EAST-WEST CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT (ORLEANS TO KANATA) - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - TERMS OF REFERENCE
PROJET DU CORRIDOR EST-OUEST DU TRAIN LÉGER SUR RAIL (ORLÉANS À KANATA) –
ÉVALUATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE – CADRE DE RÉFÉRENCE
ACS2005-PGM-POL-0024
Appearing before Committee to give a presentation on this report were Planning and Growth Management (PGM) staff - Vivi
Chi, Manager of Transportation/Infrastructure Planning, and Mona Abouhenidy,
Program Manager, Transportation - Strategic Planning, accompanied by Delcan
consultants David Hopper, Project Manager and Lynton Erskine. A copy
of the PowerPoint presentation is held on file with the City Clerk. Before proceeding with the presentation,
Ms. Chi enlightened that a paragraph was accidentally omitted from the
financial section of the report. She
explained that if Committee were to approve the report, there is no financial
implication with respect to the East-West Light Rail EA because the funding has
already been committed, but with respect to the Carling
and Rideau/Montreal Corridor LRTs, there is a financial implication, which has
been captured in the report. Also present to answer questions on the issue
were Ned Lathrop, Deputy City Manager of Planning and Growth Management (PGM),
and Dennis Jacobs, Director of Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy
(PGM), as well as Public Works and Services (PWS) staff Gordon Diamond,
Director of Transit Services and Helen Gault, Manager, Transit Service Planning
and Development.
The Committee then heard the following delegations:
David Jeanes, Transport 2000 felt that the
proliferation of separate environmental assessments included in this process is
limiting the extent of public participation and is creating more problems for
co-ordination among the different projects. He submitted his presentation
in writing, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk and which
touches, among others, on the following points:
§
The EA process for Light Rail projects
has proved to be very costly and slow in comparison to previous approach with
the O-Train.
§ Transport 2000 concurs that the East-West project provides rapid transit service between the former cities of Gloucester, Nepean and Kanata and their major urban facilities and business parks. However, Transport 2000 feels that there are several high priority pieces missing from the current studies, such as inter-provincial rapid transit and service to the Hospitals in the Alta Vista corridor.
§
The study of re-using the diesel LRT
trains is very important. The
information currently available with respect to the North-South LRT suggests
there may in fact be more diesel light rail vehicles available by 2009 than the
current three trains that can be used on the East-West corridor. Also most of the bridges and underpasses
already in use are designed for double track, but not for triple track.
§
Co-operation between projects is
critical, but we can't depend on this if it is not part of the public process.
The choice of vehicle type and particularly the speed will be critical in
achieving say a 45-minute Gloucester to Kanata journey time, and the design of
the connecting node at Greenboro between North-South and East-West, and
connecting nodes to the bus transitway are also critical, but it is not clear
who will ensure this.
§
Going ahead on the Cumberland
Transitway, whether BRT or LRT, isn't going to work if we leave out a link to
downtown via either Blair or Hurdman.
§
Terminating LRT at the Rideau Centre
isn't the right thing to do. It is
critical to plan how LRT and BRT will interface and exchange riders, whether at
Mackenzie King or Hurdman. The Rideau
Street corridor, while important, does not address this rapid transit need.
In answer to questions raised by Committee members, Mr. Jeanes provided the following responses:
§ The various pieces of these projects are complicated and are not dealt with together or at the same time, which creates confusion for the general public and volunteer groups involved in the consultation process.
§ He is more concerned about the pieces of the project that are missing, for example building the initial portion of the Cumberland Bus Rapid Transit, than about adding more EAs and studies to the work in progress.
In response to questions raised by Committee members, staff provided the following clarifications:
· Public Works and Services Transit Services staff is actually working very closely with the Light Rail office and the PGM department developing an integrated service plan that will deliver efficient and effective service for both bus and light rail, which will be completed by the end of the year.
· The Light Rail office has a very specific mandate that was set up to deliver on the North-South Light Rail initiative.
· All of the long range planning functions for capital works, whether above or below ground, falls under the scope of work carried out by the Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy Branch of the PGM Department. The branch is the coordinating body for leading EAs, and it works with the various operational departments, such as transit services, to ensure integration between the planning of the network and the delivery of the service, which are all overseen by the Director of the Branch. All of the planning is being undertaken by the same group of staff, who are being led and assisted by consultants, as required to bring in the expertise.
