Report to/Rapport au :
Joint Meeting - Transportation
Committee/Transit Committee
Réunion conjointe du Comité des transports et du Comité du transport en
commun
and Council / et au Conseil
06 November 2007 / le 06 novembre
2007
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/Directrice
municipale adjointe,
Planning, Transit and the
Environment/Service de l'urbanisme, du transport en commun et de
l'environnement
Contact Person/Personne-ressource : Vivi Chi, Manager/Gestionnaire,
Transportation and Infrastructure Planning/Planification, Transport et
infrastructure
Planning Branch/Direction de l’urbanisme
(613)
580-2424 x21877, vivi.chi@ottawa.ca
That the Joint Transportation and Transit
Committee recommend Council:
1.
Receive this report on the review of the Urbandale LRT
Network proposal;
2.
Approve the 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 on funding for these priority transit projects;
4.
Direct staff to report back on the status of these
negotiations, funding availability and financial implications.
Que le Comité conjoint
des transports et des services de transport en commun recommande au
Conseil :
1.
de prendre connaissance du présent
rapport sur l’examen de la proposition de TLR d’Urbandale;
2.
d’approuver la liste de projets de
transport en commun (tableau 1) à titre de priorités à mettre en œuvre
prochainement;
3.
d’enjoindre le personnel d’amorcer
des négociations avec les organismes provinciaux et fédéraux compétents aux
fins du financement de ces projets de transport en commun prioritaires;
4.
de charger le personnel de présenter
un rapport sur l’état des négociations, les fonds disponibles et les
répercussions financières.
Assumptions
and Analysis:
This
report documents the technical and planning review of the Urbandale LRT Network
Proposal as directed by the Joint Transportation and Transit Committee at its
meeting of 15 August 2007. The
report also re-introduces and updates the near-term transportation investment
options that were being considered at the 15 August 2007 meeting when Urbandale
presented its proposal.
The Urbandale proposal seeks to reduce the scope of the
original North-South LRT project so that savings (through cost-deferrals) can
be used to partially offset the cost of constructing other sections of the LRT
network – notably a tunnel through the downtown and an extension to the VIA
Station. The concept of a transit
tunnel through the downtown is consistent with Council’s recent decision to get
underway with the environmental assessment study. The downtown transit tunnel will become the foundation for the
entire network and the technology operating in the tunnel must integrate within
the broader network. Detailed
evaluation of other corridors will be completed as part of the work on the
Transportation Master Plan (TMP) update.
Urbandale’s cost saving estimates were difficult to confirm
because there was little detail provided as to how the numbers were
derived. Furthermore, additional
detailed analysis is required to justify the viability of the Phases 1A and 1B
projects proposed. These analyses
include: a revised ridership study
(since the project scope has changed, especially for the scaled-down Phase 1A),
run-time simulations (since a single-track tunnel under Dows Lake is proposed,
and to confirm service operations and vehicle requirements), more in-depth
costing (particularly for the downtown tunnel in Phase 1B), a business case,
etc. The Federal and Provincial
agencies will not agree to fund this newly-scoped project until due diligence
takes place through the completion of the detailed analyses and in particular
the business case assessment.
Urbandale’s reduced scope proposal for the North-South
corridor has the LRT project starting at Bayview Station and terminating at
River Road. Starting the project at
Bayview has merit in that it would not interfere with any associated work on
the transit tunnel through the downtown.
If the intent is to defer as much costs as possible so that other links
in the system can be implemented, then a potential alternative for the southern
ending point of the project could be at Bowesville Station where a
Park-and-Ride will be located.
Extensions of the LRT line to Riverside South (River Road) and to
Barrhaven Town Centre could be carried out at a later date as appropriate.
The Urbandale proposal suggests other extensions of the LRT
line such as the corridor to Cumberland and the extension through to
Bayshore. These extensions are
significantly different from those of the approved rapid transit network in the
2003 TMP. While this report comments on
those proposed corridors, a proper analysis of a city-wide rapid transit
network (both BRT and LRT) is currently being undertaken as part of the TMP
update with public engagement in the development of transportation planning
principles and vision as a first step.
In preparation for this report, preliminary rapid transit
network concepts were quickly developed in order to have a better understanding
of what priority project options are available to the City at this time. Candidate projects should not preclude the
development of the downtown tunnel nor prematurely eliminate potential
technologies within the tunnel and by extension the remaining rapid transit
network. Committee was presented with a
list of candidate projects at its 15 August 2007 meeting. A revised list of projects (Table 1) is
included in this report.
Financial
Implications:
The near-term transit investment projects shown in Table 1 are included in the draft budget submission. This list will be adjusted, as required, to reflect Council’s decision on the recommendations of this report as well as decisions pertaining to the 2008 Capital Budget.
It is assumed that the Federal and Provincial governments will contribute 2/3 of the total funding required. Currently, the $400M for the original North-South LRT Project has been set aside by these agencies for transit projects in Ottawa. It is reasonably assumed that with the necessary justification, this funding envelope could be re-directed to the transit projects listed in Table 1. It is expected that new funding programs will be created in the future to continue to help municipalities with infrastructure needs.
Following negotiations with the Federal and Provincial agencies, staff will report back to Committee on the availability of funding mechanisms and the full financial implications of these projects with respect to development charges and tax supported reserves.
Public
Consultation/Input:
No
public or agency consultation took place during the review of the Urbandale LRT
Network proposal. As the TMP and other
supporting planning studies progress, there will be opportunities for public
engagement on the development/refinement of the City’s rapid transit network
and identification of future project priorities.
