1.0 Introduction

This Consultation Summary report was prepared as a supporting document to the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the East -West Corridor LRT Project EA Study. The information presented in this document describes the consultation program for the ToR.

1.1 Overview

There is significant interest in this study from a variety of stakeholders across the City. Input into the ToR was solicited through invited Agency and Public Consultation Groups, Public Open Houses and the City of Ottawa Web Site. This report documents this consultation.

2.0 Consultation Groups

There are two invited Consultation Groups involving community and interest groups, and government agencies. These Groups met in advance of the Public Open Houses. The roles of these groups are to provide input, opinions and interactive dialogue with the Study Team.

2.1 Public Consultation Group (PCG)

The PCG was formed to enable community and special interest groups to provide direct input to the study and comments on local issues and concerns. PCG members include representatives from City wards adjacent to the corridor, Interest Groups and various City of Ottawa advisory committees:

· Ward 19 Cumberland

· Ward 2 Innes

· Ward 11 Beacon Hill-Cyrville

· Ward 10 Gloucester-Southgate

· Ward 18 Alta Vista

· Ward 16 River

· Ward 17 Capital

· Ward 3 Bell-South Nepean

· Ward 9 Knoxdale-Merivale

· Ward 8 Baseline

· Ward 7 Bay

· Ward 4 Kanata

· Environmental Advisory Committee

· Pedestrian and Transit Advisory Committee

· Roads and Cycling Advisory Committee

· Accessibility Advisory Committee

· Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee

· Arts, Heritage and Culture Advisory Committee

· Ottawa Youth Cabinet

· Federation of Citizens' Association

· Transport 2000

· Disabled and Proud

2.2 Agency Consultation Group (ACG)

An ACG was formed to address the full range of technical issues and to comment on special studies as well as applicable procedures, legislation and policies. ACG members include agencies and government department representatives from Municipal, Provincial and Federal levels.

Internal ACG (City of Ottawa)

Planning and Growth Management

· Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy – Community Design and Zoning

· Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy – Transportation -Environmental Assessment

· Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy – Infrastructure Planning

· Planning and Infrastructure Approvals

· Business Development

Public Works and Services

· Transit Services – Planning

· Transit Services – Rail

· Traffic and Parking Operations – Mobility and Area Traffic Management

· Traffic and Parking Operations – Traffic and Safety Services

· Traffic and Parking Operations – Traffic Operations

· Infrastructure Services – Infrastructure Management

· Infrastructure Services – Construction Services

· Fleet Services

· Surface Operations

· Utility Services – Drinking Water Services

· Utility Services – Wastewater and Drainage Services

Corporate Services

· Financial Services

· Real Property Asset Management – Strategic Asset Management

· Real Property Asset Management – Real Estate Services

Community and Protective Services

· Fire Services

Ottawa Police Services

External ACG

Federal

· National Capital Commission

· Transport Canada

· Health Canada

· Indian and Northern Affairs Canada

· Infrastructure Canada

· Parks Canada

· Public Works and Government Services Canada (Investment Management Directorate)

· Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

· Environment Canada

· Fisheries and Oceans

Provincial

· Ministry of Culture

· Ministry of the Environment

· Ministry of Natural Resources

· Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal

· Ministry of Transportation

Regional

· Rideau Valley Conservation Authority

· Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority

· South Nation Conservation Authority

Other

· Greater Ottawa Chamber of Commerce

· Canadian National Railway

· Ottawa Central Railway

· VIA Rail

2.3 Consultation Group Meetings

Consultation Group Meetings were held as follows:

Date: 16 November 2004

Time: 10:00 a.m. Internal ACG

1:30 p.m. External ACG

6:30 p.m. PCG

Place: City Hall

110 Laurier Avenue West

Agenda: Introduction of Study Team, Consultation Group members

Project Overview

Confirm Roles and Responsibilities of the Consultation Group

Study Work Plan and Schedule

Communications Plan

Review of Draft Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference

Information on Upcoming Public Open Houses

The meeting notes for the PCG and ACG meetings are attached as Annex 1.

2.4 Comment Summary

The following summarizes the major comments raised by members of the Consultation Groups:

Existing Conditions

· A validation process should be developed and used to confirm the findings of the existing reporting

· Air quality should be monitored in the study area not just modeled

Alternative Methods of Carrying out the Undertaking

· Re-evaluate the alignment of the east section (Cumberland Transitway)

· Consider a full length multi-use recreation path parallel to the corridor

Assessment and Evaluation

· Need to consider impacts on existing BRT and transit priority networks as well as cycling and pedestrian facilities

· Add human health and quality of life to Social/Cultural Environmental Effects to be assessed

· Include impacts on Rideau Canal and boaters

Public Consultation

· Share comments between the ACG and PCG

· Collect and post input on a dedicated Web site

· Add Transit Priority Network Study and new Cycling Plan to the list of coordinated studies

· Add group presentation and/or facilitated break-out sessions

General comments

· Ridership needs to be considered beyond the illustrated study area

· Consider the implementation of a wildlife corridor along the length of the project

· Create a parallel bicycle path

· EA should emphasize improvement over mitigation

· Is there an opportunity to streamline the process because existing rail lines are being used?

· The opportunity to improve on the 30% modal split is welcomed

· Add Parks Canada as an approval agency

3.0 Public Open Houses

On November 30, and December 1 and 2, 2004, Public Open Houses were held in 3 locations across the City.

Tuesday, November 30, 2004
4:30 - 8 p.m.
Sir Wilfred Laurier
Secondary School - Cafeteria
1515 Tenth Line Road
Orléans

Wednesday, December 1, 2004
4:30 - 8 p.m.
Ellwood Hall
Jim Durrell Centre
1265 Walkley Road
Ottawa

Thursday, December 2, 2004
4:30 - 8 p.m.
John Mlacak Centre
Hall C & D
2500 Campeau Drive
Kanata

3.1 Notification

Notifications of Study Commencement and ToR Open House occurred through advertisements in daily, citywide newspapers with regional coverage on the 19^th and 26^th of November 2004, as well as through the City’s web site. Copies of the advertisements are contained in Annex 2.

Public Service Announcement was issued on 22 November 2004 and distributed to all daily and community newspapers in Ottawa. Copy of the announcement is included in Annex 2.

3.2 Attendance

Attendees were asked to sign in at each meeting. A total of 116 people signed in at the three meetings (41, 35 and 40 people respectively). Based on the addresses provided, the individuals were present from across the City, representing the full length of the corridor (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Open House Attendees

As part of the sign-in registry, attendees were asked to indicate how they had heard about the Open House. This information was gathered to augment the notification method for subsequent open Houses and communications. The large majority of individuals indicated they had found out about the meeting in the Ottawa Citizen.

3.3 Meeting Materials

The Open Houses were organized to allow informal viewing of display panels about the ToR and the examination of resource material including, the Environmental Assessment Act, Official Plans and Master Plans. Members of the Study Team were present to answer questions. Panels were presented in a series of stations. Each station focussed on a particular theme to facilitate understanding of the ToR. Stations included an introduction, the study process, EA Work Plan (existing conditions, alternative solutions, alternative designs) and the next steps in the project. All displays and maps were bilingual. An Information Bulletin and a Comment-Questionnaire were provided. A complete list and copies of the exhibits are provided in Annex 3.

3.4 Completed Comment-Questionnaire

Comment-Questionnaires were completed and returned following the Public Open House. Individuals who attended the Public Open House submitted the majority of the completed Comment-Questionnaires. Other individuals mailed or e-mailed comments to the City of Ottawa.. Thirty-nine comments were received from the public. Responses to the Comment-Questionnaire are summarized below.

About You

1. Where do you live?

The comments sheets corresponded generally to the sign-in sheets with a broad geographic range being represented

2. What specific interest do you have in the study?

Table 1: Summary of Specific Interests.

*Specific Interest*	*Frequency of Response*
Public Transit	9
Commuter	5
Environmental Protection	5
Citizen/Taxpayer	4
Proximity to Property	3
Cost/Benefit	2
LRT Expansion	2
Quality of Life	2
Air Quality	1
Long Term Project Viability	1
Private Business	1
Ridership	1
Property Values	1
Transit Technology	1
PCG Member	1
Economic Development	1
Potential User	1

*The frequency of responses is greater than the number of completed Comment-Questionnaires as several individuals indicated numerous interests in the project.

Study Process

Do you have comments on the Study Process (Federal, Provincial or Harmonized) for conducting the Environmental Assessment?

· Harmonization will save time and money (2)

· Include health care costs for air pollution as an economic criteria

· Ridership per dollar spent is a key criteria

· Why is an EA being conducted if there is already a rail line in operation?

· The need must be identified first

· The schedule is ambitious

· Follow the EA rules and seek legal advice

What in your view are the primary issues to be addressed in the Environmental Assessment?

