Report to / Rapport au :

Report to/Rapport au:

Transportation and Transit Committee/

Comité des transports et des services de transport en commun

 

31 October 2002 / le 31 octobre 2002

 

Submitted by/Soumis par:  Ned Lathrop, General Manager/Directeur général

Development Services Department / Services d’aménagement

 

Contact/Personne-ressource:  Vivi Chi, P. Eng., Manager, Transportation and Infrastructure / Gestionnaire, Conception et milieu communautaire

580-2424.Ext 21877, vivi.chi@ottawa.ca

 

 

Ref N°:   ACS2002-DEV-POL-0035

 

 

SUBJECT: ALTA VISTA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT – STATUS UPDATE #1

 

OBJET: ÉVALUATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE DU COULOIR DE TRANSPORT ALTA VISTA – RAPPORT DE SITUATION NO 1

 

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Transportation and Transit Committee receive the information reported herein on the progress to date of the above-noted study.

 

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

 

Que le Comité des transports et des services de transport en commun prenne connaissance des renseignements indiqués dans le présent rapport sur les progrès réalisés à ce jour de l’évaluation mentionnée en objet.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

At its 21 March 2001 meeting, the City’s Transportation and Transit Committee approved the Statement of Work for the Alta Vista Transportation Corridor (AVTC) Environmental Assessment.  The ensuing Terms of Reference preparation and the consultant selection process led to Delcan Corporation, a planning and engineering firm, being selected to conduct the study.  The location of the AVTC is shown in its regional and local contexts on Annex A and Annex B, respectively.

 

One of the consultant’s initial tasks was to develop a detailed Study Design document which

 

“establishes the overall framework for managing the planning and design of the Alta Vista Transportation Corridor study process through the approval process needed to meet the approval requirements of all approval agencies.”

 

The Study Design identifies and elaborates on all the technical phases of the project and integrates this with the appropriate level of public consultation and Transportation and Transit Committee direction.

 

The Terms of Reference and the Study Design identified the need for three presentations to the Transportation and Transit Committee.  The first presentation was to occur following the collective completion of: the draft Existing Conditions report, the Needs Assessment report, the Identification of Alternative Solutions inside and outside the corridor; the identification of the Evaluation Process and Criteria, and the first Public Open House.  Each of these tasks is now complete.  Copies of these draft reports are available to Committee members, if required.

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

As identified in the approved work plan and as undertaken to-date, there is a logical progression of tasks and deliverables in the conduct of an environmental assessment study.  To date, a number of project activities have been completed and there has been significant consultation.  The deliverables are described as follows and the consultation to-date is outlined in the next main section of this report. 

 

1.  Study Design

This document was first prepared as a draft (October 2001) and was reviewed with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Public Advisory Committee (PAC).  It was modified to reflect their comments, where appropriate.  The current Study Design document is dated February 2002.

 

This document outlines the overall framework for managing the planning and design of the AVTC study process.  It includes a detailed description of each of the study tasks including their objective, deliverable, responsibilities and input from approval agencies.  Also included in the Study Design are critical milestones, the approval process, a schedule, a Communications Plan, and the composition and roles of the PAC, TAC and the Committee of Special Advisors (CSA).  The schedule, which will be updated as required, overlays the project’s consultation requirements onto the flow of technical activities.

 

 

2.  Existing Conditions Report

 

This report (dated April 2002) documents the studies and investigations undertaken to-date to identify the existing social, transportation, physical and biological conditions of the study area.  It is intended to represent the baseline conditions for the study area and Corridor against which the potential environmental effects of the project will be assessed.  This report will be updated progressively as investigations continue and additional information becomes available.  Overall, the baseline data was collected and analyzed for key environmental parameters in order to:

 

·        provide an understanding of existing conditions;

·        allow for future predictions of how the proposed project may cause these environmental conditions to change;

·        allow for future predictions of how adverse effects can be mitigated and beneficial effects enhanced; and

·        provide a basis for designing possible future mitigation and monitoring programs.

 

It is important to recognize that the inventory of environmental conditions described in this draft report will be updated and refined as the EA study progresses.  For instance, during the project’s next phase (Stage 2), the Existing Conditions will be considered when reviewing, assessing and evaluating alternative solutions.  During the ensuing phase (Stage 3), the particular components of the environment which must be taken into account and evaluated in identifying a preferred design, may need to be further detailed.  Accordingly, this report is intended to remain dynamic and only be finalized during Stage 3 of the assessment.

 

The report’s 4 main sections address all of the area’s existing conditions under the following sub-headings:

 

(a) Social Conditions

 

·        administrative boundaries

·        visual character

·        land ownership

·        noise

·        corridor lighting conditions

·        air quality

·        heritage and archaeological resource

·        vibration

·        planning policy

·        municipal services and utilities

·        corridor uses

·        summary of social conditions and values

·        neighbourhoods

 

 

(b) Transportation

 

·        transit service

·        transportation network and level of service

·        transit in the Southeast Sector

·        summary of key transportation conclusions/values

·        road, pedestrian and cycling network

 

 

 

(c) Physical Environment

 

·        geotechnical conditions

·        summary of physical environmental values

·        hydrogeology

 

 

(d) Biological Environment

 

·        fisheries and aquatic habitat

·        birds

·        vegetation communities

·        summary of biological environmental values

·        wildlife mammals, reptiles and amphibians

 

 

 

3.  Needs Assessment Report

 

This document includes the March 2002 report and an October 18, 2002 update.