Hypothèses et analyse
Le rapport documente l’examen des aspects
techniques et liés à l’aménagement de la proposition de TLR d’Urbandale,
conformément aux directives formulées à la réunion du 15 août 2007 du
Comité conjoint des transports et des services de transport en commun. En
outre, il présente à nouveau et met à jour les possibilités d’investissement à
court terme envisagées pendant cette même réunion, au cours de laquelle les
représentants d’Urbandale ont soumis leur projet.
La proposition d’Urbandale vise à
réduire l’envergure du projet initial de couloir nord‑sud du TLR afin de
réaffecter les sommes économisées grâce au report des charges à la compensation
partielle des coûts de construction d’autres tronçons du réseau, notamment un
tunnel au centre‑ville et un prolongement jusqu’à la gare de VIA. Ce
tunnel est conforme à la décision récente du Conseil municipal de lancer une
étude d’évaluation environnementale. Comme le tunnel deviendrait la pierre
angulaire du réseau de TLR, la technologie employée doit être compatible avec
l’ensemble de ce dernier. Une évaluation détaillée des autres tronçons sera
réalisée dans le cadre des travaux de mise à jour du Plan directeur des
transports (PDT).
Les économies pressenties par
l’équipe d’Urbandale sont difficiles à confirmer, car peu de précisions ont été
fournies sur les calculs effectués. Il faut également procéder à des analyses
approfondies afin de justifier la viabilité des projets proposés pour les
étapes 1A et 1B, en prenant soin d’y inclure une révision de l’étude sur
l’achalandage (puisque l’envergure du projet a changé, surtout l’étape 1A,
qui a été réduite), des simulations de durée des trajets (pour tenir compte du
tunnel à voie unique proposé sous le lac Dow et confirmer le fonctionnement du
service et les besoins des véhicules), une méthode plus détaillée de calcul des
coûts de revient (surtout pour le tunnel du centre‑ville, à
l’étape 1B), une analyse de rentabilisation, etc. Aucun ministère fédéral
ou provincial n’acceptera de subventionner le projet révisé tant que la Ville
ne fera pas preuve de diligence raisonnable dans la réalisation des analyses
détaillées, en particulier l’analyse de rentabilisation.
La proposition révisée d’Urbandale
prévoit un corridor nord‑sud allant de la station Bayview jusqu’au chemin
River. Il s’agit d’une idée intéressante, car un terminus à Bayview ne nuirait
pas aux travaux connexes pour le tunnel du centre‑ville. Si l’objectif
visé consiste à reporter autant de frais que possible de façon à étendre le
réseau, le terminus sud pourrait plutôt être la station Bowesville, où un parc‑o‑bus
sera aménagé; il serait possible de prolonger ultérieurement le TLR jusqu’à
Riverside‑Sud (chemin River) et au Barrhaven Town Centre.
La proposition suggère d’autres
ramifications pour le réseau de TLR, notamment un tronçon allant jusqu’à
Cumberland et un prolongement jusqu’à Bayshore, et le résultat différerait
manifestement du réseau de transport en commun rapide approuvé dans le PDT de
2003. Il est question de ces projets dans le présent rapport, mais une analyse
formelle est déjà en cours à l’égard d’un réseau de transport en commun rapide
(TRA et RTL) dans le cadre de la mise à jour du Plan directeur des transports;
un engagement public à élaborer des principes et une vision de planification
des transports en a été la première étape.
En prévision du rapport, des concepts
préliminaires de réseau de transport en commun rapide ont été préparés sans
tarder afin de mieux comprendre les projets prioritaires déjà envisageables par
la Ville. Les projets admissibles, dont les membres du Comité ont reçu la liste
à la réunion du 15 août, ne devraient pas exclure l’aménagement d’un
tunnel au centre‑ville ni écarter hâtivement les technologies applicables
à celui‑ci et, par extension, au reste du réseau. Une liste révisée des
projets (tableau 1) figure dans le présent rapport.
Répercussions financières
Les projets d’investissement à court terme dans le transport en commun
présenté au tableau 1 sont inclus dans les prévisions budgétaires
soumises. La liste sera corrigée au besoin en fonction des décisions du Conseil
à l’égard des recommandations du présent rapport ainsi que du budget des
immobilisations de 2008.
Selon les prévisions actuelles, les gouvernements fédéral et provincial
subventionneraient deux tiers des travaux. Actuellement, les 400 millions
de dollars destinés au projet initial de couloir nord-sud du TLR ont été
réservés par les bailleurs de fonds au transport en commun à Ottawa, et nous
pouvons présumer qu’en soumettant les justificatifs appropriés, cette enveloppe
pourrait être réaffectée aux projets du tableau 1. Il est aussi possible
que des programmes de subvention soient mis sur pied sous peu afin d’aider les
administration municipales à combler leurs besoins en matière d’infrastructure.
Après avoir négocié avec les organismes
fédéraux et provinciaux compétents, le personnel rendra compte au Comité des
mécanismes de financement disponibles ainsi que de toutes les répercussions
économiques des projets à l’égard des redevances d’aménagement et des services
financés par les taxes.
Consultation publique/commentaires
Ni la population, ni les organismes n’ont été
consultés pendant l’examen de la proposition de TLR d’Urbandale. Au fur et à
mesure que l’élaboration du PDT et d’autres études d’aménagement connexes
progresseront, il sera possible de tenir des séances publiques sur la
conception et la mise au point du réseau de transport en commun rapide
municipal et sur la détermination des projets prioritaires futurs.
