Presentation and Open House Summary

Introduction

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

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

Overview

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

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

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

Notification

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

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

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

Attendance

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

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

P1_map

Public Open House and Presentation Materials

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

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

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

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

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

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

Completed Comment-Questionnaires

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

Question 1: Where do you live in the City?

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

Question 2: Why are you interested in this study?

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

Major issues referenced include:

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

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

Responses to this question are summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Summary of Responses to Question 3

Planning Objective

Very Important to Me

Somewhat Important to Me

Not Important to Me

No Answer Given

Promote Smart Growth

26

18

9

6

Compatibility with Adjacent Communities

39

15

3

2

Protect Historical, Cultural and Archaeological Resources

22

25

9

3

Create Successful Rapid Transit Stations

36

13

6

4

Provide a Safe Facility

27

24

6

2

Increase Ridership, Mobility and Capacity

44

7

4

4

Maximize Sensitivity to Natural Environment

33

14

8

4

Apply Sustainable Design Best Practices

17

27

9

6

Wise Public Investment

33

18

3

5

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

Figure 2: Relative Importance of Planning Objectives

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

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

Specific issues raised include:

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

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

Carling

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

Specific issues raised include:

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

Richmond/Byron

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

Specific issues identified include:

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

Ottawa River Parkway

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

Specific issues identified include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presentation Question and Answer Summary

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

COMMENT/ISSUE/QUESTION

RESPONSE

Are some objectives specific to some routes?

All corridors will be rated against all 9 criteria.

Pinecrest Creek is not in the study area?

How do you get from Lincoln Fields to Baseline?

Current route staying?

Yes, we would re-use the existing corridor between Lincoln Fields and Baseline, and there are impacts/opportunities associated with this, such as:

Rehabilitating the creek (daylighting)

Slight shifts in existing geometry to meet LRT requirements

Connection to West Transitway Extension south of Lincoln Fields

Are the objectives weighted?

Yes. This will be outlined later in the presentation.

Elevated train considered?

Yes. We will be considering above, at and below grade design options in each corridor.

In the photos being shown, why no fences around LRT?

Level of protection required hasn’t been decided yet. Idea would be to keep system as open as possible, like Calgary which is at-grade. Auto/train conflicts need to be avoided but opportunities for adequate pedestrian movement across the corridor will be provided. LRT speeds in the corridors not yet defined.

Is cut and cover being considered for underground options?

Yes. Cut and cover is more likely for any underground route as it allows the tunnel to be shallower, easier in the short term (constructability) and in the long-term (ease of use as platforms are shallower).

Has property expropriation been considered?

The final alignment will be designed to achieve optimum geometry for LRT, which may require expropriation to attain. Negotiation is the first preference for all property acquisition. The City will identify any areas impacted and would move forward on this if/when needed.

Why isn’t the existing rail line from Nepean being considered for use in peaks?

This was considered as part of the TMP, and held off as future option. The TMP identified converting the existing Transitway between Baseline and Blair to LRT as a priority.

During the evaluation process, at

what point do you decide at, below, above-grade?

All options are being considered now. After the spring Open House the alignment will be decided for the preferred corridor.

3 consultation groups, weighting equally?

Yes. All members of each group will work together to create a weighing the objectives for their consultation group. The results will be presented to the other groups. Each of the three groups will be considered equally.

Have you assessed the total population in each station area and what percentage is in walking distance of these areas?

Yes. We have used regional model to assess this. As part of the project, local bus routes will be reorganized to get people quicker to stations. The majority of trips on the corridor are taken by people travelling through the study area.

At stations will there be separate lanes for buses and trains?

Yes. Buses and trains need to be kept separate due to different operational requirements.

Are climate problems being factored and will trains be able make grades?

Yes, the technology study looked at rapid transit examples in similar climates. Grades will be minimized as part of the design process.

I don’t see anything in the Planning objectives about keeping green space. Why is this not being considered?