 

The conclusions of these Needs Assessment documents were threefold.  Firstly, with regard to the Southeast Sector as a whole:

 

“This analysis demonstrates that the current levels of service/congestion are approaching critical levels.  The projected year 2021 conditions indicates that even with the implementation of a broad range of travel reducing strategies, with the achievement of higher transit modal share targets and with increased overall road system efficiency, there is still the need for a considerable amount of additional transportation infrastructure throughout the Southeast Sector.”

 

Secondly, with regard to the Walkley and Smyth Screenlines, which include the AVTC corridor:

 

“Specific analysis of future transportation needs north of Walkley Road indicated the need for additional transportation capacity/infrastructure across the Walkley and Smyth Screenlines to address the transportation needs of the Southeast Sector by the Official Plan horizon (2021), and that this infrastructure is only part of a larger package of transportation-related solutions for this sector.  The alternatives to address the projected deficiency both inside and outstide the AVTC range from a transit-only solution, to various transit/road combinations to road-only solutions.”

 

Thirdly, with regard to the more localized needs on the vicinity of the Smyth Road Hospital Complex:

 

“There is an imminent and identified need for additional transportation system capacity in the section of the AVTC from Smyth Road to Riverside Drive, regardless of the outcome of the environmental assessment for the AVTC as a whole.  For example, should the EA conclude that the appropriate solution for the AVTC as a whole is the “do nothing” alternative, there remains a previous and current demonstrated need to provide additional road capacity and transit service in the section of the AVTC from Riverside Drive east to Smyth Road.”

 

As background to these recommendations, the draft Needs Assessment report (March 2002, and subsequent updates) represents part of the first phase in the Environmental Assessment Study for the AVTC.  The Corridor has been identified for transportation purposes since 1966 and this was reconfirmed in 1997 in the former Region’s Transportation Master Plan (TMP).  A key component of the current analysis was to re-evaluate if there is a need to provide for transportation infrastructure in the study area to help meet the current and future transportation-related requirements in the Southeast Sector of the City.

 

The analysis considered:

·        Existing travel conditions at specific screenlines within the Southeast Sector;

·        Various travel modes across these screenlines;

·        Growth areas in the Southeast Sector;

·        Future travel conditions related to the City's new population growth targets to the year 2021;

·        Future vehicular capacities of the screenlines;

·        Future capacity surpluses or deficiencies across the screenlines;

·        A broad range of possible future strategies to address deficiencies in screenline capacity; and

·        A more localized view of existing and future road and intersection capacity in the Alta Vista/Smyth area related to planned growth at the Smyth Road Hospital Complex, the Train Yard Lands and NCC lands located north of Hurdman Station.

 

(a)  Screenline Analysis

Future (2021) transportation needs at all of the screenlines in the Southeast Sector are based on the travel demand data from the EMME2 transportation model analysis for the 1997 Regional Official Plan (ROP) and have been prorated to reflect the new population targets of the City.

 

The transportation needs analysis demonstrates that the current levels of roadway service/congestion are approaching critical levels and that there is significant traffic infiltration onto residential streets in the communities located between Walkley Road and Smyth Road.  The projected year 2021 conditions indicates that even with the implementation of a broad range of travel reducing strategies, with the achievement of higher transit modal share targets and with increased overall road system efficiency, there will still be a need for a considerable amount of additional transportation system capacity throughout the Southeast Sector to service the urban growth being planned there.

 

Driven primarily by the planned scale of urban development in Riverside South and Leitrim, the specific analysis of future transportation needs north of Walkley Road indicates that additional transportation network capacity is required between Walkley/Heron and the Queensway to address the transportation needs of the Southeast Sector by the Official Plan horizon (2021), and that this infrastructure is only part of a larger package of transportation-related solutions for this Sector.  The preliminary alternative solutions to address the projected deficiency at screenlines north of Walkley/Heron range from transit-only solutions, to various transit/road combinations, to a road-only solution.

 

Table 1 summarizes the projected 2021 screenline capacity deficiencies for those screenlines in the Southeast Sector.  This table identifies the magnitude of the projected deficiencies for both existing levels of transit ridership and for the projected transit ridership targets in the Regional Official Plan (ROP), at the Rideau River Central/Queensway and CNR East Screenlines.  For the other screenlines, assumptions were made about appropriate transit share targets reflecting what is in the 1997 ROP and the proposed greater level of urban growth identified in the new City Official Plan (COP).  An example of the change is the assumption of a 30% future transit share target at the Leitrim Screenline compared to 15% in the 1997 ROP.  The analysis also assumed increased travel by walking and cycling modes, increased in vehicle occupancy, and increased demand management and system management benefits.

 

At the Heron/Walkley Screenline, there would be an approximate 4,000 pcu deficiency if current transit ridership (13.4%) were maintained.  This would reduce to an approximate 2,000 pcu deficiency if the ROP transit target share (25%) were achieved.  Even with an approximate doubling of transit modal share across the Screenline, a significant travel capacity deficiency remains to be addressed by 2021.

 

Table 1: Summary of Projected 2021 Screenline Capacity Deficiencies

Screenline

Name

Projected Traffic Volume

(pcu)

Existing Capacity

(pcu)

Projected Deficiency

(pcu)

Projected Deficiency (pcu)

(ROP Transit Share)

Projected Deficiency (pcu)

(Current Transit Share)

Rideau River Central / Queensway

14,900

13,475

1,425

1,425

(40%)

5,665 (25.2%)

Smyth Road

6,615

4,890

1,725

1,725

(35%)

2,010

(32.5%)

Heron / Walkley

11,260

9,240

2,020

2,020

(25%)

3,970

(13.4%)

CNR East

10,470

10,215

255

255

(25%)

1,650

(16.0%)

Leitrim

8,970

5,430

3,540

3,540

(30%)

7,030

(5.1%)

Rideau / Manotick (westbound)

7,080

3,590

3,490

3,490

(25%)

5,400

(7.1%)

 

As was the case in 1997 when the ROP/TMP was prepared, there continues to be a well established need for additional transportation system capacity for all modes in all travel corridors, if the travel needs of the growing City are to be addressed in accordance with currently established acceptable planning principles and standards.”

