Official site of the City of Ottawa

Open House Road Map (June 2005)

Board 1 [ pdf ]	Welcome Welcome to our second Public Open House for the Bank Street Functional and Preliminary Design Study. Please feel free to view the presentation material and the background reports at the Resource Table. Should you have any questions regarding the material, or any other aspect of the study, please speak to any of the City, Technical Advisory Committee or Consultant team members in attendance. We encourage you to provide your comments in writing. Comment sheets are available at the registration desk. Please deposit completed forms in the comment box or mail/fax/e-mail to the address at the bottom of the form. Finally, we ask that you record your attendance on the sign-in sheet. Aims and Objectives of Public Open House No. 2 This second Public Open House will: Present the results of the evaluation and analysis and identification of the preferred alternative for the cross section of a reconstructed Bank Street, including the following: Travelled (driving) Lanes Parking Lanes Sidewalks Present functional design concepts for modifications at key locations. Present landscape, streetscape and lighting alternatives for the corridor. Present an update on the development of the design for the underground services and modifications to the utility systems. Identify areas for further review and next steps. Obtain your Comments. Background Bank Street between Wellington Street and the Rideau Canal is a major north-south urban undivided arterial in the City of Ottawa. Within the limits above, the City of Ottawa has identified a requirement for the rehabilitation/replacement of portions of its aging watermain distribution system, sanitary, combined and storm sewers, and road and sidewalk structure. Due to the size and the complexity of the project, a functional and preliminary design study is required prior to beginning the detail design and tender of the project. Initial funding was provided in 2004 for the start of functional design and Environmental Assessment (EA) work associated with renewal requirements for this length of Bank Street. Future funding requests will provide authority for final designs and implementation of the works. This Functional and Preliminary Design study will provide environmental clearance for the City to proceed with future construction following the requirements of a Schedule "C" Project under the Municipal Class EA.
Board 2 [ pdf ]	What is the Problem? The problem, or opportunity this project is being asked to address is "how should we rehabilitate Bank Street?" The core requirement of this project is to rehabilitate the aging and deteriorating municipal infrastructure on Bank Street. This includes: Rehabilitation/replacement of the watermain. Rehabilitation/replacement of the sanitary, storm and combined sewers. Rehabilitation/replacement of the road structure and sidewalks. Rehabilitation/replacement of the traffic control signal system and street lighting. Identification of modifications and corridor selection as required for private utilities. Using the Downtown Urban Design Strategy 2020 as a basis, the City will develop a Streetscape Plan. The project will also provide an opportunity to identify and implement minor traffic operational improvements, transit priority measures, changes to the roadway cross-sectional elements and other features deemed beneficial to the project. So... "If we are going to fix it, make it better". Study Purpose The purpose of this study will be to define a recommended Functional and Preliminary Design for Bank Street that will provide the City with a detailed scope of work, functional/preliminary designs, a construction phasing and staging strategy and secure environmental clearance for the project in advance of detailed design, tender preparation and construction.
Board 3 [ pdf ]	Environmental Assessment Process This project is being undertaken as a Schedule "C", Class Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the Municipal Class EA document, 2000, a copy of which is available at the Resource Table. Where a project consists of multiple components having differing status under the Class EA if carried out separately, the entire project shall take on the status of the component requiring the most rigorous treatment. For example, for this project the replacement of the watermain and sewers would be a Schedule "A" activity on its own. However, the streetscaping and roadway modifications being considered, on their own, would either be Schedule "B" or Schedule "C" activities (dependent on the costing of the works). Accordingly we are planning the project under Schedule "C", the most rigorous schedule. This study will also be harmonized to satisfy the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, if triggered by this project. There is opportunity at any time during the environmental assessment process for interested persons to provide comments and review outstanding issues. If after participating in this project, and at the conclusion of the study, you still have serious environmental concerns, you have the right to request the Minister of the Environment to reclassify the project as a Part II order (or bump-up) to an Individual Environmental Assessment.
