Near-Term Transportation Investment Options

Options d’investissement à court terme dans les transports

ACS2007-PTE-POL-0050 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

The Committee received a PowerPoint Presentation given by Peter Steacy, Program Manager, Transportation – EAs, Planning, Transit and the Environment. He was accompanied by John Moser, Director, Planning Branch and City Planner, PTE. A copy of the Presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

David Jeans, Transport 2000 believes that the proposed projects leave nothing for any further growth and would use half of the $400 million committed funds. He opined that the extension to the airport is important, and could be done immediately at a very low cost. He pointed out reference to the idea of doing this. He talked about the train, Transport Canada Approval, Bombardier not making that specific model. He suggested that the Leitrim Park and Ride be relocated to Armstrong Road. He asked how much money of this is additional money and how much is set aside to spend on other things. He believes that transit progress should be parallel with bus, for example connecting Route #95 to the downtown.

Deputy City Manager Schepers confirmed the Chair’s statement that once the TMP update is completed, there will be new opportunities to discuss funding with all partners. Chair Cullen specifically referred to the $400 million in transit funds mentioned by the delegation and asked if this could be set aside for future transit projects. Ms. Schepers responded that there was a time limit to this federal-provincial money.

Mr. Jeanes pointed out trains from Fallowfield to Alexandria with VIA Rail costs $25. They have authority to provide this service within the City.

Chair Cullen asked the Committee to approve that he write a letter to VIA Rail on behalf of the Committee requesting that VIA provide this passenger service from Fallowfield Station to Union Station. There was agreement that the Chair should do so.

Councillor Leadman asked staff to respond to Mr. Jeanes’ suggestion on relocating the Bowesville Road Park & Ride Facility to Armstrong Road, to which Mr. Steacy responded that this could be looked at.

Councillor Legendre commented that using that rail line from Fallowfield to make downtown two minutes faster is not significant, and questioned the time saved. Councillor Legendre agreed that the Chair could write his letter to VIA Rail regarding providing service but they might not be keen to do so. Councillor Legendre then sought clarification on the proposal of extending Leitrim for one third of the $40 million. Mr. Steacy responded that by using existing infrastructure this should not cost more than $25 million to do so – the $45 million is to pay for the train. Mr. Steacy suggested that there will be savings – the cost will include rail construction, signalization, road crossing, station and platform at the Leitrim Park and Ride Lot.

Charles Akben-Marchand, President, Citizens for Safe Cycling began his presentation by congratulating staff for assembling this report in such a short timeframe.

Mr. Akben-Marchand feels that unlike many of the other recent transit plans, this one is an assembly of individual pieces that on their own improve Ottawa's Transit system. He also feels that it is not a big comprehensive plan whose pieces must all fit together perfectly, and whose details are belaboured in endless discussions of Council, and delayed further by endless EAs, plans and studies. He stated that a 30% modal split is not just transit, but it should also include cyclists. He informed Committee that in 2003, Berlin had 6% of trips by bicycle, and set a target of 15% by 2012. Already, they are at 12% and on track to exceed their goal. In Victoria, the amount of trips is 4.6% and rising, surpassing Ottawa's traditional role as the North American leader in bicycle trips for medium-to-large cities. Unlike other cities, where the number of trips taken by bicycle has gone up, Ottawa's is stagnant at just under 2%. He advised that some figures indicate that cycling is actually going down slightly.

He noted the following points:

· While this item claims to pertain to "priority transit projects," the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge and the related projects constitute $105 million in car infrastructure. Specifically, the phrase in the report "until such time that a separate transit bridge is required" seems to indicate that we will see a repeat of the Woodroffe Avenue debacle.

· Woodroffe Avenue through the greenbelt originally was a two-lane road. A bus lane was added in each direction, using transit money. Last year, a parallel, bus-only stretch of Transitway was installed along this same stretch--again with transit money--making the bus lanes redundant. While the bus lanes did not suffer from congestion, and the buses travel no faster now through the Transitway than they did on those lanes, the bus lanes now are general traffic lanes. These traffic lanes were bought and paid for exclusively with Transit money.

· With specific regard to cycling, he expressed concern that the only cycling spending was $2 million for rural pathways, plus other pathways incorporated "as appropriate". While this is an important investment, he questioned if this imply that there will be no cycling investment in the city, where a majority of bicycle trips take place.

· This report suggests the construction of bus-only Transitway facilities constructed along Woodroffe Ave. where the right-of-way exists. He concurs with this and hopes that this will mean more space for cyclists along this stretch of Woodroffe.

· Lastly, with specific regards to the report, it says that environmental implications "will be addressed," but it does not say how. He asked that these be reported on and brought back to Committee or Council for public scrutiny.

· The Algonquin pedestrian overpass and the Rideau Street redevelopment are good opportunities to accommodate cyclists.

· Concerned that the Ottawa Cycling Plan will only be implemented "based on available funds". Need to make sure that those funds are available.

· Over the last few years, cycling capital investments have dwindled to $0 in 2007, despite projections in the Universal Program Review of 2004 that these investments would be increasing each year.

