Research based on given resources
Cady2019
CIVE53072011LRTOttawaAttachment1copy.pdf
Transportation Master Plan Infrastructure Requirement Study
Development of a Downtown Transit
Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
April 2008
PREFACE The recommendations and findings presented in this report are one component of a larger study to develop the transit and road infrastructure requirements of the 2008 update to the City of Ottawa’s Transportation Master Plan (TMP). This study is being conducted in such a manner as to satisfy Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (October 2000, as amended in 2007) as follows: Phase 1 – Problem or Opportunity: The development of a long-term Transportation Vision and associated planning principles, identifying problems and opportunities; Phase 2 – Alternative Solutions: A review of transit and road networks. This includes a capacity review of the City’s downtown rapid transit network (this report). Further documentation will be prepared which describes all of the work undertaken to fulfill Phases 1 and 2, as well as the public and stakeholder consultation carried out. The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) recognizes the benefits of long-range infrastructure planning under the Master Planning process and outlines various approaches for Master Plans to fulfill the requirements of the Class EA. The 2008 TMP update is being carried out as part of the City of Ottawa's mandatory 5-year Official Plan Review, and will therefore be planned in accordance with Approach #4 – Integration with the Planning Act.
MCCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study i Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................1
1.1. Background..............................................................................................................................1 1.2. History .....................................................................................................................................1 1.3. Existing Downtown Transit Services .......................................................................................3 1.4. Approach .................................................................................................................................6
2. POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH: 2031 .................................................................7 3. TRAVEL DEMAND FORECAST: 2031 ...........................................................................................13
3.1. Background............................................................................................................................13 3.2. Planning Assumptions ...........................................................................................................13 3.3. Growth in Travel Demands....................................................................................................14 3.4. Regional Travel Desire Lines ................................................................................................18 3.5. Focussing on Travel in Ottawa’s Inner Area.........................................................................23
4. TRANSIT RIDERSHIP: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE DOWNTOWN..........................................26 4.1. Ridership and Service Levels in the Downtown.....................................................................26 4.2. Ridership Levels in 2031 .......................................................................................................26 4.3. Future Transit Service Levels in the Downtown ....................................................................28
5. ALTERNATIVES FOR SERVING THE DOWNTOWN ................................................................31 5.1. Technologies Considered.......................................................................................................31 5.2. Options for Providing All Rapid Transit Service on the Surface...........................................33 5.3. Elevated Options....................................................................................................................41 5.4. Tunnel Options ......................................................................................................................42 5.5. Combined Surface/Tunnel Options ........................................................................................45 5.6. Recommendations ..................................................................................................................46
6. PRIMARY RAPID TRANSIT NETWORK OPTIONS ...................................................................47 6.1. Network Option 1: BRT Tunnel-Bus Based ...........................................................................49 6.2. Network Option 2: BRT/LRT Tunnel – Bus based with North-South LRT.............................51 6.3. Minimum Transitway Segments for LRT Conversion ............................................................53 6.4. Network Option 3: LRT Tunnel - East & West Downtown LRT ............................................54 6.5. Network Option 4: LRT Tunnel - East & West Downtown LRT plus North-South LRT ........56
7. PRELIMINARY INTEGRATION OPPORTUNITIES FOR STO SERVICES ............................58 7.1. Alternatives Considered: .......................................................................................................58 7.2. Description of Alternatives ....................................................................................................58 7.3. Vehicles..................................................................................................................................61 7.4. Summary ................................................................................................................................61
8. SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION TO DATE ................................................................................62 8.1. Objective................................................................................................................................62 8.2. Methodology ..........................................................................................................................62 8.3. Public Open Houses and Discussion Groups ........................................................................62 8.4. Stakeholder Focus Groups ....................................................................................................66 8.5. City Advisory Committee Briefings........................................................................................66 8.6. Internal and External Agency Meetings ................................................................................67 8.7. Online Consultation...............................................................................................................67 8.8. Mayor’s Streeter Survey ........................................................................................................68 8.9. Conclusions ...........................................................................................................................69
MCCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study i Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
9. ASSESSMENT OF NETWORK OPTIONS ......................................................................................70 9.1. Criteria for Consideration .....................................................................................................70 9.2. Assessment of Transportation Criteria ..................................................................................74 9.3. Assessment of Natural Environment Criteria ........................................................................81 9.4. Assessment of Social/Cultural Environment Criteria ............................................................83 9.5. Capital Costs .........................................................................................................................87 9.6. Operating Costs .....................................................................................................................88 9.7. Evaluation Summary..............................................................................................................89 9.8. Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................................................89
APPENDIX A: EXISTING & FUTURE POPULATION & EMPLOYMENT
APPENDIX B: 2003 TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN – RAPID TRANSIT NETWORK
APPENDIX C: EXISTING AND FUTURE TRIP TABLES
APPENDIX D: DETAILED DOWNTOWN RIDERSHIP AND VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS
APPENDIX E: TUNNEL ALIGNMENTS / PROFILES / CROSS SECTIONS
APPENDIX F: COST ESTIMATES
APPENDIX G: CONSULTATION
APPENDIX H: CONVERSION OF TRANSITWAY TO RAIL
MCCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study ii Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
List of Figures Figure 1.1: Existing Central Area OC Transpo Bus Routes ............................................................................3 Figure 1.2: Existing Central Area STO Bus Routes ........................................................................................6 Figure 2.1: Major Growth Areas - 2031 Planning Horizon .............................................................................8 Figure 2.2: Existing and Future Population Densities ...................................................................................11 Figure 2.3: Existing and Future Employment Densities ................................................................................12 Figure 3.1: Travel Purposes – a.m. Peak .......................................................................................................15 Figure 3.2: Current and Future Mode Splits by Trip Origin and Destinations ..............................................16 Figure 3.3: Growth in Primary Desire Lines .................................................................................................20 Figure 3.4: Growth in Secondary Desire Lines .............................................................................................21 Figure 3.5: Growth in Tertiary Desire Lines .................................................................................................22 Figure 3.6: Major Employment Nodes and Density: 2031 – Ottawa Inner Area...........................................23 Figure 3.7: Inner Area Screenlines ................................................................................................................24 Figure 3.8: 2031 Transit Trip Assignments ...................................................................................................25 Figure 4.1: Ottawa’s Core Area Transit Demands- 2031 ..............................................................................27 Figure 5.1: Proposed Elevated Transitway ....................................................................................................42 Figure 6.1: Future Rapid Transit Corridor Network Considerations .............................................................48 Figure 6.2: Network Option 1: BRT Tunnel..................................................................................................50 Figure 6.3: Network Option 2: BRT / LRT Tunnel .......................................................................................52 Figure 6.4: Network Option 3: East & West Downtown LRT ......................................................................55 Figure 6.5: Network Option 4: LRT Tunnel – East & West Downtown LRT plus North-South LRT..........57
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Growth in Population and Employment for Major Growth Areas .................................................9 Table 3.1: Projected Travel Demand: All Modes – City Wide......................................................................14 Table 3.2: Existing and Forecast Non Motorized Travel Shares by District .................................................15 Table 3.3: Growth in Travel by Private Vehicle and Transit – Trip Origins & Destinations by Sub-Area ...17 Table 3.4: Growth in Travel by Mode – Inner Area Cordon (a.m. Peak Hour).............................................25 Table 4.1: Network Impacts on Downtown Peak Passenger Load Point Forecasts.......................................27 Table 4.2: Design Passenger Capacity for Transit Vehicles..........................................................................28 Table 4.3: Theoretical Number of Transit Vehicles per Hour at Peak Passenger Load Point .......................29 Table 4.4: Theoretical Headways (rounded) between Vehicles at Peak Passenger Load Point.....................29 Table 8-1: Public Open House and Discussion Group Logistics...................................................................63 Table 8-2: Public Open Houses ~ Question 1................................................................................................63 Table 8-3: Public Open Houses ~ Key Trends Question 2 ............................................................................64 Table 8-4: Public Open Houses ~ Key Trends Question 3 ............................................................................64 Table 8-5: Discussion Groups ~ Key Comments on the Four Options..........................................................64 Table 8-6: Registered Discussion Groups ~ Key Areas of Consideration.....................................................65 Table 8-7: Stakeholder Focus Group Sessions ~ Key Trends .......................................................................66 Table 8-8: On-line Comments .......................................................................................................................68 Table 9.1: Vehicle Emission Rates ................................................................................................................72 Table 9.2: AM Peak Hour Ridership – City-wide .........................................................................................78 Table 9.3: Capital Cost Estimate for OC Transpo (in Millions of $).............................................................87 Table 9.4: Operating Cost of Rapid Transit Options for the Year 2031 ........................................................88
MCCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study iii Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
M C R C
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
Ottawa’s award-winning Transitway is regarded as one of the world’s most successful implementations of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system. Forming the backbone of OC Transpo’s rapid transit network, it has been a key factor in Ottawa attaining enviable transit ridership levels. This success, however, has led to an emerging congestion problem in the downtown. Ridership growth on the four Transitway corridors converging in the downtown has seen the system reach its capacity. With the projected increase in population and employment over the next 20 to 30 years, combined with the introduction of the developing “Rapibus” service delivering a high percentage of the Gatineau ridership into Ottawa’s central core, there is no room for future growth on the current rapid transit system in the downtown. A two-stage approach is being undertaken to develop the long-range rapid transit network component of this update to the City’s Transportation Master Plan (TMP). Since a solution for the downtown transit problem will have major ramifications for the rest of the City’s rapid transit network, it is being developed first. Founded on the most recent City-wide travel demand data derived from the 2005 Origin-Destination survey and Council’s recently approved population and employment projections for the 2031 planning horizon, the recommended downtown transit solution, with associated modifications to the existing network, will form the basis of a primary rapid transit network. It will be refined based on feedback from public and stakeholder consultations and will be presented to the City’s Transportation and Transit Committees and Council for approval in May 2008. Upon Council approval of the primary rapid transit network, the second stage will consider other possible corridors for inclusion in the overall network. These ‘secondary’ corridors will address and identify those rapid transit services outside of the downtown that are necessary to attain the City’s overall 30% transit modal split goal for the 2031 planning horizon, and will be the subject of a follow-on report. The primary network and recommended secondary corridors will be combined and presented to City Council as the City’s TMP rapid transit network for approval in early 2009.
1.2. History
Transit capacity in downtown Ottawa has been a topic of discussion for many years. In the mid-1970’s, the former Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton first suggested the eventual need for a grade separated rapid transit facility through the downtown, such as a tunnel. In June 1986, Regional Council directed that a study be undertaken to examine the feasibility of grade separating the Transitway through the Central Area linking the existing East/Southeast and West/Southwest Transitways. The study examined both above and below-ground alternatives, as well as alternative alignments and station configurations in the Central Area. It was completed in 1988 and determined that a tunnel was the most appropriate grade separated alternative. Regional Council decided to continue with further extensions of the bus Transitway outside of the Central Area as the first priority, leaving the expensive grade separation of the downtown section until it was required. This “outside-in” approach to Transitway development helped with the early establishment of Ottawa’s high transit ridership. In October 2001, the City began operating a pilot light rail service, to compliment the existing Transitway, using diesel-powered Bombardier ‘Talent’ vehicles. Known as the O-Train, the service runs within the
C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 1
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
former CPR Ellwood North-South railway corridor between the Greenboro and Bayview Transitway Stations. Having exceeded its ridership objectives, in 2005 the service became a permanent, fully integrated component of the OC Transpo system. In May 2003, the City of Ottawa adopted a new Official Plan (OP) that set out a growth management strategy emphasizing urban intensification and increased mixed-use development centered on rapid transit lines as a means to address travel demand and to discourage single occupancy vehicle use as the preferred mode of peak period travel. To support this strategy, the City approved a TMP that set a 30% transit modal split target for the year 2021. The TMP identifies an expanded rapid transit network as a key component to achieving this target. This rapid transit network was developed through the City’s Rapid Transit Expansion Study (RTES) that was approved by Council on 26 February 2003. The expansion of light rail transit (LRT) service into the downtown (Rideau Centre) and to Riverside South (Limebank Station) was identified as the top priority project for implementation. RTES reviewed the concept of a downtown transit tunnel and concluded that a proposed new on-street LRT corridor (such as Sparks or Queen Streets), combined with operational improvements along the Albert and Slater Street Transitway, would provide the required transit capacity within the 2021 planning period. Furthermore, staff developed an implementation strategy - entitled the Ottawa Rapid Transit Expansion Program (ORTEP) Implementation Strategy – for the long-term plan for the overall rapid transit network that included timelines, funding and partnership options, and financial implications. On 24 September 2003 City Council received the ORTEP Implementation Strategy report and authorized staff to initiate the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the North-South Corridor LRT Project. On 15 July 2005, City Council received the study findings and approved the EA recommended plan, which included operating LRT and BRT service through the downtown using Albert and Slater Streets, subject to a series of conditions. Although the EA findings showed that there is sufficient capacity on the Albert/Slater Corridor to accommodate a new LRT service with 5-minute headways, one of the conditions of approval was that a reduction in the number of buses operating on Albert and Slater Streets by 30% be in place when the LRT operation began in 2009. The resultant plan, which was approved by Council in November 2005, was to have consolidated and reduced the number of direct-to-downtown express routes – thereby increasing the number of bus to bus transfers required by riders. EA approval was received from the Province and Federal Government in May and July 2006, respectively. In July 2006, City Council took steps to initiate the procurement of the design-build and a 15-year maintenance agreement of the North-South Corridor LRT Project. In December 2006, due to non-fulfillment of conditions, the Project Agreement for the LRT Project was terminated in accordance with its terms. One of the principle reasons leading to the decision not to proceed with the contract award for the North-South Corridor LRT project was concern over the proposed mixed operation of the LRT with buses and general traffic on Albert and Slater Streets. On 11 January 2007, Mayor O’Brien announced his intent to form a Task Force to study the City’s transportation priorities with final recommendations due by June 2007. The Mayor’s Task Force recommended that the City move forward with the construction of a downtown transit tunnel as a priority. In accordance with the Ontario Planning Act, the OP must be reviewed every 5 years. Accordingly, the City is updating the 2003 Official Plan based on a revised population and employment forecast for the 2031 M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 2 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
horizon year. In support of the Official Plan update, the TMP is also being updated with forecast regional travel patterns for the year 2031. With the termination of the Project Agreement for the North-South Corridor LRT Project, and the subsequent identification of long-term transit capacity issues in the downtown, the current update of the TMP and the related Transportation Infrastructure Requirements Study provides the opportunity to review the previous recommendations formulated in both RTES and the 2003 TMP. This report identifies the appropriate transit network and technologies (e.g. bus, rail) for the downtown and the implications for the other rapid transit corridors identified in the TMP.
