Open House #1

On this page

Display boards

Exhibit 1: Welcome

Welcome to the first Public Open House and Presentation for the Western LRT Corridor: Bayview to Baseline Station (WLRTC) Planning and Environmental Study.

This Public Open House and Presentation is one of several opportunities for public involvement during the study.

The project study team is here tonight to discuss the planning work that has occurred to date. The project study team is comprised of:

  • The City of Ottawa, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability
  • The National Capital Commission
  • A multi-disciplinary consulting team, led by:
  • Delcan Corporation, with the assistance of:
    • McCormick Rankin Corporation
    • Joint Venture of Griffiths Rankin Cook Architects and David S. McRobie Architects
    • Golder Associates
    • Gradient Micro Climate Engineering
    • Metropolitan Knowledge International
    • Altus Group
    • Muncaster Environmental Planning

Exhibit 2: What We Expect From You Tonight

Tonight is an opportunity to learn about the study and ask questions of the project team members

We are also seeking your comments on the work undertaken to date:

  • Need and Justification
  • Existing Conditions
  • Planning Objectives and Supporting Criteria
  • Alternative Rapid Transit Corridors
  • Proposed Corridor Evaluation Methodology

Please identify any issues and concerns that you would like to see addressed during the study

Please fill out a Comment-Questionnaire. Leave it in the box provided, or return it to us by fax or mail by

6 December 2010. Comments can also be submitted by email to

Your views and contributions are important to the success of this project!

Exhibit 3: Study Area

Exhibit 4: Study Process

The Study will follow a two-step process:

  • A Planning and Functional Design Stage (underway) to determine the rapid transit corridor, alignment, station locations and layouts as well as addressing local planning issues
  • An Environmental Assessment Stage to meet the requirements of the provincial Transit Project Assessment Process and the federal Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
  • At the end of each stage the study findings will be presented to the City's Transit Committee, and to City Council

Exhibit 5: Study Process (French Text)

Exhibit 6: Study Schedule

Exhibit 7: Consultation

Effective consultation will play a key role in the success of this project. Consultation with the following groups is occurring throughout the study:

Agency Consultation Group (ACG)

The ACG is comprised of representatives from:

  • Agriculture Canada
  • Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
  • Canadian Transportation Agency
  • Environment Canada
  • Fisheries and Oceans Canada
  • Health Canada
  • Infrastructure Canada
  • National Capital Commission
  • Natural Resources Canada
  • Parks Canada
  • Public Works and Government Services Canada
  • Transport Canada
  • Ministry of Natural Resources
  • Ontario Ministry of Culture
  • Ontario Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure
  • Ontario Ministry of the Environment
  • Ontario Ministry of Transportation
  • City of Gatineau
  • City of Ottawa
  • OC Transpo
  • Société de transport de l'Outaouais
  • Algonquins of Ontario
  • Bell Canada
  • Enbridge
  • Hydro One Networks Inc.
  • Hydro Ottawa Ltd.
  • Rideau Valley Conservation Authority
  • Rogers Cable
  • Transport Action Canada

Business Consultation Group (BCG)

The BCG is comprised of representatives from:

  • Algonquin College
  • Barrhaven BIA
  • Bentall Real Estate Service
  • Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA)
  • Carleton University
  • Carlingwood Shopping Centre
  • Canadian Federation of Independent Business
  • Colonnade Development
  • French Catholic School Board
  • Kanata Chamber of Commerce
  • Lincoln Fields Shopping Centre
  • National Capital Business Alliance
  • Ottawa Carleton District School Board (OCDSB)
  • Ottawa Catholic School Board
  • Ottawa Chamber of Commerce
  • Ottawa Civic Hospital
  • Ottawa French Public School Board
  • Ottawa Student Transportation Authority (OSTA)
  • Ottawa Tourism and Convention Authority
  • Preston Street BIA
  • Royal Ottawa Hospital
  • Wellington West BIA
  • Westboro Village BIA
  • Westgate Shopping Centre

Public Consultation Group (PCG)

The PCG is comprised of representatives from:

