Report to/Rapport au :

Joint Transportation and Transit Committee

Comité conjointe des transports et des services de transport en commun

and Council / et au Conseil

10 November 2008 / le 10 novembre 2008

Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/Directrice municipale adjointe,

Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability/Services d’infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités

Contact Person/Personne ressource : John Moser, Director/Directeur

Planning Branch/Direction de l'urbanisme

(613) 580-2424 x 28869, John.Moser@ottawa.ca

City Wide/à l'échelle de la Ville

Ref N°: ACS2008-ICS-PLA-0227

SUBJECT:	TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN (TMP) UPDATE, 2008

OBJET :	MISE À JOUR DU PLAN DIRECTEUR DES TRANSPORTS (PDT) 2008

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Joint Transportation and Transit Committee table the following recommendations for consideration at the Joint Transportation and Transit Committee meeting on November 19, 2008:

That the Joint Transportation and Transit Committee recommends that City Council:

1. Approve the 2008 Transportation Master Plan (TMP), as detailed in Document 10, including:

a. The location of the southern terminus of the North-South LRT service at the Riverside South Town Centre;

b. The addition of the Hospital Corridor BRT;

c. The supplementary transit corridors as outlined in Table 4;

d. The road projects as outlined in Annex B of the TMP document;

e. The phasing plans for transit and road projects as outlined in Table 12 and Table 15.

2. Direct staff to prepare a submission, including any necessary studies and business plans, to Build Canada and any other federal and provincial government grants or programs, to seek partnership funds for Increment 1 transit projects in the Transportation Master Plan following final budget approval.

3. Direct staff to undertake the following actions to initiate the implementation and mitigate risks as outlined in the KPMG Risk Assessment (Document 8):

a. Examine a range of procurement options and explore any other existing and potential fiscal tools that could be used for the top priority projects, and report back to the appropriate Standing Committee(s) and Council in February, 2009;

b. Expand the scope of the Downtown Ottawa Transit Tunnel Environmental Assessment to include the LRT extension to Tunney’s Pasture and Blair Station;

c. Commence work immediately on the Environmental Assessment for the Western Parkway Corridor, subject to budget approval;

d. Seek delegated regulatory authority from the federal Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

4. Direct staff to include approved transit projects in the Draft 2009 Transit Capital Budget, to be tabled in January 2009.

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité mixte des transports et des services de transport en commun soumette les recommandations suivantes pour qu’elles soient examinées à la réunion du Comité mixte des transports et des services de transport en commun qui se tiendra le 19 novembre 2008 :

Le Comité mixte des transports et des services de transport en commun recommande au Conseil municipal :

1. L’approbation du Plan directeur des transports (PDT) 2008, tel qu’indiqué dans le document 10, incluant :

a. L’emplacement du terminus Sud du service SLR Nord-Sud au centre-ville de Riverside Sud;

b. L’ajout du couloir TRA de l’hôpital;

c. Les couloirs supplémentaires de transport en commun tels qu’indiqués au tableau 4;

d. Le réseau routier tel qu’indiqué à l’Annexe B du PDT (document 10);

e. Les plans d’échelonnement des projets routiers et de transport en commun tels qu’exposés au tableau 12 et au tableau 15.

2. De demander au personnel qu’il prépare une soumission, incluant tout plan d’affaires ou étude nécessaires, à Chantiers Canada et à tout autre programme de prêts gouvernementaux fédéraux ou provinciaux, dans le but d’obtenir des fonds de partenariat pour les projets de transport en commun de la phase 1 du Plan directeur des transports après l’approbation finale du budget.

3. De demander au personnel qu’il prépare les actions suivantes pour commencer l’exécution et réduire les risques comme il est indiqué dans l’évaluation de risque de KPMG (document 8):

a. Examiner une gamme d’options d’obtention et étudier tout autre outil fiscal existant ou potentiel pouvant être utilisé pour les projets à haute priorité, et faire un rapport au comité permanent et au Conseil municipal en février 2009.

b. Prolonger la portée de l’évaluation environnementale du tunnel de transport en commun du centre-ville d’Ottawa pour y inclure le prolongement du SLR vers le pré Tunney et la station Blair;

c. Commencer immédiatement les travaux d’évaluation environnementale du couloir de la promenade ouest, qui est sujet à l’approbation budgétaire;

d. Demander l’approbation concernant les exigences réglementaire du ministre fédéral des Transports.

4. De demander au personnel d’inclure les projets de transport en commun approuvés au budget provisoire des immobilisations relatives au transport en commun qui doit être soumis en janvier 2009.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Assumptions and Analysis

The report summarizes the technical work undertaken since May 2008 leading to the development of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) document including proposed 2031 comprehensive transit network, proposed implementation plan for transit, road, cycling and walking projects, multi-modal transportation policies, as well as public feedback received. The report also responds to the motions raised in May 2008, including results of financial risk assessment study and identifies next steps.

The strategic directions that guided the update of the TMP centered on reducing automobile dependency for peak-period travel. The City’s targets are to increase walking and cycling trips by approximately 50 per cent and transit trips by about 76 per cent. As a result, automobile trips will grow by only 24 per cent.

Non-Motorized Travel (Walking and Cycling)

The City’s transportation vision promotes and supports highly sustainable modes of travel, aimed at improving economic prosperity, environmental quality, and quality living. To help achieve this vision targets have been set out in terms of morning peak hour modal share; walking should increase from 9.3 per cent to 10 per cent by 2031, with cycling up from 1.7 to three per cent. A significantly larger portion of the trips originating in the Inner Area (43 per cent), where transit and road networks are under significant pressure, is projected to be attracted to walking and cycling modes by 2031.

In July 2008, the Ottawa Cycling Plan, a comprehensive and detailed blueprint for expanding the role of cycling in Ottawa, was approved by City Council fulfilling a commitment of the 2003 TMP. Numerous updates to the plan have taken place including, the inclusion of a new cycling network, and improving routes to transit locations and along future rapid transit corridors. In addition to cycling, the City is also developing the first Ottawa Pedestrian Plan to be considered by Council in 2009.

Transit

To enhance rapid transit service coverage, and provide flexibility and additional choices for transit users, a network of supplementary corridors was developed. Two categories of corridors were established: transit intensive (at-grade, dedicated transit lanes) and transit priority (co-ordinated priority measures applied throughout corridor). These corridors provide feeder services to and from the rapid transit network as well as between a variety of urban destinations, and directly serve the variety of land uses found adjacent, or in proximity to the corridors. Some key recommendations include Carling Avenue and Baseline Road as transit intensive corridors and Bank Street and Rideau Street as important transit priority corridors. Table 4 lists the supplementary corridors and the proposed service improvements.

While there is great desire to service Orléans, Kanata and Barrhaven with light rail transit, the required density to support light rail at their Town Centre locations will not be reached by 2031. Until a density threshold of 120 population and jobs/hectare is achieved, rapid transit service to these areas will continue to be bus based.

Much of the Riverside community is yet to be built. The City’s plan to establish Riverside South as a transit-oriented community will require providing light rail service early in its development to reduce the need for new roads and road widenings, and to require development densities upfront that will be sustained throughout the build-out period.

Rail corridors were examined as part of the supplementary corridor analysis. Within the urban area, the locations of the freight railway corridors do not match the existing and future population and employment locations, as development has intentionally been directed to areas removed from the rail tracks. Outside Ottawa, the population and travel demand in the outlying communities are at levels that make private commuter bus service an appropriate alternative to the automobile. The City will work with neighbouring municipalities and private bus companies to integrate their transit operations, whether bus or train, with the OC Transpo system. While, within the planning horizon, the City will focus its investment on addressing transportation problems within the urban boundary, it will continue to purchase surplus railway rights-of-way, as they become available, for use as future transportation corridors.

Proposed first Increment of Transit Investment

The tunnel and the light rail transit (LRT) from Blair to Tunney’s Pasture are required for system capacity reasons by 2018 and should form part of the first construction increment. The introduction of LRT will require the construction of a rail maintenance facility in the east end. It is also recommended to include the bus rapid transit (BRT) sections from Fallowfield to Barrhaven Town Centre and from Moodie Drive to Bayshore to address current operational issues Baseline to Norice section is also recommended to facilitate the development of the Centrepointe Town Centre and the expansion of the Algonquin College. The BRT (or bus lanes) from Navan to Blair Station score very high in the operational review and is also recommended as part of the first priority.

Risk Assessment

As a result of Council Motion 37/14, a financial risk assessment of the approved network plan was conducted. Top risks associated with the plan, including the downtown tunnel and Ottawa River Parkway corridor were assessed. The assessment determined that a number of risks, if left unmitigated could potentially increase the cost of the program, for example: an uncompetitive bidding process, the potential for elaborate scope change, the cost of inflation and currency, and overall project staging.

The assessment determined that the approximately $4.7 billion program cost estimate is sound and appropriate, although it was not estimated at a level of detail to include contingencies for all of the risks identified in the financial risk assessment. It was concluded that most of the risks identified through the assessment are capable of being mitigated, provided they are addressed upfront. A number of examples of early mitigation measure include, the completion of environmental assessments and the acquisition of lands not currently owned by the City but needed to support early project phasing. The risk assessment also confirmed an appropriate first project implementation strategy aimed at reducing potential risks.

Roads and Key Project Recommendations

Despite the substantial projected increase in transit usage, there will also be an increase in demand for automobile trips. Therefore, following the identification of the transit system requirements to 2031, necessary to achieve a 30 per cent City-wide peak hour transit modal split, a complementary road network to accommodate the residual demand was identified.

The fundamental objective that governed the identification of road implementation priorities is to minimize road expenditure in the early years while investment in transit is given a high priority to accelerate the shift to transit. Therefore, road projects in the first phase were limited to new road links without which imminent planned growth cannot occur, widening of existing arterials which have been at capacity for sometime or roads identified as Council priorities. Project priorities in the second and third phases were identified based on projected future growth rates.

Draft 2008 TMP Document

There are a few differences between the 2003 and 2008 TMP. The updated TMP introduces a newly revamped infrastructure project list that includes updated project phasing. A full breakdown of changes by chapter is provided.

Financial Implications

Numerous funding sources have been identified for the proposed rapid transit network plan including federal and provincial gas tax, as well as development charges. Assumptions used to calculate the City's funding availability assume that the province and federal government will each contribute a third of the plan's funding requirement.

Growth roads are 95 per cent funded from development charges so the total of $791 million would require City funding of $40 million over the next 10 years.

Investment Strategy

An Investment Strategy will be undertaken to outline how the City can secure the funds required to build, maintain and operate the proposed transit network and to ensure that projects stay on schedule and do not cost more than anticipated. This strategy will first identify financial tools that the City can leverage for potential sources of revenue to support and enhance the rapid transit network. A financial model will then be developed to identify the timing and magnitude of funding gaps that might arise over the full life cycle of the investment. The final component will be an implementation plan that clearly identifies how the City will fund rapid transit in the short, medium and long term. A Terms of Reference for the first component (financial tools) of the Investment Strategy is attached to this report as Document 11. Staff will report back on the findings of this assessment in the first half of 2009.

Public Consultation/Input

The TMP consultation objectives have been to engage a broad range of citizens and stakeholders in a dialogue around Ottawa’s long-term transportation planning. In support of this objective the City held a series of consultation sessions, public open houses, group focus sessions, and agency group meetings.

RÉSUMÉ

Hypothèses et analyse :

Ce rapport résume les travaux techniques qui ont été exécutés depuis mai 2008 et qui ont mené à la production du document du Plan directeur des transports (PDT), incluant le réseau détaillé de transport en commun projeté pour 2031, le plan d’exécution concernant le transport en commun, les routes, le cyclisme et les sentiers, les politiques de transport multimodales, ainsi que les remarques exprimées par le public. Le rapport répond également aux motions soulevées en mai 2008, incluant les résultats de l’étude sur l’évaluation des risques financiers, et se termine par l’identification des étapes à venir.

Les orientations stratégiques qui ont été utilisées pour la mise à jour du PDT ont le but de réduire la dépendance de l’usage d’automobile pour les trajets de l’heure de point. Une cible de la Ville est d’augmenter par d’environ 50 pour cent les trajets complétés à pieds ou par vélo et par 76 pour cent pour le transport en commun. Par conséquent, les trajets en voiture augmenteront par seulement 24 pour cent.

Transport non motorisé (marche et cyclisme)

La vision de la Ville pour le transport promeut et soutient les modes de transport durables qui visent à améliorer la prospérité économique, la qualité de l’environnement et la qualité de vie des citoyens. Pour aider à atteindre cette vision, des cibles ont été établies concernant la part modale par heure de pointe; ainsi, la marche devrait passer de 9,3 à 10 pour cent en 2031, et le cyclisme, de 1,7 à 3 pour cent. On prévoit qu’une portion plus grande des déplacements provenant de la zone intérieure (43 %), où le réseau routier et celui du transport en commun sont soumis à de fortes pressions, se fera de plus en plus par la marche et le vélo en 2031.

En juillet 2008, le Plan sur le cyclisme d’Ottawa, un projet détaillé visant à faire progresser la place qu’occupe le cyclisme à Ottawa, a été approuvé par le Conseil municipal, remplissant ainsi l’engagement du PDT de 2003. Plusieurs mises à jour du plan ont été produites, incluant le développement d’un nouveau réseau cycliste, l’amélioration des routes menant aux emplacements de transport en commun et le long des futurs couloirs destinés au transport en commun rapide. En plus du cyclisme, la Ville développe actuellement un plan de la circulation piétonnière qui doit être examiné par le Conseil en 2009.

Transport en commun

Pour améliorer la couverture du service de transport en commun rapide, et offrir une plus grande flexibilité et davantage de choix aux utilisateurs du transport en commun, un réseau de couloirs supplémentaires a été développé. Deux catégories de couloirs ont été établies : intensif (voies à niveau réservées au transport en commun) et prioritaire (mesures prioritaires coordonnées appliquées dans un couloir). Ces couloirs fournissent un meilleur accès au réseau de transport en commun rapide ainsi qu’à une variété de destinations urbaines, en plus de desservir directement les terres se trouvant à côté ou près des couloirs. Quelques-unes des recommandations importantes proposent d’identifier l’avenue Carling et la rue Baseline comme couloirs intensifs, et les rues Bank et Rideau comme couloirs prioritaires. Le tableau 4 indique les couloirs supplémentaires et l’amélioration proposée du service.

Même si l’on désire grandement offrir un service de système léger sur rail dans Orléans, Kanata et Barrhaven, la densité de population requise pour soutenir un réseau léger sur rail dans leur centre-ville respectif ne sera pas atteinte en 2031. Tant que le seuil de densité n’aura pas atteint 120 personnes et emplois par hectare, le transport en commun rapide de ces endroits continuera de se faire par autobus.

La majeure partie de la communauté de Riverside n’est pas encore construite. Le plan de la Ville pour faire de Riverside Sud une communauté orientée vers le transport en commun exigera l’implantation rapide du système léger sur rail pendant le développement de la communauté; ceci est nécessaire pour réduire les besoins en nouvelles routes et en élargissement des routes, en plus d’exiger des densités de développement qui seront maintenues durant la période de développement.