At the
Joint Transportation and Transit Committee meeting of 15 August 2007, as a
report on short-term investment opportunities was being considered, Mr. Lyon
Sachs of the Urbandale Corporation presented a light rail network proposal for
Committee’s consideration. Urbandale’s
proposal is captured in a report titled An Affordable Solution for Rapid
Transit in Ottawa (August 2007), prepared by Mr. R. Morrison Renfrew
(Engineering Management Consultant).
The Joint Committee approved the following motion:
“
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.”
The
content of this report pertains to staff’s review of the Urbandale LRT Network
proposal from a technical and planning perspective. This report also re-introduces and updates the near-term transit
investment options that were presented at the 15 August 2007 meeting.
Urbandale
Corporation is the principal landowner and developer of the Riverside South
community. The Community Design Plan
(CDP) for this area was approved by City Council on 22 June 2005 following a
lengthy planning process with extensive consultation. One of the major transportation features of the CDP is the
North-South LRT, which was developed to be highly integrated with the land use
plan for this transit-oriented community.
The Ministry of the Environment approved the environmental assessment
for the North-South LRT project in May 2006, and Federal EA approval was
received in July 2006.
The North-South LRT project that was to receive funding from the Province of Ontario and the Government of Canada extended from the University of Ottawa through to Riverside South, crossing the Rideau River on the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge to connect to the Barrhaven Town Centre. Through the downtown area, the LRT was to operate in a shared transit lane with buses on Albert and Slater Streets.
Due to
the non-fulfillment of certain conditions, the Project Agreement for the LRT
project was terminated in accordance with its terms in December 2006. On 12 September 2007, Council directed staff
to initiate a study of a transit tunnel through the downtown. Meanwhile the review and update of the
City-wide Official Plan (OP) and the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) are
getting underway, with anticipated completion by early 2009.
Funding
from the Province and Federal governments ($200M each) would have been
available for the North-South LRT project and is still reserved for the City
for use on transit projects, but with the Federal condition that the funds must
be expended by 2013. A new business
case analysis would have to be submitted for the review of these funding
agencies if the City proposes new transit projects for consideration. The business case would have to be approved
prior to the execution of any contribution agreement.
On 15
August 2007, staff presented to the Joint Transportation and Transit Committee
a list of candidate transit projects (Table 1) that could be implemented in the
near-term to address existing and future demand of the quickly developing
communities across the city. The list
respects Council’s previous directions to staff (e.g. Cumberland Transitway;
West Transitway extensions etc.) and addresses several of the City’s 2007-2010
Strategic Directions (to complete the Transitway by 2015, to attain 30% transit
modal split by 2021, and to require transit-oriented communities to achieve a
sustainable, healthy, and active City).
At the
moment, there are no new transit funding programs being offered by the
upper-tier governments. Potentially,
funds that had been set aside for the North-South LRT project could be
redirected to the priority projects that Council endorses – however, this would
have to be confirmed through further detailed discussions with the Federal and
Provincial governments with the requisite detailed business case analysis to
demonstrate value for the funding agencies.
On 12
September 2007, Council deferred the approval of the list of candidate projects
pending the review of the Urbandale LRT proposal, which included an LRT project
in the North-South LRT corridor, an LRT tunnel through the downtown and other
LRT extensions easterly and westerly.
Furthermore, on 3 October 2007, the Transportation Committee approved a motion for staff to formally submit to the Federal and Provincial governments for cost sharing of the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge as well as Terry Fox Drive (Kanata Avenue to Flamborough Drive). This subsequently was approved by Council on 24 October 2007. Consequently, Table 1 was revised because the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge, along with its approaches (i.e. the widening of Strandherd (Woodroffe to Prince of Wales), and Earl Armstrong (River Road to Limebank)) will be part of a separate funding request process.
This
report has three main sections:
A.
City-wide Rapid Transit
Network Planning (to provide context for the review)
B.
Review of the Urbandale LRT
Network Proposal;
C.
Near-Term Transit Investment
Opportunities (to present “action plan” choices)
Urbandale’s
LRT proposal, with its downtown tunnel and its priority and longer-term phasing
plan, was submitted to the Joint Committee for consideration. To properly assess the proposal and
determine priorities for the City, one needs to look at the plan in the context
of an overall rapid transit network, including a transit tunnel within the
core.
While a
tunnel concept had been thought about since the 1970s, the 2003 TMP does not
include a transit tunnel through the downtown within the planning period. It was deemed that transit could continue to
operate (albeit at capacity) on the surface to year 2021 and that the
significant cost of the tunnel could be deferred to another time. The current TMP update and Council’s
direction to get underway with an EA Study for the transit tunnel has in effect
changed the 2003 rapid transit network.
The transit tunnel will be the most fundamental component of the
network, serving as a focal point for an integrated downtown solution for the
majority of transit users in the core, including STO. The findings of the transit tunnel EA study, along with the rapid
transit corridors already in operation, will directly affect the rapid transit
network and future transit corridor development and choice of technology for
each.
Without
the benefit of a thorough analysis of an updated and approved TMP
(transportation planning principles and vision will be presented in late Fall
2007 to the public for consultation through the TMP update process), several
preliminary rapid transit network concepts were quickly developed in order to
have a better understanding of what project priority options are indeed
available to the City at this time.
