White Paper
Addressing Ottawa’s Transportation Challenges

Overview
Background
A. Making Sustainable Travel Modes more Competitive.
B. Managing Congestion
C. Reducing Environmental Impacts
D. Creating Supportive Land Use
E. Paying for the Transportation System
How to Provide Input

Overview

By any reasonable standard, Ottawa has a very successful transportation system. Our public transit ridership is higher than any North American city of a similar size and fewer residents drive to work in Ottawa-Gatineau than in any other metropolitan area in Canada.

However, demands on the transportation system continue to grow and public concern about transportation is significant. Media commentaries often reflect perceptions ranging from overcrowded buses in rush hour, road congestion, to the lack of winter maintenance, and to the need for new crossings of the Ottawa and Rideau Rivers.

The City needs a plan that ensures a maximum return on its investment in roads, transit, and other travel modes. Because of insufficient funding over the last four years, the City has not lived up to the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) approved in 2003, our plan must start with a frank assessment of where we are now, and where we are headed.

This discussion paper will review five key issues that need to be address as part of the update to the TMP:

Readers should note that the White Paper “Moving Forward with Rapid Transit” also deals with a series of issues related to this paper.

[ top ]

Background

Success and challenge. One key success measure relates to the growth in average commute time. Road users experience only moderate rush hour congestion, and the average commute time has grown less than the Canadian average since 1992.

Implementation of the current Transportation Master Plan. The 2003 TMP set ambitious transportation objectives and recommended a wide range of actions, but the City has lacked the financial resources to implement the majority of those service and facility initiatives.

Insufficient funding has led to a growing backlog of deferred programs and projects. As a result, we are not much closer to achieving many of the TMP’s long-range goals for quality of life, environmental health, economic development and cost effectiveness.

Growth pressures. Ottawa’s population is likely to grow by 30% between 2006 and 2031 ¹which will likely cause a substantial increase in daily passenger travel. The average length of trips may also increase, because most new jobs and housing are likely to be outside the Greenbelt. These changes will place additional pressure on the transportation system, and highlight several issues that must be considered during the TMP review process:

• The City encourages intensification of developed areas inside the Greenbelt, in part to minimize transportation infrastructure needs. 2 This practice can make best use of existing services and facilities, but it can increase traffic in established communities. To minimize undesirable effects, the City should ensure that the travel needs of infill development can be met primarily through public transit, walking and cycling.
• Transportation infrastructure required by new developments should be in place as those developments occur, rather than after. This is particularly desirable for transit facilities in order to build ridership quickly in growth areas.
• The current TMP determined future road needs by projecting traffic volumes during the single busiest hour on weekdays. The City could reduce future road needs by planning its road network to serve a more evenly distributed peak period traffic demand spread over a few hours, rather than a more concentrated peak hour traffic demand.

[ top ]

A. Making Sustainable Travel Modes more Competitive.

The TMP will likely continue to pursue ambitious objectives for transit, walking, cycling and ridesharing, and the City needs to accelerate progress in this area. We need to make alternatives to automobile use more competitive in terms of time, cost, safety and convenience, so that rising travel demands from city-wide growth do not create unacceptable congestion. In doing so, we also need to make the best use of our limited resources.

The City could give preference to transit, pedestrians, cyclists and carpools when new roads are built—for example, by dedicating new lanes to buses or high-occupancy vehicles. The City could also emphasize approaches that do not require new infrastructure such as:

• giving greater priority to transit vehicles and carpools within existing rights-of-way;
• pursuing operational improvements that favour pedestrians and cyclists at intersections;
• emphasizing transportation demand management (TDM) measures that change behaviour through information, education and user incentives; and,
• considering price initiatives that increase the proportion of road or parking costs borne by users.

These strategies all require significantly increased resources to be truly effective, and some of them could create delay, inconvenience or financial costs for automobile users.

Question for Discussion

1. Should the City consider pursuing some or all of these directions (carpools, favouring pedestrians and cyclists, user incentives, price initiatives)? If so, to what extent?

