Appendix A

Acronyms and Glossary of Terms

Acronyms and Glossary of Terms

AQ Air Quality

ACG Agency Consultation Group

ANSI Area of Natural and Scientific Interest

BCG Business Consultation Group

BRT Bus Rapid Transit

CAC Criteria Air Contaminants

CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

DMU Diesel Multiple Units

EA Environmental Assessment

FAQ Frequently Asked Questions

ha hectare(s)

HEAP Harmonized Environmental Assessment Process

km kilometre(s)

m metre(s)

mph miles per hour

LRT Light Rail Transit

MNR Ministry of Natural Resources (Ontario)

MOE Ministry of the Environment (Ontario)

MVCA Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority

NCC National Capital Commission

NHIC Natural Heritage Info Centre

OEAA Ontario Environmental Assessment Act

OP Official Plan

OPA Official Plan Amendment

OWRA Ontario Water Resources Act

PCG Public Consultation Group

ROW Right-of-Way

RTES Rapid Transit Expansion Study

RVCA Rideau Valley Conservation Authority

SNCA South Nation Conservation Authority

TMP Transportation Master Plan

ToR Terms of Reference

TOD Transit Oriented Development

Air quality

Refers to the impacts of air contaminants that are considered to be harmful to human health, also known as Criteria Air Contaminants (CACs). (City of Ottawa - Transportation Master Plan

Support Projects Assignment 5. Transportation, Air Quality and Climate

Change, Delcan 2003)

Alternative to the Undertaking

In the context of the Environmental Assessment Act, alternatives to the undertaking are functionally different ways of addressing an identified problem or opportunity. For example, Alternatives to the Undertaking to address the transportation need would include: road improvements, transit improvements, and the “Do Nothing” alternative.

Alternative Methods of Carrying out the Undertaking

Once a preferred “alternative to” a transportation problem has been identified (e.g. rapid transit), alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking may include bus or rail technology in addition to different locations.

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

Fast, frequent, limited-stop bus service that operates within an exclusive right-of- way or with priority measures over mixed traffic in shared corridors.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA)

A Federal Act, which came into force in 1995 (amended in 2003), requiring projects where the Government of Canada has decision-making authority to undertake an Environmental Assessment to determine whether the project is likely to result in a significant adverse environmental effect. CEAA is “triggered” if a Federal Authority is the proponent for the project, provides land, provides funding or is required to provide an approval that is listed in the Law List Regulations.

The Federal Authority that “triggers” CEAA is referred to as the “Responsible Authority” and has the responsibility to ensure that an environmental assessment is undertaken prior to exercising its duty.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has the legal obligation to coordinate the CEAA process when an EA is also required under another jurisdiction. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency role is to facilitate coordination and co-operation among Federal and Provincial Agencies involved in the environmental assessment processes of each of their jurisdictions.

Consultation Process

The process during the course of the planning study, in which the proponent consults with various agencies, groups, and the general public, in order to identify and attempt to resolve any concerns or issues before formal submission to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU)

A multiple unit passenger train powered by a diesel engine.

“Do Nothing” Alternative

One way of demonstrating the benefits of a recommended undertaking is to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the undertaking against the status quo or “Do Nothing” alternative. In the context of a transportation project, the “Do Nothing” alternative would mean that only normal operations, maintenance and repairs of existing facilities would be carried out, however, no major improvements or undertakings would be initiated.

Environment

The Ontario Environmental Assessment Act defines the environment as:

(a) air, land or water,

(b) plant and animal life, including human life,

(c) the social, economic and cultural conditions that influence the life of humans or a  community,

(d) any building, structure, machine or other device or thing made by humans,

(e) any solid, liquid, gas, odour, heat, sound, vibration or radiation resulting directly or indirectly from human activities, or

(f) any part or combination of the foregoing and the interrelationships between any two or more of them, in or of Ontario.

Environmental Assessment

A planning process that is mandated by provincial and federal legislation, and that requires the systematic identification and mitigation of the effects of transportation projects on all aspects of the environment.

Environmental Assessment Report (EAR)

A report documenting the planning process carried out by the proponent, following the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. Once the Report is approved by the Minister of the Environment, no additional approval of the proposed undertaking is needed under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act.

Light Rail Transit (LRT)

Light Rail is essentially a modern evolution of the conventional trolley. It is a metropolitan railway system characterized by its ability to function at higher operating speeds, operate short trains along exclusive rights-of-way at ground level, on aerial structures, in subways, or on streets, and to board and discharge passengers at track or car-floor levels. It can run on electric energy, be diesel powered or be a hybrid of systems.

Modal split

The percentage of person-trips made by either transit or automobile, relative to the total number of person-trips made by motorized modes (i.e. transit and automobile, combined).

Mitigation

Actions taken to reduce the effects of another action. If a particular alignment alternative, for example, has negative impacts then the proponent is obliged to attempt to identify any reasonable ways of reducing these impacts.

Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (OEAA)

The purpose of the Act is the betterment of the people of the whole or any part of Ontario by providing for the protection, conservation and wise management in Ontario of the environment. R.S.O. 1990, c. E.18, s. 2. It requires projects proposed by a provincial or municipal body to be subjected to a defined planning process which requires the proponent to document the purpose and rationale, look at a full range of reasonable alternatives, and assess the effects on the environment.

Proponent

The body proposing to undertake a project and who is, therefore, required by law to prepare an environmental assessment in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act. In the case of this project, the City of Ottawa is the proponent.

Rapid transit:

Fast, frequent, high-capacity transit service provided using either bus or rail technology, operating in an exclusive right-of-way or otherwise undelayed by mixed traffic in shared corridors.

Terms of Reference

A document prepared and submitted by the proponent to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment for approval, which governs the preparation of an environmental assessment for the undertaking.

Appendix B

Terms of Reference Consultation Summary

EAST-WEST CORRIDOR

Light Rail Transit (LRT) Project

(Orléans to Kanata)

Terms of Reference

Consultation Summary

April 2005

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction.. 107

1.1 Overview.. 107

2.0 Consultation Groups. 107

2.1 Public Consultation Group (PCG) 107

2.2 Agency Consultation Group (ACG) 108

2.3 Consultation Group Meetings. 110

2.4 Comment Summary. 110

3.0 Public Open Houses. 111

3.1 Notification. 112

3.2 Attendance. 112

3.3 Meeting Materials. 113

3.4 Completed Comment-Questionnaire. 113

4.0 Comment Responses. 116

5.0 Transportation Committee.. 117

ANNEXES

Annex 1 - Summary of Comments and Responses - Initial Round of Consultation

Annex 2 - Notifications of Study Commencement and Terms of Reference Open House

Annex 3 - Open House Materials

Annex 4 - Transportation Committee - (16 February 2005)

Annex 5 - Summary of Comments and Responses - Second Round of Consultation

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 were initially 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. Following the Transportation Committee meeting on 16 February 2005, a third Business Consultation Group was formed.

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 Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee

! Ottawa Youth Cabinet

! Federation of Citizens' Association

! 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

· Canadian National Railway

· Ottawa Central Railway

· VIA Rail

! Transport 2000

2.3 Business Consultation Group

A BCG was formed to review work-to-date and to provide comments on study activities, issues and concerns that reflect each group’s interests and values. BCG members are include, City-wide Chambers of Commerce, business associations, institutions and large commercial establishments.

! Ottawa Chamber of Commerce

! Orléans Chamber of Commerce

! Gloucester Chamber of Commerce

! Kanata Chamber of Commerce

! Greater Nepean Chamber of Commerce

! National Capital Business Alliance

! Regroupement des gens d’affaires (RGA)

! Canadian Federation of Independent Business

! Queensway Carleton Hospital

! Building Owners and Managers Association of Ottawa (BOMA)

! Ottawa Senators & Corel Centre

! Ottawa Carleton Home Builder Association (OCHBA)

! Nortel Networks

! Algonquin College

! Ottawa Real Estate Board

! Kanata Research Park

2.4 November Consultation Group Meetings

Initial 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 located in Annex 1.

2.5 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 3-1).

Figure 3‑1 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 3‑1: 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 the connections be made to 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 and Responses - draft Terms of Reference

The comments received at the Consultation Group meetings, Public Open Houses and from letters and emails were used to refine the Draft Terms of Reference. Annex 1 highlights the comments received and the corresponding response/changes made to the Draft Terms of Reference, as well as the meeting notes from the November Consultation Group Meetings. It should be noted that there were minor editorial changes suggested. These changes were 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.

5.0 Transportation Committee

The revised Terms of Reference were presented to the City of Ottawa Transportation Committee on 16 February 2005 with the recommendations that the Transportation Committee recommend Council:

1) Approve the Terms of Reference: and

2) Direct staff to submit the Terms of Reference to the Ministry of the Environment.

Several delegations spoke to the Committee and various issues were raised with regards to the study area boundaries and the details of the ensuing Environmental Assessment Study. The Committee Agenda, Disposition, and Minutes are located in Annex 4. Based on the comments received Transportation Committee passed the following motion.

Whereas concerns and questions were raised at the February 16, 2005 Transportation Committee Meeting regarding the East-West Corridor Light Rail Transit Project (Orleans to Kanata) – Environmental Assessment – Terms of Reference;

Be it resolved that the Transportation Committee refer the Terms of Reference back to staff for updating; and

Be it resolved that staff address all concerns raised by the Public Consultation Group and the Agency Consultation Group before updating the report; and

Be it resolved that the Consultation Groups be provided with an opportunity to review the draft before it is finalized; and

Be it further resolved that staff provide an updated report to the Transportation Committee by the end of May 2005.

The following motion was also referred to staff:

That Transport 2000 be included as a member of the Agency Consultation Group of the East-West Corridor Light Rail Transit Project Environmental Assessment.

As a result of the direction from the Committee, the following actions were undertaken:

§ Comments and presentations made at the Committee were summarized and responses prepared;

§ Consultation Groups were given an additional period (to March 12, 2005) to provide additional comments on the Terms of Reference. These comments were summarized and responses prepared;

§ Transport 2000 was moved to the Agency Consultation Group from the Public Consultation Group;

§ A Business Consultation Group (BCG) was formed;

§ Comments and responses were distributed to the PCG, ACG, and the newly formed BCG along with the revised Terms of Reference and meetings were held to review the materials (Annex 5).

Modifications were made to the Terms of Reference and they were presented a second time to the Transportation Committee on May 18, 2005.

Annex 1

Summary of Comments and Responses - Initial Round of Consultation

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.
	Consider implementing a wildlife corridor along the route.	Mitigation measures will be developed for the preferred alternative based on the identified potential environmental effects.
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
	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 coordinator.	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

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 from the 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:	East-West LRT Corridor Environmental Assessment Study Meeting Notes of External Agency Consultation Group (ACG) Meeting #1 16 November 2004 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 Hawkesbury 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: Yes, 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:	East-West LRT Corridor Environmental Assessment Study Meeting Notes of Public Consultation Group (PCG) Meeting #1 16 November 2004 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 4 Dave 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: Surveys and public meetings should be conducted in areas closest to the likely line since there is a general principle to consult with those who are most affected. More than three public information sessions should take place to achieve effective consultation. Response: Surveys 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 of Study Commencement and

Terms of Reference Open House

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.

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 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

Annex 3

Open House Materials

! Information Bulletin

! Comment Questionnaire

! Exhibits

Draft Terms of Reference - November/December 2004

Information Bulletin N^o. 1

Overview

This Information Bulletin has been prepared to provide a common understanding of the Draft Terms of Reference (ToR) for the East-West Corridor Light Rail Transit (LRT) Project: Environmental Assessment. It includes information on the proposed project and the Draft ToR which sets out a framework that will guide the preparation of the Environmental Assessment (EA).

Project Background

The proposed East-West Corridor LRT Project

was developed at a strategic level through the Rapid Transit Expansion Study (RTES), 2003. Following on from RTES, the Ottawa Rapid Transit Expansion Program (ORTEP) Implementation Strategy identified the immediate undertaking of the planning work for the North-South and East-West LRT projects as critical to meet the implementation timeframe for light rail projects.

In the spring of 2004, the Statement of Work for the East-West Corridor LRT Project: Environmental Assessment (EA) Study was approved by the City's Transportation Committee.

This Study 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 implementation as opportunities present themselves. The Study will be conducted in accordance with both Provincial and Federal Environmental Assessment Act requirements. The first step in the assessment process is the development of a ToR which requires Ministry of the Environment (MOE) approval.

Study Area

The proposed East-West Corridor LRT Project is approximately 47 km long, spanning from Orléans to Kanata. The rapid transit corridor would provide improved east-west transit connectivity bypassing the downtown. It also presents a unique opportunity to influence developments within the growth areas of Kanata and Orléans as well as inside the Greenbelt.

The study area is characterized as a corridor encompassing both sides of the existing rail corridor. In the east end, the band is narrower as the alignment has been defined by earlier studies. Along most of the corridor, it is wide enough to consider potential parallel corridors such as arterial roads and hydro corridors. In Kanata, the study area widens out to consider several route options, which will be evaluated to determine which best serves the existing and future growth.

Schedule

The proposed schedule for the EA Study (including legislated review periods) is as follows:

! Submit Terms of Reference to MOE in January 2005.

! Anticipated MOE approval of the ToR by April 2005 (12 weeks after submission). This includes a 30-day public and agency review and allows for review and approval by MOE .

! Submit completed EA Report to MOE by May 2006, including documentation of all public consultation and all relevant transportation and environmental planning studies undertaken during the course of the study.

! MOE approval is anticipated by December 2006. This is based on legislation providing up to 30 weeks for review and approval.

Terms of Reference

The ToR is a document which sets out a framework to guide the preparation of an Individual EA. The City of Ottawa must submit the ToR to the Ministry of the Environment for approval. The approved ToR is the first statutory decision by the MOE in the EA planning and approval process. The ToR describes:

! The Proposed Project Purpose

! Environmental Assessment Work Plan

! Environmental Assessment Consultation Plan

! Additional Approvals Required

Purpose of the Undertaking

The preliminary rationale for the undertaking is twofold:

! Help to satisfy the study area transportation demand and to achieve the City wide transit modal split target of 30% (i.e., solving the problem); and

! To protect land for the transit facility in advance of major development (i.e., opportunity to establish and plan for appropriate development densities and create transit-oriented developments (TODs) around the facility and stations).

Environmental Assessment Work Plan

The EA Work Plan includes the following major activities:

Purpose/Need: This activity will be undertaken to document the purpose and rationale for the undertaking. A Ridership Study will be completed as part of this activity.

Existing Conditions: Existing biological, physical, economic, social and technical environmental conditions will be documented as a baseline against which to assess and evaluate the potential effects of the alternatives on the environment.

Alternatives: Alternatives to the undertaking (do nothing, widen roads, rapid transit, combinations of road and transit) and alternatives ways to carry out the undertaking (technologies, corridors, station locations, infrastructure) will be identified and evaluated.

Assessment & Evaluation: Various assessment and evaluations methods will be developed and used to select the preferred alternative.

Environmental Assessment Consultation Plan

Consultation will include two invited Consultation Groups and Public Participation at Open Houses at key points during the study.

Public Consultation Group (PCG): formed to enable the community and interest groups to provide direct input into the study. It includes representatives from City Wards adjacent to the corridor, interest groups, and representatives from several City advisory committees.

Agency Consultation Group (ACG): formed to address the full range of technical issues and to comment on special studies as well as applicable procedures and legislation and policies. The ACG includes representatives from all levels of government.

Three Open Houses are planned for the Study:

! EA Open House #1 (Spring 2005)

! EA Open House #2 (Fall 2005)

! EA Open House #3 (Spring 2006)

City’s Website: Information on the EA will be available on the City’s website www.ottawa.ca/lrt

Additional Approvals

Additional approvals may be required beyond the Federal and Provincial Environmental Assessment Acts. The City of Ottawa is committed to obtaining the necessary approvals at the appropriate time in the implementation phase. The agencies responsible for issuing approvals will be consulted during the EA to address their interests and approval requirements.

Next Steps

Following this Open House, the Study Team will:

! Incorporate your comments into the draft ToR.

! Present the revised ToR to Transportation Committee and Council.

! Incorporate Committee and Council comments into the Final ToR.

! Submit the Final ToR to MOE for approval.

The MOE approved ToR will provide the framework for completing the Individual Environmental Assessment. When reviewing the EA, the MOE will ensure that the EA followed the process as set out in the ToR.

Before you leave tonight, please complete the Comment-Questionnaire and place it in the designated box, or mail or fax it to us by December 17, 2004.

Questions or Comments

If you have any questions or comments

about the study, please contact:

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

Planning and Growth Management Department

City of Ottawa

110 Laurier Avenue West, 4^th Floor

Telephone: 580‑2424, ext. 26936

Fax: 580-2578

E-mail: mona.abouhenidy@ottawa.ca

Prepared by Delcan Corporation

Cadre de référence préliminaire - novembre/décembre 2004

Bulletin d' information N^o. 1

Vue d’ensemble

Le présent bulletin d’information vise à bien vous éclairer sur le Cadre de référence (CR) préliminaire concernant l’évaluation environnementale du projet de corridor est-ouest du train léger sur rail (TLR). Vous y trouverez des renseignements sur ce projet et sur le CRP qui expose les paramètres qui serviront à orienter la préparation de l’Évaluation environnementale (ÉE).

Contexte du project

Le projet de corridor est-ouest du TRL a été élaboré à un niveau stratégique par le biais de l’Étude sur l’expansion du transport en commun rapide (ÉETCR), en 2003. Dans la foulée de cette étude, la Stratégie de mise en œuvre du Plan d’expansion du réseau de transport en commun rapide d’Ottawa (PERTCRO) a mis au jour l’importance d’entreprendre immédiatement les travaux de planification des axes nord-sud et est-ouest du TLR afin de pouvoir respecter les échéanciers fixés pour les projets de train léger sur rail.

Au printemps 2004, l’Énoncé des travaux concernant l’étude d’évaluation environnementale (ÉE) pour l’axe est-ouest du TLR a été approuvé par le Comité des transports de la Ville.

Cette étude examinera un éventail d'options, déterminera l'incidence de la construction et de l'exploitation des installations sur tous les aspects de l'environnement et présentera un plan privilégié précisant les mesures d'atténuation nécessaires et les coûts, de même que toutes les approbations obligatoires pour commencer à concrétiser le projet au fur et à mesure que les occasions se présenteront. L’étude sera menée conformément aux dispositions des lois fédérale et provinciale en matière d’évaluation environnementale. La première étape du processus d’évaluation consiste à élaborer un cadre de référence (CR) que le ministère de l’Environnement (MEO) doit approuver.

Secteur l'étude

L’axe est-ouest proposé s’étendra, sur une distance de 47 km, depuis Orléans jusqu’à Kanata. Ce corridor de transport rapide permettrait d’améliorer les correspondances est-ouest en contournant le centre-ville, en plus d’offrir une occasion unique d’influencer l’aménagement à l’intérieur des zones de croissance de Kanata et d’Orléans, ainsi que de la Ceinture de verdure.

Le secteur à l’étude se caractérise par un corridor situé de part et d’autre du couloir ferroviaire existant. Dans le secteur est, la bande est plus étroite, le tracé ayant été défini dans les études antérieures. Sur la majeure partie du parcours, la bande est suffisamment large pour qu’on puisse envisager des corridors parallèles comme de grandes artères et corridors de transport d’électricité. À Kanata, le secteur à l’étude est assez large pour qu’on puisse y envisager plusieurs parcours possibles qui seront évalués pour déterminer lequel permet de mieux satisfaire à la croissance actuelle et future.

Calendrier d'étude

Le calendrier proposé pour l'étude d'ÉE (y compris les périodes d'examen prévues par la loi) est comme suit :

· Présentation du CR au MEO en janvier 2005.

· Approbation prévue du CR par le MEO d'ici à avril 2005, 12 semaines après sa présentation, pour permettre l'examen et l'approbation du cadre de référence de l'ÉE par le ministère de l'Environnement, dont une période d'examen de trente jours par la population et par les organismes.

· Présentation du rapport d'ÉE au MEO avant mai 2006, ce qui comprend la documentation au sujet de toutes les consultations publiques et de toutes les études pertinentes de planification environnementale et des transports, qui ont été entreprises dans le cadre de l'étude.

· Approbation par le MEO de l'ÉE dûment achevée d'ici à décembre 2006, conformément à la ligne directrice du ministère prévoyant une période d'examen et d'approbation de l'ÉE d'au plus trente semaines.

Le Cadre de référence

Le CR est un document qui expose les paramètres servant à orienter la préparation d’une évaluation environnementale. La Ville d’Ottawa est tenue de présenter le CR au ministère de l’Environnement, pour approbation. L’approbation du CR est la première décision statutaire que doit prendre le MEO à l’étape du processus de planification et d’approbation de l’ÉE. Le CR décrit ce qui suit :

! Projet - besoin et raison d’être

! Exigences générales liées à l’ÉE

! Plan de travail de l’étude

! Plan de consultation de l’étude

! Autres autorisations nécessaires

Objet de l'entreprise

Le projet poursuit deux objectifs préliminaires :

! Aider à satisfaire à la demande de transport dans le secteur à l’étude et à atteindre l’objectif de 30 %, en ce qui concerne la répartition modale du transport en commun sur tout le territoire de la Ville (c.-à-d., pour régler le problème), et

! Protéger les terres destinées aux infrastructures de transport en commun avant que se produisent de grands aménagements (c.-à-d., possibilité d’établir les densités d’aménagement appropriées et de planifier en conséquence, et de créer des aménagements centrés sur le transport en commun (ATC) à proximité des installations et des stations).