1.3. Existing Downtown Transit Services
1.3.1. OC Transpo OC Transpo operates public transit services on most of the primary streets in downtown Ottawa. These services include Rapid Transit services on the Central Area Transitway (Albert and Slater Streets and the Mackenzie King Bridge); and local transit services that come together on Rideau Street east of the Rideau Canal. Figure 1.1 illustrates all of these services.
Figure 1.1: Existing Central Area OC Transpo Bus Routes
The local services use Lyon, Kent, Bank, Elgin, Wellington and Queen Streets to travel through downtown west of the Canal and then converge at Confederation Square before proceeding onto Rideau Street. From Rideau Street these services disperse onto Sussex, Dalhousie, and Nicholas Streets, or continue east on Rideau Street. Between 40 and 50 buses cross the Canal on Rideau Street during the peak hour, depending on the time of day and the direction. The number of buses operating on each of the individual streets approaching Rideau Street ranges from as low as 5 to as high as 30 in the peak direction during the peak hour. The Central Area Transitway carries the majority of the transit riders in downtown Ottawa in terms of the number of passengers and the number of buses using the corridor, as well as the number of routes. The primary rapid transit services (Routes 95, 96 and 97) use this corridor, as do numerous other all day cross-town transit routes and virtually all of the peak period and express services connecting suburban M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 3 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
communities directly with the downtown. A mixture of standard and articulated buses provides this service. During the afternoon peak hour, approximately 180 buses travel eastbound along Slater Street.1 Currently the peak hour, peak direction passenger volume reaches 10,000 customers in the afternoon on the approaches to the Central Area Transitway. The Central Area Transitway consists of reserved bus lanes on Albert Street (westbound), Slater Street (eastbound), and on the Mackenzie King Bridge. Albert and Slater Streets are currently comprised of three through traffic lanes: one reserved bus-only lane (in effect from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday-Friday) and two lanes for general purpose travel. One of the general purpose lanes is used for parking during off-peak periods. The right-side curb lane on both Albert and Slater is used for transit platforms, on-street parking, loading bays, and at some intersections, right-turn lanes. The dedicated on-street portion of the Central Area Transitway begins/terminates at Empress Avenue (in the west) and Waller Street (in the east). Traffic signals located on the bus-only portion of the Transitway at Booth Street in the west and Laurier Avenue East in the east dictates bus capacity along the Central Area Transitway to some extent. The critical time of day for bus operating capacity on the Central Area Transitway is the afternoon peak period, and the critical direction is eastbound on Slater Street and the Mackenzie King Bridge where bus volumes are the highest. The most congested point on Slater Street is the stop east of Metcalfe Street. Delays on this portion of the downtown Transitway affect not only customers heading east at that time, but also customers across the entire transit system as buses delayed on their eastbound trips from the downtown result in delays on subsequent trips on other parts of the system. This has been recognized for a number of years, and since 2004, ridership growth east from the downtown has been managed by the judicious assignment of high-capacity articulated buses and scheduling of trips at this critical time. Based on experience the scheduled level of service has been kept at or below 180 bus trips per hour in order to maintain service reliability. The morning is less of a restriction because most passengers are stepping off buses by all doors and walking directly away from the bus towards their destination. Very few passengers board buses on the Central Transitway during the morning. In the afternoon, most passengers are arriving at station platforms, joining the group of customers already there, waiting for a bus on a particular route, moving along the platform to the point where their bus stops, and largely boarding by the front2 door and paying their fare or showing their pass. More buses can therefore be accommodated through the downtown in the a.m. than in the p.m. The majority of passengers boarding at the stops on the Central Area Transitway during peak periods pay their fares using monthly passes. While this makes for an efficient boarding time for most buses, those remaining cash-paying passengers often offset the speed of boarding created by the pass holders. Planned initiatives such as the introduction of the Smartcard electronic fare system and the future introduction of real-time bus arrival signs will reduce passenger boarding times. These measures were among those outlined in a report delivered to the City’s Transit Committee in May 2007 (Downtown Transit Operating Strategies 2007 - 2010). The report indicated that the current level of service on Slater Street in the afternoon is near its practical capacity and that in its current configuration, the street is capable of accommodating no more than 195 bus trips per hour per direction.3 The report
1 This is the equivalent of 220 standard buses/hr. 2 Boarding by the rear door is permitted for pass holders on articulated buses only.
M C R C
3 This number is derived as follows: Each bus platform along Albert and Slater Streets is approximately 55 metres long, and has room for either three 60-foot (18-metre) articulated buses or four standard 40-foot (12-metre) buses. As many articulated buses are required to carry the volume of customers on the busiest routes, there are rarely four 40-foot buses in a row, and the service is planned to have
C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 4
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
identified strategies which would allow current bus volumes on Slater Street to be maintained during the weekday afternoon peak hour until such time as a rapid transit solution for downtown Ottawa is chosen and implemented. The following specific measures were identified to improve transit operations for the period 2008-2010:
• Improving the Metcalfe platform on Slater Street;
• Using high-capacity buses (i.e. articulated or double deck);
• Attracting more through-passengers away from the Central Area by improving by-pass routes;
• Moving some service onto other streets; and
• Speeding up boarding times through the use of real-time passenger information and a smartcard fare system.
Some of these measures have already been put into place, while others have had initial steps taken towards their implementation.
1.3.2. Société de transport de l’Outaouais Transit services provided by the Société de transport de l’Outaouais (STO) also use the road network within Ottawa’s downtown core. The majority of the STO buses serving Ottawa mix with general purpose traffic on Wellington Street and use the dedicated bus lanes on Rideau Street between King Edward Avenue and Sussex Drive mixed with OC Transpo services. In-service STO buses cross the Ottawa River on either the Alexandra or the Portage Bridges. Those services crossing on the Alexandra Bridge generally follow a one-way route using St. Patrick/Murray, King Edward, Rideau and Wellington Streets to the Portage Bridge. Services crossing on the Portage Bridge use Wellington and Rideau Streets before turning around on Cumberland Street, George Street and King Edward Avenue to return back to the Portage Bridge via Rideau and Wellington Streets. Some of the buses on peak period STO services dead-head to the start of their route or return back to Gatineau via the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge and King Edward Avenue. STO service in the Wellington/Rideau corridor currently amounts to approximately 120 buses in the peak direction during the weekday afternoon peak hour and carry as many as 4,400 passengers. As a large number of STO buses are required to lay-up in Ottawa east of the downtown prior to the commencement of afternoon service, the City of Ottawa has recently constructed a small lay-by area for buses on King Edward Avenue as part of its King Edward Avenue reconstruction project.
M C R C
no more than three buses move through each green light, which are set to change on a 55-second cycle. At three buses every 55 seconds and with 55-metre platforms, the maximum number of buses that can move through downtown in an hour is 195.
C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 5
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
Figure 1.2: Existing Central Area STO Bus Routes
1.4. Approach
This report details the development of the downtown transit solution and identifies alternatives, including costs, for the recommended primary rapid transit network. The approach taken begins with a discussion on the City’s approved population and employment growth projections and related land use planning principles used to forecast City-wide travel demands for the 2031 planning horizon. Using the City’s TRANS regional travel demand model, expected ridership levels in the downtown are established. This data is matched against the design carrying capacity of a variety of transit vehicles (bus and rail) to determine the number of vehicles required to accommodate the forecasted passenger demand. From this, the headways between the transit vehicles is calculated to determine the transit service levels that may be provided by each transit vehicle alternative at specific points in the downtown. These transit service levels are then considered for all existing and possible future transit services in the downtown and compared against the practical capacity for rapid transit on the existing downtown street network. Should it be determined that the surface system cannot accommodate the forecasted transit vehicle volumes through the downtown, then grade separated alternatives would be considered for the downtown transit solution. The configuration and technology chosen for the downtown will have implications on the balance of the rapid transit network outside of the downtown – specifically with regards to possible conversion of portions of the existing Transitway system to rail. The final portion of this work considers the extent to which conversion of the Transitway would be necessary to attract new riders, while minimizing bus to rail transfer requirements. The result will be a recommended primary transit network.
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 6 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
M C R C
2. Population and Employment Growth: 2031
Projections of Ottawa’s long-term growth are fundamental to the City’s planning of land use and infrastructure needs. With the OP review well underway, the City’s current 2021growth projections were comprehensively re-examined for the new 2031 planning horizon to establish a planning framework for the assessment of future infrastructure requirements. The development of these new growth projections considered the Greater Ottawa-Gatineau Area (the metropolitan area including adjacent municipalities) to ensure that the magnitude of the metropolitan economy and the extent of the commuter shed were included in the overall assessment of growth for the City of Ottawa. Looking beyond Ottawa’s borders at the growing adjacent communities indicates that Ottawa will maintain its historical share of the growth attracted to the region. Overall, the City of Ottawa’s report on “New Growth Projections for 2006-2031” predicts a 2031 population of 1,136,000, about five per cent lower than the previous 2021 projection.” Employment levels are projected to increase to 703,000 jobs. In addition, the report highlighted several key changes for our communities by 2031 that include:
• The aging of the baby-boom, the leading edge of which first turns 65 in 2011, continues to be the most significant demographic force. In the Reference Projection, the population aged 65 and over will account for almost 50 per cent of our population growth to 2031. The share of population 65 and over will increase from about 12 per cent in 2006 to over 20 per cent by 2031.
• The very elderly population, those over 80, will more than double in number, from 29,000 to 59,000, placing high demands on health and long term care facilities in particular, and on many other services.
• The demographic dependency ratio, the number of children (14 and under) and seniors (65 and over) per 100 working age people (15 to 64) will increase significantly, from 42 per 100 in 2006 to 54 by 2031. Statistics Canada projects that nationally the ratio will increase from 44 in 2006 to 61 in 2031, pointing to Ottawa's relatively younger projected population. It should be noted that both locally and nationally, the major increases in the dependency ratio do not occur until after 2021.
An assessment of the infrastructure requirements to accommodate future growth is largely influenced by the magnitude and distribution of the projected growth over the planning period. Specifically, the requirements for transportation systems is fundamentally linked to where people live and work, with the most significant demands occurring during peak commuter travel times. The 2031 population and employment levels for major growth areas, and the percentage increase over current population and employment levels, is summarized in Figure 2.1: Major Growth Areas - 2031 Planning Horizon and in the accompanying Table 2.1: Growth in Population and Employment for Major Growth Areas. Table 2.1 indicates that the City of Ottawa is projected to grow by approximately 30% in terms of population (an additional 265,000 persons in Ottawa) and 35% in employment (an additional 181,300 jobs). This growth in employment is based on the City’s economic role in serving the greater Ottawa-Gatineau region and outlying areas. A more detailed summary indicating the growth of population and employment to 2031 projected by planning districts is provided in Appendix A. Overall, the geographic distribution of the growth in both population and employment levels across the planning regions is summarized as follows:
C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 7
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
• The population growth projected for areas inside the Greenbelt (52,700 persons) will be relatively evenly split between the inner area (see Figure 3.7: Inner Area Screenlines) and the remaining urban areas inside the Greenbelt. This suggests increasing intensification within the Inner Area and reflects the aging of the resident population and lower average number of persons per household.
• Employment growth across the City will be split between areas inside the Greenbelt (42%) and urban centres outside the Greenbelt (50%). Both the Ottawa and Gatineau core areas will continue to accommodate, on a proportional basis, equal percentages of the total employment located in each of the cities (26% of the projected 2031 employment for Ottawa within the Inner Area and 30% of employment for Ile de Hull when compared with all employment across the Outaouais in 2031).
Figure 2.1: Major Growth Areas - 2031 Planning Horizon
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 8 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
Table 2.1: Growth in Population and Employment for Major Growth Areas
Population Employment
Base Year % of Total 2031 % of Total Growth
% of Total
% of Base Year
Base Year
% of Total 2031
% of Total Growth
% of Total
% of Base Year
Ottawa Inner Area 95,800 11% 118,500 10% 22,700 9% 24% 153,900 29% 181,000 26% 27,100 15% 18%
Inside Greenbelt* 437,300 50% 467,300 41% 30,000 11% 7% 274,700 53% 324,500 46% 49,800 27% 18% Inside Greenbelt (Urban) Subtotal 533,100 61% 585,800 52% 52,700 20% 10% 428,600 82% 505,500 72% 76,900 42% 18%
Orleans 99,000 11% 123,500 11% 24,500 9% 25% 17,900 3% 35,000 5% 17,100 9% 96%
South Nepean 55,500 6% 104,300 9% 48,800 18% 88% 7,000 1% 40,000 6% 33,000 18% 471% Riverside South / Leitrim 9,000 1% 43,300 4% 34,300 13% 381% 2,800 0.5% 9,300 1% 6,500 4% 232%
Kanata / Stittsville 88,400 10% 162,200 14% 73,800 28% 83% 43,600 8% 77,000 11% 33,400 18% 77%
Outside Greenbelt (Urban) Subtotal 251,900 29% 433,300 38% 181,400 68% 72% 71,300 14% 161,300 23% 90,000 50% 126%
Ottawa Urban Areas 785,000 90% 1,019,100 90% 234,100 88% 30% 499,900 96% 666,800 95% 166,900 92% 33%
Rural Areas 85,700 10% 116,600 10% 30,900 12% 36% 21,800 4% 36,200 5% 14,400 8% 66% City of Ottawa Total 870,700 100% 1,135,700 100% 265,000 100% 30% 521,700 100% 703,000 100% 181,300 100% 35%
Ile de Hull 11,500 4% 15,000 4% 3,500 4% 30% 25,100 24% 49,600 30% 24,500 41% 98% Remainder of Gatineau & MRC4 267,700 96% 353,200 96% 85,500 96% 32% 77,500 76% 113,400 70% 35,900 59% 46%
Gatineau & MRC Total 279,200 100% 368,200 100% 89,000 100% 32% 102,600 100% 163,000 100% 60,400 100% 59%
National Capital Region 1,149,900 1,503,900 354,000 31% 624,300 866,000 241,700 39%
*Does not include Ottawa Inner Area
• Approximately 52% of the population and 72% of employment will be located in areas inside the Greenbelt. The population will reach 585,800 persons (an increase of 52,700) and the employment will increase to 505,500 jobs (an increase of 76,900) by the 2031 planning horizon.
