Transit Committee

Comité du transport en commun

Minutes 31 / Procès-verbal 31

Wednesday, 6 May 2009, 1:30 p.m.

le mercredi 6 mai 2009, 13 h 30

Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West

Salle Champlain, 110, avenue Laurier ouest

Present / Présents : A. Cullen (Chair / Président), M. Wilkinson (Vice-Chair /
Vice-présidente ), G. Bédard, R. Bloess, C. Doucet, C. Leadman, J. Legendre, D. Thompson

Absent / absents : Councillor M. McRae (Regrets / excuses)

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT

No declarations of interest were filed.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Ratification dES PROCÈS-VERBAUX

Minutes 29 and 30 of the Transit Committee on Wednesday, 18 February 2009 and 4 March 2009 were confirmed.

COMMUNICATIONS

Responses to Inquiries: / Réponses aux demandes de renseignements:

TTC 02-09 Reimbursement Forms / Formulaires de remboursement

TTC 03-09 Summer Bus Route from Downtown Ottawa/Gatineau to Lac Philippe / Circuit d’autobus d’été du centre-ville d’Ottawa/de Gatineau au lac Philippe

INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES & COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY

SERVICES D’INFRASTRUCTURE ET VIABILITÉ DES COLLECTIVITÉS

TRANSIT SERVICES

SERVICE DE TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN

1. new articulated bus garage – efficiency modifications and cost-saving opportunities

Nouveau gage pour autobus articulés – Modifications relatives à l’efficacité et possibilités d’économies

ACS2009-ICS-TRA-0005 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

Alain Mercier, General Manager, Transit Services gave a detailed presentation of the item, a copy of which is held on file. Also in attendance were: Stephane Carbonneau, Program Manager, Transit Capital Projects; Wayne Newell, Director, Infrastructure Services; and, Paul Lessard, Infrastructure Services.

Chair Cullen noted that Councillor Hume (ward councillor) had met with staff and Councillor Wilkinson put forward the following Motion on his behalf:

WHEREAS the site plan for the articulated bus garage at 735 Industrial Ave. was approved in consultation with the public;

AND WHEREAS the public has not had the opportunity to have a public meeting to discuss the impact of the on-site operations due to the increased number of buses;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that staff be directed to hold a public consultation session in collaboration with the ward Councillor and report back to Transit Committee in the form of an IPD, which will outline the measures being undertaken to address the publics’ concerns.

The following public delegations were received:

Charles Akben-Marchand, past President, Citizens for Safe Cycling spoke briefly about how the new bus garage impacts on the rack-n-roll service. They want to see the program expanded in the season as well as to more routes and he was seeking assurance that the new garage will be able to accommodate articulated buses with bicycle racks.

Mr. Mercier confirmed that the new garage would be built to accommodate the buses with bicycle racks.

David Gladstone emphasized that investment for maintaining the City’s bus fleet is consistent with the objective of having more people travel on light rail in the future. He maintained it is overdue for the City to expand the O-train on existing rail lines, rather then investing on increasing the articulated bus fleet.

David Jeanes demonstrated in an overhead slide of the Pinecrest garage, that the building and the surrounding land were originally the proposed route for the West Transit way to reach Lincoln Fields. He noted that the alternative (and longer) route via Roman Avenue was selected because of concerns of tunnelling under Connaught Avenue. He pointed out that if this garage is decommissioned, it may in fact make the routing of rapid transit through that particular tight corner much easier and better to do on the original EA route, thereby eliminating having to expropriate homes along Roman Avenue and providing a shorter and less curved route for buses and light rail (should the latter be extended farther west).

Also, before decommissioning and selling off this facility, Mr. Jeanes pointed out that it is ideally located as a minor maintenance and storage facility for light rail for the west end. If it is decommissioned, there will be no bus storage facility anywhere in the western portion of the Transitway, resulting in having to duplicate the facility between Lincoln Fields and Baseline, which he was not convinced was not required. He did not think Council could simply dismiss the future use of that property, when there could potentially be a much earlier extension of LRT to Bayshore.

With specific reference to the report before Committee, Mr. Jeanes was not comfortable with the recommendation to build a new facility that is somewhat temporary in nature, if the City does build light rail.

When asked to respond to the delegation’s comments, specifically with regards to the West Transitway route, Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager agreed it was a good point that merits examination.

Commenting on the delegation’s suggestions re the decommissioning the garage, Mr. Mercier indicated that staff had identified the potential for this garage and due to it’s limited nature, it was deemed not desirable as an expansion facility when looking at the lifecycle of the building and the options available. He concurred that the notion of having a garage facility in the west end is one of due consideration that staff would obviously examine, but he explained that such decisions would not be made for another eight to ten years. This report advises Council that if it were to put some money into the core operation, the facilities should be sized to avoid any future construction. Further, this facility is almost entirely surrounded on two sides by residential development, which makes it very difficult to consider expansion in this area. He agreed these were valid points made and staff would examine them over the next few years and bring forward any alternatives.

With regards to the general argument of increasing capacity in the short term, Councillor Legendre asked staff to explain why this report appears to focus on the long-term for the garage capacity. Mr. Mercier explained that several years ago, the need for a new garage was identified once the City had over 900 buses. There are currently 1027 buses in the system so therefore the City has already surpassed capacity to store buses. Further, the TMP indicates approximately 1250 buses required going into the period of 2021. The question is building a special purpose facility for the maximum fleet size above the current level today, even with rail.

The Chair referenced the current Environmental Assessment (EA) for the original route for the Southwest Transitway crossing the Pinecrest corridor, passing under Connaught Avenue and underneath the parking garage to arrive at the north side of the Queensway and suggested that if there is no need for the garage, the EA would examine the alternative of an at-surface route from the Southwest Transitway to the north side of the Queensway. Mr. Mercier confirmed that it would be the right approach to consider those alternatives that the long-term need for the garage would be in question and therefore it opens up those avenues to assess the corridors today. He confirmed there would be enough time to adjust the need for the garage in time with other needs for the corridor. He confirmed that the report before Committee does not make a recommendation to close the Pinecrest garage and that a report about the future of that facility would not be brought back for about two years.