That might be an oversight on our part. Green space is considered within the “Protect historical, cultural and archaeological resources” planning objectives, as well as within the “Maximize Sensitivity to Natural Environment” objective.

Are aesthetics being considered?

This is rolled into station design. Impacts on landscapes will be also be rolled in as appropriate.

Is there a different weighting for people living in the area versus people going through the area?

No. The goal of the study is to pick a rapid transit corridor, so we need to look at facility that is rapid as possible, for example fewer stations spaced further apart, but which balances the desire to serve local needs as well.

Increase ridership within community?

Yes.

Once the corridor is decided, when and where will construction start?

Work on this project is likely to start after the DOTT is up and running, around 2018. Depending on the procurement process used, the constructor could decide to build the WLRTC faster and do multiple segments in parallel.

What are the groups that are doing the weighting?

ACG, BCG, PCG, Study Team will act as the 4th group.

   

Who is in the Agency group?

City departments, provincial and federal branches of the government. Other review agencies such as Hydro which have a mandated interest.

Will the trains have steel wheels on steel rails or rubber tires on concrete?

Technology report concluded that the trains will have steel wheels on steel rails.

So if there are really 4 Groups, will this mean that the public group will only have ¼ say?

No, the weightings from the groups will be applied separately to each corridor option and the Study Team will check all the results to see if we come up with the same solution. If there are different conclusions we will see if there is a rational reason for it. If it’s one indicator, we might remove a criterion as a sensitivity test to see which one is affecting the results.

Will bus route changes to connect into a rapid transit line impact on communities and will this affect station location?

OC Transpo is working with us to look at local bus routes and potential changes. There is an opportunity to look at station locations which are easier for OC Transpo to serve, and better for the community.

Since Official Plan calls for an evaluation of jobs and residential units surrounding rapid transit station will you be looking at that for station locations?

Yes. We are looking at estimates as per the Official Plan and Transportation Master Plan to maximize opportunities to capture jobs and population around station locations.

Two challenges to look at:

1 – move around local area

2 – outside people through study area.

Yes.

Is there a future option (rail line) further south?

Our study will define which corridor will serve the study area best in terms of rapid transit. A second corridor, to be considered in the future as a city-building initiative, will likely be considered.

Can automation be used for these parts of the corridor, Kanata, Lincoln Fields, Bayshore?

Yes, inside the Greenbelt rapid transit will be segregated from other traffic as much as possible to provide a higher degree of service and to try to take advantage of automation.

Will Tunney’s be a temporary or permanent terminus? Will there be a role for a 2nd line and how will it work?

The DOTT study looked at Blair to Tunney’s Pasture as Tunney’s is a major employment node looking to double in size. As a result it is designated as a terminal station. Depending on the route selected west of Bayview, Tunney’s Pasture could be an in-line station (with no terminal functions) or branch service (which may include some reduced terminal functions for local routes to the west).

Will service for Hospital employees be considered?

Yes, all potential trip origins and destinations in the corridors are being looked at, i.e., Carling, Scott.

What if public servants are moved to the Nortel campus?

This will be considered but it is our understanding that employees from other locations are slated to move to Nortel. Even if they move from Tunney’s Pasture, it is still in a popular location, and PWGSC is undertaken a study to look at major expansion.

You mentioned that the ORP corridor is faster, but is Richmond/Byron also quicker than Carling?

Speeds along alignment of ORP on diagonal of route. It will have the same number of stations, slow down for curves, geometry and this will all dictate speed. There is not a significant difference in time calculations. The Carling route is about 3 minutes longer than the ORP route on a total trip time of 60 minutes for a trip from Kanata. The Byron/Richmond corridor is only slightly longer than the ORP route.

The ORP corridor does not have as much ridership potential as Carling.

Yes, this factor will form part of our evaluation.

Who benefits the most?

Green space is not highly rated and should be revisited to be a major factor.