• Collectively, the population in the urban communities located outside the Greenbelt will increase by approximately 72 % (an 181,400 increase) to approximately 433,300 persons. Employment levels are projected to reach 161,300 jobs (a 90,000 increase), or more than a doubling of current levels.
• The 2031 population projections for the urban communities located outside the Greenbelt are 162,200 persons for Kanata, 104,300 persons for South Nepean, 43,300 persons for Riverside South/Leitrim, and 123,500 persons for the Orleans. The employment projections follow a similar pattern with the highest levels of employment at 2031 to be located in Kanata (77,000 jobs), followed by South Nepean (40,000), Orleans (35,000 jobs), and Riverside South/Leitrim (9,300 jobs).
• The Rural districts are projected to maintain their historic growth rates reaching population and employment levels of approximately 116,600 persons and 36,200 jobs over the planning horizon –36% and 66% respectively above current levels.
• For the National Capital Area (i.e. including Gatineau), the historical proportion of population and employment locating on either side of the Ottawa River will remain relatively static (slightly more than 75% of the population and about 80% of the employment levels being located in Ottawa). Despite these historical splits, the employment projection for the region suggests slightly higher growth, on a
M C R C
4 Municipalité Régionale des Collines de l'Outaouais – rural areas in Outaouais
C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 9
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
proportional basis, for the Outaouais and in particular, indicates that employment within the core area (Ile de Hull) will double from approximately 25,000 to 50,000 jobs.
The above-noted population and employment projections are allocated to a traffic zone system that reflects the density/intensity of development across the City. The scale and intensity of development nodes within a region are an influencing factor in the ability of transit to penetrate key market segments. As the intensity of development nodes increase, the transit servicing options increase and transit services are generally more effective in attracting ridership. The population and employment density maps, for the base year and the future 2031 planning horizon (Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3), provide an opportunity to identify existing and emerging development nodes and their relative development intensity.
Existing and Future Population Densities:
A comparison of the existing and future distribution of population density (Figure 2.2) indicates that residential areas inside the Greenbelt are not projected to experience significant changes in terms of the population density despite possible increased residential development. However, based on the geographic size of Ottawa’s Inner Area, and the projected increase in the residential development within the core, increased residential densities are noted for the areas adjacent to Ottawa’s downtown, including the Lowertown/Market Area.
Each of the urban communities located outside the Greenbelt are projected to have increased residential densities, primarily as vacant urban lands are more fully developed to their potential. However, it is noted that in some areas, a decline in population occurs despite growth in residential units over the planning period, with this being attributed to the aging population which reduces the number of persons per household.
Existing and Future Employment Densities:
A comparison of the existing and future distribution of employment density (Figure 2.3) highlights areas inside the Greenbelt where higher employment densities occur. In a large number of cases, the future growth in employment is concentrated within existing employment nodes. Specific areas where density increases are significant include: the Core Area where densities increase westward to the Tunney’s Pasture area; the employment node bounded by Highway 417, Industrial Avenue and St Laurent Boulevard; and the employment node centered on Merivale Road, Clyde Avenue and Baseline Road. A number of other employment nodes within the Greenbelt experience higher densities, however, the changes are less dramatic.
As the urban communities located outside the Greenbelt grow in population, they are also projected to increase in employment levels. Increased employment in Kanata West and the distribution of employment growth in Kanata Town Centre and the Kanata North Business and the Terry Fox/Palladium Business Parks indicate significant changes in employment densities by 2031. Increased employment densities for the east and south urban communities are less noticeable. However it is also noted that in some cases, based on the larger tracts of land (and area used in determining employment densities for these districts) available for development, there are lower reported densities at an aggregate level.
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 10 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
Figure 2.2: Existing and Future Population Densities
Existing Population Density
Density (person/ha)
1 10 20 40 60 80 100
2031 Population Density
Density (person/ha)
1 10 20 40 60 80 100
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 11 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
Figure 2.3: Existing and Future Employment Densities
Existing Employment Density
Density (jobs/ha)
1 10 20 40 60 80 100
2031 Employment Density
Density (jobs/ha)
1 10 20 40 60 80 100
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 12 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
M C R C
3. Travel Demand Forecast: 2031
3.1. Background
In Fall 2005, the City of Ottawa, in partnership with other regional planning agencies, completed a comprehensive area-wide Origin-Destination (O-D) Survey. This survey included a number of related data collection activities including screenline traffic counts, detailed auto travel time surveys and traffic counts for roadways linking areas outside the National Capital Region. These activities are coordinated by TRANS (a joint transportation planning committee comprised of municipal, provincial and federal agencies) which oversees the development and maintenance of the comprehensive TRANS regional travel demand forecasting model. This model was recently redeveloped to incorporate a number of new technical features associated with the new generation of activity-based models. Calibrated against the 2005 OD Survey, it is a significant improvement over previous area planning models. The major new features of the TRANS Model are the addition of trip chaining procedures, daily tour generation and distribution, and more detailed mode choice models to consider a variety of transit modes (bus, Transitway, rail/LRT) and access options (walk, park & ride, kiss & ride). The TRANS model continues to serve area transportation planners in understanding the impact of long-term development patterns and growth within Ottawa and Gatineau on future growth in regional travel demands across the region. The future travel demands identified within this study have, therefore, been undertaken through the application of the most up-to-date regional transportation planning data as well as advanced modeling practices as implemented in the updated TRANS Model. While it is noted that the tour based modeling framework explicitly considers daily tours (travel to work, school and return, etc) with both morning and evening commuter travel modeled, the focus of the travel demand analysis which follows is on the a.m. peak hour as it represents a period of the day when road networks experience increased levels of congestion and is the busiest hour for transit.
3.2. Planning Assumptions
An assessment of the growth in future travel demand for any urban area is fundamentally linked to a number of assumptions regarding future conditions within the planning area. In addition to understanding where people will live and work, it is also necessary to include a number of preliminary assumptions regarding future transit and road networks in the travel demand model. A balanced supply of transit and road facilities to service future growth ensures that travel patterns and demands emerging from the analysis reflect current and future expectations with respect to growth in motorized and non-motorized travel and live/work relationships within various planning districts. This is particularly important in new growth areas (with significant population and/or employment growth) where, in many cases, the existing road and transit services are largely undeveloped today. In these situations, preliminary assumptions were made to ensure strong connections between emerging and future communities. These assumptions are comprised of extensions or expansions to existing and planned transit and road facilities to reflect the location of growth in demographics across the planning region as defined in the previous chapter of this report.
C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 13
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
3.3. Growth in Travel Demands
The growth in forecast travel demand over the 2031 planning period was identified with the assistance of the long-range planning model (TRANS Model). The planning model relies on the local travel behaviour as identified in the 2005 O-D Travel Survey as a means to capture and model key variables in forecasting future trip patterns and travel choices based on estimates of future travel times for competing travel modes between O-D pairs. Trips using the NCR road and transit networks can either be:
• originating from Ottawa and destined to Ottawa; • originating from Ottawa and destined to Gatineau/MRC; • originating from Gatineau/MRC and destined to Ottawa; or • originating from Gatineau/MRC and destined to Gatineau/MRC.
For the purpose of our analysis, references to Ottawa city-wide trips will include the above mentioned trips, excluding trips made from Gatineau/MRC to Gatineau/MRC.
Table 3.1: Projected Travel Demand: All Modes – City Wide
Base Year 2031 Ottawa Travel* AM Peak Hour Person Trips Mode Share Mode Split Person Trips Mode Share Mode Split
Percentage Growth
Walking/Cycling (Non-Motorized) 23,700 11% - 35,400 12% - 49%
Transit Riders 44,500 21% 23% 78,300 26% 30% 76%
Private Auto Trips 146,600 68% 77% 182,300 62% 70% 24%
Total - All Trips 214,800 100% 100% 296,000 100% 100% 38%
* Includes all travel originating or destine to Ottawa (i.e. excludes travel originating and destine to Gatineau/MRC) Table 3.1 above, summarizes both the existing and forecast 2031 city-wide travel by various modes for the a.m. peak hour. While city-wide travel is forecast to increase by approximately 38% over the planning period, the portion of travel accommodated by transit is forecast to increase by 76% with overall travel by auto to increase by 24 %. The resulting mode split for motorised travel indicates the 30% mode split target for transit would be achieved within the planning period.
3.3.1. Non-Motorized Travel Non-motorized travel refers to both cycling and walking (more frequently walking) trips and is accounted for in the TRANS model. A number of factors impact on the proportion of travel that is allocated to non- motorized travel including land use densities, car ownership levels and household income. Table 3.2 summarizes, at a district level, both the current and 2031 percentage of non-motorized travel during the a.m. peak. While the City-wide non-motorized share of travel is forecast to grow by about one percent by 2031, it is noteworthy that a significantly larger portion of the trips originating in the Inner Area, where congested transit and road networks are under significant pressure, will be attracted to non-motorized modes by 2031. It is also noted that trip destinations to the Inner Area are significantly higher in magnitude than the trip origins. This is due to commuters being attracted to the employment base located in district areas spread across the region. The non-motorized travel is therefore lower at 12% for the planning horizon of 2031.
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 14 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
Furthermore, within the Greenbelt the non-motorized share of travel (for all trips originating during the a.m. peak) is forecast to increase from 13% to 17% reducing the proportion of motorized travel to be accommodated by transit and road systems.
Table 3.2: Existing and Forecast Non Motorized Travel Shares by District
* Base Year is used consistently throughout this report to reference the common set of OD Survey data, employment and population data, and ground traffic counts used in the model calibration and validation to base year conditions (2005-2006).
3.3.2. Motorized Travel Figure 3.1: Travel Purposes – a.m. Peak
A focus on a.m. peak travel reduces the impact of diverse travel purposes, as during this time of day commuter-related trips predominate. Trips to work represent approximately 63% of all travel followed by trips to school at 20% and trips to University at approximately 6% of the total travel. The remaining travel purposes collectively represent 11% of all travel. Of these, “Maintenance” travel involves those trips that are essential to maintaining the household, includin business (e.g., banking), and other trips that more or less have to be performed on a regular basis. “Discretionary” travel includes those trips that are more optional in nature, such as dining out,
g weekly shopping, medical, most types of personal Discretionary (4%)
University (6%) Maintenance (7%)
School (20%)
Work (63%)
District Trip Origins District Trip Destinations
Base Year* 2031 Base Year* 2031
Total Person Trips
% non - motorized
Total Person Trips
% non - motorized
Total Person Trips
% non - motorized
Total Person Trips
% non - motorized
Ottawa Inner Area 22,600 35% 27,400 43% 47,400 10% 53,700 13%
Ottawa East 11,100 11% 11,700 13% 9,100 12% 8,900 13%
Beacon Hill 7,000 7% 9,600 8% 7,900 8% 9,700 10%
Alta Vista 16,500 8% 19,100 9% 23,400 8% 28,400 9%
Hunt Club 11,000 3% 11,600 3% 6,200 8% 8,500 9%
Merivale 17,500 7% 18,600 7% 21,100 9% 22,600 10%
Ottawa West 9,200 10% 10,900 13% 9,900 11% 11,600 12%
Bayshore/Cedarview 16,900 5% 17,200 6% 14,800 9% 16,600 9%
Inside Greenbelt Subtotal
111,800 15% 126,100 19% 139,800 10% 160,000 12%
Orleans 21,800 3% 27,000 4% 10,700 8% 16,900 8% Riverside South/Leitrim 1,800 1% 9,500 2% 1,500 6% 6,100 7% South Nepean 11,200 4% 23,000 4% 5,000 7% 16,600 10% Kanata/Stittsville 17,800 5% 34,300 6% 15,300 6% 29,800 8%
Outside Greenbelt Subtotal
52,600 4% 93,800 5% 32,500 8% 69,400 9%
City of Ottawa (Urban Area)
164,400 11% 219,900 12% 172,300 10% 229,400 11%
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 15 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
entertainment, visiting friends, recreation, etc. Figure 3.1 highlights the various motorized trip purposes and associated shares during the a.m. peak. A review of the forecast motorized travel demand for the City of Ottawa indicates that a significant portion of the growth will be accommodated by public transit. City-wide growth in auto vehicle travel is forecast to increase by approximately 24%, less than the rate of population growth, while public transit ridership is forecast to increase by 76% for Ottawa city-wide and 85% percent for the National Capital Region which includes the Quebec side of the Ottawa River. This is particularly relevant for peak hour travel destined to areas inside the Greenbelt as presented in Table 3.3. Transit mode splits are projected to increase to 36% for trips with origins in the Inner Area and 55% for trips with destinations in the Inner Area, and about 35% for all motorized travel with origins or destinations inside the Greenbelt. For Greenbelt origins or destinations, this approximate 10% increase (from 25% to 33% and 28 to 36% in 2031) represents a ridership increase of one third over existing levels (i.e. about 50% increase over existing levels). Key changes in transit mode split for each of the planning districts are highlighted in Figure 3.2: Current and Future Mode Splits by Trip Origin and Destinations. The size of the circle represents the number of trips either destined to or originating from the district. For example, the largest circle in the figure indicates the importance of the Inner Area as a trip destination during the a.m. peak hour. The mode split of all travel destined to the Inner Area is forecast to increase from 46% to 55%. Individual area transit mode split values are summarized in Appendix C (Tables C-7 and C-8). In addition to the growth in transit mode split for each of the planning areas, the figure also indicates the balance between trip origins and destinations for each of the districts. For example, the Orleans district is a net exporter of trips during the a.m. peak hour (more trip origins compared to trip destinations). The differences in transit mode splits between trip origins versus destination are also shown for each of the districts.