The
network concepts included a downtown tunnel for buses (BRT) only, LRT only, and
for both BRT and LRT. The options build
on the excellent system from which the City currently benefits. These preliminary network concepts are shown
in Document 1 and are intended to be illustrative only. As the TMP update proceeds, and with the
engagement of the public, there may be other options developed and/or
modifications to the ones presented here.
The choice of which transit technology (bus, light rail, or both) to
include in the tunnel must work effectively within the overall rapid transit
network and therefore will impact the selection of technologies for other links
of the network, and thus on cost. Components of the Urbandale plan are
reflected in these network concepts.
A
meeting (with follow-up phone conversations and e-mails) was held on 22 August
2007 with Mr. Morrison Renfrew (Urbandale’s consultant) to provide further
clarification on the proposal, including assumptions that were made. The consulting firms of Marshall Macklin
Monaghan (MMM) and McCormick Rankin Corporation (MRC) assisted with staff’s
review. The detailed notes of the technical
and planning review are included with this report as Documents 2 and 3.
Overall, the Urbandale proposal seeks to reduce the scope
of the North-South LRT project so that savings (through cost-deferrals) can be
used to partially offset the cost of constructing other sections of the LRT
network – notably a tunnel through the downtown and an extension to the VIA
Station.
Urbandale’s
cost saving estimates were difficult to confirm because there was little detail
provided as to how the numbers were derived.
Thus, a direct analysis of the proposed cost savings was not
possible. However, by performing a high
level review based on the concepts of the Urbandale proposal, and the already
reported upon Contract cost information for the North-South LRT project, it
appears that:
·
The proposal is missing some
cost elements such as cost escalation and twinning the track from the
maintenance facility to River Road;
·
The bottom line cost
projections are on the low end of an expected range of costs;
·
Other project costs besides
the Contract cost were not considered (property, utilities, City project
management, etc.).
The Urbandale proposal assumes that there will be no major
utility relocation costs if a downtown transit tunnel were to be built. It is premature to assume this as there is
likely to be utility costs for the following areas: downtown portal tunnel
accesses, downtown station accesses, changes in LeBreton Flats. There are also
utility costs elsewhere in the corridor from Bayview to Bowesville, at the
maintenance facility, and other utility crossings beyond Bowesville Station.
While
the Urbandale proposal describes a priority Phase 1A project (Bayview to River
Road), it does not elaborate on the effects on ridership due to this reduced
project scope. Ridership is one of the
critical factors in justifying the merits of a project for funding
consideration. The existing ridership
study for the North-South LRT project would have to be re-evaluated for any
project of a different scope.
The
Urbandale proposal states that the O-Train shutdown period would be
considerably reduced due to the elimination of a second tunnel under Dow’s
Lake. The proposal also relies on the
fact that the existing tunnel can be waterproofed quickly using
injection-grouting techniques. There
are however, other factors that affect the continued operation of the O-Train:
-
Rideau River Bridge at
Carleton University requires a replacement of the deck to accommodate twin
tracks;
-
Access to the maintenance
yard at Walkley is not possible while the Rideau River Bridge is under
construction
-
The rock cut immediately
north of the Dow’s Lake Tunnel needs to be widened to accommodate twinning of
the track;
-
Construction of two new
grade-separations where the O-Train corridor crosses active rail lines;
-
Testing and commissioning of
the new operating system prevents O-Train service in the same corridor - to
ensure safety and to avoid liability issues
Therefore, the shutdown period for the O-Train would be
approximately the same as described for the North-South LRT project (from start
of construction through to start of revenue service of the new LRT line) –
regardless of whether one tunnel or two is constructed.
Timelines for Implementation
The
Urbandale proposal does not elaborate on timelines (particularly for the
priority Phase 1A project from Bayview to River Road) other than to provide a
general idea of how long construction could take place once a Notice to Proceed
is given. There are very specific tasks
that need to be completed before any priority project, however it is defined,
can get underway with construction, for example: run time simulations to
confirm service operations and vehicle requirements, detailed costing,
ridership analysis, development of a business case, discussions with funding
partners, property negotiations, development partnership discussions, follow-up
with EA addendum approvals, resolution of regulatory and operating authority,
procurement negotiations, and obtaining construction and access permits.
In
examining the physical elements of the proposed network, it became evident
through discussions with the Urbandale consultant that some sections had
comparatively more detailed analysis (North-South corridor from Bayview to
Barrhaven Town Centre) than others (extensions emanating from the North-South corridor). For this reason, the technical review was
divided into 2 sections so that comparisons can be made to the North-South LRT
Project and the longer-term transit corridors shown in the TMP:
1.
Bayview to Barrhaven Town
Centre;
a.
Bayview to River Road (Urbandale’s
Phase 1A)
b.
River Road to Barrhaven Town
Centre (Urbandale’s Phase 2); and
2.
Other easterly and westerly
links/extensions beyond Bayview (Urbandale’s Phases 1B and 2).
A
summary of the key issues comparing the Urbandale proposal and the City’s North-South
LRT project and rapid transit network is described below. This summary also includes a description of
modifications to the Urbandale proposal as per the Joint Committee directions
of 15 August 2007. The
modifications/alternatives specifically relate to Urbandale’s Phase 1A project.
Urbandale’s
proposal shows Bayview Station as an interim terminus for the North-South LRT
line. This is a very appropriate
approach because it would allow the Downtown Transit Tunnel Environmental
Assessment to proceed without constraints on the alignment through LeBreton and
the western tunnel portal. However,
Urbandale’s proposal indicated that once the transit tunnel is constructed,
Bayview Station would become a major transfer hub is not something that can be
assumed at this stage. Although a cost
of $20M has been identified to modify the existing Bayview Station, the
Urbandale consultant acknowledges that this concept requires further detailed
analysis. Given the unknown
requirements of the downtown transit tunnel and the potential link to Gatineau,
spending significant funds on Bayview Station would not be appropriate at this
time. Consideration should also be
given to what is the best land use for the Bayview site (being so close to
downtown, LeBreton, and adjacent to the Ottawa River) besides a major
transportation hub.
