REVIEW OF URBANDALE CORPORATION’S LRT NETWORK PROPOSAL AND
NEAR-TERM TRANSIT INVESTMENT OPTIONS
EXAMEN DE LA
PROPOSITION DE TLR D’URBANDALE CORPORATION ET OPTIONS D’INVESTISSEMENT À COURT
TERME DANS LES TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN
ACS2007-PTE-POL-0063 CITY-WIDE/A L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
Appearing
before Committee to give a PowerPoint Presentation and to answer questions on
the aforementioned item were the following:
·
Nancy
Schepers, Deputy City Manager, Planning, Transit and the Environment (PTE)
·
Vivi Chi,
Manager, Transportation & Infrastructure Planning, PTE
·
Alain
Mercier, Director, Transit Services
·
Helen
Gault, Manager, Transit Service Planning & Development, PTE
·
Consultants:
Rob Wanless and Marcus Boyle - Marshall Macklin Monaghan
Following
an introduction by Chair McRae and Deputy City Manager Schepers, the Committee
received a PowerPoint Presentation given by Ms. Chi, a copy of which is on file
with the City Clerk.
The Committee then heard from the following
delegations:
Cam Robertson, Chair, The City Centre Coalition
(CCC), a
grouping of the following ten community organizations:
Action Sandy Hill; Centretown
Citizens’ Community Association; Dalhousie Community Association; Hintonburg
Community Association; Ottawa East Community Association; Glebe Community
Association; Dow’s Lake Residents’ Association; Old Ottawa South Community
Association; Carleton University Students’ Association; and Citizens for Safe
Cycling - spoke in support of the development of light rail rapid transit to
serve people movement needs within Ottawa and across the Ottawa River.
Specifically the CCC urged Committee and other
members of Council to:
·
develop
LRT through the downtown as far as the Ottawa Via Station;
·
develop
LRT across the Ottawa River;
·
develop
LRT to serve the new communities south of the airport;
·
conduct
the Environmental Assessment for a tunnel under the downtown immediately;
·
activate
the Interprovincial Transit Study immediately;
·
work
with the Federal Government and officials in Quebec to ensure that the tracks
to the Casino and Terrasses de la Chaudière remain in place; and
·
build
light rail rapid transit now.
Mr. Robertson suggested the City to move towards a hub & spoke
system to provide efficient service through the downtown and efficient
connections to the service moving through the downtown. With respect to the staff recommendations,
the CCC agrees with many of those recommendations but would like to mention
three major concerns. First, the CCC is
aware that Committee recently received a presentation by a promoter of bus
ways. He noted that after the
transitway was implemented for a decade each year, ridership went down. He reiterated that rapid transit is needed
and should become the mode of choice for people who would have a choice. He believes compared to buses, light rail is
more comfortable, it leaves the air cleaner, it moves more people for a given
amount of energy, it has lower operating cost with one driver carrying an
enormous number of people and trains last much longer than buses. He also believes that light rail has more
capacity to expand ridership and is the way to go. Their second concern is with the many delays over several years
in starting the Interprovincial Transit Study.
He urged Committee to really get that study started, bring it to a
successful conclusion and get light rail across the Ottawa River as soon as
possible. Their third concern is that
this whole process seems to take forever.
They feel that existing O-Train Service must be about the longest pilot
project in the history of humanity. He
urged Committee to do the Environmental Assessment, and send staff a signal
that LRT is needed as soon as possible.
He also urged Committee to provide staff with the resources necessary to
do the job. In conclusion, he further
urged Committee to seize the opportunity to create an LRT network that would
service current and future generations efficiently and effectively; a network
that will make public transit the mode of choice for travel in Ottawa.
Councillor Doucet expressed interested in the
delegation’s observation that ridership collapsed between the period with which
when the streetcars were abandoned and the introduction of the bus ways. At the request of Chair McRae, Dr. Gault
advised that the truth of the matter is that ridership actually increased to
1987 at which stage OC Transpo won the best transit property in the North
America prize. After that there was a
decline for many reasons. One of them
was a very strong demographic trend when many people who had been at school age
moved into the next cohort and certainly ridership is much higher among people
who are at school and in university.
There was also an economical downturn and the same experience was shared
with transit systems across the country.
David L. Jeanes, P.Eng., President, Transport 20000
Canada made the
following presentation, copy of which is on file with the City Clerk:
We have gone from a plan where
everything was focussed on the southeast sector, to a plan today where the
southeast sector gets nothing. There has
been virtually no transit investment, increase in park and ride, or increased
express bus service since before the O-Train opened.
The proposed plans will impact
downtown street capacity, which is already at capacity and will impact the
situation regarding the future transit tunnel.
Most of the 8 basic ideas brought
forward for the Urbandale proposal were already proposed by Transport 2000, the
downtown business group, the Friends of the O-Train.
These ideas all have merit but
were rejected before.
We are still concerned at the
reasons given today by staff for rejecting many of these proposals.
Insisting on more frequent
service has a higher labour cost. It
may preclude other direct services into downtown later. Wait times up to 15 minutes on the O-Train
have not prevented ridership growth faster than forecast and faster than the
bus system. The O-Train is reducing
congestion on Bronson, Bank, Riverside, the Airport Parkway and the downtown
transitway and permitting thousands of additional bus trips daily from the
east.
Taking a bus to rapid transit is
a NOT a deterrent, (at least not for 74% of O-Train Riders). Our calculation and surveys show that only
about 8% of O-Train ridership is coming from Park and Ride. Kiss and Ride, cycle,
and walk in is less than 20%.