Board 4 [ pdf ]	Study Organization PUBLIC Community Associations Interest Groups BIA's CITY COUNCIL   OTHER AGENCIES National Capital Commission Ministry of Transportation City of Ottawa - EPSD Fire Services Branch City of Ottawa - EPSD Emergency Medical Services Branch City of Ottawa - Ottawa Police Services City of Ottawa - Economic Development City of Ottawa Light Rail Office Rideau Valley Conservation Authority Ministry of the Environment Ministry of Culture Ministry of Tourism and Recreation Ministry of Health Ministry of Economic Development and Trade Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Ministry of Community and Social Services (Eastern Reg.) Parks Canada, Rideau Canal Division Ontario Trucking Association Ottawa Carleton District School Board Ottawa Carleton Catholic District School Board Conseil des Ecoles Catholiques de Langue Francaise Conseil des Ecoles Publiques de l'est de L'Ontario The Greater Ottawa Chamber of Commerce· Ottawa Tourism & convention Authority OSWATCH Ottawa Bus Central Station Greyhound Canada PROJECT TEAM City of Ottawa - PWS Construction Services - West CCL/IBI Ottawa David McManus Engineering Ltd. Corush Sunderland Wright Williamson Consulting Inc. PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAC) City of Ottawa Community Associations Business Owners/BIA's Interest Groups Various Advisory Committee Members Individuals TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) TPO - Safety & Traffic Services TPO - Mobility & Area Traffic Mgt. TPO - Parking Operations TPO - Street and Community Lighting Transit Service PGM - Infrastructure Approvals PGM - Area Planning and Design PGM - Community Environment PGM - Heritage Planning PGM - Development Review PWS - Surface Operations PWS - Utility Services PWS - Needs and Programming Parks and Forestry Services Real Estate Services Lansdowne Park - Real Property Asset Management Arts and Cultural Department Consultant Team UTILITIES Bell Canada Hydro Ottawa Rogers Ottawa Ltd. Enbridge Gas Persona Communications 360 Networks/Group Telecom Telus Communications Plantec Inc. Videotron Telecom Ltd. Allstream Hydro One Telecom Ottawa Esso Home Comfort Study Stages This Functional and Preliminary Design Study will include the following four key phases: Study Commencement - Phase 1 Information Gathering and Generation of Alternatives - Phase 2 Analysis and Evaluation of Alternatives and Recommended Plan - Phase 3 Documentation - Phase 4 Future Steps: Initiation of Detailed Design - Date(s) to be determined Construction - Date(s) to be determined. It is estimated that the construction value of this project is in excess of $25 million. It is anticipated that construction will commence, subject to funding approval by council, in 2006 and could be completed in four (4) to five (5) subsequent phases.
Board 5 [ pdf ]	Development of Design Concept Alternatives Based on feedback & comments from our first Public Open House, as well as the TAC & PAC, a series of design concept alternatives were developed. The following Boards provide summary details of the evaluation process whereby a series of alternative design concepts, in the form of representative cross-sections, have been derived for consideration for the various zones in the Bank Street project corridor. The approach taken has been to prepare and evaluate alternative generic cross-sections which could apply potentially throughout the corridor or in some cases in specific sections of the corridor. In this regard, the chosen cross-section would be the initial step in a series of "building blocks" which would then include the layers of streetscaping, transit priority measures, landscaping and street lighting to form the final composite design concept applicable to each zone in the corridor. The above approach follows from the requirements of the MEA Environmental Assessment Process (Schedule "C") which call for the preparation and evaluation of a series of design concepts to address the identified problem. The evaluation process must be accountable, transparent and capable of addressing the sensitivity of criteria used in the evaluation methodology. A number of alternative design concepts were put forward by the study team for consideration in the corridor, each including combinations of the typical cross-section elements of sidewalks, travelled lanes, cycle lanes and parking lanes. Recognizing the limited right-of-way (18.3 m) and the need to develop generic and logical alternatives for evaluation, the selection of cross-sections was narrowed down to six alternative cross-sections (including "Do Nothing"). These were considered to be sufficiently representative and distinct to form the final series of alternative cross-sections for evaluation. The cross-sections are shown on Board 6 and are described briefly as follows: Alternative 1 - Do Nothing Alternative 2 - Four Lane (similar to old Ottawa South) Alternative 3 - Two Lane, parking each side, all hours Alternative 4 - Two Lane, parking both sides, all hours, shared cycle lane/travelled lane Alternative 5 - Two Lane, parking on one side (west), all hours Alternative 6 - Two Lane, no parking The generic alternative cross-sections described above were "tested" for the individual sections of Bank Street. Bank Street - Establishment of Evaluation Zones This stage of the evaluation process reviewed and established evaluation zones within the Bank Street corridor applying the criteria of similar traffic characteristics, transit, pedestrian volumes and cycling volumes. The final zones established were as follows: Zone 1 - Wellington Street to Laurier Avenue Zone 2 - Laurier Avenue to Gladstone Avenue Zone 3 - Gladstone Avenue to Rideau Canal