ÉE plan de travail

Le Plan de travail pour l'ÉE expose les principales activités que l'on propose de mener, notamment :

Objet / besoin : Cette activité vise à documenter le besoin et la raison d’être du projet. Elle comprendra aussi une étude sur l’achalandage.

Conditions existantes : On documentera les conditions biologiques, physiques, économiques, sociales, techniques et environnementales existantes et on s’appuiera sur celles-ci pour évaluer les effets possibles des solutions de rechange sur l’environnement.

Solutions de rechange : Les solutions de rechange à l’entreprise (maintien du statu quo, élargissement des routes, transport en commun rapide, solution mixte - transport en commun rapide / élargissement des routes) et les façons possibles de réaliser l’entreprise (technologies, corridors, emplacement des stations, infrastructures) seront recensées et évaluées.

Évaluation : Diverses méthodes d’évaluation seront élaborées et utilisées pour faciliter la sélection de l’option privilégiée.

Plan de consultation pour l’ÉE

Deux groupes de consultation seront invités à participer et les citoyens pourront participer à des séances portes ouvertes qui se tiendront à des étapes clés tout au long de l’étude.

Groupe de consultation publique (GCP) : Un GCP a été mis sur pied pour permettre à la collectivité et aux groupes d’intérêts d’exprimer de vive voix leurs opinions au sujet de l’étude. Il est composé de représentants des quartiers municipaux adjacents au corridor, de groupes d’intérêts ainsi que de plusieurs comités consultatifs de la Ville.

Groupe de consultation des organismes (GCO) : Un GCO a été créé pour examiner toute la gamme des questions techniques et pour faire des observations sur les études spéciales ainsi que sur les lois, politiques et procédures qui s’appliquent. Le GCO est composé de représentants de tous les ordres de gouvernement.

Trois séances portes ouvertes sont planifiées pour l'ÉE :

! Séance portes ouvertes n^o1 – ÉE (printemps 2005)

! Séance portes ouvertes n^o2 – ÉE (automne 2005)

! Séance portes ouvertes n^o3 – ÉE (printemps 2006)

Site Web de la Ville : L’information préparée sur l'ÉE sera affichée sur le site Web de la Ville à www.ottawa.ca/tlr

Autres autorisations requises

En plus des autorisations requises en vertu des lois fédérale et provinciale en matière d’évaluation environnementale, il faudra peut-être obtenir d’autres autorisations. La Ville d’Ottawa s’engage à obtenir les autorisations requises au moment opportun pendant la phase de mise en œuvre. À l’étape de l’ÉE, on consultera les organismes auprès desquels une autorisation doit être obtenue pour faire en sorte que leurs intérêts et leurs exigences soient dûment pris en compte.

Prochaines étapes

Après la séance portes ouvertes, l'équipe d'étude veillera à

! Incorporer vos observations au CR préliminaire.

! Présenter le CR révisé au Comité des transports et au Conseil municipal.

! Intégrer les observations du Comité et du Conseil à la version finale du CR.

! Présenter le CR final au MEO, pour approbation.

Le Cadre de référence approuvé par le MEO exposera les paramètres pour réaliser l'évaluation environnementale distincte Au moment d’examiner l’ÉE, le MEO veillera à ce que celle-ci soit conforme à la marche à suivre exposée dans le CR.

Avant de quitter les lieux, nous vous prions de bien vouloir remplir la Feuille de commentaires et de la déposer dans la boîte prévue à cette fin ou encore, de nous la transmettre par la poste ou par télécopieur, avant le 17 décembre 2004.

Commentaire ou questions

Mona Abouhenidy, Ph.D., ing.

Service de l'urbanisme et de la gestion de la croissance

Ville d’Ottawa

110, avenue Laurier Ouest, 4^e étage

Ottawa (Ontario) K1P 1J1

Tél.: 613-580-2424 poste 26936

Téléc.: 613-580-2578

mona.abouhenidy@ottawa.ca

Préparé par Delcan Corporation

Terms of Reference Public Open House

November/December 2004

COMMENT-QUESTIONNAIRE

The City of Ottawa would appreciate your responses to the following questions as well as any comments you wish to make about the information presented at this Open House. Please take a few moments to complete our Comment-Questionnaire. You may leave it in the designated box when you leave tonight=s Open House, or send it to the address listed below by 17 December 2004. All information gathered in the Comment-Questionnaire will become part of the public record and used for the purpose of conducting this study.

About You

Where do you live? (Street name)

What specific interest do you have in this study?

Study Process

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

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

Terms of Reference

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

Existing Conditions

Alternative Solutions

Alternative Designs

Assessment and Evaluation

Public Consultation

If you wish, please provide:

Name: Representing (if applicable):________________________

Address:

Address: Postal Code: email: _________________________________________

Thank you for your participation

If you wish to provide us with more detailed comments, send written submissions, by 17 December 2004 to:

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

Planning and Growth Management Department

City of Ottawa

110 Laurier Avenue West, 4^th Floor

Tel: 613-580-2424 ext. 26936

Fax: 613-580-2578

E-mail: mona.abouhenidy@ottawa.ca

Séance portes ouvertes - Cadre de référence

novembre/décembre 2004

FEUILLE DE COMMENTAIRES-QUESTIONNAIRE

La Ville d’Ottawa souhaite connaître votre opinion sur les sujets suivants et recueillir vos commentaires sur l’information présentée lors de cette séance portes ouvertes. Veuillez prendre quelques instants pour remplir notre Feuille de commentaires que vous pourrez ensuite déposer, avant de quitter les lieux, dans la boîte prévue à cette fin ou encore, transmettre par la poste à l’adresse mentionnée plus bas avant le 17 décembre 2004. Tous les renseignements recueillis sur ce formulaire feront partie du dossier public et ne serviront qu’à réaliser cette étude.

À Propos De Vous

Où habitez-vous? (nom de la rue)

En quoi cette étude vous intéresse-t-elle en particulier?

Processus de l’étude

Avez-vous des observations à formuler concernant le processus de l’étude (fédéral, provincial ou harmonisation) utilisé pour mener l’évaluation environnementale ?

À votre avis, quelles sont les principales questions que devrait aborder l’évaluation environnementale ?

Cadre de Référence

Avez-vous des observations particulières à formuler concernant les rubriques suivantes du Cadre de référence préliminaire?

Conditions actuelles

Solutions de rechange

Concepts de rechange

Évaluation

Consultation publique

Si vous le souhaitez, laissez-nous vos coordonnées : :

Nom : Représentant (le cas échéant) :________________________

Adresse:

Code Postal : Courriel :__________________________________________

Merci de votre participation

Si vous souhaitez nous faire part de commentaires supplémentaires, transmettez-les par courrier, d’ici au 17 décembre 2004, à l’adresse suivante :

Mona Abouhenidy, Ph.D., ing.

Service de l'urbanisme et de la gestion de la croissance

Ville d’Ottawa

110, avenue Laurier Ouest, 4^e étage

Ottawa (Ontario) K1P 1J1

Tél.: 613-580-2424 poste 26936

Téléc.: 613-580-2578

mona.abouhenidy@ottawa.ca

East West LRT Environmental Assessment

Terms of Reference Public Open House – November/December 2004

Exhibit List

Welcome

Sign-In Table

Directional Signage

Introduction

Welcome

Background

Study Process

Environmental Assessment Processes

What is a Terms of Reference?

Study Schedule

Work Plan

Environmental Assessment Work Plan

Purpose/Need

Study Area

Biological Environmental / Biological Designations

Physical Environmental / Surficial Geology

Archaeological Potential / Land use

Existing Transportation Conditions

Alternative Solutions

Alternative Methods of Carrying Out the Undertaking

Evaluation Methodology

Impact Assessment and Mitigation

EA Consultation Plan

Closing

Next Steps

Annex 4

Transportation Committee - 16 February 2005

! Agenda

! Disposition

! Minutes

Transportation Committee

Comité des transports

Agenda 19 / Ordre du jour 19

Wednesday, 16 February 2005, 9:30 a.m.

le mercredi 16 février 2005, 9 h 30

Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West

Salle Champlain, 110, avenue Laurier ouest

Committee Coordinator/Coordonnatrice du comité:

Anne-Marie Leung, 580-2424, ext. 21385

Anne-Marie.Leung@ottawa.ca

Committee Members / Membres du comité:

Chair / Présidente :  Councillor / Conseillère J. Stavinga

Vice Chair / Vice-président :  Councillor / Conseiller C. Doucet

   Councillors / Conseillers G. Bédard, R. Bloess, A. Cullen, E. El-Chantiry,   J. Legendre, M. McRae, D. Thompson

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST /DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT      

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES /Ratification du procÈs-verbAUX

Minutes 19 and Confidential Minutes 1 - Wednesday, 19 January 2005

Procès-verbal 19 et Procès-verbal confidentiel 1 – le mercredi, 19 janvier 2005

.

PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT / URBANISME ET GESTION DE LA CROISSANCE

PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY

POLITIQUE D'URBANISME, D'ENVIRONNEMENT ET D'INFRASTRUCTURE

1. 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-DEV-POL-0003

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.

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.

Que le Comité des transports recommande au Conseil municipal :

1.         d’approuver le cadre de référence pour l’évaluation environnementale du corridor est-ouest du train léger sur rail (Orléans à Kanata).

2.         d’enjoindre le personnel de soumettre le cadre de référence au ministère de l’Environnement pour approbation conformément à l’article 6(1) de Loi sur les évaluations environnementales de l’Ontario.

INQUIRIES / DEMANDES DES RENSEIGNMENTS

OTHER BUSINESS / AUTRES QUESTIONS

ADJOURNMENT / LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE

NEXT MEETING / PROCHAINE RÉUNION

2 March 2005 le 2 mars 2005

Note:   1.         Due to the urgency of Item 1, Council will be requested to consider this item at its meeting of 23 February 2005 in Transportation Committee Report 17.

Nota :  1.         Compte tenu qu’il est urgent de traiter l’article 1, on demandera au Conseil d’étudier cet article, contenu dans le rapport n^o 17 du Comité des transports, lors de sa réunion du 23 février 2005.

Transportation Committee

Comité des transports

DISPOSITION 19/ SUITE À DONNER 19

Wednesday, 16 February 2005, 9:30 a.m.

le mercredi, 16 février 2005, 9 h 30

Notes:    1.     Underlining indicates a new or amended recommendation approved by Committee.

2. Due to the urgency of Item 1, Council will be requested to consider this item at its meeting of 23 February 2005 in Transportation Committee Report 17.

Nota:      1.     Le soulignement indique qu'il s'agit d'une nouvelle recommandation ou d'une recommandation modifiée approuvée par le Comité.

2.     Compte tenu qu’il est urgent de traiter l’article 1, on demandera au Conseil d’étudier cet article, contenu dans le rapport n^o 17 du Comité des transports, lors de sa réunion du 23 février 2005.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES / Ratification du procÈs-verbaux

Minutes 19 and Confidential Minutes 1 - Wednesday, 19 January 2005

CONFIRMED

1. 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-DEV-POL-0003

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.

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.

REFERRED TO STAFF as per the following motion:

Whereas concerns and questions were raised at the February 16, 2005 Transportation Committee Meeting regarding the East-West Corridor Light Rail Transit Project (Orleans to Kanata) – Environmental Assessment – Terms of Reference;

Be it resolved that the Transportation Committee refer the Terms of Reference back to staff for updating; and

Be it resolved that staff address all concerns raised by the Public Consultation Group and the Agency Consultation Group before updating the report; and

Be it resolved that the Consultation Groups be provided with an opportunity to review the draft before it is finalized; and

Be it further resolved that staff provide an updated report to the Transportation Committee by the end of May 2005.

The following motion was also referred to staff:

That Transport 2000 be included as a member of the Agency Consultation Group of the East-West Corridor Light Rail Transit Project Environmental Assessment.

Transportation Committee

Comité des transports

Minutes 20 / PROCÈS-VERBAL 20

Wednesday, 16 February 2005, 9:30 a.m.

le mercredi 16 février 2005, 9 h 30

Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West

Salle Champlain, 110, avenue Laurier ouest

Present / Présents :    Councillors / Conseillers J. Stavinga (Chair / Présidente), C. Doucet (Vice-Chair / Vice-président), R. Bloess, J. Legendre, M. McRae, D. Thompson

Absent/ Excuses :      (Regrets) G. Bédard, A. Cullen, E. El‑Chantiry

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST / DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT         

No declarations of interest were filed.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES / Ratification du procÈs-verbal

Minutes 19 and Confidential Minutes 1 of the Transportation Committee meeting of Wednesday, 19 January 2005 were confirmed.

During the consent agenda review process, Councillor Bloess inquired and expressed concern about the Urban Transit Area (UTA) Report not forming part of this agenda.  He referred to a memorandum dated 24 January 2005 from the Deputy City Managers, Public Works & Services and Planning & Growth Management, indicating that this report would be tabled at the February 16^th Transportation Committee meeting.  He also noted that the report was slated to appear before Committee on several previous occasions.  Chair Stavinga explained that after her approval for distribution of the final report, Mayor Chiarelli expressed concerns about the timing and citywide implications of the UTA Report, and requested that it be pulled from the agenda during the review process.  The Chair noted that she would follow up with the Mayor on this matter.  Councillor Bloess asked that, in future Committee members be privy of such information before the meeting so that such issue need not be raised on the Committee’s floor.

PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT

URBANISME ET GESTION DE LA CROISSANCE

PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY

POLITIQUE D'URBANISME, D'ENVIRONNEMENT ET D'INFRASTRUCTURE

1. 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-DEV-POL-0003

Appearing before Committee on this item to provide a presentation and answer questions were Dennis Jacobs, Director, Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy; Vivi Chi, Manager, Transportation/Infrastructure Planning; Mona Abouhenidy, Program Manager, Transportation - Strategic Planning; and David Hopper, Consultant, Delcan.  A copy of the staff PowerPoint presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

The Committee then heard the following delegations:

David Jeanes, Transport 2000 expressed support for the City’s Rapid Transit Expansion Plan for Light Rail and Transitway extensions.  Transport 2000 has always supported the need for the East-West Light Rail corridor as a “ring” route to link the former Kanata, Nepean, Gloucester, and Cumberland and as a transit alternative to the other non central area cross-town routes, (Queensway, Hunt Club corridor, proposed Armstrong-Strandherd corridor, and proposed outer ring road).  Transport 2000 fully supports the three technology options identified by RTES (Rapid Transit Expansion Study), including Electric LRT, Diesel LRT, and Bus Rapid Transit, with the right choice for each corridor and for staging to be determined during the EA processes.  The Group does, however, continue to have reservations about elements of the ORTEP (Ottawa Rapid Transit Expansion Program) Report and about the lack of public consultation associated therewith.  Mr. Jeanes submitted correspondence to the Committee prior to this meeting identifying several questions and concerns raised by Transport 2000 in relation to this report, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk.

Transport 2000 feels that this is not an urgent report.  The Group fails to understand why a report targeting a development plan for 2016 and not contingent on getting the federal money locked-in for the North-South Project has to be dealt with so urgently, that it cannot wait for some discussion at the Public Consultation Group meeting scheduled for next week after City Council’s consideration of the report.

In response to questions raised by Councillor Doucet, staff provided the following responses:

· Transport 2000 was not included in the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) because it is comprised exclusively of governmental, regulatory agencies; staff has actually renamed this group the Agency Consultation Group (ACG) in acknowledgement of the fact that technical issues may be discussed in meetings of the Public Consultation Group (PCG), which is made up of special interest groups as well as community representatives and has the role of commenting on the full range of issues with respect to the EA;

· Transport 2000 were consulted via ongoing meetings between the Deputy City Manager and Mr. Jeanes, in his capacity as President of that organization;

· This report has come forward at this point in time because the Terms of Reference (ToR) must be approved before staff can proceed with the next public open house; there are also budget concerns with extending the project, but staff will take direction from Committee if they wish the process to be slowed down for further consultation;

· Air quality evaluation has been assigned to the Social Evaluation criteria but it will be reviewed as part of the overall environment and receive a technical evaluation;

· Staff will look at the advantages and disadvantages of both at-grade and separated crossings.  The advantage of a separated crossing is to give transit priority and not having to wait for vehicles crossing in the other direction.  That will apply to both rail crossings and road crossings; however, there is a capital and operating cost implication associated with doing that in terms of providing additional structures and ongoing maintenance of both level and separated crossings and that will be part of the evaluation;

· Along this corridor, most of the grade separations are already in place.  The existing Ottawa Central Railway is grade-separated from the traffic so as not to impose delays on general traffic.  There are processes to warrant when it is justified to separate the two systems; staff will also look at staging, in which case we may have at-grade crossings in the short-term but protect for grade separation in the future when traffic increases;

Councillor Doucet informed that he would be putting forth a motion to have Transport 2000 included in the Agency Consultation Group.

In response to Councillor McRae’s query about the related expertise of the project team, Mr. Hopper informed that Delcan does have experience in this area, including a staff compliment with expertise in public transport systems (both light and heavy rail), and has been designing and implementing rapid transit systems for 50 years.  The Councillor advised that she would be supporting Councillor Doucet’s previously proposed motion and would be putting forth an Inquiry at the end of the meeting asking staff to provide a written answers to all Mr. Jeanes’ questions posed to all members of Council.

In response to questions raised by Councillor Bloess, staff provided the following responses:

· Staff has met with all of the consultation groups on this project, and their findings are included in the Consultation section of the ToR;

· The groups were given the schedule of meetings and proceedings at the beginning of the project, including the date that the ToR were to come forward to Committee, and they were informed of the importance of staying on schedule as much as possible;

· The report is general in nature; the next step, upon approval of the ToR, is to go forward with the work and the technical details;

· The implementation of a rapid transit system is the City’s most pressing priority to achieve a sustainable community, as stated in the Transportation Master Plan (TMP); since the North-South EA is already under way, it is pertinent that staff get approval for the East-West ToR so they can proceed with the East-West EA;

· As in any process, a decision framework is required and that decision framework is part of the Statement of Work approved by this Committee last year;

· The study team in drafting the ToR made every effort to address issues raised by all agencies and public consultation groups;

· The purpose of today’s meeting is for the Committee to make a decision on the ToR and to hear from groups that feel not everything has been addressed to their satisfaction;

· Staff assured Committee that the study team’s work is done in the context of the process approved by this Committee and is done in a manner that reflects the public and community’s interest in this project.

· The class process approved by the Ministry of Environment in 1990 applies only to GO Transit projects, but not to other transit projects in Ontario.

Chair Stavinga shares Councillor Bloess’ concern for the lack of a feedback loop with all the public consultation groups.  In response to the Chair’s questions, staff provided the following responses:

· Provided that the Committee grant the flexibility and time, staff is prepared to go back to the various consultation groups and if there are serious changes to the ToR, staff would be compelled to conduct another set of open houses to address these changes;

· Staff noted that there would be some timeline and costs involved with this delay; alternatively staff could go back to the various consultation groups and if the changes are not serious or if an action plan could be developed to address these concerns in detail later in the EA process, then perhaps an open house would not be required and a revised report could be brought back indicating such.

· Staff admitted that the Chamber of Commerce being part of the External Agency Consultation Group is an oversight and explained that in the North-South LRT Project, there is another consultation group called the Business Consultation Group, which had more membership, however, because the East-West LRT Project spans to such a large area, it was difficult for staff to get business interest representation across the City; so the Ottawa Chamber of Commerce was identified as a representative member.  Rather than having a business consultation group of one, the decision was to include the Chamber of Commerce with the Agency Consultation Group, but could have easily be included with the Public Consultation Group.

Tim Lane, Transport 2000 advised that most of his comments would focus on the Consultation Summary.  Mr. Lane submitted his written comments and a copy is on file with the City Clerk.  As requested by Chair Stavinga, copy of Mr. Lane’s submission was distributed to Committee Members.

Fred N. Nemeth expressed concern about the lack of the professional identification noted in the report and suggested that in future consulting firms hired by the City be required to divulge such, for public reference.  He also expressed concern about the air quality and the health hazard caused by any transportation system and feels that the environment should be protected and seriously considered.

In response to Chair Stavinga’s question, staff agreed to look into this matter and would ensure that consultants involved in the study be professionally identified.  It was felt that professional stamps refer to design drawings rather than report/documents brought forward for Committee’s consideration.  At the request of the Chair, Mr. Hopper gave a briefing on the potential effects to be studied, which would include beneficial and adverse effects that the proposed undertaking may have on the environmental feature, as indicated in the draft ToR.  He also confirmed that the bullets are not reflecting a prioritization and they are all at an equal footing of analysis.

Dick O. Howey, representing Councillor Chiarelli with respect to transportation issues.  He expressed concern about being referred to the RTES Report every time when making inquiries to staff on this matter.  He noted that the RTES Report does not limit the scope of study in any area, shape or form.  He suggested that the scope be widened to look at other areas such as Navan, using an abandoned railway line.  He also suggested bringing the train into the Ottawa Station, thence behind the hospitals, thence into Walkley by the Alta Vista area down into Walkley, and then straight on its own designated line west to either Carp and/or Stittsville.  He informed that he received numerous e-mails from people, who are having difficulty accepting what is stated in this report.  He feels that the report could go forward but should be rid of the negativity when suggestions are being brought forward, and that every suggestion should be taken into consideration.  He asked that the report be amended in order to move forward intelligently with an open mind and heart, not backward and not dictatorially.

At that point in time, Councillor McRae proposed the following motion:

Whereas concerns and questions were raised at the February 16, 2005 Transportation Committee Meeting regarding the East-West Corridor Light Rail Transit Project (Orleans to Kanata) – Environmental Assessment – Terms of Reference;

Be it resolved that the Transportation Committee refer the Terms of Reference back to staff for updating;

Be it resolved that staff address all concerns raised by the Public Consultation Group and the Agency Consultation Group before updating the report;

Be it resolved that the Consultation Groups be provided with an opportunity to review the draft before it is finalized; and

Be it further resolved that staff provide an updated report to the Transportation Committee by the end of May 2005.