[ top ]

B. Managing Congestion

Rising congestion can discourage some automobile trips and make alternatives more attractive, but it can also increase delay and emissions, reduce safety, and slow down buses. We need to plan a future road network that recognizes this delicate balance between supply and demand. Maximizing the efficiency of the existing transportation system could reduce congestion on today’s roads, which could defer the need for new road construction. A deliberate strategy to maximize the road network’s effectiveness—that is, its ability to move people —is needed.

The City could plan new or widened roads to serve peak weekday travel demands spread over a period of up to three hours, rather than a single peak hour. This would encourage demand to shift to less busy “shoulder” times, and could defer the need for some road infrastructure; however, it would reduce spare capacity outside peak hours and could increase recurring (i.e., daily) and non-recurring (i.e., from weather events, collisions or construction) congestion. The possibility of negative impacts could be partially offset through a transportation system management (TSM) program to maximize the road network’s ability to move people, and through transportation demand management (TDM) measures to eliminate some peak hour trips and encourage individuals to travel outside peak hours.

Questions for Discussion

1. Should the City allocate resources to support transportation system management and transportation demand management programs? Why?
2. Should the City plan for infrastructure needs based on peak hour demand or peak period demand? Why?

[ top ]

C. Reducing Environmental Impacts

Environmental and health concerns. The impact of Ottawa’s transportation system on the environment and public health is emerging as a major public issue. Notably, mounting awareness of climate change is leading to public policy shifts and new government leadership in the effort to slow or reverse the growth of emissions. While the role of municipalities in achieving national and provincial climate change objectives has not been defined by senior governments, the City’s own Air Quality and Climate Change Management Plan (2004) included corporate and community-wide objectives for a 20% reduction in GHG emissions by 2012, compared to a 1990 baseline. Given that transportation accounts for about 35% of Ottawa’s community-wide GHG emissions, considerable progress in the sector will be required to enable achievement of the overall goal.

Transportation’s environmental impacts need to be limited. We need to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other pollutants from transportation, while remaining aware of the City’s limited influence in some areas (e.g., motor vehicle emission standards). The City has adopted short-term community-wide targets for reduced GHG emissions, but the steps required to achieve those targets in the transportation sector have not been addressed and long-term targets do not exist. Reducing emissions from the City’s own operations will require upgrades to transit vehicles and fuels, which will likely require significant funding.

The City could set a target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, then work backwards to identify an acceptable level of future travel activity and ways to bring that about. Depending on the target chosen, this approach may not yield a plan that effectively balances environmental concerns with social, economic or financial goals. Alternatively, the TMP review could pursue emission reductions in balance with other objectives and constraints, without predetermining a target. This approach would likely pursue GHG reductions by maximizing practical efforts to encourage transit, walking and cycling, and quantifying the emission benefits of doing so.

Motor vehicle emissions of particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds directly harm the health of humans, animals and plants. The impacts of smog on respiratory and cardiac health have been extensively documented, and estimates have been made of the costs in terms of public health care and lost productivity. Traffic noise can affect stress levels, mental health and children’s learning ability. Storm water runoff from streets carries road salt, heavy metals, oil and grease. Dependence on cars can lead to physical inactivity, obesity and chronic illness. The growing number of seniors will depend increasingly on public transit and walkable streets to preserve their physical activity levels, access to healthcare, and overall quality of life. Transit also provides vital access to medical and other services for residents in the 13% of Ottawa households that do not own a car.

Questions for Discussion

1. Should the City set a strict target to reduce GHG emissions for its own activities such as transit or alternatively should the City pursue broader emission reduction practices (encouraging transit, walking, cycling) that would balance with other City objectives (social, economic, financial goals)? Why?
2. What are the other approaches that could be considered to determine community-wide targets for reduction of transportation GHG emissions and pollution?

[ top ]

D. Creating Supportive Land Use

Land use can both support and undermine transportation goals. Low-density, single-use suburban developments tend to be more auto-dependent than other higher density land uses. Continuing this trend could pose an enduring challenge to the City’s sustainable transportation objectives. On the other hand, developing areas can promote sustainable travel behaviours through supportive land use location, mix, density and design. Within existing communities, intensification brings both opportunities and challenges.