The Chair presumed that the EA would have to factor in the timing of all these things because if the City should decide to decommission the garage, there is an at-surface route that may be considered instead. Ms. Schepers confirmed this understanding.

David James echoed the comments made by the other delegation with regards to the Pinecrest garage and further suggested that if that facility is decommissioned, the property could be used for a station, and there may be an opportunity for a transit-oriented development on this site as well.

In considering the report, and following a series of questions posed to staff on the need for bus garages, Councillor Leadman asked whether there would be a cost associated with decommissioning the property where the Pinecrest garage is located. Mr. Mercier explained that there would be, but until an alternative use of the land has been identified, he was not in a position to provide the cost details.

Councillor Wilkinson suggested that moving to light rail would reduce the number of buses required to service the system and remove a lot of the pressure on the main routes. Therefore, she wondered why there would be a requirement for more garages. The General Manager responded by stating that what is being recommended will serve the modest growth to support the rail base infrastructure. As the City moves into the second phase of the rail project with more expansion of the rail system, it will be looking at how many buses will be avoided; what the long-term bus fleet size will be; and, will that require another garage? He offered that the current thinking is to concentrate on and optimize the three major industrial sites, which should bring the City to approximately 1300 buses of capacity. He added that if growth is beyond that, another garage facility should be considered.

Councillor Wilkinson noted that on top of that, there is a need for a garage and maintenance yards for light rail and she wondered that if there were streetcars, would they go to the same maintenance yard or require one of their own. Mr. Mercier indicated that should there be more displacement of the bus network that would cause a downsizing and is the reason why staff wants to be conservative and only invest in the three core sites. By increasing this garage now, it postpones, at least until light rail is in place, what the next steps are going to be.

Councillor Desroches considered the fact that double-decker buses have been added to the fleet and wondered what the future fleet is going to look like and whether or not this report is based on the assumption that the City is moving forward with articulated buses when in fact there could be a possibility (or a risk) to rely more on double-decker buses. The General Manager explained that each bus design serves different parts of the market, i.e., articulated buses will operate in high density routes, whereas the double-deckers best serve the commuter and suburban market. He believed the sizing was correct for the future and if double-deckers are a chosen technology, they will be accommodated in the Merivale facility, which will be converted for that type of bus.

Staff confirmed the Motion would not have an impact on the staff report. Mr. Mercier further stated that staff would continue as planned to not affect the infrastructure project; there would be a public consultation for the phase of adding a second exit and the traffic impact on the site. Councillor Legendre noted that the Motion refers to the site plan for this bus garage and since this is not the Committee that approves site plans, he presumed it is still under the delegated authority of staff. He maintained this would allow for the consultation to occur prior to the approval of the site plan and Ms. Schepers confirmed this understanding.

Moved by M. Wilkinson

WHEREAS the site plan for the articulated bus garage at 735 Industrial Ave. was approved in consultation with the public;

AND WHEREAS the public has not had the opportunity to have a public meeting to discuss the impact of the on-site operations due to the increased number of buses;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that staff be directed to hold a public consultation session in collaboration with the ward Councillor and report back to Transit Committee in the form of an IPD, which will outline the measures being undertaken to address the publics’ concerns.

CARRIED

That Transit Committee recommend Council:

1. Approve increasing the scope of the construction of the new Articulated Bus Garage at 735 Industrial Ave. to increase the productive capacity of the facility from 147 to 210 articulated buses;

2. Approve the additional funding to a limit of $15M for Account Number 903780 New Transit Garage for a revised project authority of $80.363M;

3. Direct staff to undertake an industrial engineering study of existing transit facilities to develop a long-term maintenance and operational plan and present Transit Committee with options to rationalize facilities as part of the 10-Year Transit Operating and Capital Plan for 2010

4. That staff be directed to hold a public consultation session in collaboration with the ward Councillor and report back to Transit Committee in the form of an IPD, which will outline the measures being undertaken to address the publics’ concerns.

CARRIED, as amended

PLANNING and growth management

URBANISME et Gestion de la croissance

2. Downtown Ottawa Transit Tunnel (DOTT) Planning and Environment Assessment Study Update

ÉTUDE DE PLANIFICATION ET D'ÉVALUATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE DU TUNNEL DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN AU CENTRE-VILLE D'OTTAWA (DOTT) (RAPPORT PROVISOIRE) - TRACÉ DU COULOIR ET CHOIX DES STATIONS

ACS2009-ICS-PLA-0069 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager introduced the item and Vivi Chi, Manager, Transportation and Infrastructure Planning and David Hopper, Delcan provided a detailed overview of the report. Pat Scrimgeour, Manager, Transit Services Design spoke to the operational issues and, Rob Mackay, Manager, Strategic Projects provided details on process and other issues as they related to the report. A copy of their comprehensive PowerPoint presentation is held on file.

The Chair received three Motions two of which would seek to defer the report:

Moved by C. Leadman (on behalf of Councillor Holmes)

That in consultation with the Ward Councillor, staff investigate options with the goal to minimize bus traffic along Albert Street as it passes through the Lebreton Flats.

Moved by C. Leadman

That the recommended alignment of the downtown tunnel be deferred until costing is developed and approved by Council;

And that staff develop and cost a second possible DOTT alignment with grade separation under Albert Street, utilizing the existing Mackenzie-King Bridge transit infrastructure, a grade separation (over/under pass) at the Laurier intersection following the existing rapid transit network route and utilizing the existing grade separated infrastructure adjacent to the University of Ottawa.