L’étude des couloirs de système sur rail est incluse dans l’analyse des couloirs supplémentaires. En zone urbaine, les emplacements des couloirs dédiés au transport de marchandises par voie ferrée ne correspondent pas aux emplacements présents et futurs des emplois et de la population, car le développement a été intentionnellement dirigé vers les endroits éloignés des voies ferrées. À l’extérieur d’Ottawa, la demande en population et en déplacement dans les communautés isolées est à un niveau faisant du service privé par autobus comme une option appropriée au lieu d’usage de l’automobile. La Ville collaborera avec les municipalités voisines et les compagnies d’autobus privées pour intégrer leurs opérations de transport en commun, que ce soit par autobus ou par train, au système d’OC Transpo. En même temps que la Ville concentrera ses investissements pour régler les problèmes de transport à l’intérieur de ses limites, elle continuera d’acheter des voies ferrées, à mesure qu’elles deviendront disponibles, pour les utiliser comme futurs couloirs de transport.

Premier ajout proposé à l’investissement en transport en commun

Le tunnel et le train léger sur rail (TLR) allant de la rue Blair au parc Tunney deviendront essentiels pour des raisons de capacité du système en 2018, et ils devraient faire partie du premier ajout à la construction. L’introduction du TLR demandera la construction d’installations d’entretien ferroviaire dans l’est de la ville. Il est aussi recommandé d’inclure les sections de transport en commun rapide par autobus (TCRA) de Fallowfield jusqu’au centre-ville de Barrhaven et de la promenade Moodie jusqu’à la promenade Bayshore pour régler les préoccupations opérationnelles actuelles. La section allant de la rue Baseline à la rue Norice est aussi recommandée pour faciliter le développement du secteur de la promenade Centrepointe et le développement du Collège Algonquin. Le système du TCRA (ou voies réservées) allant de la rue Navan à la station Blair a été noté comme étant très important dans l’examen du fonctionnement, et il est également recommandé dans la première priorité.

Évaluation du risque

À la suite de la motion 37/14 du Conseil, une évaluation du risque fiscal du Plan directeur des transports approuvé a été menée. On a évalué les risques les plus élevés associés au plan, incluant le tunnel du centre-ville et le couloir de la promenade de l’Outaouais. L’évaluation a déterminé qu’un nombre de risques, s’ils demeurent élevés, pourrait potentiellement faire augmenter le coût du programme. Par exemple : un processus d’appel d’offres non compétitif, le potentiel de changement important à l’envergure du plan, les coûts associés à l’inflation et à la monnaie et l’élaboration globale du projet.

L’évaluation a déterminé que l’estimation du coût du programme d’environ 4,7 milliards de dollars était correcte et appropriée, même si elle n’a pas été effectuée en assez de détail pour inclure les imprévus associés aux risques identifiés dans l’évaluation fiscale. L’évaluation a conclu que la plupart des risques identifiés peuvent être réduits s’ils sont réglés d’avance. Des exemples d’atténuation rapide des risques incluent la réalisation d’une évaluation environnementale et l’acquisition des terres n’appartenant pas actuellement à la Ville, mais essentielles à la réalisation du projet. L’évaluation du risque a aussi identifié comme souhaitable l’élaboration d’une première stratégie d’exécution du projet visant à réduire les risques potentiels.

Recommandations concernant les routes et autres recommandations importantes

Malgré l’augmentation considérable de l’utilisation des transports en commun prévue, il y aura également augmentation de la demande des trajets en voiture. Par conséquent, après avoir identifié les exigences du système de transport en commun nécessaires pour atteindre une répartition modale vers le transport en commun durant les heures de pointe pour l’ensemble de la ville de 30 pour cent en 2031, il apparaît nécessaire d’implanter un réseau routier complémentaire visant à répondre à la demande des résidents.

L’objectif fondamental qui gouverne l’identification des priorités des aménagements routiers est de minimiser les dépenses pour les routes durant les premières années du programme, tandis que les investissements en transport en commun seront hautement prioritaires, pour faire en sorte d’accélérer le changement vers le transport en commun. Par conséquent, les projets routiers de la première phase ont été limités à l’élaboration de nouveaux liens routiers nécessaires à la croissance prévue, à l’élargissement d’artères existantes qui sont occupées à pleine capacité depuis un certain temps, ou encore aux rues identifiées comme prioritaires par le Conseil. Les priorités de la deuxième et troisième phase du projet ont été identifiées selon la croissance future prévue.

Document provisoire du PDT 2008

Il existe quelques différences entre le PDT 2003 et le PDT 2008. La mise à jour du PDT introduit également une nouvelle liste de projets d’infrastructure qui inclut une mise à jour de l’exécution du projet. Un aperçu complet des changements a été inclus dans le rapport à l’intention des employés.

Répercussions financières

Les sources de recettes qui ont été identifiées pour le plan du réseau de transport en commun rapide incluent le transfert fédéral et provincial des recettes de taxe sur le carburant, et aussi l’argent provenant des redevances d’aménagement. En faisant le calcul de la capacité de la Ville d’entreprendre ces projets, il a été prévu que les gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux contribueront un tiers chaque du montant exigé par le plan.

Le financement des routes est 95 pour cent couvert par les redevances d’aménagement, et le montant de 791 millions de dollars nécessite une contribution de la Ville de 40 millions de dollars pendant les prochaines dix années.

Stratégie d’investissement

Une stratégie d’investissement sera mise en œuvre pour donner un aperçu de la façon dont la Ville peut obtenir les fonds nécessaires pour construire, entretenir et gérer le réseau de transport en commun proposé, et pour faire en sorte que les projets s’exécutent en temps voulu, sans coûter plus qu’il n’a préalablement été anticipé. La stratégie débutera par l’identification des outils financiers à la disposition de la Ville, qui lui permettront d’obtenir les revenus nécessaires pour soutenir et améliorer le réseau de transport en commun rapide. Un modèle financier sera ensuite développé pour identifier les moments durant lesquels le manque de financement pourrait survenir durant le cycle complet d’investissement ainsi que leur ampleur. Le dernier élément sera un plan d’exécution qui identifiera clairement comment la Ville financera le transport en commun rapide à court, moyen et long terme. Un cadre de référence pour le premier élément (les outils financiers) de la stratégie d’investissement est joint au présent rapport sous le nom « Document 11 ». Le personnel présentera un rapport sur les conclusions de cette évaluation durant la première moitié de l’année 2009.

Consultation publique / commentaires

L’objectif de la consultation pour le PDT est d’inviter une grande partie des citoyens et des intervenants à prendre part à un dialogue sur la planification à long terme du transport à Ottawa. En rapport avec cet objectif, la Ville a tenu une série de consultations, de séances portes ouvertes, de séances de discussions, et de groupes de consultation des organismes.

BACKGROUND

The update of the Transportation Master Plan began in the spring of 2007 with the development of the Transportation and Transit White Papers (discussion documents), giving citizens the opportunity to become aware of general transportation challenges and opportunities that Ottawa faces in the present and the future. Residents had the opportunity to provide comments on the White Papers and any other issue relevant to updating the Transportation Master Plan.

Throughout the fall of 2007, a series of high-profile public consultation events on the transportation vision with particular emphasis on transit involved reaching out to the many voices around Ottawa by way of new and unique methods such as Ottawa Talks Online Consultation Forum, Streeter Survey, City Café, Focus Groups and an Interactive Workshop. Results showed a strong support for a downtown transit tunnel and acceptance of transfers providing service is frequent and the environment is pleasant.

Following the visioning exercise, surface, elevated and tunnel connections through the downtown were assessed and only the tunnel option was deemed to be feasible. Four network options, all with a tunnel facility, were developed with combinations of bus and/or rail based transit systems. Extensive consultation on the four network options showed a strong support for tunnel through the downtown. On 28 May 2008, City Council approved a primary rapid transit network (shown in Figure 1), that is centered on the introduction of a Light Rail Transit (LRT) tunnel running through the downtown, along with the conversion of the existing Transitway to LRT between Baseline and Blair Stations. It also incorporates the conversion of the existing O‑Train to electric LRT along with its extension into Riverside South. Extensions to the existing bus Transitway system to Orléans, Barrhaven and Kanata are also included.

This network was developed to address the current transit congestion in the downtown. It provides the required capacity to serve the long-term downtown transit demand to the 2031 horizon year, and beyond. As directed by Council, the network also incorporates ultimate LRT extensions to Kanata, Orléans and Barrhaven/Riverside South subject to the following conditions:

· Development of corridors inside the Greenbelt first

· Business case supports return on rail investment (ridership, capital and operating costs)

· Achieving a minimum density target (to be determined in the updated Official Plan)

· Availability of funding

These corridors are identified in Figure 1 by the red dashed lines.

Figure 1: Approved Rapid Transit Network (May 2008)

In addition to approving the network, Council approved the following motions:

· That staff review the option of an LRT terminus more central to the Riverside South community as part of the staging process and report back to Committee and Council in the fall.

· That Council direct staff to include all proposed streetcar corridors as detailed by the international review panel be referred to the TMP update.

· That Council direct staff to consider all rail corridors as detailed in the Mayor Task Force on Transportation and report back to Committee

This report summarizes the technical work undertaken since May 2008 leading to the development of the Transportation Master Plan document including the proposed 2031 comprehensive transit network, proposed implementation plan for transit, road, cycling and walking projects, multi-modal (TMP) policies, as well as public feedback received. The report also responds to the motions raised in May 2008, including results of the financial risk assessment study and identifies next steps.

DISCUSSION

The Transportation Vision, as summarized in the 21 May 2008 report to Joint Transportation and Transit Committees, recognizes that transportation is a means to an end - namely, the protection and improvement of our quality of life. The following eight key strategic directions are identified as essential to achieving that vision:

· Creating supportive land use – Shaping development to encourage a shift from automobile travel to walking, cycling and public transit use.

· Managing transportation demand – Influencing why, when, where and how people travel

· Managing the transportation system – Maximizing the efficiency of infrastructure and services

· Enhancing safety and security – Reducing the personal risks to individuals during travel

· Protecting the environment – Reducing the impacts of transportation facilities and activities

· Managing and maintaining assets – Minimizing life-cycle costs while providing desired levels of service

· Funding implementation – Enhancing the City’s ability to pay the costs of this plan

· Measuring performance – Monitoring progress toward objectives

These strategic directions guided the update of the TMP, including updated policies, targets and infrastructure for specific modes (e.g. walking, cycling, transit, motor vehicles) as outlined in subsequent sections of this report. The TMP and the Official Plan work in tandem – transportation policies, infrastructure services and programs support the desired land use patterns and land uses are located where transit and transportation investments occur.

Future Travel Demand

Table 1 summarizes the current and future growth parameters of population and employment for inside and outside the Greenbelt, which are the key determinants of future travel demand and need. These Council approved population and employment projections are key building blocks for the TMP, Infrastructure Master Plan and the Official Plan. The 2031 projections are slightly lower than the 2021 projections on which the 2003 TMP was based.

Table 1: Base Growth Parameters Used for Travel Demand Forecast

Location	Population			Employment
Location	Base Year	2031	% Growth	Base Year	2031	% Growth
Inside Greenbelt	533,100	585,800	+10%	428,600	505,500	+18%
Outside Greenbelt	251,900	433,300	+72%	71,300	161,300	+126%
Rural	85,700	116,600	+36%	21,800	36,200	+66%
TOTAL	870,700	1,135,700	+30%	521,700	703,000	+35%

Note: Base year: refer to 2005-2006 conditions where Origin/Destination (O/D) survey data, employment and population data, and traffic counts are used.

Travel demand analysis efforts focused on the morning peak hour as it represents the time of the day when road networks experience increased levels of congestion and is the busiest hour for transit use. The 2031 morning peak hour travel demand forecast was determined using a computer-based long-range transportation demand model (TRANS model). The model was recently redeveloped to incorporate the state-of-the art modeling practices and calibrated against the 2005 Origin-Destination Survey. The main findings of the forecast modeling, as summarized in Table 2, include:

1. Total travel by all modes will increase by about 38 per cent during the morning peak hour.

2. Non-motorized (walking and cycling) morning-peak hour trips are forecast to grow by about 50 per cent.

3. Growth in trips by automobile during the morning peak hour is forecasted to increase by approximately 24 per cent which is less than the rate of population growth of 30 per cent. City-wide morning peak hour automobile mode split will decrease from 77 per cent to 70 per cent.

4. Growth in travel by public transit during the morning peak hour is forecasted to increase by approximately 76 per cent. City-wide transit mode split is forecast to increase from 23 per cent to 30 per cent by 2031.

Table 2. Growth in Travel by all Modes of Travel (Morning Peak Hour)

Ottawa Travel¹ AM Peak Hour	Base Year			2031			Percentage Growth
Ottawa Travel¹ AM Peak Hour	Person Trips	Mode Share²	Mode Split³	Person Trips	Mode Share	Mode Split	Percentage Growth
Walking	20,100	9.3		26,800	9.1		34%
Cycling	3,600	1.7		8,600	2.9		140%
Non-Motorized (Walking/ Cycling	23,700	11%	-	35,400	12%	-	49%
Transit Riders	44,500	21%	23%	78,300	26%	30%	76%
Private Automobile Trips	146,600	68%	77%	182,300	62%	70%	24%
Total - All Trips	214,800	100%	100%	296,000	100%	100%	38%

1. Includes all travel originating from or destined to Ottawa

2. Mode share is the percentage of trips made by one mode, relative to total trips made by all modes

3. Mode split is the percentage of trips made by one mode, relative to total trips made by motorized modes

Non-Motorized Travel (Walking and Cycling)

Walking and cycling as forms of active transportation, conserve energy and reduce pressure on the road network while preserving the environment, improving public health and supporting economic activity. They offer speed and convenience for shorter trips. Virtually all trips, regardless of their principal transportation mode, start and end with walking. All transit trips involve walking, and a growing number involve cycling too.

A number of factors impact on the proportion of travel that is allocated to walking and cycling travel including land use densities, car ownership levels and household income. Although the Official Plan emphasizes compact, mixed-use development, together with improved on-road walking and cycling facilities to encourage walking and cycling modes, this will be countered by significant growth in longer trips that cannot reasonably be made on foot or by bike.

The following targets have also been set for the roles of walking and cycling in serving future travel demands. These objectives are described in terms of morning peak hour “modal share”.

· City-wide walking modal share is targeted to increase from 9.3 per cent in 2005 to 10 per cent in 2031.

· The cycling modal share is targeted to increase from 1.7 per cent in 2005 to three per cent in 2031.

While the City-wide non-motorized share of travel is forecast to grow by only one percent by 2031, targets were kept as 10 per cent for walking and 3 per cent for cycling. Implementation of the Ottawa Cycling Plan and the Ottawa Pedestrian Plan (when approved), together with the Official Plan direction towards increased intensification and density targets, make for a very supportive environment for maintaining these targets.

Table 3 summarizes at a district level both the current and 2031 percentage of non-motorized travel during the a.m. peak.

· A significantly larger portion of the trips originating in the Inner Area (43 per cent), where transit and road networks are under significant pressure, will be attracted to walking and cycling modes by 2031.

· It is also noted that the number of trips destined to the Inner Area by walking and cycling is significantly higher in magnitude than trips that originated there which is expected of this prime destination area.

· Within the Greenbelt, the non-motorized share of travel (for all trips originating during the a.m. peak) is forecast to increase from 13 per cent to 17 per cent, reducing the proportion of motorized travel to be accommodated by transit and road systems.