City of Ottawa Advisory Committees
  • Accessibility Advisory Committee
  • Arts, Heritage and Culture Advisory Committee
  • Environmental Advisory Committee
  • Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee
  • Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee
  • Pedestrian and Transit Advisory Committee
  • Roads and Cycling Advisory Committee
  • Social Services Advisory Committee
Community Associations
  • Ambleside One, CCC #28
  • Ambleside Two, CCC #43
  • Briarbrook-Morgan's Grant Community Association
  • Carlingwood Community Association
  • Centretown Citizens Community Association
  • Champlain Park Community Association
  • City Centre Coalition
  • Dalhousie Community Association
  • Glabar Park Community Alliance
  • Glebe CA Community Association
  • Glen Cairn Community Association
  • Hampton Iona Community Group
  • Heron Park Community Association
  • Hintonburg Community Association
  • Island Park Community Association
  • Kanata Beaverbrook Community Association
  • Kanata Lakes Community Association
  • Kanata Town Centre Community Association
  • Lincoln Heights-Parkway Community Association
  • McKellar Park Community Association
  • Old Ottawa South Community Association
  • Queensway Terrace North Community Association
  • Wellington Village Community Association
  • West Barrhaven Community Association
  • Westboro Beach Community Association
  • Westboro Community Association
  • Woodpark Community Association
  • Whitehaven Community Association
  • Woodroffe North Community Association
Special Interest Groups
  • Access Now
  • Citizens for Safe Cycling
  • Federation of Citizens Associations of Ottawa-Carleton
  • Greenspace Alliance
  • Kanata Transit & Transportation Advisory Committee
  • Save the Parkway
  • The Council of Heritage Organizations in Ottawa

General Public

The General Public will have the opportunity to build awareness, knowledge and understanding of the study through:

  • Public Open Houses and Presentations (5)
  • Media Coverage
  • Newspaper Notices
  • Study Reports
  • Comment-Questionnaires
  • Written Submissions
  • Study Website and Email

Additional Consultation

City of Ottawa Transit Committee

  • Interim reports and final study recommendations will be presented to Transit Committee, and City Council, for approval
  • An opportunity for public input is provided at the Committee meeting

NCC Advisory Committee on Planning, Design and Realty (ACPDR)

  • This committee, composed of planners, architects and landscape architects representing each Canadian province, provides expert advice on Capital planning related issues

Exhibit 8: Study Overview

  • The City of Ottawa is proceeding with the preparation of a Planning and Environmental Assessment (EA) Study for the expansion and improvement of its rapid transit network to accommodate existing and future demand
  • The key goals for this study are to:
    • Undertake a review of the transit ridership forecasts and network assumptions contained in the 2008 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) update to determine the appropriate rapid transit service for the study area
    • Complete a planning study to determine the preferred alignment for an LRT facility that will support the urban development and land use objectives identified in the Official Plan and Community Design Plans, and the (TMP) mode split targets, as well as relevant provincial and federal plans, strategies and policies
    • Coordinate federal and provincial EA requirements and document the project's impacts on the environment, including any mitigation necessary to offset any negative impacts
    • Reach and proactively consult all stakeholders and the public during the planning and environmental assessment phases so they can effectively contribute to the decision-making process
  • The study area highlights consideration of:
    • The role of Tunney's Pasture Station as either a temporary or permanent terminus for LRT
    • The potential role and function of Bayview Station as a transfer station between LRT, BRT and interprovincial rapid transit services
    • The role and function of Lincoln Fields station as a transfer station between BRT and LRT, and;
    • The ability to accommodate BRT and LRT services in a single rapid transit corridor between Lincoln Fields and Baseline Stations

Exhibit 9: Relationship between this Study and Other Rapid Transit Projects/Studies

Exhibit 10: Need and Justification: Framework

  • The Official Plan emphasizes urban intensification and increased mixed-use development centered on rapid transit to address travel demand and to discourage single occupancy vehicle use
  • To support this strategy, the updated 2008 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) sets a 30% transit mode split goal for 2031
  • The TMP identified an expanded rapid transit network as a key component to achieving this objective
  • The recommended TMP rapid transit network was approved by City Council in November 2008 and forms the basis for the need and justification for the proposed WLRTC project
  • Within the WLRTC study area, the TMP identified the need for two LRT corridors west of the downtown:
    • A primary rapid transit (LRT) corridor between Bayview and Baseline stations to be implemented as part of Phase 1 of the TMP
    • A supplementary LRT corridor along Carling Avenue to be implemented as part of Phase 2 of the TMP
  • This study will re-assess the findings of the TMP Update in order to determine the appropriate rapid transit solution within the WLRTC study area and identify the best corridor or corridors for rapid transit (LRT) between Bayview and Baseline stations
  • Any supplementary transit corridor or corridors identified through the WLRTC study will be subject to a further Planning and Environmental Assessment Study