Mr. Akben-Marchand provided some examples of things that the City could be doing to invest in cycling:

· Routes and signage for cyclists. A friend of his commented to him yesterday that he tried going to Osgoode but ended up in Manotick.

· Expanded Rack & Roll service. Kingston started putting bike racks on buses four years after Ottawa did (Ottawa--1999, Kingston 2003), and now they have racks on all of their buses, plus they have a longer season than we do. We need to catch up to them.

· The layaway on the Mackenzie-King Bridge needs to be fixed to keep motorists from parking in the bike lane, especially since the bridge is no longer slated to be rebuilt for the North-South Light Rail Transit.

· Various urban cycling improvements can and should be made, including those in the Ottawa Cycling Plan.

· Better bicycle parking is needed year-round, so people have a place to park at their destinations.

· We need to work better with the Province to develop the Ontario Bicycle Route, which is modeled after the recently opened province-wide Route Verte in Quebec, and have signed, colour-coded routes like Prescott-Russell does.

· While in the past we have been a leader in the annual Commuter Challenge, this year there was barely any attention paid to it, and we lost to Winnipeg.

· With cycling infrastructure, if you build it, they will come, but you need to promote cycling to the populace to build up the modal split.

Councillors Thompson and Harder applauded Mr. Akben-Marchand’s presentation.

Councillor Thompson expanded upon the importance of shoulders on rural roads and the conversion of low-use roads to more cycling-friendly facilities.

Councillor Harder commented that the idea to eventually build a second transit-only bridge to duplicate the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge has been dead for a long time. In response, Mr. Akben-Marchand said that he was merely bringing the comment "until such time that a separate transit bridge is required" to the attention of the Committee, and suggested that if this was no longer the case, Council should investigate how it got into the report and ensure that it does not show up in the future.

In response to Councillor Doucet’s question, Richard Hewitt, Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services (PWS) provided details on the cycling budget. On the status of the Ottawa Cycling Plan, Rob Orchin, Manager, Transit Priority, PWS advised that a Cycling Plan advised that the initial plan was too expensive and that it was undergoing revisions to reduce the cost impact of the report. The Councillor expressed his desire that the Ottawa Cycling Plan be presented with options based on different levels of investment, and not just one recommendation.

Councillor Legendre asked about the Kingston's transit service, and why OC Transpo's Rack & Roll service falls behind Kingston's. Mr. Steacy replied that Kingston's bus service is not typically used as a comparator to OC Transpo. Councillor Legendre commented at his surprise that he was getting a lesson on transit from someone his junior regarding the spending of transit funds to expand roads. He indicated his desire that whenever transit facilities are converted to general traffic facilities, that the transit budget be 'reimbursed' for this conversion. The Councillor also asked staff to confirm the history of the Woodroffe Transitway extension story in a memorandum to him and to clarify the issue of road funding going to transit. Mr. Orchin agreed to provide the Councillor with that information.

Cheryl Doran, Save Our Greenspace, using a PowerPoint Presentation (on file with the City Clerk) thanked Committee for the opportunity to once again present to the Joint Transportation Committee and Transit Committee. Her concern, her appeal to the Joint Committee, is to recognize and take advantage of the missed opportunities, arising from this staff plan.

She feels that the City is missing:

· A tremendous business opportunity,

· An environmental opportunity, and

· We are all missing the positive political recognition flowing from the first two.

From a business perspective:

· 360,000 airport passengers/ month

· Take a conservative estimate of only 10% of the passengers using the train in the first year

· That means 36,000 /month

· @ $3.00/ride = $108,000 /month from one transit stop

· As the ridership estimate is extremely conservative there is significant potential for greater revenue without further capital investment

· This estimate doesn’t even consider the fact that over 8,400 employees work full and part time shifts at the airport

· Also consider that we are the last of the G8 Capital cities to connect the downtown and airport by rail

· This contrasts with the proposed plan for a station not linked to anything but a P & R for 1200 people

· 1200 per day is your maximum capacity

· And as there are on average 21 work days per month your ridership will be just over 25,000 per month at maximum capacity, additional growth would require additional capital investment

· If this was a private sector activity - we would go for maximum ridership with the least capital investment – servicing the airport

· From a taxpayer perspective - we should be doing the same; especially as the capital investment for a parking lot in the greenbelt would be the same as a world-class airport terminal connection.

· An even more strategic business plan would utilize the existing parking capacity of the airport as a P and R, since it is only 2 km away from the proposed location. That way you would still get the 1200 commuters combined with the airport passengers for over 62,000 riders/month with the same capital investment.

· It is smart, strategic investments such as this that we should be taking advantage of since no other stop along any of the proposed corridors in the Mayor’s task force report offers as much ridership potential as this one at the Airport terminal.

Environmentally, she believes that we are missing opportunities:

· If we take the rail to the airport instead of building a park and ride in the middle of the greenbelt and wetlands, instead of turning it into a parking lot

· As you are aware this wetland is also habitat for species at risk, for the greater public interest we/you should be taking steps to preserve this habitat not destroy it

· Right now there is a single track through this wetland, realistically there will have to be a capital investment to upgrade this track so there will be an environmental impact on the wetland

· I am not aware of any high capacity lines in the world that operate on one line, so as much as we pretend that this project can operate on a single rail line, it cannot so additional capital investment will be required, which by extension will cause significant environmental impact.