In reply to Councillor McRae, Mr. Jacobs advised that RTES is not a roadblock or an obstacle.  It was a very extensive study undertaken at the direction of Committee and Council to define what the vision was for rapid transit in the Ottawa area.  This approved document establishes the scope and the vision for further analysis of the rapid transit system, the east-west corridor being identified as one of the corridors for further analysis. 

Staff is working within the scope of the approved principles. 

Staff agreed to review the analysis undertaken for RTES with the consultation groups.  Staff noted that the approved RTES recommendations became part of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP), which became a very critical component in the Official Plan in relation to land use and servicing.  Staff would not suggest that the study scope be expanded to review that anymore unless staff upon the analysis review comes across areas that had not been studied or analyzed well through RTES.

Chair Stavinga feels that there is a need to be opened to new ideas.

Councillor Legendre asked Mr. Howey to send him via e-mail his specific concerns with respect to this study in relation to RTES.

Stephen Fanjoy, a member of the Public Consultation Group supports the deferral motion in view of his concerns with respect to process and content.  He agreed to submit his written presentation via e-mail, a copy of which was distributed to all members and is on file with the City Clerk.  He recommended that green house gas and criteria air contaminant (GHG and CAC) emissions should be a specific environmental impact that is modeled and measured across the alternate transit scenarios.

David Glastonbury, representing the Ottawa Chamber of Commerce endorsed referral and reiterated two particular points that he urged staff to address when re-examining the study.  (1) With regards to Capital Rail, he expressed concerns that should the status of Capital Rail be changed from “federally regulated” to that of a municipal railway the opportunity to operate a service to Gatineau would be seriously challenged.  Furthermore, such a change of status would preclude the O Train from operating on rail lines owned by VIA Rail, Ottawa Central Railway, and the Quebec Gatineau Railway.  Additional costs would be incurred in building a separate right-of-way for LRT.  (2) To ensure that taxpayers receive maximum value for money, he questioned why two significant rights-of-ways, one fully owned by the City, are not even being considered in this study.  In the western sector, the former Canadian Pacific Carleton Place Sub is a City-owned resource potentially serving: Stittsville, Bridlewood, and Bells Corners.  In the eastern sector the former Canadian Pacific Hawksbury Sub, now owned by VIA, could serve communities to Navan.

Councillor Legendre expressed great disappointment and frustration that yet again such report with citywide interest is only presented with a one-page bilingual summary.  Ottawa, being a City with two cultures and two languages, it is crucial and critical for its future that the whole population is engaged and informed.  He stated that the whole report should have been translated in French in accordance with the City’s official languages policy.  He expects that the revised report in its entirety would be resubmitted in both official languages.  He also stated that the consultant from Toronto should have received clear direction from staff on the unique nature of Ottawa.  Given the significance of this report and the City’s policy, both communities should have been involved in getting reaction and feedback.  This public meeting ought to allow for that other community to be present.  In response to the Councillor’s request for movement and some progress in this matter, Mr. Jacobs advised that, although only the executive summary of this report is in both official languages, the consultation panels and the material distributed to the public were in both languages.  Bilingual staff and team members were available at public meetings and open houses to respond to questions both in English and French, and those matters were addressed through the public consultation process.  Staff appreciates the concern and is making every effort to provide bilingual services for this study.  Councillor Legendre disagreed with Mr. Jacobs’ statement that the report before the Committee is in conformity with the City’s participation policy and will pursue this matter with Mr. Ned Lathrop, the Deputy City Manager of the Planning and Growth Management Department to resolve this problem once and for all.

Chair Stavinga also agreed to follow up on this matter and asked the Councillor not to hesitate in future to bring such concern to her immediate attention.

Councillor Bloess shares Councillor Legendre’s concern and asked that more attention be paid to this issue.

Speaking on deferral, Councillor Bloess feels that members of the public consultation groups should be advised that not every idea brought forward would be included in the ToR.  They have to understand that issues would be addressed and staff would have to identify what would be included and not.  Chair Stavinga thanked Councillor Bloess for noting that context and also feels the needs for validation of public input, how it is being examined, whether it has been integrated and why not.

The Committee then considered the following motion:

Moved by Councillor McRae,

Whereas concerns and questions were raised at the February 16, 2005 Transportation Committee Meeting regarding the East-West Corridor Light Rail Transit Project (Orleans to Kanata) – Environmental Assessment – Terms of Reference;

Be it resolved that the Transportation Committee refer the Terms of Reference back to staff for updating;

Be it resolved that staff address all concerns raised by the Public Consultation Group and the Agency Consultation Group before updating the report;

Be it resolved that the Consultation Groups be provided with an opportunity to review the draft before it is finalized; and

Be it further resolved that staff provide an updated report to the Transportation Committee by the end of May 2005.

CARRIED

The following motion was also referred to staff:

Moved by Councillor Doucet,

That Transport 2000 be included as a member of the Agency Consultation Group of the East-West Corridor Light Rail Transit Project Environmental Assessment.

The following staff recommendations were referred back to staff as per the aforementioned motions:

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.

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.

INQUIRIES

DEMANDES DES RENSEIGNMENTS

Councillor Doucet put forth the following inquiries:

1. “I've received a petition from the Glebe Business Group with 1,772 signatures in support of the removal of parking meters on Bank and the first-block side streets in the Glebe; the harmonization of a 2-hour parking limit for Bank and the first-block side streets in the Glebe; and the reduction of parking tickets in the neighborhood's two municipal lots from $50 to $25.

While staff studies and reports back on these petition requests, could they please implement an interim measure of free parking at meters in the Glebe on Saturdays, as is already the case on Sundays?”

This inquiry was forwarded to the Acting Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services for appropriate action.

2.         “Whereas complaints have been received concerning private ticketing of automobiles, could staff report back on the possibility of adopting the City of Toronto Bylaw No. 725-2004, copy of which is on file with the City Clerk.

            This inquiry was forwarded to the Acting Deputy City Manager, Community and Protective Services for appropriate action.

3.         “Could staff report back on a Public Information and Consultation Policy that would include a balance between public discussion that permit questions and answers in a public setting as well as look at board meetings?”

            This inquiry was forwarded to the Chief Corporate Services Officer for appropriate action.

Councillor Bloess put forth the following inquiries:

1.         “What is the latest data on buses running on time (incidence of early / late runs)?”

            This inquiry was forwarded to the Action Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services for appropriate action.

2. “Why did the last #95 to and from Orléans not run on New Year’s Eve?”

            This inquiry was forwarded to the Action Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services for appropriate action.

ADJOURNMENT

LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE

The Committee adjourned the meeting at 11:35 a.m.

Original signed by                                                       Original signed by

Anne-Marie Leung              Councillor Janet Stavinga

Committee Coordinator                                             Chair

Annex 5

Summary of Comments and Responses -

Second Round of Consultation

Listing of Comments

from emails received and

presentations made

to Transportation Committee,

16 February 2005

Listing of Comments from emails received and

presentations made to Transportation Committee,16 February 2005

The following comments on the draft Terms of Reference were interpreted (for clarification) from the e-mails received for the Transportation Committee meeting held on February 16, 2005:

David Gladstone – Chair, City Centre Coalition

CCC-1: Given the role that Environmental Assessments of transportation projects play in developing options and developing public support for projects, it is essential that a range of options be comprehensively and objectively examined.

CCC-2: The relative costs should be examined and all technical or legal assertions (such as the requirements for grade separations) need to be traceable.

CCC-3: Ensure that the Terms of Reference for the E-W Light Rail Transit project fully address the requirements above [in DG-1 and DG-2] and lead to a transparent project [process].

CCC-4: It is most important that light rail projects be seen as a cost-effective and an environmentally-responsible solution to the transportation needs of our growing city.

David Jeanes – Transport 2000

DJ-1: Transport 2000 has reservations about the references to the ORTEP report, as it had no public consultation before being received by Transportation Committee.

DJ-2: Transport 2000 is concerned that access to the revised draft ToR and notice of the committee meeting was only received on Friday, February 11, 2005, five days before the scheduled meeting of February 16, 2005.

DJ-3: Who on the project team brings light rail and/or rail expertise to the project?

DJ-4: What is the urgency requiring that this report go to City Council early and immediately before the next scheduled PCG meeting?

DJ-5: Why is the ACG and PCG meeting information not being shared between the groups as requested?

DJ-6: Why has Transport 2000 been included in the PCG and not the ACG?

DJ-7: Why are the requirements in the Statement of Work (page C-1 of the ToR) to examine feasibility and cost effectiveness of single track alternatives, to address requirements for grade separations and the option of co-locating the LRT operation on existing freight tracks not repeated in the draft Terms of Reference?

DJ-8: Why are there no references in the project background to the lessons learned from the O-Train Light Rail pilot project? Its consultant study, approved in

September 1998, identified a $22 to $33 million capital cost for the East-West line, (excluding the Cumberland corridor). The project is now being discussed in the media as having a cost in the billion-dollar range.

DJ-9: Why is there no mention in the background or in the Alternatives to the Undertaking of the P3 proposals being pursued by the City to implement all or a portion of the line as commuter rail?

DJ-10: Why is this being done as an individual EA when a Class EA process for rail transit projects has been established for GO Transit?

DJ-11: Why is the Manager of Capital Railway not included in the ACG? The minutes seem to indicate that only a representative of OC Transpo is included on the ACG.

DJ-12: Why did staff indicate during the agency consultation that the line should not be federally regulated? Does this preclude freight track sharing, at-grade crossings of freight lines and inter-provincial extensions? Who would the regulatory authority be?

DJ-13: Why did staff state that the current O-Train DMUs cannot operate on level crossings? (Annex 1, part 2, page 5). Transport Canada immediately contradicted this statement. The O-Train can and does do this. This is a potentially high cost item.

DJ-14: Why is the study area being limited to the Council-approved limit when the North-South Line study was expanded to extend the study area west to Barrhaven?

DJ-15: Why is the eastern part of the Cumberland Transitway EA being used to limit route options between Highway 417 and Navan Road (in the study area for the uncompleted western portion of the Cumberland Transitway)?

DJ-16: Why is the incomplete west portion of the Cumberland Transitway EA (from Navan Road to Hurdman, including the hospital sector) not being studied?

DJ-17: Will this study include planning for an interchange station with the North-South LRT?

DJ-18: Will this study include provision for operation of some trains from Kanata and Orléans to the Airport?

DJ-19: Why does the report state that the Walkley Yard rail facilities are still in use by Ottawa Central Railway, when there are in fact two rail yards at Walkley and the former Canadian Pacific yard is no longer in use?

DJ-20: Why do the technical considerations not include system capacity, when it was agreed by staff in response to comments on the TMP, that this criterion would be included?

DJ-21: What is the purpose for "key consideration" of "minimizing throw-away costs" (page 15)? These points seem to be used mainly to object to proposals to incrementally expand the existing O-train service or to reuse the existing track.

DJ-22: Why did staff tell Transportation Committee when the Statement of Work was approved, that the existing railway track from Walkley Road to east of Highway 417 at Cyrville Road had

been removed, when this track is still in place as Transport 2000 had stated at that time? Has this oversight been corrected?

Tom Lockett – Member of the General Public

TL-1: Why is the City proposing an east-west route that fails to meet the needs of the majority of residents of the City of Ottawa?

TL-2: Why is Ottawa seeking to build a rapid transit system to serve areas where there is little or no development, potentially requiring alterations to the existing express bus network that currently provide express service direct to the downtown and to Hull?

TL-3: How will the service operate? Will it require passengers to board a bus in Orléans go to the O-Train, take the Train and then board another bus to downtown? This will increase the commute from the current 30 minutes to probably somewhere over an hour.

TL-4: Every City that has ever undertaken the installation of Light Rail has started through their down town core and expanded outward (Toronto’s original GO Train ran from Scarborough to Oakville through the downtown, Edmonton built their light rail through the downtown, Calgary and Vancouver are other examples. Even the Montreal commuter trains run into the downtown)? Why has Ottawa adopted the approach they have?

TL-5: Can the City afford two systems (bus and O-Train)?

TL-6: Another option to consider is to run light rail through the downtown from Lebreton Flats to Hurdman Station, removing all east west buses from the downtown core, and reallocating these buses to other routes, improving the overall system. By not going through the downtown most trips would be reduced by a minimum of 15 minutes thereby increasing the opportunity to use the buses for additional runs.

TL-7: Have we considered adopting the Calgary plan, which allows everyone in the transit mall in the downtown core to use the system free of charge? The costs for this could be covered by adding a dollar a day transit tax to parking spots in the downtown. For example if you have 3000 spots in the down town that are rented out on a monthly basis these spots would generate $30.00 each per month for a total revenue generation of $300,000.00 per month or $3.6 million per year. On top of this would be the occasional parking such as at hotels. Imagine how that revenue could be used to increase the capacity of park and right lots and encourage people to use transit.

TL-8: I understand the temptation to use existing rights of way and they may work for the north south route but they certainly don't work for the east west route. You have to take the train where the people are.

Steven Fanjoy – PCG Representative for Innes Ward #2

SF-1: Green house gas and air contaminant analysis should be part of the required scope. There is almost no mention of this in the Nov 5 ToR (4.4)." My recommendation is that green house gas and criteria air contaminant (GHG and CAC) emissions should be a specific environmental impact that is modeled and measured across the alternate transit scenarios. This means that the EA must understand and compare the inter-related GHG and CAC impacts of the various transit technologies (rail, bus, passenger cars; diesel, electric, hybrid), and demonstrate a system-level analysis based on defensible commuter-mode demand assumptions.

SF-2: The current ToR's only related mention is reference to "air quality" as a "social/cultural" impact such as "noise and vibration" (sections 1.1.3 and 1.1.4). There is no explicit mention that either green house gas (GHG) or criteria air contaminants (CAC) impacts will be measured and assessed as part of the scope of the environmental assessment. The definition of "air quality" is unclear, please provide a definition. Please confirm that contamination impacts directly as a result of the alternate transportation scenarios will be addressed. GHG and CAC analysis is a materially relevant to the EA ToR for the following reasons:

· Both provincial and federal EA legislation is clear that assessing these impacts are required

· Transportation represents 25% of Ottawa's annual GHG emissions (455 million out of 1,755 million kg of carbon). This will grow as population and gridlock increases. OC Transpo currently represents 22% of Ottawa's transportation GHG emissions (100 million kg).

· Public transit strategic planning is the single biggest opportunity to systematically reduce transportation GHG and CAC emissions. The EA is the appropriate mechanism to understand GHG and CAC impacts.

· The Kyoto Protocol has come into effect

· Federal funds may be accessible

· Smog advisories (CACs) have increased and the city recently had its first-ever winter advisory

· What is not measured is not managed or improved

· The city and the public needs heightened awareness of this environmental impact

SF-3: Are there federal program funds and incentives that OC Transpo can leverage to increase funding (that may arise out of Kyoto)?

SF-4: Will the EA scope preclude access to these funds because of the way it is structured?

SF-5: Issues raised by the public and PCG before December 17^th are not reflected in the revised Terms of Reference and no explanation for the response to comments is provided (in particular the issue of including GHG and CAC modeling in the scope of the project).

SF-6: The Terms of Reference are scheduled to go to Transportation Committee on February 16^th and Council on February 23^rd. Why was no direct notice given to the PCG that the Terms of Reference had been put on the Committee agenda?

SF-7: It would appear that important parts of the PCG process are not adequately documented or communicated. This includes but is not limited to (a) who decides what input is reasonable

and what is the method for making these decisions, (b) why this decision-making process not transparent to the PCG, and (c) how are disagreements to be handled, including an escalation process.

SF-8: What is the procedural significance of going to Committee on February 16^th and Council on February 23^rd?

Bill Pugsley – Environmental Advisory Committee

BP-1: There is a need for the reference in the Terms of Reference to go beyond aesthetics (that is including air quality as a social factor).

BP-2: The plans to enlarge arterial roads as part of the solution and to consider diesel LRT’s as well as electric means that some options could lead to an increase in particulate matter, carbon dioxide and other CAC’s compared to existing conditions.

BP-3: Suggest that the requirement to estimate existing environmental conditions obliges the EA process to establish a network to measure real observations of particulate matter, not modeled observations based on one observation site.

BP-4: The Terms of Reference should treat air pollution as an economic and health indicator, and not as cosmetic, by specifying the need to monitor and assess the contributions of particulate matter and carbon dioxide for each option.

Tim Lane – Transport 2000

TJL-1: What are the advantages of Capital Railways not operating under the current federally-regulated status?

TJL-2: Would an automatic block signal system cause fewer delays than the current remotely dispatched system?

TJL-3: Are there safety systems that could be used at level crossings that reduce the perceived need to implement grade separations?

TJL-4: Are we learning from the pilot O-Train project how to implement transit in other corridors more cost-effectively?

Dick Howey – PCG Representative for Baseline Ward 8

DH-1: Why is the RTES Study being used to limit review of other rail corridors to other outlying communities such as Navan?

DH-2: An alternate alignment via the Ottawa Station, thence behind the hospitals, thence into Walkley by the Alta Vista area down into Walkley, and then straight on its own designated line west to either Carp and/or Stittsville should be reviewed.

DH-3: How are suggestions taken into consideration and documented?

Fred N. Nemeth – Member of the general public

FN-1: The Consultant team is not individually listed in the front of the report, only the company name appears. Individuals responsible for reports should be identified for public reference.

FN-2: Air quality impacts and health hazards caused by any transportation system should be seriously considered to protect both.

David Glastonbury – Ottawa Chamber of Commerce

OCC-1: The Chamber is concerned that should the status of Capital Rail be changed from “federally regulated” to that of a municipal railway the opportunity to operate a service to Gatineau would be seriously challenged. Furthermore, such a change of status would preclude the O-Train from operating on rail lines owned by VIA Rail, Ottawa Central Railway and the Quebec Gatineau Railway.

OCC-2: Additional costs would be incurred in building a separate right-of-way for LRT.

OCC-3: Why are two significant rights-of-way, one fully owned by the City, are not even being considered in this study? In the western sector, the former Canadian Pacific Carleton Place Sub is a City-owned resource potentially serving Stittsville, Bridlewood, and Bells Corners. In the eastern sector the former Canadian Pacific Hawksbury Sub, now owned by VIA, could serve communities to Navan.

OCC-4: How are taxpayers going to receive maximum value for money, and ensure that money-saving initiatives are not discarded, and that the system is not overbuilt?

Responses to Comments

from emails received and

presentations made

to Transportation Committee,

16 February 2005

Responses to Comments from emails received and

presentations made to Transportation Committee,16 February 2005

Process of the EA

CCC-1: Given the role that Environmental Assessments (EA) of transportation projects play in developing options and developing public support for projects, it is essential that a range of options be comprehensively and objectively examined.

Response: Section 4.2 of the Terms of Reference (ToR) describes four major alternatives to the undertaking (do nothing, expand roads, rapid transit, and a combination of road and transit). Once the preferred alternative is selected, alternative alignments will be developed and evaluated. The evaluation includes a list of 31 criteria within 4 categories (pages 9 and 10) that are to be used in the examination and evaluation of the options/alternative solutions. More detailed criteria (pages 11 and 12) have also been included for the evaluation of the more detailed alternative methods.

CCC-3: Ensure that the Terms of Reference for the E-W Light Rail Transit project fully address the requirements above [in CCC-1] as well as costs [CCC-2] and lead to a transparent project [process].

Response: The EA Act requires a transparent and traceable path. The ToR fulfils the requirements of the EA Act. The ToR are designed to provide the framework for the Environmental Assessment Study and the tool against which the Study will be evaluated and MOE approvals are based. As described in section 4.4 and 4.5, several economic factors will be considered including capital, operating and maintenance costs.

Notice of the Committee Meeting

DJ-2: Transport 2000 is concerned that access to the revised draft ToR and notice of the committee meeting was only received on Friday, February 11, 2005, five days before the scheduled meeting of February 16, 2005.

Response: The notice of the meeting and the release of the materials to be presented were in accordance with the standard City policies and practices. The process and scheduling of PCG review of the ToR followed by public consultation, revision of the draft ToR and presentation to Transportation Committee was described at the initial PCG meeting. No iterative PCG review of the ToR was planned.

SF-6: The Terms of Reference are scheduled to go to Transportation Committee on February 16^th and Council on February 23^rd. Why was no direct notice given to the PCG that the Terms of Reference had been put on the Committee agenda?

Response: At the first ACG/PCG meetings, the overall project schedule was reviewed. In that schedule the ToR were scheduled to go forward to Committee and Council in January 2005. The project was proceeding according to the schedule reviewed with the ACG/PCG. The ToR report was moved to the February meeting.

DJ-4: What is the urgency requiring that this report go to City Council early and immediately before the next scheduled PCG meeting?

Response: The schedule relates to MOE Approval process and schedule. Committee and Council approval is required before the ToR can be submitted to the MOE for review and approval. Until the MOE has approved the ToR no decisions can be made on the project. Work can proceed to gather information, prepare it for presentation and analyze options, but approval is required before the next public meetings can be held and decisions taken.

The PCG and ACG meetings scheduled for late February was intended to cover the next stage of the work and did not relate to the ToR.

SF-8: What is the procedural significance of going to Committee on February 16^th and Council on February 23^rd?

Response: Transportation Committee makes recommendations that then get forwarded to Council. The schedule relates to the predetermined Council and Committee meeting dates.