The existing Transportation
Master Plan (TMP) calls for expanding service on routes with growing
ridership. The City is not doing this
for the O-Train. It also calls for minimizing
disruption to the O-Train during conversion. It also makes it clear that the
O-Train is NOT a pilot project. It has not been one since RTES was approved in
2003. On OC Transpo’s website and in
the TMP it is an integral part of the rapid transit network.
The TMP also calls for avoiding
bus-to-bus transfers but towards feeder bus to LRT transfers as the rail rapid
transit system expands.
Extending the existing O-Train to
Leitrim with an additional diesel train in the immediate term was approved by
Council in January 2004, (NS LRT SOW).
European Diesel LRT is now becoming popular in the United States with
very successful service in New Jersey and trains under test in San Diego and
Austin TX.
This would use the City-owned 5.5
km of track and the existing spare train.
It could provide 10 morning trips and 10 afternoon trips, replacing the
existing #45 express bus (2 trips) north of Leitrim. Off-peak and weekend service would still be by bus.
A matter of months would be
enough to refurbish the track, drainage and roadbed to the same standard as the
existing O-Train, upgrade road crossings, and add a platform at Leitrim. This should not cost more than the $1.5
million per km for O-Train infrastructure, including stations, signals, passing
track, and maintenance facility upgrade.
The existing train could be running
as a Leitrim-Greenboro shuttle next summer.
It would take slightly longer to add the South Keys station, passing
track, and signals, based on the Carleton station design, (but probably with a
cheaper Island platform).
This would allow through service
to Bayview.
This project does not preclude
later electrification, with at most summer shutdowns. It does not impose any constraints on the design of the downtown
tunnel.
Spare Train reliability and
maintenance issues may be raised. We
can service one train during the day, (9 am to 3 pm), and on weekends, (since
there need be no weekend service to Leitrim Park and Ride, like Trim).
If we lose one train out of three
for a shift there is less impact on capacity and frequency than there is today
on the rare occasions that an O-Train fails. We would still have 2/3 of the
total capacity (instead of ½) and only one 15-minute schedule missed per hour,
rather than one per half-hour.
We should extend the O-Train to
Leitrim as our most urgent priority.
Harry Gow explained that he was not appearing in his capacity
as a member of the Mayor’s Task Force because he stands behind that report and
did not desire to comment specifically on the Urbandale report. Rather he was speaking as the President
of Le Conseil régional de l’environnement et du
développement durable de l’Outaouais (CREDDO). He affirmed that the group stands behind the recommendations made by Mr.
Robertson and Mr. Jeanes with respect to extending the O-Train to
Gatineau. On a personal note, Mr. Gow
stated that he has difficulty understanding how a $45 Million project, which
strikes him as excessive for an extension to Leitrim seeing as how the track is
already there, an extension of the O-Train to Leitrim determines the fate of
downtown with respect to the choices about mode and tunnel size. He felt that a small-bore tunnel would be a
mistake. He also did not understand how
a $450 Million expenditure on Transitways and related matters does not
condition the future. He suggested that
Committee should be consistent in their decision-making, and if they reject an
extension to the south end, he felt they should also reject the $450 Million
expenditure proposed.
Responding to questions from Councillor Harder,
staff provided the following comments:
·
The
O-Train was initially a pilot project for a minimum of two and a maximum of
four years. It celebrated its sixth
birthday on the 15th of October.
·
An
EA addendum is all that would be required to extend tracks out to Leitrim in
order to extend the existing O-Train, and the City already has the right of way
on that corridor.
·
If
Council approved the proposal and the money was available to build a downtown
tunnel, the EA for the tunnel would take approximately two years to complete
and conventional construction would not start until then. However, staff had previously recommended
extension of the O-Train to Leitrim as a short-term solution, and once some of
the interim decisions are made about the downtown network (which is expected to
happen in the spring of 2008), the City will be in a better position to make
decisions, short-term and long-term, for the north-south corridor that will fit
into the final system.
In response to questions from Councillor Legendre,
Mr. Gow reiterated that $45 Million seems quite expensive for extension of the
O-Train to Leitrim. Ms. Schepers
clarified that the figure in question appears in the report to Committee on
August 15, 2007. Ms. Chi explained that
the $45 Million for an extension of the O-Train from Greenboro to Leitrim (a 5
km stretch) includes two new stations, South Keys and Leitrim, at-grade
crossings of Leitrim Road, signalization and communication hardware, road
works, one additional train, modifications to the existing maintenance
facility, and a pedestrian connection near Cahill Drive to South Keys Station.
When asked by Councillor Bloess about projected
ridership increases associated with an extension of the O-Train, Mr. Gow
responded that the Transitway Park and Ride at Greenboro is at or near capacity
every day, except for the Gold Pass spots which are usually not filled. If another Park and Ride were made
accessible to the O-Train, the numbers would go up, probably in the single
digit thousands. Right now the O-Train
is carrying 9-10,000 passengers per day and the southern extension would not be
expected to carry that number, but it would be a reasonable expectation, he
felt, that it would carry at least 3-4,000 people per day.
Councillor Bloess asked staff about their
projections on ridership increases associated with an O-Train extension. Ms. Gault responded that staff have looked
at it and estimated that they could accommodate demand from a Park and Ride lot
of the size that was being contemplated.
Klaus Beltzner, B.Sc., M.Math., M.B.A. provided the following
presentation, copy of which is on file with the City Clerk:
Staff are proposing another ½
billion dollars on transitways and new buses in the 2008 capital budget and
they are advising that more yet should be spent in this area to get the $400
million in funds set aside by the upper levels of government. And the only
expenditure staff is proposing in the area of LRT is 1.5 million on various
small maintenance projects over the next three years to remain in compliance
with Transport Canada regulations.