· The plan also calls for diverting water from the east side of the tracks to the west side

· This action, all by itself, completely changes the dynamics of the wetland, and will negatively impact species at risk habitat.

· I have mentioned in other presentations the concept of Ecopassages. This is where the world is headed, and it addresses the issues just mentioned

· We have the opportunity for an ecopassage, at virtually no capital cost if we go to the airport.

· This is an excellent segway to the missed opportunity – Recognition

Positive Recognition for the City of Ottawa:

· Take credit for protecting habitat by using recognizing the potential and using an ecopassage.

· In fact, Ottawa will be Canada’s first LRT ecopassage.

· You will have other agencies/jurisdictions coming here wanting to see what you have done

· You also won’t have critics saying that the City doesn’t have any regard for the environment.

· We all want Ottawa to be a world-class city, but building a commuter rail line within 2 km of the airport but deliberately not going there will be seen by the rest of the world as short-sighted.

· By going to the airport in a strategic business move you will not have any critics saying that you can’t manage taxpayer money wisely; you have the best business case ever by going to the airport and combining the station with a park and ride

· Talk about strategic urban planning, and Ottawa can be a model of how it is done.

· And we will join the other G8 capital cities in having a rail link to the airport, but not just a link – a link involving ecopassages, environmental protection, sound business decisions, and revenue generation.

· This can be a tremendous success story for Ottawa; let’s not lose the opportunity.

· We all want Ottawa to be a world-class city, but building a commuter rail line within 2 km of the airport but deliberately not going there will be seen by the rest of the world as short-sighted.

· At a time when our federal and provincial governments are moving to protect species at risk, and encourage the reduction of GHG, the City of Ottawa, the capital of Canada, can say “that’s exactly what we have accomplished by using this alignment today not in 2014”.

· In so doing, we would have preserved habitat, provided multi-use recreational and educational opportunities

· There will be no doubt of Ottawa being a world-class city.

Councillor McRae asked Ms. Doran what would she like to see instead. Ms. Doran recommended going along the airport parkway and using the airport as a major transportation hub.

Councillor Leadman questioned Ms. Doran on the Park & Ride. Ms. Doran believed this was negotiable and there are other Canada Lands available. Councillor Leadman re-directed her question to staff – Ms. Schepers replied that this had not been investigated.

Councillor Legendre, looking at the statistics being provided, congratulated Ms. Doran for her presentation.

David Gladstone, Founder of the Friends of the O-Train (FOTO) advised that he had many concerns with the subject report, starting with the absence in it of any clear statement of engineering responsibility for its content and recommendations. He believes that no one can question that decision on substantial investments of taxpayer funds must be based on analyses documented by qualified engineering professionals. He feels that once the engineer responsible for the report is established, he or she must be asked to revise it to include comprehensive analyses of current conditions, including the bus congestion on the downtown Transitway and the very substantial use of King Edward Avenue, Rideau, and Wellington by STO buses. The impact of the high numbers of buses in downtown Ottawa on the efficiency and reliability of the city’s transit and overall transportation systems, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions needs to be established in order to provide a solid basis for examining the available options.

He also believes that once the base line is established, options can be described and assessed. He submitted that one option, which he will term ‘enhanced status quo’ – continued reliance on buses for both local and arterial service - would be seen as simply not working. Not only is the downtown Transitway at capacity, but the bus corridor used by the STO through has reached the same state.

He noted that over the past year, two studies – FOTO’s Practical Plan and the Mayor’s Task Force on Transportation - presented to the Ottawa community have pointed out the many advantages offered by expanding O-Train service on existing railway lines which cross Ottawa and Gatineau and by providing a LRT (either surface or underground) loop through downtown with transit hubs at Hurdman and Bayview. This approach is, inexplicably, not described in the staff report. It must be fully assessed and compared with the ‘enhanced status quo’ approach. In a similar vein, the reasons for the success of the Bayview-Greenboro O-Train service, started in October 2001, need to be described.

He suggested that the required engineering report must, of course, be prepared with full stakeholder involvement, including the NCC, the City of Gatineau, and the STO, and with provision for community comment. He sees no reason why the work should not be transparently linked to the on-going study of Interprovincial Crossings. An ‘independent’ study of downtown transit by the City of Ottawa makes no sense given the central role of the STO, not to mention the obvious links between downtown and outside-downtown transit service. He also suggested that passenger and freight service across the Prince of Wales railway bridge needs to be incorporated.

He concluded his comments by pointing out two specific issues where Committee could provide useful direction to City staff:

1. A request to VIA Rail to sell tickets for travel between the Fallowfield and Ottawa train stations.

2. Ensure that the railway line north of Bayview station, across the Prince of Wales railway bridge until the location of Le Casino du Lac Leamy remain an active railway line available for light rail transit use.

Finally, he urged Committee not to follow the approach used in approving the North-South LRT Project, and to insist on proper engineering reports, before mandating staff to proceed with investments in transit, including funding requests to the Federal and Ontario Governments.