Use of the GO Transit Class EA

DJ-10: Why is this being done as an Individual EA when a Class EA process for rail transit projects has been established for GO Transit?

Response: Municipalities are required to follow the Municipal Class EA process which defines this type of undertaking as an Individual EA. As a Provincial agency, GO Transit is the only transit agency that has an approved Class EA process for GO Transit projects. The GO Transit’s Class EA process classifies projects into 3 main categories: Group A - Approved; Group B - Class EA process and ESR; and Group C - Individual EA. Under the GO Transit’s Class EA process, the construction of a new Commuter Rail Line is also an Individual EA.

ACG & PCG Composition

DJ-11: Why is the Manager of Capital Railway not included in the ACG? The minutes seem to indicate that only a representative of OC Transpo is included on the ACG.

Response: The Manager of Capital Railway, Mr. John Jensen, P.Eng., is included on both the Study’s Core Team and the ACG.

DJ-6: Why has Transport 2000 been included in the PCG and not the ACG?

Response: Transport 2000 is a non-profit organization whose primary purpose is research, public education and consumer advocacy, and as such they were initially included in the PCG along with other advocacy groups. The ACG is composed of municipal, provincial and federal agencies with jurisdiction / approval authority regarding various aspects of the EA. The Ottawa Chamber of Commerce was added to the group since no Business Consultation Group (BCG) was constituted for this project. Following the Transportation Committee meeting on 16 February 2005, it was decided to establish a BCG for the project, which will include several Chambers of Commerce as well as area industries, institutions, and large commercial establishments. Transportation Committee, at its meeting on 16 February 2005, approved a motion to move Transport 2000 from the PCG to the ACG.

Comment Review and Approval Process

SF-5: Issues raised by the public and PCG before December 17^th are not reflected in the revised Terms of Reference and no explanation for the response to comments is provided (in particular the issue of including GHG and CAC modeling in the scope of the project).

Response: Comments raised by all reviewers have been addressed in Table 2 of the Public Consultation Summary attached to the Terms of Reference as Appendix B.

DH-3: How are suggestions taken into consideration and documented?

Response: Comments raised by all reviewers have been documented and addressed in Table 2 of the Public Consultation Summary attached to the Terms of Reference as Appendix B.

SF-7: It would appear that important parts of the PCG process are not adequately documented or communicated. This includes but is not limited to (a) who decides what input is reasonable and what is the method for making these decisions, (b) why this decision-making process not transparent to the PCG, and (c) how are disagreements to be handled, including an escalation process.

Response: The Roles and Responsibilities of the PCG members was discussed at the first meeting. Appendix D of the ToR contains a copy of that document. The members agreed to:

· Represent the interests and values of residents;

· Attend meetings to communicate with the study team;

· Review information provided to them;

· Provide feedback on the information and comment on ideas and issues raised at the meetings, and

· Work towards a consensus to allow the City to achieve the project milestones.

The Senior City Staff and Consultants are responsible for determining how comments are addressed based on a review of all comments received, discussions and advice with approval and review agencies, legislative requirements, City policies and similar experience.

Comments made by members of the PCG were discussed at the consultation group meeting, and the meeting notes have endeavored to reflect that discussion. There is no escalation process for a Consultation Group. The EA review and approval process (by MOE) provides opportunities for further resolution of issues if required.

Information Sharing

DJ-5: Why is the ACG and PCG meeting information not being shared between the groups as requested?

Response: Meeting notes of the two meetings, along with details of the public consultation were included in the Consultation summary report. To date, no requests were received to distribute the meeting notes between the individual Consultation Groups. Meeting notes from future consultation group meetings will be distributed to all groups.

Air Quality

SF-1: Green house gas and air contaminant analysis should be part of the required scope. There is almost no mention of this in the Nov 5 ToR (4.4). My recommendation is that green house gas and criteria air contaminant (GHG and CAC) emissions should be a specific environmental impact that is modeled and measured across the alternate transit scenarios. This means that the EA must understand and compare the inter-related GHG and CAC impacts of the various transit technologies (rail, bus, passenger cars; diesel, electric, hybrid), and demonstrate a system-level analysis based on defensible commuter-mode demand assumptions.

Response: These comments were noted and Climatic effects (GHG) were added in the revised ToR as one of the Natural Environment factors that will be used in Evaluating Alternatives Methods of Carrying out the Undertaking (page 11).

SF-2: The current ToR's only related mention is reference to "air quality" as a "social/cultural" impact such as "noise and vibration" (sections 1.1.3 and 1.1.4). There is no explicit mention that either green house gas (GHG) or criteria air contaminants (CAC) impacts will be measured and assessed as part of the scope of the environmental assessment. The definition of "air quality" is unclear, please provide a definition. Please confirm that contamination impacts directly as a result of the alternate transportation scenarios will be addressed. GHG and CAC analysis is a materially relevant to the EA ToR for the following reasons:

· Both provincial and federal EA legislation is clear that assessing these impacts are required

· Transportation represents 25% of Ottawa's annual GHG emissions (455 million out of 1,755 million kg of carbon). This will grow as population and gridlock increases. OC Transpo currently represents 22% of Ottawa's transportation GHG emissions (100 million kg)

· Public transit strategic planning is the single biggest opportunity to systematically reduce transportation GHG and CAC emissions. The EA is the appropriate mechanism to understand GHG and CAC impacts

· The Kyoto Protocol has come into effect

· Federal funds may be accessible

· Smog advisories (CACs) have increased and the city recently had its first-ever winter advisory

· What is not measured is not managed or improved

· The City and the public needs heightened awareness of this environmental impact

BP-1: There is a need for the reference in the Terms of Reference to go beyond aesthetics (that is including air quality as a social factor).

BP-4: The Terms of Reference should treat air pollution as an economic and health indicator, and not as cosmetic, by specifying the need to monitor and assess the contributions of particulate matter and carbon dioxide for each option.

Response: This placement within the criteria grouping does not alter the thoroughness of the investigations. The impacts of the project on air quality are noted to be assessed throughout the ToR, with respect to the alternative solutions, alternative designs and the overall monitoring of the project.

The following definition of air quality will be added to the Glossary:

Air quality (AQ) refers to the impacts of air contaminants that are considered to be harmful to human health, also known as Criteria Air Contaminants (CACs). (City of Ottawa - Transportation Master Plan Support Projects Assignment 5. Transportation, Air Quality and Climate Change, Delcan 2003)

Climatic effects (GHG) were added as one of the factors that will be included in the evaluation (page 11).

Federal and provincial EA legislation requires that the impacts on the environment (including air) be assessed. The ToR outlines the process by which the assessment will occur. The draft ToR were reviewed by the projects' Public and Agency Consultation Groups including both the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Overall, the agencies and public support the approach and content of the ToR for the East-West LRT study.

This EA and other ongoing projects represent the City’s undertaking relative to the previously completed public transit strategic planning work and the City’s commitment to sustainable development.

The ToR is not a funding application. The EA report however, will provide much of the information required to support funding applications.

BP-2: The plans to enlarge arterial roads as part of the solution and to consider diesel LRT’s as well as electric means that some options could lead to an increase in particulate matter, carbon dioxide and other CAC’s compared to existing conditions.

Response: In accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act, an EA must develop and assess a range of alternatives. These alternatives will be evaluated as outlined in the ToR and the air quality effects, amongst others, will be taken into consideration.

BP-3: Suggest that the requirement to estimate existing environmental conditions obliges the EA process to establish a network to measure real observations of particulate matter, not modeled observations based on one observation site.

Response: Monitoring air pollutants in the field is an involved process complicated by a number of limitations. Among the more important are the;

· difficulties of selecting representative sites,

· variability of environmental parameters such as temperature, wind, and atmospheric stability,

· uncertainties relating to chemical or physical changes between the points of emission and reception, as well as

· ambiguity of sources.

The consequence of these uncertainties is that short term monitoring, in the order of several years, even at multiple locations, may not provide a reasonable worst case pollution scenario. Wind directions in open surroundings may be altered by physical obstructions such as hills, elevated roadways and buildings.

In addition, monitoring cannot distinguish among different types of polluters, nor between local versus long range sources. For example, particulates at any given site may be caused by diesel emissions, wood burning fireplaces, and oil burning furnaces in some cases, or other sources serving nearby homes.

Monitoring clearly cannot address future conditions.

On the other hand, computer modelling using validated information:

· provides a reliable means of producing air quality estimates of existing pollutants based on known vehicle emissions rates under controlled conditions; and

· allows for reasonably conservative estimates of input parameters such as vehicle emissions and climate data (i.e., wind speed, stable atmosphere, inversion conditions and so on), to lead to reasonably conservative estimates of pollution levels.

The results of computer modelling using accepted industry standard protocols provides maximum raw pollution levels, independent of many environmental perturbations, which can subsequently be combined with the statistics of wind data to provide probability statements of how often certain pollution levels of interest are likely to be exceeded. Reliability of models and validation under actual field conditions is an ongoing process undertaken by the MOE in Ontario, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the United States and other public agencies worldwide. The models commonly used in North America for modelling air quality along transportation corridors include CALINE, CAL3QHC and AERMODE.

Therefore, while long-term monitoring stations provide essential information about air quality on an ongoing basis, and a reference point for comparison, it is impractical and difficult to rely on them for assessment of existing conditions over large and diverse areas. Hence, the modelling option according to Provincial and Federal guidelines provides a reliable approach to evaluate reasonable worst case existing air quality conditions, as well as providing a basis for comparison of future alternatives. In one form or other the modelling approach is used extensively for new transportation corridors and expansions of existing facilities. Modelling is accepted by scientific authorities, whereas monitoring is not.

The documentation for existing conditions does not present an obligation to establish a network of observation points.

Reference to the ORTEP Report

DJ-1: Transport 2000 has reservations about the references to the ORTEP report, as it had no public consultation before being received by Transportation Committee.

Response: The ORTEP report is a follow-on study of Council-approved RTES (which had significant public input). ORTEP refined the schedule and cost estimates of the projects identified in RTES, as well as briefly described the various procurement models. ORTEP identified the immediate undertaking of the planning work for the North-South and East-West LRT projects as critical to meeting the implementation timelines of light rail projects.

Rail Expertise of the Team

DJ-3: Who on the project team brings light rail and/or rail expertise to the project?

Response: The City undertook a two-stage selection process that included a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and a Request for Proposal (RFP). As part of the RFQ process, companies interested in participating in the project provided company and staff information on their experience in LRT planning and design, transit project management and environmental assessment process. Delcan was ranked highly and moved forward to the RFP stage and was selected as the City’s consultant for this assignment.

Delcan has been providing LRT development and design services for more than 25 years, and have been involved in LRT studies in: Calgary, Vancouver, Toronto, York Region, Tijuana, Tel Aviv, Los Angeles (Pasadena Gold Line), Charlotte, and Istanbul (network planning and line planning).

Select Project examples include:

· Greater Vancouver Northeast Sector Rapid Transit Study

· Calgary Light Rail Transit System, for Calgary Transit

· York Rapid Transit Plan (LRT/BRT system on four suburban arterial routes)

· Charlotte Bus Rapid Transit Major Investment Study (two radial at-grade LRT corridors)

· Union Station Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program (revitalization of multi-track corridor and station building)

· Tel Aviv Red Line LRT (at-grade and underground LRT in an arterial road median)

· SkyTrain Segment 1 (Vancouver) Functional Planning (alignment and stations)

· Municipal Improvement Fund Millennium Line, Vancouver (urban integration of stations)

· 98 B-Line (at-grade BRT facility in road median)

· Vancouver Airport Rail Link Rapid Transit Study (develop and evaluate at-grade and grade-separated options in the Arbutus and Cambie corridors)

· Sheppard Subway Environmental Assessment

· Spadina Subway Extension Environmental Assessment

Various engineers, planners, architects and operation specialists who have been involved in these projects and others, from various Delcan offices, are directly involved in the E-W LRT project.

Lessons Learned from O-Train Pilot

DJ-8: Why are there no references in the project background to the lessons learned from the O-Train Light Rail pilot project? Its consultant study, approved in September 1998, identified a $22 to $33 million capital cost for the East-West line, (excluding the Cumberland corridor). The project is now being discussed in the media as having a cost in the billion-dollar range.

Response: The $22 to 33 Million dollars identified in this study represents an estimate of the cost of a pilot project that was developed for comparison purposes to select an O-Train Pilot Project. This estimate cannot be directly compared with current estimates for a permanent facility along a potentially different route. As part of the study process and as noted in the ToR, cost estimates will be prepared for the preferred alternative. The lessons learned and information from the O-Train pilot project and the North-South LRT project will be taken into consideration on the E-W LRT project.

TJL-4: Are we learning from the pilot O-Train project how to implement transit in other corridors more cost-effectively?

Response: The Manager of Capital Railways is on the ACG and is a member of the Study’s Core Team. Lessons learned from the O-Train are being applied to the design of the next generation of rapid transit. Lessons learned from the O-Train and the North-South project will be applied, where appropriate to the E-W LRT project.

Identification of Consultant on Reports

FN-1: The Consultant team is not individually listed in the front of the report, only the company name appears. Individuals responsible for reports should be identified for public reference.

Response: The City’s consultant for this project is Delcan, and Delcan is clearly identified in the ToR. This represents the firm’s responsibility for the work, the technical analyses, and conclusions derived within the document. This is standard practice.

Cost Issues

CCC-2: The relative costs should be examined and all technical or legal assertions (such as the requirements for grade separations) need to be traceable.

Response: The ToR outlines, in section 4.10, that the purpose of the EA and its documentation is to “provide a clear, understandable and traceable planning process…” This applies to all elements of the process including cost, impacts, the functional design of the selected alternative and the mitigation of impacts. As noted on Page 12 of the ToR, a number of economic factors will be considered.

CCC-4: It is most important that light rail projects be seen as a cost-effective and an environmentally-responsible solution to the transportation needs of our growing city.

Response: Section 4 of the ToR outlines the natural, social, economic and technical considerations that will be evaluated to determine the best overall transportation solution.

SF-3: Are there federal program funds and incentives that OC Transpo can leverage to increase funding (that may arise out of Kyoto)?

Response: The City, in developing the project budget will explore all available funding sources, including any programs related to Kyoto or transit investment.

SF-4: Will the EA scope preclude access to these funds because of the way it is structured?

Response: The EA report will provide much of the information required to support funding applications. It will not limit accessibility to funding.

OCC-2: Would any additional costs be incurred in building a separate right-of-way for LRT?

Response: As noted in the Alignment Alternatives description on Page 6 of the ToR, alternative alignments that do not use the existing rail track will be considered. Evaluation of these alternatives will be based on a wide variety of factors, including the ability of the selected vehicle to operate on a freight line. If the service cannot share tracks with OCR, or a decision is taken to use a separate track, then a separate right-of-way would have to be constructed, which would increase the capital cost.

OCC-4: How are taxpayers going to receive maximum value for money, and ensure that money-saving initiatives are not discarded, and that the system is not overbuilt?

Response: In developing the options for an LRT system, a long term view and the operating requirements for a 50+ year life must be examined. This long term view may lead to a design which includes features that are “overbuilt” for opening day, but which are difficult to add later. For instance, if it is known that a station will be added in the future, there may be merit to constructing the foundations for the platforms while work is done along the track in the initial construction phase, thereby minimizing impact on the operating line when the station is added later.

In other instances, staging may provide for the flexibility to defer spending on an item until it is needed. An example of staging flexibility might be the introduction of a grade separation in the Orléans area. Initial construction may include a track set off to the side of the right-of-way such that the grade separation can be built alongside the operating track. This would minimize the impact of constructing the grade separation, and reduce its cost as no diversion of the operating track would be required.

Multimodal System and Financing

TL-5: Can the City afford two systems (bus and O-Train)?

Response: A multi-modal transit system exists in many cities and provides for more complete coverage, improved mobility and accessibility and responds to corridors and technologies that are appropriate for each situation. RTES reviewed the overall network and recommended a comprehensive system of both BRT and LRT corridors to meet the City’s needs. As noted in the ToR, this EA will examine the use of BRT, LRT or a combination as part of the review of technology options.

TL-7: Have we considered adopting the Calgary plan, which allows everyone in the transit mall in the downtown core to use the system free of charge? The costs for this could be covered by adding a dollar a day transit tax to parking spots in the downtown. For example if you have 3000 spots in the down town that are rented out on a monthly basis these spots would generate $30.00 each per month for a total revenue generation of $300,000.00 per month or $3.6 million per year. On top of this would be the occasional parking such as at hotels. Imagine how that revenue could be used to increase the capacity of park and ride lots and encourage people to use transit.

Response: Calgary has developed a specific model to pay for the operation of their transit mall in the downtown core. There are other models for operating the central portion of the system. Municipal funding of capital infrastructure projects is beyond the scope of the ToR and EA study. Since the East-West corridor will bypass the downtown core, no portion of the line will be developed to the point that a transit mall will be required to handle passengers. The proposed station spacing and development pattern will more likely be nodes along the line, with discrete developments centered on station sites.

Statement of Work Issues

DJ-7: Why are the requirements in the Statement of Work (SOW) (page C-1 of the ToR) to examine feasibility and cost effectiveness of single track alternatives, to address requirements for grade separations and the option of co-locating the LRT operation on existing freight tracks not repeated in the draft Terms of Reference?

Response: The ToR is a general process document that outlines the study steps and activities in accordance with the EAA. Page 6 of the ToR states “If Rapid Transit is the preferred alternative to the undertaking, there are a range of improvement options that could be explored to implement the undertaking, including alternative technologies, alignments, stations and maintenance facilities. These alternatives will all be developed to maximize accessibility to all residents of the City in accordance with existing City policies." Single track alternatives and utilization of existing tracks will be among several alternatives developed and evaluated.

Grade separations are a key consideration of a 47-km long transportation facility and will be addressed. All issues identified in the SOW will be addressed in the EA.

DJ-20: Why do the technical considerations not include system capacity, when it was agreed by staff in response to comments on the TMP, that this criterion would be included?

Response: Capacity analysis is included as a criterion on Page 11, under “Evaluating Alternatives to the Undertaking”.

DJ-22: Why did staff tell Transportation Committee when the Statement of Work was approved, that the existing railway track from Walkley Road to east of Highway 417 at Cyrville Road had been removed, when this track is still in place as Transport 2000 had stated at that time? Has this oversight been corrected?

Response: The extent of existing track will be confirmed, when the Study team documents the existing conditions along the entire corridor.

Rationale for the East-West Route

TL-1: Why is the City proposing an east-west route that fails to meet the needs of the majority of residents of the City of Ottawa?

Response: The purpose of the project as described in the ToR (page 3) is to meet the transportation needs of the projected population in 2021 and help achieve the 30% modal spilt target. The East-West LRT is one of three new Light Rapid Transit (LRT) lines and a number of extensions and additions to the existing Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Transitway system recommended. The combined BRT/LRT network will meet the needs of the majority of the residents of the City of Ottawa.

TL-2: Why is Ottawa seeking to build a rapid transit system to serve areas where there is little or no development, potentially requiring alterations to the existing express bus network that currently provide express service direct to the downtown and to Hull?

Response: A chain of extensive employment areas currently exists along the corridor. The employment in these areas is expected to roughly double by 2021. In addition this corridor will serve growing communities in Orléans and Kanata. Defining the corridor and station locations now will provide certainty and incentives to land owners and developers which will help focus new transit oriented development in appropriate forms at the right locations.

Implementation Method

DJ-9: Why is there no mention in the background or in the Alternatives to the Undertaking of the P3 proposals being pursued by the City to implement all or a portion of the line as commuter rail?

Response: The use of a P3 to implement the project does not impact or modify how the EA study is done. The focus of the EA is on the assessment of project effects on the environment and is independent of the implementation method.

DJ-21: What is the purpose for "key consideration" of "minimizing throw-away costs" (section 4.7)? These points seem to be used mainly to object to proposals to incrementally expand the existing O-train service or to reuse the existing track.

Response: To be fiscally responsible, the development of a staged implementation will consider how additional elements can be added and what elements, if any, need to be modified to activate an extension. This consideration is included to focus attention on the design of the “ends” of the system to ensure that extensions can be implemented practically and cost-effectively.

System Operation

TL-3: How will the service operate? Will it require passengers to board a bus in Orléans go to the O-Train, take the Train and then board another bus to downtown? This will increase the commute from the current 30 minutes to probably somewhere over an hour.

Response: The objective of expanding the rapid transit system is to provide more options for travel and to create a system that improves mobility and accessibility. All changes will be evaluated based on their ability to carry existing and future ridership. As noted in the ToR, Transit System integration and intermodal connectivity will be used in the evaluation.

Network Planning and Implementation

TL-4: Every City that has ever undertaken the installation of Light Rail has started through their down town core and expanded outward (Toronto’s original GO Train ran from Scarborough to Oakville through the downtown, Edmonton built their light rail through the downtown, Calgary and Vancouver are other examples. Even the Montreal commuter trains run into the downtown)? Why has Ottawa adopted the approach they have?

Response: The implementation of rapid transit in Ottawa did start with a downtown-focused solution. Currently there are four rapid transit routes which converge on the Central Transitway through the downtown. The proposed North-South Line is a fifth corridor which would see the current O-Train line extended into downtown and south to Barrhaven and the new community of Riverside South. The East-West Line is the 6^th line in an already developed network and is meant to complement the existing and future links by providing mobility across the urban area south of the downtown.

Federal Regulation

DJ-12: Why did staff indicate during the agency consultation that the line should not be federally regulated? Does this preclude freight track sharing, at-grade crossings of freight lines and inter-provincial extensions? Who would the regulatory authority be?

TJL-1: What are the advantages of Capital Railways not operating under the current federally-regulated status?