· Route selection (5)

· Transit service to downtown (4)

· Station number and location (3)

· Cost (2)

· Technology (2)

· Identify the impacts versus doing nothing (3)

· Wildlife Corridors (2)

· Geology (earthquake/stability) (2)

· Single versus double tack

· Identify long-terms benefits

· Flora and Fauna

· Zoning and development

· Air Quality

· Encourage transit use

· Identification of clear and appropriate issues

· Consider a wide range of alternatives

· Technology should be decided based on ridership

· Fair and objective evaluation process

· Permit future expansion

· Noise

· Long term environmental effects.

· Staging and implementation schedules

Terms of Reference

Do you have specific comments on the Draft Terms of Reference as they relate to the following subject headings?

Existing Conditions

· A network of air quality monitoring stations is required. The cost is $3,000- $30,000 per station.

· The scope/study area is too narrow. It should be extended to Navan, Stittsville, Carp and the Ottawa Station (2)

Alternative Solutions

· Expand the existing rapid transit system (4)

· Do not consider widening existing roads or Do Nothing (4)

· Include improvement to walking, cycling, transit and TOD as an alternative solution

· Do-Nothing needs to be clearly defined

· Use the VIA rail line rather than the Walkley Rail Corridor

· There should be a connection to the Train Station

Alternative Designs

· Include a subway alternative

· Include a monorail alternative

· Include existing East-West bus routes as an alternative

· There needs to be careful consideration of station locations and design

· Preference is for electric/hybrid

· Need more details

· A lot has been covered

· Use OCR and Beachburg line for the west and roads for bus connections for the rest

· Use existing rail lines

· Technology needs to be adaptable

Evaluation and Assessment

· Time to implementation is a key factor that should be considered in order to meet the OP objectives

· At grade interruption of traffic for transit should be considered a positive impact

· Make sure evaluation methods are understood

· Closely evaluate North-South LRT study

· Economic costs including health care should be considered

· Cost/benefit needs to be rationalized

Public Consultation

· Public should be informed when the ToR go to Transportation Committee

· Consultation has been good (website and Open Houses)

· Should be a full consultation process

· Good opportunity for the public to see the process.

· Poor location for the Open House (Kanata) and insufficient advertising

· Advertisement insufficient and not eye catching

· Keep public informed of future open houses

· Web-based consultation should be done

· Use surveys and public opinion polls

· Extend North-South to airport and under runway to Barrhaven

· Keep the politics out of the consultation

· More is needed - use City's community database and mail out information

· Share comments between the ACG and PCG

· Collect and post input on a dedicated Web site

· Extend PCG/ACG to adjacent communities

General comments

· Needs to go downtown (4)

· Future development needs to be considered (Rockliffe Air Base, along Innes Road)

· The Terms of Reference are appropriate

· More detailed maps would be helpful (street names, neighbourhoods)

· How will passengers access the LRT?

· Transfers between routes/technologies needs to be minimized

· Study area seems to be a reflection of political decisions and does not reflect the opportunity to serve/integrate Manotic, Kemptville etc.

· Interconnect North-South and East-West to allow trains uninterrupted travel

· The inter - provincial link is more important than this project

· Need a semi circle to connect Kanata with the South and to Orléans

· Include local transit planning and feeder routes in the assessment

· Provide a minimum of 4 vehicles per hour

· Support the inclusion of the Kanata West / Corel Centre area in the Study

4.0 Comment Responses

The comments received at the Consultation Group meetings, Public Open Houses and from letters and emails have been used to refine the Draft Terms of Reference. The following table, as well as the meeting notes, highlight the comments received and the corresponding response/changes made to the Draft Terms of Reference. It should be noted that there were minor editorial changes suggested. These changes have been made and are not explicitly noted in the table. In addition, some of the comments provided are not related to the Terms of Reference such as, what the final outcome of the Environmental Assessment Study should be, how existing transit operates, and final design/operational details. These comments have been noted but are not reflected in the revised Terms of Reference.

Table 2: Summary of Comments and Responses

Agency/Comment	Comment	Response	ToR Section
Public Consultation Group – Meeting	See attached meeting notes.
Agency Consultation Group - Meeting	See attached meeting notes.
Public Consultation Group – Additional Comments	Use this and other EA to expand the Ottawa air quality monitoring network.	Existing air quality conditions will be modeled in accordance with accepted federal and provincial government policies.	4.3
	Include health care costs from air pollution as an economic criterion.	Health effects has been added to the Social/Cultural Environmental Criteria.	4.4
	Include a bicycle path parallel to the corridor.	The design parameters of the preferred alternative solution will be discussed and will likely include evaluation of the whole corridor for multi-use pathway opportunities.	4.6
	Consider implementing a wildlife corridor along the route.	Mitigation measures will be developed for the preferred alternative based on the identified potential environmental effects.	4.6
Public Comments	The study area needs to be extended both inside and outside the urban boundary (e.g., Stittsville, Carp, Kemptville, Navan, Arnprior, downtown Ottawa).	This route and resultant study area was identified in the Council-approved RTES and defined as a City priority within the next 20 years. The project would not preclude expansion to other areas as required in the future.	2.0
	The priority for Rapid Transit should be a link from Kanata to downtown.	This link is the West Transitway Extension. An environmental assessment was completed and is identified in the TMP for construction by 2008.	2.0
	If the project is the East-West Corridor LRT project, why is the widening of roads and Do Nothing being considered?	Under the Ontario EA Act, all reasonable alternatives to the undertaking must be considered, including the option of widening roads to accommodate the projected travel demand. As well, all forms of technology will be considered as part of the rapid transit solution. This approach will ensure that the EA has looked at the full range of potential solutions.	4.1
	Why is the project called the “East-West Corridor LRT Project”, when the widening of roads and the option of bus-based solutions are being considered?	The title is East-West LRT as identified in the Official Plan and RTES. The name has been kept for continuity and recognition. As part of the EA process however, all alternative solutions will be examined.	Title
	Harmonization will save time and money.	The EA will be harmonized, to the extent possible, through ongoing consultation with federal agencies and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency in its role as coordinator.	1.2
	Why is an EA being conducted if there is already a rail line in operation?	A municipal Rapid Transit system is subject to the requirements of the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act	1.0
	The need must be identified first.	The Purpose/Problem - Opportunity Statement is one of the first steps in carrying out the study.	4.1
	The schedule is ambitious.	Agree, however, since development is happening along the corridor, the City needs to ensure the corridor is protected and defined as quickly as possible.	3.1
City of Ottawa Mobility and Area Traffic Management	The study area, to determine where a facility would be, will focus on the corridor as defined, the study area in terms of potential ridership should extend much further.	Agree. The ridership study will use the regional transportation model therefore impacts on all road and transit networks will be considered. Ridership will be drawn from the entire area included in the regional model.	2.0
	Will the more-detailed ridership study include changes to the Central area, Baseline, and Carling corridors?	The model has the existing and future transit networks and road networks as identified in the TMP. The ridership study will determine the impact of this corridor on other transportation corridors.	4.1
	Will there be a discussion on the impacts of this corridor on current BRT facilities, and the Transit Priority network? What about cycling and pedestrian facilities?	Impacts on all modes of transportation will be assessed.	4.2.2
	Expand list to clearly include cycling and pedestrian networks, as the City’s new Cycling Plan will be available in 2005.	Added.	4.4
	Grade crossings will be complex issues that need to be addressed in detail and should be listed.	Grade crossings will be considered during the functional design of the preferred alternative. It is already included in the list as “structures”.	4.6
	Include Transit Priority Network Study.	All relevant background studies will be reviewed. This section lists only concurrent studies that require coordination with the EA work.	5.1
	All corridor sections should be examined for the opportunity for a multi-use path along the entire corridor - not just segments.	Appendix C is an excerpt from the Statement of Work. The design parameters of the preferred alternative solution will include evaluation of the whole corridor for multi-use pathway opportunities.	Appendix C
City of Ottawa Environmental Management	Bullet under Work plan - change from Preferred alternative development to Preferred alternative solution.	This bullet refers to the refinement of the preferred alternative method of carrying out the undertaking.	1.2
	The description of land uses in this section includes OP designations (developing community, agricultural resource areas). Replace these with descriptions of existing land use, e.g. farms and market gardens.	Text changed as suggested.	4.3
	Physical Environment- In some cases only information on potential contamination is available.	Text changed to: contamination potential.	4.3.1
	Greenspace as used in Ottawa has two components: 1) natural areas; 2) parks, golf courses, etc. The second category of greenspace should be under the Social/Cultural Environmental Effects.	Greenspace changed to natural area under Biological Environment Effects and Greenspace added to Social/Cultural Environmental Effects.	4.4
	Change Consistency with City of Ottawa policies and "directives" to "objectives".	Text changed as suggested.	4.5.1
	Mitigation in 4.5.3. reads like the analysis done at the Preferred Alternative stage rather than input to the analysis of various alternatives to the undertaking.	Correct. Mitigation is only be carried out for the preferred alternative. For clarification, the mitigation section has been moved to 4.6.1 under “Preferred Alternative”	4.5.3
	Delete definition of ESA as Environmentally Sensitive Area. It is not used in the document and you are more likely to be using ESA to refer to Environmental Site Assessment for potentially contaminated sites.	Deleted.	Appendix A
National Capital Commission	Cumulative effects need to be assessed to address the federal EA requirements.	“Identify and assess potential cumulative effects” has been added to 4.5.2.	4.5.2
National Capital Commission	There are a number of places where the impacts of this project and other planned road or transit need to be addressed. This issue could be incorporated into the draft Terms of Reference.	The cumulative effects analysis will incorporate the impacts of other planned projects. Section 5.1 Coordination with other studies has been made more general to incorporate the inclusion of other projects.	5.1
Health Canada	Include health effects and quality of life as potential effects.	Added to Social/Cultural Environmental Effects.	4.4
Parks Canada	Ensure potential impacts on canal are assessed including boater safety, visual and heritage impacts.	Impacts on the Canal will be assessed. Rideau Canal added as an example of Built heritage features and cultural landscapes.	4.4
	Ensure boater safety, visual and heritage impacts are assessed.	Visual and heritage impacts will be assessed as part of the Social/Cultural Environmental Effects. Impact on navigable waterways has been added under Technical / Transportation Service Effects.	4.4
	Ensure integrity of riparian zone habitats and species are addressed.	Riparian zone habitats and species will be assessed as part of the Biological Environmental Effects.	4.4
	Identify Parks Canada as an approval agency.	Added.	6.0 and 6.1
Ministry of the Environment	Provide detailed information regarding the consultation undertaken for the ToR in a separate section.	New section 1.2 added.	1.1
	Consider changing title to Project Description/Study Area.	Title changed.	2.0
	Quantify "generally" in the description of the study area to ensure flexibility in the EA.	Description of Study Area expanded.	2.0
	Consider changing title to Purpose and Rationale of the Undertaking.	Title changed.	2.1
	Change "The East-West LRT EA study has been initiated to:" to "The purpose of the undertaking is to:" for a precise statement of purpose.	Text changed as suggested.	2.1
	Include a third bullet to include the expansion of the rapid transit network from section 1.0.	Added.	2.1
	Study schedule will be dependant based on ToR approval in January.	Noted. The schedule in the ToR is "proposed".	3.1
	Consider changing title to Purpose/Problem - Opportunity Statement.	Changed.	4.1
	Change at a strategic level, the East-West Corridor LRT Project to at a strategic level, an East-West Corridor transportation corridor as the East-West Corridor LRT Project is the title.	Changed.	4.1
	Ensure the alternative methods are not limited to rapid transit only.	Paragraph added to briefly outline the procedure for developing alternative methods if an alternative besides rapid transit is selected.	4.2.2
	Use Study Area not Spatial Boundaries.	Changed.	4.3
	Clarify flexibility in the study area.	Examples provided.	4.3
	Consider deleting the subtitle “Environmental Conditions” as it still a description of the study area.	Deleted.	4.3
	Why are biological and physical environment separate and not titled natural environment	Combined under Natural Environment	4.3.1
	Allow for flexibility by stating the environmental features listed are "generally outlined but not limited to".	Changed.	4.3.1
	Consider reformatting sections to correspond to section 4.4.	Sections correspond to 4.4.	4.3
	Clarify perspective on environmental effects.	Clarified.	4.4
	Change Indian Land Claims to Aboriginal Land Claims.	Changed.	4.4
	Provide separate sections for Alternatives and Alternative methods.	New section headings added.	4.5.1
	Change Cost Efficiency to Economic environment for consistency and add cost efficiency as a bullet.	Changed.	4.5.1
	Section 4.5.2 is repetitive and can be deleted.	This section has been left in to ensure that some of the CEAA requirements are met as well as re-iterating how the alternative methods will be assessed.	4.5.2
	Make section 4.6 a subsection of the previous as it describes evaluation criteria for the preferred alternative.	This section describes the development of the refined preferred alternative not the evaluation.	4.6
	Describe the notification measures and details of the Open Houses.	Added.	5.0
	Emphasize feedback and input from the Open Houses.	Feedback emphasized.	5.0
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency	Strengthen commitment to co-ordinate the federal and provincial EA processes.	Added "The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is involved in the project including the development of this Terms of Reference in order to facilitate a harmonized EA process.	1.0
	Add Transport Canada as a regulatory agency.	Added.	4.7
	Change bullets Fisheries Act Authorization and Navigable Waterways Protection Act Permit.	Changed.	6.0
	CEAA triggers should include agency approvals that are listed on the Law List Regulations.	Text changed as suggested.	6.1
	Add to abandonment and decommissioning - if foreseeable and planned for.	Text changed as suggested.	6.1
	Clarify role of federal agencies early in the process and the role of the co-ordinator.	Text changed as suggested.	6.1
	Add ‘that is listed in the Law List Regulations” to the definition of CEAA and remove municipal agencies from the role of the coordinator.	Text changed as suggested.	Appendix A