 

The ROP/TMP have identified a broad range of transportation-related strategies/solutions to meet the long-term transportation needs of the City’s Southeast Sector.  New infrastructure was identified not only to provide specific screenline capacity, but also to provide transportation system continuity and network efficiency.  These transportation infrastructure needs are reflected in Schedules C1 and E of the 1997 ROP.

 

Since the new City is planning greater and faster urban development in the Southeast Sector, particularly in the Riverside South/Leitrim area, the future travel needs emanating from the City's new Official Plan and the strategies to address them, are most likely to exceed those in the 1997 ROP.

 

The analysis in the Needs Assessment indicates there is not just one solution to the future travel needs within the Southeast Sector.  Rather, there are several partial solutions involving trip reduction strategies (TDM), increased trip making by different modes, (walking/cycling, and particularly transit), increasing the efficiency of the existing (and proposed) transportation systems (TSM), providing additional transportation capacity in existing roadway corridors and providing new transportation capacity in available transportation corridors, for both transit and private vehicles that will all combine to provide the overall solution to the travel needs of the City’s planned population by 2021.

 

The analysis also identified a preliminary range of alternative solutions to the specific screenline needs of the Southeast Sector, including both transit-based and roadway-based alternatives.  Specifically with regard to the study area north of Walkley/Heron Road, it confirms that additional transportation system capacity is required and that a new transportation facility in the AVTC corridor is just one possible solution to the many transportation-related needs to meet the future travel demands in the Southeast Sector.

 

(b)  Alta Vista/Smyth Localized Analysis

The preceding section on Screenline Analysis focused on the macro-level needs of the Southeast Sector as a whole.  They do not, however, address the micro-level needs in the vicinity of the Smyth Road Hospital Complex, which in fact were the impetus for the AVTC Environmental Assessment being initiated.

 

The transportation needs in this vicinity were identified in the Alta Vista Drive/Smyth Road Transportation Strategy (August 2000).

 

In addition to identifying a number of localized roadway modifications, the Alta Vista Drive/Smyth Road Transportation Strategy also identified the need to provide the following during the timeframe of Hospital Complex development:

 

·        a roadway in the AVTC extending from Riverside Drive to Smyth Road with appropriate Hospital Complex connectors; and

·        improved transit facilities from the Southeast Transitway to the Hospital Complex along the AVTC corridor.

 

It should be noted that the Alta Vista Drive/Smyth Road Transportation Strategy did not account explicitly for the additional traffic that will be generated by the now-approved major level of development on the Train Yard Lands or for the potential development of NCC lands located to the north of Hurdman Station at the west end of Industrial Avenue.  Traffic from these two projects will place increasing demands on already congested roads and intersections in the Alta Vista/Smyth area, and add to the need for the new roadway and transit capacity, as recommended above, for the section of the AVTC between Riverside Drive and Smyth Road.

 

The primary point of complementing the Screenline Analysis with this more localized analysis in the Alta Vista-Smyth sub-area, is to indicate that for the section of the AVTC from Smyth Road to Riverside Drive, there is an imminent and identified need for additional transportation system capacity, regardless of the outcome of the environmental assessment for the AVTC as a whole.

 

 

4.  Alternative Solutions

 

The alternative solutions to address the future transportation needs of the Southeast Sector of Ottawa, and specifically the projected capacity deficiencies across the Walkley/Heron and Smyth Road Screenlines, included a full range of alternatives both within and outside of the AVTC.  These are briefly described as follows:

 

(a)  Within the AVTC Corridor

 

·        Rapid Transit Only:  This solution would take the form of either laying tracks in the corridor for a rail-based technology or building a two-lane busway or transitway.  Stations would be developed at appropriate locations for walk-in and drop-off of passengers, park-and-ride, and for vehicle access in the case of a busway.

 

·        Roadway Only:  These solutions would provide capacity for all vehicles (private and transit) by building either a two-lane or a four-lane roadway from Conroy Road to the Queensway (Nicholas interchange).

 

The two-lane roadway option could be either for general traffic or High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) usage during peak periods.  Variations of a four-lane roadway could have two lanes for general traffic and two lanes for HOV usage either all day or during peak periods only.

 

·        Hybrid Solutions:  Either of the foregoing rapid transit solutions could be combined with a two-lane (or four-lane) roadway giving a high level of service for both transit and private vehicles.  A four-lane roadway could also be developed with two lanes for general traffic and two bus lanes, thus providing extra capacity for private and public vehicles.

 

·        Do Nothing: No transportation facilities would be built in the corridor but with the necessary additional transportation capacity either provided outside the AVTC or not at all.  There are, however, plans for a recreational pathway in the AVTC that could be implemented independently.  If the corridor were not to be used for transportation purposes, its future use could be the subject of a detailed land use study to determine the best use of the land for the achievement of the “Smart-Growth” objectives of the COP.

 

(b)  Outside the AVTC Corridor

 

·        Rapid Transit Only: There are 3 options for a rapid transit solution outside the Corridor.

 

The first would entail the extension of the existing Southeast Transitway and/or the O-Train south of the Hunt Club Road to the Airport and the Riverside South Leitrim Community.

