental Assessment to proceed without constraints on the alignment through LeBreton and the western tunnel portal. However, Urbandale’s proposal indicated that once the transit tunnel is constructed, Bayview Station would become a major transfer hub is not something that can be assumed at this stage. Although a cost of $20M has been identified to modify the existing Bayview Station, the Urbandale consultant acknowledges that this concept requires further detailed analysis. Given the unknown requirements of the downtown transit tunnel and the potential link to Gatineau, spending significant funds on Bayview Station would not be appropriate at this time. Consideration should also be given to what is the best land use for the Bayview site (being so close to downtown, LeBreton, and adjacent to the Ottawa River) besides a major transportation hub.

Dow’s Lake Tunnel (Single-track)

The Urbandale report suggests that twinning of the Dow’s Lake Tunnel is not required for two reasons: (1) the introduction of a downtown transit tunnel would reduce the variability in the service schedule (no longer having to operate in mixed traffic in downtown); (2) service frequency need not be more frequent than 5 minutes because additional capacity could be achieved through longer train sets instead. Indeed, a tunnel through the downtown would alleviate many of the operating concerns and City Council has already directed the start of the transit tunnel study.

Not twinning the Dow’s Lake tunnel, however, does introduce a constraint in the system operation ultimately limiting the headways between trains, which would have an adverse impact on future ridership. The single-track Dow’s Lake Tunnel could become a bottleneck in a network of twin tracks everywhere else. A single tunnel could also have negative impacts in the case of maintenance requirements (longer term) and possible emergency conditions. A simulation model run is required to verify whether or not a single-track tunnel could be operated successfully and when double tracking would be necessary. If the tunnel is twinned at some future date, and the second structure is located immediately adjacent to the existing tunnel, a temporary closure of the existing operation will be necessary in order to install bracing to support the existing tunnel when the earth adjacent to it is removed for the construction of the second tunnel. The future social costs associated with introducing a second temporary closure of the line will need to be balanced against the savings in deferred capital costs until that second tunnel is needed for capacity.

Maintenance Facility

At the time of the termination of the Project Agreement for the LRT project, the City had completed a value-engineering exercise and was negotiating with OLC to reduce the capacity of the maintenance facility. The Urbandale plan proposes reducing the size of the facility based on an assumption that light maintenance facilities would be constructed in the East and in the West when those corridor extensions are constructed. This concept of a smaller initial maintenance facility (and the deferral of costs to a future date) is reasonable however details were not provided and therefore the cost savings that were proposed by Urbandale cannot be verified.

Earl Armstrong Alignment

Urbandale’s submitted proposal did not accurately depict the alignment that they had intended. Clarification from Urbandale’s consultant indicates that the intent is to carry the LRT easterly from River Road along Earl Armstrong Road to pass over Mosquito Creek then turn north to continue along the approved North-South LRT alignment

The proposal moves the LRT alignment away from the centre of the community (where densities are highest and land uses are most transit-supportive) and locates it in the median of an arterial road (Earl Armstrong Road) with low-density development along the north side. The Council-approved Community Design Plan (CDP) for Riverside South examined several different corridors and concluded that the Earl Armstrong alignment did not meet the objectives of the plan (which includes land use planning that is supportive of transit usage in order to achieve the City’s transit modal split target). Furthermore, locating the LRT on Earl Armstrong Road introduces operational / manoeuvrability conflicts for emergency vehicles at the newly built fire station, which would need to be managed.

The Urbandale plan focuses on speed of the LRT, which is affected by the length and geometry of the rail alignment, and by the number of stations. Urbandale’s alignment would shorten the route by about 0.6 kilometres and it proposes three stations in this area, with no provision for the addition of future stations. Urbandale’s consultant commented that the North-South LRT project had too many stations in Riverside South, which would slow down the train’s speed. The North-South LRT project would initially construct two stations (with a provision for nine stations total in the ultimate configuration as need/demand dictates).