Table 3: Existing and Forecast Non-Motorized (Walking and Cycling) Travel Shares by District

	District Trip Origins				District Trip Destinations
	Base Year*		2031		Base Year*		2031
	Total Person Trips	% non -motorized	Total Person Trips	% non -motorized	Total Person Trips	% non -motorized	Total Person Trips	% non -motorized
Ottawa Inner Area	22,600	35%	27,400	43%	47,400	10%	53,700	13%
Ottawa East	11,100	11%	11,700	13%	9,100	12%	8,900	13%
Beacon Hill	7,000	7%	9,600	8%	7,900	8%	9,700	10%
Alta Vista	16,500	8%	19,100	9%	23,400	8%	28,400	9%
Hunt Club	11,000	3%	11,600	3%	6,200	8%	8,500	9%
Merivale	17,500	7%	18,600	7%	21,100	9%	22,600	10%
Ottawa West	9,200	10%	10,900	13%	9,900	11%	11,600	12%
Bayshore/ Cedarview	16,900	5%	17,200	6%	14,800	9%	16,600	9%
Inside Greenbelt Subtotal	111,800	15%	126,100	19%	139,800	10%	160,000	12%
Orléans	21,800	3%	27,000	4%	10,700	8%	16,900	8%
Riverside South/ Leitrim	1,800	1%	9,500	2%	1,500	6%	6,100	7%
South Nepean	11,200	4%	23,000	4%	5,000	7%	16,600	10%
Kanata/Stittsville	17,800	5%	34,300	6%	15,300	6%	29,800	8%
Outside Greenbelt Subtotal	52,600	4%	93,800	5%	32,500	8%	69,400	9%
City of Ottawa (Urban Area)	164,400	11%	219,900	12%	172,300	10%	229,400	11%

· Base year: refer to 2005-2006 conditions where OD survey data, employment and population data, and traffic counts are used.

· New Cycling Network

· Advancing the initial implementation phase

· Investigating a “smart bike” program and a “Park and Bike” pilot project

· Improving secure bike parking at key locations including City facilities, private workplaces and multi-unit residential building

· Improving cycling routes to transit stops and stations, and along future rapid transit corridors

· Advocating more strongly the promotion and cycling skills training through schools and CAN-BIKE courses

The City is developing the first Ottawa Pedestrian Plan, further to a key commitment of the 2003 TMP. The plan will be considered by Council in 2009. However, based on preliminary recommendations, proposed changes to the TMP as they relate to the “Pedestrian Plan” include:

· Adopting a Pedestrian Charter

· Creating Community Pedestrian Improvement Plans in 24 areas of Ottawa, based on facilities suggested in the Pedestrian Plan

· Strengthening of support for pedestrian improvements and accessibility through various planning and design processes (e.g. Community Design Plans)

· Revising criteria and weighting for assessing candidates in the New Sidewalk Links program

· Establishing “missing link” programs for non-sidewalk pedestrian facilities

· Adopting of new criteria for winter maintenance on pathways

· Providing more support for walking promotion

Since the Pedestrian Plan is under development at the time of writing the TMP document, the TMP document does not fully reflect its contents and will need to be updated in the future.

Transit

Supplementary Transit Corridor Development

To enhance transit service coverage, and provide flexibility and additional choices for transit users, a network of supplementary corridors was developed to complement the rapid transit network approved by Council in May 2008. The development process started with identifying candidate corridors that link high-density trip origins and destinations to the primary rapid transit network. Potential corridors were ranked using evaluation criteria that are grouped into the following three major categories:

· Ridership Potential: best reflects transit travel demands served by the corridor including measures such as peak hour ridership, all-day ridership as well as passenger loadings by direction

· Ease of Implementation: focuses on specific right of way elements which may constrain the implementation of the preferred level of transit services within a corridor

· Smart Growth Potential: reflects opportunities to strengthen land use density as well as supporting sustainable modes of transportation including walking and cycling.

The following two distinct categories of supplementary corridors are recommended to meet the specific needs of transit users and to provide appropriate passenger carrying capacities:

Transit Intensive (dedicated lanes, no grade separation)
Transit Priority (set of co-ordinated physical measures throughout the corridor)

Transit Intensive Corridors are defined as those that demonstrate high ridership potential that can be accommodated by providing an all-day, dedicated, continuous exclusive transit facility for use by buses or trains, operating at grade with priority at signalized intersections. A range of operations can be implemented within a corridor to provide Transit Intensive service, including:

· At-grade LRT operating within dedicated lanes, with signal pre-emption at intersections;

· Dedicated all-day bus-only lanes – with or without physical separation from general traffic (i.e. raised lanes, median, etc.).

Transit Priority Corridors are defined as those corridors equipped with a set of co-ordinated priority measures that give transit vehicles preferential treatment over other vehicles to minimize the impacts of traffic congestion on transit operations within a corridor. These measures include peak-period transit only lanes, short dedicated lane segments, queue-jumps, and traffic signal priority.

Table 4 summarizes the findings of the supplementary corridor analysis. Details of the development of the Supplementary Transit Network are included in Document 1. These corridors provide feeder services to and from the rapid transit network as well as between a variety of urban destinations, and directly serve the variety of land uses found adjacent, or close to the corridors.

As a result of supplementary corridor analysis, it is recommended to add the Hospital Corridor to the primary rapid transit network to provide direct rapid transit access from all points on the network to the General Campus of the Ottawa Hospital, CHEO, the University of Ottawa Health Science Campus and other adjacent land uses, as well as serving as a catalyst to transit-oriented redevelopment of the former National Defence Medial Centre (NDMC). BRT is recommended to provide an opportunity for cross-town bus continuity (Kanata-Baseline Station-Baseline-SE Transitway-Hospital-Cumberland).

Table 4: Supplementary Corridor - Proposed Transit Service Improvement

Corridor Name (Limits)	Proposed Transit Service Improvements
Corridor Name (Limits)	Proposed Transit Service Improvements
Carling (Lincoln Fields Station to O-Train/Carling Station)	At grade LRT within dedicated lanes (median preferred)
Carling (O-Train to Bronson)	§ Existing bus lanes, eastbound (EB) from Preston to Cambridge and westbound (WB) from Bronson to Booth § Intersection modifications required at Preston and Bronson (signal pre-emption, queue jumps)
Baseline/Heron (Baseline Station to Billings Bridge Station)	All day dedicated bus lanes requiring: § Road widening from Navaho to Prince of Wales § Taking away a lane of general traffic, from Prince of Wales to Data Centre
Heron/Walkley (North-South LRT to Hawthorne)	Dedicated bus lanes requiring road reconstruction
Baseline (Bayshore Station to Baseline Station)	Dedicated bus lanes requiring: § New exclusive corridor adjacent to Queensway-Carleton Hospital § Road reconstruction from the QCH to Centrepointe Drive (west) § Taking away a lane of general traffic in each direction, from Centrepointe Drive (west) to Woodroffe
Rideau/Montréal (Sussex to St. Laurent)	Peak period bus lanes with increased time of day coverage in both directions (6am-9:30am and 2:30pm-6:30pm) by prohibiting on-street parking during those periods
Montréal/Bathgate (St Laurent to Blair Station)	§ Montréal Rd.: Peak period bus lanes in peak direction only (7am-9am WB and 3:30pm-5:30pm EB) by reallocating existing traffic lanes § Bathgate Rd.: dedicated bus lanes
Bank Street (Wellington to Highway 417)	Peak period bus lanes in both directions (7am-9am and 3:30pm-5:30pm) by prohibiting on-street parking during those periods
Bank (Highway 417 to Billings Bridge Station)	Set of co-ordinated transit priority measures as required (signal pre-emption, queue jumps, etc.) + parking restrictions
Bronson (Carling to Catherine/ Chamberlain)	Set of co-ordinated transit priority measures as required
Catherine and Chamberlain/Isabella (Bronson to Lees Station)	Set of co-ordinated transit priority measures as required
Somerset (O-Train crossing to Bank)	Set of co-ordinated transit priority measures as required
Wellington (Bank to Sussex)	To be determined by the Interprovincial Transit Integration Study.
Hunt Club (Southwest Transitway to South Keys Station)	Set of co-ordinated transit priority measures as required
Russell/St Laurent (Walkley to St. Laurent Station)	South of Innes: dedicated bus lanes requiring road widening North of Innes: Set of co-ordinated transit priority measures as required (signal pre-emption, queue jumps, etc.)
Ogilvie (Montréal to Blair Station)	Set of co-ordinated transit priority measures as required
St. Laurent (Montréal to St. Laurent Station)	Set of co-ordinated transit priority measures as required
Merivale (Baseline to Hunt Club)	All day bus lanes in both directions requiring localized widening
Merivale/Holland (Baseline to Tunney’s Pasture Station)	Peak period bus lanes in peak direction only (7am-9am NB and 3:30pm-5:30pm SB) by reallocating existing traffic lanes on Merivale and on-street parking on Holland
Richmond/Carling (Bayshore Station to Lincoln Fields Station)	Set of co-ordinated transit priority measures as required (signal pre-emption, queue jumps, etc.) plus dedicated bus lanes planned from Richmond / Carling intersection to Lincoln Fields Station, and WB left turn lane for transit only at Richmond
Robertson/Richmond (Westcliffe to Bayshore Station)	Set of co-ordinated transit priority measures as required (signal pre-emption, queue jumps, etc.)
Conroy/Alta Vista Transportation Corridor (Hospital link to Hunt Club)	Bus lanes on AVTC with possible lane extension or transit priority measures between Walkley and Hunt Club
Tenth Line (Charlemagne North to Place d’Orléans Station)	Set of co-ordinated transit priority measures as required
Wellington/Somerset (Holland to O-Train crossing)	Set of co-ordinated transit priority measures as required
Woodroffe (Fallowfield to Strandherd)	Set of co-ordinated transit priority measures as required
Eagleson (Hazeldean to Eagleson Station)	Set of co-ordinated transit priority measures as required
Hunt Club (South Keys to Conroy)	Set of co-ordinated transit priority measures as required
King Edward (Sussex to Rideau)	Dedicated southbound bus lanes from 2pm to 7pm

Summary of public consultation on proposed supplementary corridors

A slight majority of people stated that they agree with the proposed Supplementary Rapid Transit Network (51%). Approximately 25 per cent said they disagree with it while 24 per cent indicated that they “Don’t know”. Several discussions revolved around the role of Carling Avenue as a supplementary corridor. Although the majority of people agreed with a streetcar concept to help facilitate redevelopment, some people expressed the view that Carling Avenue should be a rapid transit corridor. Several residents within the vicinity of Browning Avenue opposed the hospital link corridor, mainly due to concerns about the loss of greenspace and that the corridor may create an access barrier for the community as well as potential noise and visual intrusions.

Recommended 2031 Rapid Transit Network

Density Target in Suburban Areas to sustain LRT

Because of their position on the rapid transit network, the Town Centres in Orléans, Kanata, and Barrhaven are part of the Official Plan Residential Land Strategy which aims to bring about compact mixed-use development at higher densities. The primary goal of this strategy is to increase population and employment density to generate additional ridership for rapid transit.

The three suburban Town Centres (Orléans, Kanata, Barrhaven) are at different stages of their development. Orléans’ is the most mature. In Kanata, highrise apartment buildings are built and more are planned. The core of the Town Centre in Barrhaven is not yet constructed. Table 5 summarizes the Official Plan current and projected densities:

Table 5: Official Plan Current and Projected Densities in Town Centres

	2006				2031
Town Centres	Area (ha)	Jobs	Pop.	DENSITY	Jobs	Pop.	DENSITY*
Orléans TC	83.2	3,163	598	48	6,200	2,700	106
Kanata TC	229.4	3,818	2,808	33	9,300	6,100	67
Barrhaven TC	217.1	2,176	127	11	10,100	8,100	84

* Density is expressed as People and Jobs per Gross Hectare.

The Official Plan update is proposing that the minimum threshold required to support higher-order transit including LRT as 120 people and jobs per gross hectare. In all cases, it is anticipated that the amount of development in the town centres during the projection period of the Official Plan (OP) will not allow the three Town Centres to reach the minimum threshold density. Intensification will remain an ongoing planning goal post-2031 at these locations. Until this threshold is reached, rapid transit service to Barrhaven, Orléans and Kanata would continue to be bus based.

Existing and planned extensions to Bus Rapid Transit service to Orléans, Kanata and Barrhaven are premised on the provision of routes that combine local service with rapid transit service. The density targets, when they are achieved, will permit the establishment of a hub-and-spoke system. Until then, the existence of a BRT exclusive right-of-way allows for a transfer-free route system within these communities that combines local and BRT service. BRT is a necessary intermediate level of service until proposed density threshold is reached.

Riverside South is not designated a Town Centre in the OP because its employment forecast does not meet the criteria for a Town Centre. The City’s plan is to establish Riverside South as a transit-oriented community will require providing light rail service early in its development to reduce the need for new roads and road widenings, and to require development densities upfront that will be sustained throughout the build-out period in order to justify the investment in transit. As it stands, Riverside South is the least accessible urban community beyond the Greenbelt (in terms of roads and transit).

Based on the recommended primary rapid transit network, the results of supplementary corridor analysis, and the minimum threshold density to support LRT, the 2031 recommended rapid transit is shown in Figure 2.

Responses to Motions Carried out at Council Meeting on 28 May 2008:

Riverside South LRT terminus

Motion: That staff review the option of an LRT terminus more central to the Riverside South community as part of the staging process and report back to Committee and Council in the fall.

The Primary Rapid Transit Network, approved by City Council on 28 May 2008, incorporated the conversion of the existing diesel-powered O-Train service in the North-South corridor to electrically powered LRT extending south to a terminus at Bowesville Station. This line would continue as a bus Transitway corridor from Bowesville Station thorough the Riverside South community and extend west to Barrhaven Town Centre as shown in Figure 1.

The choice of Bowesville Station as the southern terminus of the LRT service was driven by the following considerations:

· It represented the minimum length extension beyond the Greenbelt that would provide the level of service necessary to meet the City’s 2031 transit demands from the southern growth communities of Leitrim and Riverside South.

· A 3000-spot Park and Ride facility has been planned for at Bowesville Station, which was approved as part of the North-South LRT EA study.

· A connection to the preferred location for a rail maintenance and storage facility, which was also approved as part of the North-South LRT EA study.

Following Council direction, the following four stations, as illustrated in Figure 3, were examined as possible locations for terminating the LRT:

Bowesville Station (per approved Primary Rapid Transit Network)
Earl Armstrong Station (located east of the Town Centre)
Main Street Station (located in the Town Centre)
Riverview Station (located west of the Town Centre)

Figure 3: Terminus Locations Considered in Riverside South Community

Each of the four alternative terminus locations were evaluated in terms of surrounding land uses, ridership potential and cost. Detailed evaluation is documented in the report entitled “Review of Alternative LRT Terminus Locations in Riverside South” dated October 2008 (Document 2). Based on the analysis, it is recommended that Main Street Station, located in the Town Centre, be the LRT terminus, as it provides the best opportunity to attract additional riders and promote transit-oriented development within the Riverside South community at an additional cost of $72M ($37M for infrastructure and $35M for extra LRT vehicles).

Streetcar Corridors

Motion: That Council direct staff to include all proposed streetcar corridors as detailed by the international review panel be referred to the TMP update.

The International Peer Review Panel recommended two streetcar corridors: Carling Avenue and Rideau/Montréal corridors. The TMP supplementary corridor analysis supports the inclusion of Carling Avenue as a streetcar corridor for the following reasons:

· Carling Avenue is designated as an Arterial Mainstreet with high potentials for intense redevelopment;

· There is high potential for all day transit demand in both directions by 2031;

· Population within 600m of the corridor the corridor is expected to increase by 140 per cent by 2031, to 66,650 persons;

· Employment within 600 metres of the corridor is expected to increase by 100 per cent by 2031, reaching 67,900 jobs;

· The corridor right-of-way (RoW) width is sufficient to accommodate LRT service.