 

The second alternative would entail the development of a rail-based technology in the existing abandoned railway corridor extending from the Hurdman/Train Station southeasterly parallelling the Highway 417 corridor to south of Walkley Road and then following the CN/CP Railway/Hydro Corridor westerly to the Southeast Transitway/O-Train corridor.

 

An alternative to this which is both within and outside the Corridor is the development of a rail-based-technology extending from the Hurdman Station south to the AVTC Corridor, then extending east along the north limit of the Hospital Complex, through the Perley Hospital site and along the south side of Innes Road to the above-noted Highway 417 corridor to join with the possible Cumberland Transitway corridor which has not yet been finalized west of Blackburn Hamlet.

 

·        Roadway Only:  The provision of additional roadway capacity for general traffic could be achieved outside the AVTC corridor by widening any one or more of the following existing roads north of Walkley Road/Heron Road.

 

§         Riverside Drive

§         Bank Street

§         Alta Vista Drive

§         Russell/St. Laurent Boulevard/Tremblay Road

 

·        Hybrid Solutions:  Combinations of both the rapid transit and roadway only solutions outside the corridor could provide additional capacity for both private and public transit vehicles.

 

·        Travel Demand Management:  Generating greater results from policies, programs and implementation strategies that decrease private automobile travel such as:

 

§         education and publicity;

§         legislation

§         employer initiatives;

§         parking space maximums;

§         on-road cycling accommodation; and

§         mixed-use development.

 

It is noteworthy that a TDM effect has already been assumed in the Needs Assessment.

 

·        Utilization of Transit System Capacity:  Enhancement of the existing transit service within the study area and the operation of rapid transit on the Southeast Transitway and O-Train Corridors to maximize both the peak period share of travel by transit and the available capacity in these existing corridors.  This is already implied to a considerable extent in the Needs Assessment with the assumptions of a greater share of travel by transit in the projection of future (2021) transportation needs.

 

 

5.  Evaluation Methodology

 

Evaluation of alternative solutions is a key component of the EA process.  An evaluation method may be defined as a “formal procedure for establishing an order of preference among alternatives” (MOEE, 1990).

 

Using a formal evaluation method has two main advantages:

·        it provides a better basis for decision-making than would otherwise exist, and

·        it results in reasons for decisions that, on examination, can be traced.

 

A two-staged evaluation methodology has been developed for this study due to the unique situation of having to consider alternative solutions both outside and inside the Corridor.

 

(a)  Outside the Corridor Evaluation Process

 

The alternative solutions outside the corridor will be assessed using a screening process to determine their suitability/feasibility as a solution, and also to identify how their potential selection as a solution would affect the form and function of any potential transportation facilities in the AVTC.

 

 

For example:

·        if the preferred alternative solution was to Utilize Transit System Capacity  outside of the AVTC, the effect would be the Do-Nothing Solution within the AVTC; or

·        if Travel Demand Management could accommodate a much greater portion of the projected deficiencies than currently assumed, the potential infrastructure requirements within the AVTC could be reduced.

 

Taking into account the general characteristics of the study area and the identified needs assessed, the following series of considerations/questions will be applied to each of the alternative solutions outside of the corridor.

 

                                 i.            Is the alternative likely to address the deficiencies identified in the Needs Assessment report?

                               ii.            Does the alternative result in a direct impact on adjacent residences/businesses that is considered significant and unmitigable?

                              iii.            Is the alternative technically feasible?

                             iv.            Is the alternative financially viable?

 

The questions are considered to be exclusionary and if an alternative does not respond appropriately to a question, it will not be recommended for further analysis.

 

(b)  Inside the Corridor Evaluation Process

 

For those alternative solutions inside the corridor, plus those remaining alternatives from outside the corridor, the characteristics of the AVTC project suggest that the appropriate evaluation method should address the following objectives:

 

 

 

Review of candidate evaluation techniques has resulted in the Concordance Method being identified as the most appropriate evaluation method for these remaining alternative solutions.  The Concordance Method not only supports the above-listed objectives but was also selected due to its compatibility with a mix of data types (i.e., qualitative and quantitative data).  This method was successfully applied in the recent Cumberland Transitway EA, the Blackburn Hamlet Bypass Extension EA and the Confederation Heights Stormwater Management EA.

 

 

6.  Evaluation Process

 

Using the Concordance Method, the following steps will be carried out as part of the evaluation of alternatives:

 

Step 1:  Identify the Broad Range of Alternatives (done)

 

Step 2:  Describe Existing Conditions (done)

 

Step 3:  Identify Evaluation Criteria/Indicators (done)

 

Step 4:  Assign Weights to Evaluation Criteria

 

Step 5:  Impact Analysis (including consideration of mitigation measures)

 

Step 6:  Application of Evaluation Method (including carrying out a Sensitivity Analysis)

 

Step 7:  Review of Evaluation Results and Selection of Preliminary Preferred Alternative

 

To date, Steps 1 to 4 have been undertaken, with Step 4 including weighting of the selected criteria by the individual TAC and PAC members.  Brief explanations of the more complex Steps 3 to 7 follow:

 

Step 3:  Identify Evaluation Criteria/Indicators

A preliminary list of evaluation criteria was developed and circulated for review.  Five broad groups of criteria were identified (Social, Transportation, Economic, Biological and Physical) with distinct subcriteria.  These criteria are described in the next section of this report.  This list was refined following TAC and PAC review.