Moved by G. Bédard

That ICS and Transit Services staff be directed to jointly reconsider the report prior to any form of approval by Committee and Council and develop, for the approval of Committee and Council, a Downtown Transit Plan to address the following matters:

· The absolute need for the continued economic vitality and viability of the Rideau commercial district

· The importance of transit service – both access from all areas of the City and the details of operations – to support this economic vitality and viability

· The need for convenient connections from the surface transit service to the underground light rail line

· The need for continued transit service to the stops on the Mackenzie King Bridge to maintain a pedestrian flow through the Rideau Centre and nearby businesses

· The need for substantial reductions in the number of buses operating on Rideau Street and on Albert and Slater Streets to improve the general environment on those streets and for businesses along those streets

· The need for continued reliable and convenient transit service to, from, and through the Rideau commercial area and all of downtown

· The possible need for transit priority measures or physical modifications to streets to allow the recommended plan to be implemented

And that staff be directed to develop and bring forward recommendations for the consideration of Committee and Council in time that any required civil works can be included in the Downtown Ottawa Transit Tunnel project.

~~WHEREAS staff are still developing alternatives for surface transit operations during and following construction of the DOTT;~~

~~THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that in consultation with the Ward Councillor, staff investigate options with the goal to minimize bus traffic along Albert Street as it passes through the LeBreton Flats.~~

The Committee received the following delegations:

David Jeanes, Transport 2000 made note of the fact that compared to other cities in Canada, some of the downtown stations are quite far apart. There is also a long climb to the surface. He suggested there be one or two more stations in the downtown. He further noted that all of the proposed stations in the core are a long way from City Hall. He believed that the Daly Avenue alignment vs. Rideau Street was not sufficiently studied and felt it would better serve the Rideau Centre. And, if none of this works, more attention should have been paid to the surface option because a four-vehicle train would provide the necessary capacity.

In response to a question of clarification by the Chair, staff confirmed that the length between stations was to accommodate up to a maximum of a six-car train.

Charles Akben-Marchand, Centretown Citizens' Community Association (CCCA) presented the following concerns:

· No transit on Scott and Albert streets; alternatives include: in-road track between Tunney’s and Bayview stations; extending the O-Train to Gatineau; and, using the Ottawa River Parkway; express buses must turn around at Tunney’s Pasture

· Number of downtown stations; the walking time is much higher than the current transitway

· DOTT stations; the number of proposed stations limits the number of trains that can serve the downtown and limits opportunities for multiple lines when LRT is extended to suburbs; future LRT lines with lower passenger demand will use shorter trains, but these will not be allowed in the downtown due to need for capacity of six-car trains, esp. during rush hour

· Bayview Station; Transfer “T” scored higher in analysis than “DTD” (direct to downtown), but requires transfer downtown; DTD and T are operationally different and therefore requires a look at how trains will run; north/south passengers will have to transfer to six-car east/west trains at Bayview during rush hour. There are two ways to solve this: do not convert the O-Train; or, have more and shorter stations downtown.

A copy of his written submission is held on file.

When asked to comment on these concerns, specifically with respect to the walking distance between stations and their depth, Mr. Hopper advised that they are attempting to get them as shallow as possible, but he did not have further details at this time. He added that there will be a number of entrances to the stations throughout the downtown, so although the stations are far apart, there are many accesses to them. They have to ensure an appropriate balance of portals and stations.

Cindy VanBuskirk, General Manager, Rideau Centre spoke to a prepared statement, the more salient points being:

· Transit is an integral part of the community infrastructure and has the potential to be both a positive and negative for the Rideau Centre; 47% of their customers come by transit

· The Rideau Centre complex was built to revitalize the ByWard Market and Rideau Street by providing a pedestrian flow; it also functions as a transit hub linking local transit service on Rideau Street with regional transit service on the Mackenzie King Bridge; the development agreement with the City of Ottawa required them to provide transit access for 20 hours each day

· To facilitate this transit customer movement through the shopping centre, the design and merchandising followed a north-south orientation between Level 1 and Level 3; however, the proposed Rideau Street tunnel alignment will permanently remove all regional and express transit traffic from the Mackenzie King Bridge, thereby eliminating that transit customer movement; in turn, this will reduce overall customer traffic and severely reduce sales volumes and productivity

· If the main objective of the transit tunnel project is to move people quickly and efficiently to and through downtown Ottawa, this can be just as easily achieved following a Mackenzie King Bridge alignment, without the devastating impact on the Rideau Centre and it’s retailers

· Requested the Committee to send the report back to staff and the project team, with direction to more comprehensively and conclusively address these concerns in the context of an overall transportation and development plan that will better support all interests.

A copy of her written submission and a previously distributed letter to the Deputy City Manager dated 21 April 2009 are held on file.

When asked to respond to the suggestion of access via the Mackenzie King Bridge, Ms. Chi explained that staff did examine that option but the turn at that location would result in having to move the Campus Station further east. Mr. Hopper added that all the buildings that make up the University of Ottawa are on pilings, so the tunnel would have to be of a specific depth to avoid those. Also, the curve would be too sharp. He indicated that there are strong technical challenges to doing this as well as where it would come up at the Rideau Centre. They recognized the economic issues raised by the delegation and offered that the north side of the complex affords more opportunities to connect to amenities.

Councillor Bédard inquired how seriously staff looked at this because he felt it was not really investigated. The consultant advised that detailed evaluation criteria were used for all options. He offered that many buildings had piles underneath and so while it could be built to the bridge instead, it would be expensive. Further, all alignments on Rideau Street had the least risk.

The councillor stated that none of the criteria had to do with commercial or economic development and the impact on existing facilities. Mr. Hopper explained that there were actually a number of criteria regarding sustainable communities and smart growth, as well as several sub-criteria that addressed this. The councillor emphasized however, that none of the criteria looked at the economic impact on the Rideau Centre. With regards to the issue of the criteria, the councillor presumed the consultant looked at the possibility of the curve and whether or not it was feasible. Mr. Hopper responded by stating that the curve from the Mackenzie King Bridge to Nicholas Street would be impossible with the tunnel-boring machine and a “cut and cover” design would be the only way to do it.

In response to a question posed by the councillor, Ms. VanBuskirk advised that there is already a transit station at the Mackenzie King Bridge immediately inside and this platform is leased to the City until 2024. With this information, Councillor Bédard asked why a serious look would therefore not be given to the Mackenzie Bridge and Mr. Hopper explained that the passenger platform is only part of the equation and there are other things that have to be balanced off.