Lyon Sachs, Mary Jarvis & Morrison Renfrew, Urbandale Corporation, using PowerPoint Presentation jointly submitted a proposal for rapid transit in the City of Ottawa prepared by Mr. Renfrew, P. Eng., Engineering Management Consultant, with funding provided by Urbandale Corporation.

Mr. Sachs, President, Urbandale Corporation, started by stating that the decision to initiate this city-wide study is based on Urbandale Corporation’s commitment to the transit oriented design of Riverside South and a concern for improvements to transit in both the East and in the West.

The following is the Submission that was presentation to the Committee, copy of which is on file with the City Clerk:

Urbandale is the principal owner of the Riverside South community, Kanata Lakes, Kanata Town Center, Kanata Village Green and Bridlewood; and lands in the Trim Road/Innes Road area. While we are well aware of the advantages that an efficient transit system would bring to these Urbandale properties, we sincerely believe that our interests are consistent with those of the broader community and that the recommendations contained in the proposed plan will ultimately benefit all residents of our city.

When decided to initiate this study, we asked people in the industry to identify a consultant with worldwide experience in municipal transportation projects. This led to Mr. Morrison Renfrew, currently based in Ottawa, who has participated in similar projects in many of the world’s major cities. Mr. Renfrew was also peripherally involved in the previous Ottawa L.R.T plan as a sub-consultant to one of the consultants.

Mr. Renfrew’s report proposes modifications to the previous plan in order to improve the cost effectiveness and efficiency, providing savings, which could go towards the additional proposed work.”

Mr. Sachs concluded his presentation by asking Committee to accept this brief in the spirit in which it is being proposed, as a constructive suggestion about a very important issue.

Mr. Renfrew then gave a detailed presentation on the proposed plan to the Committee, as follows:

Background

In December 2006, the Ottawa Light Rail Transit Project (OLRT) was cancelled after approximately 3 years of preparatory activity. The OLRT Project incorporated surface operation in the Central Business District (CBD), which did not provide relief from bus congestion. The alignment in the south was not optimal and in addition there were several areas where substantial costs could have been saved without adversely affecting performance.

The OLRT scheme proposed a route starting in Barrhaven, crossing the Rideau River on a future 6-lane bridge with a grade-separated crossing of River Road. It then looped south of Armstrong Rd. through a future subdivision from where it continued northeast past the large maintenance facility. It proceeded north, by-passing the airport, continuing through a twinned tunnel under Dow’s Lake. At Bayview, it turned east through the CBD on Albert and Slater streets, terminating on the western edge of the University of Ottawa.

The problems with this concept included:

a) The CBD surface operation in mixed traffic generated variable delays requiring the twinning of the Dow’s Lake tunnel and a consequent increase in the fleet requirement.

b) The propagation of CBD delays caused timetable variability throughout the system.

c) Trip time from Woodroffe (40 mins.) and River Road (38 mins.) to the CBD was excessive for the purpose of attracting car users.

d) Utility relocation away from the tracks was required in the CBD.

e) The transfer between BRT and LRT at LeBreton was problematic.

f) Maintenance and operating costs escalated due to the increased fleet.

The focus of the analyses in this report has been to identify how the issues, which led to the cancellation, can be resolved in order to permit the establishment of progress toward a regional rapid transit network within a feasible cost framework. It appears that a significantly less expensive system can be achieved on the basis of existing rights-of-way plus a realistic investment in extensions beyond the urban core. The resultant integrated BRT / LRT system can be implemented within a decade and will satisfy the immediate objectives of the city to increase the utilization of transit vs. the automobile.

Requirements for a rapid transit network - Private rights-of-way (RoW) operation

The availability of RoW is fundamental to creating a rapid transit network. Ottawa is fortunate that, due to some far-sighted investment and recent commitments, the city has a substantial inventory of rights-of-way suitable for transit. These include the transitways, the N-S rail corridor, recently dedicated corridors in suburbia and E-W rail corridors (both active and abandoned), which have available capacity.

It was the lack of a suitable RoW through the Central Business District (CBD), which was the cause of the major performance problem of the OLRT. Due to the unpredictable delays caused by mixed traffic the departure times of the trains from the CBD were subject to considerable variation from the timetable. This eliminated the possibility of single track operation of the Dow’s Lake tunnel, imposed additional capacity demands at certain stations where delayed trains required a stopping berth to enable recovery of the operations and resulted in an increased fleet of LRV’s.

In order to attract new riders service levels must be substantially better than automobile travel. The primary metrics are:

• Travel times, which are both fast and consistent.

• Transfer wait time between modes or routes must be short and predictable.

The use of 100% private RoW will reduce the trip times, which will encourage additional switching from automobiles to rapid transit. It will also minimize the LRV fleet due to better utilization and reduce the probability of damage to trains from surface traffic. Coordination of bus and LRT transfers will be maximized due to accurate timetable operation.

Productivity

Higher productivity (lower cost per passenger-km) is necessary to reduce subsidy levels while maintaining service quality. The capacity provided during the daily demand cycle should track the ridership demand.

Urban integration

Incremental growth of the network coverage at a controlled capital cost, with minimum disruption to the residents and businesses, will be provided to facilitate urban growth linked to transit availability.