· RTES set the framework for the City’s goals and plans with respect to rapid transit and it laid out a network that is now being undertaken in a coordinated fashion through the various EAs, studies and designs. These works are being carried out in accordance with the City’s legislative obligations and with every attempt to include the appropriate public consultation.
· Delcan is the consulting firm responsible for this particular EA and will be coordinating their work through staff with the consultants involved on the North-South and in future, with the other EAs.
· The findings of the EA on the Cumberland transitway (BRT) project that staff finished a few years ago is still valid and could be put in place now if funding was available. The PGM department would work with the PWS department in implementing that project to determine the best routes and what services to provide.
Stephen Fanjoy expressed concern
regarding the Terms of Reference that still does not indicate the impact on
Green House Gas. He felt that the comments and
suggestions he has put forth in the last six months with respect to GHG, as a
member of the public consultation group, have not been reflected in this
document. For this reason, he did not
support the Terms of Reference.
Staff clarified that reference to GHG is indeed
included in the ToR under section 4.5.3: Evaluating Alternative Methods of Carrying out the
Undertaking, in their consideration of Climatic Effects under
the heading of ‘Natural Environment
Effects’ and in Noise, Air Quality and Vibration under the heading of ‘Social/Cultural Environmental Effects’. Staff also felt that it is clearly included
in the definition of Air Quality and Criteria Air Contaminants.
When questioned by Councillor Bloess, Mr. Fanjoy stated that GHG falls under separate regulation than Criteria Air Contaminants and he is therefore uncomfortable about the way staff have enveloped it in the ToR. Councillor Bloess asked staff to explicitly reference Green House Gas (GHG) in the Terms of Reference on pages 77 and 79 under Natural Environment. Staff agreed to add the reference to GHG in the Terms of Reference.
Dick Howey stated that staff previously reported that the current (diesel) O-Trains are not permitted to operate on level crossings, but he feels that the correspondence he has seen between Transport Canada and the former Manager of the Light Rail Program in Ottawa with respect to diesel inspection and safety rules suggests the contrary. There seems to be no regulations to prevent diesel light rail from travelling across any type of road or crossing. He felt that the EA process has been narrowly focused and he felt that his suggestions for various routes have been ignored and that staff should consider them now rather than later.
In response to
questions from Committee members based on the delegation’s comments, staff
provided the following clarifications:
· All issues raised by the public consultation group were addressed.
· The report includes information on the MTO approved operating rules, which state that the TALENT BR643 DMU, the model currently used for the O-Train, “…is approved for Canadian operations on the condition that they are not operated over public highway crossings at grade…”
· Transport Canada are aware that the current LRT vehicles do not meet Federal Railway Approvals and that each crossing has to be evaluated on it's own merit and subject to a detailed safety audit. . This is specific to vehicles that do not meet the North American standard for safety and does not apply to the specific type of vehicle, but rather to who manufactured it and what design standard it was built to.
· The current O-Train was purchased from a European Manufacturer and is based on European standards; therefore, it does notmeet the North American standards to operate across a level crossing.
· There are no level crossings with public roadways on the current system and the staff that are looking at the North-South line are actively pursuing how they can operate the O-Train, even in the short term, across a level crossing at Leitrim Road.
· The possibility to put a route from Industrial Road through the Ottawa Train Station and parallel to the VIA tracks and existing transitway is part of a separate study that has been identified to look at that particular corridor, and would not be looked at in this East-West EA.
Timothy Lane was concerned that this study is not considering other corridors that already have rail on them or those that have been abandoned and are owned by the City. He also felt that track sharing is not as problematic an issue as staff has suggested and he felt this could be a viable and cost-efficient option.
In response to questions raised by Councillor Feltmate based on the delegation’s comments, staff clarified that the revised study area recognizes that there is a corridor that runs from Bells Corners down through to Stittsville and staff will look at how to protect that, but in the short term, they are focusing on the Highway 417 corridor where work has been done on the west transitway, where there is a designated town centre or major commercial development, and where there is the greatest potential to serve the largest number of people.