Exhibit 11: Need and Justification: Preliminary Findings

  • Transit modeling was undertaken using the City's regional transportation model (TRANS) to predict the implications of various rapid transit scenarios on future transit demand for the year 2031
  • Preliminary results suggest:
    • There is sufficient demand for a single primary rapid transit corridor between Bayview and Baseline stations
    • The major trade-off in determining the best route is between travel times for longer distance commuters and serving local travel demand:
      • During peak hours, the majority of transit ridership through the study area will be made up of longer distance commuters traveling to and from downtown Ottawa
      • While all travellers are conscious of travel time, longer-distance commuters are more likely to choose other modes if transit is slower
      • Serving both regional and local travel demand increases overall transit ridership and could allow for a single corridor serving both primary and supplementary roles
    • A direct rapid transit connection to Tunney's Pasture is important, particularly for those traveling from east of the study area
      • Not serving Tunney's Pasture with a direct LRT connection results in increased transfers and longer travel times to this important destination
      • Additional modeling work will be undertaken as part of the evaluation of alternative corridors, using updated land use planning assumptions

Exhibit 12-15: Social Environment (maps)

Exhibit 16-17: Physical Environment

Exhibit 18: Planning Objectives and Supporting Criteria Development

  • Planning Objectives and supporting Criteria for the WLRTC study have been identified to guide the development and evaluation of alternative rapid transit corridors
  • Planning objectives were developed in collaboration with the consultation groups at a planning workshop held in October, 2010. The objectives reflect the priorities, sensitivity to various environmental resources, needs and matters of interest in the WLRTC study to allow for the development of reasonable corridors
  • More specific criteria were defined by the consultation groups to support the objectives of the study

Exhibit 19: Planning Objectives and Supporting Criteria

Promote Smart Growth

  • Transit-oriented development opportunities
  • City building opportunities
  • Integrated station development opportunities

Compatibility with Adjacent Communities

  • Integration of LRT with community
  • Operating impacts
  • Business development
  • Air quality, noise and vibration
  • Construction impacts

Protect Historical, Cultural and Archaeological Resources

  • Views, vistas and public open space
  • Heritage conservation
  • Cultural landscapes
  • Archaeological resources

Create Successful Rapid Transit Stations

  • Location and spacing
  • Layout, design and amenities
  • Accessibility
  • Multi-modal connections

Provide a Safe Facility

  • Personal safety
  • Infrastructure safety
  • Operational safety

Increase Ridership, Mobility and Capacity

  • Travel times and rider comfort
  • Design for all-day use
  • Network connectivity
  • Local and regional trips

Maximize Sensitivity to Natural Environment

  • Surface and groundwater
  • Fisheries, flora and fauna
  • Ecological linkages
  • Environmental contamination

Apply Sustainable Design Best Practices

  • Energy efficiency
  • Infrastructure re-use
  • Minimize footprint
  • Storm water management
  • GHG emissions

Wise Public Investment

  • Capital costs
  • Operating and maintenance costs
  • Land acquisition costs
  • Value for money

Exhibit 21: LRT Technology Background and Considerations

  • The City of Ottawa has adopted Light Rail Transit (LRT) technology for its future rail-based rapid transit network, based on the results of a study completed as part of the Transportation Master Plan
  • Modern LRT has the following general characteristics
    • Can operate in fully-segregated, partially-segregated or mixed-traffic corridors
    • Can operate as a single vehicle, or in trains consisting of up to six light rail vehicles
    • Power supplied via overhead wires
  • Some LRT technology considerations in selecting a preferred rapid transit corridor include:
    • Geometric requirements for LRT (horizontal and vertical design parameters)
    • Protecting for grade-separation (to allow for automatic train operation in the future)

Exhibit 22: What Corridors are Being Considered?

  • The study will look at the three primary corridors identified in City's Scope of Work:
    • Carling
    • Richmond/Byron
    • Ottawa River Parkway
  • Multiple variations to connect corridor segments together will be reviewed as part of the corridor evaluation
  • Once a corridor has been defined, steps will be taken to identify how LRT will best fit within the designated corridor

Exhibit 23: Carling Avenue Corridor

Major aspects and issues to consider include:

  • Longer corridor length
  • Serves regional and local transit needs
  • Good potential to encourage intensification and redevelopment
  • Sharp curves required at Lincoln Fields and to/from connecting corridor
  • Community impacts and disruption along most connecting corridors
  • Potential reconfiguration of Bayview Station, timing of O-Train conversion to electric LRT and service to Tunney’s Pasture/Westboro area (O-Train connecting corridor)
  • Pedestrian, cycling and traffic impacts (if at grade) 

Exhibit 24: Byron/Richmond Corridor

Major aspects and issues to consider include:

  • Shorter corridor, makes good use of existing transit infrastructure
  • Temporary/long-term impacts to existing linear greenspace along Byron
  • Integration of LRT corridor with adjacent community
  • Potential for redevelopment along Richmond Road
  • Connection to the Transitway “trench”
  • Pedestrian, cycling and traffic impacts (if at grade)

Exhibit 25: Ottawa River Parkway Corridor

Major aspects and issues to consider include:

  • Impact to cultural landscape and pedestrian/cyclist access
  • Potential conversion of existing traffic lanes or a new alignment within Parkway corridor
  • Traffic impacts if existing lanes are converted to LRT
  • Pedestrian and cycling impacts (if at grade)
  • Impact on greenspace if LRT is in additional lanes
  • Requires greatest use of NCC lands
  • Shorter corridor, makes good use of existing transit infrastructure
  • Ridership growth potential is primarily for longer distance travel

Exhibit 26: Pinecrest Creek Segment (Lincoln Fields to Baseline)

  • Uses of the Pinecrest Creek segment between Lincoln Fields and Baseline Stations is common to all corridor options
  • Major aspects and issues to consider include:
    • Impact on Pinecrest Creek
    • The potential need for both LRT and BRT between Lincoln Fields and Baseline
    • BRT connection between Pinecrest Station and Lincoln Fields as an interim/long-term condition
    • Ability to grade-separate corridor at Iris Street

Exhibit 27: Evaluation Methodology

  • The corridor evaluation will use a multi-criteria decision aid (MCDA) to compare alternative corridors
  • Compares corridors against each other on a range of criteria/indicators
  • A standard 5-step process will be used:
  1. Identify evaluation criteria/indicators
  2. Assign weights or preferences to evaluation criteria
  3. Criteria impact analysis
  4. Application of evaluation method
  5. Conduct sensitivity tests
  • A total of 100 points are assigned in the weighting exercise, divided amongst the nine criteria categories:
    • Promote Smart Growth
    • Compatibility with Adjacent Communities
    • Protect Historical, Cultural and Archaeological Resources
    • Create Successful Rapid Transit Stations
    • Provide a Safe Facility
    • Increase Ridership, Mobility and Capacity
    • Maximize Sensitivity to Natural Environment
    • Apply Sustainable Design Best Practices
    • Wise Public Investment
  • Weighting will be done by members of the ACG, BCG and PCG, and project study team
  • Results will be used in the evaluation to select the preliminary preferred alternative corridor

Exhibit 28: Next Steps

Following this Public Open House:

  • Your comments on the study will be reviewed along with input received from the Consultation Groups
  • The study team will review and respond to all of the comments and prepare an update on the study progress for presentation to a meeting of the Transit Committee
  • The Consultation Groups will assist in undertaking the evaluation of the alternative corridors and provide feedback as the study moves ahead
  • Information about the study will continue to be posted on the City's website as it becomes available
  • The corridor evaluation and preliminary preferred corridor will be presented at a second Public Open House and Presentation in the Spring of 2011

Your Input is Valuable

Thank you for taking an interest in the Western LRT Corridor study

Please let us know what you think by completing the Comment-Questionnaire and placing it in the designated box before you leave or mail or fax it to us by 6 December 2010. Comments can also be submitted by email to

Your views and contributions are important to the success of this study!

Presentation and Summary


The City of Ottawa is proceeding with the preparation of a Planning and Environmental Assessment (EA) Study for the expansion and improvement of its rapid transit network to accommodate existing and future demand. The intent is to extend the DOTT line (Blair to Tunney’s) to Baseline Station and create a LRT trunk line to support the transit mode split objectives of the City’s Transportation Master Plan, and existing land uses and future development established in the City’s Official Plan. The Western LRT Corridor rapid transit project is a primary component of the City’s overall plan for transportation service and infrastructure improvements required to support future growth.

In support of the study, a major public consultation process (as outlined in the Study Design document) has been initiated. This report provides a summary of public consultation activities undertaken as part of the first Public Open House and Presentation held on 29 November 2010, including comments and questions received from the public.


The first Public Open House and Presentation for the WLRTC study was held on Monday, 29 November 29 2010 at Tom Brown Arena (Upper Hall) from 5:30 – 8:30 p.m. A formal presentation was given at 7:00 p.m., followed by a question and answer session. Throughout the event, study team members from the City of Ottawa, National Capital Commission and the consultant team were available to discuss the study with the public and answer questions in an informal setting.