OCC-1: The Chamber is concerned that should the status of Capital Rail be changed from “federally regulated” to that of a municipal railway the opportunity to operate a service to Gatineau would be seriously challenged. Furthermore, such a change of status would preclude the O-Train from operating on rail lines owned by VIA Rail, Ottawa Central Railway and the Quebec Gatineau Railway.

Response: OC Transpo is reviewing the regulatory framework under which the O-Train and future LRT lines will operate. They are investigating the advantages and disadvantages of a federally-regulated or municipally-regulated railway. When they have completed their work it will form one of the inputs to the East-West LRT EA. As noted in the ToR, Railway approvals will be considered.

DMU Use of Level Crossings

DJ-13: Why did staff state that the current O-Train DMUs cannot operate on level crossings? (Annex 1, part 2, page 5). Transport Canada immediately contradicted this statement. The O-Train can and does do this. This is a potentially high cost item.

Response: The approvals that are in place prohibit the O-Train from regularly operating at road level crossings. There are two rail-rail crossings where special operating rules have been established for O-Train operation, but these rules do not automatically apply to additional locations. A time-limited exemption was granted for the special trip to Carp in the fall of 2004, which included the use of police at the level crossings to ensure safe operation.

An extract from the current operating rules for the O-Train states:

“CAPITAL RAILWAY - Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs) INSPECTION AND SAFETY RULES

PART II - SAFETY DESIGN

9. GENERAL

9.1 TALENT BR643 DMU is designed and constructed in accordance with UIC standards. Talent BR643 DMU is approved for Canadian operations on the condition that they:

a) are not operated over public highway crossings at grade;

b) do not use the dedicated territory at the same time as heavy rail equipment;

c) provide for safe operation; and

d) provide passengers, operating crews, and property with protection from accidents caused by functional failure of the DMUs.

These rules were approved by the Minister on October 22, 2004 under the Railway Safety Act paragraph 19(4)(a). The rules were filed by Capital Railway under its own initiative under Section 20 of the Act. These rules reflect the uniqueness of the O-Train operation and replace the standard Passenger Car Inspection and Safety rules and Locomotive Inspection Rules.”

TJL-3: Are there safety systems that could be used at level crossings that reduce the perceived need to implement grade separations?

Response: Transport Canada indicated that there may be ways to operate at road crossings, but they are not in place today. If the rules were to be amended to allow the DMUs to use level crossing systems, there are systems that can be used to minimize safety concerns, but delays to all users are not addressed by these systems. Safety is only one of many issues that must be considered in implementing a grade separation.

Route Alternatives

DJ-14: Why is the study area being limited to the Council-approved limit when the North-South Line study was expanded to extend the study area west to Barrhaven?

Response: While the study limits were extended by the City on the North-South Line, the extension was along a corridor recommended in the RTES study. The extension was introduced as part of the funding announcement by senior levels of government.

DJ-15: Why is the eastern part of the Cumberland Transitway EA being used to limit route options between Highway 417 and Navan Road (in the study area for the uncompleted western portion of the Cumberland Transitway)?

Response: The approved corridor from the east end of Blackburn Hamlet to Trim Road in east Orléans is the basis for the route in the east end, but will not limit options to cross the Greenbelt south and west of Blackburn Hamlet.

In the east end of the study area, an approved corridor for the line was developed as part of the Cumberland EA Study. This route will be used as the basis of the east end work, and will inform but not control how the line is extended further west. In the section west of Navan Road there are three main options:

· Follow Navan Road and the Blackburn Hamlet Bypass to Innes Road,

· Follow Navan Road and Innes Road through Blackburn Hamlet, and

· Using the hydro and abandoned rail corridors to cross the Greenbelt using existing corridors.

DJ-16: Why is the incomplete west portion of the Cumberland Transitway EA (from Navan Road to Hurdman, including the hospital sector) not being studied?

Response: The western portion of the Cumberland Transitway Corridor, from Navan Road to just west of Highway 417, is part of the study area for this project. The westernmost portion will be the subject of a separate and independent future study as will the other elements of RTES.

OCC-3: Why are two significant rights-of-way, one fully owned by the City, are not even being considered in this study? In the western sector, the former Canadian Pacific Carleton Place Sub is a City-owned resource potentially serving Stittsville, Bridlewood, and Bells Corners. In the eastern sector the former Canadian Pacific Hawksbury Sub, now owned by VIA, could serve communities to Navan.

TL-8: I understand the temptation to use existing rights of way and they may work for the north south route but they certainly don't work for the east west route. You have to take the train where the people are.

DH-1: Why is the RTES Study being used to limit review of other rail corridors to other outlying communities such as Navan?

DH-2: An alternate alignment via the Ottawa Station, thence behind the hospitals, thence into Walkley by the Alta Vista area down into Walkley, and then straight on its own designated line west to either Carp and/or Stittsville should be reviewed.

Response: The prior planning work (RTES) used a multi-stage process to develop a preferred future transit network. The study:

· Developed alternatives – using prior studies, input from staff and input from the public, a complete set of corridors was developed and grouped by area and function.

· Assessed the Alternatives – using a screenline analysis in which each group of corridors was compared against their potential to satisfy the screenline demands. Corridors were separated into three classes (retained, provisional and not carried forward).

· Developed potential networks – in which the retained corridors were developed into a set of 5 network alternatives. Provisional corridors were applied to the networks where specific retained corridors underperformed.

· Assessed the potential networks – based on travel demands for the major corridors. Mode splits and transit area coverage were also reviewed. At the end of the assessment, a recommended network was developed.

As part of the alternatives that were developed, potential corridors included:

· All existing rail corridors;

· Many of the major arterial roads;

· Hydro rights-of-way;

· Highways;

· New corridors identified in other studies; and

· New corridors based on public input.

Based on the prior planning work, the details on each corridor are summarized below:

· The corridor to Navan would have low ridership, primarily as the number of people living along the route is significantly lower than the Cumberland route through south Orléans. The location of the rail corridor in the Greenbelt would make it difficult to access the line and provide adequate facilities for passengers.

· The Cumberland EA study, which set the alignment in the Orléans area, was the basis for the approval of significant development in the area. This development is occurring rapidly and ridership on a line through this area would be quite high.

· The Hospital corridor, the routing behind the hospitals or through the Train Station is currently planned as a separate study. The work on the East-West line does not preclude this section from being constructed in the future once that EA study for this section is completed.

· Alta Vista corridor was examined along with other parallel corridors including, the North-South line and Hawthorne corridor. Alta Vista link was found to serve shorter trips primarily to and from the immediate Alta Vista area whereas the North-South corridor serves longer distance trips. The North-South line corridor parallels a portion of the Alta Vista corridor and was found to have higher ridership and to promote more trips into the downtown area, thereby helping to achieve a higher mode split to the downtown.

· The line to Stittsville was reviewed. The population is significantly lower than the areas of Kanata further north, and access to the rail corridor is more limited than the route along Highway 417 or along March Road. While this line does not warrant service over the 20-year planning horizon, based on the City’s Official Plan growth projection, it can be added as a branch line in the future should the population of the area increase more than is anticipated.

· West of Stittsville, towards Carleton Place, the line is outside of the City boundary. The City is not responsible for transit service beyond its limit. The City's focus is on containing growth, intensifying existing urban areas and serving them with high quality transit service. Service to Carleton Place could be considered in the future at the same time as an extension to Stittsville.

· In the North Kanata area, there are two main options – use the rail line headed towards Carp, or divert from the rail line to a more north-south alignment (along or parallel to March Rd.). The population of North Kanata is significantly larger than that of Carp, and a single station near the intersection of the rail line and March Road would not adequately serve the area as a large percentage of the population and employment is beyond a comfortable walking distance. This line could be activated in the future, in the same way as the Stittsville line, should there be significantly more growth than is projected over the next 20 years.

The results of the corridor analyses were fed into the travel demand modeling and a final list of corridors was selected. The selected corridors were combined into five networks which were evaluated to define the preferred network used to initiate the current North-South and East-West LRT EA studies. These recommendations were recently approved by City Council in 2003.

TL-6: Another option to consider is to run light rail through the downtown from Lebreton Flats to Hurdman Station, removing all east west buses from the downtown core, and reallocating these buses to other routes, improving the overall system. By not going through the downtown most trips would be reduced by a minimum of 15 minutes thereby increasing the opportunity to use the buses for additional runs.

Response: In addition to examining a future network, RTES considered the conversion of the Transitway to LRT. There are significant costs and disruptions to this option with little or no improvement to mobility. This option was not recommended. The RTES study came to the following conclusions about conversion of the BRT:

· Conversion is feasible from a technical and operational perspective

· Conversion would have to address:

o Capacity limitations of the BRT in the downtown,

o Perception that LRT would be more attractive to potential riders and provide a better level of service, and

o Financial viability

· With some modifications, the current downtown BRT operation has sufficient capacity to handle the expected passenger loads predicted over the planning period (20 years)

· LRT implementation would be staged and would likely require passengers to transfer to buses for part of their journey unless both systems operate on the corridor (which is feasible but not common)

· Conversion would be expensive, in part due to the need to continue to operate the bus system while the LRT is being implemented

· On-street operation of the LRT would be implemented as the tunnel option developed in the 1980s appears to be prohibitively expensive

· The costs and disruption are not warranted based on predicted ridership, so the report concludes that with limited financial resources, the expenditure is better invested in establishing new rapid transit corridors, rather than in replacing an existing one.

Operational and Interlining Issues

DJ-17: Will this study include planning for an interchange station with the North-South LRT?

Response: The planning work for the East-West Line will consider how passengers will interchange with both the North-South Line and the transitways that intersect the line. All rapid transit systems are designed as inter-connected networks. As noted in the ToR, Transit System integration and intermodal connectivity will be used in the evaluation.

DJ-18: Will this study include provision for operation of some trains from Kanata and Orléans to the Airport?

Response: Operational issues, including how trains will be operated will be included in the service design and in the alternative alignments which will be developed as noted in section 4 of the ToR. The link to the airport is part of the North-South EA and connections to the N-S line will be assessed.

Listing of Additional Comments

Received up to

12 March 2005

Listing of Additional Comments

Received up to 12 March 2005

The following comments were received after staff extended the opportunity to all PCG members to provide additional comments on the Terms of Reference.

Charles Matthews – Disabled and Proud

CM-1: Will the new line be fully accessible as required under the Ontarians with Disabilities Act?

Alan Asselstine – PCG Representative for River Ward 16

AA-1: The EA must consider all costs such as the bus to the train and must consider ridership. It is cost per trip kilometre that counts.

AA-2: Why is the center section restricted to going down railway lines and through the railway yards where few people live or work? Need to consider going south of the airport and using the bridge that is being built for the north south line. Or put tracks on the transitway and use the line to be constructed through downtown. These may not meet the grade but as it stands it is a yes or no for one option only.

Cam Robertson – PCG Representative for Capital Ward 17

CR-1: The draft ToR mentions choosing between two routes in Kanata at the western extremity of the corridor. That seems reasonable. Now, it also seems reasonable for the EA to recommend that the necessary land in the second choice at least be reserved for rapid transit at some future time.

CR-2: Wherever air quality is mentioned in lists of criteria, greenhouse gas emissions should also be listed. Local air quality, as separate from CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, needs to be considered.

CR-3: Community impacts of transportation projects should include whether a road (street) unites or divides a community. Bank Street through part of the Glebe tends to bring both sides together. Bronson divides. This kind of consideration would apply to road alternatives to the light rail project.

CR-4: There is a reference in the draft to "more rigorous methods such as concordance." Our experience with concordance is that, among other problems, there are no points for an alternative that might be a close second on many scores and best overall.

Frances Coates – Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee

FC-1: There should be a system built in whereby the environmental benefits of the proposed Corridor and the environmental losses are both evaluated.

FC-2: The ToR does not state that ridership will be a key measure of the success of the project.

FC-3: The ToR should include references to the Air Quality document –2004, the Greenspace Master Plan and the Forest Strategy and the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study as components of these documents will affect the Corridor plans. The ToR should include a reference as to how these documents will be used. These studies will all be completed in 2005 and will have an impact on how land will be valued and protected by the City.

FC-4: On page 8 of the ToR there is a proposal to collect background information regarding waterways, floristic, significant trees and vegetation in the study area and adjacent areas in the late spring or early summer and early fall of 2005. This may be a duplication of available information. I would suggest that the project team pay particular attention to data that will or is already available to the City.

FC-5: In section 4.4, would it not be more appropriate to have Air Quality Impacts and Greenspace under Natural Environment Effects rather than under Social/Cultural Environmental Effects?

FC-6: On page 11, section 4.5.1., ridership potential should be included as an economic benefit.

FC-7: If air quality and greenspace have been moved to the Natural Environment category in response to comment FC-5, they will need to be moved in this section as well for consistency.

FC-8: On page 14, section 4.8. Land use should be added to the list of impacts of the project to be monitored.

FC-9: Section 5.1 of the ToR, Coordination with other Studies, should include a reference to the Air Quality document – 2004, the Greenspace Master Plan and the Forest Strategy and the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study.

FC-10: How will the City acquire lands needed for the project, especially in the Greenbelt area?

FC-11: Strong recommendation is not to use the abbreviation GMP for the Greenbelt Master Plan since it will be confused with the Greenspace Master Plan of the City of Ottawa.

FC-12: Section 2 of the ToR Consultation Summary should include a reference to the Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee as part of the PCG.

FC-13: Section 2.4 of the Consultation Summary should reference the Air Quality document –2004, the Greenspace Master Plan and the Forest Strategy and the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study as studies to be included in the review of existing conditions.

Pat Speary – PCG Representative for Knoxdale-Merivale Ward 9

PS-1: Main issues to be addressed in the EA are:

· The Kanata/Stittsville alignments and a definite need to extend the Stittsville study area further south and west into the existing developed and designated urban areas;

· Locations of stations and interchanges with other RT lines, especially the station/interchange with the N-S corridor LRT line;

· Park and Ride locations;

· Drainage and stormwater management when altering existing landscapes and alignments;

· Air quality monitoring, to commence as soon as possible to create records for comparison purposes.

PS-2: Additionally, I would stress the likely need to develop the project in stages and to investigate the feasibility of using the existing O-Train vehicles for an interim service on the western part of the E-W corridor after their use on the N-S corridor (which could be soon if the N-S extension preparations proceed as currently scheduled).

Dick Howey – PCG Representative for Baseline Ward 8 (Further Comments)

DH-4: Study area should be expanded to include the following route:

· Start in Navan, using an abandoned C.P. railway line

· Use the VIA Rail tracks to Ottawa Train Station, to Abbey Station, into N-E area of the hospital

• South through the Alta Vista Corridor to Walkley Yard

· Use the OCR track from there to Bells Corners Junction

· Use the Ottawa-Carleton Trailway corridor westerly through Stittsville to Carleton Place

· Provide a spur line to the Corel Centre for special events

DH-5: The route outlined in comment DH-4 would have the advantage of using existing rights-or-way thereby reducing start-up costs.

DH-6: It should be noted that the ends of the line will attract riders from a 20-mile radius.

Steven Fanjoy – PCG Representative for Innes Ward #2 (Further Comments)

SF-10: The route suggested in comment DH-4 is a logical route enhancement which will allow the Transportation Committee and Council to maintain flexibility in the ultimate deployment of public transit during the 15 year planning period.

SF-11: If the route enhancements suggested in comment DH-4 are not included in the current study they would be subject to a separate, expensive study in the future if the route was found to be necessary for whatever reason.

SF-12: elected officials may want to keep the future options open as the reliance on future development to generate ridership appears to be a vulnerable foundation upon which to base the project’s feasibility.

SF-13: Ignoring existing communities (and voters) in existing communities, where these communities already have a rail corridor seems imprudent.

Responses to Additional Comments

Received up to

12 March 2005

Responses to Additional Comments

Received up to 12 March 2005

Process

FC-2: The ToR does not state that ridership will be a key measure of the success of the project.

Response: Ridership is included as one of the measures of success and is noted throughout the ToR. Ridership will be forecasted to confirm the need for the undertaking and will be used in the development and evaluation of the alternatives. It is also a key factor noted in the Implementation and Staging.

Air Quality

CR-2: Wherever air quality is mentioned in lists of criteria, greenhouse gas emissions should also be listed. Local air quality, as separate from CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, needs to be considered.

Response: Climatic effects (GHG) is included as one of the factors under Natural Environment (page 11).

FC-3: The ToR should include references to the Air Quality document –2004, the Greenspace Master Plan and the Forest Strategy and the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study as components of these documents will affect the Corridor plans. The ToR should include a reference as to how these documents will be used. These studies will all be completed in 2005 and will have an impact on how land will be valued and protected by the City.

Response: The Detailed Description of the Existing Environment Section of the ToR states that existing background documentation will be collected and analysed. These studies, among others, will be utilized. The inclusion of representatives from many different City departments on the Consultation Group will ensure that the most recent information is incorporated.

FC-5: In section 4.4, would it not be more appropriate to have Air Quality Impacts and Greenspace under Natural Environment Effects rather than under Social/Cultural Environmental Effects?

FC-7: If air quality and greenspace have been moved to the Natural Environment category in response to comment FC-5, they [air quality and greenspace] will need to be moved in this [the following] section as well for consistency (FC-5).

Response: Air quality was included in the social environmental section as the majority of the effects are perceived as related strongly to human health. This placement within the criteria grouping does not alter the thoroughness of the investigations. The impacts of the project on air quality are noted to be assessed throughout the ToR, with respect to the alternative solutions, alternative designs and the overall monitoring of the project.

During the development of the ToR, Environmental Management staff at the City noted that “Greenspace” as used in Ottawa has two components:

· natural areas, which should be considered under the Natural Environment, and

· parks, golf courses, etc, which should be considered under the Social/Cultural Environmental Effects.

This is how Greenspace was incorporated in the ToR.

FC-9: Section 5.1 of the ToR, Coordination with other Studies, should include a reference to the Air Quality document – 2004, the Greenspace Master Plan and the Forest Strategy and the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study.

FC-13: Section 2.4 of the Consultation Summary should reference the Air Quality document – 2004, the Greenspace Master Plan and the Forest Strategy and the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study as studies to be included in the review of existing conditions.

Response: The Air Quality document – 2004, the Greenspace Master Plan and the Forest Strategy and the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study will be included as reference reports, when they are available. They will be reviewed by the team and used to augment existing conditions information.

Accessibility

CM-1: Will the new line be fully accessible as required under the Ontarians with Disabilities Act?

Response: Yes. Section 4.2.2 of the ToR states, that “alternatives will all be developed to maximize accessibility to all residents of the City in accordance with existing City policies.”

Community Integrity Impact

CR-3: Community impacts of transportation projects should include whether a road (street) unites or divides a community. Bank Street through part of the Glebe tends to bring both sides together. Bronson divides. This kind of consideration would apply to road alternatives to the light rail project.

Response: The ToR states (page 11) that community interests will be considered in the assessment and evaluation. This is one potential measure of effects on the community that will be considered when the criteria are developed.

Use of Concordance

CR-4: There is a reference in the draft to "more rigorous methods such as concordance." Our experience with concordance is that, among other problems, there are no points for an alternative that might be a close second on many scores and best overall.

Response: The ToR stated that there are several methods of evaluation commonly used in EAs, one of which is concordance. It also states that a method appropriate to the scope of the project will be selected. The suitability of the concordance method amongst others will be reviewed with the consultation groups.

FC-1: There should be a system built in whereby the environmental benefits of the proposed Corridor and the environmental losses are both evaluated.

Response: This is the essence of an EA. Both benefits and adverse impacts will be assessed.

Background Data Collection and Coordination

FC-4: On page 8 of the ToR there is a proposal to collect background information regarding waterways, floristic, significant trees and vegetation in the study area and adjacent areas in the late spring or early summer and early fall of 2005. This may be a duplication of available information. I would suggest that the project team pay particular attention to data that will or is already available to the City.

Response: The existing conditions will be obtained from existing secondary sources including the reports you referenced (if they are available). Fieldwork to augment this information will be coordinated with other work being undertaken by the City and targeted to fill the gaps in the secondary source information. Background information refers to existing studies. Several examples have been noted by others and the inclusion of many City departments on the consultation group will ensure existing information is incorporated to avoid duplication of effort.

FC-8: On page 14, section 4.8. Land use should be added to the list of impacts of the project to be monitored.

Response: Changes in land use are currently monitored by the City as part of the Official Plan process. We will not be undertaking any additional monitoring as it would duplicate effort. Accordingly, land use monitoring is not included in the ToR.

FC-11: Strong recommendation is not to use the abbreviation GMP for the Greenbelt Master Plan since it will be confused with the Greenspace Master Plan of the City of Ottawa.

Response: Comment noted. A list of acronyms will be defined in the EA report, and used only where appropriate.

FC-12: Section 2 of the ToR Consultation Summary should include a reference to the Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee as part of the PCG.

Response: The Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee will be added to the list.

SF-12: Elected officials may want to keep the future options open as the reliance on future development to generate ridership appears to be a vulnerable foundation upon which to base the project’s feasibility.

Response: RTES developed the rapid transit network based on the City’s latest forecasts of population and employment growth by 2021. Priorities for studies were identified based on anticipated level of growth and the two LRT studies currently underway were given the highest priority. Development growth will be monitored and changes to proposed network or individual links will be made if warranted.

Cost Issues

AA-1: The EA must consider all costs such as the bus to the train and must consider ridership. It is cost per trip kilometre that counts.

FC-6: On page 11, section 4.5.1, ridership potential should be included as an economic benefit.