Charles Matthews, Disabled and Proud expressed concerns about the accessibility of the route to be chosen and how staff is only considering accessibility requirements within the framework of the City’s current policies. Mr. Matthews explained that the Ontario Disabilities Act is forthcoming and he hopes that one of the first standards to be developed would be the requirement for municipalities with respect to providing accessibility. He pointed out that, should those standards be approved before the EA has been completed, the ToR for this EA will have to specifically state how it will adhere to the Act. He felt that the EA, as put forth in this report, does not take accessibility into proper consideration and he pointed out that staff would be wiser to make those considerations now to avoid additional costs and delays in future when the Act is put in place.
In response to
the delegation’s comments, staff clarified that they are keeping in
consideration the forthcoming Act and they are designing a fully
accessible system for all disability communities. PWS staff will employ expertise in this field once the project
moves beyond the EA stage to address these requirements and concerns.
The Committee received an e-mail sent on 16 May 2005 (a copy is on file with the City Clerk) from Pat Spearey advising his satisfaction in general with the revised Terms of Reference and that he would look forward to making further inputs during the creation of the EA.
In response to questions from Committee Members, and Councillor Feltmate, who is in support of all the report recommendations, staff provided the following responses:
· The reason for staff recommendations numbers 3 and 4 regarding the Carling Avenue and Montreal EAs is to have a pre-commitment for the 2006 budget so that staff could star on the Statement of Work now; to bring it forward once the North-South EA is done; the transition of the EA team; and to ensure that the work load is properly balanced.
· Going through the East-West EA now is important because it would allow staff to consider the whole issue of integration with the North-South. It would also allow staff to evaluate the possibility of transitioning the existing O-Train infrastructure into the East-West, and of building on the existing rail network in partnership with the Ottawa Railway Company.
· As part of the Transportation Master Plan, implications of not going to light rail were identified. Two more north-south arterial roads at the scale of Hunt Club and two more east-west Hunt Club roads would be required to cope with the capacity. Just the roadway construction alone would be between $800 million and a billion, not to mention the land acquisition required to put them in place, which is a major issue.
· The West Transitway Capital Infrastructure to improve the western access into the City will be in next year’s budget.
· The gas tax money would go to transit priorities set by Council that is rail and bus/transitway infrastructure improvements.
· For the North-South LRT Project, the City has funding commitments of $200 million from the Federal Government, $200 million from the Provincial Government and an estimated $275 million as the City’s share.
· There is no funding commitment for the East-West LRT Project.
· The North-South EA recommendations will be in front of the Transportation Committee on July 6, 2005, and the actual construction should be completed by 2009.
· The East-West EA would be completed by the end of 2006 and it would then take a few months in 2007 to get the MOE approval.
· The advancement of the Carling Avenue and Montreal Road EAs would provide staff with a very good definition of not only the right-of way and land requirements but also the priorities, which could then be presented to Council as to where the next round of funding should be. At the same time, it would allow staff to figure out how and whether to transition the existing O-Train vehicles into the East-West corridor as a pilot project.
· The existing East-West line being considered is primarily a single track, used and owned by Ottawa Central Railway, which uses it on a relatively infrequent basis. For the VIA line from the junction at the Rideau River up to the Ottawa Train Station, there are up to 14-16 VIA trains a day, which are on a fairly tight schedule.
· Whether the technology chosen for the North-South has to be compatible for the East-West would depend on timing. If electrified light rail technology is selected for the ultimate system, then in the long term the preference would be to have similar technology especially in areas where it deals with urban cross sections.
· Network connections and how the line serves the rest of the network is definitely part of the study scope.
· There are three major destination zones for people in the south Orleans area. The first one is to downtown. The second most popular is to the southeast area of the City, which is down in the Sheffield/Walkley, Ottawa Business Park areas where this line goes. And the third most popular is internal to the zone.
· For Kanata, it is a similar pattern – the first and primary destination is towards the downtown area; the next more popular one is to the southwest following the line; and the third is internal.
· Staff will make clear reference to greenhouse gas under natural environment.
· The basic premise behind the Official Plan is still valid based on the population projection in 1995 and then updated in 2001. The principle behind the East-West Line was not just about going to the highest density locations. It was also the principle of joining the major business parks within the City. One of the reasons is to encourage people from Kanata to actually access some of the major business locations in all the way through the centre part of the town and over in to the east end. This is an issue of community building and city building in order to be able to support the model splits and define the opportunity for people to default to rail rather than actually going in their car. The reason this was put as the next priority is it could be built on existing infrastructures, thus maximizing the use of the infrastructures with the lowest possible costs.