The material presented at the Public Open House and Presentation included information on:

  • Study Overview and Process
  • Study Schedule
  • Consultation Activities
  • Need and Justification
  • Existing Conditions
  • Planning Objectives and Supporting Criteria
  • Alternative Rapid Transit Corridors
  • Proposed Corridor Evaluation Methodology
  • Next Steps


Notification of the Open House occurred through advertisements in daily citywide newspapers, as well as weekly local community newspapers and the City’s Web Site.

  • Ottawa Citizen (November 19 and November 26, 2010)
  • Le Droit (November 19 and November 26, 2010)
  • Metro (November 22 and November 26, 2010)
  • Kitchissippi Times (November 18 and November 25, 2010)
  • EMC Kanata (November 18 and November 25, 2010)
  • EMC Barrhaven/Nepean (November 18 and November 25, 2010)
  • EMC Ottawa West (November 18 and November 25, 2010)
  • City project website

Members of the Agency, Business and Public Consultation Groups were advised of the time and location of the Public Open House and Presentation during Consultation Group meetings held on November 9, 2010 and through circulation of the meeting notes and presentation from these meetings on November 12, 2010.


Attendees were asked to sign-in upon entering the Public Open House. A total of 101 people signed in over the course of the evening. Based on the addresses provided, individuals attending the Public Open House and Presentation represent communities throughout the whole of the study area, as well as other areas of the City of Ottawa (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Geographical Distribution of Participants at Open House #1

Public Open House and Presentation Materials

The Public Open House was organized to allow for informal viewing of exhibit boards by the public. Members of the consulting team and representatives from the City and National Capital Commission were available to discuss the study and answer questions in an informal setting. Exhibit boards provided information regarding:

  • Study overview;
  • Study process;
  • Study schedule;
  • Need and justification;
  • Existing conditions (social, physical and natural environments);
  • Planning objectives and supporting criteria;
  • Alternative corridors;
  • evaluation methodology, and
  • Next steps.

A resource table was also provided with background materials available for review by members of the public. This material included copies of the City of Ottawa Official Plan and Transportation Master Plan, the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, the Transit Project Assessment Process Guidelines, Transit Technology Choice report, and maps illustrating existing environmental conditions within the study area.

During the course of the Public Open House, a formal presentation was given using PowerPoint. A question and answer period was held following the presentation. A summary of the questions asked and answers provided is located in Section 4.0 of this report.

To further assist in obtaining feedback from attendees, an Information Bulletin and a Comment-Questionnaire were distributed at the Public Open House. Members of the public were encouraged to provide written comments via the Comment-Questionnaire and submit them either before leaving the Open House or by fax, email or regular mail by 6 December 2010. A summary of comments received is provided in the following section of this report.

All display boards, presentation slides, resource materials and handouts were provided in both French and English, with the exception of the Transit Technology Choice report, which is only available in English.

Completed Comment-Questionnaires

The following is a summary of the comments received via Comment-Questionnaires submitted at or after the first Public Open House and Presentation. A total of 61 Comment-Questionnaires were completed.

Question 1: Where do you live in the City?

Figure 1 shows the geographic distribution of attendees at the First Public Open House and Presentation, based on the list of signed-in attendees.

Question 2: Why are you interested in this study?

The majority of responses to this question indicated they were interested in the study due to either a general or specific interest in public transit (e.g. support expansion of the City’s LRT network, want better access to transit). A significant number of responses were concerned with potential local or community impacts such as loss of greenspace or property impacts. Other responses included an interest in the study due to its potential impact on overall City growth and development; the cost; and quality of life.

Major issues referenced include:

  • Public Transit (network, access, quality) (32)
  • Local impacts (25)
  • City growth and development (6)
  • Cost (5)
  • Quality of life (4)

Question 3: How important are the following planning objectives as they relate to the overall transit project? Please rate the importance of each listed objective according to the following scale: 1 – very important to me 2 – somewhat important to me 3 – not important to me. (59 responses)

Responses to this question are summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Summary of Responses to Question 3

Planning Objective Very Important to Me Somewhat Important to Me Not Important to Me No Answer Given
Promote Smart Growth 26 18 9 6
Compatibility with Adjacent Communities 39 15 3 2
Protect Historical, Cultural and Archaeological Resources 22 25 9 3
Create Successful Rapid Transit Stations 36 13 6 4
Provide a Safe Facility 27 24 6 2
Increase Ridership, Mobility and Capacity 44 7 4 4
Maximize Sensitivity to Natural Environment 33 14 8 4
Apply Sustainable Design Best Practices 17 27 9 6
Wise Public Investment 33 18 3 5

Figure 2 illustrates the relative importance of the planning objectives based on the number of “very important to me” responses received for each planning objective.