Meeting Notes	Action
Time:	10:00 p.m. - 12:00 p.m.
Date:	16 November 2004
Place:	Billings Room, 110 Laurier Avenue
Present
City of Ottawa	Mona Abouhenidy, Project Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department
ACG Members Present	Rob Orchin, Traffic & Parking Operations, PWS Dean Aqiqi, Infrastructure Approvals, PGM Carol Christensen, Environmental Management, PGM Jim Zimmerman, Utilities Branch, PWS Neil MacNeil, Senior Policy Advisor, Mayor’s Office Linda Carkner, Infrastructure Management – PWS Luc Marineau, Surface Operations, PWS Bill VanRyswyk, Ottawa Police Services Ron Gray, Fleet Services, PWS Brian Millar, Traffic Operations, PWS Colin White, Planning Approvals – South, PGM Danny Page, Planning Approvals – East, PGM Perry McConnell, Fire Services Pat Scrimgeour, Transit Services, PWS Glen Emond, RPAM
PCG Members Absent	Roddy Bolivar, Infrastructure Planning, PGM John Buck, Traffic & Safety Services, PWS Claudio Colaiacovo, Financial Services, Corporate Services Dana Collings, Area Planning and Design, PGM Ziad Ghadban, Infrastructure Services, PWS Joe Lavictoire, Real Estate Services, Corporate Services Fren Marcuccio, Water Distribution, PWS Greg Montcalm, Environmental Remediation, Corporate Services Peter Steacy, Transportation –EAs, PGM
Consultants	David Hopper, Delcan Corporation Ronald Fournier, Delcan Corporation Kelly Roberts, Delcan Corporation
1. Introductions and Project Overview Mona Abouhenidy provided an overview of the project and the background from the Rapid Transit Expansion Study (RTES) Neil MacNeil:Why is this study not examining the Carling Avenue route? Response: Carling Avenue will be studied as a separate project. RTES identified the North-South and East-West lines as priorities. Pat Scrimgeour: Both the East-West and Carling Avenue will be required in 20 years. Carling Avenue does not provide a link to the Cumberland Transitway in the east. The proposed East-West line does. Carol Christensen: One of the points of RTES was to provide coverage not just address ridership demands. Response: Both a ridership study and a land use assessment will be undertaken as part of this study. Neil MacNeil: Councilors are asking why the Transitway/Scott Street is not being evaluated for LRT? Response: We are proceeding with the priorities as identified in the Council-approved RTES. RTES also assessed the feasibility of converting the existing Transitway to LRT. It was concluded that the expansion of the transit system, rather than conversion, would be more beneficial.
2. Consultation Groups Roles and Responsibilities Consultation groups will consist of an Agency Consultation Group (ACG – both internal and external) and a Public Consultation Group (PCG). Roles and responsibilities for the ACG were reviewed
3. Study Design Document (SDD) The contents of the main section of the SDD were presented: · Work Plan · Terms of Reference · Environmental Assessment - Initial Phases · Environmental Assessment - Alternative Design Phase · Communications Plan The SDD outlines the tasks involved in each phase of the Study.
4. Terms of Reference The Draft Terms of Reference (ToR) were reviewed and discussed by section. Deadline for detailed comments (submitted to Mona Abouhenidy) is 17 December 2004. *Section 1.0 Introduction* Carol Christensen: The ToR should commit to a harmonized EA process. Response: The MOE and CEAA are currently reviewing the document and assessing the harmonization options. Neil MacNeil: Should the terminology “LRT” be removed fromthe title? Dean Aqiqi: The title should be changed to reflect the broader range of alternatives being assessed. Response: The title is East-West LRT as identified in the Official Plan and RTES. The name has been kept for continuity and recognition. As part of the EA process however, all technology options will be reviewed.. *Section 2.0 Project Description* No Comments *Section 3.0 General Environmental Assessment Requirements* No Comments *Section 4.0 Environmental Assessment Work Plan* Neil MacNeil: What influence will the North-South technology choice have on this study? Response: This is an important issue to be addressed in the EA. There is a need to consider the fleet requirements as a whole, but technology choice, particularly for interim staging options, has not yet been determined at this time for either North-South or East-West corridors. The choice for the North-South will not necessarily limit the East-West options. Carol Christensen : If the 30% modal spilt is the objective, how do you achieve that with arterial roads? Response: The work that has been done through the TMP and RTES doesn’t support arterial roads as a solution for this corridor to achieve the 30% modal split. However, the EA has to examine all alternatives to the undertaking including arterial roads. Dean Aqiqi: There is a lot of infrastructure in the study area. Is it possible to identify everything and tie in the easements? Response: Broad scale infrastructure information will be collected during the initial stages. Once the study proceeds to the alignment stage, more detailed information will be collected regarding the infrastructure sizing, location, and easements. Carol Christensen : Some of the information listed may not be readily available such as depth to bedrock. The City is in the process of completing the Urban Natural Spaces study and this information can be shared with the study team. Response: The Study team will verify the information is available. Jim Zimmerman: Will Bio-diesel be considered as a fuel source? Ron Gray: A Bio-diesel plant has been constructed in Hamilton Carol Christensen : Alternative fuel sources are considered in the City Fleet Emission Reduction Strategy. Response: The EA study will consider alternative fuel sources. Supply / availability will be an important consideration. Dean Aqiqi: Will it be surface only? Response: There will be some structures/grade separations but the East-West LRT will primarily be at surface. *Section 5.0 Consultation Plan* Jim Zimmerman: What about co-ordination with the North-South study? Response: The Transportation and Infrastructure Planning Division is undertaking both studies – same Project Director. The project manager of each study participates in both core study team meetings. There is also co-ordination with other related transportation and land-use studies. Neil MacNeil: The City will be appointing a manager to consider P3 options for the North-South LRT project. Will this consortium be consulted? Response: Where necessary, there will be co-ordination with the city’s LRT manager responsible for the consortium advisors on P3 options. A bullet can be added to consult with other "related initiatives".
3. Next Steps Open Houses November 30, December 1 and 2, 2004 Newspaper advertisements will appear on Friday, November 19 and 26. Next ACG Meeting February 2005
Distribution to all ACG members. *Please advise Kelly Roberts of any errors or omissions from these meeting notes (phone 738-4160 ext 228, fax 739-7105, e-mail k.roberts@delcan.com).*