And with these incredible
imbalances of expenditures in favour of bus and transitways, staff and the
Councillor Cullen tell me that they do not want to spend less than $40 million
to extend the O-Train to Leitrim Road in order to address the immediate and
desperate needs of Riverside South and Findlay Creek and Osgood Ward, as well
as provide an alternative to the traffic on Albion Road going through Blossom
Park. This project I understand would also have included a pedestrian overpass
across the Airport Parkway to the transitway and O-Train to avoid another
tragic pedestrian death.
If Committee recalls, it was in
August of this year that Ms. Schepers herself proposed to extend the O-Train
because it would help with the balancing of the east-west bus traffic through
downtown. By extending the O-Train to Leitrim she advised you, it will take
some of the pressure off the (south) eastern transitway route into town and
thereby help avoid worse transit congestion downtown.
And, and the reason I am told by
staff and Mr. Cullen, the reason for now not wanting to make this expenditure
is that it may prejudice the outcome of the tunnel EA!
What about the billions already
invested in the transitway and buses, and what about the ½ billion in proposed
capital expenditures for 2008 that is going into bus technology. Am I being
told that approval of these extremely large capital expenditures in advance of
the tunnel EA will do nothing to influence what will go into that downtown
tunnel? Another ½ billion dollars for bus, but not even $40 million to extend
the O-Train as an immediate solution to help the folks in the southeast and
help the city in balancing its east-west traffic congestion problem in the
downtown.
Councillors, I implore this joint
committee to defer all but the most crucial transitway projects that provide a
significant benefit in the short term. You need to keep the capital funds for
when we have the results of the tunnel EA.
Be assured, if you go ahead and spend it now, there will be nothing left
to pay for any tunnel or anything to put into it. There will certainly not be
any money left to even dream about an LRT.
Is this really what you want to happen?
In response to questions from Councillor Legendre,
staff provided the following comments:
·
Staff
show all the future extensions in the Long Range Financial Plan but there is an
expectation that the City would get two thirds funding from the federal and
provincial governments, and the $400 Million that was set aside for transit for
this first project is still being set aside for transit. Staff views these as being the first payment
and that there are going to be other funding programs available to fund the
network expansions.
·
The
City does not have 100 per cent funding from the tax base to carry the kind of
transit program that has been envisioned in the TMP, but the expectation is
there for funding from the other levels of government.
·
The
federal money that is currently on the table (the $200 Million) has terms and
conditions from the federal government and has a sunset clause, which is
2012-2013.
David Gladstone, Founder of
Friends of the O-Train provided the following presentation:
I will try to be brief in my
comments, although the subject is a large and complicated one. My concerns are in the following areas: the
Urbandale 'proposal', the need for the O-Train, the staff recommendations for
short-term investments in transit, and the proposed Terms of Reference for a
downtown transit tunnel.
With respect to the Urbandale
'proposal', I encourage you to thank Urbandale for their interest in light rail
transit, followed by respectfully setting aside a proposal which isn't based on
the successful O-Train service and which only addresses a part of Ottawa's
rapid-transit needs. Staff should be
directed to closely examine both the Friends of the O-Train's Practical Plan
(www.friendsoftheotrain.org) and the report of the Mayor's Task Force on
Transportation with a view to using them as the basis for future investment in
our city's transit system.
With respect to the O-Train, it
would very helpful and appropriate for City Council to clearly state that the
O-Train service started in October 2001 is a core element of Ottawa's transit
service. 9,000 riders are carried on
most weekdays on a transit service with no level road crossings, allowing staff
and students of Carleton University direct transit access to the campus without
needing to use buses on streets such as Bronson and Bank Street, which are at
capacity during the peak travel periods. Equally important, the O-Train allows
for travel between the South and West legs of the Transitway without having to
use the at-capacity downtown portion of the Transitway. And for those concerned about transfers, 75%
of O-Train riders transfer to and/or from buses. The O-Train is a success
story; there's still time for you to celebrate its sixth birthday!
Given the success of the O-Train,
the presence of un- and underused railway lines in Ottawa, including the Prince
of Wales railway bridge across the Ottawa River, the FOTO Plan, and the Mayor's
Task Force report and recommendations, it is unacceptable that staff have not
included extensions of O-Train service in the list of short-term transit
improvements. These extensions are described
in both the FOTO Plan and the Mayor's Task Force report and include:
·
service
to Gatineau across the Prince of Wales railway bridge;
·
service
south of Greenboro station to stations near Lester and Leitrim Roads;
·
service
between the Fallowfield and Ottawa train stations.
Please direct staff to include
the above in their list of short-term transit improvements. All can be implemented in 2008 with full
support by the federal and Ontario governments.
Mr. Gladstone inquired as to when a letter would be
sent to Via Rail requesting that they sell tickets to go from Fallowfield to
the Ottawa Train station because that is doable at zero cost to the City. He was of the understanding that Via Rail
would be happy to sell such tickets.
Transit Committee Chair Cullen responded to Mr.
Gladstone that the letter he referenced would be sent.