Response: The ToR identifies several economic factors that will be considered including, but not limited to:

· Property requirements

· Fleet size and composition

· Operating and capital costs

· Lifecycle costs

These factors take into consideration projected ridership. The issues of cost and cost-effectiveness have been answered in the main document (Please refer to Responses to comments from e-mails received and presentations made to Transportation Committee, February 16, 2005).

Land Acquisition

FC-10: How will the City acquire lands needed for the project, especially in the Greenbelt area?

Response: Any property needed for project implementation would be acquired using the City’s land acquisition process. Land owned by the NCC would be acquired using the normal NCC process.

Staged Implementation

PS-2: There is likely a need to develop the project in stages and to investigate the feasibility of using the existing O-Train vehicles for an interim service on the western part of the E-W corridor after their use on the N-S corridor (which could be soon if the N-S extension preparations proceed as currently scheduled).

Response: Staged implementation is specifically mentioned in the Draft ToR submitted to the PCG as part of the scope of the study. In addition, the use of the existing O-Train vehicles, as noted in the Draft ToR, will be considered as part of the technology selection.

Route Alternatives

AA-2: Why is the center section restricted to going down railway lines and through the railway yards where few people live or work? Need to consider going south of the airport and using the bridge that is being built for the north south line. Or put tracks on the transitway and use the line to be constructed through downtown. These may not meet the grade but as it stands it is a yes or no for one option only.

Response: Route alternatives will be developed and evaluated in future stages of the study. As noted in the ToR, the Study team will consider road and hydro corridor alternatives as well as the railway corridor. Options that take the route through downtown were evaluated in the RTES study and were not carried forward as conversion of the BRT to LRT did not provide enough benefit to warrant the cost. Diverting the route south of the airport was shown to have very low ridership.

The East-West route was selected along an existing rail corridor that crosses a large part of the City, and when combined with the Cumberland Transitway Corridor, they provide a complete east-west link. While there are not very many people living along portions of the rail line today, one of the opportunities the study is addressing is the potential to redevelop part of these underused industrial lands and focus new development along the rail line to support ridership and to support the urban intensification outlined in the City’s Official Plan.

CR-1: The draft ToR mentions choosing between two routes in Kanata at the western extremity of the corridor. That seems reasonable. Now, it also seems reasonable for the EA to recommend that the necessary land in the second choice at least be reserved for rapid transit at some future time.

Response: The EA will recommend a proposed solution for the East-West Corridor. The functional planning work of the EA, to define corridor protection needs, will only be undertaken for the proposed solution for the East-West Corridor. Protecting the necessary land for the other route segments will be addressed accordingly in a separate EA study.

PS-1: Main issues to be addressed in the EA are:

· The Kanata/Stittsville alignments and a definite need to extend the Stittsville study area further south and west into the existing developed and designated urban areas;

· Locations of stations and interchanges with other RT lines, especially the station/interchange with the N-S corridor LRT line;

· Park and Ride locations;

· Drainage and stormwater management when altering existing landscapes and alignments;

· Air quality monitoring, to commence as soon as possible to create records for comparison purposes.

Response: The route to Stittsville was addressed in other comments in the main document. The route to Stittsville was not carried forward as it did not perform as well as the other corridors included in this study. See response to comments under “Route Alternatives”.

Interchange stations and the location of Park and Ride lots are identified in the ToR and will be addressed. Both will be developed as the study progresses. This will be done similarly for drainage and stormwater management.

DH-4: Study area should be expanded to include the following route:

• Start in Navan, using an abandoned C.P. railway line
• Use the VIA Rail tracks to Ottawa Train Station, to Abbey Station, into N-E area of the hospital
• South through the Alta Vista Corridor to Walkley Yard
• Use the OCR track from there to Bells Corners Junction
• Use the Ottawa-Carleton Trailway corridor westerly through Stittsville to Carleton Place
• Provide a spur line to the Corel Centre for special events

DH-5: The route outlined in comment DH-4 would have the advantage of using existing rights-of-way thereby reducing start-up costs.

SF-10: The route suggested in comment DH-4 is a logical route enhancement which will allow the Transportation Committee and Council to maintain flexibility in the ultimate deployment of public transit during the 15 year planning period.

SF-11: If the route enhancements suggested in comment DH-4 are not included in the current study they would be subject to a separate, expensive study in the future if the route was found to be necessary for whatever reason.

SF-13: Ignoring existing communities (and voters) in existing communities, where these communities already have a rail corridor seems imprudent.

Response: While the existing rights-of-way are in place, portions of that route support active VIA Rail service. Overlaying LRT with the VIA train service would require detailed study. The use of active VIA track would also impact the potential technology choice for the line and affect the frequency of service that could be offered.

Individual segments of this route were analyzed in the prior work (RTES) and were taken out of the proposed future network for a variety of reasons including:

· Duplication of service where the route parallels the existing Transitway (between Heron and Cyrville stations),

· Low ridership potential for the track section to Navan and the section through Stittsville to Carleton Place,

· Poor service to the residents of Orléans,

· Poor service to the residents and businesses of central and north Kanata,

· Longer trip times for cross-town trips, and

· Poor interconnectivity with the Transitway in the west end.

DH-6: It should be noted that the ends of the line will attract riders from a 20-mile radius.

Response: The ridership model being used for this study is the same one used for the Transportation Master Plan and includes all trip-making in the City and surrounding areas. The ability of rapid transit to attract trips from the greater surrounding area is included in the model.

East-West LRT Corridor Environmental Assessment Study

Meeting Notes of Agency Consultation Group (ACG) Meeting #2

March 30, 2005

Time:	9:30 p.m. - 11:30 p.m.
Date:	March 30, 2005
Place:	Colonel By Room, 2^nd Floor, 110 Laurier Avenue
Present
	Study Team Vivi Chi, City of Ottawa, PGM - Transportation and Infrastructure Planning Mona Abouhenidy, City of Ottawa, PGM - Transportation and Infrastructure Planning David Hopper, Delcan Corporation Ronald Fournier, Delcan Corporation Kelly Roberts, Delcan Corporation
	City of Ottawa Bruce Stansfield - Light Rail Office, PGM Ron Gray - Fleet Services, PWS Luc Marineau - Surface Operations, PWS Pat Scrimgeour - Transit Services, PWS Glen Emond – RPAM, Corporate Services Dana Collings - Community Planning & Design, PGM Colin White - Development Approvals East/South, PGM Brian Millar - Traffic Operations, PWS John Buck – Safety and Traffic Services, PWS Greg Montcalm RPAM - Environmental Remediation, Corporate Services Claudio Colaiacovo - Financial Services, Corporate Services Dean Aqiqi - Infrastructure Approval Central, PGM Linda Carkner - Infrastructure Management, PWS Ziad Ghadban - – Infrastructure Services, PWS External Agencies James Allen - Ottawa Central Railway Luc-Alexandre Chayer - NCC Grace Strachan - NCC Ted Toonders - C.N. Rail David Jeanes - Transport 2000 Aaron Branston - VIA Rail Canada Glen McDonald - Rideau Valley Conservation Authority Rachel Houde - MTO - Transit Office Vance Bedore - Public Works & Government Services Canada Arto Keklikian - NCC André Lalonde - Transport Canada (teleconference)
Absent
	City of Ottawa Peter Steacy - Transportation -EAs, PGM Carol Chritensen - Environmental Management, PGM Darlene Conway – Infrastructure Planning, PGM John Jensen - Transit Services – Rail, PWS Rob Orchin - Mobility and Area Traffic Management, PWS Fern Marcuccio - Utility Services – Drinking Water Services, PWS Jim Zimmerman - Utility Services – Wastewater and Drainage Services, PWS Perry McConnell - Fire Services, Community and Protective Services Bill VanRyswyk - Ottawa Police Services External Agencies Carolyn Dunn - Health Canada Phil Pawliuk - Ontario Ministry of Transportation Susanne Turcotte - Environment Canada Eric Advocaat - Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Debbie Miller - Department of Fisheries and Ocean Canada 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 Manuel Stevens - Parks Canada Dennis O`Grady - South Nation River Conservation Authority Guy Morin - Indian and Northern Affairs Canada John Price, Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority

East-West LRT Corridor Environmental Assessment Study

Agency Consultation Group (ACG) Meeting #2 March 30, 2005

Meeting Notes	Action
1. Project Update and Overview Mona Abouhenidy provided an overview of the project activities to date: $ At the first meeting in November, ACG members were presented with the Draft Terms of Reference and comments were solicited $ A Revised Terms of Reference were presented to Transportation Committee on February 16, 2005 $ Several delegations presented concerns to the Committee $ Transportation Committee directed the Study Team to address the comments and come back to Transportation Committee Responses to the comments were provided in advance of the meeting, and the following notes should be read in conjunction with those comments and responses. These notes only provide clarification to the responses.
2. Comments and Responses to Transportation Committee Each of the Responses to Questions and Comments from emails received and presentations made to Transportation Committee, February 16, 2005 were reviewed, followed by discussion.
Process of the EA No Comments
Notice of the Committee Meeting David Jeanes, Transport 2000 It would have been helpful if the Consultation Groups could have had advance notice of the Transportation Committee meeting and the Staff Report in order to plan on attending and to prepare a response. Vivi Chi, City of Ottawa The reports cannot be made available in advance as they are released in accordance with City policy and established practices. Advance notice of the Transportation Committee meeting date will be sent out to the Consultation Groups. Grace Strachan, NCC I would support advance notice for the Consultation Groups.	City will send and advance notice of the meeting date.
Use of the Go Transit Class EA No Comments
ACG and PCG Composition David Jeanes, Transport 2000 The request for change to the ACG was related to the definition of the ACG in the Study Design Document which is "to address the full range of technical issues and to comment on special studies as well as applicable procedures, legislation and policies." which is more relevant to the mandate of Transport 2000 than local issues that are addressed by the PCG.
Comment Review and Approval Process No Comments
Information Sharing No Comments
Air Quality Ron Gray, City of Ottawa Greenhouse gases (GHG) will be difficult to assess for each alternative as it is difficult to measure and evaluate these at a local level. David Hopper, Delcan At the alternative solution level, there will not be a detailed analysis but a comparative analysis of the alternative solutions. In subsequent stages there will be a more detailed assessment that will include modeling of vehicle kilometers travelled (VKT) that will be used to address the impacts and predict GHG levels. Ron Gray, Fleet Services Will the assessment of GHG consider the electricity used by LRT systems as well as the emissions from a diesel system? David Hopper, Delcan Yes, the assessment will evaluate energy consumed for all modes.
Reference to the ORTEP Report David Jeanes, Transport 2000 ORTEP defined narrow alignments and used assumptions that were not based on the O-Train model. Transport 2000 concerns that were presented for the ORTEP report have not been carried forward. The project is now estimated at over $1 Billion not $22-33 Million. Vivi Chi, City of Ottawa ORTEP was undertaken to provide Council with an implementation plan for the ultimate network/system. Subsequent EAs will examine the costs of the individual corridors in more detail. ORTEP was prepared within a prescribed 3 month time frame which did not include time for public consultation. The objective was to provide an order of magnitude while the EAs will provide more accurate costs.
Rail Expertise of the Team David Jeanes, Transport 2000 The comment was not about the corporate credentials of Delcan but was related to City projects that require individuals to be identified on reports. The Rapibus project report was signed by 4 engineers David Hopper, Delcan Municipal Planning reports do not require an engineering signature. This is consistent with the Professional Engineers Act and City Policy. Vivi Chi, City of Ottawa The Ontario engineering practices are different than that in Quebec. In Ontario Engineers are governed by the Professional Engineers Act of Ontario. Planning reports do not need to be signed but the presence of the corporate logo commits the corporation to take responsibility for the contents. Signatures and stamps are normally reserved for contract drawings. David Jeanes, Transport 2000 The Engineering Act does state that they are necessary for contract drawings.
Lessons Learned from the O-Train Pilot David Jeanes, Transport 2000 Transport 2000 is pleased with the response that John Jensen is on the ACG. Vivi Chi, City of Ottawa The issue was related to timing. Mario Peloquin had left the City and John Jensen had not started when the groups initially met.
Identification of Consultant on Reports Already addressed, no further comments.
Cost Issues Dean Aqiqi, City of Ottawa Rail is more expensive than other rapid transit systems but has environmental and service benefits. The system may not even be rail in some areas initially. Cost should not be the deciding factor. Vivi Chi, City of Ottawa Cost is only one of the factors to be considered. Future expansions and service disruptions will also be considered. As an example when the Transitway was constructed at Place d'Orléans it was built at grade with a foundation backfilled with granulars to allow for a future underpass to be constructed without disrupting ongoing transit operations. David Jeanes, Transport 2000 There needs to be consideration of the differences between rail engineering and road engineering. For example the O-Train could be shut down for evenings and weekends to allow for work on the line. Railway practices and procedures need to be factored in. David Hopper, Delcan Consideration of future expansions and disruptions will be part of the implementation and staging undertaken for the EA.
Multimodal Systems and Financing David Jeanes, Transport 2000 The NCC had a meeting last night to promote a free transit zone downtown core. Pat Scrimgeour, City of Ottawa The City will comment on any proposals that are made that would affect transit operations, however the East-West LRT Corridor does not go through downtown.
Statement of Work Issues David Jeanes, Transport 2000 The capacity is not being considered in the North-South EA Study for the vehicle or technology selection. The vehicles selected only have 55% of the capacity of the O-Train. The only way to increase the capacity is higher frequency. Calgary is running 4-car trains. David Hopper, Delcan The capacity is already considered in the ridership. David Jeanes, Transport 2000 An increase in the frequency results in a decrease in the efficiency of the service. Vivi Chi, City of Ottawa The platform length available for the downtown area, as well as many other issues besides capacity, limits the selection of vehicles for the North-South EA. The East-West has more flexibility in this area. David Hopper, Delcan It may be possible to use longer trains on the East-West system.
Rationale for the East-West Route No Comments
Implementation Method No Comments
System Operation No Comments
Network Planning and Implementation No Comments

Federal Regulation

No Comments

DMU Use at Level Crossings

David Jeanes, Transport 2000

Other cities (Calgary, New Jersey, San Diego) have DMUs on level crossings. Grade separations are a cost escalation and are a concern. Hinting that is should be grade-separated should not be in the Terms of Reference.

David Hopper, Delcan

There are no LRT vehicles that meet Federal Railway Approvals. Each crossing has to be evaluated on it's own merit and subject to a detailed safety audit.

Andre Lalonde, Transport Canada

That is the current policy/procedure.

David Jeanes, Transport 2000

The cost of grade separations is going to be a major cost issue going forward.

David Hopper, Delcan

Many of the major crossings within the East-West Corridor are already grade separated. Addition of a second track would likely require a second rail bridge be added to the grade separation.

Route Alternatives

Map of RTES corridors studies was presented for discussion

Grace Strachan, NCC

Has the corridor across the greenbelt in the eastern section of the corridor already been determined?

David Hopper, Delcan

The corridor selected in the Cumberland Transitway EA runs between Navan Road and Trim Road. The crossing of the eastern section of the greenbelt will be determined as part of this EA.

David Jeanes, Transport 2000

The Stittsville line should be considered as an alternative and consideration should be given to it as a feeder line because it is already City owned.

David Hopper, Delcan

Consideration was given to this corridor in RTES and eliminated. It significantly underperformed in the network analysis.

David Jeanes, Transport 2000

This corridor does not service the General Campus of the Ottawa Hospital that has a high concentration of employees not serviced by rapid transit. It is an "orphan line"

Vivi Chi, City of Ottawa

This EA does not include that transit line but it does not preclude it from being implemented as a stand alone project and subject to a separate EA.

David Hopper, Delcan

The Hospital is a large employment centre and statistics indicate the employees are from all areas of the region. Traditionally hospitals employees and users are relatively poor transit users due to shift work and illnesses.

David Jeanes, Transport 2000

There are examples such as Houston Texas, where the hospitals generate the peaks in transit use. The fact that some people are ill in it self prevents them from driving and therefore require transit. Previous LRT pilot studies identified the Sheffield Industrial Park as an employment centre. This Study needs to consider employment centres at a detailed level.

David Hopper, Delcan

Employment centres are noted in the Terms of Reference and will be considered.

Operations and Interlining Issues

David Jeanes, Transport 2000

The North-South Study Team is indicating that they will defer to the East-West Study Team with respect to the station requirements where the lines intersect. They are considering a 24 foot vertical separation between the lines. This will result in poor transfer conditions. There needs to be close co-operation between the studies, we don't see this happening.

David Hopper, Delcan

The co-operation required between the studies is identified in the Terms of Reference and through the composition of the ACG.

David Jeanes, Transport 2000

We believe that the demand for Kanata travel to the airport will generate ridership. LRT systems can be easily interlined to allow for this.

3 Comments and Responses to up March 12, 2005

Each of the Responses to Additional Comments Received up to12 March 2005 topics were reviewed, followed by discussion.

Process

No Comments

Air Quality

No Comments

Accessibility

No Comments

Community Integrity Impact

No Comments

Use of Concordance

No Comments

Background Data Collection and Co-ordination

No Comments

Cost Issues

No Comments

Land Acquisition

No Comments

Staged Implementation

David Jeanes, Transport 2000

The Statement of Work for the North-South LRT states that O-Train type trains may be purchased now to deal with capacity. This may create a pool of vehicles that could be put in use now on existing lines (e.g., Cyrville to Kanata). This should be examined in parallel with the North-South Study.

David Hopper, Delcan

The staging and implementation will consider both the technology and the number of vehicles required and available.

Route Alternatives

David Jeanes, Transport 2000

The modelling used does not consider transfers from bus to rail. Feeder buses are not considered. This is a problem with the current model.

David Hopper, Delcan

We have gone to great lengths in the modelling process to ensure that transfers are considered.

Mona Abouhenidy, City of Ottawa

The model is flexible and can take into account different behaviours. It considers inputs from screenline data and OC Transpo data

4. Next Steps

C Meeting with the Business Consultation Group (BCG) this afternoon

David Jeanes, Transport 2000

Does the BCG include Chambers of Commerce and major employers and business parks?

Mona Abouhenidy, City of Ottawa

There are several large employers and some business parks where there is an organized representative:

• Ottawa Chamber of Commerce
• Orléans Chamber of Commerce
• Gloucester Chamber of Commerce
• Kanata Chamber of Commerce
• Greater Nepean Chamber of Commerce
• National Capital Business Alliance
• Regroupement des gens d’affaires (RGA)
• Canadian Federation of Independent Business
• Queensway Carleton Hospital
• Building Owners and Managers Association of Ottawa (BOMA)
• Ottawa Senators & Corel Centre
• Ottawa Carleton Home Builder Association (OCHBA)
• Nortel Networks

§ Algonquin College

• Ottawa Real Estate Board
• Kanata Research Park

C Meeting with the Public Consultation Group (PCG) this evening

C Minor changes as noted in the comments and responses will be made to the Terms of Reference and they will be presented to Transportation Committee in May. A notice of this meeting will be sent to the Consultation Group members in advance.

C A meeting will be scheduled for June to review the first stages of the EA. A CD has already been sent to the external agencies and link will be forwarded for the internal members.

Individual Consultation Group Meeting Notes will be distributed to all Consultation Groups following their individual Group review.