 

Step 4:  Assign Weights to Evaluation Criteria

Weights were assigned to the evaluation criteria by the TAC, PAC and Consultant team.  A total of “100 points” were available for distribution among the criteria.  Each TAC member assigned weights to the criteria.   These weights will be blended for an average TAC weight.  Each PAC member also weighted the criteria.  These weights will also be blended for an average PAC weight.  The Consultant team also weighted the criteria, which together with the TAC’s and PAC’s weights will be blended to yield one overall set of weights to be used for the evaluation of alternatives.

 

The purpose of the weighting is to facilitate the TAC, PAC and Consultant team in translating their sense of the relative level of importance of the criteria into a “value”.  These weights (i.e. values) will be the basis for the evaluation.  It is important to note that the weighting is done prior to reviewing the results of the impact analysis of the alternatives to reduce bias in the weighting.

 

Step 5:  Impact Analysis

An impact analysis of the various alternatives will be carried out for the purpose of ranking the alternatives per criterion.  Environmental effects will be predicted by considering the interaction of the project with the environment.  Potential positive and negative effects will be identified, as will mitigation measures, which can effectively reduce or eliminate any predicted negative effects.  The purpose of the impact analysis at this stage is to provide enough information as the rationale for the ranking of alternatives per criterion.  Ranking of the alternatives per criterion is necessary to subject the alternatives to evaluation using the Concordance Method.

 

Step 6:  Application of Evaluation Method

The Concordance Method involves a systematic comparison of alternatives.  The Consultant, using the final criteria weighting and the results of the impact analysis, will carry out the application of the method to the alternatives. 

 

There are three stages in applying the Concordance Method:

 

·        1.  Performance Review:  The performance of each alternative will be reviewed on a criterion-by-criterion basis.  The alternatives will then be ranked per criterion.

 

·        2.  Alternative Pair Comparison:  The alternatives will be compared on a pair basis (i.e., Alternative 1 versus Alternative 2, Alternative 1 versus Alternative 3, etc.), for each criterion.  Based on the “weight” assigned to each criterion and the results of the Performance Review, a score would be assigned to each alternative following the pair comparison.

 

With this method, it is not necessary to know how much better one alterative is over another for a particular criterion.   Rather, it is necessary to know if one is better than the other or if they are equal for a particular criterion.  The alternative that is better will be given the weight associated with the criterion, and if both alternatives are equal, the weight of the criterion will be divided between them. 

 

·        3.  Calculate a Concordance Score for each Alternative:  Once the pair-comparison has been completed for all alternatives and for each criterion, the concordance scores will be converted to a “concordance index” for each Alternative.  The “concordance indices” will then be added up for each alternative to yield a total concordance score for each alternative.  The alternative with the highest concordance score will be identified as the most preferred using the Concordance Method. 

 

Sensitivity analyses will also be carried out to test the strength of the findings.  Sensitivity tests could be carried out using different weighting schemes for the evaluation criteria, or by ranking the alternatives differently for a particular criterion or by removing one or more criterion from the evaluation.  The results of the sensitivity analyses will help to understand the results of the evaluation and to identify whether the evaluation results are unduly sensitive to a particular criterion and/or ranking.

 

Step 7:  Review of Evaluation Results and Selection of Preliminary Preferred Alternative

Once the evaluation results are finalized, the TAC and PAC will have the opportunity to review the results and confirm whether the preliminary preferred alternative solution arising from the Concordance Method evaluation is appropriate.

 

 

7.  Evaluation Criteria

 

The evaluation criteria to be applied to the screened alternative solutions have been identified and grouped under the headings Social, Transportation, Economic, Biological and Physical.  An explanation of each criterion was provided to those doing the weighting and a number of indicators per criterion were listed to assist in the understanding and weighting of all criteria.  The list of criteria to be used in the evaluation, has been reviewed/refined with TAC and PAC input, and is as follows:

 

(a) Social

 

·        Urban greenspace and open space

·        Noise

·        Significant landscapes, vistas and ridge lines

·        Vibration

·        Displacement of residents, community, recreation features and institutions

·        Safety

·        Community impact

·        Consistency with planning policies

·        Quality of life

·        Heritage feature and archaeology

·        Air quality

 

 

(b) Transportation

 

·        Overall transportation service

·        Transit-based mobility

·        Road-based mobility

·        Level of safety

·        Walking and cycling-based mobility

 

 

(c) Economic

 

·        Capital cost

·        Operating cost

 

(d) Biological

 

·        Significant natural features

·        Quality of water

·        Ecological processes

·        Global warming

·        Aquatic habitat

 

 

 

(e) Physical

 

·        Presence of known contamination

·        Effects on quantity of ground water

·        Potential for flooding and erosion

 

 

 

CONSULTATION

 

Consultation on the AVTC Environmental Assessment Study has been, and will continue to be, comprehensive.  The Communications Plan included in the Study Design established the “blue print” for the project’s consultation program.

 

The benefits of a broad and accessible public consultation program include the following:

 

·        Provides opportunities for interested parties to participate in the project;

·        Promotes a high level of public awareness and knowledge of the project;

·        Allows for the sharing of knowledge and information;

·        Provides a forum for open, two-way dialogue;

·        Identifies public and stakeholder issues;

·        Identifies technical concerns;

·        Fosters community ownership and involvement in the study process;

·        Creates a feedback mechanism; and

·        Allows for the preparation of an end-product which has the broadest possible acceptance.

 

As part of the consultation program, three formal advisory committees have been established: the Technical Advisory Committee; the Public Advisory Committee; and a Committee of Special Advisors.  Committee meetings are held at key junctures throughout the study.