To the transit user, it is the total travel time and convenience of service that are more important than the operating speed of the train. Though the time spent on the train may be shorter, the actual total travel time for the transit user may be longer if the commute to a station along Earl Armstrong (rather than to a nearby station in the centre of the community) is taken into consideration (walking and waiting times, time spent on a connecting feeder service line). In order to maintain a high operating speed, the Urbandale plan does not allow for additional stations – consequently, this requires more transit users to take bus feeder services (or to walk longer distances) to get to the stations.

Technical issues are introduced in terms of LRT transition at each end of Earl Armstrong from median-running to LRT corridor-running. The station configuration at River Road would require review, as would the connection to the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge. The arterial right-of-way may be insufficient at station locations and for support facilities. The Earl Armstrong Road LRT alignment, however, has the benefit of requiring only one structure (combined LRT and road) over Mosquito Creek rather than two – resulting in capital and lifecycle cost savings.

The CDP was a collaborative community building process with extensive consultation over two years. Council approved the centrally located alignment without objections from any person or group. Council’s recently adopted 2007-2010 City Strategic Directions (F.1) directs that Ottawa become a leading edge in community and urban design. Locating transit corridors based primarily on the most direct route rather than that which embodies optimum transit-oriented design principles would be contrary to that direction.

Trains, Frequency

The Urbandale proposal calls for five-minute headways (on double tracks except under Dow’s Lake) with single-car trains at opening day. The proposal suggests that train lengths could be increased to provide added capacity as passenger demand warrants rather than increasing train frequencies. Other than operating through the downtown tunnel, block lengths and driveway accesses elsewhere in the network may limit the train length – especially through town centres and on main street type settings. Without consideration of the network as a whole, flexibility for future service planning, and convenience for transit users, it may be premature at this time to assume that train lengths can be increased and that frequencies are limited to no less than five minutes. In addition, service frequency has an impact on passenger waiting time, and therefore overall journey time. Waiting time is particularly important for transit systems such as LRT with high transfer rates. Restricting the system to five-minute headways, rather than providing for future improvement to three-minutes or better, would have an adverse impact on ridership.

The Urbandale proposal would require fewer train cars than the North-South LRT project which needed more vehicles in service due to the variability of operating on streets through the downtown. However, the Urbandale proposal also only accounted for one spare train (maintenance) whereas the North-South LRT project had four spare trains (to allow for maintenance, hot stand by and crash spares). As one vehicle will likely be in maintenance at any given time, having no hot standby or crash spares gives no flexibility to respond to unscheduled events. The occurrence of any such event would immediately result in trips being cancelled. In addition, should there be a collision or other incident taking a vehicle out of service for a prolonged period, the service would need to be reduced on every day until repairs are completed.

1 (b). River Road to Barrhaven Town Centre

Despite what is shown in the proposal, the Urbandale consultant confirmed that the alignment west of the Rideau River is intended to follow the alignment as depicted in the North-South LRT EA. As a means of reducing the initial investment costs, Urbandale does not include this extension as part of the priority Phase 1A project and suggests that it be built when passenger demand develops. It is proposed that passengers from Barrhaven access the LRT through shuttle bus service or park-and-ride linkages. Some of the main differences between the Urbandale proposal and the North-South LRT project include headway (5 minutes versus 10 minutes initially), and the timing of implementation.

In addition, the Urbandale plan proposes to eliminate a future grade separation at River Road but does not identify what those cost savings are – nor does the report elaborate on why the protection for a grade separation should be dismissed. Analyses to date indicate that a second bridge will be needed some time in the future when high traffic volumes cause operational problems at the approach intersections of the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge (thus severely affecting transit services). The separation of the transit/LRT line from the cross street traffic and intersections at each end of the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge would ensure smooth transit operation along this link of the rapid transit network. This second river crossing would be for transit use only.