Figure 3.2: Current and Future Mode Splits by Trip Origin and Destinations
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 16 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
Growth in private vehicle use is largely to destinations outside the Greenbelt. Within each of the urban growth communities (Orleans, South Nepean, Riverside South/Leitrim and Kanata) increased employment and typically lower employment densities – with the resulting shorter trip lengths – make travel by public transit less attractive when compared with destinations inside the Greenbelt. While travel by private cars is forecast to double (~94% over current levels), it is noteworthy that the public transit share of motorized travel in the urban communities outside the Greenbelt is projected to increase from an aggregate mode split of approximately 9% to approximately 19% by 2031 (quadrupling the number of transit riders). This represents an increase of almost 10,000 public transit trips during the a.m. peak hour.
Table 3.3: Growth in Travel by Private Vehicle and Transit – Trip Origins & Destinations by Sub-Area
Auto Vehicle Trips Public Transit Trips Transit Mode Split Sub Area
Base Year
2031 Forecast
% Growth
Base Year
2031 Forecast
% Growth
Base Year
2031 Forecast
Ottawa Inner Area 9,500 9,410 -1% 4,500 6,710 49% 28% 36%
Greenbelt Subtotal* 63,000 64,500 2% 26,000 38,600 48% 25% 33% Ottawa
Outside Greenbelt Subtotal 32,700 55,900 71% 12,800 27,400 114% 24% 29%
City of Ottawa - Total** 107,700 137,000 27% 39,800 68,200 71% 23% 29%
Ile de Hull 1,330 1,580 19% 630 1,200 90% 28% 38% Gatineau & MRC
All Districts 34,400 43,900 28% 9,700 21,000 116% 19% 28%
T ri
ps O
ri gi
ns
National Capital Area 142,000 181,000 27% 49,000 89,000 82% 22% 29%
Ottawa Inner Area 22,700 21,360 -6% 23,900 32,350 35% 46% 55%
Greenbelt Subtotal* 85,800 89,300 4% 40,000 60,100 50% 28% 36% Ottawa Outside Greenbelt Subtotal 22,800 44,260 94% 2,900 12,440 329% 9% 19%
City of Ottawa - Total** 114,100 142,220 25% 43,000 72,650 69% 24% 30%
Ile de Hull 4,660 6,820 46% 2,560 7,240 183% 31% 47% Gatineau & MRC
All Districts 28,000 38,700 38% 6,500 16,500 154% 16% 26%
T ri
ps D
es ti
na ti
on s
National Capital Area 142,000 181,000 27% 49,000 89,000 82% 22% 29%
Note: All numbers have been rounded and consequently the totals when summed individually may differ slightly as a result of rounding.
As noted, public transit levels are projected to increase across all geographic areas within the City of Ottawa and across the region. City-wide transit mode splits during the morning peak hour are forecast to increase from approximately 24% to 30% by 2031. Transit mode splits destined to Gatineau’s core area (Ile de Hull) are also expected to increase significantly in response to increased levels of employment planned for the district. Existing and forecast 2031 district level travel flows are summarized in Appendix C for transit trips (which are assigned to the rail and bus networks) and automobile (trips which are assigned to area road networks). These trip matrices have been organized to highlight both the scale of trip interchanges between districts
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 17 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
for public transit and private automobile travel, as well as identifying the growth in trip interchanges and resulting transit modal splits.
3.4. Regional Travel Desire Lines
An important step in understanding future regional travel and trends in trip making is the development of major travel desire lines (a graphical representation of travel demand) based on the future demographic patterns, including projected increases in employment and population. To facilitate the analysis of major urban travel flows, the planning districts used include seven districts for areas largely located within the Greenbelt, and four districts to track travel demands associated with each of the urban centres of Orleans, South Gloucester/Leitrim, South Nepean and Kanata. A similar aggregation of rural areas as well as areas located on the Gatineau side of the Ottawa River ensures these travel flows are also considered in the analysis of travel demands. The identification and establishment of desire lines was undertaken and trip flows were categorised based on their magnitude as follows;
• Primary Travel Desire Lines were established with a threshold of 1,700 district to district trips per hour (a.m. peak hour person travel).
• Secondary Travel Desire Lines were established to capture between 1,100 and 1,700 district to district trips per hour.
• Tertiary Travel Desire Lines were established to capture between 500 and 1,100 district to district trips per hour.
• The remaining travel demands not captured by the 500 district to district trips per hour threshold represent more diverse travel. While not insignificant at an aggregate level, they do not lend themselves easily to establishing discernable desire lines, often representing travel from areas with significantly lower population levels. While 500 may seem like a large number of trips, it is important to note that each of the districts are comprised of 30 to 40 traffic zones and consequently the number of trips between individual traffic zone pairs is, in this respect, very low.
• Inter-district trip flows, those which start and end within the same planning district, can represent a significant proportion of district travel demands. Since these trips stay within the district they originated, desire lines are not an effective way to present these flows. It is noted that some districts with balanced employment/population levels achieve relatively high levels of trip internalization (origins and destinations remain within the same district) – Kanata for example. Overall inter-district travel demand grows from 58,000 and 86,000 person trips by 2031. To a large extent this reflects the maturing of the urban areas located outside the Greenbelt as more development occurs within their community; and the need for travel beyond their immediate community particularly for school, discretionary travel and to a lesser extent work is significantly reduced.
Figures 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 illustrate the major travel desire lines, highlighting both the number of trips between districts as well as the transit mode split. The width of arrow indicates the magnitude of travel (number of a.m. peak hour person trips) and the colour of the arrow indicates the transit mode split (higher mode splits represented by increased colour tones and shading). Each of the categories of travel is briefly discussed as follows:
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 18 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
Primary Desire Lines: Overall, the combined primary travel demands depict an increase in the aggregate number of person trips from approximately 57,000 to 82,000 person trips. Points of note include:
• The focus of these major travel demands for the a.m. peak hour remains Ottawa’s Inner Area where more than one-quarter of Ottawa’s 2031 employment base is located. The mode split to Ottawa’s Inner Area, as depicted by the strength of the red colour, indicates that the role of public transit in serving Ottawa’s core area will continue to increase. Urban areas located outside the Greenbelt will continue to be attracted to transit to reach Ottawa’s Inner Area with average mode splits for the three urban centres reaching 70% compared with the current average of approximately 60%.
• A number of new district pairs emerge as a result of the significant planned growth in both the South Nepean and Kanata districts. Commuting from the Kanata to the Merivale district is noted, as is the South Nepean commuting to both the Kanata and Bayshore districts. Transit mode splits are also noted in the mid 20% range for the South Nepean desire lines, while the Kanata commuting indicates a mode split in the mid 30% range.
Secondary Desire Lines: In general, the growth in this set of travel desire lines is lower than above, with the aggregate number of person trips increasing from approximately 27,000 to 34,000 person trips. The growth in regional travel results in some desire lines being promoted to the primary desire line category discussed above by 2031 (i.e. the South Nepean to Bayshore and Kanata to Merivale desire lines). This movement between categories also impacts on the overall growth for this category (between 1,100 and 1,700 person trips) across the planning period. Points of note include:
• The South Nepean to Ottawa Inner Area increases are included in this group and the transit mode split for this desire line has increased from the mid 50% to the mid 60%.
• Increased travel between South Nepean and South Gloucester emerges in this group by 2031, which confirms the need to provide strong transportation linkages between these two growth centres.
• The growth in employment in the Alta Vista District, combined with increase population growth in both Kanata and South Nepean, results in the promotion of these desire lines into this category of travel desire lines.
• The large population growth within the Kanata district and the planned employment growth in South Nepean results in a desire line between these two centres.
Tertiary Desire Lines: The aggregate number of person trips in this category grows from approximately 29,000 to 47,000 person trips. Points of note include:
• The trip desire line patterns are much more diverse for this group; however, the pattern which emerges is an increasing number of links between the urban areas outside the Greenbelt to areas inside the Greenbelt.
• In general, the trips associated with this group of desire lines tend to be longer in overall trip length, resulting in significant mode split increases for areas well served by transit.
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 19 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
Figure 3.3: Growth in Primary Desire Lines (District to District OD pairs greater than 1,700 a.m. peak hour person trips)
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 20 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
Figure 3.4: Growth in Secondary Desire Lines (District to District OD pairs between 1,100 and 1,700 a.m. peak hour person trips)
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 21 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
Figure 3.5: Growth in Tertiary Desire Lines (District to District OD pairs between 500 and 1,100 a.m. peak hour person trips)
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 22 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
3.5. Focussing on Travel in Ottawa’s Inner Area
The afore-mentioned assessment of travel desire lines demonstrates that Ottawa’s Inner Area is the most significant destination for travel during the a.m. peak. Major employment nodes located within Ottawa’s Inner Area are highlighted in Figure 3.6. Traffic zone employment densities identify the high concentration of employment in Ottawa’s central business district (CBD), as well as other major nodes such as Carleton University and the University of Ottawa which have enrolments of approximately 25,000 and 30,000 student respectively. Located just west of the Inner Area, Tunney’s Pasture and the Ottawa Hospital Civic Campus have an impact on Inner Area travel demands. Figure 3.6 also indicates the employment levels projected for 2031 for various traffic zones.
Figure 3.6: Major Employment Nodes and Density: 2031 – Ottawa Inner Area
Travel demands to and through Ottawa’s Inner Area were measured across strategic screenlines. Screenlines typically are established across barriers to transportation, such as rivers, railways and other geographic features which tend to limit the number of crossing points and consequently offer key opportunities to compare transportation demands against various supply options. Often within transportation networks, screenlines provide a means to identify choke points in the system where the imbalance between supply and demand can manifest itself in significant increases in the level of congestion.
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 23 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
Ottawa’s Inner Area, with its geographic features including rivers to the north, east and south together with the rail line corridor to the west, has historically been used to record existing and forecast future growth in transportation demands. The locations of the various screenlines which encompass the Inner Area are highlighted in Figure 3.7: Inner Area Screenlines. The boundary formed by these three screenlines defines the Inner Area Cordon.
Figure 3.7: Inner Area Screenlines
A review of the a.m. peak travel demands to and from and through the Inner Area is summarized in Table 3.4. Future trends are noted as follows:
• The low growth in private automobile demand reflects congestion currently experienced on existing roadways that serve the Inner Area, as well as a potential shifting of through travel demand outside the Inner Area. Both auto vehicle and auto passenger demands increase by approximately 3% by 2031 for the peak travel direction (inbound). It is also noted that Base Year non-peak direction travel (outbound) is about 62% of the peak direction travel, and that this will increase by 8% over the planning period.
• Transit growth is substantial across all three screenlines, with a commensurate increase in transit modal split to the Inner Area. In the peak travel direction the transit modal split increases from 37% to 45% by 2031. This represents a 48% increase (from 27,100 to 40,000) in transit ridership into the Inner Area.
• Base Year transit travel in the non-peak direction, unlike the auto component of travel, represents a substantially lower portion (30%) of the peak direction transit demands. Nonetheless, the transit
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 24 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
mode split for the non-peak direction of travel from Ottawa’s Inner Area increases from 22% to 33%, or an almost doubling of the number of riders.
Table 3.4: Growth in Travel by Mode – Inner Area Cordon (a.m. Peak Hour)
Base Year 2031 Forecast Percentage Growth
Auto Auto Auto
Veh Per
Transit Riders
Mode Split
Veh Per
Transit Riders
Mode Split
Veh Per
Transit Riders
Mode Split
Rideau River 15,700 19,100 13,000 40% 16,800 20,100 17,200 46% 7% 5% 32% 6%
CPR 13,300 16,000 9,200 37% 14,000 16,500 14,300 46% 5% 3% 55% 10% Inbound (peak dir) Ottawa River
– Core 9,900 11,800 4,900 29% 9,300 11,600 8,500 42% -6% -2% 73% 13%
Inbound Total 38,900 46,900 27,100 37% 40,100 48,200 40,000 45% 3% 3% 48% 9%
Rideau River 10,400 12,200 3,200 21% 10,600 12,600 5,500 30% 2% 3% 72% 10%
CPR 8,800 10,400 2,900 22% 9,100 10,800 3,900 27% 3% 4% 34% 5% Outbound (non-peak
dir) Ottawa River – Core 4,900 6,000 1,900 24% 6,400 7,500 5,500 42% 31% 25% 189% 18%
Outbound Total 24,100 28,600 8,000 22% 26,100 30,900 14,900 33% 8% 8% 86% 11%
Note: Ottawa River – Core includes only travel on the four core area river crossings; Macdonald Cartier west to Chaudière Bridges and consequently does not reflect the growth in overall Interprovincial travel and/or associated mode splits. This definition of Ottawa River – Core Screenline was established to focus attention on core area travel demand only.
Figure 3.8: 2031 Transit Trip Assignments
1 0
Figure 3.8 above is a graphical representation of the a.m. peak transit travel demand generated by the TRANS model. It illustrates that by 2031 the majority of transit trips converge in the downtown, being fed by the east and west Transitways, and from Gatineau.
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 25 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
M C R C
4. Transit Ridership: Implications for the Downtown
4.1. Ridership and Service Levels in the Downtown
For the purposes of this discussion, downtown Ottawa is generally defined by the limits of the CBD, bounded to the north by the Ottawa River; to the west by the escarpment adjacent to Bronson Avenue; to the east by the University; and to the south by Laurier Avenue. Rapid transit ridership into downtown Ottawa flows from four directions: east, west, south, and north. Riders from the east, west, and south currently travel on OC Transpo services entering via the East and West Transitways. Riders from the north (Gatineau) travel primarily on STO services entering from the west via the Portage and from the east via the Alexandra bridges. The downtown transit solution must provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the projected 2031 ridership entering the downtown during the morning peak hour via the East and West Transitways, and consider the implications of accommodating some or all of the STO customers as well. The level of service on all transit services into downtown Ottawa, both now and in the future, is set to meet the customer demand on the busiest point on each service as it approaches downtown. For example, bus services from the east must be frequent enough to accommodate the customers who are travelling to Ottawa’s downtown as well as those traveling to the University of Ottawa or beyond into downtown. From the west, the busiest point is at Tunney’s Pasture west of Ottawa’s downtown.