Effective de-congestion of the urban core will improve the commercial and residential environment.

The proposed modifications to the OLRT (New LRT)

The New LRT (NLRT) system (refer to Map1 on file with the City Clerk) is based on the OLRT Project. It uses the basic N-S alignment (in the initial phase) with modifications to increase the speed (which will attract more riders) and reduce the capital cost. The modifications proposed (refer to Map 2 on file with the City Clerk) include:

a) The southern Phase 1 termination at River Road and Armstrong Rd.

b) Proceed along Armstrong Rd instead of the southerly route through the subdivisions.

c) Reduce the scale of the maintenance facility at Bowesville (refer to pages 12 and 13).

d) Maintain the existing single tunnel under Dow’s Lake with train control by the signalling system (refer to page 11).

e) Establish Bayview as the system hub station.

f) A tunnel under the CBD to the east of the Canal with stations serving the CBD and Ottawa University.

g) A transfer stop at Hurdman.

h) Continue east to terminate Phase 1B at the VIA Rail station.

The advantages of the NLRT revisions

a) The travel time from River Road will be reduced by 3 minutes due to the Armstrong Rd alignment and the elimination of (probably) 2 station stops.

b) A quick passage, free of congestion, through the CBD.

c) Effective integration with other modes at Bayview and the VIA station.

d) Interfaces efficiently with the Mayor’s Task Force recommendations.

e) Faster speed will reduce the fleet size.

f) Costly utility relocation will be eliminated.

g) Any necessity for a second bridge structure at Strandherd-Armstrong is removed.

h) Faster speeds and improved feeder bus access on Armstrong Road.

i) Eliminates the grade separation at River Road.

BRT and LRT will operate jointly on sections of the transitway (refer to Page 10) to provide an economical gateway to the east and west. From Bayview the transitway will provide fast access to a street alignment and a western park-and-ride (anticipated to be located at the 416/417 junction). The VIA station access will be from the south side. The VIA station is not only convenient to rail passengers but also offers an efficient possible easterly route crossing the 417 on the existing rail RoW which conforms to the City of Ottawa Transportation Master Plan.

REVISED Cost savings from NLRT $M
Elimination of grade separation at River Road
Elimination of loop south of Armstrong Road
Reduced maintenance facility
Elimination of second tunnel under Dow’s Lake
Elimination of surface travel through CBD
Total estimated savings	189
Estimated costs for phases 1A and 1B	$M
Target cost River Road to Bayview inclusive of NLRTcost savings	638
Bayview to west portal of the tunnel; 3 kms twin bore tunnel; 3 underground stations	350
Contingency for underground conditions and protection of existing structures	50
East portal to VIA station using transitway via Hurdman	45
Additional rolling stock due to Phase 1B	28
Total Phase 1A & 1B (including tunnel contingency)	1111

The implementation strategy for NLRT

The proposed implementation for the network is based on a phased approach (refer to Map 2) to minimize the delays between segments coming into service:

a) Phase 1A is the building of the N-S line between Bayview and River Road, based on the already-approved EA and the preliminary design and field work already completed. This is expected to be operational within 3 years from Notice to Proceed. The O-train shut-down interval is expected to be considerably reduced due to the elimination of the second tunnel construction.

b) Phase 1B (refer to Map3) is a 3 km CBD tunnel with the western portal at Le Breton and the eastern portal beside the transitway south of the Ottawa U. transitway station. Three underground stations will be located at Kent, Metcalfe and Union Station to serve the CBD, Rideau Centre and University of Ottawa. Phase 1B will then utilize the transitway (which will be equipped with a vehicle control system) through Hurdman and on to the VIA station where it will connect with the proposed commuter services. The total length of Phase 1B will be approximately 6.5 kms. The tunnel completion will overlap with Phase 1A and will be between 5 and 6 years including the EA and design tasks prior to construction.

Phase 2 will have 3 elements (due to the time constraints details could not be developed):

a) the west extension will be a shared-use BRT / LRT corridor from Bayview which will subsequently diverge to a road alignment and proceed to a park-and-ride at the intersection of 416 and 417;

b) the east extension from the VIA station to Blackburn Hamlet and Trim will use the abandoned railway RoW to the 417 and will then proceed east;

c) the reserved RoW from River Road to Barrhaven Town Centre will be utilized when the passenger demand develops.

It was later noted that the only change to the alignment through Riverside South occurs west of Limebank Road where the alignment would shift onto the south side of Earl Armstrong and that Map 1 is schematic.

At the request of Chair Cullen for her comments on the Urbandale Proposal, Deputy City Manager Schepers acknowledged that there are some very excellent elements that need to be explored.

In response to Councillor Legendre’s question, Mr. Renfrew noted that in the Essen BRT-LRT, using guided buses, this was not a necessary feature for common lane operations in Essen. The Table total in the presentation is $1.1 Billion.

In response to Councillor Desroches’ question, Mr. Sachs advised that the Community Design Plan for Riverside South was built on the idea that there would be a strong transit system in that community. Councillor Desroches asked how does this would affect the planning of Riverside South. Mr. Sachs responded that everything is related to everything else, and the engineering firm must design the whole project as if some form of rapid transit is going through.