Ms. VanBuskirk indicated that Viking-Rideau support LRT and the TMP. She reminded Committee members that their complex includes the Westin Hotel, the Congress Centre, parking, shopping, et cetera and posited that it would be a colossal mistake not to seriously consider the impact this report has on this complex. They are prepared to lose pedestrian traffic with the introduction of LRT, but putting all the traffic on the north side of the building does nothing to support the merchants on Levels 1 and 3. She emphasized the need to generate cross-traffic to support the economic viability of the Rideau Centre, without which they would probably close their doors to business shortly after retail hours.

Councillor Legendre was quite surprised by the position of the Rideau Centre and the fact they did not want a new LRT system at their front door. Ms. VanBuskirk advised that many of the retailers would be happy to have it, but others would not because of their inability to draw traffic to their location. The councillor believed that the ability to attract commerce would remain. Ms. VanBuskirk agreed there would always be people shopping, but suggested the sales levels would not be the same. The councillor wondered whether the original development agreement was still in effect and if legal ramifications have to be given in camera. Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel advised that there was no legal obligation to the City to maintain transit service at the Rideau Centre.

Councillor Leadman asked whether the delegation had had meetings with City staff to discuss their concerns and Ms. VanBuskirk explained that staff heard their concerns, but had not offered any options to address them. She has had discussions with staff about putting investment in an underground tunnel station, but did not think those discussions had progressed to the point where they could participate in the ultimate tunnel program. The councillor asked whether Ms. VanBuskirk believed the Rideau Centre was a major employment centre and the delegation indicated she did, adding that it has 3300 employees. The councillor noted therefore, that the Rideau Centre is a substantial employment hub, which the Committee should keep in mind as opposed to looking at it from a perspective of supporting business.

When asked by Councillor Bédard what the pedestrian traffic was like through the Ridau Centre, Ms. VanBuskirk indicated they receive about 20 million people each year; therefore, if the transit hub were cut off, it would have a devastating impact. She related that during the recent transit strike, their daily traffic declined to 40% and with about 30,000 fewer people, their sales declined and many millions of dollars were lost in January. When asked what the economic impact of that was on the City, she advised that reduced sales would mean a reduction in property taxes to the City. There would probably be fewer retail businesses at the Rideau Centre as well. Further, their ability to attract world-class businesses would decline. She felt the councillor’s Motion was important because it would give them something to look at to fully understand what the impact will be on this shopping complex.

Hume Rogers, Downtown Coalition spoke with Pat Gillen, on behalf of the 35 building owners and managers of the Coalition, which represents 81 office buildings and hotels. They were pleased to see the planning of the downtown tunnel moving forward because it will contribute positively to the capacity, speed, efficiency and ridership of public transit. The tunnel will remove all but local buses from Albert and Slater, improving safety and environment in the downtown. However, they requested that these benefits not be destroyed by moving the STO buses to these streets.

They agreed with the staff recommendations, including the number of stations, but believed the consultant’s proposal places the most easterly station in the core too far north, whereas there is a greater population to be served south of Queen and Albert streets. Instead of veering cross-country to the north at Kent Street, the Coalition suggests the route continue east along the line of Albert Street and then cut north at Metcalfe Street. This would place the most easterly station along Albert instead of Queen and would increase the number of people within a 300m catchment area of the station by approximately 14%. It would also provide better service to City Hall, the Courthouse, and Place Bell. Mr. Rogers offered that future growth in the core will expand to the south along Slater, Laurier and beyond, therefore, keeping as far to the south at the most easterly stop is desirable for that future expansion.

While the Coalition made this suggestion to the consultants, Mr. Rogers did not believe they have taken an objective look at it because it would lead to a slightly sharper curve than that being proposed in the report. He pointed out, however, that the curve from Rideau to Waller in a southerly direction is much more severe. Their proposed variation will not have an impact on the NAC or the Bell Canada switching station. A copy of his written submission is held on file.

Responding to questions of Committee members, Mr. Gillen indicated that the bend at the Rideau Centre is much sharper to the west than what they have proposed because they suggest the curve start at Metcalfe Street. And, with the latest technology, he understood that their proposed curve is acceptable.

Mr. Hopper indicated that they had reviewed the curve in their proposal and the version he has more accurately reflects what is needed to make the alignment work. Their version does not allow for a station on Rideau Street, whereas the proposed option shows a station spanning across to the Canal. And, they have to get past the station before starting the curve and that it why the curves are sharper. Councillor Legendre recognized that the bends in both curves are the same, but it is the sharpness of the curves west of the Canal that is the problem. The consultant concurred with this assessment.

John Walker believed that due to the financial situation in the world, the funding from the senior level of government may be less than anticipated and suggested that the expectation of them paying one third of the cost for this project may not be fulfilled. He proposed a less expensive “Plan B”.

Mr. Walker recognized the advances in bus hybrid technology, including the use of ultra capacitors that can be charged in a few minutes and can hold quite a bit more power than batteries; this would mean travelling many kilometres on a short quick charge, which is a lot cleaner than diesel. He made reference to the new technology available for clean, efficient hybrid buses, which are preferred over light rail and which do not constrain the system to wires or rails. He further cautioned about changing to a different system, because when the City starts to add light rail, the depth of the tunnel, plus the waiting time for a train may add 20 minutes to a person’s overall trip time. Given the success of the existing transit system, Mr. Walker did not believe there were any advantages to using light rail, a system that will cost twice as much and has many limitations.

He suggested that rather than having deep tunnels, the cut-and-cover method be employed, thereby placing them no more than three or four metres underground; buses could easily enter the transit system via the appropriate grade access into the tunnel. Mr. Walker also suggested changing the Mackenzie King Bridge to a two-level bridge. A copy of his written submission is held on file.

Derek Reid, Action Sandy Hill suggested variations for stop locations of the stations, which he believed, warranted consideration. These included:

Westboro – would be relatively inexpensive; the reduced costs of running trains instead of buses along this corridor justifies implementing the extension to Westboro in Phase 1. Local residents will not tolerate transitway buses using Scott Street and a suitable and unintrusive bus terminal can be temporarily located directly north of Westboro Station. There would no longer be justification for running buses all the way downtown or to Lebreton or Bayview.