Time:

10:00 p.m. - 12:00 p.m.

Date:

16 November 2004

Place:

Billings Room, 110 Laurier Avenue

Present

City of Ottawa

Mona Abouhenidy, Project Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department

ACG Members Present

Rob Orchin, Traffic & Parking Operations, PWS

Dean Aqiqi, Infrastructure Approvals, PGM

Carol Christensen, Environmental Management, PGM

Jim Zimmerman, Utilities Branch, PWS

Neil MacNeil, Senior Policy Advisor, Mayor’s Office

Linda Carkner, Infrastructure Management – PWS

Luc Marineau, Surface Operations, PWS

Bill VanRyswyk, Ottawa Police Services

Ron Gray, Fleet Services, PWS

Brian Millar, Traffic Operations, PWS

Colin White, Planning Approvals – South, PGM

Danny Page, Planning Approvals – East, PGM

Perry McConnell, Fire Services

Pat Scrimgeour, Transit Services, PWS

Glen Emond, RPAM

PCG Members Absent

Roddy Bolivar, Infrastructure Planning, PGM

John Buck, Traffic & Safety Services, PWS

Claudio Colaiacovo, Financial Services, Corporate Services

Dana Collings, Area Planning and Design, PGM

Ziad Ghadban, Infrastructure Services, PWS

Joe Lavictoire, Real Estate Services, Corporate Services

Fren Marcuccio, Water Distribution, PWS

Greg Montcalm, Environmental Remediation, Corporate Services

Peter Steacy, Transportation –EAs, PGM

Consultants

David Hopper, Delcan Corporation

Ronald Fournier, Delcan Corporation

Kelly Roberts, Delcan Corporation

Meeting Notes

Action

1. Introductions and Project Overview

Mona Abouhenidy provided an overview of the project and the background from the Rapid Transit Expansion Study (RTES)

Neil MacNeil:Why is this study not examining the Carling Avenue route?

Response: Carling Avenue will be studied as a separate project. RTES identified the North-South and East-West lines as priorities.

Pat Scrimgeour:

Both the East-West and Carling Avenue will be required in 20 years. Carling Avenue does not provide a link to the Cumberland Transitway in the east. The proposed East-West line does.

Carol Christensen:

One of the points of RTES was to provide coverage not just address ridership demands.

Response: Both a ridership study and a land use assessment will be undertaken as part of this study.

Neil MacNeil:

Councilors are asking why the Transitway/Scott Street is not being evaluated for LRT?

Response: We are proceeding with the priorities as identified in the Council-approved RTES. RTES also assessed the feasibility of converting the existing Transitway to LRT. It was concluded that the expansion of the transit system, rather than conversion, would be more beneficial.

2. Consultation Groups Roles and Responsibilities

Consultation groups will consist of an Agency Consultation Group (ACG – both internal and external) and a Public Consultation Group (PCG). Roles and responsibilities for the ACG were reviewed

3. Study Design Document (SDD)

The contents of the main section of the SDD were presented:

· Work Plan

· Terms of Reference

· Environmental Assessment - Initial Phases

· Environmental Assessment - Alternative Design Phase

· Communications Plan

The SDD outlines the tasks involved in each phase of the Study.

4. Terms of Reference

The Draft Terms of Reference (ToR) were reviewed and discussed by section. Deadline for detailed comments (submitted to Mona Abouhenidy) is 17 December 2004.

Section 1.0 Introduction

Carol Christensen:

The ToR should commit to a harmonized EA process.

Response: The MOE and CEAA are currently reviewing the document and assessing the harmonization options.

Neil MacNeil:

Should the terminology “LRT” be removed fromthe title?

Dean Aqiqi:

The title should be changed to reflect the broader range of alternatives being assessed.

Response: The title is East-West LRT as identified in the Official Plan and RTES. The name has been kept for continuity and recognition. As part of the EA process however, all technology options will be reviewed..

Section 2.0 Project Description

No Comments

Section 3.0 General Environmental Assessment Requirements

No Comments

Section 4.0 Environmental Assessment Work Plan

Neil MacNeil:

What influence will the North-South technology choice have on this study?

Response: This is an important issue to be addressed in the EA. There is a need to consider the fleet requirements as a whole, but technology choice, particularly for interim staging options, has not yet been determined at this time for either North-South or East-West corridors. The choice for the North-South will not necessarily limit the East-West options.

Carol Christensen :

If the 30% modal spilt is the objective, how do you achieve that with arterial roads?

Response: The work that has been done through the TMP and RTES doesn’t support arterial roads as a solution for this corridor to achieve the 30% modal split. However, the EA has to examine all alternatives to the undertaking including arterial roads.

Dean Aqiqi:

There is a lot of infrastructure in the study area. Is it possible to identify everything and tie in the easements?

Response: Broad scale infrastructure information will be collected during the initial stages. Once the study proceeds to the alignment stage, more detailed information will be collected regarding the infrastructure sizing, location, and easements.

Carol Christensen :

Some of the information listed may not be readily available such as depth to bedrock. The City is in the process of completing the Urban Natural Spaces study and this information can be shared with the study team.

Response: The Study team will verify the information is available.

Jim Zimmerman:

Will Bio-diesel be considered as a fuel source?

Ron Gray:

A Bio-diesel plant has been constructed in Hamilton

Carol Christensen :

Alternative fuel sources are considered in the City Fleet Emission Reduction Strategy.

Response: The EA study will consider alternative fuel sources. Supply / availability will be an important consideration.

Dean Aqiqi:

Will it be surface only?

Response: There will be some structures/grade separations but the East-West LRT will primarily be at surface.

Section 5.0 Consultation Plan

Jim Zimmerman:

What about co-ordination with the North-South study?

Response: The Transportation and Infrastructure Planning Division is undertaking both studies – same Project Director. The project manager of each study participates in both core study team meetings. There is also co-ordination with other related transportation and land-use studies.

Neil MacNeil:

The City will be appointing a manager to consider P3 options for the North-South LRT project. Will this consortium be consulted?

Response: Where necessary, there will be co-ordination with the city’s LRT manager responsible for the consortium advisors on P3 options. A bullet can be added to consult with other "related initiatives".

3. Next Steps

Open Houses November 30, December 1 and 2, 2004

Newspaper advertisements will appear on Friday, November 19 and 26.

Next ACG Meeting

February 2005

Distribution to all ACG members.

Please advise Kelly Roberts of any errors or omissions from these meeting notes (phone 738-4160 ext 228, fax 739-7105, e-mail k.roberts@delcan.com).

Time:

1:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.