Councillor Desroches expressed concern with the Mayor’s Task Force proposal using the O-Train to skim the community because the nature of that system would change the type of housing and building density around the train station, to which Mr. Sachs agreed.

Councillor Deans recognized the merit in this proposal and that it represents an investment of time and money. She believes that we need more study of this high level proposal. It addresses some key problems and starts to address the possibility of building to a regional system later on. Mr. Sachs agreed with the Councillor’s statement that this proposal would be a modification of the original LRT plan.

Councillor Deans asked if Council wanted to give priority consideration to this proposal how would one go about having staff review it from a feasibility and legal standpoint. In response, Deputy City Manager Schepers replied that Council would have to direct staff to do so. Staff would need at least six weeks to come back with a preliminary report –early October would be the earliest. Ms. Schepers also noted Council’s direction to staff to update the Transportation Master Plan (TMP), and staff will bring forward recommendations. She flagged the secondary plans and noted that a number of elements have not had proper consultation.

At the request of Councillor Wilkinson for any costing data for Phase 2, Mr. Sachs advised that this is not possible without knowing exactly what Phase 2 would be.

Councillor Wilkinson expressed concern with it starting at Bayshore in the west and asked the delegations not to ignore the west. She felt that this proposal could be a way to mend some fences for the North-South LRT and indicated that she would be proposing a motion.

In response to Councillor Wilkinson for her comments, Ms. Schepers does not recommend adopting the proposal as is today. She suggested that Committee and Council need the vision that would be clearer in the fall. By October, Committee and Council can look at the proposal and determine what it means as far as contracts, legal issues and processes already started. She advised that in the process of looking at the east west and north south, Council needs to focus on addressing the downtown problem first, of which this proposal could be a solution.

Ms. Schepers confirmed that staff would look into integrating this proposal with the Mayor’s Task Force Recommendations, and the TMP Update.

Mayor O’Brien expressed some ambivalence to this proposal versus the Task Force Proposal. He found it intriguing that it could be done locally, however questioned the advantage to Ottawa from the strengthening of the Canadian Dollar’s perspective. Mr. Renfrew agreed with the Mayor, noting that there has been some fluctuation between the Euro and the US Dollar. The Mayor asked the delegation to look further into this. Mr. Sachs responded that the cost is the supply of equipment and the other is the civil work – concrete and work.

In terms of integrating for a regional transit, with 20-25 municipalities and townships, Mr. Renfrew agreed with the Mayor and advised that it would integrate well with the regional municipalities, creating many opportunities.

Councillor Holmes asked about station locations and asked if Bayview was looked at. Mr. Renfrew noted that it would be advantageous to connect the buildings and looked at Lyon, Metcalfe, O’Connor and just south of Union Station. However, Urbandale would prefer central stations accessible from all sides, suggesting that $350M with a $50M contingency fund would cover the three stations; stay underground through the Canal until east of the Ottawa University Campus and come up south of Catherine.

Councillor Holmes asked Ms. Schepers how to confirm these figures. In response, she advised that it was not possible to cost it out until an EA is completed along with the design phase. She also advised that she could not confirm the accuracy of this in 6 weeks, but could provide an estimate. She could not also confirm how it fits into the downtown network because the designs have not yet been made. She suggested that the process should look at the full transit system, and whether this proposal can be accommodated. She advised that there is a lot of work to be done and noted the need to consult on all of this. She felt that this would be a significant change in the transit services.

Councillor Bloess referred to the $50 million contingency; hooking up Hurdman Station to the VIA Station, avoiding popular areas and detouring south – the reason he is suggesting this is because it is costly for an underpass. Mr. Renfrew stated that it makes sense to stay closer to popular areas.

Councillor McRae questioned the value of doing the LRT and talked about consideration of the Walkley Road Station. She advised that she would be supporting Councillor Wilkinson’s motion.

Councillor Legendre questioned Mr. Renfrew about going under the National Art Centre and the noise issue involved. Mr. Renfrew felt that this could be addressed.

Councillor Cullen questioned if the Urbandale proposal was a variation to the previous North South LRT. He asked if Urbandale was seriously in its suggestion of using Byron Avenue as an LRT route. Mr. Renfrew did not know how the National Capital Commission would re-act to LRT on the Ottawa River Parkway and that the map showed this as just a little kink.

Councillor McRae inquired on the timeframe for getting a useful, viable LRT system (from Armstrong to Bayview) – is it 3 years? Mr. Sachs confirmed this.

In response to Councillor Legendre’s request for staff comment on the one third of the $45M figure cost for the extension to Armstrong Road, Mr. Steacy advised that staff estimate includes rail construction as well as the vehicle, signalization, road works, the station and platform, a pedestrian overpass at the Airport Parkway, modifications to the maintenance facility at Walkley Yards, etc.