Figure 2: Relative Importance of Planning Objectives

Question 4: What in your view are the primary issues to be addressed during the planning of the Western LRT Corridor?

The issues most often referenced in responses concerned the overall transit network (e.g. maximizing speed, ridership, access and service quality) and in particular the need to resolve issues relating to the perceived trade-offs between regional and local benefits (e.g. travel speed for longer-distance commuters vs. local impacts and access). Avoiding negative impacts on the local community (in particular the potential loss of or access to greenspace) cost, and encouraging future development were also significant issues identified in many comments.

Specific issues raised include:

  • Transit network, ridership and service quality (25)
  • Regional versus local benefits (17)
  • Local/community impacts (7)
  • Cost (7)
  • Encouraging future development (6)

Question #5: Carling, Richmond/Byron and the Ottawa River Parkway have been identified as potential Western LRT Corridors. What concerns do you have regarding each corridor:


Many people stated they had few concerns with this corridor and expressed that this was their preferred choice, especially in consideration of potential long-term development and ridership. Concerns expressed centred mainly on the ability of this corridor to support a higher-speed rapid transit facility, potential interaction with other road users, and the cost and feasibility of accommodating a grade-separated rapid transit within this corridor given some of the physical constraints present (e.g. hill west of the O-Train corridor and sharp turns required) in this corridor.

Specific issues raised include:

  • No concerns/preferred corridor (31)
  • Speed (11)
  • Cost (6)
  • Interaction with other road users (5)
  • Local impacts (4)
  • Feasibility (3)

Most concerns centred on local impacts and potential loss of greenspace, especially with respect to the Byron Linear greenspace. Concerns rose significantly regarding corridor segments which see LRT constructed further into the Westboro community along Byron or Richmond Road and which avoid re-use of the existing Transitway west of Westboro Station. This corridor was also supported by many respondents, particularly if the LRT line is located below-grade and can be covered over to re-instate greenspace and walking/cycling facilities.

Specific issues identified include:

  • No concerns/preferred corridor (27)
  • Local impacts (19)
  • Feasibility (3)
  • Cost (2)
Ottawa River Parkway

Most concerns with this corridor optioned centred on the lack of development potential along the corridor, the limited access to existing development, and the potential significant loss of greenspace and access to the river, and recreational facilities. There was some support for this corridor as the likely fastest and cheapest option.

Specific issues identified include:

  • Loss of greenspace/local impacts (19)
  • Lack of access (15)
  • Lack of development potential (13)
  • Design/feasibility (3)

Question 6: Do you have specific issues that may affect the evaluation of corridor options?

Most respondents re-iterated issues which will be considered in the evaluation, such as community or local impacts. Additional issues raised include: Looking at how to serve whichever corridors are by-passed for the WLRTC; the importance of providing new corridors and not just replacing existing rapid transit; NCC permission for use of Ottawa River Parkway; aesthetics and tourist considerations, and; ease of construction.

Question 7: Do you have any specific questions or comments on the planning work presented to date?

Most respondents to this question provided comments with respect to issues of importance to them, and on the alternative corridors identified. Concern for greenspace and the balance of local and regional trip-making were frequently raised.

Questions with respect to the evaluation process and opportunities for additional public input were raised, including requests for more information, more clarity on the decision-making process and on the project schedule.

Question 8: Do you feel that the information presented at this first Public Open House & Presentation has given you a better understanding of the Project? (61 responses)

Yes – 40
No – 2
Somewhat – 7
No opinion – 12

Presentation Question and Answer Summary

The following is a summary of the verbal questions and comments received and responses provided during the course of and following the formal presentation given during the Public Open House.