Board 6 [ pdf ]	Alternative Design Concept Cross-Sections ALTERNATIVE 1 - Do Nothing Key features of this Alternative: Existing Geometry remains as is for each roadway zone ALTERNATIVE 2 - 4 Lane, Similar to Old Ottawa South Key features of this Alternative: Provides sidewalk widths of approximately 3m, each side No specific cycling facility Possible transit priority measures - queue jumps, bus stop re-configuration, bus lane, traffic signal priority and traffic management measures Provides two travelled lanes in peak direction Provides for off-peak parking, each side ALTERNATIVE 3 - 2 Lane, Parking Each Side, All Hours Key features of this Alternative: Provides sidewalk widths of 3.4m, each side No specific cycling facility Possible transit priority measures - bus stop re-configuration Provides only one travelled lane in each direction at all times Provides for parking on both sides, all hours Curb extensions at intersections (on Bank) possible ALTERNATIVE 4 - 2 Lane, Parking Both Sides All Hours, Shared Cycle Lane/Travelled lane Key features of this Alternative: Provides sidewalk widths of 2.9m, each side Provides on-road cycling facility (shared cycle lane/travelled lane) Possible transit priority measures - queue jumps, traffic signal priority and bus stop re-configuration Provides only one travelled lane in each direction at all times Permits auxiliary lane development at intersections Curb extensions at intersections (on Bank) possible ALTERNATIVE 5 - 2 Lane, Parking on One Side (West) All Hours Key features of this Alternative: Provides approximately 3.9m sidewalk on west side and approximately 4.2m sidewalk on east side Provides on-road cycling facility (shared cycle/travelled lane) Possible transit priority measures - queue jumps (southbound only), traffic signal priority and bus stop re-configuration Provides only one travelled lane in each direction at all times Permits auxiliary lane development, southbound only Curb extensions at intersections (on Bank) possible Provides parking on west side only, all hours ALTERNATIVE 6 - 2 Lane Key features of this Alternative: Provides approximately 4.9m sidewalks, each side Provides short pedestrian crossing distances Provides shared on-road cycling facility Possible transit priority measures - bus stop re-configuration Provides only one travelled lane in each direction at all times Does not permit for auxiliary lane development at intersections without adjusting curbs (i.e. narrowing sidewalks)
Board 7 [ pdf ]	Evaluation Process Since our first Open House we have undertaken a detailed evaluation of the alternative design and concept cross-sections based on the findings, identified the Preferred Alternative. The alternatives were assessed using a Quantitative Evaluation approach that measures the differences among the competing alternatives. A series of Global Criteria and Sub-criteria were defined and weighted and a preliminary score for each alternative determined. Sensitivity tests were also undertaken to determine the robustness of the rankings. The methodology established a series of Global Criteria and Sub-Criteria which are consistent with the specified overall criteria identified in the MEA process, i.e. natural, social, economic environment and technical environment. The list from which the Global Criteria and Sub-Criteria were derived was presented to the public for review and comment at the Public Open Houses in April, 2005. Based on comments received, these Global Criteria have been further divided into 14 Sub-Criteria as follows: Traffic, Transportation and Safety Pedestrian Environment Cyclist Environment Transit Operations Emergency Vehicle Response Level of Service Vehicle Safety Natural and Heritage Environment Heritage Structures Vegetation Removed/Urban Wildlife Corridors Economic Environment Parking Goods Delivery and Other Services (e.g. waste pick-up) General Access for All Modes of Travel Social and Cultural Environment Streetscaping Opportunities Pedestrian Crossing Distance Connections to Recreational and Cultural Facilities The following display boards present the results of the evaluation. The Resource Table provides a detailed summary of the evaluation results. Several of the design concept alternatives, are only applicable to certain of the zones 1 to 3 defined above. The rationale describing the evaluation and choice of alternatives for each corridor zone for analysis follows below. Wellington Alternative Laurier Zone 1 Gladstone Zone 2 Canal Zone 3 A1 A2 x (Note 1) x (Note 2) A3 x (Note 1) A4 x (Note 1) x (Note 2) A5 x (Note 4) A6 x (Note 3) x (Note 5) - Recommended to be carried forward for detailed analysis and evaluation x - Not recommended to be carried forward for detailed analysis and evaluation NOTE: 1. Alternatives 2, 3, 4 were not carried forward for analysis for this zone because they required significant reduction in existing sidewalk widths of up to 2m, in a zone in which pedestrian volumes are highest in the corridor. 2. Alternatives 2 and 4 were not carried forward for analysis for this zone because they required substantial reduction in existing sidewalk width of approximately 0.75m (20%) in a zone in which pedestrian demands are high. 3. Alternative 6 was not carried forward for analysis for this zone because it eliminated all existing on-street parking in an area in which the BIA have worked closely with the City to re-establish on-street parking to meet parking demand. 4. Alternative 5 was not carried forward for analysis for this zone because it significantly reduced existing on-street parking (by 50%) in an area in which the City has identified an overall parking deficiency. 5. Alternative 6 was not carried forward for analysis for this zone because it eliminated all existing on-street parking in an area in which the City has identified an overall parking deficiency.