Date:

16 November 2004

Place:

Richmond Room, 2^nd Floor, 110 Laurier Avenue

Present

City of Ottawa

Vivi Chi, Project Director, Planning and Growth Management Department

Mona Abouhenidy, Project Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department

ACG Members

David Glastonbury, Greater Ottawa Chamber of Commerce

Andre Lalonde, Transport Canada - Ontario

Aaron Branston, VIA Rail Canada

Vance Bedore, Public Works and Government Services Canada

Arto Keklikian, National Capital Commission – Planning

Carolyn Dunn, Health Canada

Grace Strachan, National Capital Commission – Design and Land Use

Rachel Houde, Ontario Ministry of Transportation – Transit Policy Office

Glen Emond, City of Ottawa – Real Property Asset Management

Phil Pawliuk, Ontario Ministry of Transportation Planning &Design – Kingston

Susanne Turcotte, Environment Canada

Serge Beauchamp, representing James Allen, Ottawa Central Railway

Ted Toonders, CN Rail – Montreal

Glen McDonald, Rideau Valley Conservation Authority and also representing Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority Eric Advocaat, CEAA (teleconference)

ACG Members Absent

Debbie Miller, Fisheries and Ocean Canada

Peter Moore, National Capital Commission, Environment Office

Chris Andersen, Ontario Ministry of Culture

Michael Harrison, Ontario Ministry of the Environment

Steve Burns, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Ottawa Office

Gary McLaren, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

John Howe, Ontario Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal

Greg Tokarz, Ontario Ministry of Transportation

Manuel Stevens, Parks Canada

Dennis O`Grady, South Nation River Conservation Authority

Guy Morin, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada

Consultants

David Hopper, Delcan Corporation

Ronald Fournier, Delcan Corporation

Kelly Roberts, Delcan Corporation

Meeting Notes	Action
1. Introductions and Project Overview Mona Abouhenidy provided an overview of the project and the background from the Rapid Transit Expansion Study (RTES). David Glastonbury, Greater Ottawa Chamber of Commerce Are the parameters set for the Study? Specifically, why is this Study not examining the Hawksebury subdivision and the Carleton Place Subdivision? Response: The study team is proceeding with the priorities and the corridors as identified in the Council-approved RTES. RTES identified the North-South and East-West lines as priorities. Vance Bedore, PWGSC The project is not scheduled to be constructed for 20 years. How will this tie into the outlying areas beyond 20 years? Response: Consideration will be given to potential future expansion but the study limits are as identified in RTES. David Glastonbury, Greater Ottawa Chamber of Commerce Are there any economies to be achieved in working with the North-South study? Response: The study team will co-ordinate where appropriate on certain aspects such as choice of technology and the intersection of the two lines. The Transportation and Infrastructure Planning Division is undertaking both studies under the same Project Director. The project manager of each study participates in both core study team meetings. Andre Lalonde, Transport Canada - Ontario Is Capital Railway included in the consultation? Response: Yes, representative from the Transit Services Branch of the City (OC Transpo) attended the morning internal ACG meeting and will be involved throughout the Study.
2. Consultation Groups Roles and Responsibilities Consultation groups will consist of an Agency Consultation Group (ACG) and a Public Consultation Group (PCG). Roles and responsibilities for the group were reviewed.
3. Study Design Document (SDD) The contents of the main section of the SDD were presented: Work Plan · Terms of Reference · Environmental Assessment - Initial Phases · Environmental Assessment - Alternative Design Phase · Communications Plan The SDD outlines the tasks involved in each phase of the Study.
4. Terms of Reference The Draft Terms of Reference (ToR) were reviewed and discussed by section. Deadline for detailed comments submitted to Mona Abouhenidy is 17 December 2004. *Section 1.0 Introduction* Carolyn Dunn, Health Canada Why is the study only in partial fulfillment of CEAA? Response: Some federal agencies require detailed design information prior to granting approvals. This study will recognize that additional approvals and details may be required. Nonetheless, this study will address the initial CEAA requirements. Eric Advocaat, CEAA The MOE and CEAA are currently reviewing the document and assessing the harmonization options. One harmonized report is the preferred option. Response: Two reports may be prepared if approval timelines cannot be co-ordinated. Grace Strachan, NCC The implementation timeline for this project may be 20 years in the future. The NCC will require detailed design information prior to granting CEAA approvals. Eric Advocaat, CEAA CEAA approvals do not usually require detailed design information. The details would be required at the permitting stage. *Section 2.0 Project Description* No Comments. *Section 3.0 General Environmental Assessment Requirements* Carolyn Dunn, Health Canada Additional steps such as cumulative effects assessment will need to be added to fulfill CEAA requirements. Eric Advocaat, CEAA MOE and CEAA are currently working together to address the harmonization requirements. CEAA is comfortable with the statement contained in section 1.2. The circulation and review of a Project Description following the selection of an Alternative Solutions will help scope the CEAA requirements. *Section 4.0 Environmental Assessment Work Plan* Eric Advocaat, CEAA Add Transport Canada for Navigable Water permits and the Canada Transportation Act (CTA) to the approvals list. Response: These will be added. David Glastonbury, Greater Ottawa Chamber of Commerce What about the railways as approval authorities? Eric Advocaat, CEAA Transport Canada will intervene under the CTA if agreement cannot be reached with the railways. Andre Lalonde, Transport Canada Discussions with the Study team and the railways will be ongoing throughout the course of the Study. David Glastonbury, Greater Ottawa Chamber of Commerce Capital Railways is a federally regulated railway. Will this continue? Response: The City is currently reviewing whether or not it should continue to operate as a federal railway, or as a municipal railway. . There are advantages with respect to approval requirements if the railway is municipally operated. Calgary is an example. David Glastonbury, Greater Ottawa Chamber of Commerce If it is municipally operated, there needs to be consideration of the connections to Gatineau as part of the Interprovincial Transit Study. Response: Ye, this issue will be considered.. Phil Pawliuk, MTO - P&D Is section 4.8 Amending Procedure, similar to the 5-year review required for a Class EA? Response: No, this procedure is to address any potential changes that may occur during the design and implementation stages. David Glastonbury, Greater Ottawa Chamber of Commerce How will grade separations and road and rail crossings be addressed? Response: The preference is for grade separation so local transit will not be delayed. There are other considerations such as operating restrictions. The current DMUs cannot operate on level crossings. Andre Lalonde, Transport Canada There are equivalent levels of safety that can also be considered during the technology selection process. Arto Keklikian, NCC Where do TDM and TSM fit into the alternatives? Response: TDM and TSM will not address the need on their own. They will be considered as a part of all the alternatives. *Section 5.0 Consultation Plan* Eric Advocaat, CEAA Have the First Nations been consulted? What about integration with future studies such as the Interprovincial Transit Study? Response: Yes, INAC has provided a Land Claims contact. The Interprovincial Transit Study does not have approved funding yet, however, future studies can be added to the list.
3. Next Steps Open Houses November 30, December 1 and 2 2004 Newspaper advertisements will appear Friday, November 19 and 26. Next ACG Meeting February 2005
Distribution to all ACG external members. *Please advise Kelly Roberts of any errors or omissions from these meeting notes (phone 738-4160 ext 228, fax 739-7105, e-mail k.roberts@delcan.com).*

Meeting Notes

Action

1. Introductions and Project Overview

Mona Abouhenidy provided an overview of the project and the background from the Rapid Transit Expansion Study (RTES).

David Glastonbury, Greater Ottawa Chamber of Commerce

Are the parameters set for the Study? Specifically, why is this Study not examining the Hawksebury subdivision and the Carleton Place Subdivision?

Response: The study team is proceeding with the priorities and the corridors as identified in the Council-approved RTES. RTES identified the North-South and East-West lines as priorities.

Vance Bedore, PWGSC

The project is not scheduled to be constructed for 20 years. How will this tie into the outlying areas beyond 20 years?

Response: Consideration will be given to potential future expansion but the study limits are as identified in RTES.

David Glastonbury, Greater Ottawa Chamber of Commerce

Are there any economies to be achieved in working with the North-South study?

Response: The study team will co-ordinate where appropriate on certain aspects such as choice of technology and the intersection of the two lines. The Transportation and Infrastructure Planning Division is undertaking both studies under the same Project Director. The project manager of each study participates in both core study team meetings.

Andre Lalonde, Transport Canada - Ontario

Is Capital Railway included in the consultation?

Response: Yes, representative from the Transit Services Branch of the City (OC Transpo) attended the morning internal ACG meeting and will be involved throughout the Study.

2. Consultation Groups Roles and Responsibilities

Consultation groups will consist of an Agency Consultation Group (ACG) and a Public Consultation Group (PCG). Roles and responsibilities for the group were reviewed.

3. Study Design Document (SDD)

The contents of the main section of the SDD were presented:

Work Plan

· Terms of Reference

· Environmental Assessment - Initial Phases

· Environmental Assessment - Alternative Design Phase

· Communications Plan

The SDD outlines the tasks involved in each phase of the Study.

4. Terms of Reference

The Draft Terms of Reference (ToR) were reviewed and discussed by section. Deadline for detailed comments submitted to Mona Abouhenidy is 17 December 2004.

Section 1.0 Introduction

Carolyn Dunn, Health Canada

Why is the study only in partial fulfillment of CEAA?