Mike Rushton, Director of Physical Resources, Algonquin College made the following four points on behalf of Algonquin College regarding the Pedestrian Bridge (Baseline Station-Algonquin College) that is on the list of Near-Term Transit Investment Options being considered by Committee today:

1. Urgency: The College is relieved to see the Pedestrian Bridge on a list for implementation in the near term. The planning for this project has been underway for five years with Councillor Chiarelli and City Staff. The need has existed for 20 years and has become more poignant each year, as Algonquin has been consolidating all of its Ottawa Campuses into one at Woodroffe and Baseline now totalling 16,000 students and growing each year. The College would therefore make the case that this is a very high priority for implementation among the other projects on your list and should be implemented within the next year – hopefully by the start of the Fall 2008 Semester. To that end, the College is prepared to be a partner with the City by contributing $400K to this project and accepting responsibility for daily cleaning and security.

2. Safety: The crossing of Woodroffe Avenue from Baseline Transit Station by students to the College takes place in bus loads of 80 every few minutes from 7:30-10:30 am daily totalling 500-1000 per hour returning to Baseline Station from 2:00-6:30 pm in somewhat smaller numbers. This daily movement of students across an increasingly busy Woodroffe Avenue at peak traffic periods is the #1 safety hazard for students at the College.

3. Increasing Transit Use and Reducing Parking Demand: Currently the modal split is approximately 40% of the College’s 16,000 students and 2,000 staff. The College believes that the potential to increase this split is held back by the lack of a safe crossing for larger numbers of pedestrians from Baseline Station to the College. The plans for the Pedestrian Bridge include a very direct connection to the second storey pedestrian network in the College with a weather-proof cover almost immediately after they disembark from buses. This, the College believes, will encourage transit use and remove parking demand at the Woodroffe Campus.

4. Convergence of CentrePointe Development Plan and College Expansion Plans: The draft CentrePointe Development Plan clearly welcomes and provides for the potential of the College to expand its facilities onto City lands adjacent to the Baseline Transit Station and to connect the Baseline Station to the College by way of a Pedestrian Bridge. There is an immediate need for the College to expand its facilities to meet the Ottawa community demand for Construction Industry Professionals, Health Professionals and other key sectors of Ottawa area economy. The College has a plan for a $100M expansion of the Campus to meet this community need.

Council in June 2007 passed a resolution that supported this expansion and asked City Staff to work with the College to find ways in which the City could provide practical support to this expansion. Clearly, this Pedestrian Bridge project is vital to the safe expansion of the College and to link the College to the CentrePointe lands such that the College and the City can contemplate where the College’s facilities in the CentrePointe development can be constructed in the very near future.

In this respect, the College sees the construction of the Pedestrian Bridge and the adjustments to the Baseline Station as vital to creating a build-able site for College facilities integrated into the Baseline Station to contribute to the mixed use objectives of the CentrePointe Development Plan and to create potential for partnerships with Industry and Commercial and Retail businesses.

In response to Councillor Legendre’s question, Mr. Rushton confirmed that the College is prepared to give $300K for building modifications and the connection to the bridge, as well as $400K for construction plus $250K per year for cleaning and maintenance of the facilities.

Klaus Beltzner, Friends of the O-Train (FOTO) noted that today is significant because Committee is now hearing not only from Transit Advocates but also from an expanded downtown coalition this morning and from a major developer, Urbandale, this afternoon of the growing impatience with the City's multi-year planning process that is to be followed before any of the critical transit issues can be solved. He also noted that today is significant because Committee is starting to react and express its own dissatisfaction with the slowness of the process. He believes that, in this regard, Committee has already set aside staff's process recommendations this morning, and instead, has instructed staff to immediately start the Tunnel EA and restart the Interprovincial EA. He suggested that this afternoon Committee needs to consider whether staff should review the Urbandale proposal now or allow it to join the other proposals, such as FOTO and Mayor’s Task Force for review later according to staff's multi-year planning process.

In this regard, he urged Committee to take action that would move forward now rather than to wait years before solutions to these problems could be discussed. He feels the City is suffering from these planning delays while everyone is expecting action now. He stated that the analysis paralysis has to stop, already having all the information needed from existing documents to get on with solving these problems. He concluded by urging Committee to take action on the downtown problem now.

Charles Matthews, Self and Access Now expressed concern about the following:

· Transit fleet acquisition stating that not all buses being acquired are accessible.

· O-Train Services – out of the 38 aspects of O-Train not being accessible previously raised with OC Transpo, there are still 20 aspects not addressed.

He urged Committee to take into consideration its procurement practices to promote accessibility as per the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA).

The Committee also received the following correspondence, copy of which is on file with the City Clerk:

· Letter dated 10 August 2007 addressed to the Mayor and Members of Council from S. Lyon Sachs, President, Urbandale Corporation, Re. An Affordable Solution for Rapid Transit in Ottawa.

· E-Mail received on 14 August 2007 from David Gladstone requesting that no decisions be taken until City engineering staff prepare and circulate for stakeholder comment a proper engineering report describing options for increasing the modal share for transit use in Ottawa.

· Comments from David Gladstone, Founder, Friends of the 0-Train.

· Letter dated 15 August 2007 from Scott Hodge, President, Riverside South Community Association.

After discussion and questions, the Committee considered the following motions:

Moved by Councillor J. Legendre:

That in accordance with Section 84(3) of By-law No. 2006-462 - “(3) Except as otherwise decided by a two-thirds vote of the members of Committee present and voting, the Committee shall not consider any report, Information Previously Distributed memorandum or any matter, that has not been distributed to the members with the Agenda” - the rules of procedure be suspended to consider the Urbandale Report on An Affordable Solution for Rapid Transit in Ottawa.