4.2. Ridership Levels in 2031
The primary factors affecting the number of customers who will be travelling on rapid transit into downtown Ottawa by 2031 will be the population and employment levels of the City, the demographic characteristics of the population, and the overall quality of the transit service provided. The configuration of the City-wide rapid transit network will also have an effect on the number of customers travelling into downtown, as it will dictate the paths and travel times they take to get to downtown and the directions through which they enter downtown. The effects of the configuration of the City-wide rapid transit network on downtown transit services are as follows:
• From the east – The primary rapid transit corridor into downtown from the east is and will continue to be the East Transitway through the St. Laurent, Hurdman, and Campus Stations. No alternatives to this corridor are being evaluated. A subsequent chapter will discuss technology alternatives (bus or rail) to provide service within this corridor.
• From the west – The primary rapid transit corridor into downtown from the west is and will continue to be the West Transitway through the Westboro, Tunney’s Pasture and Bayview Stations. No alternatives to this corridor are being evaluated. A subsequent chapter will discuss technology alternatives (bus or rail) to provide service within this corridor.
• From the south – Two existing options are possible for the primary rapid transit corridor connecting Riverside South/Leitrim and South Nepean to the downtown. Customers could be carried north on the current O-Train corridor through Carleton University and Bayview Stations, and then enter downtown from the west; or customers could be carried north on the current Southeast Transitway corridor through Billings Bridge and Hurdman Stations, and then enter downtown from the east. Both corridors are important and will remain important in the long term.
C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 26
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
This report will consider the ridership implications of each option on the capacity requirements and level of service for downtown transit. A subsequent chapter will discuss which of the two should be designated as the primary corridor for extending rapid transit service further south and the technology implications of that choice.
• From the north – Options for a possible primary rapid transit corridor from the north will be developed in a forthcoming Interprovincial Rapid Transit Integration – Core Area Strategic Planning Study. For the purposes of this analysis it is assumed that future Gatineau transit riders, as they do now, cross the bridges at the west end of downtown Ottawa. The passenger volumes represent approximately 75% of Gatineau’s peak hour ridership destined for the combined core areas of Ottawa and Gatineau. Future interprovincial rapid transit options may provide opportunities for more than one point of access into Ottawa’s downtown, helping to balance passenger flows.
Using the travel demand data discussed in the previous chapter, the two network options to serve the southern growth areas were analyzed separately. The results are outlined in Table 4.1, which identifies that the extension of the O-Train corridor to serve Riverside South shifts the peak passenger load point from east of Ottawa’s downtown to the west side (just west of the downtown).
Table 4.1: Network Impacts on Downtown Peak Passenger Load Point Forecasts
Services the South Through West of CBD (Le Breton) East of CBD (Hurdman)
From Gatineau
Southeast Transitway Corridor extension 12,800 13,700 8,500
O-Train Corridor extension 15,600 11,300 8,500
Figure 4.1 illustrates these rapid transit volumes, highlighting the difference brought about by which corridor is chosen to carry the majority of customers from the southern growth communities.
Figure 4.1: Ottawa’s Core Area Transit Demands- 2031
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 27 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
Depending on the network option, the forecast peak passenger load points would range between 13,700 to 15,600 passengers per hour for transit flows into Ottawa’s downtown from the east and/or the west. Options to fully integrate interprovincial transit services from the north into a single corridor could potentially add up to 8,500 passengers per hour depending on the form and routing of transit ridership from Gatineau. The detailed analysis of downtown passenger volumes is provided in Appendix D.
4.3. Future Transit Service Levels in the Downtown
In order to determine the future transit service levels in the downtown, it is first necessary to identify the peak passenger load points on those segments of the rapid transit network that lead into the downtown. These peak load points identify the maximum passenger volumes that must be carried during the a.m. peak hour. The level of service is defined by the number of transit vehicles that must cross this point within a given time period to carry this passenger volume. The number of vehicles required is directly proportional to its design capacity – which for each specific type of transit vehicle is the assumed number of passengers carried for service design purposes.
4.3.1. 2031 OC Transpo Service Levels OC Transpo develops their service operating plans on a vehicle design capacity which accommodates 50% of the maximum standing capacity. Table 4.2 summaries this information for a range of transit vehicles.
Table 4.2: Design Passenger Capacity for Transit Vehicles
Passenger Capacity Standard 40-ft Bus Articulated
Bus
Double- Deck/Double -Articulated
Bus
Light Rail Vehicle (1 car)
Seated Capacity 39 54 70 70
Standing Capacity 12 32 40 130 Proportion of Standing Capacity for Design 50% 50%
50% 50%
Design Capacity 45 70 90 135
Note: Appendix D includes additional information regarding other high capacity vehicles. These design standards have been applied to the various forecasted numbers of passengers at the peak load points for the 2031 planning horizon and outlined previously in Table 4.1. The resulting numbers of transit vehicles necessary to accommodate the forecast peak load points are summarized in Table 4.3. The shaded areas are indicative of the higher peak point.
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 28 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
Table 4.3: Theoretical Number of Transit Vehicles per Hour at Peak Passenger Load Point
Services the South Through Vehicle Type
West of CBD (Le Breton)
East of CBD (Hurdman)
Standard 40-ft Bus 285 305 Articulated Bus 183 196 Dbl Deck/Dbl Articulated bus 143 153 LRT (2 car train) 48 51
Southeast Transitway extension
LRT (4 car train) 24 26
Standard 40-ft Bus 347 252 Articulated Bus 223 162 Dbl Deck/Dbl Articulated bus 174 126 LRT (2 car train) 58 42
O-Train Corridor extension
LRT (4 car train) 29 21 Note: STO passengers entering the downtown from Gatineau are not included in table calculations. Appendix D includes
additional information regarding other high capacity vehicles. The number of peak point transit vehicles can be converted into service headways, or time between transit vehicles. This measure of service frequency is shown in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4: Theoretical Headways (rounded) between Vehicles at Peak Passenger Load Point
Services the South Through Vehicle Type
West of CBD (Le Breton)
East of CBD (Hurdman)
Standard 40-ft Bus 12 sec 11 sec
Articulated Bus 19 sec 18 sec
Dbl Deck/Dbl Articulated bus 25 sec 23 sec
LRT (2 car train) 1 min 15 sec 1 min 10 sec
Southeast Transitway extension
LRT (4 car train) 2 min 30 sec 2 min 18 sec
Standard 40-ft Bus 10 secs 14 secs
Articulated Bus 16 secs 22 secs
Dbl Deck/Dbl Articulated bus 20 secs 28 secs
LRT (2 car train) 1 min 2 sec 1 min 25 sec
O-Train Corridor extension
LRT (4 car train) 2 min 4 sec 2 min 51 sec Note: STO passengers entering the downtown from Gatineau are not included in table calculations. Appendix D includes
additional information regarding other high capacity vehicles. For example, to carry the required 15,600 passengers per hour entering downtown via the west when the South is served by extending the O-Train corridor the tables above identify that the City will need up to 347
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 29 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
standard 40-foot buses at 10 seconds apart; or 223 articulated buses at 16 seconds apart; or 29 four car LRT trains every 2 min and 4 seconds. These numbers of transit vehicles presented only cater to the OC Transpo long-range demand on the main east-west corridor through the downtown on the Albert/Slater corridor. They do not include passengers served on local OC Transpo routes or STO passengers entering the downtown from Gatineau.
4.3.2. 2031 STO Service Levels The total population and employment in the National Capital Region is split across the Ottawa River with approximately 75% of the population and 80 % of the employment located in Ottawa. The close proximity of the central areas of the two cities, and the distribution of federal government employment as well as general employment services, requires large volumes of people moving into and out of the combined central areas during peak hours. Based on the distribution of employment across the region, larger portions of the Gatineau population base travel to Ottawa than the reverse. However, jurisdictional arrangements, with Ottawa and Gatineau being in different provinces, have limited the options to fully integrate transit services. Consequently, OC Transpo and the STO have historically organized their services to ensure their customers are not unduly inconvenienced as they travel to locations on either side of the Ottawa River. As a result, the majority (~75%) of STO passengers arriving at Place du Portage in Hull continue through into Ottawa’s downtown along Wellington Street via the Portage Bridge. STO transit services are currently provided with approximately 120 standard 40-foot buses during the peak hour, typically serving more than 4,400 passengers. OC Transpo conversely provides service into Hull’s CBD across the Chaudière and Portage Bridges. As the STO’s ‘Rapibus’ system develops more fully in the future, the requirement to operate additional buses connecting the Gatineau sector with downtown Ottawa along Wellington Street is expected. Assuming the current operating strategy of 75% of STO passengers continuing their journey into Ottawa’s central core remains in place, future interprovincial travel demands of 8,500 a.m. peak hour passengers will require the equivalent of 252 standard 40-foot buses (one every 16 seconds); or 162 articulated buses (one every 22 seconds); or 95 double-deck or double-articulated buses (one every 38 seconds) to provide the service level necessary to accommodate this ridership. Further detail about the vehicle numbers and frequency required to accommodate the detailed volumes can be found in Appendix D.
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 30 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
M C R C
5. Alternatives for Serving the Downtown
The previous chapter identifies the a.m. peak hour number of transit vehicles required (bus and rail) and their associated service frequencies to accommodate the forecast long-term rapid transit ridership demands in downtown Ottawa. The next step in developing a downtown transit solution is to assess a range of alternatives to provide the necessary capacity to meet these service levels. The range of alternatives includes:
• Maintaining all rapid transit service on the surface streets;
• Fully grade-separating all rapid transit services; or
• Combinations of surface and grade-separated rapid transit services.
A discussion of each of these families of alternatives follows. For the purposes of developing the downtown transit solution, only OC Transpo services are considered. The implications of accommodating STO ridership are considered later in this report.
5.1. Technologies Considered
This report has considered a certain range of rapid transit bus and rail technologies able to accommodate the 2031 and longer demands on the primary rapid transit network feeding in to and out of the downtown. The range of technologies considered for this TMP is intended to be functional rather than related to any specific vehicle design or manufacturer. However, certain generic vehicle types based on specific characteristics have been assumed in developing both capital and operating costs. The determination of the exact vehicle specifications and manufacturer will be left to the more detailed project design and procurement stages. This report uses the generic term “BRT” to describe the bus vehicle and “LRT” to describe the rail vehicle. The functional characteristics assumed for both vehicle types are outlined below.
5.1.1. Characteristics of the Generic BRT Vehicle For the purposes of supporting the primary rapid transit network options, the generic BRT vehicle should be capable of:
• Carrying a large number of passengers, indicating that it will be classified as a high capacity vehicle and could be articulated, double-articulated, or double-decked; and,
• Operating in an underground environment, implying dual-mode operation or substantial ventilation of the tunnel.
The use of 18m articulated hybrid diesel-electric buses for has been assumed for this report for bus alternatives with the buses operating in the electric mode in any tunnel scenario.
5.1.2. Characteristics of the Generic LRT Vehicle There are various definitions of Light Rail Transit (LRT) and many LRT systems around the world having a multitude of design parameters. Examples range from the earlier Calgary and Edmonton systems to the newer Houston and Minnesota systems, and from the Toronto Transit Commission’s (TTC) Scarborough Rapid Transit to Vancouver’s Skytrain – which some might label as LRT but others might call mini metros.
C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 31
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) in the USA defines LRT as:
“A metropolitan electric railway system characterized by its ability to operate single cars or short trains along exclusive rights-of-way at ground level, on aerial structures, in subways or, occasionally, in streets, and to board and discharge passengers at track or car-floor level”
The American Public Transit Association’s (APTA) Glossary of Transit Terminology defines LRT as:
“An electric railway with a "light volume" traffic capacity compared to heavy rail. Light rail may use shared or exclusive rights-of-way, high or low platform loading and multi- car trains or single cars.”
For the purposes of supporting the primary rapid transit network options in Ottawa, the generic LRT vehicle should be capable of:
• Single unit operation; • Multiple unit operation; • Operating on tracks designed to the Transitway geometry; namely:
o Minimum curve radius of 150 metres o Maximum grade of 6%
• Operating in an underground environment; requiring: o Electric traction power
• Providing accessibility for the disabled. In addition, for flexibility for the future and the ability to minimize costs, the LRT should be capable of:
• Median operation along suburban or secondary corridors; and • Operating over level crossings.
For the purposes of capital and operating costs in this report, LRT Vehicles:
• Can be coupled for multiple unit operation when required; and • Operate with overhead electrical power pick-up for electrified territory to allow for median
operation and level crossings. The use of 28m electric articulated LRT has been assumed for the purposes of costing in this report. The assumed vehicle would be capable of operating as a single unit or in trains, has low floor for accessibility and has overhead power pick up.
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 32 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
5.1.3. Metro (or Subway) Metros are the highest form of urban public transport. The International Association for Public Transport (UITP) defines Metros as follows:
“Metropolitan railways are urban, electric transport systems with high capacity and a high frequency of service. Metros are totally independent from other traffic, road or pedestrians. They are consequently designed in tunnel, viaducts or on surface level but with physical separation. Metropolitan railways are the optimal public transport mode for a high capacity line or network service. Some systems run on rubber-tyres but are based on the same control-command principles as steel-wheel systems. In different parts of the world metro systems are also known as the underground, subway or tube.”
A traditional heavy rail metro (or subway) can carry up to 30,000 passengers per hour which is considerably more than any future scenario would suggest is required for the city of Ottawa. In addition Metros generally utilize ground level high voltage power pick-up (third-rail) and for that reason their corridors have to be physically protected from any encroachment by pedestrians or other vehicles. The larger vehicles tend to have more restrictions than LRT with respect to grade, turning radius and the flexibility to operate as individual vehicles. For the above reasons, a heavy rail metro system has not been considered for the Ottawa base rapid transit network.