Tunney’s Pasture – extending it to Westboro would eliminate the need for expanding the bus terminal at Tunney’s Pasture; removing the transitway access ramp would free up space and enable redevelopment of the land.

Bayview – shifting the Bayview Station to the west would provide better access to Bayview Road and would preserve a transfer option for a north/south LRT route.

Preston – shifting Lebreton Flats Station to the west would improve access to Little Italy and would maintain walkable access to the War Museum; having LRT access to Preston Street, a main commercial street, makes sense.

Mr. Reid ran out of time before completing his presentation on Bronson Park, Bank, Bank to Rideau, Centretown, Rideau and Campus and Lees. Additional details are contained in his written submission, a copy of which is held on file.

Peggy DuCharme, Downtown Rideau BIA indicated she was also speaking on behalf of residents, the ByWard Market BIA, Arts Court and Giant Tiger, who were unable to stay for the duration of the meeting. Ms. DuCharme advised that their Task Force had concluded that regional and local transit should remain on separate corridors in their district, with regional (future LRT) remaining on the existing “regional” transitway corridor (Mackenzie King Bridge). She added that this corridor was originally designed and built for this purpose, as was the Rideau Centre and that removal as a transit hub would disrupt the pedestrian traffic patterns in the immediate area and would have serious and negative economic impact on several businesses located on the southern border of their boundary. They do not support the recommendation to locate all local, regional and interprovincial transit onto Rideau Street as this would place far too great a burden on Rideau Street which has already surpassed capacity and would jeopardize the street’s economic potential and ability to remain accessible to all modes of traffic in the future. A copy of her letter to staff dated 21 April 2009 is held on file.

Responding to a series of questions as a result of this presentation, Ms. Schepers advised that staff recognize that the Rideau Centre and the operation of Rideau Street is an important part of how the Rideau Centre operates and there is an opportunity with the proposed alignment to reduce traffic on Rideau Street. With respect to connecting to the Rideau Centre or to other locations, staff do not have any assurances from the private sector that the City will have those rights of access, but one of the recommendations before Committee is for staff to seek interest from the private and public sectors with respect to where there may be opportunities. She added that there was never a guarantee that transit service would continue on the bridge. When asked if there would be fewer buses on Rideau Street, staff advised that there would be and they would explore more fully what that might look like because it frees up infrastructure on the Mackenzie King Bridge as well. She confirmed that Rideau Street is an important urban space in the community and the opportunities to invigorate it are here.

Ms. DuCharme responded to questions posed by Councillor Bédard by advising that they have an extensive knowledge of the community and work stringently on developing relations and are concerned about having that jeopardized. In this regard, she supported Councillor Bédard’s Motion that directs staff to look at those and other concerns.

Councillor Legendre thought that a reduction in buses on Rideau Street would have been welcomed by the BIA. Ms. DuCharme explained that the issue she had was how the City plans to reach its transit growth objectives with less buses to bring to transfer onto the regional system? She believed there were other areas of potential exploration on that alignment and suggested that the station could open up near Arts Court, for example and still provide the portal on Rideau Street (to the Rideau Centre’s existing transitway station platform), et cetera.

Councillor Bédard recognized that the delegation had concerns of where the entrances and exits will be along that line and Ms. DuCharme confirmed this, adding that there is more density south of their boundary and she was very confused as to the portals opening up over at the Conference Centre because there is nothing there. She noted that the same reasons for rejecting the Wellington alignment apply to that same location at Rideau/Sussex. She was also concerned how transit would be rerouted if there were demonstrations that require detours from Rideau/Wellington streets.

The councillor stated that if one of the criteria is to stimulate smart growth and to go to where the people are, having heard what the BIA has said, he asked why the consultant insists that the access be at Rideau Street? Mr. Hopper explained that one of the factors for selecting an entrance adjacent to the Train Station (Conference Centre) is that is the ‘historical capital arrival’ and it faces the whole of the area. They also had to consider how many people visit these areas and the fact that that station has many other potential connections to a very large area that stations further south do not have.

After hearing the complaints from the delegation, Councillor Bédard inquired whether staff should be pursuing the questions addressed in his Motion. Ms. Schepers indicated that the issues raised in the Motion need to be addressed and agreed those could be seen as direction to staff for consideration and reporting back during the next phase of the functional design. On that basis, the councillor indicated he would, in consultation with staff, rephrase his Motion.

John Courtneidge suggested amending Recommendation 2 to insert the words “occupiers and users” after the words “property owners”. He believed that the surface rail system is much better for businesses and the community. He was quite concerned about the cost of the project. He provided a copy of his hand-written notes, a copy of which is held on file.

The Chair explained that the debate about whether or not to move forward on this project are not before the Committee today as the technology has already been decided. He explained that the transit system is at capacity and the City is building for growth.

Councillor Legendre asked staff to comment on the amendment proposed by the delegation. Ms. Schepers advised that the idea is to unilaterally seek partnerships. Staff would be very specific to go to land owners and she suggested that if the Committee wanted to open it up, staff would do so, in order to solicit additional proposals and ideas.

Responding to a question posed by Councillor Doucet, Mr. Hopper advised that there are a number of benefits to being grade separated through the downtown, including an improved reliability factor, which is more important than speed. Currently, at the suburban stations, more people transfer on and off and if they are doing that, then it is already convenient for them. And, while there may be a minute or two difference with a train, there will be a speed benefit because of the elimination of congestion in the downtown. The train will also allow boarding at every door and hence, will be faster. The consultant acknowledged that it would take time to get in and out of the stations compared to a bus, but it will be a much better environment for passengers waiting for a transfer to happen.

Councillor Doucet asked whether any studies had been conducted about how someone would get from point A to point B and would they be better off than they are today? Ms. Schepers stated that they had looked at the potential time savings for passengers and the issue centres on existing capacity and constraints in the downtown. She indicated there are 180 buses an hour travelling through the downtown and the only way to grow ridership is to get as many people on them as possible. She confirmed this system would be faster for users and would save time. She agreed to follow-up with the councillor and provide him with the work that was done as part of the TMP, before this report rises to Council on 27 May.