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

Time:	East-West LRT Corridor Environmental Assessment Study Meeting Notes of Business Consultation Group (BCG) Meeting #1 March 30, 2005 1:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.
Date:	March 30, 2005
Place:	Colonel By Room, 2^nd Floor, 110 Laurier Avenue
Present
	Study Team Mona Abouhenidy, City of Ottawa, PGM - Transportation and Infrastructure Planning David Hopper, Delcan Corporation Ronald Fournier, Delcan Corporation Kelly Roberts, Delcan Corporation
	Martin Vandewouw, Kanata Research Park John Sauvé, Nortel Networks Jeff Doll, Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) of Ottawa David Rossetti, Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) of Ottawa Tom MacWilliam, Gloucester Chamber of Commerce & National Capital Business Alliance R. Peter Thompson, Queensway Carleton Hospital Cyril Leeder, Corel Centre & Ottawa Senators John Herbert, Ottawa Carleton Home Builder Association David Glastonbury, Ottawa Chamber of Commerce
Absent
	Craig Bater, Orleans Chamber of Commerce Dirk Bouwer, Kanata Chamber of Commerce Buck Arnold, Greater Nepean Chamber of Commerce Joanne Lefebvre, Regroupement des gens d’affaires (RGA) Garth Whyte, Canadian Federation of Independent Business Rob Gillet, Algonquin College Carol Mallett, Ottawa Real Estate Board

East-West LRT Corridor Environmental Assessment Study (BCG) Meeting #1 March 30, 2005 Meeting Notes	Action
1. Introductions and Project Overview Mona Abouhenidy provided an overview of the proposed project Project activities to date. $ At the first meetings of the Agency and Public Consultation Groups in November 2004, members were presented with the Draft Terms of Reference and comments were solicited $ On November 30^th and December 1^st and 2^nd public meetings were held across the city to allow the general public to review the Draft Terms of Reference and provide their comments $ A Revised Draft Terms of Reference were presented to Transportation Committee on February 16, 2005 $ Several delegations presented concerns to the Committee $ Transportation Committee directed the Study Team to address the comments and meet with the Consultation Groups again before returning to Transportation Committee $ The Study Team created a new Business Consultation Group to augment the representation of business groups along this 47 km corridor. The City is also in the process of establishing a Business Advisory Committee and a representative from that Committee will be added to this group. Responses to the comments were provided in advance of the meeting, and the following notes should be read in conjunction with those comments and responses. .
2. Consultation Groups Roles and Responsibilities Roles and responsibilities for the BCG were reviewed. The roles and responsibilities of the PCG and ACG were also showcased.
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 Comments from the BCG on the previously distributed Terms of Reference were invited. Cyril Leeder, Corel Centre & Ottawa Senators Is 2021 the base year for population or the construction year? David Hopper, Delcan 2021 is the base year for population and employment projections. Cyril Leeder, Corel Centre & Ottawa Senators Will there be a loop in the system? David Hopper, Delcan There will more likely be back and forth operations rather than a loop but that is still to be determined. David Rossetti, Building Owners and Managers Association of Ottawa Will the track be twinned? David Hopper, Delcan That will be determined during the course of the EA along with other operational issues. Martin Vandewouw, Kanata Research Park To what extent will the economic effects be evaluated? Will a business model be used to assess revenue and operating costs to assess whether the system will have to be subsidized or not? David Hopper, Delcan Economic analysis will be more inline with the current OC Transpo type operations and budgeting versus building a business case. Martin Vandewouw, Kanata Research Park Will there be sufficient analysis to determine if there will be a cost to the taxpayer? There should not be any surprises. Tom MacWilliam, Gloucester Chamber of Commerce & National Capital Business Alliance We can expect that public transit will have to be subsidized. David Hopper, Delcan One of the objectives of this project is to identify opportunities to protect lands and shape future development and create transit oriented development. We will look at opportunities to generate revenue from changes in land use, the increased value of land around the line and the increased tax revenues generated by additional developable area. David Glastonbury, Ottawa Chamber of Commerce Will a transit assessment be levied on development on the outskirts for new service areas? David Hopper, Delcan The EA will examine financial opportunities from uplift in land values around stations and nodes. John Herbert, Ottawa Carleton Home Builder Association Is the study utilizing the Official Plan population projects? They are currently being reviewed. David Hopper, Delcan Population projects are reviewed on a regular basis. If there are changes made they will be incorporated. David Glastonbury, Ottawa Chamber of Commerce Is the Study still looking at Rapid Transit? The North-South Study has planned for a high number of stations, which slows up movement. Will the E-W LRT Station be further apart? David Hopper, Delcan This corridor has approximately 20 stations identified over 47 km. The distribution of stations is not equally spaced. There are fewer through the greenbelt than in the higher density areas. There will be a trade-off between speed and the number of stations that will be assessed in the latter stages of the study. David Glastonbury, Ottawa Chamber of Commerce The system should use feeder buses to rapid transit stations rather than trying to include a high number of stations along the line. David Hopper, Delcan The system also has to be accessible. The ridership analysis will consider various options of speed/services/station locations. Using Toronto as an example, subway stations are kilometers apart in the suburbs and 100s of metres apart in the downtown. Stations will be located as appropriate for area densities and future development potential. Tom MacWilliam, Gloucester Chamber of Commerce & National Capital Business Alliance Not all the trains need to stop at every station, especially if it is twinned tracks. This is more likely though for a mature system such as London, England. David Hopper, Delcan This may be optimistic for the Ottawa system initially. David Glastonbury, Ottawa Chamber of Commerce Trains and buses compete if they are separate systems. We should be trying to develop an integrated system. I want assurances that both modes are not competing but complementary to one another. David Hopper, Delcan The East-West corridor does not directly compete with the existing Transitway. The system network and connectivity need to be considered as a whole. Cyril Leeder, Corel Centre & Ottawa Senators Where do the East-West and North-South lines intersect? David Hopper, Delcan In the area between Walkley and Greenboro Stations. David Rossetti, Building Owners and Managers Association of Ottawa Does that mean that to go from Kanata to downtown you will have to change trains? David Hopper, Delcan That will likely be required but this will be assessed in the latter stages of the EA. Final comments on the Terms of Reference were requested for Friday April 8, 2005.	All BCG Members
2. Comments and Responses to Transportation Committee Each of the Responses to Questions and Comments from emails received and presentations made to Transportation Committee, February 16, 2005 were reviewed, followed by discussion.
Process of the EA No Comments
Notice of the Committee Meeting No comments
Use of the Go Transit Class EA No Comments
ACG and PCG Composition No comments
Comment Review and Approval Process No Comments
Information Sharing No Comments
Air Quality John Herbert, Ottawa Carleton Home Builder Association Using vehicle kilometers traveled means that increased congestion will decrease air quality due to vehicle idling. David Rossetti, Building Owners and Managers Association of Ottawa Providing transit does get people off the roads. John Herbert, Ottawa Carleton Home Builder Association Transit ridership doesn't necessarily improve air quality. Municipalities direct money to transit and not roads. Roads become congested and in disrepair which degrades air quality. David Glastonbury, Ottawa Chamber of Commerce Albert and Slater are very congested in rush hour and Ottawa needs to move to the next level and provide an LRT system.
Reference to the ORTEP Report No Comments
Rail Expertise of the Team No Comments
Lessons Learned from the O-Train Pilot No Comments
Identification of Consultant on Reports David Glastonbury, Ottawa Chamber of Commerce Is this the Engineering Report issue? David Hopper, Delcan Yes. These are Municipal Planning reports that do not require an engineering stamp.
Cost Issues No Comments
Multimodal Systems and Financing No Comments
Statement of Work Issues No Comments
Rationale for the East-West Route John Herbert, Ottawa Carleton Home Builder Association Doesn't the rationale apply for the North-South Project? The communities in the east and west are already there and need to be serviced. Construction of the N-S line will not advance or slow growth in the S.U.C. David Hopper, Delcan The Official Plan identifies significant growth in the south. There are also higher densities north of the South Keys station. Mona Abouhenidy, City of Ottawa Orléans and Kanata already have rapid transit service to downtown. Riverside South does not have any. This is an opportunity to shape development and influence travel patterns of people. Martin Vandewouw, Kanata Research Park There is a need to look at employment centres for rapid transit systems. There are none in the south and they already exist in the east and west. Mona Abouhenidy, City of Ottawa Barrhaven is developing as an employment centre and there are opportunities to develop a better balance. David Hopper, Delcan It is typical of new rapid transit systems to have a high one way density. A more balanced ridership flow will develop in the future. Martin Vandewouw, Kanata Research Park There are current trends that exist now and need to be serviced (i.e., E-W flow). David Hopper, Delcan There needs to be a balance between providing services to influence development and servicing existing development. John Herbert, Ottawa Carleton Home Builder Association Infrastructure such as schools and shopping centres are never put in advance of development. David Hopper, Delcan Municipal infrastructure such as roads and sewers are often built in advance of development. Martin Vandewouw, Kanata Research Park Taxpayer subsidies will be required if transit is put in ahead of development. David Glastonbury, Ottawa Chamber of Commerce The Ottawa Train Station and Mirabel Airport are examples of how putting in infrastructure after development can fail. John Herbert, Ottawa Carleton Home Builder Association Roads and sewers have some costs but have relatively low operating costs compared to transit. The population densities should be there to warrant construction. David Hopper, Delcan The planning can still be done in advance. For example, the Cumberland Transitway was planned around a protected corridor and development proceeded around it. Mona Abouhenidy, City of Ottawa This project is still many years away from being in operation. The North-South line is planned to be operating to Riverside in 2009. David Glastonbury, Ottawa Chamber of Commerce Rail lines used to run to Villages that developed around them. Now we are turning abandoned rail lines into bicycle paths. Tom MacWilliam, Gloucester Chamber of Commerce & National Capital Business Alliance When Highway 405 was being constructed to Hamilton, overpasses were built 5 years in advance of development. Highway 407 was originally built through empty fields. It is now fully developed.
Implementation Method No Comments
System Operation No Comments
Network Planning and Implementation No Comments
Federal Regulation No Comments

DMU Use at Level Crossings

David Glastonbury, Ottawa Chamber of Commerce

There are existing crossings for the O-Train.

David Hopper, Delcan

Existing crossings are 2 rail lines and one pedestrian crossing.

David Rossetti, Building Owners and Managers Association of Ottawa

If the system is electric, can there be level crossings?

David Hopper, Delcan

Yes, there can be level crossing with electrified systems. How those crossings can be implemented will depend on whether the system is federally or municipally operated.

Mona Abouhenidy, City of Ottawa

Capital Railway is currently evaluating federal versus municipal operation. It will not be considered as part of this EA.

David Glastonbury, Ottawa Chamber of Commerce

Grade separations cost $30 Million each.

David Hopper, Delcan

That cost is a high-end cost and will depend on the individual conditions.

David Rossetti, Building Owners and Managers Association of Ottawa

Is electric still the ultimate system?

David Hopper, Delcan

The EA study will consider various technologies.

David Glastonbury, Ottawa Chamber of Commerce

The Transitway cost $16 Million per kilometre.

David Hopper, Delcan

That could still be less expensive than LRT.

David Rossetti, Building Owners and Managers Association of Ottawa

The City owns the DMUs. Will they continue to be used?

David Hopper, Delcan

This EA study will consider both technology and implementation. It may be possible to use the DMUs as an interim step.

Route Alternatives

Map of RTES corridors studies was presented for information and discussion.

David Glastonbury, Ottawa Chamber of Commerce

The City owns the corridor to Carp and 3M owns the rail bed.

David Rossetti, Building Owners and Managers Association of Ottawa

The Corel Centre has events that need to be served.

David Hopper, Delcan

That is recognized and will be considered.

David Glastonbury, Ottawa Chamber of Commerce

What about using the Carp line to service the Corel Centre?

David Hopper, Delcan

That was looked at in RTES and eliminated due to poor connectivity. This EA will look at both the Corel Centre and future development planned for Kanata West and Kanata North.

Operations and Interlining Issues

No Comments

3 Comments and Responses to up March 12, 2005

Each of the Responses to Additional Comments Received up to12 March 2005 were reviewed followed by discussion.

Process

No Comments

Air Quality

No Comments

Accessibility

David Glastonbury, Ottawa Chamber of Commerce

Will this study consider the potential changes being considered to the Accessibility Act?

David Hopper, Delcan

Transit systems are built to be accessible. It is prudent to design for accessibility first rather that try to refit afterwards.

Mona Abouhenidy, City of Ottawa

The City is currently working towards full accessibility for the existing Transit system.

Community Integrity

Martin Vandewouw, Kanata Research Park

The corridor location does not divide any communities.

David Hopper, Delcan

The EA study will still need to be sensitive to the issue so that the corriodor does not become a barrier.

Martin Vandewouw, Kanata Research Park

But are existing communities not the basis for the corridor location in the first place. The ideal location would be further north. The location is already subsidizing ridership to protect communities.

David Hopper, Delcan

There are tradeoffs that need to be considered between existing land uses and ridership.

Use of Concordance

Cyril Leeder, Corel Centre & Ottawa Senators

What is the Concordance Method?

David Hopper, Delcan

It is an evaluation methodology that uses a comparative analysis of alternatives with ranking and weightings. It is one of several methods that will be considered for use in the study.

Background Data Collection and Co-ordination

No Comments

Cost Issues

No Comments

Land Acquisition

No Comments

Staged Implementation

No comments

Route Alternatives

No Comments

4. Next Steps

C Meeting with the Public Consultation Group (PCG) this evening. Met with the Agency Consultation Group this morning

C Minor changes as noted in the comments and responses will be made to the revised Terms of Reference and they will be presented to Transportation Committee in May. A notice of this meeting will be sent to the Consultation Group members in advance.

C A meeting will be scheduled for June to review the first stages of the EA. A CD will be forwarded for review.

Meeting notes will be distributed to all Consultation Groups following their individual Group review.

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

Time:	East-West LRT Corridor Environmental Assessment Study Meeting Notes of Public Consultation Group (PCG) Meeting #2 March 30, 2005 6:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.
Date:	March 30, 2005
Place:	Colonel By Room, 2^nd Floor, 110 Laurier Avenue
Present	Study Team Vivi Chi, City of Ottawa, PGM - Transportation and Infrastructure Planning Mona Abouhenidy, City of Ottawa, PGM - Transportation and Infrastructure Planning David Hopper, Delcan Corporation Ronald Fournier, Delcan Corporation Kelly Roberts, Delcan Corporation
	Nan Griffiths - Arts, Heritage and culture Advisory Committee (AHACAC) Dick Howey - Baseline Ward 8 Stephen Fanjoy - Innes Ward 2 Bruce Curry - Bell-South Nepean Ward 3 Jim O'Shea - River Ward 16 Pierre Johnson - Capital Ward 17 Miriam Allen - Beacon Hill North Ward Leo Paoletti - Baseline Ward 8 Mark Nesdoly -Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee Eric Dormer - Gloucester - Southgate Ward 10 John Brennan - Alta Vista Ward 18 Brian MacRae - Alta Vista Ward 18 Frances Coates - Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee (OFGAC) Alan Asselstine - River Ward 8 Pat Spearey - Knoxdale - Merivale Ward 9 David Bell - Pedestrian & Transit Advisory. Committee Michael Martin - Innes Ward 2 Sampat Sridhar - Bay Ward 7 Fred Boyd - Kanata Ward 4 Brian C. Nelson - Bell-South Nepean Ward 3 Royal Galipeau - Beacon Hill - Cyrville Ward 11
Absent	Peter Stockdale, Gloucester-Southgate Ward 10 Cam Robertson - Capital Ward 17 Ian Boyd, Bay Ward 7 Jermy Byatt, Kanata Ward 4 Stephanie McNeely- Cumberland Ward 19 Bill Pugsley - Environmental Advisory Committee Stella Val - Roads & Cycling Advisory Committee James St. John - Accessibility Advisory Committee Steve Blais - Ottawa Youth Cabinet Charles Matthews - Disabled and Proud

East-West LRT Corridor Environmental Assessment Study Public Consultation Group (PCG) Meeting #2 March 30, 2005 Meeting Notes

Action

1. Project Update and Overview Vivi Chi provided a review of the project activities to date and the purpose of this meeting: $ At the first meeting in November, PCG members were presented with the Draft Terms of Reference and comments were solicited $ A Revised Terms of Reference were presented to Transportation Committee on February 16, 2005 $ Several delegations presented concerns to Transportation Committee that were primarily detailed issues that would be examined once the EA is underway $ Transportation Committee directed the Study Team to consult again with the study’s consultation groups and bring forward a report to Transportation Committee in May 2005 The objectives of this meeting are to review responses to the questions and comments raised on the Terms of Reference and to get closure on the Terms of Reference before returning with them to Transportation Committee in May. Dick Howey, Baseline Ward What about people who have made comments but are not here today? David Hopper, Delcan All members of the consultation groups (Agency, Public, and the newly-formed Business) received a copy of the comments and responses. If there are additional concerns for members not in attendance, comments can be forwarded by email or phone until Friday April 8, 2005. Nan Griffiths - AHACAC Why are there 2 separate committees for the North-South and East-West Studies? David Hopper, Delcan They are 2 separate studies with area specific representatives on each. Responses to the comments and questions were provided in advance of the meeting. On this basis, the following notes should be read in conjunction with those comments and responses. These meeting notes only provide clarification to the responses.

2. Comments and Responses to Transportation Committee Each of the Responses to Questions and Comments from emails received and presentations made to Transportation Committee, February 16, 2005 were previously distributed by the City of Ottawa via email. The following were the main issues of discussion.
Air Quality Stephen Fanjoy, Innes Ward Air quality was not well defined in the Terms of Reference. David Hopper, Delcan A definition has been added to the glossary Pat Spearey - Knoxdale - Merivale Ward If air quality is in the social criteria group due to the impact on people, why is water not there as well? David Hopper, Delcan Surface water and groundwater will be considered more in the physical sense than with respect to direct impacts on people. Sampat Sridhar - Bay Ward The original point of the comments were that the placement of air quality in the social criteria group was perceived to downplay the importance of the criteria. Based on the definition provided and the assurance that they will appropriately assessed, it is a moot point as to which criteria group they are placed under. Dick Howey, Baseline Ward Modelling and monitoring both need to be incorporated into the air quality assessment. Frances Coates - OFGAC Monitoring results need to be included in order to validate the model. Fred Boyd - Kanata Ward Models need to be validated. There are very few monitoring stations in Ottawa. David Hopper, Delcan The air quality sub-consultant on the study team will select and use the most appropriate model, which is accepted by approval authorities and incorporates appropriate validation. Existing data will be used to validate the model. Stephen Fanjoy, Innes Ward It is good to hear that CAC and GHG will be modelled and that the model will include real data. Effective models can be used to compare the future scenarios. Can the Consultation Group have access to the model, inputs and assumptions? David Hopper, Delcan Yes. Frances Coates - OFGAC There are 3 models listed in the ToR. If the Consultation Group does not have the information on these how will we know which one is best? Ronald Fournier, Delcan The models listed are used across North America and Europe to model air quality along transportation corridors. The models are accepted by the Ministry of the Environment and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Frances Coates - OFGAC The model is only as good as the inputs. Will the model selected incorporate the 10 new monitoring stations planned for Ottawa? Vivi Chi, City of Ottawa These stations do not yet exist. The model will use the data currently available. The air quality sub-consultants on the team (Daley Ferraro Associates) can be available to present the information, at a future meeting. Stephen Fanjoy, Innes Ward I have consulted with Carleton University and government experts about the modelling and there are some questions. The PCG needs to be satisfied that the model is suitable. Dick Howey, Baseline Ward The study team experts should be here. Frances Coates - OFGAC The responses say that monitoring is not accepted. David Hopper, Delcan Monitoring is not effective for predicting future conditions. Vivi Chi, City of Ottawa There is time in the subsequent stages of the EA Study to work through the details such as the selection of the appropriate model. Fred Boyd - Kanata Ward The experts can choose the model but the PCG would like to review the inputs and the assumptions. Vivi Chi, City of Ottawa A separate meeting can be arranged with the Study Team air quality sub-consultant to review the modelling with PCG members who are interested. Stephen Fanjoy, Frances Coates, Dick Howey, Pat Spearey, Brian Nelson and Pierre Johnson expressed interest. Sampat Sridhar - Bay Ward This is not the time to be reviewing the details of the model. There are many choices of models and a lot of data available for the experts to work with. Brian C. Nelson - Bell-South Nepean Ward The Terms of Reference should state that the model will include real data. David Hopper, Delcan That is included in the Terms of Reference.	A meeting will be arranged for interested PCG members when the model is to be reviewed
Route Alternatives Map of RTES corridors studies was presented for discussion Stephen Fanjoy, Innes Ward Were the corridors reviewed for specific modes of transit? David Hopper, Delcan Corridors were reviewed for all modes. Brian C. Nelson - Bell-South Nepean Ward If different modes were evaluated in different corridors, why was LRT not considered in the Transitway (i.e., replacing Transitway with rail)? David Hopper, Delcan RTES did examine converting the Transitway to rail. The results were that the capacity requirements of the Transitway could be met for 25 years with the current operating conditions. Brian C. Nelson - Bell-South Nepean Ward The system needs to be considered in total. Issues such as air quality and costs need to be assessed beyond just capacity. David Hopper, Delcan RTES determined that if there is money to spend on transit in the City it is best spent on developing new links to capture a larger ridership market than convert existing, well-used and successful corridors Brian C. Nelson - Bell-South Nepean Ward Ongoing costs of operation and maintenance for two systems needs to be considered. David Hopper, Delcan Many cities manage two modes of transit effectively. Nan Griffiths - AHACAC Bus systems ruin the quality of the urban environment, especially downtown. Has there been any consideration given to a staged objective of converting everything to trains? Vivi Chi, City of Ottawa RTES identified a complementary network of buses and trains for the next 20 years that will be reviewed every 5 years. There will be opportunities to review the network as the City prepares for the Official Plan review which takes place every 5 years. This EA Study is not looking at the downtown corridors. John Brennan - Alta Vista Ward The questions of which technology will be used will be answered in the EA Study not at the Terms of Reference stage. We need to look at achieving the goals of reducing single occupancy vehicle use in this and other corridors. David Hopper, Delcan RTES has done that and identified the system that can work towards achieving the goals set out in the Transportation Master Plan and the Official Plan. Dick Howey, Baseline Ward Was the route to Navan evaluated and eliminated in RTES? David Hopper, Delcan Yes Dick Howey, Baseline Ward A spur line to Navan should be considered 10 to 15 years in the future. David Hopper, Delcan This study will not preclude future extensions. John Brennan - Alta Vista Ward Can we add to the Terms of Reference that additional corridors will be considered? Vivi Chi, City of Ottawa The EA will look at reasonable corridors within the study area. But this study will not be considering corridors in the downtown. John Brennan - Alta Vista Ward Why not? Brian C. Nelson - Bell-South Nepean Ward People in Orléans need to be able to get downtown. David Hopper, Delcan Population and employment were all considered by RTES to create "desire lines" and travel directions as input into the network. RTES considered screenline analysis and area specific travel movements and identified a network that best served the overall region. The East-West Corridor was then selected as a priority for an environmental assessment. Separate studies will be done to look at other corridors in the RTES network Brian C. Nelson - Bell-South Nepean Ward The Terms of Reference precludes the conversion of the Transitway to rail. David Hopper, Delcan Population, growth and employment were all considered by RTES to create "desire lines" and travel directions as input into the network. The Terms of Reference for this study does not consider the downtown portion of the existing transitway Brian C. Nelson - Bell-South Nepean Ward The network does not seem to be servicing areas that people need to go to. David Hopper, Delcan Transit users do not tend to travel the full length of the line. Consideration has been given to travel patterns and commercial, employment and institutional centres. The model considered the opportunities to travel regardless of mode (car/transit) and developed a network that would provide the best opportunity to achieve the 30 % modal split. Brian C. Nelson - Bell-South Nepean Ward How close to brownfield sites suitable for future development will the line be? David Hopper, Delcan This will be determined in the EA. Specific alignments will be evaluated in the third phase of the Study. Opportunities to integrate with new developments will be considered. Dick Howey, Baseline Ward The study area needs to be expanded to include the abandoned CP line to 174 and go to the Ottawa Train Station and Abbey Station. David Hopper, Delcan That would be the subject of a separate future study. Dick Howey, Baseline Ward VIA or Ottawa Central lines should be included and extended into Carp and Stittsville. David Hopper, Delcan The connection to Stittsville was analyzed in RTES and in all network scenarios showed very poor ridership levels. Dick Howey, Baseline Ward If there is no demand, why are we paying for express bus service to Stittsville? David Hopper, Delcan The demand is not being ignored. The area is better serviced by the identified corridors. If further conditions require enhanced service to Stittsville, this EA Study will not preclude it. Nan Griffiths - AHACAC Has there been any consideration of operating an East-West line with only stations at each end? David Hopper, Delcan As part of the EA Study, staging will be assessed and station locations will be identified. Eric Dormer - Gloucester - Southgate Ward This EA Study will be looking at the corridor with the other systems in place. There is no need to go downtown as it is already serviced. We need to focus on this corridor and move ahead with the Terms of Reference. Vivi Chi, City of Ottawa It is also important for everyone to understand why the other corridors are not being incorporated as part of this EA Study. John Brennan - Alta Vista Ward As part of the EA, if east-west travel demand is not satisfied by this route will other alternatives be recommended? David Hopper, Delcan Yes. Brian C. Nelson - Bell-South Nepean Ward Is the City really ready to spend 3/4 of a Billion dollars on this line? Edmonton and Calgary have much better systems that are less expensive. This is the time to be re-opening the issue. David Hopper, Delcan The previous studies have indicated that this corridor is needed to achieve the City's modal split targets. No funding has been committed for this corridor as yet. Brian C. Nelson - Bell-South Nepean Ward Will this system address current or future needs? David Hopper, Delcan Both. Pat Spearey - Knoxdale - Merivale Ward Figure 2 in the Terms of Reference includes part of Stittsville. Stittsville will likely be included in the urban boundary in the near future and needs to be included in this EA Study. Alan Asselstine - River Ward The study area excludes Hunt Club Road and as such precludes options other than rail. There will be rail transit downtown. The decision to restrict this corridor appears to restrict the viable alternatives to rail. The decision seems to be already made. David Hopper, Delcan Hunt Club Road is an option that will be considered. Brian C. Nelson - Bell-South Nepean Ward Everything north of the corridor to downtown should be included in this EA Study. Sampat Sridhar - Bay Ward The main issue appears to be who is travelling form Orléans or Kanata to Walkley? David Hopper, Delcan There are already 4 rapid transit lines that service the downtown via the existing Transitway. Another was not deemed to be necessary. This corridor would provide an improved east-west rapid transit connectivity bypassing the downtown. It would also serve extensive employment areas that currently exist along the corridor and are expected to double by 2021. The corridor presents a unique opportunity to influence development within growth areas of Kanata and Orléans as well as inside the Greenbelt. Michael Martin - Innes Ward Will this EA Study preclude future connections to the lines serving the downtown? David Hopper, Delcan No. Overall network connectivity will be assessed as part of this Study. John Brennan - Alta Vista Ward Trains are better than buses for mass transit but employment density is needed for them to be effective. The area business parks are low rise/low density. Existing business parks such as Kanata are spread out and not conducive to rapid transit service. Future area development needs to be considered. David Hopper, Delcan That is included in the Terms of Reference. There are still opportunities to increase the densities of existing and future employment areas. The study team includes urban and municipal planners and economists to consider these issues. John Brennan - Alta Vista Ward Doubling of the employment is still not likely to develop sufficient densities. Brian C. Nelson - Bell-South Nepean Ward Will other cities successes and failures be used as examples? David Hopper, Delcan Yes. In addition the formation of the Business Consultation Group will provide input into likely future development. Brian C. Nelson - Bell-South Nepean Ward High densities mean a greater number of stations which decreases speed. David Hopper, Delcan There are trade-offs between accessibility and service that will have to be considered. Urban and suburban station spacing are different. Stations are closer together in areas of higher density. Brian C. Nelson - Bell-South Nepean Ward Surrey BC is an example where one station services a 20 mile radius. Dick Howey, Baseline Ward If one station can service a 20 mile radius then Navan and Stittsville should be considered. David Hopper, Delcan A western terminal station at or near the Corel Centre would be able to use existing parking facilities to provide park and Ride. If the station is drawing from a wide geographic area it should be located to make use of existing facilities wherever possible. Leo Paoletti - Baseline Ward The Bayshore area and Carling/Richmond should be included. David Hopper, Delcan The Carling Avenue corridor will be the subject of a separate study. This EA Study will consider Carling with respect to future connections and station locations as it has been identified as part of the overall network. Other potential future connections and developments will also be considered. Michael Martin - Innes Ward Careful consideration needs to be paid to assessing future conditions and requirements as they may not be necessary. There is also folly in spending money now for the future. David Hopper, Delcan Minimizing throw-way costs is one of several factors that will be considered.