5.2. Options for Providing All Rapid Transit Service on the Surface
The following surface options are under consideration for the downtown transit solution:
• Bus-only;
• LRT-only; and
• Combination of bus and LRT.
This section provides an overview of the likely implications of using the existing surface streets for each of these options. Despite the fact that six major arterial roads cross downtown Ottawa, the range of on-street options to provide high-quality rapid transit service is constrained by local geographic conditions. The escarpment to the west of downtown presents a physical barrier limiting direct connections from the West Transitway into the downtown. Similarly, to the east there are a limited number of crossings of the Rideau Canal that directly connect to the East Transitway. Also, street widths and block lengths dictate the physical space available for transit lanes and station platforms. All surface options must consider the influences of downtown traffic operations, pedestrian and cycling needs and the requirement to provide parking, loading and access to the businesses adjacent to the corridors under consideration. It is assumed that a sufficient number of bypass routes to carry customers who are travelling between points that are not within the downtown are in operation, and that the Smartcard fare payment and real-time passenger information systems are in place to optimize passenger boarding operations.
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 33 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
5.2.1. Bus-Only Surface Option In their present configuration, Albert & Slater Streets are theoretically capable of accommodating no more than 195 buses per hour. Since 2004 OC Transpo has operated a maximum of 180 trips per hour in the afternoon using a mixture of standard and high capacity articulated buses to maintain service reliability. The proportion of the buses that are articulated ranges from 20% to 33% depending on the direction and time of day. The photo below illustrates the typical nature of current operations on Albert and Slater Streets. While theoretically the 180 bus per hour limit does not apply in the a.m. when passenger service time at the platforms is shorter, it is being used for this analysis as the practical maximum capacity for a single dedicated bus-only rapid transit lane on the surface. It is also assumed that 30% of the current bus fleet is articulated.
The City has investigated ways and means to optimize bus operations on the Central Transitway several times in the last 5 years. In September 2004, responding to severe delays to service that developed during 2003/04, OC Transpo modified their services in the afternoon to reduce the number of eastbound buses from over 200 to fewer than 180. More recently, as a condition of approval of the North-South Corridor LRT project recommended plan, City Council directed staff to ensure that a minimum of 30% of bus traffic be removed from Albert
and Slater Streets by 2009. In November 2005 Council approved a service design concept that met this objective. With the cancellation of the LRT project, this operating plan was not put into effect. However, with transit ridership continuing to grow by approximately three percent per year, and recognizing that it would take several years to implement any major rapid transit project in the downtown, it was necessary to develop a strategy to accommodate the continuing ridership growth without exceeding the physical capacity of the Central Transitway. Accordingly in May 2007 City Council received the staff report “Downtown Transit Operating Strategies 2007 – 2010” which identified some projects and actions to be implemented in the near-term and discussed long-term measures to maintain current bus volumes beyond 2010. The development of the 2009 service design and the 2007-2010 operating strategy considered a common set of measures which included:
• Consolidating direct to downtown express routes to reduce the total number of routes operating in the downtown;
• Further use of other downtown streets;
• Increasing use of high-capacity buses; and
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 34 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
• Implementing other possible rapid transit projects to improve the balance of eastbound and westbound flows.
Each of these measures has opportunities and constraints that affect their feasibility. Capacity of the Corridor It is important to determine the theoretical ultimate design capacity of the Albert/Slater Street corridor before assessing the need for, and viability to implement any one or combination of the above-noted measures to meet the forecast 2031 downtown transit demand. Due to the mixed operation of standard and articulated buses, the current capacity of the Albert/Slater corridor must be expressed in terms of an equivalent number of standard 40-foot buses. Assuming a 30% mix of articulated buses, this number is calculated as follows:
• 30% of 180 buses are articulated = 54 articulated buses • At a design capacity of 70 passengers per articulated bus, the 54 buses have a capacity of 3,780
people. • The remaining 126 standard buses have a design capacity of 45 passengers each and can carry a
total of 5,670 people. • Thus, the total of 9,450 people can be carried on the equivalent of 210 standard buses (45
passengers per bus). Thus, the theoretical design capacity of the Albert/Slater corridors is 210 standard buses per direction. Clearly, this number falls significantly short of the 347 standard buses required for the future (refer to Table 4.3). However, assuming that the total number of 180 buses can be maintained, increasing the percentage of bus trips operated with articulated buses will result in the following potential capacities: Percentage of Articulated
Buses Number of Articulated
Number of Standard
Passenger Capacity
Total Equivalent Standard Buses
50% 90 90 10,350 230 75% 135 45 11,475 255
100% 180 0 12,600 280 Therefore it is shown that even using 100% articulated buses, the Albert/Slater corridor does not have sufficient capacity to carry the forecast 2031 downtown rapid transit demand. Therefore any bus-only surface option must consider the following additional measures to provide the remaining required capacity. Consolidating Express Routes The provision of direct to downtown rapid transit service has contributed significantly to the high ridership on the OC Transpo system. However, as ridership continues to grow, a reduction in the total number of individual routes serving the downtown will be required to optimize the use of the existing capacity of the Central Area Transitway. Accordingly, this measure would see the number of express routes serving the downtown reduced. New higher frequency express routes serving a larger area and likely using articulated buses would replace a small group of express routes that currently serve several neighbourhoods. The impacts of this measure include:
• The higher frequency routes result in less waiting time for passengers at the central area stops in the afternoon. This means there is less accumulation of passengers and, as a result, less congestion on the platforms;
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 35 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
• The more routes there are in a corridor, the more difficult it can be to balance the number of customers with the optimum frequencies for each route. With fewer routes, there will be better balance and a more productive use of service. This could result in fewer buses being required; and
• To access the consolidated routes in the suburban neighbourhoods, many customers will have a longer walk. In addition, some customers may have to transfer from a local service to reach the new route. Both of these will result in an increased travel time for these customers compared with their current service.
Use of Other Downtown Streets This measure considers the potential for other downtown streets such as Wellington Street, Queen Street, and Laurier Avenue to accommodate rapid transit bus services. Sparks Street is not considered because of its current configuration as a pedestrian mall and the unlikelihood of changing its configuration in the future. Also, streets to the south of Laurier Avenue are not considered for additional bus operations because they are too far south of the primary downtown transit demand and the streets are generally narrower and more residential in character. During the development of the 2009 service design concept, the analysis of alternatives for diverting buses from Albert and Slater Streets to Wellington, Queen, or Laurier resulted in the following conclusions:
• Wellington Street can not accommodate any additional buses in the westbound direction, and only a small number of buses in the eastbound direction;
• Queen Street could accommodate at most 20 buses per hour in the westbound direction and 30 buses per hour in the eastbound direction;
• Laurier Avenue could accommodate at most 20 buses per hour in the westbound direction and 15 to 20 buses in the eastbound direction;
• Intersection and turning movement issues must be addressed at each end of each of the streets for any of the alternatives.
Subsequent work associated with the development of the 2007 – 2010 operating strategy identified that a maximum total of 25 bus trips in the afternoon peak hour could be diverted to the combination of Wellington and Queen Streets. In light of this, it is estimated that diverting bus routes to other streets would result in a net capacity increase of the Central Area Transitway of about 45 buses per hour (25 on Wellington/Queen plus 20 on Laurier). The 45 buses identified could offer between 45 standard equivalents, if all the buses were standard length,, and 70 standard equivalents if all of the buses were articulated. If 100% of the buses on Albert/Slater were articulated and all of the buses using neighbouring streets were also articulated, the resulting 350 standard bus equivalents could, theoretically, just accommodate the required future passenger demand calculated in Chapter 4. However, it is not reasonable to suggest that all of the buses operating could be articulated for the following reasons:
• While the current bus operation can reliably accommodate passenger boarding and alighting of three buses during each 55 to 60 second cycle, it is unclear if three articulated buses could do this. This is because the third articulated bus at the platform would be the same distance back from the bus stop as a fourth standard length bus is in today’s operation. It is usually the case today that the fourth bus has to stop a second time at the platform, most often at the bus stop. Even with advanced information systems to inform customers about where buses would be stopping, it is unclear that every bus that is third in line would be able to clear the platform with only one stop.
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 36 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
Operating rules that only allowed one stop would address this, but could not be considered as customer friendly.
• On the neighbouring streets, most of the buses will have to move around corners such as Queen and Elgin or Lyon and Albert to get to or from the primary rapid transit corridor. These movements will require additional time for articulated buses compared with standard buses, and it is not certain that this additional time can be accommodated within the available capacity of the intersections and street network.
Based on these points, it is reasonable to suggest that perhaps no more than 50% to 75% of the Albert/Slater buses and approximately 50% of the neighbouring street buses could be articulated. This would result in between 287 and 312 standard bus equivalents being able to be accommodated, which does not meet the forecast 2031 demand of 347 equivalent standard buses. Caution should be exercised in considering adjustments to these calculations to demonstrate that the future passenger demand can be met by some combination of these vehicles and routings. This is because the analysis is looking at the upper end of the operating capacity of the streets. Everything on the streets must work smoothly for this level of bus operation to be successful. For example, schedules must be smoothly balanced to prevent peak within the peak bus volumes, technology must be present to indicate where on the platforms buses will stop, off-board fare collection would need to be operational, traffic signals would need to provide smooth progression designed around bus operations, no buses can stop more than once at a platform, and there can be no interference from general traffic. In reality, it will be nearly impossible to achieve all of these elements consistently. Also, the introduction of rapid transit operations onto new streets would result in major impacts to existing street operations, including: effects on pedestrian facilities due to the loss of sidewalk space to bus platforms; the loss of parking and loading zones; and additional congestion brought about by the lack of intersection capacity to accommodate the volume of buses turning to or from the streets. Additional considerations associated with the use of other streets include:
• Diverted buses would have increased travel time compared with those buses operating on Albert and Slater Streets ;
• Bus turning movements would bring some key intersections closer to their operational capacity resulting in potential bottlenecks;
• With rapid transit routes operating on a variety of downtown streets, there would be less connectivity with the rest of the Transitway; and
• Some or all of the buses routed to other streets must re-converge onto the Mackenzie King bridge to cross the Rideau Canal. This situation would not address the current congestion on the Mackenzie King bridge and at Laurier Station, which could develop into bottlenecks in the transitway system.
As many intersections in downtown Ottawa are currently operating at their practical capacity in peak hours due to the combination of high traffic volumes, large numbers of turning vehicles and large pedestrian movements, it can take more than one “green” phase to advance through an intersection, which affects the reliability of rapid transit operations. Therefore, even with the use of additional downtown streets, it would not be possible to reliably operate a sufficient volume of additional transit vehicles to accommodate the forecast 2031transit demand.
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 37 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
Increasing use of High Capacity Buses To address the deficiencies noted above, consideration could be given to reduce or possibly eliminate articulated buses for rapid transit use in the Central Area and replace them with high capacity double-deck or double-articulated buses. These vehicles have a practical design capacity of 90 customers compared with 70 for articulated buses. Double articulated vehicles will not likely solve this deficiency because they do not add any capacity relative to their length – their primary advantage is a lower operating cost per passenger because one operator can serve more people. Double-deck buses do offer higher capacity relative to length because of the large number of seats on the upper floor of the vehicle. However, with only two doors to accommodate boarding and alighting and a question whether or not buses will be allowed to be in motion with customers on the stairs, it is likely that the boarding times may be slightly higher. This in turn raises questions about the feasibility of operating three double-deck buses successfully and reliably through every signal cycle. This suggests that it may not be feasible to operate 180 double-deck buses successfully. If it is assumed that 75% of this amount could be successfully operated, then the resulting 135 vehicles would represent 270 standard bus equivalents. Combined with the standard bus equivalents from the neighbouring streets if all 45 were double-deck vehicles, then 340 standard equivalents could be accommodated. While it comes close, this number of standard bus equivalents would not meet the 2031 planning horizon year requirements. Other considerations include:
• The current strategy of using high capacity buses to accommodate future ridership growth can limit bus volume increases in the short-term;
• Restricting the use of the Central Area Transitway to high capacity buses would be most effective in increasing passenger capacity if the number of routes were reduced by significantly increasing line-haul feeder service and consolidating express routes. This service design, however, would increase the requirement for transfers, increase walking distances and increase operating costs; and
• If high capacity buses were used without changes to the service design, route frequencies would be reduced resulting in less attractive service for customers;
• Operating 100% high capacity buses would increase the “wall” effect on Albert and Slater that is already of concern to neighbouring businesses and property owners. All articulated buses would create a longer wall than today’s operations while double-deck buses would be taller and create more of a canyon effect. Neither of these results are expected to be acceptable to the neighbouring businesses and property owners;
• Continuing to operate this volume of buses will not allow for any significant change to the on street environment. Sidewalk and platform space would not see any significant improvement and would, in fact, become more congested as passenger volumes grow; and
• The other aspect of the on-street environment relates to noise and air quality. While transitioning the vehicle fleet to diesel hybrid technology and eventually fuel cells or other technology will certainly improve air quality, the current hybrid vehicles are not significantly quieter. It is not certain that the vehicles will get quieter in the future.
It is clear from the above points that trying to accommodate all of the demand on the surface using high capacity buses is not a practically achievable solution.
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 38 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
Other Possible Projects This heading groups together a number of measures to increase the potential capacity of the Albert/Slater Street corridor. These include designating an additional bus-only lane on each street in order to increase potential capacity, adding stops on those blocks that don’t currently have them, and dedicating the Mackenzie King Bridge for transit only. Additional stops and additional lane capacity for rapid transit service would be the result. While the provision of an additional bus-only lane on each of Albert and Slater Streets would suggest a theoretical doubling of bus volume capacity, weaving requirements and operational considerations with all of the buses having to get to the curb in station areas would almost eliminate any benefit of having two lanes of buses. Other considerations include:
• Increased bus volumes would not be acceptable to adjacent landowners and businesses;
• The requirement for platform space in the blocks not currently used could be physically difficult and has been unacceptable to adjacent landowners5;
• The closure of the Mackenzie King Bridge to general traffic is unpopular with downtown businesses and would constrain vehicle access to one less crossing of the Rideau Canal,
• The remaining single lane for regular traffic would be insufficient to provide for existing truck delivery requirements and general traffic volume (e.g. 1,000 vehicles per hour on Slater); and
• Traffic diversion to other streets might result in operational bottlenecks at other locations.