CARRIED

Councillor Wilkinson put forward the following motion:

That this Committee receive the report from Urbandale, support the approach in the report, and direct staff to report back to the Committee, prior to the end of September, on the appropriateness of the corridors, recommendations on modifications of the corridors including expansion to Kanata and across the Strandherd Bridge to Barrhaven, and a timetable to undertake any additional or modifications of studies to implement such a network.

That the list of projects in Table 1 of the report on Near-Term Transit Investment Options be modified as follows:

a) Fund the Transitway from Bayshore to Moodie drive;

b) Fund the Transitway from Woodroffe to Bayshore as soon as the EA is finalized as per the recommendation in the Rapid Transit Environmental Assessment report is completed;

c) Prior to approving any of the other projects in Table 1, other than those that have already received Council approval in the 2007 Budget, that the Committee receive the report on the Urbandale proposal.

That Recommendation No. 2 of the Report on Near-Term Transit Investment Options be deferred until the report on the Urbandale Project is dealt with by Committee – The Councillor agreed to withdraw this part of her motion after some discussion.

After a lengthy discussion, the Committee considered the aforementioned motions, as follows:

Moved by Councillor M. Wilkinson:

That the Committee receive the report from Urbandale and direct staff to report back to the Committee by October 2007 on the appropriateness of the corridors, recommendations on modifications of the corridors including expansion to Kanata and across the Strandherd Bridge to Barrhaven, and a timetable to undertake any additional or modifications of studies to implement such a network.

CARRIED

YEAS (9): Councillors Bloess, Wilkinson, Legendre, Doucet, Thompson, Leadman, McRae, Mayor O’Brien, Chair Cullen

NAYS (0):

Moved by Councillor M. Wilkinson:

That the list of projects in Table 1 of the report on Near-Term Transit Investment Options be modified as follows:

a) Fund the Transitway from Bayshore to Moodie Drive.

CARRIED

YEAS (7): Councillors Bloess, Wilkinson, Doucet, Thompson, Leadman, McRae, Chair Cullen

NAYS (1): Councillor Legendre

b) Fund the Transitway from Woodroffe to Bayshore as soon as the EA is finalized as per the recommendation in the Rapid Transit Environmental Assessment Report is completed.

CARRIED

YEAS (6): Councillors Bloess, Wilkinson, Doucet, Thompson, Leadman, McRae

NAYS (2): Councillor Legendre, Chair Cullen

c) Prior to approving any of the other projects in Table 1, the Committee receive the staff report on the Urbandale proposal.

CARRIED

Chair Cullen dissented.

Moved by Councillor D. Thompson:

d) That Federal and Provincial infrastructure funding be sought for the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge and related roadwork.

CARRIED

YEAS (7): Councillors Bloess, Wilkinson, Doucet, Thompson, Leadman, McRae, Chair Cullen

NAYS (1): Councillor Legendre

Moved by Councillor J. Legendre:

That the following proposed City-Wide Transit projects be recommended to Council for approval:

· Smart Card - $ 15 Million

· New Bus Garage - $ 60 Million

· Transit Fleet Acquisition (2009). - $ 46 Million

And, under the Central Area / Inside the Greenbelt,

· Central Area Station Improvements- $ 5 Million.

CARRIED

YEAS (7): Councillors Bloess, Wilkinson, Legendre, Doucet, Thompson, McRae, Chair Cullen

NAYS (1): Councillor Leadman

Councillor Doucet put forward the following motion to amend Recommendation No.1 of the Report:

Whereas the recent plan from Urbandale called “An Affordable Solution for Rapid Transit in Ottawa” includes an electric LRT proposal from Bayview to Riverside South as Phase 1A;

Whereas electric light rail from Bayview to Riverside South has already been approved in an EA;

Whereas this north-south rail corridor remains in the Transportation Master Plan, there is no other alternative to it, and it will be required under any scenario in the future;

Whereas the twinning of the track under Dow’s Lake would cost relatively little compared to boring a double track tunnel through downtown which is Phase 1B of “An Affordable Solution for Rapid Transit in Ottawa”, and the benefit of this transit investment would be huge compared to comparable road expenditures;

Be It Resolved that near-term transit investment options include this Phase 1A portion of “An Affordable Solution for Rapid Transit in Ottawa” with the inclusion of twinning of the Dow’s Lake tunnel.

After some discussion by the Committee, Councillor Doucet withdrew his motion.

Moved by Councillor J. Legendre:

Be It Resolved that Recommendation No.2 be amended to clarify that the funding sought from senior governments be identified as transit-specific funding or road-network-specific funding, and specify the sharing that is assumed for any transportation components that are intended to serve both modes.

CARRIED

That the Joint Transportation and Transit Committee recommend Council:

1. Approve the list of transit projects (Table 1) as priorities for implementation in the near future.

3. Direct staff to enter into discussions with the Federal and Provincial agencies to negotiate funding for these priority projects and report back to Committee on the status of these negotiations and funding availability and financial implications.

CARRIED, as amended.