Pierre Quesnel advanced his concern that there appears to be a
very front-loaded priority towards bus-oriented solutions rather than light
rail / long-term rail solutions. He
said the previous speakers’ examples of Bronson and Bank Street are very
indicative, especially considering the growth in the south end of the
city. He commented that it would be
easy just to complain but he acknowledged the fact that light rail does not presently
exist. He suggested there is an interim
measure using the existing bus technology, which would require no additional
costs, but which would perhaps orient the City towards thinking in a light rail
capability. He pointed out that the
downtown core is extremely congested and he suggested that express buses be
removed from the area. He proposed to
use the existing rapid transit routes that currently exist with some slight
modifications. In particular, he suggested
maintaining the O-Train. He felt it
should be extended to both ends to create a link between strictly Hurdman and
Bayview/Lebreton, which would shuttle back and forth and service the downtown
core. Further, he recommended that this
particular link be made free so that people in the downtown core can travel in
the area without the use of personal vehicles.
To solve the express problem, he proposed the following modifications to
the current routes:
·
route
94: no change;
·
route
95: split it so that one starts at Bayview and goes out to Trim, and another
starts at Hurdman and goes to Strandherd ; and
·
routes
96 and 97: do the same towards Kanata and the 97 towards the airport.
He suggested that the number of buses on these
routes were drastically increased, it would be possible to get people out of
the core much faster because they would take these buses, which would be
running more frequently than the current express buses. At the hubs, the express buses and local
feeders could be sent out, and because local and express routes could be further
harmonized and because the expresses are travelling shorter distances, there
would be savings in the amount of transit movement from these points.
He also suggested this could all be done without
changing the number of buses on the routes but the downtown traffic could
decrease by as much as 25 per cent.
Mr. Quesnel submitted additional comments in
writing, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk.
Stephen Fanjoy, Ward 2, Friends of the O-Train,
National Capital Transit Coalition made the following presentation, copy of which is
on file with the City Clerk:
§
Recommendation #1: Instruct staff to enter into
negotiations with federal and provincial authorities for:
o A
prescribed budget envelope over and above the current $400 million package so
that the city can properly scope transit plan options and priorities that the
city can afford.
o An
option to extend the sunset date on the current federal contribution beyond
2013 if necessary.
o There
is NO need, excuse or legitimate rationale for delaying a decision for or
against a tunnel any later than spring of 2008. Any further delays in this
regard suggest a deliberate agenda against any timely progress to address
Ottawa’s urgent transit needs.
o The
request is an undocumented, financially reckless, bait-and-switch attempt to
corner Council into massive bus investments that have not been justified,
either on their own, or more importantly, in contrast to much better transit
use of these available funds. Staff’s proposals are a blatant expropriation of
funds explicitly intended for building a modern and efficient LRT
infrastructure in order to fritter away $450 million on a hodgepodge of bus
projects with no supporting business case, no due diligence and no public
process.
o These
projects have not been subject to any form of cost-benefit analysis or
value-for-money analysis.
§
What exactly are the direct benefits of these
projects? How much do they increase ridership? How do they reduce operating
costs? Most importantly, how are these projects the most effective use of scare
city dollars and valuable federal provincial assistance?
o This
request for approval to commit the city to $150 million in net capital projects
is being presented without any supporting capital reserve analysis. In transit,
transportation, infrastructure and a whole host of areas, the city claims to be
desperately cash strapped, yet today staff wants your approval for a net
contribution of $150 million with absolutely no justification.
o Committing
to these projects would effectively handicap and preclude the ability of the
city to financially participate in any future solution that addresses the key
transit and transportation priorities: 1) solving the downtown core, 2) build
city-wide capacity to entice and support a 30% modal split, and 3) eliminating
the toxic public health consequences of highly concentrated bus emissions
downtown and at transitway stations.
o Finally, it is a gross dereliction of responsibility that staff should propose such a huge laundry list of bus projects and not even include the retrofitting of the fleet with modern emissions equipment, including most urgently diesel particulate filters, which are mandatory in other jurisdictions.
Councillor Doucet asked for staff comments on the
delegation’s comments on retrofitting of fleet with modern emissions
equipment. Mr. Mercier advised that the
current plan put in place is to finance the move to bio-diesel and hybrid
fleet. Particulate traps were installed
on a portion of the existing fleet as prototype and development. The capital at this time within the project
is not included for 2008 expansion on the existing fleet but to concentrate on
the capital cost to acquire more fuel-efficient fleet. At the request of the Councillor, Mr.
Mercier agreed to bring forward to Committee a report on pollution reduction
issues and the choices involved. He
talked about the lively discussion on this issue held at a recent Canadian
Urban Transit Association (CUTA) Conference and noted that the choice for
bio-diesel and hybrid-electric was equally divided.
In response to Councillor Leadman’s question on
staff’s proposal to include existing gaps in the transitway, the delegation
clarified his suggestion for the need of an analysis for any decision of this
magnitude. He expressed concern that
analysis is not being conducted, presented or made publicly available. He believes that there may well be some
projects within the laundry list that can survive that scrutiny. He feels staff in reviewing the Urbandale
Project as instructed by Committee and Council used that opportunity to seek
approval for half a billion dollar worth of bus transitway improvements.
In response to the Councillor’s request for
staff comments on the above, Ms. Chi advised that all transitway projects being
presented have had environmental assessments (EAs) completed, so the needs and
justifications were part of that exercise.
She did not feel it was appropriate to repeat them because those
decisions were already made when those EAs were approved, and sections of them have
already been constructed. She noted
that these are just the remaining sections that had been put aside waiting for
funding to be implemented. She
reassured the Councillor of their benefits in enhancing the transit service,
particularly on the west transitway.
Further in response to Councillor Leadman's
question on resolving the downtown core issue, Mr. Mercier advised the focus
over the next few years would be on increasing efficiency and correcting the
critical boarding issue.