Board 8 [ pdf ]	Evaluation Team and Evaluation Meeting To assist in the selection of the preferred alternative an Evaluation Team was formed to undertake an evaluation and analysis of the cross-section alternatives being considered for Zones 1, 2 and 3. The Evaluation Team of 15 people included representative members from: The Study Team - 4 people The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) - City of Ottawa (Surface Operations, Traffic Signals Unit, Mobility and Area Traffic Management, Transit Schedule and Service Development, Area Planning and Design) - 5 people The Public Advisory Committee (PAC) - Bank Street Promenade BIA, Centretown Citizens Community Association (CCCA), Glebe Community Association, Glebe Business Group, Tommy and Lefebvre and the NCC - 6 people All members of the Evaluation Team were briefed on the evaluation methodology in advance of the evaluation meeting. On June 3rd, 2005 an Evaluation Meeting was held. A total of 13 Evaluation Team members, as well as a meeting facilitator, were in attendance (NCC and CCCA could not attend). Weighting and scoring for the Global Criteria and Sub-Criteria were completed in real time through the use of digital version of the Excel spreadsheet projected on-screen. For each preferred alternative identified, the sensitivity of the preferred alternative, based on the recorded high-low global criteria weightings, was also readily tabulated and displayed on-screen. Based on the Evaluation Team approach, Boards 9, 10 & 11 present the cross-section alternatives selected as the preferred alternatives for Zones 1, 2 and 3.
Board 9 [ pdf ]	Zone 1 - Wellington to Laurier Criteria Weighting Results Global Criteria Traffic, Transportation and Safety 46% Natural and Heritage Environment 12% Economic Environment 22% Social and Cultural Environment 20% Sub-Criteria Traffic, Transportation & Safety Pedestrian Environment 21% Cyclist Environment 11% Transit Operations 20% Emergency Vehicle Response 11% Level of Service 27% Vehicle Safety 10% Natural & Heritage Environment Heritage Structures 51% Vegetation Removal/Urban Wildlife Corridors 49% Economic Environment Parking 36% Goods delivery and other services (e.g. waste pick-up) 32% General access for all modes of travel 32% Social & Cultural Environment Streetscaping Opportunities 55% Pedestrian Crossing Distance 25% Connections to Recreational and Cultural Facilities 20% Evaluation Results Design Alternative A1 score 50 Design Alternative A5 score 50 Design Alternative A6 score 53± Selection of the Preferred Alternative From the analysis, Alternative A6 (2-lane roadway) was rated the highest and was confirmed through the sensitivity analysis. The Study Team, TAC and PAC assessed the results and endorsed this recommendation. Features of the Preferred Alternative Key features of this Alternative: Provides approximately 4.9m or wider sidewalks each side Provides short pedestrian crossing distances Provides shared on-road cycling facility Possible transit priority measures -bus stop re-configuration Meets the current and projected travel demand by providing one travelled lane in each direction
Board 10 [ pdf ]	Zone 2 - Laurier to Gladstone Criteria Weighting Results Global Criteria Traffic, Transportation and Safety 50% Natural and Heritage Environment 10% Economic Environment 19% Social and Cultural Environment 21% Sub-Criteria Traffic, Transportation & Safety Pedestrian Environment 23% Cyclist Environment 11% Transit Operations 19% Emergency Vehicle Response 11% Level of Service 26% Vehicle Safety 10% Natural & Heritage Environment Heritage Structures 51% Vegetation Removal/Urban Wildlife Corridors 49% Economic Environment Parking 44% Goods delivery and other services (e.g. waste pick-up) 30% General access for all modes of travel 26% Social & Cultural Environment Streetscaping Opportunities 53% Pedestrian Crossing Distance 27% Connections to Recreational and Cultural Facilities 20% Evaluation Results Design Alternative A1 score 50 Design