The
Urbandale report suggests that twinning of the Dow’s Lake Tunnel is not
required for two reasons: (1) the
introduction of a downtown transit tunnel would reduce the variability in the
service schedule (no longer having to operate in mixed traffic in downtown);
(2) service frequency need not be more frequent than 5 minutes because
additional capacity could be achieved through longer train sets instead. Indeed, a tunnel through the downtown would
alleviate many of the operating concerns and City Council has already directed
the start of the transit tunnel study.
Not
twinning the Dow’s Lake tunnel, however, does introduce a constraint in the
system operation ultimately limiting the headways between trains, which would
have an adverse impact on future ridership.
The single-track Dow’s Lake Tunnel could become a bottleneck in a
network of twin tracks everywhere else.
A single tunnel could also have negative impacts in the case of
maintenance requirements (longer term) and possible emergency conditions. A simulation model run is required to verify
whether or not a single-track tunnel could be operated successfully and when
double tracking would be necessary. If
the tunnel is twinned at some future date, and the second structure is located
immediately adjacent to the existing tunnel, a temporary closure of the
existing operation will be necessary in order to install bracing to support the
existing tunnel when the earth adjacent to it is removed for the construction
of the second tunnel. The future social
costs associated with introducing a second temporary closure of the line will
need to be balanced against the savings in deferred capital costs until that
second tunnel is needed for capacity.
At the
time of the termination of the Project Agreement for the LRT project, the City
had completed a value-engineering exercise and was negotiating with OLC to
reduce the capacity of the maintenance facility. The Urbandale plan proposes reducing the size of the facility
based on an assumption that light maintenance facilities would be constructed
in the East and in the West when those corridor extensions are
constructed. This concept of a smaller
initial maintenance facility (and the deferral of costs to a future date) is
reasonable however details were not provided and therefore the cost savings
that were proposed by Urbandale cannot be verified.
Urbandale’s
submitted proposal did not accurately depict the alignment that they had
intended. Clarification from
Urbandale’s consultant indicates that the intent is to carry the LRT easterly
from River Road along Earl Armstrong Road to pass over Mosquito Creek then turn
north to continue along the approved North-South LRT alignment
The
proposal moves the LRT alignment away from the centre of the community (where
densities are highest and land uses are most transit-supportive) and locates it
in the median of an arterial road (Earl Armstrong Road) with low-density
development along the north side. The
Council-approved Community Design Plan (CDP) for Riverside South examined
several different corridors and concluded that the Earl Armstrong alignment did
not meet the objectives of the plan (which includes land use planning that is
supportive of transit usage in order to achieve the City’s transit modal split
target). Furthermore, locating the LRT
on Earl Armstrong Road introduces operational / manoeuvrability conflicts for
emergency vehicles at the newly built fire station, which would need to be
managed.
The
Urbandale plan focuses on speed of the LRT, which is affected by the length and
geometry of the rail alignment, and by the number of stations. Urbandale’s alignment would shorten the
route by about 0.6 kilometres and it proposes three stations in this area, with
no provision for the addition of future stations. Urbandale’s consultant commented that the North-South LRT project
had too many stations in Riverside South, which would slow down the train’s
speed. The North-South LRT project
would initially construct two stations (with a provision for nine stations
total in the ultimate configuration as need/demand dictates).
To the transit
user, it is the total travel time and convenience of service that are more
important than the operating speed of the train. Though the time spent on the train may be shorter, the actual
total travel time for the transit user may be longer if the commute to a
station along Earl Armstrong (rather than to a nearby station in the centre of
the community) is taken into consideration (walking and waiting times, time
spent on a connecting feeder service line).
In order to maintain a high operating speed, the Urbandale plan does not
allow for additional stations – consequently, this requires more transit users
to take bus feeder services (or to walk longer distances) to get to the
stations.
Technical
issues are introduced in terms of LRT transition at each end of Earl Armstrong
from median-running to LRT corridor-running.
The station configuration at River Road would require review, as would
the connection to the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge. The arterial right-of-way may be insufficient at station locations
and for support facilities. The Earl
Armstrong Road LRT alignment, however, has the benefit of requiring only one
structure (combined LRT and road) over Mosquito Creek rather than two –
resulting in capital and lifecycle cost savings.
The CDP
was a collaborative community building process with extensive consultation over
two years. Council approved the
centrally located alignment without objections from any person or group. Council’s recently adopted 2007-2010 City
Strategic Directions (F.1) directs that Ottawa become a leading edge in
community and urban design. Locating
transit corridors based primarily on the most direct route rather than that
which embodies optimum transit-oriented design principles would be contrary to
that direction.
The
Urbandale proposal calls for five-minute headways (on double tracks except
under Dow’s Lake) with single-car trains at opening day. The proposal suggests that train lengths
could be increased to provide added capacity as passenger demand warrants
rather than increasing train frequencies.