Response: Some federal agencies require detailed design information prior to granting approvals. This study will recognize that additional approvals and details may be required. Nonetheless, this study will address the initial CEAA requirements.

Eric Advocaat, CEAA

The MOE and CEAA are currently reviewing the document and assessing the harmonization options. One harmonized report is the preferred option.

Response: Two reports may be prepared if approval timelines cannot be co-ordinated.

Grace Strachan, NCC

The implementation timeline for this project may be 20 years in the future. The NCC will require detailed design information prior to granting CEAA approvals.

Eric Advocaat, CEAA

CEAA approvals do not usually require detailed design information. The details would be required at the permitting stage.

Section 2.0 Project Description

No Comments.

Section 3.0 General Environmental Assessment Requirements

Carolyn Dunn, Health Canada

Additional steps such as cumulative effects assessment will need to be added to fulfill CEAA requirements.

Eric Advocaat, CEAA

MOE and CEAA are currently working together to address the harmonization requirements. CEAA is comfortable with the statement contained in section 1.2. The circulation and review of a Project Description following the selection of an Alternative Solutions will help scope the CEAA requirements.

Section 4.0 Environmental Assessment Work Plan

Eric Advocaat, CEAA

Add Transport Canada for Navigable Water permits and the Canada Transportation Act (CTA) to the approvals list.

Response: These will be added.

David Glastonbury, Greater Ottawa Chamber of Commerce

What about the railways as approval authorities?

Eric Advocaat, CEAA

Transport Canada will intervene under the CTA if agreement cannot be reached with the railways.

Andre Lalonde, Transport Canada

Discussions with the Study team and the railways will be ongoing throughout the course of the Study.

David Glastonbury, Greater Ottawa Chamber of Commerce

Capital Railways is a federally regulated railway. Will this continue?

Response: The City is currently reviewing whether or not it should continue to operate as a federal railway, or as a municipal railway. . There are advantages with respect to approval requirements if the railway is municipally operated. Calgary is an example.

David Glastonbury, Greater Ottawa Chamber of Commerce

If it is municipally operated, there needs to be consideration of the connections to Gatineau as part of the Interprovincial Transit Study.

Response: Ye, this issue will be considered..

Phil Pawliuk, MTO - P&D

Is section 4.8 Amending Procedure, similar to the 5-year review required for a Class EA?

Response: No, this procedure is to address any potential changes that may occur during the design and implementation stages.

David Glastonbury, Greater Ottawa Chamber of Commerce

How will grade separations and road and rail crossings be addressed?

Response: The preference is for grade separation so local transit will not be delayed. There are other considerations such as operating restrictions. The current DMUs cannot operate on level crossings.

Andre Lalonde, Transport Canada

There are equivalent levels of safety that can also be considered during the technology selection process.

Arto Keklikian, NCC

Where do TDM and TSM fit into the alternatives?

Response: TDM and TSM will not address the need on their own. They will be considered as a part of all the alternatives.

Section 5.0 Consultation Plan

Eric Advocaat, CEAA

Have the First Nations been consulted? What about integration with future studies such as the Interprovincial Transit Study?

Response: Yes, INAC has provided a Land Claims contact. The Interprovincial Transit Study does not have approved funding yet, however, future studies can be added to the list.

3. Next Steps

Open Houses November 30, December 1 and 2 2004

Newspaper advertisements will appear Friday, November 19 and 26.

Next ACG Meeting

February 2005

Distribution to all ACG external members.

Please advise Kelly Roberts of any errors or omissions from these meeting notes (phone 738-4160 ext 228, fax 739-7105, e-mail k.roberts@delcan.com).

Time:

6:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.

Date:

16 November 2004

Place:

Richmond Room, 2^nd Floor, 110 Laurier Avenue

Present

City of Ottawa

Mona Abouhenidy, Project Manager

Planning and Growth Management Department

PCG Members Present

Sampat Sridhar, Bay Ward 7

Peter Stockdale, Gloucester-Southgate Ward 10

Miriam Allen, Beacon Hill-Cryville, Ward 11

James O’Shea, River Ward 8

Bill Pugsley for Ronald Denault, Environmental Advisory Committee

Dick Howey, Baseline Ward 8

John Brennan, Alta Vista Ward 18

Stephanie McNeely, Cumberland Ward 19

Steve Blais, Ottawa Youth Cabinet

Pierre Johnson, Capital Ward 17

Tim Lane for David Jeans, Transport 2000

Alan Asselstine, River Ward 8

Royal Galipeau, Beacon Hill-Cryville, Ward 11

Helen Lenthall, Accessibility Advisory Committee

Bruce Curry, Bell-South Ward 3

Nicole Parent, Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee

PCG Members Absent

Stephen Fanjoy, CMC, Innes Ward 2

Michael Martin, Innes Ward 2

Eric Dormer, Gloucester-Southgate Ward 10

Brian MacRae Alta Vista Ward 18

Cam Robertson, Capital Ward 17

Brian C. Nelson, Bell-South Ward 3

Leo Paoletti, Baseline Ward 8

Ian Boyd, Bay Ward 7

Jeremy R. Byatt, Ward 4

Fred C. Boyd, Kanata Ward 4Dave Bell, Pedestrian and Transit Advisory Committee

Stella Val, Roads & Cycling Advisory Committee

Mark Nesdoly, Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee

Nan Griffiths, Arts, Heritage and Culture Advisory Committee

Consultants

David Hopper, Delcan Corporation

Ronald Fournier, Delcan Corporation

Kelly Roberts, Delcan Corporation

Meeting Notes	Action
1. Introductions and Project Overview Mona Abouhenidy provided an overview of the project Dick Howey: The project should be expanded to include Carp, Stittsville, the City right-of-way to Carleton Place, and the City right-of-way to Montreal and access to the Ottawa Train Station Response: The corridor that is being assessed was identified in the council-approved RTES. This EA is the detailed planning study that follows from the strategic work undertaken for RTES. Transportation Committee has already approved the scope of work for this study, including the study limits. John Brennan: The scope of the Study is from Orléans to Kanata. Steve Blais: The Scope has been approved by Council. Tim Lane: We still need to recognize, and not limit future expansion.
Consultation Groups Roles and Responsibilities Roles and responsibilities for the PCG were reviewed. John Brennan: Are alternate representatives permitted at the meetings? Response: Yes Peter Stockdale: The invitation letter that was sent includes working towards a consensus in the list of responsibilities. Why was this not included on the slide presentations? Response: The presentation is an overview. Working towards a consensus is still the intention.
3. Study Design Document (SDD) The contents of the main section of the SDD were presented: Work Plan · Terms of Reference · Environmental Assessment - Initial Phases · Environmental Assessment - Alternative Design Phase · Communications Plan The SDD outlines the tasks involved in each phase of the Study. John Brennan: Will the Ridership Study include an Origin and Destination Analysis? Response: The Ridership Study will be a model based on population, employment and transit routes. Dick Howey: If the City is providing the numbers for the model they are suspect as previous figures underestimated the O-Train useages. The estimates were for 7,000 riders and it is actually 8,000. Response: The City figures predict that there will be 50,000 O-Train users by 2021.
4. Terms of Reference The Draft Terms of Reference (ToR) were reviewed and discussed by section. Deadline for detailed comments (submitted to Mona Abouhenidy) is 17 December 2004. *Section 1.0 Introduction* Pierre Johnson: The ToR states that meetings were held@ in November and December 2004. Is this an error? Response: The ToR is written in the past tense as these meetings will have been held and the comments incorporated when the document is submitted for approval. Dick Howey: Is this meeting being recorded? Response: Meeting notes are being taken and will be distributed to the Consultation Group. Nicole Parent: Is the North-South LRT Study going on at the same time? Response: The North-South LRT Study started 5 months ago. That study is expected to be completed by late summer 2005. Will this Committee be informed of their progress? Response: Although key updates can be provided (particularly those issues relating to co-ordination of the two EA studies), it is highly recommended that anyone interested in the North-South project attend that EA study’s open houses and participate in its consultation program as advertised. This will ensure that the primary focus of this study’s consultation group meetings will be on the East-West corridor issues. Note that information on both studies is also available on the City’s website www.ottawa.ca/lrt. Sampat Sridhar: What are the criteria for the Study Area limits? Response: The limits represent the corridor as identified in the Council-approved RTES plus adjacent arterial roadways. Dick Howey: The Study Area should be expanded to Stittsville and beyond as previously mentioned. In 1974 in the US rail lines were constructed to encourage use not just based on ridership projections. Response: The boundaries are based on what RTES identified as required for the next 20 years. 47 km is already exceptionally long for an LRT corridor. Tim Lane: When comparing diesel versus light rail, there are significant cost differences. Diesel can be constructed much more inexpensively and a longer system can therefore be implemented. Ridership will be higher on a bigger system. Response: This Study will consider both capital and operating costs in the analysis of alternative technologies. Ridership, cost and implementation will all be considered. *Section 2.0 Project Description* No Comments *Section 3.0 General Environmental Assessment Requirements* No Comments *Section 4.0 Environmental Assessment Work Plan* Pierre Johnson: The title should be changed from LRT if this is a rapid transit study. Response: The name is East-West LRT as identified in the Official Plan and RTES. The name has been kept for continuity and recognition. However, as identified in the ToR, a range of rapid transit solutions are being considered. Tim Lane: If the North-South LRT study selects electric LRT, does that mean the East-West LRT has to be electric? Response: This is an important issue to be addressed in the EA. There is a need to consider the fleet requirements as a whole, but technology choice, particularly for interim staging options, has not yet been determined at this time for either North-South or East-West corridors. The choice for the North-South will not necessarily limit the East-West options. John Brennan: Will the identification of nodes lead to the City restricting commercial development in order to increase densities and encourage ridership? Response: Discussions will be ongoing throughout the study with the City’s land use planners regarding existing and future land uses and transit-oriented development. Bill Pugsley: Will air quality be monitored for existing conditions within the study area? Response: MOE endorsed models will be used to assess existing air quality at a number of receptors along the corridor. Alan Asselstine: Ridership is critical to the success of the project. A system down Walkley Road and not on the rail lines will be more accessible and attract more riders. Tim Lane: Stations, not the line, need to be in high-density areas and rely on a network of feeder buses. Response: The EA study will consider system alignment, station locations and transit-oriented development, amongst other criteria when evaluating the alternatives. Peter Stockdale: The mitigation measures include a statement that stakeholders will be involved. Does this include the PCG? Response: Yes Dick Howey: What NCC approvals would be required? Response: The corridor crosses the Greenbelt and NCC approvals may be required if NCC land is needed. *Section 5.0 Consultation Plan* Several members requested that the public comments received at the Open House meetings be made available for review by the PCG. Response: We will make the comments, with personal information removed, available for review upon request by the PCG. Peter Stockdale: The description of Open House #1 does not include a statement to solicit comments from the public as is identified for the other Open Houses. Why Not? Response: This is a clerical omission. It will be added in. Nicole Parent: Will there be a follow-up to the meetings? Response: Summaries of the open houses will be made available and a FAQ page will be updated on the City’s website. Royal Galipeau: If the PCG is to represent the communities, how do the residents know who the representative is? Response: The ward councillor can be contacted. Membership on this PCG was developed with input from ward councilors. Helen Lenthall: If public comments (from the open houses) come in regarding a ward-specific issue, can this be forwarded to the area representative? Response: All comments/issues will be documented and summaries will be provided to the PCG, along with study team’s responses/action plans to address those issues. Peter Stockdale: Have surveys been considered to collect public information and comments? Response: No. They are generally not effective for this type of input. Detailed information will be presented at the Open Houses and available on the City website for comment. Notices of the meetings will be in 3 daily newspapers, and also on the website. Royal Galipeau: Can members of the PCG attend the Open Houses? Can name tags be provided to the PCG. Response: Anyone can attend the Open Houses. Although name tags can be provided, please note that it is the City, as proponent for this study, that is hosting the public event. Helen Lenthall: Will there be interpretation for disabled and visually and hearing impaired at the Open Houses? Response: The Open House format allows access. Sign language interpretation at the Open Houses has not been budgeted for this project. Written responses can be provided for the hearing impaired as required at the meetings. The Open House information on the website will be accessible to the visually impaired in accordance with City standards. Royal Galipeau: Where are the upcoming Open Houses? Response: November 30 - Sir Wilfred Laurier School, 10^th Line Road December 1, Jim Durrell Centre, Walkley Road December 2, John Mllack Centre Campeau Drive Steve Blais: Is it possible to add the Orléans and Kanata Chamber of Commerce to the ACG list? They often have different opinions from the Ottawa Chamber of Commerce. Response: The study team will look into this.	Make comments available to PCG - City of Ottawa Consider adding to ACG - City of Ottawa
General Discussion Meeting Format Sampat Sridhar: Is there an opportunity for the PCG to continue to work outside of the scheduled meetings (i.e., chat room on the City’s website)? Response: The City’s website in not set up to do that but members are free to contact each other. Helen Lenthall: There has been little consideration of the members of the committee. The following requests are made for subsequent meetings: · Water (as a minimum) should be provided · Parking vouchers · Name tags should be provided Response: Water and name tags will be provided for subsequent meetings. Evening parking is free on the streets. There is not budget for parking vouchers or mileage for this study or any EA study. There were requests made that the names and email of the members of the PCG be made available to the public and the other members. There was general consensus at the table to release individual names and email addresses. Response: The PCG was advised that there are privacy issues associated with releasing personal information. However, since everyone on the PCG has agreed to releasing his/her name and e-mail address to the Group, as well as to the public, this will be done. Royal Galipeau: Is the Delcan team in Ottawa or Toronto. Response: Both. David Hopper, Project Manager and the LRT technical experts are based out of Toronto. The environmental assessment, planning, infrastructure and transportation consultants are in Ottawa.	Release Contact information - City of Ottawa
3. Next Steps Open Houses November 30, December 1 and 2, 2004 Newspaper advertisements will appear on Friday, November 19 and 26. Next PCG Meeting February 2005 Royal Galipeau: Can the dates for future meetings be made in advance? Response: The meeting dates will be scheduled in advance but not right away. The actual date will be dependant on study progress. The study team will endeavour to notify the PCG as early as possible.	Early meeting notification - City of Ottawa
Distribution to all PCG members. *Please advise Kelly Roberts of any errors or omissions from these meeting notes (phone 738-4160 ext 228, fax 739-7105, e-mail k.roberts@delcan.com).*

Meeting Notes

Action

1. Introductions and Project Overview

Mona Abouhenidy provided an overview of the project

Dick Howey:

The project should be expanded to include Carp, Stittsville, the City right-of-way to Carleton Place, and the City right-of-way to Montreal and access to the Ottawa Train Station

Response: The corridor that is being assessed was identified in the council-approved RTES. This EA is the detailed planning study that follows from the strategic work undertaken for RTES. Transportation Committee has already approved the scope of work for this study, including the study limits.

John Brennan:

The scope of the Study is from Orléans to Kanata.

Steve Blais:

The Scope has been approved by Council.

Tim Lane:

We still need to recognize, and not limit future expansion.

Consultation Groups Roles and Responsibilities

Roles and responsibilities for the PCG were reviewed.

John Brennan:

Are alternate representatives permitted at the meetings?

Response: Yes

Peter Stockdale:

The invitation letter that was sent includes working towards a consensus in the list of responsibilities. Why was this not included on the slide presentations?

Response: The presentation is an overview. Working towards a consensus is still the intention.

3. Study Design Document (SDD)

The contents of the main section of the SDD were presented:

Work Plan

· Terms of Reference

· Environmental Assessment - Initial Phases

· Environmental Assessment - Alternative Design Phase

· Communications Plan

The SDD outlines the tasks involved in each phase of the Study.

John Brennan:

Will the Ridership Study include an Origin and Destination Analysis?

Response: The Ridership Study will be a model based on population, employment and transit routes.

Dick Howey:

If the City is providing the numbers for the model they are suspect as previous figures underestimated the O-Train useages. The estimates were for 7,000 riders and it is actually 8,000.

Response: The City figures predict that there will be 50,000 O-Train users by 2021.

4. Terms of Reference

The Draft Terms of Reference (ToR) were reviewed and discussed by section. Deadline for detailed comments (submitted to Mona Abouhenidy) is 17 December 2004.

Section 1.0 Introduction

Pierre Johnson:

The ToR states that meetings were held@ in November and December 2004. Is this an error?

Response: The ToR is written in the past tense as these meetings will have been held and the comments incorporated when the document is submitted for approval.

Dick Howey:

Is this meeting being recorded?

Response: Meeting notes are being taken and will be distributed to the Consultation Group.

Nicole Parent:

Is the North-South LRT Study going on at the same time?

Response: The North-South LRT Study started 5 months ago. That study is expected to be completed by late summer 2005.

Will this Committee be informed of their progress?

Response: Although key updates can be provided (particularly those issues relating to co-ordination of the two EA studies), it is highly recommended that anyone interested in the North-South project attend that EA study’s open houses and participate in its consultation program as advertised. This will ensure that the primary focus of this study’s consultation group meetings will be on the East-West corridor issues. Note that information on both studies is also available on the City’s website www.ottawa.ca/lrt.

Sampat Sridhar:

What are the criteria for the Study Area limits?

Response: The limits represent the corridor as identified in the Council-approved RTES plus adjacent arterial roadways.

Dick Howey:

The Study Area should be expanded to Stittsville and beyond as previously mentioned. In 1974 in the US rail lines were constructed to encourage use not just based on ridership projections.

Response: The boundaries are based on what RTES identified as required for the next 20 years. 47 km is already exceptionally long for an LRT corridor.

Tim Lane:

When comparing diesel versus light rail, there are significant cost differences. Diesel can be constructed much more inexpensively and a longer system can therefore be implemented. Ridership will be higher on a bigger system.