Lyon Sachs, Urbandale Corporation, accompanied by Morrison Renfrew and Mary Jarvis, declared that the staff report makes many statements that he does not agree with, however he believes that is not the important thing. The important thing is for us to finally sit down and say what information do we need in order to make the basic decisions. He started at the very first disagreement that he has with the staff report and that is that we cannot talk about the North-South route until we make all of the decisions about the downtown tunnel. He stated that when his company decides to do a new project, the first thing they would do is to study every existing project that has any relevance whatsoever before making any decision. He was told the study of LRT tunnels literally throughout the world does not have a single example of a combination of buses using an LRT tunnel. His suggestion is to get off of that tack; it is going to be an LRT tunnel, let it be an LRT tunnel. As far as the diameter of the tunnel, Mr. Renfrew will be happy to give examples around the world of the diameter being discussed. Within his five-minute allocation, he advised that he would not have the time to tell Committee how Urbandale reached its estimate but he would be happy to if the time is extended at all. However, he concentrated on addressing the route, he believes, is important to start absolutely immediately. He noted that it is not a new route in any way shape or form, but it is the Siemens’ contract. What they have done is eliminated a few portions of it and made some suggestions for other portions but it is the Siemens’ contract that has gone through all the stages of approval, through the EAs, through the land acquisition and it can start right away. He advised that Mr. Renfrew is in a better position to speak on the question of whether there should be a twin or a single tunnel. However, he noted that certainly nobody in any way could question the five-minute headway with the single tunnel; possibly could be improved but the five-minute headway with a single tunnel is available and it is some $20M cheaper than adding another tunnel. He did not understand staff questioning about what happens through the Carleton University Campus. He reiterated that whatever was approved previously for the Siemens LRT still stands. He noted, if there is a desire to improve it aesthetically or functionally or any other way, nothing precludes that but it is the Siemens contract that was already approved. The reduction of the size of the maintenance yard, again he believe is not rocket science, that is the size of the yard of similar facilities in other parts of the world. He thinks there is only very few major metropolitan areas in the world today that are not either involved with LRT or studying LRT, and the City would probably not be the last one. He also thinks the next part of difference is the route through Riverside South. He pointed out that this is the route that was approved and has all of the EAs. He believes if the project is re-started immediately, that route is available. He noted Urbandale always had problems with that selection, and wrote a letter to the Minister complaining about it at the time. Urbandale was advised that the time constraints being what they were, they either take that route or request an EA bump up and get no LRT. His statement to Committee right now is if it were a choice of that route and an LRT or trying for a different route with no LRT, certainly he would take that route. He then addressed some of the problems with that route. He noted showing on a map that if you start right at the intersection of Armstrong Road and Limebank Road, there is a crossing of Limebank Road, the future main north-south artery, 300 metres south of the main intersection with Armstrong Road, the potential for gridlock there to him is immense. He also noted that certainly could affect the efficiency of the LRT system. Running southerly through the community looking at the north-south limits of the plan, it is by no stretch of the imagination in the middle of the community; it is about as far south as you could go. He believes going through the community would obviously be disruptive and would divide it by the LRT and by sound walls. He suggested to possibly modifying the EA within the timeframe of keeping this contract active. He believes it is well worth doing and it would be a major advantage to the whole community.
In response to questions from Councillors Deans, Mr. Sachs provided
the following comments:
· If the decision were made to fast track the alignment change, his Company certainly would be prepared to provide the material. They actually have the plan drawn for the new location. The City’s planners in conjunction with a planning company, who did this Community Development Plan (CDP) drew this plan. Peter Smith, the managing partner of the planning company wrote a letter, which actually states that his preferred option right from the beginning is in the middle of Armstrong Road. His statement in the letter is that the slight modification of the land uses will assure at least as much density at the stations, if not more. It is a much better facility for the whole community.
· His Company would be willing to work with Mr. Smith and at their expense to finish that study and show exactly the land uses. That particular study does not accurately locate the stations but they would work with him for that.
· His Company would also be prepared to provide with their own consultants any changes that would happen or would likely be involved as far as the servicing is concerned.
· The City, not in the habit of doing EAs with its own staff, would have to retain the services of an EA firm and he encouraged an independent consulting firm be considered, not either of the two firms that were involved in any of this presentation.
· He believes that with encouragement, this whole process need not take more than six months. It is strictly an addendum to the existing EA – it is not a new EA.
· There is a major concern about cost. His company contacted all the major soil test companies in Ottawa, who are their friends and worked with them. His Company asked them if they would be good enough to send them all of their soil test that they took in the downtown area with the clients name scratched out, which they did. This included a major study that actually was done for the City for a 1970 suggested or proposed tunnel through the downtown and there was an absolute myriad of basic information that told them everything that you need to know about the downtown soils.
· His Company also went to the City’s archives and got the complete plans, elevations, cross-sections of all of the services in the downtown area - the sewer, the water, the utilities, everything in the downtown area. Having studied that, Mr. Morrison concluded that the proposed Sparks Street route, (there was a pumping station that was mentioned in the report), was not probably the most appropriate route. The more appropriate routes were Albert and Slater Streets. Mr. Morrison then detailed both of those routes on a drawing and then they asked who in the world is the biggest tunnel contractor. They identified a company in Vienna, Austria, currently doing a tunnel in the Niagara Area.
· His Company sent the proposed tunnel location, the geological information, and the infrastructure information to that company in Austria. The company sent Urbandale back their numbers and basically confirmed that the numbers used in their proposal were good conservative numbers. Therefore, there is no fear about those numbers, and as far as the diameter being proposed, all you have to do is to ask the question - what is the diameter of LRT tunnels around the world – it is not different and they did not invent the wheel.