Therefore, an at-grade LRT facility within dedicated lanes is recommended for Carling Avenue, preferably operating in the median, connecting with the East-West LRT line at Lincoln Fields Station and the North-South LRT line at Carling Station. Choosing LRT technology would help in the transition toward a more dense urban form.

For the Rideau/Montréal corridor, the very high level of existing and future all day transit demand in both directions would suggest implementing an exclusive transit facility in this corridor. However, due to physical constraints (a 23-metre to 30-metre ROW protection for this four-lane undivided arterial), the very high general traffic demand along this east-west arterial road, and the need for on-street parking for local businesses, implementing an exclusive facility along the full corridor would be a costly endeavour with high impacts. All-day bus lanes already exist in both directions from Sussex Drive to Cumberland Street. Continued implementation of the peak-period bus-only lanes, from Cumberland Street to St. Laurent Boulevard is recommended. Considering that the transit demand is balanced in both directions, it is further recommended to implement the bus-only lanes simultaneously in both directions, with increased time of day coverage (6 am-9:30 am and 2:30 pm-6:30 pm) by prohibiting on-street parking during those periods. For the section of Montréal Road connecting to Blair Station, peak period bus lanes in peak direction only are recommended.

Rail Corridors

Motion: That Council direct staff to consider all rail corridors as detailed in the Mayor’s Task Force on Transportation and report back to Committee

The Transitway system was developed after much of the city had taken shape and its corridors have been developed to respond to the location of population and employment centres. Improving service on the Transitway corridors will result in higher ridership, less reliance on automobile travel and a more efficient future transportation network.

In terms of using rail corridors outside the urban area for regional-scale routes serving towns and villages outside Ottawa, the population and travel demand in these outlying communities are at levels that make a commuter bus service the appropriate type of public transportation. Some of the outlying communities are on existing intercity railway lines, and intensification of passenger rail service may be an alternative to commuter bus service in these cases. The City will support intermunicipal travel on public transit by providing park and ride lots connected to the rapid transit network and by working with neighbouring municipalities and private bus companies to integrate their transit operations, whether bus or train, with the OC Transpo system. Within the planning horizon, the City should focus its investment on addressing its transportation problems, which are within the urban boundary and not in rural parts of Ottawa nor in areas outside Ottawa.

However, the City will continue to purchase surplus railway rights-of-way, as they become available, for use as future transportation corridors including rapid transit network expansions beyond the current planning horizon. Consideration will be given to also purchase sufficient lands for potential transit stations along these corridors

Responses to Other Issues (not covered in responses to motions section)

VIA Corridor

The extension of the O-Train and the use of the VIA Rail tracks to provide urban transit service between Fallowfield Station and downtown, either via a transfer at Bayview or at Train Station, was considered. The appeal of this proposal is the availability of a track that could be upgraded and used to provide fast connection and additional capacity to move more commuters into and out of the downtown at a lower operating cost.

The analysis conducted indicates that while agreements can be developed with VIA Rail and CN to use the existing passenger rail corridor out to Fallowfield Station, there are substantial capital costs as well as risk, approval and regulatory issues that need to be overcome. Travel time saving would be minor (between one to three minutes) compared to using the Southwest Transitway. Operational challenges will also limit the ability of the service to respond to ridership. Detailed analysis of the VIA option is included in Document 3.

Western Parkway versus Carling Avenue

It should to be noted that the term “Western Parkway” refers to a rapid transit corridor connecting the Lincoln Fields Station to the Dominion Station, which in turn joins the segment of the West Transitway to Bayview and downtown. Options for this connection include the Ottawa River Parkway, the Byron Corridor and the abandoned rail corridor. Exact location is subject to a future Environmental Assessment Study.

The Western Parkway Corridor and Carling Avenue serve different transit markets and complement each other. The Western Parkway corridor, rather than Carling Avenue, is selected to provide the rapid transit function. Carling Avenue is identified as a transit intensive corridor with light rail running at grade, in dedicated lanes with signal priority at intersections, connecting with the East-West LRT line at Lincoln Fields Station and the North-South LRT line at Carling Station. A summary of the rationale behind these selections is provided below with more details provided in Document 4.

· The Western Parkway corridor is the most direct link from Lincoln Fields Station to the downtown. Transit riders from west and southwest would enjoy a faster trip on the Western Parkway corridor than on Carling corridor even if it is built as a grade-separated facility (13 minutes versus 20 minutes). Using surface LRT on Carling would double the travel time between Lincoln Field and Bayview station (13 minutes versus 26 minutes);

· The Western Parkway corridor serves the second largest employment centre outside of the downtown, i.e. Tunney’s Pasture/Holland Cross employment area. The corridor also serves other important intermediate stops at Dominion and Westboro Stations. These destinations would be missed if the rapid transit service is relocated to Carling Avenue;

· The Western Parkway corridor is considered the best means to achieve the 40 per cent transit modal split goals for the recently approved Richmond Road/Westboro Community Design Plan by providing direct access to rapid transit service;

· Carling Avenue corridor serves an entirely different market – encompassing commercial, institutional and residential land uses along its length. It is designated in the OP as an ‘Arterial Mainstreet’ intended to encourage a range of transit-oriented mixed land uses within a pedestrian-friendly environment. Implementation of some form of a grade-separated rapid transit facility would be counter to the intended pedestrian-friendly nature of a ‘Mainstreet’;

· Implementing a costly, grade-separated rapid transit facility along Carling Avenue, at an estimated cost of $600M, was judged to be an inefficient use of the City’s limited financial resources since a grade-separated facility already exists between Dominion and Bayview ($135M for an LRT corridor on the Western Parkway between Lincoln Fields and Bayview).

· The TMP findings are supported by the International Peer Review Panel in their Final Report which stated that Carling Avenue is appropriate for “Streetcar development”, operating at-grade in the median with signal priority at intersections, to “accelerate urban regeneration in the corridor...”.

Technology Selection

There is a wide range of rapid transit technologies available and they have been applied in a wide range of situations. The technology that will be the most appropriate for the City's rapid transit lines will be influenced in part by the locations of the City's projects. The selection of rapid transit technology for Ottawa should be considered within the range of applications across the city, including the downtown tunnel, converted Transitway segments, new lines in new areas, and possible use on arterial streets.

Rapid transit vehicle technologies are defined by a number of characteristics, the most important of which are:

· Energy source and propulsion system (electricity, diesel fuel, hybrid diesel-electric, or dual-mode)

· Signalling and control system (manual operation versus automated train control)

· Degree of right-of-way separation (mixed, segregated, fully separated)

· Vehicle carbody type (width and length, articulated versus single-body)

· Vehicle floor height (low-floor at curb height versus high-floor over vehicle systems)

Evaluation of the alternative technologies, considering factors such as ridership demand, service characteristics, service performance, service reliability, vehicle acquisition costs, infrastructure construction costs, life-cycle costs, and environmental impacts will be undertaken to recommend the technology or technologies best suited to the needs of the City's rapid transit projects. The results of the technology assessment and a recommended selection will be brought forward to Committee and Council in the second quarter of 2009.

Following the selection of the preferred technology, substantial work will still need to be done in developing technical specifications before a specific vehicle can be selected and a fleet can be procured.

Key Transfer Stations

The 2031 transit network includes both BRT and LRT components that will require bus-to-rail transfers at the following key transit stations:

· Baseline

· Lincoln Fields

· Hurdman

· Blair

The attached “Key Transfer Stations” technical report (Document 5) provides photos and information about the above transfer stations, including the expected 2031 passenger volumes as shown in Table 6 below. The document also highlights several existing stations of similar size and function that are currently operating in other cities, such as the Lougheed and Surrey Central Transfer Stations in Vancouver and Calgary’s Southland and 61st Street Transfer Stations.

Table 6: Future 2031 Transfer Stations (AM peak hour; 2031 ridership)

	Baseline	Lincoln Fields	Hurdman	Blair
LRT Boarding / hr	1480	180	200	540
LRT Alighting / hr	1140	80	200	270
BRT/LRT Transfer / hr	3960	2640	4700	8580
Bus/Bus Transfer / hr	980	1300	3200	2040
Bus Boarding / hr	690	60	200	260
Bus Alighting/hr	820	70	100	240
Total passengers serviced / hr	9,090	4,300	8,600	11,930
Bus Bays	6	8	6	10
Bus Layup Bays	12	19	16	21

Development of the Alternative Staging Scenarios:

Key considerations in developing Phase 1 of all staging scenarios:

Since it is not possible to build the entire rapid transit network at the same time, four different scenarios are developed that attempt to balance the transit improvements in communities across the city. For example, Phase 1 in Scenario 1 included Transitway and O-Train improvements in the west and south with LRT construction in the east. However, there are minimum elements that are identified as necessary for a practical first phase of all staging scenarios. These elements are:

· Downtown tunnel - urgently needed to expand the capacity of the downtown core to accommodate growth;

· Access to rail maintenance facility

· Appropriate multi-modal transfer stations that are able to accommodate high volume of buses and transit riders

· Basic infrastructure to support staging and minimize disruption to transit customers

Description of the different phases of the four scenarios are summarized in Table 7 with the first phase of the four scenarios illustrated as Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7.

Table 7: Summary of Phasing Scenarios

Scenario

Phase1

Phase 2

Phase 3

1. Tunnel and LRT East

LRT

· Blair - Tunney’s Pasture

· St. Laurent Rail Yard

Transitway

· Hospital link (Lycée Claudel - Innes)

· Blair (Blair Station - Innes)

· West (Eagleson – Scotiabank Place)

O-Train Extension (Greenboro – Leitrim)

LRT

· Tunney’s Pasture-Baseline

Transitway

· West (Lincoln Fields – Pinecrest)

· Cumberland (Navan - Millennium)

· Innes Road/Blackburn to Cumberland Transitway.

Supplementary transit

· Baseline (Baseline - Confederation)

LRT

· North-South link including Airport

· Bowesville LRT Yard

Transitway

· Southwest (Norice - Hunt Club if required)

Supplementary transit

· Carling LRT

· Heron, Walkley, Russell and St. Laurent South

· Baseline (Bayshore - Baseline)

2. Tunnel and LRT West

LRT

· Baseline - St. Laurent

· St. Laurent Rail Yard

Transitway

· West (Pinecrest - Lincoln Fields)

· Hospital link (Lycée Claudel - Innes)

· Blair (Blair Station - Innes)

· Cumberland (Navan - Millennium)

· Innes Road/Blackburn to Cumberland Transitway

O-Train Extension (Greenboro – Leitrim)

LRT

· St. Laurent - Blair

Transitway

· West (Eagleson - Scotiabank Place)

Supplementary transit

· Baseline (Baseline - Confederation)

LRT

· North-South link including Airport

Transitway

· Southwest (Norice - Hunt Club if required)

Supplementary transit

· Carling LRT

· Baseline (Baseline - Bayshore)

· Heron, Walkley, Russell and St. Laurent South

3. Tunnel and LRT East and South

LRT

· Blair - Tunney’s Pasture

· North-South link including Airport

· LRT yard at Bowesville

Transitway

· West (Eagleson - Scotiabank Place)

· Cumberland (Navan - Millennium)

· Hospital link (Lycée Claudel - Innes)

· Blair (Blair Station - Innes)

· Innes Road/Blackburn to Cumberland Transitway.

LRT

· Tunney’s Pasture to Baseline

Transitway

· West( Lincoln Fields - Pinecrest)

Supplementary transit

· Baseline (Baseline - Confederation)

Transitway

· Southwest (Norice - Hunt Club if required)

Supplementary transit

· Carling LRT

· Heron, Walkley, Russell and St. Laurent South

· Baseline (Baseline - Bayshore)

Scenario

Phase1

Phase 2

Phase 3

Scenario 4

Tunnel and LRT East and West

LRT

· Blair to Baseline

· LRT yard at St. Laurent

Transitway

· Hospital link (Lycée Claudel - Innes)

· Blair (Blair Station - Innes)

· West (Pinecrest - Lincoln Fields)

O-Train extension (Greenboro – Leitrim)

Transitway

· West (Eagleson - Scotiabank Place)

· Cumberland (Navan - Millennium)

· Innes Road/Blackburn to Cumberland Transitway.

Supplementary transit

· Baseline (Baseline - Confederation)

LRT

· North-South link including Airport

· Bowesville LRT yard

Transitway

· Southwest (Norice - Hunt Club if required)

Supplementary transit

· Carling LRT

· Heron, Walkley, Russell and St. Laurent South

· Baseline (Baseline - Bayshore)

Notes:

Phase 1 of all scenarios include SW Transitway links from Baseline to Norris and from Fallowfield to Barrhaven Town Centres as well as West Transitway section between Bayshore and Moodie.
Phase 4 of each scenario is the same: it sees rapid transit services extended further into Kanata North, Stittsville, Orléans North, and Barrhaven South

The four scenarios summarized in the previous table would all result in the same transit system by 2031. However, the different phasing for the scenarios means that each phasing provides a different level of benefit, has different costs and different levels of risk associated with it. A detailed summary of the costs, implications, risks and benefits for each phase of each scenario is provided as Appendix A of Document 4 entitled Phasing of TMP Transit Network.

Evaluation of the Alternative Staging Scenarios

Since the four scenarios would all result in the same transit system by 2031, the approach that has been taken is to base the evaluation of these scenarios on Phase 1 to determine which one accomplishes the City’s objectives first. The evaluation criteria used, as listed in Table 8, are grouped into eight major categories:

Ridership
Cost effectiveness
Benefit to customers
Benefit to the environment
Reduces downtown bus congestion
Supports a compact transit city
Ease of implementation
Approved Council direction

Detailed description and estimates of the evaluation criteria are included in Appendices B and C of Document 6 (Phasing of TMP Transit Network). It is important to note that these estimates were developed based on broad assumptions to provide a basis for comparing the four scenarios and their absolute values should not be used for more detailed analysis.

Table 8: Evaluation Criteria

Category	Objective	Criteria
Ridership	To achieve early growth in ridership	· Estimate of total system ridership
Cost effectiveness	To maximize the number of passenger-kilometres served for the investments in capital and operating dollars.	· Capital Cost per passenger-km · Operating Cost per passenger-km · Operating Cost Savings
Benefit to Customers	To create an efficient, convenient, reliable and comfortable transit system	· Travel Time Savings · Increased Reliability · Quality of Ride · Convenient Access to Rapid Transit
Benefit to the Environment	To minimize negative impacts on the environment	· GHG reductions from transit system (CO2) · Emission reductions from transit system (PM)
Reduction of Downtown Congestion	To reduce downtown traffic congestion and impact of buses	· Buses removed from Albert and Slater
Supports a Compact Transit City	To maximize the potential of the transit infrastructure to encourage transit-supportive development	· Number of mix use centres and key employment / commercial areas served by rapid transit · Number of key sites with potential for development or intensification · Percentage of new Phase 1 Rapid Transit Infrastructure located inside greenbelt
Ease of Implementation	To expedite implementation while minimizing disruptions to customers	· Early LRT implementation · Length of BRT network that can be implemented before tunnel · Degree of change to current services during construction · Availability of a Rail Yard
Approved Council directions	To fulfill Council’s direction regarding rapid transit infrastructure	· Completion of the Transitway by 2015 · Construction of the downtown tunnel · Implementation of rapid transit using the Cumberland Transitway alignment · Implementation of the LRT to the South-eastern growth area · Improvement in revenue/cost ratio

The estimates and summary of the evaluation criteria for the four scenarios are shown in Tables 9 and 10.