The 1993 EA for the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge, as well as its 1997 EA Addendum concluded that for transit to operate efficiently and effectively between the two south urban communities, a second bridge (for transit) would be required. The 2005 EA study for the North-South LRT Project also reconfirmed this need. Due to the topography, there are limited options for transit other than its own crossing when traffic volumes at the approach intersections reach a point where transit operation will be severely compromised. Therefore, it is prudent for the City to continue to protect for this future grade separation.

2. Other Links/Extensions Beyond Bayview-Barrhaven Town Centre

Typically, the TMP update would examine corridor options and assess the applicability of those options to be part of the overall rapid transit network, and the type of technology that would operate in those corridors. Given Council’s direction to proceed with an environmental assessment of the transit tunnel, this downtown facility will be a fundamental component of the rapid transit network as it will be the focal point for an integrated downtown transit solution. The downtown transit corridor will serve as an anchor to the system to which other transit corridors would connect, which is consistent with previous network planning exercises.

Bayview to VIA Rail Train Station (Including Downtown Tunnel)

There are a number of issues that would be best addressed through the detailed transit tunnel EA study – in particular portal locations, tunnel alignment, station locations etc. However, there are some major observations that can be commented upon now such as Urbandale’s proposal to delete the LeBreton Station. This is a significant transit station and is fundamental to the future viability of the new LeBreton Flats community. The design elements of the station (including the local transit station above) have gone through a rigorous review process including public consultation. It is highly unlikely that this important transit station will be removed from the LeBreton Flats redevelopment plans.

The Urbandale alignment east of Booth Street appears to be in conflict with existing facilities at the Fleet Street Pumping Station and adjacent tailrace (used for sporting events). The alignment, as proposed, does not take into consideration many of the urban design plans that have been completed by the City and the National Capital Commission for the area around Portage/Wellington, and the escarpment district. The tight radius curves that have been introduced on the approach to the escarpment in order to have the alignment of the tunnel in downtown core below Sparks Street would introduce speed limitations. The Urbandale plan also proposes a 4.7-metre diameter tunnel and presumably costs were developed with that parameter. However, additional space may be required for overhead catenary systems and/or other future capabilities.

The proposal suggests an alignment under Sparks Street to take advantage of the potential station near the Congress Centre and Federal Government Conference Centre (old train station). There are a number of factors that influence the tunnel alignment such as geotechnical conditions, utility conflicts, development integration opportunities, the availability of a site for the surface interface (stairs, elevators), transit catchment area, etc. Alignment options for the tunnel (including station locations and access points) will be assessed and validated through the environmental assessment study.

Urbandale also proposed that once out of the tunnel at the east portal, the LRT would co-exist with the Transitway through to Hurdman and then on to the VIA Rail train station where it would connect with the commuter services. The transit tunnel study will need to examine this possibility. LRT connections to the VIA station will need to be further analyzed as there will be major issues with access to platforms and the need for the LRT to cross over both the VIA tracks and Vanier Parkway/Riverside Drive (Urbandale’s proposal is for the LRT station to be south of the VIA rail terminal, adjacent to Terminal Avenue – the existing transitway is north of the VIA rail terminal). This work will have to be developed further through the TMP update.

VIA Station to Trim Road

The TMP update would need to look at the suitability of all rapid transit corridors once the downtown transit network is confirmed. A major issue with the Urbandale proposal for this section is whether or not it is appropriate for the LRT to share tracks with VIA Rail’s operation. Another consideration is whether or not there is sufficient space to add tracks for the exclusive use of the LRT service within the VIA right-of-way. Structures at Belfast Road, St. Laurent Blvd, Michael Street, Innes Road, and Highway 417 need to be investigated to confirm that they can accommodate additional tracks for the LRT and VIA future requirements.

East of Blair, the Urbandale consultant clarified that the alignment is not as shown in the report, but rather it is intended to follow the corridor that has been established through the Cumberland Transitway EA. The corridor is already protected and the TMP update will determine the longer-term transit technology preference for this corridor as part of its network development exercise. Similar to the entire Transitway network, the Cumberland Transitway will be designed to protect for the future option of converting to LRT technology.