David Gladstone, Friends of the O-Train did not see any value in what is being proposed in the report and believed this project will cause incredible disruption in the existing transit system. He offered that Ottawa has a strong transit-oriented downtown and the office buildings are not built to connect to the underground tunnel, but to surface transit. He did not believe that what is being proposed is compatible with the Official Plan.

In considering the report, Councillor Leadman noted the increased cost of the project and Mr. Hopper indicated that the figures developed in the TMP include a substantial contingency (because of this study) and while staff are now more certain, they do not know if it will cost much more. The councillor noted the route may affect Public Works Canada and she wondered if staff anticipate any concerns being brought forward from this agency. Ms. Schepers indicated that Public Works have been a part of the consultation and are aware of where the route is going.

Councillor Leadman had a series of questions regarding the existing infrastructure. She noted that what is being recommended is not a traditional transit system and Council does not have the information with respect to what the impacts will be. She found it difficult to make a valid assessment without that information, as well as only going ahead with one alignment.

While she supported the staff report, Councillor Wilkinson was concerned about buses coming from the west. She noted that some people will be changing to a bus to go to Gatineau or to the O-Train and suggested the transfer point should more appropriately be at Lebreton Flats. Mr. Scrimgeour explained that staff would be looking at rider travel patterns once a decision is made on station locations and alignment. The councillor interjected however, that if they are going to do that based on something that is conceptual, then she preferred staff bringing forward a report on a Lebreton option. The Manager explained they would look at all options to determine what is best for all transit customers.

Councillor Doucet inquired what the affects of the tunnel would be on intensification and growth management in the downtown and was advised by the Deputy City Manager that the TMP is a fundamental element of the Official Plan and in order to achieve the overall plan, all systems (transit, land uses, et cetera) are connected to the achievement of the TMP. This project is supportive of Council being able to achieve TMP intensification targets throughout. She agreed there would be a significant impact overall on how people use the system and also where they choose to live, work, et cetera. The councillor wondered what the local impact would be if it has little or no impact on those targets. Ms. Schepers advised that Recommendation 2 directs staff to solicit ideas and the TMP has targets specifically around the transit nodes and that will be a target as they move forward. The uplift in terms of being able to extract that value and potentially use it is something staff will be soliciting over the next phase. Mr. Mackay added that the Investment Strategy work currently underway with the City’s consultant KPMG, is looking at the whole matter of uplifting and staff will report back to the Committee in June on that, the intent being to determine interest, then entering into a memorandum of understanding before this project actually gets funded.

In response to a further question posed by the councillor, Mr. Mackay advised that from benchmarking in other cities, and while it takes time, Council will see positive impact happening around the stations with regards to new commercial services and intensification. He confirmed that staff have been in discussions with some of the business community, who are quite interested in this project.

Councillor Leadman inquired what challenges there might be that could change the recommended transfer point being Tunney’s Pasture? Mr. Hopper indicated that they have done a fair amount of work at that location and feel it can handle the volumes anticipated. The councillor thought that if there was an option of doing it at Lebreton, why would that not be done right from the start? Mr. Scrimgeour indicated that it is a facility that is needed for the period of time when light rail is built to Tunney’s Pasture and light rail is built further west.

In speaking to her Motion, Councillor Leadman stated that while people appear to have bought into an alignment, she maintained there were a lot of unanswered questions and she was not comfortable about making this decision, without first addressing those.

Councillor Bédard suggested Councillor Leadman’s Motion be divided for voting purposes. He recognized that the costs for this project are huge and agreed that the second action portion of the Motion makes sense because he felt the Mackenzie King Bridge alignment is a good option.

Councillor Wilkinson asked what would be involved in getting that costing and was advised by Mr. Hopper that they would have to do a functional plan on that alignment, which would increase the scope of the work, et cetera. Ms. Chi indicated that it would add several months to this process and confirmed this alignment had been examined and the consultant had discussed some of the challenges during his presentation.

Chair Cullen understood that additional costing could not be obtained without an alignment, but to support a request for another option would further delay the project and increase costs. He stated that the purpose of this is to deliver residents to their destination as quickly and reliably as possible. What is proposed will alter the downtown and removing transitway buses from the core will make it better for pedestrians and cyclists.

Councillor Leadman explained that the initial alignment was designed by staff and therefore, if that work has already been done, she did not think the delay would be substantial. Speaking to the report in general, she recognized the importance of the Rideau Centre because it is a significant employment centre and the reduced transit elements will create a significant, negative impact on them. She reminded Committee to consider the report with regards to how it will be serving the whole city.

As requested by Councillor Bédard, the Committee then voted on the Motion as follows, with recorded votes for the two action portions:

Moved by C. Leadman:

WHEREAS the proposed alignment for the Light Rail project, as part of the Transportation Management Plan (TMP) significantly varies from the original alignment;

AND WHEREAS the downtown tunnel is the lynchpin of the TMP and must be financially viable and the proposed route alignment could significantly increase the cost for the capital project;

AND WHEREAS the cost is not currently known by staff for the proposed Downtown Ottawa Transit Tunnel (DOTT) Corridor and Station Alignment but will be available in an estimated two months;

AND WHEREAS the proposed alignment has and will raise particular concern from several prominent stakeholders;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the recommended alignment of the downtown tunnel be deferred until costing is developed and approved by Council;

LOST

YEAS (2): C. Leadman, C. Doucet

NAYS (6): R. Bloess, G. Bédard, J. Legendre, D. Thompson, M. Wilkinson, A. Cullen

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT staff develop and cost a second possible DOTT alignment with grade separation under Albert Street, utilizing the existing Mackenzie King Bridge transit infrastructure, a grade separation (over/underpass) at the Laurier intersection following the existing rapid transit network route and utilizing the existing grade separated infrastructure adjacent to the University of Ottawa.