Table 9: Evaluation of Phasing Scenarios

Evaluation Criteria	Scenario
Evaluation Criteria	1 LRT East	2 LRT West	3 LRT East and South	4 LRT East and West
Ridership
System ridership estimate	131 M	137 M	147 M	152 M
Cost Effectiveness
Capital Cost per passenger-km	$0.49	$0.36	$0.44	$0.29
Operating cost per passenger-km	$0.27	$0.25	$0.23	$0.21
Operating cost savings	$ 375 M	$ 430 M	$ 563 M	$ 810 M
Benefit to Customers
Travel Time Savings (hours)	13.2	11.6	14.5	14.4
Increased Reliability	18%	25%	23%	32%
Quality of Ride	11%	17%	13%	25%
Convenient Access	15	14	29	11
Benefit to the Environment
GHG reductions from transit system (Tonnes of CO2)	153,000	202,000	213,000	306,000
Emission reductions from transit system (Tonnes of particulate matter)	20	28	29	40
Reduces Downtown Bus Congestion
Buses removed from Albert / Slater	40%	20%	45%	90%
Supports a Compact Transit City (Smart Growth)
Number of mixed-use centres and key employment/ commercial areas served by Rapid Transit infrastructure	17	20	26	20
Number of key sites with potential for development or intensification	18	13	27	20
Percentage of new Phase 1 Rapid Transit infrastructure (length) located inside the Greenbelt	66%	55%	44%	84%



Ease of Implementation
Early LRT implementation	O-Train Bayview to Leitrim	O-Train Bayview to Leitrim	LRT Bayview to Riverside TC	O-Train Bayview to Leitrim
Length (in km) of BRT network that can be implemented before tunnel implementation	20.7	24.1	34.0	17.1
Degree of change to current service during construction	bypass of VIA and St. Laurent during conversion	bypass of VIA and St. Laurent during conversion	bypass of VIA, St. Laurent and O-Train Shutdown	bypass of VIA and St Laurent during conversion
Availability of rail yard	No approved site	No approved site	Approved at Bowesville	No approved site
Approved Council Direction
Completion of the Transitway by 2015 (% of remaining Transitway implemented)	33%	38%	54%	27%
Construction of the downtown transit tunnel	ü	ü	ü	ü
Implementation of Rapid Transit using the Cumberland Transitway alignment	x	ü	ü	x
Implementation of the LRT to the South-eastern growth area	x	x	ü	x
Improvement in revenue/cost ratio to achieve 50/50 split	-3%	+3%	+5%	+10%

Note: estimates are based on 2031 planning horizon.

Table 10: Summary of Phase 1 Evaluation

Evaluation Category	Scenario
	1	2	3	4
	LRT East	LRT West	LRT East and South	LRT East and West
Ridership
Cost Effectiveness
Benefit to Customers
Benefit to the Environment
Reduces Downtown Bus Congestion
Supports a Compact Transit City
Ease of Implementation
Approved Council Direction

Achieves Few Objectives Achieves Some Objectives Achieves More Objectives

Summary of public feedback on rapid transit implementation

1) In terms of evaluation criteria, most people selected ‘Ridership’ (21 per cent) as the most important evaluation criterion to assess the transit scenarios, closely followed by ‘Benefits to the Customers’ (19 percent), ‘Benefits to the Environment’ (18 per cent), ‘Cost Effectiveness’ (17 per cent), ‘Reduction of Downtown Bus Congestion’ (15 per cent), ‘Support a Compact City’ (6 per cent) and ‘Ease of Implementation (4 per cent). No one selected “Adherence to Council Directions’ as an important transit scenario evaluation criterion.

2) In terms of preferred implementation scenarios, although the majority of written submissions indicated a preference for Scenario 4 (58%) followed by Scenario 3 (22%), many people indicated a preference for having both together. This was evident in the many discussion groups, agency meetings and focus group sessions where participants had more flexibility to articulate their preferences compared to the structured format of the comment sheet that was used to gather written submissions. Similarly, although significantly fewer written submissions supported Scenario 1 (10%) many people mentioned that Scenario 1 is a logical first step before completing Scenarios 3 or 4. Very few people indicated Scenario 2 (5%) as their preferred scenario, while a small number did not favour any of the proposed scenarios (5%).

Operational Analysis

Building on the technical evaluation and feedback received from the public, further analysis was undertaken to evaluate the operational benefits of the various sections of the rapid transit network (Document 7). The objective of the analysis is to help select the best combination of transit projects to form phase 1 of the rapid transit implementation. The operational review focused on the operating cost saving (representing return on investment) and benefits to customers from the capital investment in each section. Summary of the analysis is shown in Table 11. The higher the values of return on investment and benefit to customers, the better the performance of the section.

Table 11: Summary of Return on Investment and Benefits to Customers from the capital investment in the various sections of the rapid transit network.

Section	Capital Cost ($M)	Operating Savings ($M)	Operation. Saving / Capital Cost (x100)	Performance/ Investment (Passenger KM / Capital Cost)
LRT Blair – Tunney's Pasture	227	9.6	4.3	1.31
LRT Tunney's Pasture – Baseline	194	5	2.6	0.9
LRT Bayview – Riverside South TC	423	4	1.0	0.22
LRT Airport Connection	75	increase 0.8	N/A	0.01
O-Train Greenboro – Leitrim	45	increase 0.2	N/A	0.11
BRT Southwest Transitway, Fallowfield – Barrhaven TC	46	1.7	3.7	0.47
BRT Southwest Transitway, Baseline – Norice	185	0.5	0.3	0.05
BRT Hospital Transitway, Lycée Claudel – Blair/Innes	88	3.7	4.3	0.47
BRT Cumberland Transitway, Navan – Millennium	64	3.3	5.2	0.38
Blackburn Bypass Bus Lanes, Blair/Innes - Navan	20	2	9.9	2.61
BRT West Transitway, Southwest – Pinecrest Transitway	171	2.7	1.6	0.15
BRT West Transitway, Bayshore – Moodie	18	1.9	10.7	1.65
BRT West Transitway, Eagleson – Scotiabank Pace	79	0.7	0.9	0.16

* Ridership levels on parallel facilities are sensitive to transit planning decisions

Further Examination of Scenario 3 an 4 Corridors and Phasing Recommendations

Examining the results of the evaluation criteria, operational review and public feedback, it was clear that phases 1 of both Scenarios 3 and 4 have merits. The two scenarios were examined closely and the following points can be made:

1. LRT from Blair to Tunney’s Pasture is common to both scenarios and ranks very high in terms of both return on investment and passenger benefits. It is also required to be in place by 2018 to avoid restricting the capacity of the transit network. It is recommended for inclusion in Phase 1.

2. The Hospital Link BRT is common to both scenarios and in addition to providing high quality service to the Ottawa Hospital campus; it was selected to provide an alternative Transitway route between Blair and Hurdman Station during the conversion of the East Transitway to rail. However, recent discussion with MTO indicated that arrangement could be made to use the additional lanes of the Queensway, to be built in the next few years, on a temporary basis for transit during the conversion. Therefore, the timing for this project could be deferred to Phase 2 to coincide with the future redevelopment of the former National Defence Medical Centre (NDMC) lands.

3. LRT from Tunny’s Pasture to Baseline Station has a high benefit to customers and is needed to remove the majority of the remaining buses on Albert and Slater, which takes full advantage of the tunnel investment. Even recognizing potential timing constraints associated with planning work and obtaining required approval, this section is recommended for inclusion in Phase 1.

4. The West Transitway from Pinecrest to the Southwest Transitway (shown only as a phase 1 in Scenario 4), due to its high cost, ranks low in terms of both return on investment and passenger benefits. For this reason it is recommended for deferral to Phase 2.

5. The O-Train extension from Greenboro to Leitrim (shown only as a phase 1 in Scenario 4) ranks low in terms of passenger benefits and will yield an increase in operating cost. Therefore, it is not recommended for implementation.

6. The Conversion of the O-Train to LRT and extending it to Riverside South (shown only as a phase 1 in Scenario 3) has a better passenger benefit than the O-Train extension and completes the LRT component of the rapid transit network. Therefore it is recommended for inclusion in Phase 1. An LRT link to the airport ranks low in terms of both return on investment and passenger benefits and is recommended for deferral to Phase 2.

7. Cumberland Transitway between Navan to Millennium ranks high in terms of return of investment and therefore it recommended for inclusion in Phase 1.

8. Innes Road/Blackburn from Navan to Blair Station scores very high in the operational review and is recommended for inclusion in Phase 1.

9. West Transitway from Bayshore to Moodie is the highest performing corridor in terms of return on investment and the second highest in terms of benefits to customers. Therefore, it is recommended for inclusion in Phase 1.

10. West Transitway from Eagleson to Scotiabank Place and Southwest Transitway from Fallowfield to Barrhaven Town Centre will help the development of transit-oriented developments. Southwest Transitway extension will help resolve the Park and Ride congestion at Fallowfield by providing high-quality service to the Strandherd Park and Ride Lot. Both sections are recommended to be included in Phase 1.

11. Southwest Transitway from Baseline to Norris: although it does not score high in the operational review, it will act as a catalyst to facilitate the development of the Centrepointe Town Centre and the expansion of the Algonquin College and therefore it is recommended for inclusion in Phase 1.

12. The remaining Transitway extensions and transit-intensive corridors are recommended for inclusion in Phase 2.

Based on the above points, staff recommended Phases 1 and 2 for implementation are shown in Figures 8 and 12. Phase 1 projects balance the need for efficient system with strategic city-building objectives.

Given the cost of Phase 1 ($3B), and to provide realistic investment packages, it is proposed that Phase 1 be implemented incrementally as follows:

Increment 1

Both the tunnel and the LRT from Blair to Tunney’s Pasture are required for system capacity reasons by 2018 and these should, therefore, both be included in the first construction increment.

The introduction of LRT will require the construction of a rail maintenance facility in the east end. A new bridge over Rideau River and Lees Avenue (Nicholas Connection) will be required from Hurdman to Nicholas to provide continuous Transitway service from the Southeast Transitway to downtown during the conversion of the East Transitway to LRT.

It is also recommended to include in Wave 1 the BRT sections from Fallowfield to Barrhaven Town Centre and from Moodie Drive to Bayshore to address current operational concerns. Although the BRT section from Baseline to Norice does not score high in the operational review, it is seen as a catalyst the development of the Centrepointe Town Centre and the expansion of the Algonquin College.

The BRT (or bus lanes) from Navan to Blair Station score very high in the operational review and is recommended to be included in the first wave.

Increment 2

The LRT from Tunney’s Pasture to Baseline Station is recommended be built as the next priority to fully address the downtown bus congestion. It scores high in the overall evaluation and the operational review. Only the section of the N-S LRT from Bayview to South Keys is recommended in this wave since it provides a catalyst for development opportunities that were identified as part of the North-South LRT project. These include development at Carleton University, Walkley Road and Gladstone Avenue. Building the LRT south from Bayview would also allow the development of the area in the vicinity of Bayview Station to move ahead with Bayview in its final configuration. Converting the O-Train to LRT in early phases avoids disruption of service to a greater number of transit riders than if it were to be left to later phases.

This increment sees the completion of the rail network inside the Greenbelt and is consistent with the International Peer Review recommendations.

Increment 3

Will include the extension of the N-S LRT to Riverside South to help shape development in this area. At this stage, the extension does not include an airport connection. This increment will also include BRT extension to Orléans and Kanata (Cumberland Twy from Navan to Millennium and West Twy from Eagleson to Scotia Bank Place)

The Cumberland Transitway scores high in the operational review and also should be considered as a part of this increment.

A summary of the proposed implementation priority is summarized in Table 12 and illustrated as Figures 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12.

Table 12: Summary of proposed implementation Priority

Phase #	Increment #	Sections included	Cost ($M)
Phase 1	Increment 1	LRT · Tunnel · Blair – Tunney’s Pasture · Rail yard · LRT Vehicles	600 227 100 390
		BRT · Fallowfield to Strandherd · Baseline – Norice · Bayshore – Moodie · Blair – Innes Road · Innes Road/Blackburn to Cumberland Transitway	46 185 18 24 20
		Supplementary · Strandherd Drive – Rideau River to Woodroffe Park and Ride (includes bus lanes on Strandherd/Armstrong bridge) · Woodroffe Avenue – transit priority measures from Woodroffe Park and Ride to Fallowfield Park and Ride	28 2
		Other · Nicholas Connection (new bridge over Rideau River and Lees Avenue)	40
		TOTAL	1,680
	Increment 2	LRT · Tunney’s Pasture – Baseline · Bayview – South Keys · LRT Vehicles	194 250 500
	Increment 2	TOTAL	944
	Increment 3	LRT · South Keys – Riverside South Town Centre · LRT Vehicles	173 90
		BRT · Navan - Millennium · Eagleson – Scotiabank Place	64 79
		TOTAL	406
TOTAL Phase 1			3,030
Phase 2		LRT · Airport Connection · 2^nd Rail Yard	75 100
		BRT · Lincoln Fields – Pinecrest · Norice to Hunt Club · Eagleson – Klondike · Scotiabank Place - Fernbank · Riverside South TC - Barrhaven TC · Barrhaven TC - Cambrian · Lycée Claudel - Innes/Blair · Place D’Orléans - Trim	171 79 53 35 71 24 88 107
		Supplementary · Carling LRT · LRT Vehicles · Baseline (Bayshore - Baseline) · Baseline (Baseline - Confederation) · Heron, Walkley, Russell and St Laurent South	250 75 36 90 65
TOTAL Phase 2			1,319
As Needed	Buses Required	· 2 Bus Maintenance Facilities @ $60M each · Bus Vehicles	120 378
As Needed	Transit Priority	· See report entitled “Development of the Supplementary Transit Network” October 2008	260
Total			5,107

Risk Assessment

On 28 May 2008 Council passed a motion to commission a qualified professional to prepare a financial risk assessment of approved network plan. Specifically, Council requested that the study assess the risks related to the construction of an underground tunnel, and the risks associated with not obtaining permission to use the Ottawa River Parkway.

The purpose of a risk assessment is to identify and quantify the major risks related to a program or project. It is made up of two key aspects; risk likelihood and impact of occurrence. A risk assessment can be carried out at the planning stage (as for the TMP), during preliminary engineering, as part of final design, and prior to construction. Objectives and outcomes of a plan-level risk assessment are summarized in Table 13.

Table 13: Planning Stage Risk Assessment (US Department of Transportation, 2006)

Status

Typical Risk Issue

Objectives For Risk Assessment

Expected Outcomes

· Focus is on general alignment and mode

· Project details not defined; environmental reviews incomplete

· Funding possibly not committed

· Public support uncertain

· Fatal or significant environmental economic impacts

· Funding uncertainty

· Uncertain political and public support

· Competing interests and competing projects

· Identify implementation challenges - political, public acceptance, approvals

· Establish order of magnitude costs by option

· Identify major design and construction risks

· Better understanding of environmental, engineering, and construction issues facing each project alternative

· Order of magnitude risk costs and possible total cost range for each option

Methodology and Scope

The assessment evaluated the entire Rapid Transit Network and Supplementary Transit Corridors, as presented for public review on 11 September 2008. It began with a team of engineers and City staff who developed a risk register to categorize, describe and score potential risks. Next, an analysis of the $4.7 billion cost estimate was undertaken. To conclude, the assessment outlines a series of key mitigation strategies aimed at managing cost and scheduling risks. A full copy of the risk assessment has been attached to this report as Document 8.