Bayview to Bayshore

The Urbandale proposal identifies a shared-use BRT and LRT facility that follows the West Transitway corridor and part of the Carling Avenue LRT corridor identified in the TMP, and connects to a new park-and-ride facility at the 416/417 interchange. The issue is whether or not there is sufficient right-of-way for both technologies and if there is a requirement for both. Further analysis will need to be carried out to assess the appropriateness of the park-and-ride lot at the highway interchange. It is proposed that these issues be examined in more detail through the TMP update to ensure that corridors and other transit components are part of an affordable and effective network that supports the transit goals of the City.

Alternative to Urbandale’s Phase 1A Project:

If Council wishes to consider an LRT project in the North-South corridor while awaiting the completion of the transit tunnel through the downtown, there are alternatives to the Urbandale Phase 1A project (Bayview to River Road) with its single track under Dow’s Lake, five-minute headways, and 18 trains (no spares).

One such alternative would be for the LRT to begin at Bayview Station and continue with double tracks through to Bowesville Station, including a twin tunnel under Dow’s Lake. This would take the LRT line to the maintenance facility (reduced size) and also terminate at a transit terminal and park-and-ride lot at Bowesville Station, where buses can connect with nearby Riverside South and cross the future Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge to serve Barrhaven. The number of stations (10) remains the same as for the North-South LRT project for this entire section. Five-minute headway is planned. Approximately 16 trains are required, including three spares. While the cost for this project would be less than the original North-South LRT project (due to the reduced project scope), it would not be in the best interest of the City to release a budget number at this time in case Council wishes to negotiate a contract price with a Contractor.

No EA Addendum would be necessary for this alternative project (Bayview to Bowesville); however, follow-up is required with the Ministry of the Environment regarding the submitted EA Addendum for the maintenance facility. Simulation studies would need to be undertaken to confirm planned service operations, number of vehicles required, etc. A revised ridership analysis and business case would have to be prepared for the review and approval of the Federal and Provincial funding agencies. Upon confirmation of funding and authority to proceed, property negotiations with landowners along the corridor and development partnership discussions at Carleton University, Gladstone, and Walkley would have to be restarted. Other tasks include the resolution of regulatory and operating authority, the re-mobilization of a City LRT project management team, contract negotiations, and Contractor mobilization.

Assuming that no new procurement process is required, this project could be completed by year 2013.

It had been suggested that the diesel O-Train should be extended to Bowesville rather than convert the corridor to electric LRT. While this alternative would defer a fair amount of the capital costs, one needs to consider the longer-term planning issues including urban design.

It would be possible to extend the O-Train to Leitrim, operating at its existing 15-minute headway with the addition of one train as a short-term measure. This would provide capacity to accommodate the ridership generated by a park-and-ride lot at Leitrim. The capital costs for this are estimated to be approximately $45M. However, to add significant capacity to the O-Train service and to make it attractive for transferring passengers would require improving the headway to 10 or 7.5 minutes. This would require significant investment to purchase additional diesel trains, expand the existing maintenance facility, add to and upgrade the signalling system, and to add passing tracks. Investment on this scale should only be made as part of a long-term plan. The O-Train, with its large vehicles, requirements for grade separation and its high platforms would be unsuitable technology to operate eventually through the town centre in Riverside South and Barrhaven, and would also restrict options in the LeBreton development.

C. Near-Term Transit Investment Opportunities

Due to the 2013 sunset clause of the Federal contribution of $200M, projects selected must be relatively ready for immediate implementation, in other words the planning studies and environmental assessments have to be completed. In addition, selected projects should not preclude the development of the downtown tunnel nor remove options for the development of future rapid transit corridors elsewhere in the network (which are being examined as part of the current TMP update). Although transit service is approaching capacity in the downtown, surface operation could suffice in the near-term until such time that a permanent solution (such as a tunnel) is implemented.