· Mr. Sachs then turned over to Mr. Renfrew to comment about buses and LRT in the same tunnel.
· Mr. Morrison Renfrew stated that when you include buses or vehicles of any sort that carry a combustible fuel, you enter into a new safety regime in a tunnel. The Mont Blanc incident is probably very severely the worse that ever happened but we do not want to incinerate people in tunnels. He went on to say that when you run fuel carrying vehicles, whether or not they are running on that fuel but they are carrying that fuel, you are subjected to a new regime of safety regulations about the spacing of the vehicles, which impacts in a transit situation the number of passengers that you can put through the tunnel in any given period of time. Secondly, he noted that for any vehicle not guided by rails, you need a bigger tunnel because they are not as easily controllable or guaranteed to operate within a given width. You probably end up with something like a 7-metre diameter tunnel for a single bus lane and if you consider that by a rough rule of thumb, half of the cost of a tunnel is the removal of their spoil, or the rock or whatever it may be. If you go from five metres to the square of that, 49, you have roughly increased the cost of a tunnel by 25% on the basic cost of removal of the material. There are other costs associated to that, for example getting rid of the stuff and getting it out of the tunnel would add costs. Therefore, he said it is not a simple matter to just increase the diameter of the tunnel by some modest amount. They can definitely go with a LRT at 4.7 metres, this is what is used in the LR in Britain and because we have a low-floor car, which means we are not bound by where the platform or the escape platform runs alongside of the tunnel, we actually have more scope for a smaller diameter tunnel. As far as the electrification goes, he advised that they are only talking about 1,500 volts, they are not talking about railway type electrification, and so the impact of the damage of the tunnel is essentially nothing because you got the arc of the tunnel, which is empty space at the top of the tunnel. That is how tunnel diameters and types of vehicles relate to the type of tunnel. He reminded Committee that with vehicles which carry combustibles, you have to have ventilation shafts and fire safety precautions in those tunnels, which are quite expensive. He stated that you could not realistically run a vehicle, which is producing toxic effluent in that kind of a tunnel for any distance. He pointed out the maximum tunnels in the world as far as ventilation goes are typically 2 to 3 km. The longest in the world right now is the crossing between Denmark and Sweden, which is 4-km long and which presented significant problems for ventilation, so those are some of the pros and cons of tunnels.
· Mr. Sachs confirmed Councillor Deans’ understanding that the Committee and Council could now make the determination that it is not practical or reasonable to consider putting buses in the tunnel and that we should proceed on the basis of conducting the EA as an LRT tunnel.
At that point, Deputy City Manager Schepers intervened by stating that
comments being raised are not anything that surprise staff in terms of the
issues and the opportunities. She noted
that the next item on the agenda is the EA for the tunnel, for which there is a
process. She suggested that it has to
be considered as a network. She advised
that Committee has to take a broad step back and decide what it would want in
the tunnel, where to have connections and this is all about providing transit
services. She said, at the end of the
day, the technical stuff is always the easy part; the main point is - where
should the stops be and to maximize ridership and provide the best service to
this community. Therefore, she believes
that it is more appropriate to talk about comments staff made in terms of the
analysis, and if those things would be considered when looking at the options
for the tunnel and staff providing Committee with recommendations as to what
should be put in it.
In closing, Councillor Deans wondered if the delegation had any comment in terms of the legal issues, if the City did move ahead. Mr. Sachs responded that he has no doubt that both Siemens and PCL would much rather get back to work instead of fighting. He talked about the Canadian Dollar and American Dollar exchange rates difference and the fact that many of the manufacturing costs were in the United States. With the Canadian Dollar at par, he suggested that we could expect adjustments in costs and he thinks of this as an opportunity not to be wasted.
Chair McRae asked Ernest McArthur, Legal Counsel if he wanted to comment on the delegation’s comments or whether that is something that would be better suited to an in‑camera discussion.
Mr. McArthur stated that it was interesting to hear from Mr. Sachs about
the litigation but there has not been any discussion with the Siemens-PCL group
about the issue-raised litigation.
There has been no discussion and probably would not be until the City
can present something to them, that is there is a plan in place.
Chair McRae stated that she does not believe that we should be building a transit system based on settling a lawsuit but she thinks personally that we need to consider the fact that there are hundreds and millions of dollars hanging over our head right now. She also stated that it is interesting to hear the words of Mr. Sachs today and if we need to deal with this in-camera because we are at litigation, she understood that, and thanked Mr. McArthur for his feedback.
In response to questions from Councillor Legendre, the delegation provided the following comments:
· The estimate for the North-South LRT is based strictly on the unit prices that were in the contract and changes to the unit prices; there was a comment in the staff report that Urbandale left out the doubling of the track from Bayview to River Road, in actual fact, that was studies against what was in the contract. In the contract, it was a single track but several locations of bypasses and signalization to allow for the bypasses, when comparing the additional work on the single track, it turned out that a double track did not cost any more than a single track with all the little bypasses necessary for a single track. Therefore, it is strictly the downtown tunnel that Urbandale got help from the tunnel company but with providing with all of the actual detail information. For south of Bayview, Urbandale did it based on the old Siemens contract with their additions and deletions units.
· The cost for the tunnel from Bayview to west portal of the tunnel, the 3‑kms twin bore tunnel coming out south of Ottawa University, 3 underground stations and the contingency for underground conditions and protection of existing structures, as well as the east portal to VIA station using transitway via Hurdman is estimated at $450 million.