Response: This Study will consider both capital and operating costs in the analysis of alternative technologies. Ridership, cost and implementation will all be considered.

Section 2.0 Project Description

No Comments

Section 3.0 General Environmental Assessment Requirements

No Comments

Section 4.0 Environmental Assessment Work Plan

Pierre Johnson:

The title should be changed from LRT if this is a rapid transit study.

Response: The name is East-West LRT as identified in the Official Plan and RTES. The name has been kept for continuity and recognition. However, as identified in the ToR, a range of rapid transit solutions are being considered.

Tim Lane:

If the North-South LRT study selects electric LRT, does that mean the East-West LRT has to be electric?

John Brennan:

Will the identification of nodes lead to the City restricting commercial development in order to increase densities and encourage ridership?

Response: Discussions will be ongoing throughout the study with the City’s land use planners regarding existing and future land uses and transit-oriented development.

Bill Pugsley:

Will air quality be monitored for existing conditions within the study area?

Response: MOE endorsed models will be used to assess existing air quality at a number of receptors along the corridor.

Alan Asselstine:

Ridership is critical to the success of the project. A system down Walkley Road and not on the rail lines will be more accessible and attract more riders.

Tim Lane:

Stations, not the line, need to be in high-density areas and rely on a network of feeder buses.

Response: The EA study will consider system alignment, station locations and transit-oriented development, amongst other criteria when evaluating the alternatives.

Peter Stockdale:

The mitigation measures include a statement that stakeholders will be involved. Does this include the PCG?

Response: Yes

Dick Howey:

What NCC approvals would be required?

Response: The corridor crosses the Greenbelt and NCC approvals may be required if NCC land is needed.

Section 5.0 Consultation Plan

Several members requested that the public comments received at the Open House meetings be made available for review by the PCG.

Response: We will make the comments, with personal information removed, available for review upon request by the PCG.

Peter Stockdale:

The description of Open House #1 does not include a statement to solicit comments from the public as is identified for the other Open Houses. Why Not?

Response: This is a clerical omission. It will be added in.

Nicole Parent:

Will there be a follow-up to the meetings?

Response: Summaries of the open houses will be made available and a FAQ page will be updated on the City’s website.

Royal Galipeau:

If the PCG is to represent the communities, how do the residents know who the representative is?

Response: The ward councillor can be contacted. Membership on this PCG was developed with input from ward councilors.

Helen Lenthall:

If public comments (from the open houses) come in regarding a ward-specific issue, can this be forwarded to the area representative?

Response: All comments/issues will be documented and summaries will be provided to the PCG, along with study team’s responses/action plans to address those issues.

Peter Stockdale:

Have surveys been considered to collect public information and comments?

Response: No. They are generally not effective for this type of input. Detailed information will be presented at the Open Houses and available on the City website for comment. Notices of the meetings will be in 3 daily newspapers, and also on the website.

Royal Galipeau:

Can members of the PCG attend the Open Houses? Can name tags be provided to the PCG.

Response: Anyone can attend the Open Houses. Although name tags can be provided, please note that it is the City, as proponent for this study, that is hosting the public event.

Helen Lenthall:

Will there be interpretation for disabled and visually and hearing impaired at the Open Houses?

Response: The Open House format allows access. Sign language interpretation at the Open Houses has not been budgeted for this project. Written responses can be provided for the hearing impaired as required at the meetings. The Open House information on the website will be accessible to the visually impaired in accordance with City standards.

Royal Galipeau:

Where are the upcoming Open Houses?

Response: November 30 - Sir Wilfred Laurier School, 10^th Line Road

December 1, Jim Durrell Centre, Walkley Road

December 2, John Mllack Centre Campeau Drive

Steve Blais:

Is it possible to add the Orléans and Kanata Chamber of Commerce to the ACG list? They often have different opinions from the Ottawa Chamber of Commerce.

Response: The study team will look into this.

Make comments available to PCG - City of Ottawa

Consider adding to ACG - City of Ottawa

General Discussion

Meeting Format

Sampat Sridhar:

Is there an opportunity for the PCG to continue to work outside of the scheduled meetings (i.e., chat room on the City’s website)?

Response: The City’s website in not set up to do that but members are free to contact each other.

Helen Lenthall:

There has been little consideration of the members of the committee. The following requests are made for subsequent meetings:

· Water (as a minimum) should be provided

· Parking vouchers

· Name tags should be provided

Response: Water and name tags will be provided for subsequent meetings. Evening parking is free on the streets. There is not budget for parking vouchers or mileage for this study or any EA study.

There were requests made that the names and email of the members of the PCG be made available to the public and the other members. There was general consensus at the table to release individual names and email addresses.

Response: The PCG was advised that there are privacy issues associated with releasing personal information. However, since everyone on the PCG has agreed to releasing his/her name and e-mail address to the Group, as well as to the public, this will be done.

Royal Galipeau:

Is the Delcan team in Ottawa or Toronto.

Response: Both. David Hopper, Project Manager and the LRT technical experts are based out of Toronto. The environmental assessment, planning, infrastructure and transportation consultants are in Ottawa.

Release Contact information - City of Ottawa

3. Next Steps

Open Houses November 30, December 1 and 2, 2004

Newspaper advertisements will appear on Friday, November 19 and 26.

Next PCG Meeting

February 2005

Royal Galipeau:

Can the dates for future meetings be made in advance?

Response: The meeting dates will be scheduled in advance but not right away. The actual date will be dependant on study progress. The study team will endeavour to notify the PCG as early as possible.

Early meeting notification - City of Ottawa

Distribution to all PCG members.

Please advise Kelly Roberts of any errors or omissions from these meeting notes (phone 738-4160 ext 228, fax 739-7105, e-mail k.roberts@delcan.com).

Annex 2

Notifications

For immediate release:

November 22, 2004

Open houses mark beginning of east-west light rail study

Ottawa – The City of Ottawa has initiated an Environmental Assessment (EA) study for expansion of its Rapid Transit network to provide improved east-west transit connectivity and to accommodate the existing and future demand between the growing communities of Kanata and Orléans as well as inside the Greenbelt.

This EA will examine a range of alternatives, identify both construction and operational impacts on all aspects of the environment and bring forward a recommended plan detailing mitigation measures, costs, and all approvals required to proceed with the implementation as opportunities present themselves.

The open houses will provide citizens the opportunity to ask questions, discuss options and provide comments to City staff. The open houses will be held:

Tuesday, November 30, 2004

4:30 –8 p.m.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier Secondary School Cafeteria, 1515 Tenth Line Road, Orléans

Wednesday, December 1, 2004

4:30 –8 p.m.

Jim Durrell Centre, Ellwood Hall, 1265 Walkley Road, Ottawa

Thursday, December 2, 2004

4:30 –8 p.m.

John Mlacak Centre, Hall C&D, 2500 Campeau Drive, Kanata

The draft Terms of Reference will also be available on the City’s project Web site at: ottawa.ca/lrt

For more information:

Media contact

(613) 580-2450

Public inquiries

(613) 580-2400

Open House # 1

Notice of Study Commencement and Open House #1

East-West Corridor Light Rail Transit Project Environmental Assessment

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 4:30 - 8 p.m.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier Secondary School Cafeteria, 1515 Tenth Line Road, Orleans

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - 4:30 - 8 p.m.

Jim Durrell Centre, Ellwood Hall, 1265 Walkley Road, Ottawa

Thursday, December 2, 2004 - 4:30 - 8 p.m.

John Mlacak Centre, Hall C&D, 2500 Campeau Drive, Kanata

What is Being Proposed?

The City of Ottawa has initiated an Environmental Assessment (EA) study for expansion of its Rapid Transit network to provide improved east-west transit connectivity and to accommodate the existing and future demand between the growing communities of Kanata and Orléans as well as inside the Greenbelt.

The project will be carried out as an Individual Environmental Assessment in accordance with the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act and will be coordinated with the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Terms of Reference

Before work commences on the Individual EA, a study Terms of Reference (ToR) will be prepared which defines the undertaking, methodology and work plan. The completed ToR will be presented to the City's Transportation Committee and Council for their endorsement prior to their submission to the provincial Minister of the Environment. Once approved by the Minister, the Terms of Reference will set out the framework that will guide and focus the preparation of the EA.

Consultation

Ongoing and effective communications and consultation will play a key role throughout the study. Individuals and organizations with an interest in the study will have ongoing opportunities to participate in the environmental planning process through various meetings and Open Houses that will be held throughout the study. Accordingly, you are invited to attend one of the three Public Open House sessions to review and comment on the draft Terms of Reference.

The draft Terms of Reference will also be available on the City’s project web site at: www.ottawa.ca/lrt

Project Contact

Mona Abouhenidy, Ph.D., P. Eng.

Program Manager, Transportation – Strategic Planning

Planning and Growth Management Department

City of Ottawa

110 Laurier Avenue West, 4th Floor

Ottawa, ON K1P 1J1

Tel: 613-580-2424 ext. 26936

Fax: 613-580-2578

E-mail: mona.abouhenidy@ottawa.ca