The list of candidate projects that were presented to the Joint Transportation and Transit Committee on 15 August 2007 has been revised. The changes to the list include the removal of projects that are already fully funded and underway (i.e. already identified as priorities for the City): Smart Card, New Bus Garage, and the Park & Ride Lots at River Road and Leitrim. The item for Transit Fleet Acquisition (2009) was also removed from Table 1 because vehicle purchases to service growth are a normal part of the City’s annual operation. Furthermore, the previously proposed extension of the O-Train to Leitrim was removed from the list as it may limit the choices for technology and network development that are being examined as part of the TMP updated.

In addition, at the 15 August 2007 Joint Committee meeting, there was direction to staff to add the West Transitway Extension (Woodroffe to Bayshore) to Table 1. This project is made up of two sections: Woodroffe to Pinecrest and Pinecrest to Bayshore. The latter (Pinecrest to Bayshore) is already under construction and, consistent with other funded projects, it does not need to be added to Table 1. The Woodroffe to Pinecrest section, however, is captured in the Table and its project scope is to undergo a value engineering exercise as per the direction of Committee.

On 24 October 2007, Council directed staff to formally submit to the Federal and Provincial governments for cost sharing of the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge as well as Terry Fox Drive (from Kanata Avenue to Flam borough Drive). This motion further affects the original Table 1 in that the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge ($48M) and its approaches (Strandherd Drive Widening (Woodroffe to Prince of Wales) $35M, and Earl Armstrong Widening (River Road to Limebank) $22M) had to be removed, as they will now be part of a separate funding request process.

The projects listed below were previously described in the 15 August 2007 report to Committee. The majority of these projects have a long history of need and are identified in the current Official Plan, the Transportation Master Plan, and other past planning documents. For these reasons, the proposed transit projects stand the best chance of getting funding from the higher levels of government. In addition, their state of readiness for implementation (planning and environmental assessment studies are complete) and the quick benefits that they would bring to the City make them ideal candidates for near-term investments.

Table 1 (Revised): Near-Term Transit Investment Options

Preliminary Estimate ($M)*	Project Description	Transit $	Existing City Authority ($M)
	South Urban Community
10	Woodroffe Station (near Strandherd) and Park-and-Ride,	10	0
85	Southwest Transitway Ext. (Fallowfield-Barrhaven)	85	6
30	Southwest Transitway Ext. (Baseline Station-Norice)	30	0

	West Urban Community
112	West Transitway Ext. (Woodroffe-Pinecrest)	112	0

42	West Transitway Ext. (Bayshore-Moodie)	42	8
64	West Transitway Ext. (Eagleson-Terry Fox)	64	2

	East Urban Community
70	Cumberland Transitway (Navan Road-Trim)	70	10
10	Two Park & Ride Lots (Chapel Hill South, Millennium Park)	10	10

	Central Area/Inside the Greenbelt
5	Central Area Station Improvements	5	0.5
5	Rideau Street Transit Improvements (Sussex-King Edward)	5	0
8	Baseline-Heron Transit Priority	8	1.5

	Enhancing Accessibility
5	Baseline Station-Algonquin College Pedestrian Bridge	5	0
2	General Transit Stop Improvements	2	0

2	Transit-oriented Rural Pathway Linkages	2	0

$450	Total	$450	$38

* Capital cost estimates only, based on 2007 dollars. Projects will be escalated in accordance with construction price index for purposes of future Capital Budget submissions.

Longer-Term Investment Approach

The TMP Update will result in a recommended rapid transit network (as well as walking, cycling, and road requirements) to serve the City of Ottawa to year 2031. As with the 2003 TMP, the updated TMP will include a project implementation-phasing plan for Council’s consideration. Decisions on an investment approach would need to also take into consideration the City’s Strategic Directions, the availability of funding programs from the upper-tier governments, and the City’s Long Range Financial Plan.