· About 50% of the cost for the tunnel is for material removal and a 50% increase going from 5 to 7 metres.
· There are very strict safety criteria that apply to the tunnel and the separation of the vehicles must be enforced which is difficult to do with stopping buses because you rely on the driver; with railway vehicle they will be automatically stopped by the automatic train protection.
· It is relatively inexpensive to add the guidance system, but that also applies to reducing the cost of transitways. If you had guided buses, you could actually reduce the cost of the civil structures for future surface transitway by reducing the width and the size of the structure.
· Mr. Sachs questioned the logic of the River Road grade separation problem. Following a meeting with staff, certain ways were proposed to minimize the additional costs. It has to do with diverting existing sewers and making them do some sort of roundabout and bringing another storm water pond well in advance of when it would normally be needed. His own personal opinion, he thought it was unnecessary to go through these hoops. However, if that is the price they have to pay in order to make this thing move forward he would bite the bullet.
In response to Councillor Desroches’ question, Mr.
Sachs replied that the reason that growth has slowed down in the last year or
two is strictly Urbandale’s inability to get land approved in all of its stages
(the servicing and etcetera) in a timely manner. He noted that the demand is there but he is very worried because
they are going to run out of usable land very soon and they need all the help
Council can give to get more land ready for market.
In response to questions and comments from
Councillor Doucet, Mr. Renfrew responded that, outside of Seattle, he is not
aware of any other bus tunnels North America, except for a short tunnel run in
Pittsburgh. He noted that short tunnels
are typical because there is no ventilation issue and there is no safety escape
issue. He has not heard of anyone else
building what would be considered a city centre main artery tunnel, and he
would not recommend it.
Transit Committee Chair Cullen then assumed the
position of the Joint Committees Chair so that Transportation Committee Chair
McRae could introduce the following motion, which is meant to replace table 1
of the report, as referred to in report recommendation 2.
Moved by Councillor M. McRae:
Whereas the Urbandale Report, the Report
of the Mayor’s Transportation Task Force, the current Transportation Master
Plan (TMP) and the current review of the TMP provides the basis for a go
forward strategy on public transit; and
Whereas the go forward strategy will
require, for some elements, further planning and Environmental Assessments and
some other elements of the strategy have already completed the required
Environmental Assessments and planning approvals and are ready to be
implemented should funding be in place; and
Whereas it is clear that to fund key
transit improvements such as completing the Transitway as per Council’s
approved strategic direction, the construction of the downtown transit tunnel,
implementation of rapid transit using the Cumberland Transitway alignment and
the implementation of LRT to the City’s south-eastern growth areas will require
a further investment by the Federal and Provincial Governments; and
Whereas the Federal Government has
announced ‘The Building Canada Infrastructure Plan’, a new funding source that
is designed to provide funding for key national priorities of core national
highways, water, wastewater, green energy and public transit; and
Whereas it is estimated that $1.876
Billion will be available to fund key national priorities in Ontario;
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:
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.
Councillor McRae asked Ms. Schepers whether she
supported the motion as a replacement to Table 1 (noted in recommendation 2) of
the staff report.
Ms. Schepers replied it is absolutely her belief
that staff can work with this motion.
In response to questions from Councillor Wilkinson,
staff provided the following responses:
·
In
terms of table 1, there are a few things on there like transit priority, and
the rural pathways which would not be covered by the motion and would have to
be funded elsewhere.
·
The
Cumberland Transitway would have to be connected in some way to any LRT that is
implemented to the southeast, and with the way the motion is worded, the
appropriate studies (EA or otherwise) would have to be completed prior to these
plans going ahead, so if the Cumberland Transitway required a tunnel in order
to work, it couldn’t go until that was in place.
Councillor Wilkinson inquired whether Councillor
McRae would be agreeable to removing the term ‘LRT’ from the third bullet of
her motion. Councillor McRae asked
staff to provide an opinion on that.
Ms. Schepers replied it would allow for better
flexibility.
Chair McRae agreed to replace ‘LRT’ with ‘rapid
transit’ in that bullet.
Responding to further questions from Councillor
Wilkinson, Ms. Schepers provided the following comments:
·
The
motion lays out Committee’s priorities and staff would use that as direction in
subsequent budgets to make sure that on a go-forward basis, they are considered
as soon as they are ready to go and as soon as funding is available from the
other levels of government.
·
All
that could be included in the current budget would be things where there is an
EA and it’s ready to go, which is by in large, Table 1. She said she would go back and review Table
1 and see if the budget needs to be adjusted, but those projects were already
in the budget for this year because they are all ready to go and would respond
to the first priority.
·
Staff
would be going to the federal and provincial government for funding of those
before starting any of those projects.
As soon as the budget is prepared and staff has an approved bunch of
projects, staff would move to finish up the necessary business case to submit
it for funding to the federal and provincial governments as a program. Ms. Chi responded that staff has been
speaking with Transport Canada about the preparation of the business case and
they have offered to help staff get through it as quickly as possible in a
practical way.
Responding to questions from
Councillor Bloess, staff provided the following comments:
·
In
terms of the Cumberland Transitway, Table 1 contemplated bus rapid transit, but
with the way the motion is now worded, staff would complete network level
assessment with the Transportation Master Plan, and confirm the technology for
Cumberland Transitway, and then if there was any EAs or any additional work
needed to be done to implement, staff would move forward with that. There is time involved in this but it has to
go through the process and be confirmed as to technology and any missing links
on alignment because we would need to know where it would go.