Alternative A3 score 50 Design Alternative A5 score ±63 Selection of the Preferred Alternative From the analysis, Alternative A5 (2-lane, parking on one side (west) all hours) was rated the highest and was generally confirmed through the sensitivity analysis. The Study Team, TAC and PAC assessed the results and endorsed this recommendation. Features of the Preferred Alternative Key features of this Alternative: Provides approximately 3.9m or wider sidewalks on west side and approximately 4.3m or wider sidewalks on east side Provides on-road cycling facility (shared cycle/travelled lane) Possible transit priority measures - queue jumps (southbound only), traffic signal priority and bus stop re-configuration Meets the current and projected travel demand by providing one travelled lane in each direction Provides the flexibility to alternate the parking from west to east if desired in certain areas. Permits auxiliary lane development, southbound only Curb extensions at intersections (on Bank) possible Provides parking on west side only, all hours
Board 11 [ pdf ]	Zone 3 - Gladstone to Bank St. Bridge Criteria Weighting Results Global Criteria Traffic, Transportation and Safety 50% Natural and Heritage Environment 11% Economic Environment 20% Social and Cultural Environment 19% Sub-Criteria Traffic, Transportation & Safety Pedestrian Environment 24% Cyclist Environment 10% Transit Operations 17% Emergency Vehicle Response 10% Level of Service 29% Vehicle Safety 10% Natural & Heritage Environment Heritage Structures 45% Vegetation Removal/Urban Wildlife Corridors 55% Economic Environment Parking 44% Goods delivery and other services (e.g. waste pick-up) 30% General access for all modes of travel 26% Social & Cultural Environment Streetscaping Opportunities 53% Pedestrian Crossing Distance 25% Connections to Recreational and Cultural Facilities 22% Evaluation Results Design Alternative A1 score 50 Design Alternative A2 score 58 Design Alternative A3 score 52 Design Alternative A5 score 49 Selection of the Preferred Alternative From the analysis, Alternative A2 (4-lane, similar to Old Ottawa South) was rated the highest and was generally confirmed through the sensitivity analysis. However, the sensitivity analysis indicated Alternative A3 (2-lane, parking each side, all hours) was favourable under High Economic, High Social and Low Transportation sensitivities. The Study Team assessed the results of the evaluation and sought feedback from the TAC and PAC. The significant feature of Alternative 3 is the slightly broader sidewalks and the greater potential for street trees. Based on these competing alternatives and desires, the Study Team has recommended a blended solution using the superior transportation attributes of Alternative A2 with the superior social attributes of Alternative A3. Features of the Preferred Alternative The evaluation indicated that Alternative A2 was ranked the highest, but Alternative A3 provided key features that were deemed desirable as identified in the High Social and High Economic sensitivity analysis. The preferred alternatives A2 and A2a include the best features of both alternatives A2 and A3, as follows: Key features of this Alternative: Provides sidewalk widths of approximately: 3.0m (A2 - Canal to Holmwood and Powell to Catherine) each side by narrowing of travelled lanes. 3.15m (A2a - Holmwood to Powell and Catherine to Gladstone) each side by narrowing of travelled lanes. Both Alternatives A2 & A2a can include tree planting as indicated as the preferred landscape option on Board 15. Possible transit priority measures - queue jumps, bus stop re-configuration, bus lane, traffic signal priority and traffic management measures. Provides for off-peak parking, each side. Meets the current and projected travel demands, by providing two travelled lanes in the peak direction. Does not preclude the introduction of parking on both sides, all hours, at a future date should a sufficient decrease in car travel demand occur.