· The reason for expanding the study area in the east is because there is an existing rail corridor. This provides a way to get across the greenbelt using an existing corridor through the National Capital Commission Greenbelt. It would provide a higher speed connection across the greenbelt. It is a historic transportation corridor and staff believes that it should be looked at as part of the study.
· Not pursuing the Carling and Montreal EAs would not in any way adverse the East-West EA and proper linkages could still be done down the road. Particular attention would be paid to the area around the connection. In the event that the Report Recommendations 3 and 4 are not approved, staff would not carry out the EA studies until 2008 and 2013 and would go ahead as originally proposed on the East-West study.
Councillor Doucet then brought forward the following motion:
Whereas: neither the technology, nor the private sector builder of
the North-South light rail line have been chosen yet, but will be over the next
six months.
Whereas: the terms of reference for the East-West Light Rail Line
should be undertaken in consultation with the winning proponent of the
North-South Line.
Whereas: identifying the connecting stations between the North-South
Line and the present busway should be a key output of the East-West EA but is
not present.
Whereas: the most critical stations are going to be on the highest
traffic routes and in the most densely populated areas and these are absent from
the scope of work in this study.
Whereas: the East-West Light Rail Route should include an evaluation
of the Carling Avenue and Montreal Road route as well as the CN Line.
Whereas: the terms of reference for the present EA presently only
include the CN Line.
Be it resolved that the Transportation Committee not make any final
decision on East-West routing and placement of stations until the Carling
alternative has also been presented such that the impact on key transfer
stations is understood.
At the request of Chair Stavinga, Deputy City Manager Lathrop commented on the aforementioned motion by stating that the way the resolution is worded, and especially the last ‘be it resolved’ is not what EAs are all about. Going through an EA process would actually identify the placement of stations, the population projection and the impacts and implications of the chosen line. He disagrees with the resolution as presented and feels that it is unwarranted.
Following
comments from Committee Members, the Committee then voted on the resolution:
Moved by Councillor Doucet
Whereas: neither the technology, nor the private sector builder of
the North-South light rail line have been chosen yet, but will be over the next
six months.
Whereas: the terms of reference for the East-West Light Rail Line
should be undertaken in consultation with the winning proponent of the
North-South Line.
Whereas: identifying the connecting stations between the North-South
Line and the present busway should be a key output of the East-West EA but is
not present.
Whereas: the most critical stations are going to be on the highest
traffic routes and in the most densely populated areas and these are absent
from the scope of work in this study.
Whereas: the East-West Light Rail Route should include an evaluation
of the Carling Avenue and Montreal Road route as well as the CN Line.
Whereas: the terms of reference for the present EA presently only
include the CN Line.
Be it resolved that the Transportation Committee not make any final decision on East-West routing and placement of stations until the Carling alternative has also been presented such that the impact on key transfer stations is understood.
Yeas (1): Councillor
C. Doucet
Nays
(5): Councillors R. Bloess, E.
El-Chantiry, A. Cullen, M. McRae, J. Stavinga
The Committee voted on and approved the recommendations contained in departmental report dated 26 April 2005, as follows:
That the Transportation Committee recommend Council:
1. Approve the Terms of Reference for the
East-West Corridor Light Rail Transit Project (Orleans to Kanata) Environmental
Assessment.
CARRIED unanimously
2. Direct staff to submit the Terms of
Reference to the Ministry of the Environment for approval in accordance with
Section 6 (1) of Ontario's Environmental Assessment Act.
CARRIED
unanimously
3. Direct staff to prepare the Statements
of Work for the environmental assessments of the Carling Corridor LRT and the
Rideau/Montreal Corridor LRT.
CARRIED
Yeas (4): Councillors E. El-Chantiry, C. Doucet, M. McRae, J. Stavinga
Nays (2): Councillors R. Bloess,
A. Cullen
4. Approve the pre-commitment of $4M in
the 2006 budget for the Carling LRT EA and the Rideau/Montreal LRT EA studies.
CARRIED
Yeas (4): Councillors
E. El-Chantiry, C. Doucet, M. McRae, J. Stavinga
Nays
(2): Councillors R. Bloess, A. Cullen