The City could adopt effective land use strategies that are fundamental to creating more sustainable transportation. These strategies could include:

• Restricting employment growth in areas where it is not possible to provide efficient, high-quality transit service; directing new employment to those areas where it is possible; and, requiring developers and commercial tenants to provide on-site facilities and TDM programs that encourage the use of transit and other sustainable travel modes.
• Proactively encouraging intensification in areas where transit, walking and cycling can be made most attractive; upgrading local facilities and services for those travel modes; and ensure implementation of TDM and area traffic management measures to minimize incremental traffic growth and its community impacts.

Question for Discussion

1. Are Ottawa residents willing to support land use strategies, which either restrict employment growth in specific areas or proactively encourage intensification? Why?

[ top ]

E. Paying for the Transportation System

From the perspective of municipal finances, it is very costly to build and operate a transportation system that maximizes the net benefits to the community. Building costs for roads, transit facilities and other infrastructure are increasing faster than inflation (up by 5.9% in 2006) ³, transit operating costs are rising faster than fares (e.g., bus parts and fuel up by 5% annually), and emission-reducing technologies are more expensive than the ones they replace (e.g., hybrid buses cost about $200,000 more than regular diesel buses). The City has few sources of transportation funding, and lacks the legal authority to generate revenues through road tolls, parking levies or vehicle registration fees. Development charges collected by the City do not fully cover the costs of growth-related infrastructure, and the City receives almost none of the tax revenues generated by economic growth. Many transportation infrastructure projects rely on funds transferred from provincial and federal governments—amounts that have increased in the last few years but remain largely inadequate and unpredictable. The significance of all these factors is greatly compounded by Council’s objective of keeping future property tax increases as close as possible to the rate of inflation.

The repercussions of these financial limitations are growing. Required projects are not being implemented when they are needed, and the City faces a growing backlog of projects (as discussed in the previous section on implementation of the current TMP). Expansion of Ottawa’s rapid transit system has slowed substantially since 1996, when the provincial government ended its 75% contribution to transit infrastructure projects. The pace of infrastructure rehabilitation and renewal (which are funded from property taxes) has been slower than required in recent years, leading to a backlog. Some routine maintenance has also been deferred in order to achieve short-term savings even though this may lead to long-term increases in rehabilitation or replacement costs (this practice has been targeted for correction by the City’s Long-Range Financial Plan and 2007-2010 City Strategic Directions.

While the City could loosen its financial constraints by tapping new revenue sources, this would require provincial consent and will likely take time. Over the foreseeable future, the TMP should offer guidance to help Council choose among competing initiatives when funds are limited. Decision-making principles should seek to maximize return on investment, accounting for all social costs and benefits.

The City could pursue new revenue sources consistent with a “user pay” approach to transportation services. Such sources could enhance transportation funding and reduce the burden on property taxes, but would require amendments to provincial legislation. Some sources (e.g., tolls or congestion charges) could place a direct financial cost on private motor vehicle use, thereby eliminating economically inefficient trips, reducing congestion and maximizing productivity—although they would likely be contentious and could impact on economic activity. Other revenue sources (e.g., municipal fuel tax) would have less potential to shape travel demand, but would also be less likely to have unexpected negative impacts.

Questions for Discussion

1. Should the City be pursuing the creation of new revenue sources, and if so, of what sort?
2. What other steps can be taken to fund maintenance and growth of the transportation infrastructure?

[ top ]

How to Provide Input

Send comments by phone, regular mail, e-mail or by visiting the City’s Web site before December 9, 2007.

Contact the author by phone, in writing or by e-mail:

Mona Abouhenidy
Planning, Transit and the Environment Department
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, ON K1P 1J1
613-580-2424 ext. 26936
mona.abouhenidy@ottawa.ca

Go to: ottawa.ca/beyondottawa2020 and register your comments using the on-line discussion tool Ottawa Talks. Register your e-mail address at the same time to receive notification of upcoming public consultation events.

Send your comments to: plan@ottawa.ca

[ top ]

City of Ottawa staff report “New Growth Projections for 2006-2031: Draft Report for Public Consultation, Planning and Environment Committee, September 11, 2007.

² For more information on this subject, see the White Paper entitled “Residential Intensification: Building More Vibrant Communities”.

³ Statistics Canada, Infrastructure Construction Price Index cited in “Capital Expenditure Price Statistics”, 2007.