Other than operating through the downtown tunnel, block lengths and
driveway accesses elsewhere in the network may limit the train length –
especially through town centres and on main street type settings. Without consideration of the network as a
whole, flexibility for future service planning, and convenience for transit
users, it may be premature at this time to assume that train lengths can be
increased and that frequencies are limited to no less than five minutes. In addition, service frequency has an impact
on passenger waiting time, and therefore overall journey time. Waiting time is particularly important for
transit systems such as LRT with high transfer rates. Restricting the system to five-minute headways, rather than
providing for future improvement to three-minutes or better, would have an
adverse impact on ridership.
The
Urbandale proposal would require fewer train cars than the North-South LRT
project which needed more vehicles in service due to the variability of
operating on streets through the downtown.
However, the Urbandale proposal also only accounted for one spare train
(maintenance) whereas the North-South LRT project had four spare trains (to
allow for maintenance, hot stand by and crash spares). As one vehicle will likely be in maintenance
at any given time, having no hot standby or crash spares gives no flexibility
to respond to unscheduled events. The
occurrence of any such event would immediately result in trips being cancelled. In addition, should there be a collision or
other incident taking a vehicle out of service for a prolonged period, the
service would need to be reduced on every day until repairs are completed.
Despite
what is shown in the proposal, the Urbandale consultant confirmed that the
alignment west of the Rideau River is intended to follow the alignment as
depicted in the North-South LRT EA. As
a means of reducing the initial investment costs, Urbandale does not include
this extension as part of the priority Phase 1A project and suggests that it be
built when passenger demand develops.
It is proposed that passengers from Barrhaven access the LRT through
shuttle bus service or park-and-ride linkages.
Some of the main differences between the Urbandale proposal and the
North-South LRT project include headway (5 minutes versus 10 minutes
initially), and the timing of implementation.
In
addition, the Urbandale plan proposes to eliminate a future grade separation at
River Road but does not identify what those cost savings are – nor does the
report elaborate on why the protection for a grade separation should be
dismissed. Analyses to date indicate
that a second bridge will be needed some time in the future when high traffic
volumes cause operational problems at the approach intersections of the
Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge (thus severely affecting transit services). The separation of the transit/LRT line from
the cross street traffic and intersections at each end of the Strandherd-Armstrong
Bridge would ensure smooth transit operation along this link of the rapid
transit network. This second river
crossing would be for transit use only.
The
1993 EA for the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge, as well as its 1997 EA Addendum
concluded that for transit to operate efficiently and effectively between the
two south urban communities, a second bridge (for transit) would be
required. The 2005 EA study for the
North-South LRT Project also reconfirmed this need. Due to the topography, there are limited options for transit
other than its own crossing when traffic volumes at the approach intersections
reach a point where transit operation will be severely compromised. Therefore, it is prudent for the City to
continue to protect for this future grade separation.
Typically,
the TMP update would examine corridor options and assess the applicability of
those options to be part of the overall rapid transit network, and the type of
technology that would operate in those corridors. Given Council’s direction to proceed with an environmental
assessment of the transit tunnel, this downtown facility will be a fundamental
component of the rapid transit network as it will be the focal point for an
integrated downtown transit solution.
The downtown transit corridor will serve as an anchor to the system to
which other transit corridors would connect, which is consistent with previous
network planning exercises.
There
are a number of issues that would be best addressed through the detailed
transit tunnel EA study – in particular portal locations, tunnel alignment,
station locations etc. However, there
are some major observations that can be commented upon now such as Urbandale’s
proposal to delete the LeBreton Station.
This is a significant transit station and is fundamental to the future
viability of the new LeBreton Flats community.
The design elements of the station (including the local transit station
above) have gone through a rigorous review process including public
consultation. It is highly unlikely
that this important transit station will be removed from the LeBreton Flats
redevelopment plans.
The
Urbandale alignment east of Booth Street appears to be in conflict with
existing facilities at the Fleet Street Pumping Station and adjacent tailrace
(used for sporting events). The
alignment, as proposed, does not take into consideration many of the urban
design plans that have been completed by the City and the National Capital
Commission for the area around Portage/Wellington, and the escarpment
district. The tight radius curves that
have been introduced on the approach to the escarpment in order to have the
alignment of the tunnel in downtown core below Sparks Street would introduce
speed limitations. The Urbandale plan
also proposes a 4.7-metre diameter tunnel and presumably costs were developed
with that parameter. However,
additional space may be required for overhead catenary systems and/or other
future capabilities.
The
proposal suggests an alignment under Sparks Street to take advantage of the
potential station near the Congress Centre and Federal Government Conference
Centre (old train station). There are a
number of factors that influence the tunnel alignment such as geotechnical
conditions, utility conflicts, development integration opportunities, the
availability of a site for the surface interface (stairs, elevators), transit
catchment area, etc. Alignment options
for the tunnel (including station locations and access points) will be assessed
and validated through the environmental assessment study.
Urbandale
also proposed that once out of the tunnel at the east portal, the LRT would
co-exist with the Transitway through to Hurdman and then on to the VIA Rail
train station where it would connect with the commuter services. The transit tunnel study will need to
examine this possibility. LRT
connections to the VIA station will need to be further analyzed as there will
be major issues with access to platforms and the need for the LRT to cross over
both the VIA tracks and Vanier Parkway/Riverside Drive (Urbandale’s proposal is
for the LRT station to be south of the VIA rail terminal, adjacent to Terminal
Avenue – the existing transitway is north of the VIA rail terminal). This work will have to be developed further
through the TMP update.
The TMP
update would need to look at the suitability of all rapid transit corridors
once the downtown transit network is confirmed. A major issue with the Urbandale proposal for this section is
whether or not it is appropriate for the LRT to share tracks with VIA Rail’s
operation. Another consideration is
whether or not there is sufficient space to add tracks for the exclusive use of
the LRT service within the VIA right-of-way.