While it would not be expected that any one single measure could provide the required capacity to accommodate 2031 ridership demand, the analysis shows that even combining all of the above-noted measures (without taking into account the added negative impacts to on-street function) does not offer sufficient long-term capacity. The suggestion to increase capacity on Albert and Slater Streets and on the Mackenzie King Bridge by dedicating a second bus-only lane for transit and increasing the number of stops would have unfavourable traffic impacts and would create an on-street environment that would be unattractive for pedestrians and unacceptable to the adjacent businesses and property owners. Clearly the bus-only surface option would only exacerbate the present negative impacts of transit operation on downtown streets and is not an acceptable downtown transit solution.
5.2.2. LRT-Only Surface Option To accommodate all of the Central Area rapid transit requirements in 2031, it is estimated that a single LRT vehicle operating every 0.6 minutes will be required. This frequency is too high for practical rail operation and can be addressed by linking LRT vehicles together. An operating frequency of approximately every 2-2.5 minutes is the minimum for practical rail operation, which would necessitate trains comprised of four vehicles linked together to carry the projected 2031 ridership. This results in a train length of 120 metres. The platforms necessary to accommodate these train lengths would have significant negative impacts on adjacent properties by blocking lanes and garage entrances. The findings of the North-South Corridor LRT project EA study showed that a two-vehicle train with a required platform length of 60 metres was the practical maximum that could be accommodated without having to consider the closure of adjacent property accesses. This was sufficient to accommodate the forecast North-South Corridor LRT ridership but will not accommodate the total required 2031 ridership (4 car trains required).
M C R C
5 It should be noted, however, that there were stops on every block along Albert and Slater Streets during the 1970s and 1980s.
C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 39
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
Thus, accommodating all of the 2031 transit demand on the surface with LRT in a single corridor is not possible. The blocks on Albert and Slater Streets have enough property access requirements that they can not accommodate the length of trains necessary at the minimum practical operating frequency. Consequently, an additional LRT-only surface corridor would be required to accommodate the long-term transit demand, which would disrupt operations on that street and due to the expense not be a cost-effective solution. Therefore the LRT-only surface option is not an acceptable downtown transit solution.
5.2.3. Combined Bus and LRT Surface Option The concept of a combined bus and LRT operation was examined in detail during the North-South Corridor LRT project EA study. Two families of alignments for LRT service within the Albert/Slater Corridor were developed:
1. Operating two directions of LRT service on one of the streets and two directions of BRT service on the other street.
2. Operating one direction of LRT and BRT on each of the streets.
The resulting assessment concluded that the operation of one direction of LRT and BRT service on each of Albert and Slater Streets was the only safe and feasible option. Based on this analysis a preliminary preferred plan was developed. It maintained the existing right-side parking/loading, Transitway, and general traffic lanes as is, and dedicated the left-side lane being as an LRT-only lane. This concept was rejected based on the feedback received through public and stakeholder consultation, as it would have resulted in significant impacts to the businesses along each street due to the loss of the left-hand curb lane for parking, loading, delivery and taxi zones on both streets. As a result, a revised plan was developed that incorporated both LRT and BRT operations in the existing transitway lane. The LRT platforms would extend out to this lane for the boarding of passengers, while buses would move into the curb lane to pick up passengers and allow Light Rail vehicles to pass. Under this plan, all building accesses were maintained and over 92% of the existing total length of parking, loading, taxi, and hotel drop-off areas were to be retained, as well as all existing turning movements. This concept was approved by City Council on 15 July 2005 as the EA recommended plan. It was determined during the EA that operating 20 two vehicle LRT trains and up to 180 buses on Albert or Slater Streets during the peak hour was feasible. Despite this, due to concerns related to the reliability of the combined LRT/BRT operation, Council directed staff to reduce by 30% the number of buses operating on these streets. When the two-vehicle train limitation is taken into consideration, it is clear that this amount of service would not accommodate the transit demand being forecast for the 2031 planning horizon. To address this level of future demand on the surface with a mixed LRT and bus option, it would be necessary to either consider some form of a two transit lane option on each of Albert and Slater Streets and the Mackenzie King Bridge, or use additional streets for rapid transit operations. The first scenario would be similar to the two-lane bus-only arrangements discussed previously in this section. As that scenario is considered to create an unattractive urban environment and be unacceptable to the adjacent businesses and property owners, it is reasonable to assume that operating both modes in a similar fashion would also be unattractive and unacceptable. The second scenario would not provide sufficient additional capacity to accommodate the long term demand using buses only, and would not be cost effective if implemented as LRT-only or as a mixed mode operation. M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 40 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
Thus a combined bus and LRT surface option is not an acceptable downtown transit solution.
5.2.4. Conclusions It has been shown that it is not possible to develop an acceptable bus-only surface operation as the options considered to meet the 2031 transit ridership demand, would be no more reliable than their current operation and would result in increased downtown transit congestion, noise and harmful emissions over and above that which is experienced today. An LRT-only surface operation would require an additional corridor with dedicated rail transit, which would be disruptive to operations on that street and not be cost effective to implement. Combined bus and LRT options would similarly require more than one corridor to accommodate the 2031 transit demand. Implementing any surface-only solution would result in lost opportunities to significantly improve the street-level pedestrian and urban environment, and not meet the expectations of local business and property owners or the general public. Based on the foregoing assessment, there is no acceptable surface-only downtown transit solution to accommodate the projected level of transit passenger demand on the Central Area Transitway in 2031. If STO ridership demand is considered in this analysis, then it is even clearer that surface-only options are impractical for the future. Therefore some, or all, of this service has to be accommodated either above ground or in one or more tunnels underground.
5.3. Elevated Options
Elevated rapid transit options, similar to the Skytrain in Vancouver, the Scarborough LRT line in Toronto, or the Docklands Light Railway in the UK could be considered as a potential solution in downtown Ottawa. Elevated systems are similar in cost to underground installations but can be considered where underground conditions are poor, where the appropriate corridors have enough room so that the elevated guideway does not overpower the ambiance of the corridor and when the climate is amenable. An elevated option for downtown was considered in the 1988 “Central Area Transitway Grade Separation Feasibility Study”. A preferred option was developed and compared with a tunnel solution. The Transitway would have been elevated approximately 10 m above Slater Street, supported by a two-column pier bent structure (See Figure 5.1). This structural configuration is necessary in station areas due to the width of the cross section, and was used for the full length of the street to avoid underground utility conflicts. At the stations, pedestrian underpasses would be provided at 6m level for passengers crossing from the south to north of the street. Slater Street would have been reduced from four to three traffic lanes to accommodate the structural columns.
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 41 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
Figure 5.1: Proposed Elevated Transitway
The elevated option was not recommended due to the major aesthetic and physical impacts it would introduce into the downtown urban environment. Any currently contemplated elevated option would result in similar impacts. An elevated facility would:
• Create a formidable visual barrier through the heart of the downtown; • Require significant and costly modifications to integrate into adjacent buildings; • Result in the reduction of direct sunlight to street level and the lower floors of adjacent buildings; • Require significant utility relocations to accommodate structural foundations; • Constrain access by emergency vehicles along the corridor; • Negatively impact open spaces it crosses along the corridor; • Negatively impact heritage buildings adjacent to corridor; • Require expensive snow-removal operations, or a covered system; • Restrict the use of heavy construction equipment/cranes within the corridor; and, • Have higher long-term life-cycle costs due to exposure of the system to the elements.
For these reasons an elevated facility is not an acceptable downtown transit solution, and therefore only underground tunnel options are being considered for further study.
5.4. Tunnel Options
Having determined that a tunnel-based option is required to provide the necessary transit service levels to accommodate the long-term downtown ridership demands, the next step is to consider the range of transit technologies that may be incorporated underground. Similar to the surface-only options, these include:
• Bus-only;
• LRT-only; and,
• Combination of bus and LRT.
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 42 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
Regardless of the technology chosen, a downtown transit tunnel would resolve many of the current surface operating problems encountered today, as it would:
• Allow unconstrained flow through the downtown as signalized intersection conflicts no longer exist;
• Allow for a fare paid zone to be created in the station eliminating the need for front door entry and on-board fare payment;
• Provide a weather-protected environment for passengers;
• Provide adequate space for passenger queuing at station platforms to assist with boarding;
• Allow for arriving vehicles to be announced in advance to allow passengers to position themselves appropriately6;
• Allow for future growth on the system beyond the 2031 planning horizon by constructing station platforms sized to accommodate six-car trains; and,
• Improve transit accessibility by directly integrating into adjacent buildings and businesses.
Furthermore, implementing transit services within a downtown transit tunnel would permit the urban renewal of Albert and Slater Streets; provide a spur to the redevelopment of property parcels adjacent to the corridor; and, introduce other economic development opportunities such as underground shops and businesses. Some specific benefits include:
• An enhanced pedestrian environment with widened sidewalks, more trees and enhanced streetscaping features;
• An opportunity to introduce outdoor shops and café’s as well as public art to enhance the street side ambiance;
• An opportunity to incorporate dedicated bicycle lanes in the corridor;
• More parking, loading, delivery and access opportunities to support adjacent business operations;
• Improved pedestrian, cycle and vehicular traffic operations at signalized intersections;
• Less congestion and noise; and,
• Reallocation of the transit-only lane to general vehicular traffic on the Mackenzie King bridge.
The 1988 “Central Area Transitway Grade-Separation Feasibility Study” concluded that twin deep bus tunnels under the downtown would eventually be required to respond to the growing transit service requirements of the City. The western tunnel entrance (portal) would be in the vicinity of the Escarpment immediately west of downtown, with the eastern portal located on the existing Transitway alignment south of Laurier Avenue in the vicinity of Campus Station. The final study report identified key station locations (Rideau Centre, Metcalfe, Bank and Lyon) to service the downtown. (These same locations were confirmed in the 2005 North-South Corridor LRT Project EA and reflect approximately current surface transit stop locations on Albert and Slater Streets.) The station and tunnel configurations were planned where feasible within the road right of way. Albert and Slater Streets were identified as an appropriate tunnel corridor location because station and tunnel configurations are feasible within the road right of way and the adjacent developments generate transit riders. The twin tunnels would be drilled through the bedrock using tunnel-
M C R C
6 This is done on Market Street in San Francisco. Dynamic signs are used to indicate the composition of the arriving train so that passengers can queue for the car or cars that are going to their ultimate destination. This speeds boarding and reduces the number of passengers scrambling on the platform when vehicles arrive.
C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 43
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
boring machines, and a combination of open-cut and/or standard mining techniques would be used to construct the stations. Similar basic design concepts were used to develop the different tunnel options for this study. To address air quality concerns it is assumed that minimal emission buses, such as hybrid-electric, will be used for bus operations in a tunnel. Conceptual alignments, profiles and cross-sections are included in Appendix E. The exact location and design details will be developed through an environmental assessment. The following sections describe each option in more detail.
5.4.1. Bus-Only Tunnel Each of the twin tunnels would incorporate a two-lane cross-section comprised of through and passing lanes within and outside the station areas. This provides an opportunity for buses to pass any disabled vehicle in the tunnel. Without the passing lane, the tunnel would be blocked until a service vehicle could remove the bus. This is considered an unacceptable risk, as it would cause a major disruption to rapid transit operations downtown, and potentially throughout the entire system7. A 10m diameter tunnel bore will accommodate the two lanes per tunnel, with open-cut techniques used at the tunnel portal locations. The tunnels would be located sufficiently deep under the street right-of-way to minimize impacts on existing utilities and avoid disruptions to surface operations during construction. A centre-island configuration would be used for the station platforms. Advantages of this configuration include the centralization of passenger amenities, interconnectivity of platforms and shared access facilities to the surface. For bus technology to take advantage of a centre island platform, a contra flow network is required. This is accommodated by crossing each tunnel over before reaching the tunnel portal locations.
5.4.2. LRT-Only Tunnel The LRT tunnel would incorporate a single track per direction throughout its length, including through the station areas. The rationale for a single-track tunnel is that if a train breaks down in the tunnel area the next train can physically push it through the tunnel to a siding beyond the tunnel portal. A 6.0m diameter tunnel bore will accommodate a single rail and required safety/maintenance walk. The tunnels would be located sufficiently deep under the street right-of-way to minimize impacts on existing utilities and avoid disruptions to surface operations during construction. Since LRT vehicles have doors on both sides, a centre island platform configuration would again be used at the LRT stations. The advantages of this configuration include; the centralization of passenger amenities, interconnectivity of platforms and shared access facilities to the surface. Since trains have access from both sides, a cross-over of the tunnels to produce contra flow is not required as it would be for the BRT Tunnel Option discussed above.
5.4.3. Combined Bus/LRT Tunnel Similar to the bus-only option, a combined bus/LRT tunnel would incorporate a two-lane cross-section to provide a bus passing lane inside and outside of the station area. This is required so that a bus can pass any broken down bus in the bus lane. If a train breaks down, the next train can push it through the station on its lane to a siding outside the tunnel. A 10m diameter tunnel would accommodate the two lanes. The tunnels would be located sufficiently deep under the street right-of-way to minimize impacts on existing utilities and avoid disruptions to surface operations during construction.
M C R C
7 The typical operation to remove a disabled bus in a one-lane tunnel would require the tow vehicle to wait until the in-service vehicles in front of the disabled vehicle have exited the tunnel before the tow-vehicle backs into the tunnel to remove the bus from its front end.
C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 44
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
A centre island platform configuration would be used for the LRT, and a side platform used for the buses in the stations. This configuration takes advantage of the LRT’s versatility and eliminates the cross over and contra flow bus requirement. To accommodate bus passing requirements in the stations, the LRT and bus platforms will be staggered by about 20m. This will provide 20m of clear lane between the platforms so that a bus can manoeuvre past a bus or train stopped at the end of their platform.