Risk Assessment Summary

The consultant assessed the top risks associated with the proposed Rapid Transit Network, including the downtown tunnel and Ottawa River Parkway corridor. Below is a summary of risks that if left unmitigated could potentially increase the cost of the program.

· Difficulty securing bids because the cancellation of the former light rail transit project. Or fewer bids as a result of the large number of transit projects occurring worldwide.

· Scope change and the tendency to expand the project scope, for example, more elaborate station design, environmental remediation, and requirements for additional cut and cover sections.

· Financial circumstances, such as construction inflation and currency exchange rate.

· Ability to obtain approval from the National Capital Commission to use the Ottawa River Parkway and the cost of alternatives.

· Station excavation and tunnelling may result in increased costs to address geotechnical challenges. This may require a more expensive Earth Pressure Balanced Tunnel Boring Machine and mining techniques for stations.

· A number of technical issues, such as poor soils, avoidance of utilities and hydro lines impacted by proposed routes could result in additional costs.

· More restrictive controls, for example, regulatory issues regarding carbon reductions will likely emerge over the life of the program.

· Cost of suitable staging options to maintain bus rapid transit service during conversion of transitway to light rail transit, and cost of a suitable maintenance facility site.

Tunnel and Ottawa River Parkway

In response to the Council Motion, a summary of the key findings associated with tunnel construction and the Ottawa River Parkway has been provided.

Downtown Tunnel

· Risk 1: A complex, high-cost feature of the plan that requires specialized technology and expertise not often applied in Ottawa.

· Risk 2: Location of station entrances has not been defined. Also connecting passages may be longer and more complex to build than anticipated.

· Risk 3: The alignment of the tunnel has not been determined.

· Risk 4: Tunnel corridor crosses three fault lines, potentially requiring significant ground improvement measures to stop ground water inflows.

· Risk Prevention: Depth of tunnel and selection of boring equipment may add initial costs but reduce certain risks.

· Risk Prevention: Improved ability to minimize downtown disruptions during construction when compared to surface operation, since disruption at surface level will mainly be to build access stations.

· Risk Prevention: A Planning Environmental Assessment study already underway.

Ottawa River Parkway Corridor

· Risk 1: Requires National Capital Commission approval for use of the Parkway as a light rail transit corridor.

· Risk 2: Public opposition surrounding Parkway proposal, augmented by the absence of a detailed design scheme showing project integration.

· Risk 3: Risk: The alternative use of Byron Avenue is more expensive, requires some land acquisition, and will also face substantial opposition from the local community.

· Risk 4: The other possible alternative, a grade-separated light rail transit system along Carling Avenue with continued bus service along the Parkway to serve Tunney’s Pasture is the most expensive alternative. Carling Avenue also serves local transit needs, therefore the wide station spacing required to supply fast through service on a grade-separated system makes this a less suitable alternative.

· Risk Prevention: Light rail transit to the west will not proceed until alignment is established, Environmental Assessment completed, and land rights obtained. Conducting the environmental assessment as soon as possible will allow informed discussion of alternatives. The process should include full involvement of the NCC and a community engagement strategy to obtain ensure participation of stakeholders.

Risk Adjusted Cost Analysis

The basic cost estimating approach used to develop the $4.7 billion estimate was found to be sound and appropriate, although it was not designed to include contingencies for all of the risks identified in the assessment. For example, the original cost estimates apply to the project as described, while the risk analysis considers the potential that the project may change. The original estimates assume the cost of construction and vehicles will be the same as it was in the past, while the risk analysis considers the potential impact of market conditions, fluctuating exchange rates and potential changes in economic circumstances, as well as the need to maintain service during light rail conversion. Taking into account all of these additional factors, and the uncertainty of the risks occurring, total project costs have a 50 per cent chance of being 10 per cent higher than the estimate, and could vary above or below this figure depending upon which risks occur and which are well controlled.

It is early in the planning process so the risk adjusted cost range is relatively wide. As the mitigation measures are applied, and as the design of the network proceeds, the range between the low and high-risk adjusted prices will narrow. Mitigation measures can have two effects, they can eliminate a risk (for example, achieving delegation of Transport Canada’s regulatory authority), or they can insure against or transfer risks (for example, using the more expensive tunnel-boring machine to reduce the risk of problems during tunnel construction). It has been determined that many of the risks identified through the analysis (in particular risks related to project scope creep, program phasing, and certain technical risks) are largely within the control of the City.

Recommended Actions

Some of the recommended actions that should be undertaken by the City in the short-term to help mitigate potential risk include:

1. Establish project phasing. The first light rail transit project has to be sustainable and therefore must include the downtown transit tunnel, an east maintenance yard, and one segment of the light rail transit (east, west, or south). The project must attract significant ridership and be supported by the funding partners.

2. Initiate discussions with the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities/Canadian Transportation Agency to seek delegated authority for railway regulation requirements, and identify the regulation approach that will be employed by the City.

3. Seek Federal and Provincial approval of the program as a whole, the phasing, and the financial plan. Seek agreement to either 1) fund a smaller package of projects that can be completed by 2014 in the context that the City will be looking for a larger share from next funding envelope to support the first phase of light rail transit, or 2) extend the completion deadline for funding and combine existing the $400M commitment with additional funds to get enough funding for the first light rail transit project.

4. Conduct the Environmental Assessment for the western corridor light rail transit line at an early date, with a mandate to fully consider the Ottawa Parkway and Byron Avenue alignments. Process should include a community engagement strategy to obtain buy-in from stakeholders, and identify ways to integrate the facility into the surrounding area and reduce the perceived negative impacts. Carling Avenue option will be raised and should be discussed, including rationale for excluding this route, to help participants understand the options and rationale for the approach.

5. Examine a range of light rail transit procurement and contracting options and approaches and determine the go-forward strategy early. The strategy should respond to market concerns about cancellation, should consider provincial requirements related to Infrastructure Ontario, and outline the best approach to mitigate technical risks.

Conclusion

The assessment suggests that most of the risks highlighted in relation to the plan are capable of being mitigated; in fact the City is already undertaking a number of the consultant's key recommendations. In these early planning stages the City must prepare to undertake a series of mitigation strategies identified through the assessment to help reduce the potential for risk, for instance scope creep and the desire to elevate station design beyond what’s practical and affordable. The City should also develop an implementation strategy, which includes project phasing and a procurement plan. Alternative financing and procurement (AFP) will provide the City with an opportunity to transfer risk to those who are most capable of handling them.

Roads

Road Infrastructure Requirements

Over the lifetime of the TMP, the road network is expected to function in accordance with Council’s operational policies and standards to provide transportation services to existing and future population in an efficient and effective manner. Despite the substantial projected increase in transit usage, there will also be an increase in demand for automobile trips. Therefore, following the identification of the transit system requirements to 2031 necessary to achieve a 30 per cent City-wide peak hour transit modal split, a complementary road network to accommodate the residual demand was identified.

Projected travel demand indicated that while population and employment are projected to increase by 30 per cent and 35 per cent respectively, overall person trips by automobile are projected to increase by only 19 per cent and 25 per cent in the afternoon and morning peak hours respectively. These percentages reflect the greater share of travel by transit and represent the return on the investment in the City’s rapid transit strategy.

The overall projected automobile-based person trips were assigned to road network to estimate the resultant road capacity deficiencies. The analysis was conducted at a strategic screenline level to determine future base road network requirements. Table 14 summarizes the projected travel demand at major screenlines during morning peak hour in the peak direction. Despite the substantial increases in the role of transit, there will be higher traffic volumes in almost every major travel corridor during the morning peak hour.

General assumption:

· Achieving 26 per cent transit modal share (30 per cent modal split target)

· Achieving 12 per cent walking and cycling target

· Vehicle occupancy rate of 1.2 (despite decreasing trend)

· Acceptable volume to capacity ratio of 0.9 (1.00 inside the core)

The base requirements were augmented to considering additional needs such as addressing localized development needs and existing traffic operational issues as well as providing network continuity.

Table 14: Projected Travel Demand – Screenlines

(Morning peak hour, peak direction, person-trips by motorized modes)

Screenline	Total Demand		% Growth			Transit Modal Split
	Base year	2031	Total	Auto	Transit	Base year	2031
	Base year	2031	Total	Auto	Transit	Base year	2031
Rideau River	32,250	41,150	28%	4%	62%	41%	52%
CPR	25,200	34,200	44%	4%	90%	37%	51%
*Total: Inner Area Cordon*	*57,450*	*75,350*	*31%*	4%	*74%*	*39%*	*51%*
Green’s Creek	17,300	19,500	13%	-2%	40%	35%	43%
417 East	3,600	4,900	36%	36%	0%	0%	0%
Leitrim	4,400	9,100	107%	62%	1050%	5%	25%
Fallowfield	11,300	16,400	45%	23%	153%	17%	29%
Eagleson	13,000	19,700	52%	32%	113%	24%	34%
*Total: Greenbelt Cordon*	*49,600*	*69,600*	*40%*	*24%*	*97%*	*23%*	*32%*
Interprovincial	19,300	27,600	43%	11%	132%	26%	43%
CNR West	13,800	18,000	30%	11%	104%	21%	33%
CNR East	12,300	16,100	31%	12%	82%	27%	37%
Western Parkway	23,400	28,800	23%	4%	88%	22%	34%
Terry Fox	6,000	11,700	95%	66%	500%	7%	21%
Rideau South	8,000	11,900	49%	30%	200%	11	23%
Bilberry Creek	10,700	12,900	21%	15%	31%	35%	40%
Smyth / Hydro	7,900	10,300	30%	28%	33%	54%	55%

Road Infrastructure Phasing

· New road links without which imminent planned growth can not occur, e.g., Blackburn Hamlet Bypass Extension;

· Widening existing arterials which are required to service known development proposals, e.g. Hazeldean Road widening from Terry Fox to Iber;

· Widening existing arterials, which have been at capacity for sometime, e.g. Limebank Road widening from Riverside Drive to Earl Armstrong Road; and

· Approved Council priorities, i.e. Terry Fox extension from Goulbourn Forced Road to South of Richardson Side Road, and Strandherd/Armstrong Bridge.

Project priorities in the second and third phases were identified based on projected future growth rate.

Listing of all road network requirements and phasing are included in Table 15 of this report and also in Table 8.4, Annex B and Maps 10a, 10b, and 10c of the TMP document. The vast majority of future arterial needs are located within the suburban growth centres and through the Greenbelt leading to/from these centres, as opposed to inside the Greenbelt.

It is important to note that the road network analysis assumes that all of the identified/required transit infrastructure is in place, and that the 30 per cent City-wide peak hour transit modal split is achieved. If this does not occur, there will be a need for additional road widening or new road links not identified/recommended in the TMP.

As a result of the updated screenline analysis, several road projects previously identified in the 2003 TMP are no longer required and very few new projects have been added. Tables 7-3 and 7‑4 of Document 9, list road projects recommended for deletion or addition from/to the 2003 TMP.

Table 15: Recommended Implementation Phasing of the Road Projects

PHASE #	SECTOR	PROJECT	DESCRIPTION	COST ($M)
Phase1	East	Belcourt Boulevard and Mer Bleue Road Connection	- Widen to four lanes (Innes to Renaud) - New four-lane collector (Belcourt to Mer Bleue)	23.7
		Blackburn Hamlet Bypass Extension	New two-lane road (Navan to Tenth Line and Portobello to Trim)	36.3
		Mer Bleue Road	Widen to four lanes (Innes to South of Renaud)	24.1
		Ottawa Road 174	Widen from five to six lanes (Blair to split )	7.0
		Portobello Boulevard	Widen to four-lane (Charest Way to BBHBP Ext.)	14.5
		Trim Road	Widen to four lanes (174 to BBHBP Ext)	47.5
	South-East	Alta Vista Transportation Corridor	New two-lane road (Riverside to Hospital Ring Rd.)	65.0
		Earl Armstrong Road	Widen to four lanes (River Rd. to Limebank)	33.0
		Hunt Club Road Extension	New two-lane road with interchange (Hawthorne to 417E)	58.4
		Limebank Road	Widen to four lanes (River Rd to Earl Armstrong)	53.0
		Riverside Drive	Widen to four lanes (Hunt Club to Limebank)	13.0
		Spratt Road Extension	New two-lane collector road (Limebank to Bowesville)	11.9
		Strandherd – Earl Armstrong Bridge	New six lane bridge (four general purpose plus two transit lanes)	48.0
	South-West	Chapman Mills Drive	New four-lane collector road (Strandherd to Woodroffe)	30.5
		Greenbank Road	Widen to four lanes (Malvern to Strandherd)	14.0
		Jockvale / Longfields / River	New four-lane road and Jock River Bridge Twinning (Strandherd to south of Jock River)	19.7
		Longfields Drive Extension	New two-lane collector road (Woodroffe to South Pointe Business Park)	14.0
		Strandherd Drive	New six-lane road (Woodroffe to Prince of Wales)	23.5
	West	Campeau Drive	- Widen to four lanes ((Kanata Avenue to Didsbury) - New four-lane road (Didsbury to Huntmar Drive)	34.0
		Country Club / Jinkinson Road	New two-lane collector road (Jinkinson to Country Club Subdivision)	2.0
		Goulbourn Forced Road Realignment	New two-lane collector road (Kanata to Terry Fox)	12.6
		Hazeldean Road	Widen to four lanes (Terry Fox to Iber Road)	21.6
		Hope Side Road / Crown Ridge Road	New two-lane road including Crown Ridge Road completion (Richmond to Moodie location tbd)	8.9
		Kanata Avenue	Upgrade existing two lanes (Goulbourn Forced to Old Richardson Side)	4.5
		Terry Fox Drive	New two-lane road (Richardson Side to Goulbourn Forced)	45.0
	TOTAL PHASE 1 PROJECTS			665.7

Table 15: Recommended Implementation Phasing of the Road Projects (continued)

PHASE #	SECTOR	PROJECT	DESCRIPTION	COST ($M)
Phase2	East	Belcourt Boulevard	New four-lane road (Renaud to Navan)	15.0
		Blackburn Hamlet Bypass Extension	New four-lane road (BBHBP to Navan at Hydro Corridor)	17.5
		Frank Kenny Road Extension	New four-lane road (Realigned Trim to Innes)	27.4
		Mer Bleue Road	New four-lane road (South of Renaud to Navan)	16.9
		Navan Road	Widen to four lanes (BBHBP Extension to Mer Bleue)	35.0
		Ottawa Road 174	Widen to six lanes (Blair to Jeanne d’Arc)	28.9
		St. Joseph Boulevard	Widen to four lanes (East of Tenth Line to Dairy)	12.5
		Tenth Line Road	Widen to four lanes (Vanguard to Urban Boundary)	19.0
		Innes – Walkley – Hunt Club Link	New two-lane road (Innes to Highway 417 East)	14.0
	South-East	Airport Parkway	Widen to four lanes (Brookfield to Airport)	37.1
		Alta Vista Transportation Corridor	New two/four lane road (Highway 417 to Riverside)	45.0
		Bank Street	Widen to four lanes (South of Leitrim to Findlay Creek)	16.1
	South-West	Cambrian Road	Widen to four lanes (New Greenbank to Jockvale)	16.3
		Greenbank Road (new Jock River Bridge)	Relocated four-lane road and new Jock River Bridge (Jockvale to Cambrian)	71.1
		Jockvale Road	Widen to four lanes (Jock River south to Prince of Wales)	26.1
		Prince of Wales Drive	Widen to four lanes (Fisher to Woodroffe)	90.3
		Strandherd Drive	Widen to four lanes (Fallowfield to Jockvale)	60.3
	West	Campeau Drive	Widen to four lanes (March to Kanata Avenue)	16.9
		Carp Road	Widen to four lanes (Hazeldean to Highway 417)	17.2
		Eagleson Road	Widen to four lanes (Cadence Gate to Hope Side)	14.1
		Earl Grey Underpass	Underpass linking Goulbourn Forced Road and Earl Grey	3.5
		Hazeldean Road	Widen to four lanes (Iber to Stittsville Main)	19.6
		Hope Side Road	- Widen to four lanes (Eagleson to Richmond) - New two-lane road (Moodie to HWY 416	38.7
		Huntmar Drive	Widen to four lanes (Campeau Extension to Cyclone Taylor and Palladium to Maple Grove )	21.9
		Kanata West Main Street	New two-lane road (Maple Grove to Palladium )	15.2
		Kanata West North-South Arterial	New two-lane road (Hazeldean to Fernbank)	18.0
		Palladium Drive Realignment	Realign existing four-lane road (Huntmar to North-South Arterial)	6.3
		Terry Fox Drive	Widen to four lanes (South of Winchester to Eagleson)	30.9
	Central	Albert Street	Widen from four to six lanes (Booth to Empress)	2.5
	TOTAL PHASE 2 PROJECTS			753.3