Structures at Belfast Road, St. Laurent Blvd, Michael Street, Innes
Road, and Highway 417 need to be investigated to confirm that they can
accommodate additional tracks for the LRT and VIA future requirements.
East of
Blair, the Urbandale consultant clarified that the alignment is not as shown in
the report, but rather it is intended to follow the corridor that has been
established through the Cumberland Transitway EA. The corridor is already protected and the TMP update will
determine the longer-term transit technology preference for this corridor as
part of its network development exercise. Similar to the entire Transitway
network, the Cumberland Transitway will be designed to protect for the future
option of converting to LRT technology.
The
Urbandale proposal identifies a shared-use BRT and LRT facility that follows
the West Transitway corridor and part of the Carling Avenue LRT corridor
identified in the TMP, and connects to a new park-and-ride facility at the
416/417 interchange. The issue is
whether or not there is sufficient right-of-way for both technologies and if
there is a requirement for both.
Further analysis will need to be carried out to assess the
appropriateness of the park-and-ride lot at the highway interchange. It is proposed that these issues be examined
in more detail through the TMP update to ensure that corridors and other
transit components are part of an affordable and effective network that
supports the transit goals of the City.
Alternative
to Urbandale’s Phase 1A Project:
If Council wishes to consider
an LRT project in the North-South corridor while awaiting the completion of the
transit tunnel through the downtown, there are alternatives to the Urbandale
Phase 1A project (Bayview to River Road) with its single track under Dow’s
Lake, five-minute headways, and 18 trains (no spares).
One
such alternative would be for the LRT to begin at Bayview Station and continue
with double tracks through to Bowesville Station, including a twin tunnel under
Dow’s Lake. This would take the LRT
line to the maintenance facility (reduced size) and also terminate at a transit
terminal and park-and-ride lot at Bowesville Station, where buses can connect
with nearby Riverside South and cross the future Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge to
serve Barrhaven. The number of stations
(10) remains the same as for the North-South LRT project for this entire
section. Five-minute headway is
planned. Approximately 16 trains are required, including three spares. While the cost for this project would be
less than the original North-South LRT project (due to the reduced project
scope), it would not be in the best interest of the City to release a budget
number at this time in case Council wishes to negotiate a contract price with a
Contractor.
No EA
Addendum would be necessary for this alternative project (Bayview to
Bowesville); however, follow-up is required with the Ministry of the
Environment regarding the submitted EA Addendum for the maintenance
facility. Simulation studies would need
to be undertaken to confirm planned service operations, number of vehicles
required, etc. A revised ridership
analysis and business case would have to be prepared for the review and
approval of the Federal and Provincial funding agencies. Upon confirmation of funding and authority
to proceed, property negotiations with landowners along the corridor and
development partnership discussions at Carleton University, Gladstone, and
Walkley would have to be restarted.
Other tasks include the resolution of regulatory and operating
authority, the re-mobilization of a City LRT project management team, contract
negotiations, and Contractor mobilization.
Assuming
that no new procurement process is required, this project could be completed by
year 2013.
It had
been suggested that the diesel O-Train should be extended to Bowesville rather
than convert the corridor to electric LRT.
While this alternative would defer a fair amount of the capital costs,
one needs to consider the longer-term planning issues including urban design.
It would be possible to extend
the O-Train to Leitrim, operating at its existing 15-minute headway with the
addition of one train as a short-term measure.
This would provide capacity to accommodate the ridership generated by a
park-and-ride lot at Leitrim. The
capital costs for this are estimated to be approximately $45M. However, to add significant capacity to the
O-Train service and to make it attractive for transferring passengers would
require improving the headway to 10 or 7.5 minutes. This would require significant investment to purchase additional
diesel trains, expand the existing maintenance facility, add to and upgrade the
signalling system, and to add passing tracks.
Investment on this scale should only be made as part of a long-term
plan. The O-Train, with its large
vehicles, requirements for grade separation and its high platforms would be
unsuitable technology to operate eventually through the town centre in
Riverside South and Barrhaven, and would also restrict options in the LeBreton
development.
Due to
the 2013 sunset clause of the Federal contribution of $200M, projects selected
must be relatively ready for immediate implementation, in other words the
planning studies and environmental assessments have to be completed. In addition, selected projects should not
preclude the development of the downtown tunnel nor remove options for the
development of future rapid transit corridors elsewhere in the network (which
are being examined as part of the current TMP update). Although transit service is approaching
capacity in the downtown, surface operation could suffice in the near-term
until such time that a permanent solution (such as a tunnel) is implemented.
The
list of candidate projects that were presented to the Joint Transportation and
Transit Committee on 15 August 2007 has been revised. The changes to the list include the removal of projects that are
already fully funded and underway (i.e. already identified as priorities for
the City): Smart Card, New Bus Garage,
and the Park & Ride Lots at River Road and Leitrim. The item for Transit Fleet Acquisition
(2009) was also removed from Table 1 because vehicle purchases to service
growth are a normal part of the City’s annual operation. Furthermore, the previously proposed
extension of the O-Train to Leitrim was removed from the list as it may limit
the choices for technology and network development that are being examined as
part of the TMP updated.