Are some objectives specific to some routes? All corridors will be rated against all 9 criteria.
Pinecrest Creek is not in the study area? How do you get from Lincoln Fields to Baseline? Current route staying? Yes, we would re-use the existing corridor between Lincoln Fields and Baseline, and there are impacts/opportunities associated with this, such as: Rehabilitating the creek (daylighting) Slight shifts in existing geometry to meet LRT requirements Connection to West Transitway Extension south of Lincoln Fields
Are the objectives weighted? Yes. This will be outlined later in the presentation.
Elevated train considered? Yes. We will be considering above, at and below grade design options in each corridor.
In the photos being shown, why no fences around LRT? Level of protection required hasn’t been decided yet. Idea would be to keep system as open as possible, like Calgary which is at-grade. Auto/train conflicts need to be avoided but opportunities for adequate pedestrian movement across the corridor will be provided. LRT speeds in the corridors not yet defined.
Is cut and cover being considered for underground options? Yes. Cut and cover is more likely for any underground route as it allows the tunnel to be shallower, easier in the short term (constructability) and in the long-term (ease of use as platforms are shallower).
Has property expropriation been considered? The final alignment will be designed to achieve optimum geometry for LRT, which may require expropriation to attain. Negotiation is the first preference for all property acquisition. The City will identify any areas impacted and would move forward on this if/when needed.
Why isn’t the existing rail line from Nepean being considered for use in peaks? This was considered as part of the TMP, and held off as future option. The TMP identified converting the existing Transitway between Baseline and Blair to LRT as a priority.
During the evaluation process, at what point do you decide at, below, above-grade? All options are being considered now. After the spring Open House the alignment will be decided for the preferred corridor.
3 consultation groups, weighting equally? Yes. All members of each group will work together to create a weighing the objectives for their consultation group. The results will be presented to the other groups. Each of the three groups will be considered equally.
Have you assessed the total population in each station area and what percentage is in walking distance of these areas? Yes. We have used regional model to assess this. As part of the project, local bus routes will be reorganized to get people quicker to stations. The majority of trips on the corridor are taken by people travelling through the study area.
At stations will there be separate lanes for buses and trains? Yes. Buses and trains need to be kept separate due to different operational requirements.
Are climate problems being factored and will trains be able make grades? Yes, the technology study looked at rapid transit examples in similar climates. Grades will be minimized as part of the design process.
I don’t see anything in the Planning objectives about keeping green space. Why is this not being considered? That might be an oversight on our part. Green space is considered within the “Protect historical, cultural and archaeological resources” planning objectives, as well as within the “Maximize Sensitivity to Natural Environment” objective.
Are aesthetics being considered? This is rolled into station design. Impacts on landscapes will be also be rolled in as appropriate.
Is there a different weighting for people living in the area versus people going through the area? No. The goal of the study is to pick a rapid transit corridor, so we need to look at facility that is rapid as possible, for example fewer stations spaced further apart, but which balances the desire to serve local needs as well.
Increase ridership within community? Yes.
Once the corridor is decided, when and where will construction start? Work on this project is likely to start after the DOTT is up and running, around 2018. Depending on the procurement process used, the constructor could decide to build the WLRTC faster and do multiple segments in parallel.
What are the groups that are doing the weighting? ACG, BCG, PCG, Study Team will act as the 4th group.
Who is in the Agency group? City departments, provincial and federal branches of the government. Other review agencies such as Hydro which have a mandated interest.
Will the trains have steel wheels on steel rails or rubber tires on concrete? Technology report concluded that the trains will have steel wheels on steel rails.
So if there are really 4 Groups, will this mean that the public group will only have ¼ say? No, the weightings from the groups will be applied separately to each corridor option and the Study Team will check all the results to see if we come up with the same solution. If there are different conclusions we will see if there is a rational reason for it. If it’s one indicator, we might remove a criterion as a sensitivity test to see which one is affecting the results.
Will bus route changes to connect into a rapid transit line impact on communities and will this affect station location? OC Transpo is working with us to look at local bus routes and potential changes. There is an opportunity to look at station locations which are easier for OC Transpo to serve, and better for the community.
Since Official Plan calls for an evaluation of jobs and residential units surrounding rapid transit station will you be looking at that for station locations? Yes. We are looking at estimates as per the Official Plan and Transportation Master Plan to maximize opportunities to capture jobs and population around station locations.
Two challenges to look at: 1 – move around local area 2 – outside people through study area. Yes.
Is there a future option (rail line) further south? Our study will define which corridor will serve the study area best in terms of rapid transit. A second corridor, to be considered in the future as a city-building initiative, will likely be considered.
Can automation be used for these parts of the corridor, Kanata, Lincoln Fields, Bayshore? Yes, inside the Greenbelt rapid transit will be segregated from other traffic as much as possible to provide a higher degree of service and to try to take advantage of automation.