Table 15: Recommended Implementation Phasing of the Road Projects (continued)

PHASE #	SECTOR	PROJECT	DESCRIPTION	COST ($M)
Phase3	East	Blackburn Hamlet Bypass	Widen to six lanes (Innes west of Blackburn Hamlet to Navan)	20.1
		Blackburn Hamlet Bypass Extension	New two-lane road (Trim to Frank Kenny)	8.1
		Coventry Road	Widen to four lanes (Belfast to St. Laurent Shopping Centre)	4.1
	South-East	Alta Vista Transportation Corridor	New two/four lane road (Hospital Ring Rd. to Walkley)	17.0
		Bank Street	Widen to four lanes (Findlay Creek to Greely)	35.2
		Earl Armstrong Road	- Widen to four lanes (Limebank to High Road) - New two-lane road (High Road to Bank)	58.8
		Hunt Club Road	Widen to six lanes (Riverside to Bank)	23.2
		Leitrim Road	Widen to four lanes (River Road to east of Limebank)	11.7
		Leitrim Road Realignment	New four-lane road (East of Limebank to Bowesville)	18.4
		Limebank Road	Widen to four lanes (Earl Armstrong to Mitch Owens)	39.1
		Riverside Drive	Widen to six lanes (Hunt Club to Limebank)	10.0
	South-West	Barnsdale Road	Widen to four lanes (Highway 416 to Prince of Wales)	21.1
		Fallowfield Road	Widen to four lanes (Cedarview to Strandherd and Woodroffe to Prince of Wales)	37.9
		New Fallowfield Extension	New four-lane collector (Strandherd to McKenna Casey)	15.1
		New Interchange on Highway 416	2^nd Interchange at Barnsdale Road (Highway 416 at Barnsdale)	25.5
		Second New Rideau River Bridge	Four-lane crossing of Rideau River (Fallowfield/Prince of Wales to Leitrim/Limebank)	50.8
		Strandherd Drive	Widen to six lanes (Greenbank to Woodroffe)	14.2
		West Hunt Club Road	Widen to six lanes (Highway 416 to Prince of Wales)	54.6
	West	Kanata West North-South Arterial	New four-lane road (Hazeldean to Palladium)	22.0
		Katimavik Road	Widen to four lanes (Terry Fox to Eagleson)	33.3
		Hazeldean Road	Widen to four lanes (Carp to Stittsville Main)	12.2
		Maple Grove Road	Widen to four lanes (Huntmar to Terry Fox)	18.5
		March Road	Widen to four lanes (North of Morgan’s Grant to Dunrobin)	38.2
		Richmond Road	Widen to four lanes (Carling to Golden)	51.8
		Terry Fox Drive	- Widen to four lanes (March to south of Richardson Side) - Widen to six lanes (Campeau to Palladium)	51.8
	TOTAL PHASE 3 PROJECTS			692.7

What we have heard on proposed road projects:

The most commonly articulated comment with respect to the road infrastructure projects was that the city should spend less on road infrastructure and instead redirect money towards mass transit. Several people noted the need to complete the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge while several other roads projects generated mixed comments and discussions, including the Airport Parkway, the Alta Vista Transportation Corridor and Ottawa Road 174. Several emails were received near the end of the consultation period regarding the need for an outer Ring Road. Most of the support for a Ring Road was related to the Interprovincial Crossing Study as means to support an alternative location other than Kettle Island.

Recommendations on Key Road Projects:

Interprovincial Crossings and King Edward Avenue

The demand analysis projected a substantial increase in travel demand across the Ottawa River (43% and 39% in the morning and afternoon peak hours). This substantial increase warrants two additional river crossings. The location(s) of future crossing(s) of the Ottawa River is (are) the subject of an ongoing Environmental Assessment Study lead by the National Capital Commission. Results of the Phase 1 of the Environmental Assessment will be presented to Transportation Committee in early 2009.

Even with the construction of a new east-end crossing, a six-lane King Edward Avenue is identified as required from a road network capacity and goods movement mobility perspective. However, taking into consideration the negative impact of traffic on King Edward on the surrounding communities, reducing King Edward to four lanes is feasible under the following conditions:

· Construction of a new interprovincial crossing in the east end that is adequately linked to the existing freeway network on either side of the Ottawa River;

· Achieving the 43 per cent transit modal split target across the Ottawa River Screenline (compared to the current 25 per cent); and

· Removal of King Edward Avenue from the City's Truck Route Network.

Alta Vista Transportation Corridor (AVTC)

At the Rideau River Central/Queensway Screenline, even with the achievement of 51 per cent transit modal split in the afternoon peak hour (from current 37%), substantial deficiency in roadway capacity is projected (between 2,700 to 3,000 passenger car unit per hour (pcu)). The proposed widening of the Queensway at the Hurdman Bridge by Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) will address approximately half of the projected deficiency. Further south, at the Smyth/Hydro corridor, even with the achievement of the 52 per cent transit modal split target in the afternoon peak hour (from current 47%), a deficiency of approximately 500 pcus is projected.

To address the remaining deficiency at Rideau River Central/Queensway and Smyth/Hydro Screenlines, AVTC is required. Furthermore, intensification and redevelopment in the Alta Vista area, primarily at the Hospital Lands and the identification of the AVTC as a transit priority link, AVTC is recommended to be a four-lane roadway, including two high occupancy vehicle/transit lanes from Nicholas Street to Walkley Road to serve both general traffic needs and for enhanced transit service to the Hospital Campus.

Airport Parkway

At the CNR East Screenline, subject to the achievement of the projected 37 per cent transit modal split target (compared to the current 27 per cent) during the morning peak hour, a maximum deficiency of approximately 400 pcus is projected. This projected deficiency would require the addition of one lane per direction to the current capacity of the screenline, which could be achieved by either twinning of the Airport Parkway or six-laning Conroy Road for general traffic. As the six-laning of Conroy Road from Hunt Club Road to Walkley Road may be required for transit priority purpose, the twinning of the Airport Parkway is recommended since it will also serve the anticipated growth of air travel and employment at the Ottawa MacDonald-Cartier International Airport and growth in the suburban communities of Riverside South and Leitrim. The twining would also relieve delays and safety issues due to current Parkway congestion between Brookfield Road and Hunt Club Road. The section between Brookfield Road and Hunt Club Road was initially identified as a Phase 1 project, with the twinning to the airport as a Phase 2. However, since the implementation of the North-South LRT is recommended for implementation as part of Phase 1 of the transit program, the twinning of the Parkway was deferred to Phase 2 (20016-2022).

Ottawa Road 174

The following are staff recommendations regarding Ottawa Road (OR)174 based on the analysis of projected demand in the East end:

· At the Green’s Creek Screenline, subject to the achievement of a 43 per cent transit modal split, widening of OR174 between the Jeanne d’Arc and Highway 417/OR174 split is still been recommended to resolve capacity deficiency as well as operating and safety issues. The section between Blair and the split is recommended to be implemented in Phase 1 (by 2015) so it can be used by transit vehicles during the conversion of the East Transitway to rail. The rest of the project is recommended to be deferred to Phase 2 (2016-2022) to minimize road investment in early years of the Plan.

· At the periphery of the East Urban Community, projected demand could be handled by the OR174, St. Joseph Boulevard, Innes, and Navan Roads. Therefore, by year 2031, the widening of OR174 east of Trim Road to four lanes is not recommended.

Draft 2008 TMP Document

The draft TMP document (Document 10) differs from the 2003 TMP in that it:

· Consolidates and reduces the number of chapters from 14 to 8 to remove duplications and for easy reference

· Includes numerous references to new/revised guidelines or studies completed in the last five years,

· Introduces new policies, with minimal changes to existing policies

· Revamps the required infrastructure project lists and their proposed phasing.

A complete copy of the TMP is found on the web site www.ottawa.ca/tmp and in the separately distributed as Document 10: 2008 Draft Transportation Master Plan Document (TMP). A summary of changes includes:

Chapter 2: Current and Future Conditions

· Incorporates 2005 Origin-Destination survey data and 2031 population/employment growth and projected travel demands; reconfirms modal share targets for 2031

Chapter 3: Strategic Directions

· Includes revised Transportation Vision and the accompanying elements and principles

· Adds under Supportive Land Use, reference to the new Zoning By-law regulating minimum and maximum parking rates near rapid transit stations and how the new Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines require addressing all transportation modes and not just automobile/parking issues

· Includes in the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) section how the City and its employees should become more active in TDM implementation and support for private-sector carsharing services

· Places in this chapter a number of sections previously found elsewhere in the Plan, including: safety and security, the environment, managing and maintaining assets, funding and measuring performance. On the last item there is the addition of a policy on the City participating in the Ontario Municipal Benchmarking Initiative. In the environment section, reference is made to the now approved Air Quality and Climate Change Management Plan and to the Environmental Noise Control Guidelines.

Chapter 4: Active Transportation (Walking and Cycling)

· Bring together in this chapter many overlapping policies from the previously separate chapters on walking and cycling. The Ottawa Cycling Plan was approved by Council this summer and polices have been revised to reflect this. A policy is added to indicate that the City will work with key partners (including National Capital Commission and Gatineau) to investigate the feasibility of a smart bike program such as those in Montréal and Paris. The Ottawa Pedestrian Plan is underway and a number of draft policies from that Plan are noted for inclusion if they become part of the approved Pedestrian Plan. Polices are added on the Snow-Go and Yellow Grit Programs and the newly approved direction to install pedestrian countdown signals at traffic lights.

Chapter 5: Public Transit

· Adds a new policy to investigate alternative service delivery methods and complementary modes in areas where minimum ridership levels cannot be maintained through conventional services. Direction is given to investigate creating a policy on air right use over rapid transit facilities and to acquiring unused rail and hydro corridors for possible future transit corridors, including stations, that may be needed now or at a timeframe beyond this TMP’s planning horizon. The spare bus ratio is to be improved by reducing it from 17 per cent to 10 per cent and the City will examine the use of fuel cell technology in accordance with its 2004 Fleet Emission Reduction Strategy.

Chapter 6: Roads and Motor Vehicles

· Brings in former short chapters on parking and ridesharing. The former presents policies under consideration as part of the draft Municipal Parking Management Strategy, including: a pilot project to showcase proactive parking management strategies in the Centrepointe mixed-use centre, and the linking of parking and TDM initiatives. The section on ridesharing references the promotion of OttawaRideMatch.com and it adds Ottawa Road 174 (split to Jeanne d’Arc) to the list of roadways for study of possible carpool lanes

· Adds in the road design section references to: roundabouts, road diets, Right-of-Way Lighting policy and echoing how the Official Plan will limit new driveway/road access along the rural portion of Ottawa Road 174

· Introduces the new term Road Corridor Optimization for comprehensive studies of a corridor. The approved Area Traffic Management Guidelines are now referenced. The road safety section introduces a policy to establish a GIS-based collision and traffic volume database that would enable advanced road safety monitoring and management initiatives.

Chapter 7: Intercity Travel

· Revised introduction to reflect changed status of planning for the Carp Airport.

Chapter 8: Implementation

· Updates the listing of infrastructure projects and costing

· Proposes a new document sitting outside of the TMP called the “Transportation Outlook”. While the TMP is updated every five years and the Long Term Financial Plan has a 10-year horizon, the new Transportation Outlook would look at a shorter term closer to the three-year budget. It would provide Council with more focused and strategic advice regarding implementation priorities, particularly in the face of fiscal expectations.

Annex A - Required Infrastructure Projects – updates transit and road infrastructure projects lists, and the cycling infrastructure project list reflects the Ottawa Cycling Plan’s first phase priorities

Annex B - Transportation Performance Objectives and Indicators – is updated to reflect two studies done since 2003 on performance objectives and indicators

Map 1: Multi-use Pathways and Scenic-Entry Routes (Urban); Map 2: Cycling Network, Multi-use Pathways and Scenic-Entry Routes (Rural) and Map 3: Cycling Transportation Network (Urban) – reflect the Greenspace Master Plan, the Ottawa Cycling Plan, the Rural Pathways Plan and the NCC’s Pathway Network for Canada’s Capital Region

Map 4: Rapid Transit Network – shows the new rapid transit and supplementary transit network. Map 5a: Transit Network – Phase 1, Map 5b: Transit Network – Phase 2 and Map 5c: Transit Network – Phase 3 are new maps introduced, information for which was previously only presented in text format

Map 6: Urban Road Network and Map 7: Central Area/Inner City Road Network – changes primarily due to new road construction or EA approvals in urban areas outside of the Greenbelt. Map 8: Rural Road Network and Map 9: Road Network - Select Villages – has very minor changes such as those stemming from the Constance Bay CDP

Map 10a: Road Network – Phase 1, Map 10b: Road Network – Phase 2, Map 10c: Road Network – Phase 3 – are new maps introduced, information for which was previously only presented in text format

Implementing the TMP and Next Steps

The successful implementation of the Transportation Master Plan requires that concurrent efforts be undertaken to achieve the key strategies such as creating supportive land uses, managing transportation demand, and to construct the identified transportation infrastructure. Since the TMP is a long-range planning document, and to aid in the implementation process, staff intends to produce a Transportation Outlook to help guide short-term decision-making on infrastructure priorities.

The following section summarizes the investment strategy that will be developed to aid in securing required funds to build, maintain and operate the rapid transit plan.

Investment Strategy for the Rapid Transit Network

To ensure the Rapid Transit Network (RTN) is affordable, a full investment strategy outlining how the City can secure the funds required to build, maintain and operate it is to be developed. The strategy will allow Council to fully understand the short and long-term financial implications of the RTN on the capital and operating budgets for this public transit investment.

The Investment Strategy will anchor the importance of risk management to ensure that the RTN projects stay on schedule and do not cost more than anticipated. Best practices and experts in project delivery will be harnessed to ensure that at the project stage, risks will be managed and projects will be delivered on time and on budget. At the RTN plan level some work has already been completed to assess risks. The financial risk assessment appended to this report provides mitigation strategies for a number of potential risks including those that may occur with the downtown tunnel and western parkway. Moving forward, all risks will be assessed and managed carefully.