 

1.  Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

Consultation with key government agencies occurs through regular contact with a TAC.  The TAC includes City staff and staff of other agencies/organizations who have a technical interest in the project.  The role of the TAC is:  to identify planning and design issues early on in the study to ensure they are addressed in a timely manner; to provide advice on all technical matters; to assist in the evaluation of alternative solutions and selection of a preferred solution; to review and comment on all technical reports provided during the course of the study; and to represent the varied interests of their particular agency/organization. 

 

To date, there have been 4 TAC meetings on this project.

 

2.  Public Advisory Committee (PAC)

The PAC consists of community associations and special interest organizations.  This committee represents various public interests, points of view, and fields of expertise.  The role of the PAC is:  to provide advice, opinions, local knowledge and expertise; review and comment on draft reports; and to assist in the evaluation of alternatives and the selection of the preferred solution(s).  Similar to TAC, PAC members are also responsible for reporting project information back to their respective organizations.

 

To date, there have been 6 PAC meetings on this project.

 

3.  Committee of Special Advisors (CSA)

The CSA includes staff of the major institutions such as health care facilities located within the Study Area.  The CSA provide insights on site-specific issues such as development plans, access and egress and environmental issues.  The role of the CSA is:  to identify planning and design issues early on in the study to ensure they are addressed in a timely manner; to provide advice on site-specific issues; and to represent the varied interests of their particular agency/organization. 

 

CSA members have been invited to the first TAC meeting and have been circulated all project material.

 

4.  General Public

Every person or organization who has an interest in the project has and will be given opportunities to learn about, and participate in, the study process.

 

Communication with the general public occurs via a combination of direct mail, bulk mail, newspaper advertisements and the City’s Web Page.

 

·        The Notice of Study Commencement was advertised on 17 October 2001 in the Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa Sun and Le Droit.

 

·        Road signs were erected at key locations along the corridor to indicate to the public that the study was underway.  The City’s general telephone number for individuals to call to get more information was also provided.  These signs will remain erected until the end of the Study.

 

·        A Walk-About of the corridor was conducted on Saturday 17 November 2001.  Elected officials, community members, members of the TAC, PAC and CSA, City staff and representatives of the Consulting Team, were in attendance.  Approximately 40 people participated.  The purpose of this field trip was for all to become more informed about the corridor, to have first-hand discussion on community issues, to understand the technical challenges and to foster a working relationship between the community and the Study Team.

 

·        Public Meeting #1 was held at Hillcrest High School on 12 December 2001.  Approximately 750 people attended the meeting.  The purpose of the meeting was to describe why the Study is proceeding, the history of the corridor and the issues identified to date, the environmental assessment process, and the opportunities for the public to become involved.  The event also allowed attendees to express their views and ask questions of the Study Team representatives.

 

·        Public Open House #1 was held on 26 September 2002 at the RA Centre on Riverside Drive from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.  Over 500 people attended.  The purpose of the meeting was to:

 

§         Provide history on corridor and study background;

§         Outline the study process and schedule;

§         Summarize the Needs Assessment;

§         Summarize the Existing Conditions;

§         Present the broad range of Alternative Solutions that will be evaluated;

§         Identify the Evaluation Methodology and Criteria; and

§         Identify the Study’s next steps.

 

The open house format fostered dialogue between attendees and members of the Study Team.

 

5.  General Issues

 

Since there are a number of communities that lie within the Study Area, as well as those upstream and downstream of the Corridor that could be potentially affected by the ultimate recommended solution, there is extensive interest and a wide range of views with regard to issues and preferred solutions.  This interest is demonstrated by the high attendance at the Public Meeting and Open House, as well as by those who have attended the PAC meetings held to date.

 

The primary and/or recurring issues arose during consultation are described below, with a corresponding response/plan of action.

 

(a)  Corridor Impact:  There are numerous social, biological and physical conditions within the AVTC that would be impacted, to varying degrees, by all potential solutions within the Corridor except the “do nothing” alternative.

 

The purpose of doing a thorough Existing Conditions inventory and conducting public consultation is to thoroughly understand these existing conditions.  Knowing this information enables alternative solutions to be evaluated so that comparisons between alternatives can be made.  This ensures that the impacts of the preferred solution are clearly documented and mitigated as much as possible.

 

There are positive and negative implications within the study area of all alternative solutions, including the “do nothing” alternative.  It must also be recognized that “do nothing” with respect to one corridor may imply “do something” with respect to other corridors if transportation needs are to be addressed.  By identifying and weighting the evaluation criteria and by conducting a thorough traceable and transparent evaluation process, the goal is to recommend a solution, that on balance, is the best solution with the least residual effects within the study area as a whole.

 

(b)  Impact on Adjacent Communities:  The issues of those in communities adjacent to the corridor vary significantly.  Some view development of a transportation facility on the Corridor as having significant adverse effect on maintaining healthy communities and some view the “do nothing” alternative as perpetuating the currently unhealthy situation of high volumes of through traffic and congestion on the existing residential streets that bound the Corridor.  These polarized views seem to exist, to varying degrees, for all alternative solutions.

 

The same answer provided to the previous Corridor Impact issues applies to this issue.

 

(c) Southeast Sector Mobility:  It is the view of many that the combination of existing road and intersection congestion, road network discontinuity (Conroy Road ends at Walkley Road) and the high volume/percentage of non-local “through traffic” on the residential streets in the Alta Vista and Canterbury neighbourhoods cannot be solved by a purely transit solution and that the ultimate solution requires a roadway component.

 

A sub-task of this EA is to undertake a review/assessment of the existing and future transit service requirements of the Southeast Sector bearing in mind the scale of urban development that is being planned for the Riverside South/Leitrim communities where up to 23,000 dwelling units by 2021, are being identified in the current Official Plan analysis.  From both a “transit service” and “cost per new transit passenger” perspective, there will be a “best transit system” scenario for the Southeast Sector.