Board 12 [ pdf ]	Displays existing conditions, Downtown to Lansdowne
Board 13 [ pdf ]	Lighting Concept Design Principles All the luminaries will contribute to the illumination of the street and sidewalks. There may be some additional decorative elements to add distinction to the north end of the Street within the BIA. Provide a sense of continuity for the entire length of Bank Street at night, with some punctuation at special locations provided by changes in the rhythm of fixture placement. white light colour (metal halide) consistent height consistent spacing and rhythm of layout luminous appearance (some light spill to illuminate building walls and allow the eye to link the points of light along the corridor as opposed to cut-off type fixtures) round fixture shapes, on arms Provide identity to Districts (Glebe, Midtown, Centretown/Downtown) and punctuate special locations along corridor. select three fixture types which accomplish the principles set out to provide continuity, but have distinctive aesthetic differences to help define the three main districts i.e. South - heritage style Centre - contemporary, funky/playful North - business district, refined, contemporary style ALTERNATE A Street Light with pedestrian attached and separate Tear drop street light "Tear drop" - 175 MH lamp Post top pedestrian light - 70w MH lamp 9.2 & 5.6 height 12m spacing ALTERNATE B Street Light with separate pedestrian light Post top pedestrian light - 70 MH lamp 9.2 & 5.6 height 11m spacing EXISTING Conventional Street Light Shoebox luminaire - 250w MH lamp 9.2 height 19m spacing PREFERRED Medium Height Street/Pedestrian Light Tear drop luminaire - 100w MH lamp 7m height 9m spacing
Board 14 [ pdf ]	Design Principles & Palettes According to Ottawa's Official Plan & the Urban Design Strategy for Downtown Ottawa 2020, Bank Street is an important Main Street where the streetscape requires both enhancement and improvement. From "Downtown to Lansdowne" this project will strive to create a first-class urban experience that is a cut above the rest. Design Principles 1. Three Character Areas Distinguished by different pavements and street furniture. Lighting fixtures will be unique in each section (similar optics, spacing, colour, and height). This will serve to visually unify the street, particularly at night. 2. Green Corridor Where possible trees are planted along the street. Existing trees along side streets at intersections are preserved or added. Areas back of the corridor will be explored for tree planting opportunities (ie, Lansdowne Park, Central Park, 417 Overpass, and private property). 3. Reduce Clutter Minimize signage and traffic meters to provide min. 2m clear sidewalk. Avoid over customized solutions which may become dated.
Board 15 [ pdf ]	Displays Streetscape (Typical Blocks), Downtown to Lansdowne
Board 16 [ pdf ]	Displays Special Conditions, Downtown to Lansdowne
Board 17 [ pdf ]	Individual Utility Requirements Correspondence and meetings with the individual private utilities have been held to confirm the status of each utility and to assess the potential impact of the proposed reconstruction on each utility. Plan and Profile presentation of the existing utility systems are available for viewing at the resource table. The following is a brief outline of the requirements for each utility in the corridor: Bell (Telephone) The existing system is an underground system. Bell does not have any plans to expand their system within the project limits in the near future. The road rehabilitation, however, will require that certain lengths of the existing duct structure be reconstructed, as well as, a number of manhole structures. The details will be developed coincidental with the detailed design phase for the rehabilitation. Rogers (CATV) Generally, Rogers shares duct structure with Bell and any improvements that Bell require, Rogers will coordinate with Bell. Rogers do not have any plans to expand their system within the project limits in the near future. Enbridge Gas (Natural Gas) Enbridge Gas has an intermediate pressure main between the Rideau Canal Bridge / Holmwood Avenue that is vital to the distribution for the area. Appropriate protection measures will be required during construction. Enbridge Gas does not have any immediate plans for new installation in the near future. Hydro One (Electricity) Hydro one has a communication installation along Bank Street that controls controlling breakers and switches for two major sub-stations within the city. Appropriate protection measures will be required during construction. Hydro One has a 115kV line encased in pressurized oil filled carrier pipe that crosses Bank Street at Nepean Street. Appropriate protection measures will be required during construction. Allstream, Videotron, Telus &Telecom Ottawa These utilities generally lease space in the Bell or Hydro Ottawa duct structures and will coordinate any modifications to their systems directly with the appropriate utility company. Hydro Ottawa (Electricity) The project length for Bank Street is 3100m. The corridor is an underground hydro system from Wellington to Gladstone/McLeod and from Holmwood to the Rideau Canal Bridge. This leaves a 1400m length of aerial system, with a gap of 150m at the Queensway, for a net overhead system length of 1250m. Typically, the conversion from an overhead system to an underground system does not form part of the scope of work for integrated road, sewer and water projects completed by the City. The preferred cross section alternative