Will Tunney’s be a temporary or permanent terminus? Will there be a role for a 2nd line and how will it work? The DOTT study looked at Blair to Tunney’s Pasture as Tunney’s is a major employment node looking to double in size. As a result it is designated as a terminal station. Depending on the route selected west of Bayview, Tunney’s Pasture could be an in-line station (with no terminal functions) or branch service (which may include some reduced terminal functions for local routes to the west).
Will service for Hospital employees be considered? Yes, all potential trip origins and destinations in the corridors are being looked at, i.e., Carling, Scott.
What if public servants are moved to the Nortel campus? This will be considered but it is our understanding that employees from other locations are slated to move to Nortel. Even if they move from Tunney’s Pasture, it is still in a popular location, and PWGSC is undertaken a study to look at major expansion.
You mentioned that the ORP corridor is faster, but is Richmond/Byron also quicker than Carling? Speeds along alignment of ORP on diagonal of route. It will have the same number of stations, slow down for curves, geometry and this will all dictate speed. There is not a significant difference in time calculations. The Carling route is about 3 minutes longer than the ORP route on a total trip time of 60 minutes for a trip from Kanata. The Byron/Richmond corridor is only slightly longer than the ORP route.
The ORP corridor does not have as much ridership potential as Carling. Yes, this factor will form part of our evaluation.
Who benefits the most? Green space is not highly rated and should be revisited to be a major factor. We have laid out a series of criteria groups. The Consultation Groups can assign it more weight as part of the process. Please put the issue on your Comment-Questionnaire so that it is noted.
Using the Ottawa River Parkway should be graded less due to limited potential increase in ridership. It may be fast, fewer stops but does attract many riders. Need to balance more stops/accessibility for local and regional users. Likely to be 5-6 stations regardless of which corridor is chosen, 1,000-1,500m apart. They will not look like tram stations. Major stations will have more density with the potential of 4 or 5 nodes of development.
ORP Rapid transit should be along the ORP Haven’t thrown out. The TMP identified the need for a rapid transit corridor somewhere within the study area, we are not revisiting on a regional scale. We will look at which corridor is best for rapid transit and the potential for a local corridor will be considered as well.
At what point does City Council get involved? They have already approved the scope of work, and we will go back to the Transportation Committee to update them on the work to-date. We will go back for approval of the preferred corridor in Spring 2011.
How do we tell the City to look at both local and regional? Put on your Comment-Questionnaire.
Has our resource consumption been considered? Yes, the TMP and OP show increases in transit ridership, population increases of 30%, and transit ridership increases up 78%, reflecting redevelopment to rapid transit.
Move people from place to place – community development – separate from rapid transit. Forgetting what this is about – 2 separate activities Needs to be integrated, so that we respect all aspects.
Focus being swayed Need to balance local and regional, afford a certain amount.
You could have buses on ORP (leave them) and trains on Carling OC train do not want to operate two services that are parallel, rob from each other. Lincoln Fields to Baseline some local buses in corridor, can’t afford to have both corridors in place.
Studies from 70s decided to put bus on ORP – how were these routes decided on? Based on development potential and to encourage ridership – didn’t want to spend money downtown and so– used Parkway to extend Transitway further out. As a result Ottawa has high per capita ridership.
Anyone read those NCC studies? Old reports are very extensive not as thorough now as back then. Have read some, not all. We will review them.
Current load – 3x capacity how many trains? New trains carry more people – at 5 or 6 minute headways trains can handle the volume.
Surprised on 3 min time difference, highlight time difference more The real factor will be the stops and curves which will affect average speed. We will be doing more work to look at the differences in travel speeds between the corridor options.
Fast travel outside greenbelt. Balance operating costs Will be looking at balancing cost and speed and will roll into evaluation.
Are you considering implementing fare by distance? No. This is an operational decision for OC Transpo to make and it affects the whole system. Smartcards being introduced would make it possible implement fare by distance.
Why was this Open House held now, and will there be other public meetings in other areas in the corridor? We needed to wait for election to be over before doing any public consultation. We will look at having the next Open House further into study area. We have had some issues finding a large enough venue. This is the only meeting at this stage of the project.
Will people from Kanata have to transfer to get on LRT? Yes. The intent is to improve the local environment and reducing GHGs. This is achieved by intercepting buses as far out as possible and having riders transfer to LRT.
3 minutes is not a big difference in travel time.  
Will there be expanded Park & Ride at the rail head? City policy is no more Park & Ride lots inside the Greenbelt. The City will need to look at other opportunities to capture people further out.
Is implementation timing of routes decided? Yes. This project will be implemented once the DOTT is operational.
Kanata residents will overload the trains coming in Peak point on system is on edge of downtown – but residents boarding in this area will have a much shorter trip to downtown
With automation would it possible to have some cars not open further out to reserve capacity for riders closer in? This is not likely an option. LRT will provide greater capacity than current BRT system.
How many more stations likely between Bayview and Baseline? Ottawa River Parkway and Richmond/Byron would likely have 2 more stations. Along Carling there would likely be potential for 4-5 new stations in total.
Will you look at express trains operations to reduce “sardine effect”? Will be considered as part of the design.