LOST

YEAS (3): G. Bédard, C. Leadman, C. Doucet

NAYS (5): R. Bloess, J. Legendre, D. Thompson, M. Wilkinson, A. Cullen

On behalf of Councillor Holmes, Councillor Leadman proposed that in consultation with the Ward Councillor, staff investigate options with the goal to minimize bus traffic along Albert Street as it passes through the Lebreton Flats.

Councillor Legendre felt it would be better to assign a number (percentage) to the Motion and suggested it be amended to include: “a reduction of bus traffic by no more than 30%”. The Chair explained that the purpose of the Motion is to consult with the ward councillor and that no target was required. Councillor Leadman did not accept it as a friendly amendment and the Committee took a separate vote on Councillor Legendre’s amendment.

Moved by J. Legendre

WHEREAS staff are still developing alternatives for surface transit operations during and following construction of the DOTT;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that in consultation with the Ward Councillor, staff investigate options with the goal to reduce bus traffic by no more than 30% along Albert Street as it passes through the Lebreton Flats and report back to Transit Committee.

LOST

YEAS (2): J. Legendre, D. Thompson

NAYS (6): R. Bloess, G. Bédard, C. Leadman, C. Doucet, M. Wilkinson, A. Cullen

Councillor Wilkinson suggested and Councillor Leadman accepted as a friendly amendment, the addition of the phrase: “and report back to the Transit Committee”.

Moved by C. Leadman

WHEREAS staff are still developing alternatives for surface transit operations during and following construction of the DOTT;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that in consultation with the Ward Councillor, staff investigate options with the goal to minimize bus traffic along Albert Street as it passes through the Lebreton Flats and report back to the Transit Committee.

CARRIED, as amended

Prior to considering Councillor Bédard’s Motion, the councillor distributed a revised text, which removed some wording, including the initial intent to defer. He encouraged Committee members to support his Motion.

While he would support the bulk of the text, Councillor Legendre requested a separate vote on the fourth bullet because he could not support the language used and did not believe that was the purpose of the transit system.

Councillor Wilkinson was concerned about how the fourth and fifth bullets fit into each other and suggested there was a need for some follow-through until the transitway is completed. She wanted staff to look at those two together so Council can be advised what the impact will be on passengers coming through there. She maintained that transit is an important element for improving economic development.

Councillor Doucet stated that transit should be on the surface because it animates the street. He maintained that to put it underground will make it further for people to have to go to get to their transfer.

The Committee then voted on the Motion, with a recorded vote on bullet 4:

Moved by G. Bédard

WHEREAS the Rideau Centre, the Government of Canada Conference Centre, ByWard Market access, Rideau Street Merchants, Ottawa Convention Centre, nearby hotels and offices and many other businesses comprise a Rideau commercial district;

AND WHEREAS the planning and construction of the underground light rail line will make it necessary to re-examine surface transit operations in downtown Ottawa;

AND WHEREAS the detailed design of the stations on the underground light rail line requires certainty as to the service design for surface transit operations in their vicinities;

AND WHEREAS the Rideau Centre complex has benefited from a significant level of cross commuter traffic between Rideau Street and the Mackenzie King Bridge;

AND WHEREAS the owners of the Rideau Centre complex are concerned that the proposed alignment will negatively impact the financial viability of their tenants;

AND WHEREAS the Downtown Rideau Business Improvement Area has requested that the level of local and interprovincial transit service operating on Rideau Street be reduced;

AND WHEREAS there has been significant investment in public transit infrastructure in the downtown core, particularly in the Rideau commercial district;

AND WHEREAS revised surface transit operations may require the reconfiguration of streets and other physical facilities and may influence the design of the Downtown Ottawa Transit Tunnel project;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Transit Services staff be directed to develop for the approval of Committee and Council a conceptual transit plan for surface operations;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the following principles be incorporated into the terms of reference of the plan:

· The recognition of the continued importance of preserving the economic vitality and viability of the Rideau commercial district

· The importance of transit service – both access from all areas of the City and the details of operations – to support this economic vitality and viability

· The need for convenient connections from the surface transit service to the underground light rail line

· The need for continued transit service on Mackenzie King Bridge to maintain a pedestrian flow through the Rideau Centre and nearby businesses and to maximize existing infrastructure investment

CARRIED

YEAS (6): R. Bloess, G. Bédard, C. Leadman, C. Doucet, M. Wilkinson, A. Cullen

NAYS (2): J. Legendre, D. Thompson

· The possible need for transit priority measures or physical modifications to streets to allow the recommended plan to be implemented

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the conceptual transit plan be placed before Transit Committee with the tabling of the Downtown Ottawa Transit Tunnel functional design in August 2009.

CARRIED

Moved by J. Legendre:

That ~~in consultation with the Ward Councillor,~~ staff ~~investigate options with the goal to minimize bus traffic along Albert Street as it passes through the LeBreton Flats~~provide a report to Council which explains how the Transit system will be kept operational during construction of the DOTT by the Fall of 2009.

CARRIED

In considering her Motion with regards to having the terminal for buses at Lebreton, Councillor Wilkinson felt that Council needed to know whether the impact on the buses is the same and suggested her Motion could serve as an addendum to Councillor Bédard’s Motion so staff could respond at the same time.

Ms. Schepers acknowledged the challenges posed by using Lebreton because the land is federally owned. She suggested if it were something staff were directed to examine, they would also have to look at minimizing the number of transfers and overall cost too. With that in mind, she offered that going to Tunney’s Pasture is more attractive and is what people will want to do. And, if the transfer facility was moved further east, it would change the operation of the train system and this will require further analysis and a report back with recommendations.

The Chair asked whether the issues raised in the Motion are going to come back to the Committee in any case and Ms. Schepers advised they would. The Chair explained that he could not support the Motion because Council has already chosen an alignment and Tunney’s Pasture is the interim western transfer point until Council decides how to proceed further with the western corridor. He did not want to cause confusion for the public by bringing in Lebreton as a transfer point.

Councillor Wilkinson agreed to withdraw her Motion in favour of working with staff with the intention of bringing something forward at Council.