To gain a head start on the affordability of the RTN, the City Treasurer has prepared a high level analysis for the first 10 years to assess the level of City funding which could be made available through reserves, development charges, gas tax and debt, to fund the first set of RTN projects. It demonstrates that subject to some reasonable assumptions, the City will be able to finance its share of the construction of the first phase of RTN projects, provided the federal and provincial governments contribute two-thirds of the capital costs of the system.

Transit Services has also been examining the operating cost implications of the implementation of the RTN relative to other alternatives. The preliminary results confirm the expectation of operating savings from the implementation of LRT; more detailed analysis is forth coming. A 10-year rolling operational plan is being prepared that will be updated annually to take into consideration changes in revenues and expenses once the system is in operation. To provide an extended view of the operational requirements of the RTN, this plan will be extrapolated over the 25 year Investment Strategy time horizon.

To ensure the RTN will be affordable and acceptable for government funding, staff are recommending a comprehensive investment strategy with a number of components, to be prepared over the next several months. As well, staff will be undertaking and submitting to senior governments a benefit/cost analysis of each RTN project to ensure economic, environmental and social needs and impacts are taken into direct account. This submission requirement was in place with the North South LRT project whose business case concluded that there would be a return on investment for society in terms of travel time savings, vehicle operating costs, accident cost savings and other benefits.

Component No. 1 – Financial Tools and Incentives for Transit oriented development

Component No. 1 of the investment strategy will identify and assess the incremental revenue requirements beyond available government funding for the RTN. As well, this effort will examine the tools that can be used to encourage transit friendly development next to RTN stations. While property tax and fare increases are among the current available alternatives, there are other options that will be needed to be reviewed and assessed for their incremental revenues. Most of this work was completed as part of the north south LRT project. However, an updating exercise is warranted that will include a new assessment of the incremental revenue that may be captured as part of this new RTN.

Existing Financial Tools

This review will include tools the City of Ottawa already has legislative authority to enact such as:

a. Section 37 agreements allowing density incentives for transit oriented development at station locations in exchange for revenue and other contributions to the RTN stations;

b. Station connection fees similar to what Toronto has in place next to their RTN. These fees must be paid before a physical connection from a private or public sector building is made to a City RTN station;

c. Area Specific Fees as part of the City’s new Development Charges (DC) Bylaw which must be enacted by July 2009. While the City currently has area wide transit DC, specific charges based on a prescribed benefiting area may also be collected to offset the RTN capital costs;

d. Community Design Plans that will include the City’s Brownfield program that may encourage development of contaminated sites such as the Bayview yard land;

e. Land value uplift agreements including City owned property next the RTN, etc. In 2006 the NS LRT Value Uplift report estimated that across the six City-owned properties next to NS line, the value uplift capture could be as high as $200M. This was a gross estimate and did not net out land development costs and profit sharing through joint venture arrangements.

f. An assessment of sponsorship and advertising revenues along the entire RTN.

New Financial Tools

Identification of new financial tool that may be secured through legislative amendments will need to be reviewed and assessed. Such tools could include Tax Incremental Financing, land transfer tax, road tolls, parking fees, etc that exist in other Ontario jurisdictions (most notably Toronto under the City of Toronto Act), as well as other approaches taken in Vancouver, Calgary and Montréal to support their RTN operations.

Staff anticipate that the federal and provincial governments will require that all available financial tools be assessed for potential sources of revenue for the RTN.

Component No. 2 – Develop a Financial Model

Component No. 2 will involve the development of a comprehensive Financial Model that covers the first 25 years from construction to the completion of the Rapid Transit Network. The model will consider the capital costs of developing the network, cash flow requirements during construction periods, debt service requirements, major rehabilitation requirements, the impact of life cycle costs to maintain the transit system and the operating costs of transit services and LRT, taking into account the forecast ridership increases as well as identifying any assumptions. The model will identify the timing and magnitude of funding gaps that might arise over the full life cycle of the RTN.

This work will be undertaken when the necessary inputs such as the Transit Services Rolling Operational Plan mentioned above and financial Tools referenced in Component No. 1 are completed.

Component No. 3 – Implementation Plan

The third part of the strategy would be to complete an investment strategy that clearly identifies how the City will fund the RTN and Supplementary Corridors in the short, medium and long term, and identify the financial instruments which may need to be employed over the 25-year period to ensure the continued viability of the transit system. It will provide a basis for Council to examine and debate various alternative approaches to the long-term funding of the RTN, and initiate the steps necessary to acquire new funding powers.

To get started, staff recommend Council support the Terms of Reference for the first component of the Investment Strategy (Document 11). This stand-alone work on the Financial Tools can proceed immediately and will require a number of stakeholders including the Downtown Business Coalition to be engaged as this analysis unfolds. Staff will report back on the findings of this assessment in first half of 2009, which will form an input into the financial model (Component No. 2) and ultimately the investment strategy.

CONSULTATION

The TMP consultation objectives have been to engage, in a meaningful way, a broad range of citizens and stakeholders in a dialogue around Ottawa’s long-term transportation planning.

Towards this effort, the consultation program has consisted of three main phases, as summarized below. Document 12 provides additional detail about the most recent round of consultations (Phase III).

Phase 1(September to December 2007)

Phase 1 took place throughout September to December 2007 and focused on informing citizens in new and unique ways about various transportation related challenges and opportunities facing Ottawa. Within this context, the TMP Vision and Guiding Principles were reviewed and key information was collected with respect to the development of a preferred rapid transit network.

Phase II (March to April 16, 2008)

Phase II consultations began March 3 and concluded April 16, 2008 as an exercise to inform the public about the four Downtown Rapid Transit Network Options and their implications on the overall transportation systems. A number of consultation activities were undertaken during this time, as detailed in a staff report presented to Committee and Council in May 2008.

Phase III (September 11 to September 30, 2008)

The third and final phase of consultation began September 11 and concluded September 30, 2008. The objective was to inform and gather feedback on four potential implementation scenarios for the 2031 rapid transit network that Council approved on May 28, 2008. This also included soliciting feedback on the evaluation criteria to assess the different implementation scenarios and the proposed supplementary transit networks, as well as the proposed road infrastructure projects and the overall policy direction of the TMP.

A number of activities were developed to provide flexible and convenient opportunities for citizens to provide input to the City. These included:

· Open Houses held at five different locations throughout the city;

· Registered Discussion Groups as part of each Open House;

· Online materials and consultation forums;

· Stakeholder Focus Group Sessions;

· City Advisory Committee Discussion Groups;

· Internal and External Agency Group Meetings;

· Mail, fax and email correspondence.

Open Houses

Five Public Open Houses were held during the first three weeks of September in various locations across the city. In total, 376 individuals attended the Open Houses and 75 comment sheets were completed and submitted at the events.

Registered Discussion Groups

Registered Discussion Groups were conducted between 7:00 and 8:00 p.m. at each of the Public Open Houses. In total, over 100 people participated in the discussion groups. The format involved up to eight participants seated at each table and supplied with information and maps pertaining to the transit implementation scenarios, evaluation criteria, supplementary transit networks, and road infrastructure projects. Technical facilitators led the discussions at each table and all comments and input was collected on flips charts.

Stakeholder Focus Group Sessions

Three Stakeholder Focus Group Sessions were held at City Hall and Confederation High School, between September 11, and September 17, 2008. They were designed to allow key stakeholders to provide their input into all elements of the transit implementation scenarios, evaluation criteria, supplementary transit networks, and road infrastructure projects.

City Advisory Committee Discussion Groups

Members of each of the City of Ottawa’s Advisory Committees were invited to participate in a group meeting. The session was held at City Hall on September 30, 2008, and consisted of a presentation on the TMP followed by a question and answer period. Additional meetings were held with Environmental Advisory Committee; Roads and Cycling Advisory Committee; and the Pedestrian and Transit Advisory Committee.

Online Materials and Consultations

The Beyond Ottawa 20/20 website (www.ottawa.ca/beyondottawa2020) has been extensively used to promote the TMP update process, including all Public Open House materials, online feedback forms, OttawaTALKS and additional background information. All information has been provided in both official languages. In total, 836 written submissions were received in the month of September via the online comments, fax, mail and email.

Internal and External Agency Group Meetings

Internal and External Agency meetings were held at City Hall on September 12, and September 15, 2008. Both meetings consisted of a 45-minute presentation that updated participants on the TMP and the four transit implementation scenarios, followed by an open discussion. Participants included Ontario Ministry of Transportation; Public Works and Government Services Canada; Ministere des Transports du Quebec; Transports Quebec; NCC; Ontario Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure; and Ontario Ministry Of Public Infrastructure Renewal as well as staff from various City of Ottawa departments. Representatives of First Nations of the Ottawa Valley also participated in a one-on-one briefing session in this regard.

Approximately 900 written submissions were received during the month of September including numerous discussions and meetings as a result of the above-mentioned activities. A summary of the consultation efforts and feedback is attached as Documents 12 and 13.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The implementation of this Transportation Master Plan will cost about $8.36 billion over 22 years in new infrastructure and services, including $7.24 billion for capital costs, $1.12 billion for operations and maintenance as shown in Table 16.

Table 16 – Total Implementation Costs of New Infrastructure and Services

Facility Type	Capital Cost ($ millions)	Operating and Maintenance Cost ($ millions, net of revenues)	Total Cost ($ millions)
Rapid Transit	4,727	900	5,627
Transit Priority	260	8	268
Bus garages	120	30	1520
Transportation Demand Management	25	--	25
Roads Includes walking and cycling facilities	2,112	180	2,292
Total	7,244	1,118	8,362

Subject to Council approval, the updated TMP will provide the basis for ongoing annual capital and operating budget preparation, the Long Range Financial Plan and the Development Charges By-laws. However, the City’s ability to pay for projects will influence the identified priorities and the rate of implementing them.

The rapid transit implementation priorities identified in this report total $3.03 Billion in spending for Phase 1 of which $1.68 Billion is required for the first increment. These costs are in 2007 dollars and do not include the cost of incremental land purchases. In order to determine the ability of the City to fund the priorities a high level model was built that forecasted the sources of capital funding available for Transit for a 10- and 20-year timeframe.

The funding sources available for Transit capital include:

· Provincial gas tax (assumed not to increase over current levels)

· Federal gas tax (assumed not to increase over current levels)

· Development charges (assumed to increase by 50 per cent)

· Transit levy contributions to capital and debt servicing (increased annually by the rate of inflation, as per policy)

· Provincial bus replacement program revenues (assumed to continue).

The model also assumed that the Federal and Provincial governments would each contribute one-third of the funds required for the Transit Plan, which in the first increment would be valued at $560 million from each level. The Federal government’s contribution would be coming from the Building Canada fund, which is only planned to run until 2015.

In addition to funding the new Transit plan the City has an obligation to invest in the renewal of existing assets and expand the transit system into new subdivisions. Included in the model are capital requirement of $60 million annually for the renewal of existing Transit systems and assets and $50 million per year for transit growth projects outside of those included in the Transit Plan. These requirements have been increased annually by an assumed 3 per cent rate of inflation.

Under these assumptions the City can afford from $560 million to $700 million of funding for the Transit Plan over the next 10 years. Combined with an equal contribution from both levels of government this provides for a total plan of between $1.68 billion and $2.1 billion. The difference between the high and the low of what the City can afford is the difference between how much debt is used, but at either level there is no requirement to increase taxation in order to service additional debt. The memo issued on affordability when the four scenarios were released indicated $2.8 billion was available but as indicated in the memo, that required and increase in taxation to fund additional debt servicing costs of $35 million.

The roads identified as being required in the next 10 years have been included in the draft 2009-2018 capital forecast in the 2009 Budget. Growth roads are 95 per cent funded from development charges so the total of $791 million would require City funding of $40 million over the next 10 years. Current development charge receipts for the road component are approximately $40 million per year, but Council’s Development Charge funding policy allows the roads component to be managed on a cash basis. As spending lags behind when the authority is approved, this means that Council can approve capital authority funded from Development Charges above the amount actually received as long as the Development Charge account does not go into a deficit. This would allow these projects to be authorized as indicated in the plan.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1: Development of the Supplementary Transit Network

Document 2: Review of Alternative LRT Terminus Locations in Riverside South

Document 3: Options to Expand the Current O-Train Service to Provide Service on the Local VIA Route to Fallowfield – Technical Memo

Document 4: Carling Avenue – Technical Memo

Document 5: Key Transfer Stations - Technical Memo

Document 6: Phasing of TMP Transit Network

Document 7: Operational Review

Document 8: Risk Assessment Report

Document 9: Road Infrastructure Needs Study

Document 10: 2008 Draft Transportation Master Plan Document (TMP)

Document 11: Investment Strategy for Ottawa’s Rapid Transit Network -Terms of Reference For Financial Tools and Incentives for Transit Oriented Development

Document 12: Phase III Consultations

Document 13: eConsultation Report

DISPOSITION

· Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability Department will finalize the TMP to incorporate any changes made by Committees and Council;

· Upon the approval of the TMP, incorporate its results into the Official Plan review process;

· Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability Department in conjunction with City Manager’s office will prepare funding submission to senior level of governments, including necessary studies and business plans, for Increment 1 transit projects.

Report to/Rapport au :

SUBJECT:

OBJET :

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Assumptions and Analysis

Non-Motorized Travel (Walking and Cycling)

Transit

Proposed first Increment of Transit Investment

Risk Assessment

Roads and Key Project Recommendations

Draft 2008 TMP Document

Financial Implications

Investment Strategy

Public Consultation/Input

RÉSUMÉ

Hypothèses et analyse :

Transport non motorisé (marche et cyclisme)

Transport en commun

Premier ajout proposé à l’investissement en transport en commun

Évaluation du risque

Recommandations concernant les routes et autres recommandations importantes

Document provisoire du PDT 2008

Répercussions financières

Stratégie d’investissement

Consultation publique / commentaires

BACKGROUND

DISCUSSION

Future Travel Demand

Non-Motorized Travel (Walking and Cycling)

Transit

Supplementary Transit Corridor Development

Summary of public consultation on proposed supplementary corridors

Recommended 2031 Rapid Transit Network

Density Target in Suburban Areas to sustain LRT

Responses to Motions Carried out at Council Meeting on 28 May 2008:

Riverside South LRT terminus

Streetcar Corridors

Rail Corridors

Responses to Other Issues (not covered in responses to motions section)

VIA Corridor

Western Parkway versus Carling Avenue

Technology Selection

Key Transfer Stations

Development of the Alternative Staging Scenarios:

Key considerations in developing Phase 1 of all staging scenarios:

Evaluation of the Alternative Staging Scenarios

Summary of public feedback on rapid transit implementation

Operational Analysis

Further Examination of Scenario 3 an 4 Corridors and Phasing Recommendations

Increment 1

Increment 2

Increment 3

Risk Assessment

Typical Risk Issue

Methodology and Scope

Risk Assessment Summary

Tunnel and Ottawa River Parkway

Downtown Tunnel

Ottawa River Parkway Corridor

Risk Adjusted Cost Analysis

Recommended Actions

Conclusion

Roads

Road Infrastructure Requirements

Road Infrastructure Phasing

What we have heard on proposed road projects:

Recommendations on Key Road Projects:

Interprovincial Crossings and King Edward Avenue

Alta Vista Transportation Corridor (AVTC)

Airport Parkway

Ottawa Road 174

Draft 2008 TMP Document

Implementing the TMP and Next Steps

Investment Strategy for the Rapid Transit Network

Component No. 1 – Financial Tools and Incentives for Transit oriented development

Component No. 2 – Develop a Financial Model

Component No. 3 – Implementation Plan

CONSULTATION