DMUs at Level Crossings Dick Howey, Baseline Ward With respect to question DJ-13, I would like to see the signed letter and the submission made to Transport Canada. David Hopper, Delcan The link to the Transport Canada web site with the approvals information can be provided. This is the normal process for review of federal approvals. Dick Howey, Baseline Ward The O-Train went to Carp across level crossings and the signals did work. David Hopper, Delcan The signals are not the only issue. The trains are not rated as crash worthy by Transport Canada. Specific exemptions were made for the trip to Carp including: no freight traffic for 2 hours before and after the scheduled trip and duty police at all crossings. Operating the Talent vehicles at level crossing will only be permitted after each crossing has undergone a safety analysis. Eric Dormer - Gloucester - Southgate Ward There have been a set of rules established by Transport Canada for the existing DMU operations. It does not have anything to do with this study. Dick Howey, Baseline Ward It is important with respect to the requirement for grade separations and the cost associated with them. Alan Asselstine - River Ward Will the EA consider the goods movement and freight on the existing tracks? David Hopper, Delcan Yes. Goods movements will be considered in terms of sharing the track and time of day separations. Brian C. Nelson - Bell-South Nepean Ward Is it predetermined that people and freight can be on the same line? David Hopper, Delcan They can be on the same line, but not at the same time. Typically accepted time of day separation (such as from 6:00 am to 11:00 pm for people and from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 am for freight) is negotiated and put in place for joint use of the track. Brian C. Nelson - Bell-South Nepean Ward That is novel to North America. In Europe people have the priority. David Hopper, Delcan The federal government is considering legislation that would give urban passenger rail systems priority over freight operations, but the specifics of that legislation are not available and the legislation has not been passed yet. Alan Asselstine - River Ward Consideration has to be given to what happens to the freight if it cannot move or is restricted on the tracks. It will be put on the roads. John Brennan - Alta Vista Ward What is the frequency of GO trains in Toronto? David Hopper, Delcan It varies depending on the route. The Lakeshore East and Lakeshore West lines operate with 20-minute peak service morning and evening and hourly service through the midday and evening. The five northerly route typically has 3-5 trains in-bound during the morning and 3-5 trains out-bound in the evening. There are time-based windows in which GO Transit can operate across intersecting freight tracks. Jim O'Shea - River Ward GO trains operate with heavy freight. There are maintenance issues with the track though. David Hopper, Delcan The railways would establish a maintenance program. It should be noted that major construction is often required to upgrade freight track to passenger rail standards.
Notice of the [Transportation] Committee Meeting Vivi Chi, City of Ottawa The reports cannot be made available in advance as they are released in accordance with City policy and established practices. Advance notice of the Transportation Committee meeting date will be sent out to the Consultation Groups.
Background Data Collection and Co-ordination Pat Spearey - Knoxdale - Merivale Ward The Pedestrian Plan should be added to the list of studies. David Hopper, Delcan The list is intended to be representative and not inclusive. Part of the role of the ACG will be to provide information on new and upcoming studies. Vivi Chi, City of Ottawa The Pedestrian Plan can be added to the list of studies identified in the Terms of Reference.	Add Pedestrian Plan to the ToR
Land Acquisition Frances Coates - OFGAC How will the City find the money to purchase the required land? David Hopper, Delcan The EA will identify the property requirements and regular acquisition procedures would be implemented when appropriate. How the City funds this project is beyond the scope of this study. Pat Spearey - Knoxdale - Merivale Ward In the western area of the City, who owns the lines formerly used by CN? Mona Abouhenidy, City of Ottawa Parts of the line are City owned.
General Discussion Sampat Sridhar - Bay Ward Is the schedule of the East West Study co-ordinated with the North South Study? Vivi Chi, City of Ottawa The North-South LRT Study started last year and is nearing completion. Sampat Sridhar - Bay Ward How did the North-South study deal with controversial issues such as air quality? Vivi Chi, City of Ottawa Air quality was not a controversial issue for the North-South LRT project. Difficult issues are raised and resolved through discussion and technical analyses. The Terms of Reference for the North-South Study were approved in record time through consultation with advisory groups and agencies. The East-West Terms of Reference were prepared based on that model and have also been subject to public and agency review. Nan Griffiths - AHACAC The North-South line seems to have had a fast tracked approval. Is it a simpler project? Vivi Chi, City of Ottawa No. The Ministry of the Environment was involved in the preparation of the draft. The same coordination is occurring for this East-West LRT study. We anticipate a similar turn around time for the approval of this Terms of Reference. Alan Asselstine - River Ward Are copies of the TMP and RTES available for review? Mona Abouhenidy, City of Ottawa Yes. They are available on the City's web site www.ottawa.ca Pierre Johnson - Capital Ward This is not the forum to be addressing the TMP and RTES. Brian C. Nelson - Bell-South Nepean Ward It is important to ensure that both the studies (North-South and East-West) are considering the information in the same way. Michael Martin - Innes Ward There needs to be openness in the process and a means to feed the information back into the TMP and planning process. Vivi Chi, City of Ottawa The TMP is monitored and updated to coincide with the 5-year review of the Official Plan. Results of completed and approved EAs will be incorporated into the TMP update. Michael Martin - Innes Ward What is the life cycle of an EA from completion to operation? David Hopper, Delcan It depends on the specific project. The East-West LRT Corridor EA for example is currently scheduled to be completed in September 2006 followed by a 30 week review and approval period at the MOE. Roughly speaking, the City would then have to create a budget for the design work in 2007. Design could take approximately 2 years followed by construction and operation in 2012. The implementation schedule is heavily dependent on funding. Michael Martin - Innes Ward What happens if the situation changes from the time the study recommendations are made (2006) until implementation or operation (2012)? David Hopper, Delcan If the Study uses good information then the chances are that changes would affect implementation /timing of the project, not the recommended solution. Stephen Fanjoy - Innes Ward What about the subsequent requirements for additional approvals? David Hopper, Delcan Additional approvals will be identified in the EA. This Study is following a harmonized process to address many of the federal approval requirements. Alan Asselstine - River Ward The study area needs to be expanded to include Hunt Club Road. Vivi Chi, City of Ottawa The study will consider reasonable alternatives and can be broadened appropriately.
4. Next Steps C Minor changes as noted in the comments and responses will be made to the Terms of Reference and they will be presented to Transportation Committee in May. A notice of this meeting will be sent to the Consultation Group members in advance. C A meeting will be scheduled for June to review the first stages of the EA. A CD has already been sent. Dick Howey - Baseline Ward The CD did not work David Hopper, Delcan Another can be sent. Stephen Fanjoy - Innes Ward Could hard copies be distributed? Vivi Chi, City of Ottawa We are trying to send out the information electronically but accommodations can be made where required. John Brennan - Alta Vista Ward Can an electronic link be set up for access to the materials? Vivi Chi, City of Ottawa A link cannot be set up through the City's Web site due to policy and translation requirements. David Hopper, Delcan An external FTP link can be looked into.
Meeting Notes from the various Consultation Groups will be cross-distributed following their individual Group review. Please advise Kelly Roberts of any errors or omissions from these meeting notes (telephone 738-4160 ext 228, fax 739-7105, e-mail k.roberts@delcan.com).

Appendix C

Excerpts from Statement of Work

Excerpts from

East-West Corridor LRT Project Environmental Assessment Report to/Rapport au:

Transportation Committee

Comité des transports

26 March 2004 / le 26 mars 2004

Statement of Work

4.0  MAJOR ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED

The ToR shall identify the issues to be examined during the course of this study. Some of the major issues to be addressed include, but not limited to:

Staging and Technology

Implementing a project of this magnitude would likely necessitate a staged implementation approach.  Accordingly, the EA study shall examine a range of options, and recommend a preferred staging strategy based upon a range of criteria including ridership generation potential, likely development potential along the corridor, compatibility and integration with land use, environmental considerations, logical sequence and ease of implementation, costs, and funding availability.

Although Council has already approved the RTES long range recommendation for twin-track electric LRT, this EA study will examine the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of single-track alternatives. The EA will also examine the option of using the DMU vehicles currently in use on the North-South corridor, with additional vehicles.

Grade Separation Requirements

The ultimate East-West Corridor, as envisaged in RTES, crosses the VIA rail line, the North-South LRT Corridor, Rideau River, Southeast Transitway, Southwest Transitway, West Transitway, twice Highway 417, and numerous arterial roads.  Requirements for grade separation with these facilities will be addressed.  Existing structures will be examined to determine whether there are any impacts (keep as is, modify, or replace).

Coordination with existing freight/passenger rail Traffic

Transcontinental freights were re-routed away from the Beachburg Subdivision to Toronto in 1995 and as such freight traffic is minimal.  Also, this route passes over 1.1 kilometers of track between Wass and Federal Junction that is also used by heavy VIA trains. 

The option of co-locating the LRT operation on existing freight tracks versus operating in the same right-of-way but on separate tracks will be examined.  For the “same track” option, the issue of coordinating the schedules of the LRT and VIA Rail (on the Smith Falls Subdivision) and freight (on the Beachburg Subdivision) will be investigated and verified with Transport Canada regulations on the shared use.

Integration with other modes

The provision of strategically located and appropriately sized Park and Ride facilities is key to providing high quality rapid transit service, and achieving the expected ridership within this corridor.  This study will examine and recommend the preferred location and size of Park and Ride lots, as well as access requirements.  The recommended plan will incorporate functional designs and cost estimates for these facilities.

The Study will also examine the integration with other transit services.  Of particular importance are the integration with the North-South LRT, Southwest Transitway, the Southeast Transitway and West Transitway at Hwy 417.  The recommended plan will incorporate functional design and cost estimate for stations and transfer facilities.

The TMP identified a future multi-use pathway following the proposed LRT Corridor from Woodroffe Avenue to Rideau River to Highway 417 East.  The Study will examine how these two facilities are interfaced.

Urban Environment Integration

The possible introduction of surface running LRT through Kanata North and possibly in other areas will have a significant impact on the surrounding environment. This study will determine a preferred alignment, and address a host of issues including, but not limited to urban design, access to adjacent land uses, station locations, integration with the pedestrian environment, including safety and access considerations, effect on cycling, noise and vibration.

Operation and Maintenance Requirements

A considerable amount of supporting infrastructure is required to provide for the operation of the proposed LRT system.  Amongst the major components required, this study will:

·    identify LRT vehicle maintenance and storage facility requirements, and address the environmental impacts of its connection to the system;

·    identify and cost electrical supply requirements and facilities, as necessary, including all substations and property requirements;

·    identify and cost all communications, control and signalling requirements, including central control facility location and requirements.

Serving Extensive Employment Market

A chain of extensive employment areas currently exists along this LRT corridor.  It extends from Orleans Industrial Park, Sheffield Industrial Park, Hawthorne-Stevenage Business Park, Ottawa South Business Park, South Walkley - Albion Industrial Park, across the Rideau River through the Colonnade business park and on to both the Bells Corners and Kanata North Business Parks.  It is anticipated that employment in this area will roughly double from today’s level of about 40,000 jobs to about 70,000 by 2021.  Given the importance of serving this market, the Study will examine corridors alignment that best serve these areas including stations, integration with surrounding buildings, and pedestrian accesses.

Appendix D

Public, Agency and Business Consultation Groups

Membership, Role and Responsibility

Public Consultation Group

East-West Corridor Light Rail Transit (LRT) Environmental Assessment

Proponent

· City of Ottawa

City Ward Representatives (maximum of two per ward as recommended by Ward Councilors)

· Cumberland, Ward 19

· Innes, Ward 2

· Beacon Hill – Cyrville, Ward 11

· Gloucester – Southgate, Ward 10

· Alta Vista, Ward 18

· River, Ward 16

· Capital, Ward 17

· Bell-South Nepean, Ward 3

· Knoxdale – Merivale, Ward 9

· Baseline, Ward 8

· Bay, Ward 7

· Kanata, Ward 4

City Advisory Committee Representatives

· Environmental Advisory Committee

· Pedestrian and Transit Advisory Committee

· Roads and Cycling Advisory Committee

· Accessibility Advisory Committee

· Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee

· Local Architectural Conservation Authority Committee

· Arts, Heritage and Culture Advisory Committee

· Ottawa Youth Cabinet

Other Interest Groups

· Federation of Citizens Association

· Disabled and Proud

Role and Responsibility of the PCG Working Members

The PCG members will:

· Represent the interests and values of residents, land owners/users and interest groups in their individual wards and City as a whole;

· Attend all PCG meetings to ensure consistent two-way communication throughout the study;

· Review information provided by the Study Team in advance of each PCG meeting;

· Provide feedback on information provided and comment on ideas and issues raised at meetings;

· Work towards a consensus to allow the City to achieve project milestones.

The input from the PCG, other consultation groups and the general public will be reviewed after each Public Open House and, where appropriate, adjustments will be made to the study findings.

All comments received will become part of the public record for the Study.

Administration

The City of Ottawa’s Project Manager will chair the PCG meetings and be responsible for the following administrative duties:

· Ensure adequate notification to members of upcoming meetings

· Prepare meeting agendas and circulate materials for review;

· Distribute (by e-mail) all meeting notes following each meeting.

The Study Team recognizes that tight study timelines limit the time for review and comment on study materials and as such endeavors to provide as much review time as practical. Accordingly, study materials and progress reports will be provided to the PCG members throughout the study as they become available, and best efforts will be made to provide all relevant study materials within two weeks prior to each PCG meeting.

Agency Consultation Group

East-West Corridor Light Rail Transit (LRT) Environmental Assessment

Proponent

· City of Ottawa

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

· Canadian National Railway

· Ottawa Central Railway

· VIA Rail

· Transport 2000

City of Ottawa

· Public Works and Services (including OC Transpo)

· Planning and Growth Management

· Corporate Services

· Community and Protective Services

· Ottawa Police

Role and Responsibility of the ACG Working Members

The ACG members will:

· Represent the interests of their department and agencies;

· Attend all ACG meetings to ensure consistent two-way communication throughout the study;

· Identify planning and design issues early in the study so that they may be addressed in a timely manner;

· Review information provided by the Study Team in advance of each ACG meeting;

· Disseminate this information within their departments and agencies;

· Provide feedback on information provided and comment on ideas and issues raised at meetings;

· Work towards a consensus to allow the City to achieve project milestones.

The input from the ACG, other consultation groups and the general public will be reviewed after each Public Open House and, where appropriate, adjustments will be made to the study findings.

All comments received will become part of the public record for the Study.

Administration

The City of Ottawa’s Project Manager will chair the ACG meetings and be responsible for the following administrative duties:

! Ensure adequate notification to members of upcoming meetings

! Prepare meeting agendas and circulate materials for review;

! Distribute (by e-mail) all meeting notes following each meeting.

The Study Team recognizes that tight study timelines limit the time for review and comment on study materials and as such endeavors to provide as much review time as practical. Accordingly, study materials and progress reports will be provided to the ACG members throughout the study as they become available, and best efforts will be made to provide all relevant study materials within two weeks prior to each ACG meeting.

Business Consultation Group

East-West Corridor Light Rail Transit (LRT) Environmental Assessment

Proponent

· City of Ottawa

Business Groups

· Algonquin College

· Building Owners and Managers Association of Ottawa (BOMA)

· Canadian Federation of Independent Business

· Gloucester Chamber of Commerce

· Greater Nepean Chamber of Commerce

· Ottawa Chamber of Commerce

· Kanata Chamber of Commerce

· Kanata Research Park

· National Capital Business Alliance

· Nortel Networks

· Orléans Chamber of Commerce

· Ottawa Carleton Home Builder Association (OCHBA)

· Ottawa Real Estate Board

· Ottawa Senators and Corel Centre

· Queensway Carleton Hospital

· Regroupement des gens d’affaires (RGA)

Role and Responsibility of the BCG Working Members

The BCG members will:

· Represent the interests and values of their organizations;

· Attend all BCG meetings to ensure consistent two-way communication throughout the study;

· Review information provided by the Study Team in advance of each BCG meeting;

· Provide feedback on information provided and comment on ideas and issues raised at meetings;

· Work towards a consensus to allow the City to achieve project milestones.

The input from the BCG, other consultation groups and the general public will be reviewed after each Public Open House and, where appropriate, adjustments will be made to the study findings.

All comments received will become part of the public record for the Study.

Administration

The City of Ottawa’s Project Manager will chair the BCG meetings and be responsible for the following administrative duties:

· Ensure adequate notification to members of upcoming meetings

· Prepare meeting agendas and circulate materials for review;

· Distribute (by e-mail) all meeting notes following each meeting.

The Study Team recognizes that tight study timelines limit the time for review and comment on study materials and as such endeavours to provide as much review time as practical. Accordingly, study materials and progress reports will be provided to the BCG members throughout the study as they become available, and best efforts will be made to provide all relevant study materials within two weeks prior to each BCG meeting.