 

If this solution includes rapid transit within the AVTC, the next step will be to determine if a roadway in the Corridor is also required, or not, to accommodate the projected travel demand.  If this solution does not include rapid transit within the AVTC, but within some other corridor, or corridors, in the Southeast Sector, the same next step will be taken to determine whether or not a road is required in the Corridor to accommodate projected travel demand.  If a road is required, a further assessment will be undertaken to determine if some form of road-based transit (bus-only lanes), or high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes including buses, is required to provide complementary transit service to the preferred rapid transit corridor.

 

(d) Air Quality - Measurement versus Modeling:  In the Existing Conditions report, air quality calculations were performed for 37 locations along the bounds of the AVTC from Walkley Road north to Nicholas Street.  The issue that has been raised is that actual measurements should be made instead of a modeled calculations, and that the measurements should be expanded to include all parallel streets being used by cut-through traffic such as Alta Vista Drive, Delmar Drive, Ryder Street, Harding Road, Halifax Drive and Saunderson Drive.

Ambient air quality is monitored on a regular basis in Ottawa, and across Canada, by the Federal and Provincial Governments.  The specific modelling used in the EA is undertaken to predict the potential effects of the alternative solutions of the existing environment.  The model used for air quality is CAL3QHC and is accepted by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

 

The model has been validated by the USEPA through the performance evaluation of eight intersection models including CAL3QHC.  The evaluation included comparison of the model results with actual monitoring information, detailed traffic information and meteorological data.  The 10 hours with the highest observed concentrations were used to compare the CAL3QHC predicted concentrations using the regulatory default meteorology to the observed concen­trations.  At Site #1, the highest observed CO concentration of 10.6 ppm is nearly matched (10.4 ppm) by CAL3QHC unpaired in time or space.  At Site #2, the maximum predicted concentration by CAL3QHC of 8.0 ppm underpredicts the maximum observed concentration of 11.5 ppm.  Finally, at Site #5, the maximum observed concentration of 15.5 ppm is nearly matched by CAL3QHC which predicts 15.1 ppm. Various statistical methods were used in the analysis and the results indicate that CAL3QHC was one of the best performing models and had the best comparison measure of the top three models.  (User's Guide to CAL3QHC Version 2.0: A Modeling Methodology for Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections, USEPA 1995).

 

A comparison of the results for the receptors in the AVTC with the MOE monitoring station (located at the intersection Wurtenburg and Rideau) was also carried out.  The comparison indicates that the predicted levels in the corridor are somewhat lower than, and consistent with the MOE results.  If a similar monitoring station (one location) were to be established in the AVTC, the costs for monitoring for a one-year period would be in the order of $250,000.

 

If on-site monitoring were used to establish a baseline, a model would still be required to predict the future effects of potential alternative solutions.  Based on these results and previous experience, the Study Team has confidence in the model selected to predict the air quality for the AVTC EA.

 

Furthermore, air quality is currently being assessed at 37 locations within the AVTC.  The locations of the receptors were selected based on proper engineering practice.  The locations take into account the traffic generated from adjacent streets such as Alta Vista Drive and Delmar Drive and were selected to model the worst impacts of meteorological conditions in the area.

 

As stated in the Existing Conditions report, if the evaluation of alternatives indicates there is a potential effect from the preferred alternative solution, the study area would be expanded as required.  This would be applicable for air quality and additional receptors would be sited as appropriate.  An example of this would be the possible need to locate receptors along the Nicholas Street corridor north of the Queensway, should the preferred alternative solution warrant this.

 

(e) Health Cost of Air Pollution:  Will the EA incorporate the health cost of air pollution into the evaluation of alternatives?

 

The effects of air quality will be taken into account through the evaluation of the various air quality indicators, identified to date for the Study.  As there has been recent controversy over the accuracy of some of the health cost models, it is not deemed appropriate to consider ‘health cost of air pollution’ as an evaluation criterion for this particular Study.

 

In addition, the Study Team has been in contact with Dr. R. Cushman, Ottawa’s Medical Officer of Health.  An excerpt from his response to City staff follows.

 

“There is no doubt that our current transportation practices, predominately the use of single occupant motor vehicles, have an impact on human health. The problems range from lack of physical activity to environmental health problems which include respiratory diseases predominantly.

 

A number of citizens, health and environmental groups have approached me on this issue over the past few years. I have made my concerns clear about the negative impact of our policies and practices on human health. However, I have also said that I cannot come out and indict an additional 10 km of roadway because it is going to have a direct negative health impact.”

 

(f) Nicholas Street Capacity:  If a roadway is part of the recommended solution for the AVTC, and if the road ties in to the existing Queensway/Nicholas interchange, there is concern that this is not an operationally acceptable solution as both Nicholas Street and King Edward Avenue north of the Queensway (and particularly at their respective Laurier Avenue intersections) are currently operating at capacity.  As such, some believe that a road solution should not be considered at all.

 

A detailed analysis has not yet been undertaken of any possible solutions, whether it is a road, rapid transit, or a hybrid, to determine whether any one of them is functionally or operationally feasible.  This will be done in the next stage of the evaluation where any proposed solution will have to be shown to be credible and defensible.