·
The
connection for the Cumberland Transitway to Blair road or further into the city
core, that was part of the east-west study, and then staff have been directed
to re-start that (just the eastern section and the western section out in
Kanata), so staff have been speaking to consultants and getting that started
again. Staff will be looking after the
missing EA component and that is underway as part of their work program.
·
The
technology used in the downtown tunnel and in the rest of the network, as well
as the TMP refresh will help to determine the technology for the Cumberland
Transitway.
·
When
asked about the likelihood of obtaining 100 per cent of the Province’s funding
to go ahead with the program as worded in the motion, Ms. Schepers commented
that the City would not get all of the money there but in the past, the lion’s
share has gone to the two big transit properties in Ontario, being Toronto and
Ottawa.
·
As
the EAs are ready, these projects will be put into budgets and debated
then. They will only be implemented as
they are ready and funding is available.
Staff will provide information before the next Council meeting with
respect to how these priorities would kick in subject to available funding.
At that point, Councillor Legendre noted that the
downtown tunnel is a key part of the motion under consideration by Committee,
and that Item 2 of the agenda deals with the tunnel. He felt it would make more sense to consider Item 2 first before
considering further on the Urbandale proposal and the motion at hand.
Acting Chair Cullen advised Councillor Legendre that
the way to move that forward would be to move a motion to that effect.
Moved by Councillor Legendre:
That consideration of the McRae motion be
deferred until Item 2 of the Joint Transportation and Transit Committees Agenda
(21 November 2007), dealing with the Downtown Ottawa Transit Tunnel, has been
considered and voted upon.
CARRIED
Upon resuming
consideration of this item, Acting Chair Cullen called for questions with
respect to the McRae motion.
When asked by Councillor Legendre, Councillor McRae clarified that the bullets within her motion are not listed in any order of priority. She pointed out that the next line of the motion speaks to how they may end up being decided based on the EAs and the funding available from partners.
Councillor Legendre asked for a separate vote on each bullet.
In response to questions from Councillor Bloess, Ms. Schepers provided the following clarifications:
· There will be further discussions with respect to EAs and other studies before the implementation of any LRT to the southeastern growth area.
· The downtown network needs to be figured out first and from there and from the Transportation Master Plan refresh, decisions can be made on the network and the technology throughout. Some of the bullets in the McRae motion are contingent on other decisions and other studies, and will be implemented as the approvals (EAs or otherwise) are obtained and funding. It does not mean doing the LRT as previously approved. There will still be debate by Committee4 and Council about whether to do the whole thing, a part of it, whether to scale it back similar to what Urbandale has suggested, and so on.
Councillor Bloess felt it all needs to be fleshed out a lot more before proceeding and he advised he would vote against the fourth bullet and wait until Council before making a final decision in hopes to have all that information.
The Committee then split the bullets contained within Councillor McRae’s motion for voting purposes, as follows.
Moved by Councillor M. McRae:
CARRIED
YEAS (7): Councillors R.
Bloess, M. Wilkinson, A. Cullen, G. Bédard, C. Doucet, C. Leadman, M. McRae
NAYS (1): Councillor J. Legendre
Moved by Councillor M. McRae:
CARRIED
Moved
by Councillor M. McRae:
CARRIED
Moved by Councillor M. McRae:
CARRIED
YEAS (5): Councillors M.
Wilkinson, A. Cullen, G. Bédard, C. Doucet, M. McRae
NAYS (3): Councillor R. Bloess, J. Legendre, C. Leadman,
The Committee then voted on the balance of the motion.
Moved by Councillor M. McRae:
Whereas the Urbandale Report, the Report
of the Mayor’s Transportation Task Force, the current Transportation Master
Plan (TMP) and the current review of the TMP provides the basis for a go
forward strategy on public transit; and
Whereas the go forward strategy will
require, for some elements, further planning and Environmental Assessments and
some other elements of the strategy have already completed the required
Environmental Assessments and planning approvals and are ready to be
implemented should funding be in place; and
Whereas it is clear that to fund key transit
improvements such as completing the Transitway as per Council’s approved
strategic direction, the construction of the downtown transit tunnel,
implementation of rapid transit using the Cumberland Transitway alignment and
the implementation of LRT to the City’s south-eastern growth areas will require
a further investment by the Federal and Provincial Governments; and
Whereas the Federal Government has
announced ‘The Building Canada Infrastructure Plan’, a new funding source that
is designed to provide funding for key national priorities of core national
highways, water, wastewater, green energy and public transit; and
Whereas it is estimated that $1.876
Billion will be available to fund key national priorities in Ontario;
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.
CARRIED
The Committee then considered the report recommendations as amended by the aforementioned motion:
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 following:
Whereas the
Urbandale Report, the Report of the Mayor’s Transportation Task Force, the
current Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and the current review of the TMP
provides the basis for a go forward strategy on public transit; and
Whereas the go
forward strategy will require, for some elements, further planning and
Environmental Assessments and some other elements of the strategy have already
completed the required Environmental Assessments and planning approvals and are
ready to be implemented should funding be in place; and
Whereas it is
clear that to fund key transit improvements such as completing the Transitway
as per Council’s approved strategic direction, the construction of the downtown
transit tunnel, implementation of rapid transit using the Cumberland Transitway
alignment and the implementation of LRT to the City’s south-eastern growth
areas will require a further investment by the Federal and Provincial
Governments; and
Whereas the
Federal Government has announced ‘The Building Canada Infrastructure Plan’, a
new funding source that is designed to provide funding for key national
priorities of core national highways, water, wastewater, green energy and
public transit; and
Whereas it is
estimated that $1.876 Billion will be available to fund key national priorities
in Ontario;
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.
CARRIED as amended.