That Transit Committee recommend Council:

1. Approve the recommended corridor alignment and station options for the Downtown Ottawa Transit Tunnel (DOTT) Planning and Environmental Assessment Study.

2. Direct staff to release a Request for Information (RFI) to property owners within and adjacent to the recommended corridor alignment to solicit ideas on station access, development, design, and other matters with the aim of improving ridership, ridership experience and lowering City costs.

3. That in consultation with the Ward Councillor, staff investigate options with the goal to minimize bus traffic along Albert Street as it passes through the Lebreton Flats and report back to Transit Committee.

4. That Transit Services staff be directed to develop for the approval of Committee and Council a conceptual transit plan for surface operations;

And that the following principles be incorporated into the terms of reference of the plan:

· The recognition of the continued importance of preserving the economic vitality and viability of the Rideau commercial district

· The importance of transit service – both access from all areas of the City and the details of operations – to support this economic vitality and viability

· The need for convenient connections from the surface transit service to the underground light rail line

· The need for continued transit service on Mackenzie King Bridge to maintain a pedestrian flow through the Rideau Centre and nearby businesses and to maximize existing infrastructure investment

· The possible need for transit priority measures or physical modifications to streets to allow the recommended plan to be implemented

And that the conceptual transit plan be placed before Transit Committee with the tabling of the Downtown Ottawa Transit Tunnel functional design in August 2009.

5. That ~~in consultation with the Ward Councillor,~~ staff ~~investigate options with the goal to minimize bus traffic along Albert Street as it passes through the LeBreton Flats~~provide a report to Council which explains how the Transit system will be kept operational during construction of the DOTT by the Fall of 2009.

CARRIED, as amended, with Councillor Bédard dissenting

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY GIVEN

MOTIONS AYANT FAIT L’OBJET D’UN AVIS PRÉCÉDENT

COUNCILLOR / CONSEILLER S. DESROCHES

3. PROVIDING GREATER OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY TO TRANSIT ROUTES

Offrir une plus grande souplesse opérationnelle aux circuits du transport en commun

ACS2009-CCS-TTC-0005 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

At the request of Councillor Desroches, this item was withdrawn.

That the Transit Committee recommend Council approve that staff bring forward options and potential amendments to the policy which sets the base transit route networks, in order to provide greater operational flexibility to serve the City’s varying geography and densities, so that service changes resulting from any approved policy changes could be implemented in 2009.

WITHDRAWN

INQUIRIES

DEMANDES DE RENSEIGNEMENTS

Councillor Wilkinson submitted the following inquiries:

1. She asked that an answer be provided as soon as possible to C. Levac of Orléans regarding an e-mail he sent to ocserve@octranspo.com on 21 April 2009 regarding the following two concerns with OC Transpo service:

“I was travelling home to Orleans yesterday afternoon on a 94 Millenium (Bus #6052). At approximately 2:16 PM, the bus stopped at the Starbucks coffee shop on Innes Road (near Du Grand Bois Ave). I and other passengers (probably about 5-6 left on the bus with me at the time) were surprised that the driver had left the bus unattended and idling on a busy roadway such as Innes Road. After approximately 6 mins (I only started timing the driver after a minute or so after he left the bus) later, he returned to the bus with a coffee. I have a few issues with this:

a. Possibly the driver was ahead of schedule, but I don't believe it is acceptable to leave passengers waiting on the bus, almost at the end of his bus run, so that he can go buy himself a coffee;

b. The bus was left idling for more than 3 mins (not sure if OC Transpo buses are exempt from the city By-law - more on this later);

c. The bus was idling and the doors were open, therefore someone could have stolen the bus;

If OC Transpo buses are exempt, you can ignore this concern, but after I was dropped off at the corner of Innes Rd and Provence, school at finished at Béatrice-Desloges High School. There was an OC Transpo bus (Bus #9308, route 602) parked near Maple Ridge on Provence, which was also idling. I took my sweet time (about 5 mins) walking down Provence to Valin St. to see if the bus would leave anytime soon, but it didn't. I presume the bus had been there a while already (the driver was reading a book) but I am not sure how long it stayed there in total.

I would like to request a clear explanation of whether what the bus driver did in my first concern is acceptable. If it is not acceptable, I would like to know what recourse would be taken. I would also like to know whether OC Transpo buses are exempt from the Idling Control By-law (BY-LAW NO. 2007 - 266, GENERAL PROVISIONS, 3, i which mentions City's Vehicle and Equipment Idling Policy dated June, 2002, Number FS01 and unable to locate on the City of Ottawa website).”

2. Can staff update me on timing for automatic stop calling on all buses?

3. A lot of concern was expressed at the way in which emergency changes to bus routes were handled during the Tamil demonstrations. Below are some suggestions received from a resident for consideration. The councillor asked that staff let her know the status of the emergency plan and any changes that will be made to deal with situations such as this one.

· A communication plan, perhaps using a special alert code to drivers so they are quickly informed of the situation.

· Dispatch supervisors to major transit stations and downtown stops to keep riders informed and provide alternative route information.

· Have pre-determined emergency alternate routes from Hurdman, Lebreton and Tunney’s Pasture which would be used to circumvent the problem area. These alternate routes should have designated transfer points for pick up and drop off.

· Do not continue to funnel buses into the problem area once an issue is known. At the first sign / notification of a problem this emergency plan should be invoked.

4. Can staff please respond to the following question from a taxpayer:

Why were all bus drivers brought back after the transit strike ended when there were not and are not enough buses to go around?

On behalf of Councillor Qadri, Chair Cullen noted that the emergency phone number currently listed on OC Transpo staff vehicles is 613-741-2478. If the emergency number is 911 for the city of Ottawa, are we causing confusion for the public between the two emergency numbers? Can we look at harmonizing 911 as the only emergency number and suggest another wording for reaching the emergency at OC Transpo?

Councillor Bloess inquired how long the double decker buses will keep two employees on board and what is the operating cost?

ADJOURNMENT

LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE

The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.

Committee Coordinator Chair