We have laid out a series of criteria groups. The Consultation Groups can assign it more weight as part of the process. Please put the issue on your Comment-Questionnaire so that it is noted.

Using the Ottawa River Parkway should be graded less due to limited potential increase in ridership. It may be fast, fewer stops but does attract many riders.

Need to balance more stops/accessibility for local and regional users. Likely to be 5-6 stations regardless of which corridor is chosen, 1,000-1,500m apart. They will not look like tram stations. Major stations will have more density with the potential of 4 or 5 nodes of development.

ORP

Rapid transit should be along the ORP

Haven’t thrown out. The TMP identified the need for a rapid transit corridor somewhere within the study area, we are not revisiting on a regional scale. We will look at which corridor is best for rapid transit and the potential for a local corridor will be considered as well.

At what point does City Council get involved?

They have already approved the scope of work, and we will go back to the Transportation Committee to update them on the work to-date. We will go back for approval of the preferred corridor in Spring 2011.

How do we tell the City to look at both local and regional?

Put on your Comment-Questionnaire.

Has our resource consumption been considered?

Yes, the TMP and OP show increases in transit ridership, population increases of 30%, and transit ridership increases up 78%, reflecting redevelopment to rapid transit.

Move people from place to place – community development – separate from rapid transit. Forgetting what this is about – 2 separate activities

Needs to be integrated, so that we respect all aspects.

Focus being swayed

Need to balance local and regional, afford a certain amount.

You could have buses on ORP (leave them) and trains on Carling

OC train do not want to operate two services that are parallel, rob from each other. Lincoln Fields to Baseline some local buses in corridor, can’t afford to have both corridors in place.

Studies from 70s decided to put bus on ORP – how were these routes decided on?

Based on development potential and to encourage ridership – didn’t want to spend money downtown and so– used Parkway to extend Transitway further out. As a result Ottawa has high per capita ridership.

Anyone read those NCC studies?

Old reports are very extensive not as thorough now as back then.

Have read some, not all. We will review them.

Current load – 3x capacity how many trains?

New trains carry more people – at 5 or 6 minute headways trains can handle the volume.

Surprised on 3 min time difference, highlight time difference more

The real factor will be the stops and curves which will affect average speed. We will be doing more work to look at the differences in travel speeds between the corridor options.

Fast travel outside greenbelt. Balance operating costs

Will be looking at balancing cost and speed and will roll into evaluation.

Are you considering implementing fare by distance?

No. This is an operational decision for OC Transpo to make and it affects the whole system. Smartcards being introduced would make it possible implement fare by distance.

Why was this Open House held now, and will there be other public meetings in other areas in the corridor?

We needed to wait for election to be over before doing any public consultation. We will look at having the next Open House further into study area. We have had some issues finding a large enough venue. This is the only meeting at this stage of the project.

Will people from Kanata have to transfer to get on LRT?

Yes. The intent is to improve the local environment and reducing GHGs. This is achieved by intercepting buses as far out as possible and having riders transfer to LRT.

3 minutes is not a big difference in travel time.

  

Will there be expanded Park & Ride at the rail head?

City policy is no more Park & Ride lots inside the Greenbelt. The City will need to look at other opportunities to capture people further out.

Is implementation timing of routes decided?

Yes. This project will be implemented once the DOTT is operational.

Kanata residents will overload the trains coming in

Peak point on system is on edge of downtown – but residents boarding in this area will have a much shorter trip to downtown

With automation would it possible to have some cars not open further out to reserve capacity for riders closer in?

This is not likely an option. LRT will provide greater capacity than current BRT system.

How many more stations likely between Bayview and Baseline?

Ottawa River Parkway and Richmond/Byron would likely have 2 more stations. Along Carling there would likely be potential for 4-5 new stations in total.

Will you look at express trains operations to reduce “sardine effect”?

Will be considered as part of the design.

Permalink: http://ottawa.ca/e/CON058381