 

Looking ahead, there are a number of factors that would be considered from a transportation system perspective should some form of road in the AVTC be part of the preliminary preferred solution.  A partial listing of these considerations follows:

 

·        Available Highway 417 North Screenline Capacity:  While some of the movements at the Nicholas/Laurier intersection are currently operating at capacity in peak periods, there is spare capacity in the Highway 417 North Screenline, of which Nicholas Street is part.  This screenline runs adjacent to the north of the Queensway (north of Catherine Street through the Central Area) and includes all major roads from St. Laurent Boulevard west to Bronson Avenue.  These streets total 22 lanes per direction with a combined capacity of approximately 18,700 vph northbound and 17,900 vph southbound.  Existing peak volumes total approximately 13,200 vph (74%), and therefore, there is currently a reasonable amount of spare capacity (4,700 vph, (26%) at the Highway 417 North Screenline.  How a transportation system works, and why screenline analysis is undertaken, is that when one road link becomes congested, other parallel roadways pick up the surplus demand, assuming there is spare capacity.

 

With regard to providing a south leg to the Nicholas/Queensway interchange, if/when Nicholas Street is at capacity, consideration will be given to the potential for traffic to shift to other roads that serve the same general destination.  In this situation, there would be a displacement of some existing traffic that currently uses Nicholas Street.

 

·        Redistribution of Existing Traffic:  If a roadway in the AVTC were to connect to the Nicholas/Queensway interchange, not all traffic using the AVTC facility would be “new traffic” and not all the “new traffic” from the south would be going to Nicholas Street.  In all likelihood, most of today’s traffic to/from the Alta Vista area is using the Vanier/Riverside Interchange to/from destinations west of Nicholas Street.  Much of it would be traffic currently coming from Riverside Drive, Alta Vista Drive, Industrial Avenue, and Main Street which may switch to a more convenient crossing of the Rideau River, if that were provided.  This would free-up capacity at the two existing Queensway interchanges at Riverside Drive and St. Laurent Boulevard to accommodate future traffic particularly resulting from urban growth in Orleans and from approved/anticipated infill development at the Train Lands and at the Smyth Road Hospital Complex.  It is noteworthy, that full development of these inner city lands was approved, in part, on the premise of there would be a roadway in the AVTC.

 

·        Downtown as a Destination:  In the future, the City is projecting that the percentage of employment in the downtown will decrease due to continued employment growth beyond the Central Area and in the suburbs.  Accordingly, there will be a smaller proportion of the Southeast Sector traffic wanting to go downtown.  Of the amount of Southeast Sector traffic that is destined to the downtown, Nicholas Street will be only one of many corridors to/from the Central Area as evidenced by the current volumes entering the Central Area today via many north-south roadways.

 

·        Future Interprovincial Bridge:  On the assumption that there will at some point, be a new interprovincial bridge in the east end of Ottawa, it will relieve the current function of the MacDonald Cartier Bridge/King Edward Avenue/Nicholas Street (MKN) link.  The new bridge would likely form a freeway-to-freeway connection and would become the new primary truck route between Ontario and Quebec.  As such, it would significantly reduce truck traffic on the MKN link and would also remove a significant amount of interprovincial traffic through this area.  This redistribution of existing traffic away from the MKN link and out of the Nicholas/Queensway interchange would free up a significant amount of roadway capacity at this location.

 

·        Potential Queensway Modifications:  MTO has recently initiated a study of the Queensway (Highway 417) through central Ottawa.  The objectives of the study are to identify measures that could improve traffic flow and safety along the Queensway corridor.  Options in the vicinity of the Nicholas/Queensway interchange could include the development of additional capacity in the Queensway corridor through the Central Area, to tie in with the recently announced capacity increases being proposed for the west end of the Queensway.

 

(g) PAC’s Influence on Criteria Weighting:  A few PAC members have expressed the view that they should have a greater influence in the weighting of evaluation criteria, than the one third (33%) currently allocated to them.

 

The Concordance Method selected to evaluate the alternatives that pass the initial prescreening involves members of the TAC, PAC and Consulting Team weighting the evaluation criteria in a manner that best reflects their values.  These individual weights are then blended to provide an average criteria weighting for each of the TAC, PAC and Consulting Team.  These three average weights are then blended to yield one overall set of weights to be used in the evaluation of alternatives.

 

This approach, and proportionate weighting has proven effective and successful in the past and ensures all public, agency and technical perspectives are treated equally.  Giving more weight to either the PAC, TAC or the Consulting Team could be seen as biasing the evaluation, and may not withstand possible future scrutiny.

 

As noted previously, the Concordance Method allows for a range of sensitivity analysis.  The analysis can include the elimination of the weighting of any one of the TAC, PAC or Consulting Team to determine how the final recommended solution would vary, if at all.

 

 

NEXT STEPS

 

The Study will continue with the Evaluation of Alternative Solutions, Selection of a Preliminary Preferred Alternative Solution (or solutions), Confirmation of the required EA process to be followed, and conducting Public Open House #2.  Upon completion of these tasks, the Study Team will return to the Transportation and Transit Committee and present its findings to-date.

 

A third and final presentation to the Transportation and Transit Committee would be made once the Preliminary Preferred Solution has been selected, Alternative Design Concepts identified, Assessment of Effects conducted, and Public Open House #3 has been held.  It is at this stage that the Study’s recommendation(s) will be presented for Committee approval.

 

 

 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

N/A

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Annex A - Location of AVTC (Regional Context)

Annex B - Location of AVTC ( Local Context)

 

DISPOSITION

 

The Study will continue with the tasks as outlined in the Committee-approved Statement of Work, and detailed in the Study Design.

 

 

LOCATION OF AVTC (REGIONAL CONTEXT) Annex A

 

LOCATION OF AVTC ( LOCAL CONTEXT) Annex B