will necessitate the relocation of the existing hydro pole line closer to the new curbline. The overwhelming feedback from Public Open House No. 1 indicated that the design for the rehabilitation of Bank Street should provide for the conversion of the balance of the overhead system to an underground system. The general sentiment was "if you can't bury the hydro, don't do the reconstruction". As a result of a staff inquiry and a request from the local councillor, by letter dated April 5, 2005, Hydro Ottawa provided an initial estimate of approximate $8,000,000 to convert the balance of the overhead system to an underground system. This is a very preliminary estimate and can only be refined through the completion of a functional design. Recently the City has asked Hydro Ottawa to complete a functional design and a more accurate cost estimate to assist City staff and Council in their decision-making process for this issue. Where do we go from here? The City will investigate alternative options for the reconstruction of the hydro system, including: A more aesthetically pleasing overhead system. Options for this alternative are available for viewing at the resource table. Full conversion to an underground system including identifying funding alternatives/mechanisms. A combination of an underground and overhead system (this may include complete underground duct structure for a future conversion to an underground system, secondary services converted to an underground system with the primary system remaining overhead). Continue discussions with all utility companies during the development of the preliminary design and refine the scope of work necessary by each utility as a result of the rehabilitation. At Public Open House No. 3 an update will be provided on the hydro and other utility issues along with recommendations for inclusion in the project Environmental Study Report (ESR).
Board 18 [ pdf ]	Rehabilitation/Replacement of Road (Flexible Pavement Structure) & Sidewalk Wellington to Laurier No sewer need (sewers previously separated to dedicated storm and sanitary systems) Replace existing watermain(s) with new 305mm Laurier to Somerset Existing combined sewer to be abandoned New separated storm and sanitary sewers to be established (including services) Replace existing watermain(s) with new 305mm diameter watermain (including services) Existing combined sewer to be replaced with new combined sewer (including services) Replace existing watermain(s) with new 305mm diameter watermain (including services) Somerset to Glebe Existing combined sewer to be replaced with new combined sewer (including services) Replace existing watermain(s) with new 305mm diameter watermain (including services) Sewer rehabilitation/replacement details between Somerset Street and First Avenue will be influenced by the O'Connor drainage area flood control study recommendations. The study is expected to be completed in the early fall of 2005. Details for the rehabilitation/replacement of the Bank Street sewers are expected to be provided at the next Open House. Glebe to Regent/Thornton Existing combined sewer to be replaced with new combined sewer (including services) Existing storm sewer to be replaced with new storm sewer (including services) Replace existing watermain(s) with new 305mm diameter watermain (including services) Coordinate Upgrades/modifications of Glebe Avenue storm sewer. If any, with O'Connor drainage area flood control study recommendations Regent/Thornton to Queen Elizabeth Existing combined sewer to be replaced with new combined sewer (including services) Replace existing watermain(s) with new 305mm diameter watermain (including services) Possible storm outlet for future separation on Regent Street if desired. Investigation of the feasibility & recommendiations for the abandonment of the Brown's inlet sewer and redirecting combined flows from Lansdowne/Wilton to the Bank/Holmwood system is ongoing. Further details will be provided at the next Open House. Queen Elizabeth to Echo Replacement of the existing watermain (including crossing of the Rideau Canal) will not be included in the Bank Street project. Replacement and/or abandonment will be the subject of a separate EA at a future date.
Board 19 [ pdf ]	How Can You Remain Involved in the Study? You can remain involved in the Bank Street Functional and Preliminary Design Study by: Requesting that your name be added to our study mailing list. Providing a written comment sheet. Attending our next Public Open House; and Contacting consultant or City staff at any time during the study. Any of our representatives can assist you in completing the above activities. Next Steps Following this Second Public Open House we will: Review your comments. Respond to your questions. Finalize the analysis and evaluation. Refine the Preferred Alternatives. Prepare a preliminary design based on the preferred alternatives, including further refinement for landscape, streetscape, lighting & underground servicing designs. Conduct Briefing Meetings with the TAC, PAC, external agencies, interest groups and individuals. Prepare for the Third Public Open House, scheduled for the Fall of 2005. Following the Third Public Open House we will prepare an Environmental Study Report (ESR). When the ESR is complete, it will be presented to Council and filed with the Ministry of the Environment. After the ESR is filed, there will be a 30 Day review period for public input and comment. The ESR will also be available at local municipal locations.