In
addition, at the 15 August 2007 Joint Committee meeting, there was direction to
staff to add the West Transitway Extension (Woodroffe to Bayshore) to Table
1. This project is made up of two
sections: Woodroffe to Pinecrest and Pinecrest to Bayshore. The latter (Pinecrest to Bayshore) is
already under construction and, consistent with other funded projects, it does
not need to be added to Table 1. The
Woodroffe to Pinecrest section, however, is captured in the Table and its
project scope is to undergo a value engineering exercise as per the direction
of Committee.
On 24 October 2007, Council directed staff to formally submit to the Federal and Provincial governments for cost sharing of the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge as well as Terry Fox Drive (from Kanata Avenue to Flam borough Drive). This motion further affects the original Table 1 in that the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge ($48M) and its approaches (Strandherd Drive Widening (Woodroffe to Prince of Wales) $35M, and Earl Armstrong Widening (River Road to Limebank) $22M) had to be removed, as they will now be part of a separate funding request process.
The projects listed below were previously described in the 15 August 2007 report to Committee. The majority of these projects have a long history of need and are identified in the current Official Plan, the Transportation Master Plan, and other past planning documents. For these reasons, the proposed transit projects stand the best chance of getting funding from the higher levels of government. In addition, their state of readiness for implementation (planning and environmental assessment studies are complete) and the quick benefits that they would bring to the City make them ideal candidates for near-term investments.
Table 1 (Revised): Near-Term Transit Investment Options
Preliminary Estimate ($M)* |
Project Description |
Transit $ |
Existing City Authority ($M) |
|
South Urban
Community
|
|
|
10 |
Woodroffe Station (near
Strandherd) and Park-and-Ride, |
10 |
0 |
85 |
Southwest Transitway Ext.
(Fallowfield-Barrhaven) |
85 |
6 |
30 |
Southwest Transitway Ext.
(Baseline Station-Norice) |
30 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
West Urban
Community
|
|
|
112 |
West Transitway Ext.
(Woodroffe-Pinecrest) |
112 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
42 |
West Transitway Ext.
(Bayshore-Moodie) |
42 |
8 |
64 |
West Transitway Ext.
(Eagleson-Terry Fox) |
64 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
East Urban
Community
|
|
|
70 |
Cumberland Transitway
(Navan Road-Trim) |
70 |
10 |
10 |
Two Park & Ride Lots
(Chapel Hill South, Millennium Park) |
10 |
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
Central
Area/Inside the Greenbelt
|
|
|
5 |
Central Area Station
Improvements |
5 |
0.5 |
5 |
Rideau Street Transit
Improvements (Sussex-King Edward) |
5 |
0 |
8 |
Baseline-Heron Transit
Priority |
8 |
1.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
Enhancing
Accessibility
|
|
|
5 |
Baseline Station-Algonquin
College Pedestrian Bridge |
5 |
0 |
2 |
General Transit Stop Improvements |
2 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
2 |
Transit-oriented Rural
Pathway Linkages |
2 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
$450 |
Total |
$450 |
$38 |
* Capital cost estimates only, based on 2007 dollars. Projects will be escalated in accordance with construction price index for purposes of future Capital Budget submissions.
The TMP Update will result in a recommended rapid transit network (as well as walking, cycling, and road requirements) to serve the City of Ottawa to year 2031. As with the 2003 TMP, the updated TMP will include a project implementation-phasing plan for Council’s consideration. Decisions on an investment approach would need to also take into consideration the City’s Strategic Directions, the availability of funding programs from the upper-tier governments, and the City’s Long Range Financial Plan.
The recommendations contained herein directly support the following 2007-2010 City Strategic Directions:
A.3. Ensure current federal and provincial commitments for transportation programs are maintained, and seek enhanced support for existing and new potential programs.
B.1. Finish the Transitway by 2015.
B.3. Attain transit goals (30% modal split) by 2021.
F.4. Ensure that City infrastructure required for new growth is built or improved as needed to serve the growth.
Due to the tight timelines to undertake the review and report back to Committee, no public or agency consultation took place during the review of the Urbandale LRT network proposal. As the TMP and other supporting planning studies progress, there will be opportunities for public engagement on the development/refinement of the City’s rapid transit network and identification of project priorities.
The near-term transit investment projects shown in Table 1 are included in the draft budget submission. This list will be adjusted, as required, to reflect Committee’s and Council’s decision on the recommendations of this report as well as decisions pertaining to the 2008 Capital Budget.
It is assumed that the Federal and Provincial governments will contribute 2/3 of the total funding required. Currently, the $400M for the original North-South LRT Project has been set aside by these agencies for transit projects in Ottawa. It is reasonably assumed that with the necessary justification documentation, this funding envelope could be re-directed to the transit projects listed in Table 1. There is also a potential that new funding programs will be created in the near future to help municipalities with infrastructure needs.
Following negotiations with the Federal and Provincial agencies, staff will report back to Committee on the availability of funding mechanisms and the full financial implications of these projects with respect to development charges and tax supported reserves.
(Note: All supporting documentation is distributed
separately)
Document 1 Preliminary Rapid Network Concepts (maps)
Document 2 Review of Urbandale North-South LRT Proposal (Marshall Macklin Monaghan)
Document 3 Review of August 2007 Urbandale LRT Network Plan (McCormick Rankin)
The Planning, Transit and the Environment Department will adjust, as appropriate, the projects in Table 1 in accordance with Committee’s and Council’s decision on the recommendations of this report as well as decisions pertaining to the 2008 Capital Budget. The Department will undertake the necessary supplementary analyses in order to enter into funding discussions with the Federal and Provincial funding agencies. Where Council has already approved funding, the work on those projects will continue.