5.5. Combined Surface/Tunnel Options
The following options are a combination of the surface and tunnel options, and arise from the practical reality that a single solution may not address all needs. In these options, one technology would be located on street and the other in a tunnel. The approach in this section is to look at the ultimate configuration and work back to practical options that can be developed to address intermediate stages. There are two main options:
• LRT is installed on-street and a bus-only tunnel is constructed; or,
• Buses operate on-street and the tunnel is dedicated to LRT.
The stated goal of the ultimate network is to provide a high quality, urban rapid transit system which will support the downtown and the predicted future transit volumes.
5.5.1. LRT on Street and Buses in a Tunnel In this option, a new bus-only tunnel would be built across downtown to carry buses, and Albert and Slater Streets would be reconfigured to accommodate an on-street LRT. This would require the construction of the tunnel and modifications on each street to install the tracks, overhead catenary systems to operate LRT and modification of the existing stop locations. The two systems would likely have to operate in parallel for some distance beyond the downtown, and at the ends of the dual system segment there would need to be some form of interconnection. In the west, the segment through LeBreton Flats would need to accommodate both as far as one of the following points:
• LRT diverges from the Transitway and turns south towards Barrhaven, or diverges both north and south from the Transitway with branches that serve the southern area to Barrhaven and the northern area in Gatineau; or,
• The LRT reaches a temporary terminal west of Bayview Station; or,
• The LRT reaches a western terminal which balances the service.
At some point in the future, the LRT will extend far enough west that the majority of passengers can be transferred onto the train and the parallel BRT service can be eliminated.
5.5.2. BRT on Street and LRT in a Tunnel In this option, a tunnel would be built to accommodate LRT, and the current Transitway infrastructure on Albert and Slater would remain in use, but for a smaller number of buses. This option could:
• Relieve pressure from on street operations;
• Not require modifications to the on street facilities;
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 45 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
• Allow a flexible response to STO services and some OC Transpo services by allowing them to operate through downtown on-street;
• Allow a combination of bus and LRT corridors to be developed outside the downtown core, which would both have direct access to the core; and
• Requires a smaller set of twin tunnels to accommodate two single tracks.
5.5.3. Conclusion Both of the options that combine tunnel and surface operations require an extensive financial investment in the implementation of the tunnel component. As such, maximizing the use of the tunnel will improve the return on that investment. Since the analysis has shown that a tunnel alternative can provide the necessary capacity to fully accommodate the City’s 2031 transit demand, a combined surface/tunnel option is not recommended as the downtown rapid transit solution. Since any conversion of the Transitway to rail associated with the construction of an LRT-only tunnel is a major undertaking, the operation of LRT in tunnel with reduced on-street bus service may be considered as a possible primary rapid transit network staging option for the downtown.
5.6. Recommendations
The single-use and combined tunnel options described herein have the potential to provide the service required to support the transit network and, therefore, may be considered as acceptable downtown transit solutions. Each will be carried forward to be considered in the primary rapid transit network options.
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 46 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
MCCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirem Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Im
6. Primary Rapid Transit Network Options
With both single-use and combined-use tunnel options identified as possible downtown transit solutions, a number of primary rapid transit network options, each incorporating a tunnel, have been developed. These options will be evaluated to determine the most appropriate long-range rapid transit network and technology to serve Ottawa. Using the 2003 TMP Rapid Transit Network plan (Appendix B) as a starting point, the corridors identified for consideration in the primary network are shown in Figure 6.1. This plan illustrates the key future rapid transit corridor network made up of existing corridors (solid) and possible future extensions (dashed). Depending on the network options being tested, these corridors could either be LRT, BRT, or both LRT and BRT. The broad grey arrows in the background represent other possible rapid transit corridors for the future which will be further tested later in the development of the Transportation Master Plan once the appropriate primary transit network is determined. The Primary Rapid Transit Network options considered include:
• Network Option 1: BRT Tunnel - Bus based
• Network Option 2: BRT/LRT Tunnel – Bus based with North-South LRT
• Network Option 3: LRT Tunnel - East & West downtown LRT
• Network Option 4: LRT Tunnel - East & West downtown LRT plus North-South LRT
April 2008
ent Study 47 plications
The basic difference between each of the above-noted network options is the extent to which LRT is incorporated. Note that Options 3 and 4 require the conversion of segments of the existing bus Transitway extending east and west of the downtown to LRT. A description of each of the four networks options follows:
April 2008
t Study 48 ications
CCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION Transportation Infrastructure Requiremen
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Impl
Figure 6.1: Future Rapid Transit Corridor Network Considerations
M
MCCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirem Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Im
6.1. Network Option 1: BRT Tunnel-Bus Based
6.1.1. Description This option is illustrated in Figure 6.2. It is essentially a bus-only alternative to which the other three options will be compared. It comprises the existing bus Transitway, with extensions, operating in twin bus- only tunnels through the downtown as noted in Section 5.4.1. A service level of one articulated bus running every 18 seconds through the downtown tunnel is required to accommodate the projected 2031 peak hour transit ridership demand. The existing Transitway would be extended as follows:
• West Transitway – branches to Kanata West and North • East Transitway – from Place d’Orleans to Trim Road • Cumberland Transitway – from Blair Station to Millennium Station • Southeast Transitway – from South Keys to Riverside South, Barrhaven and the Airport
April 2008
ent Study 49 plications
• Southwest Transitway –from Baseline Station to Nepean Sportsplex and Fallowfield Station to Cambrian Road
The buses would continue to operate on the Ottawa River Parkway as well as on the existing exclusive shoulder lanes on Highway 417 between Moodie Drive and Eagleson Road, and on City Freeway 174 between Blair Road and Place d’Orleans Station. In this scenario the existing diesel-powered O-Train would continue to provide 15-minute service between Bayview and Greenboro station.
April 2008
t Study 50 ications
CCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION Transportation Infrastructure Requiremen
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Impl
Figure 6.2: Network Option 1: BRT Tunnel
M
MCCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirem Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Im
6.2. Network Option 2: BRT/LRT Tunnel – Bus based with North- South LRT
6.2.1. Description This option is illustrated in Figure 6.3. It is a joint bus and LRT scenario comprised of the existing bus transitway, with extensions, combined with twin track LRT running in the North-South corridor from Bowesville Station in the south and through the downtown to Ottawa University. The North-South line continues as a bus transitway corridor from Bowesville Station west to Barrhaven Town Centre. To accommodate both the east-west buses and the north-south LRT trains, both types of vehicles would run jointly in twin dual lane tunnels through the downtown as described in Section 5.4.3. Within the tunnel stations, separate boarding areas would be provided for bus and LRT passengers. A combination of 2-car LRT trains running every 3 minutes and 45 seconds, and articulated buses running every 22 seconds through the downtown tunnel is required to accommodate the projected 2031 ridership demand. Within the North-South corridor, the existing single-track O-Train would be replaced by twin-track LRT, and extended south to Bowesville Station and with a spur into the Ottawa International Airport. A rail maintenance and storage facility would be located adjacent to Bowesville Station. The bus Transitway would be extended as follows:
• West Transitway – branches to Kanata West and North • East Transitway – from Place d’Orleans to Trim Road • Cumberland Transitway – from Blair Station to Millennium Station • South Transitway – from Bowesville to Barrhaven Town Centre
April 2008
ent Study 51 plications
• Southwest Transitway – from Baseline Station to Nepean Sportsplex and Fallowfield Station to Cambrian Road
The buses would continue to operate on the Ottawa River Parkway as well as on the existing exclusive shoulder lanes on Highway 417 between Moodie Drive and Eagleson Road, and on City Freeway 174 between Blair Road and Place d’Orleans Station.
April 2008
t Study 52 ications
CCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION Transportation Infrastructure Requiremen
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Impl
Figure 6.3: Network Option 2: BRT / LRT Tunnel
M
April 2008
6.3. Minimum Transitway Segments for LRT Conversion
Primary rapid transit network options 3 and 4 that follow are based on the implementation of new east-west LRT lines crossing through the downtown in a rail-only tunnel. By necessity, this requires converting some of the connecting portions of the existing East and West Transitways to rail technology. A number of factors were considered to determine the minimum LRT segments that are required, and select the eastern and western limits of initial conversion. These factors include:
• Minimum operable segment – or the shortest section of rail that can reasonably be operated, which generally ranges from 5-10 km;
• Downtown must be served – segment has to connect to the proposed downtown tunnel; • Passenger transfers – length of the line needs be located far enough from major destinations to
warrant the passengers’ time penalty for the transfer and be far enough out of the core to make the transferring volumes as reasonable as possible. Terminal stations must also have adequate space for efficient transfers;
• Terminal station is an anchor – the existing or proposed land use at the terminal ends of the segment are sufficiently dense and developed to attract riders, making more effective use of the infrastructure; and,
• Maintenance facility access – the initial segment has to connect to a maintenance and storage facility.
In options 3 and 4, the combination of the downtown tunnel and any one or more of the east, west or south legs would be ample as an operable segment. Access to a maintenance and storage facility will be a more significant determinant to the sequence of implementation. Passenger transfer facilities at the terminal stations must be carefully considered. Ideally, transfer locations should be at key nodes, sufficiently removed from the downtown to reduce total transfer total volumes and provide sufficient benefit to riders to warrant the change in mode. Transfer hubs are frequently located where opportunities for transit supportive development exist, thereby maximizing accessibility to transit and providing a destination for trips, thereby increasing the effective use of the rail segment as trains have passengers on them in the off-peak direction. Experience has shown that the most efficient transfer facilities utilize vertical passenger movements, incorporate a range of passenger amenities, and have sufficient land area to optimize transit vehicle movements. This often requires a multi-storey facility, frequently incorporated into local buildings in higher density areas. Applying these criteria to each of the east, west and south segments leads to the recommendation to use:
• Hurdman and Blair Stations in the east. These two locations balance connections to Transitways further east and southeast and allow for two smaller stations to be constructed. Both locations are in areas with existing or potential transit-supportive development. Blair Station is at the convergence point of the East and Cumberland Transitways, and is surrounded by recent employment and retail developments. Hurdman Station is already a major transfer facility, located at the connection of the East and Southeast Transitways.
• Lincoln Fields and Baseline Stations in the west. These two locations allow for two smaller stations to be constructed to serve the Transitways further to the west and southwest. Baseline Station in the west directly serves Algonquin College and is a focal point for the development of the Nepean Centrepointe lands. Lincoln Fields Station, while less of a future development node
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 53 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
MCCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirem Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Im
6.4. Network Option 3: LRT Tunnel - East & West Downtown LRT
provides a direct connection to the west, as well as to local routes operating on Carling Avenue. It also allows development along Carling to have good access to rail service into the downtown.
• Bowesville Station in the south. Bowesville Station was selected to take the line at least as far as the maintenance facility site and will provide service to Riverside South.
Further LRT extensions east, west and south-west are possible and can be considered but the locations above have been selected as the minimal segments required for a successful operation.
6.4.1. Description This option is illustrated in Figure 6.4. It is the first of 2 scenarios that carry the majority of passengers through the downtown on LRT. It is based on the conversion of the Transitway between Baseline Station and Blair Station from bus to LRT, passing through the downtown in an LRT-only tunnel. A service level of 4-car LRT trains running every 2 minutes and 18 seconds through the downtown tunnel is required to accommodate the projected 2031 transit ridership demand. Bus to rail transfers will occur at Baseline, Lincoln Fields, Hurdman and Blair Stations. The existing diesel- powered O-Train would continue to provide 15-minute service between Bayview and Greenboro station, with passengers transferring to the east-west LRT to access the downtown at Bayview Station. The location of the required LRT maintenance and storage facility would be dependent on which portion of the network would be converted first. A possible location for the east-west line is the industrial sector in the vicinity of Belfast Road/St. Laurent Boulevard, but this will have to be investigated in more detail. The remainder of the network would continue to operate as the bus Transitway, with extensions as follows:
• West Transitway – branches to Kanata West and North • East Transitway – from Place d’Orleans to Trim Road • Cumberland Transitway – from Blair Station to Millennium Station
April 2008
ent Study 54 plications
• Southeast Transitway – from South Keys to Riverside South, Barrhaven Town Centre and to the Airport
• Southwest Transitway – from Baseline Station to Nepean Sportsplex and Fallowfield Station to Cambrian Road
The buses would continue to operate on the existing exclusive shoulder lanes on Highway 417 between Moodie Drive and Eagleson Road, and on City Freeway 174 between Blair Road and Place d’Orleans Station.
April 2008
t Study 55 ications
Figure 6.4: Network Option 3: East & West Downtown LRT
MCCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requiremen Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Impl
MCCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirem Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Im
6.5. Network Option 4: LRT Tunnel - East & West Downtown LRT plus North-South LRT
6.5.1. Description This option is illustrated on Figure 6.5. It is similar to Option 3, but with the addition of twin track LRT replacing the O-Train and running in the North-South corridor between Bowesville Station and the Downtown. All services would pass through the downtown in an LRT-only tunnel. A service level of 4-car LRT trains running every 2 minutes and 4 seconds through the downtown tunnel is required to accommodate the projected 2031 transit ridership demand. Bus to rail transfers will occur at Baseline, Lincoln Fields, Bowesville, Hurdman and Blair Stations. Within the North-South corridor, the existing single-track O-Train would be replaced by twin-track LRT, and extended south to Bowesville Station and with a spur into the Ottawa International Airport. At Bayview station the north-south trains would connect with the east-west line and operate on the same tracks into and through the downtown. Possible locations for a rail maintenance and storage facility include adjacent to Bowesville Station, or in the industrial sector in the vicinity of Belfast Road/St. Laurent Boulevard. The remainder of the network would continue to operate as the bus Transitway, with extensions as follows:
• West Transitway – branches to Kanata West and North • East Transitway – from Place d’Orleans to Trim Road • Cumberland Transitway – from Blair Station to Millennium Station • South Transitway – from Bowesville to Barrhaven Towne Centre
April 2008
ent Study 56 plications
• Southwest Transitway –from Baseline Station to Nepean Sportsplex and Fallowfield Station to Cambrian Road
The buses would continue to operate on the existing exclusive shoulder lanes on Highway 417 between Moodie Drive and Eagleson Road, and on City Freeway 174 between Blair Road and Place d’Orleans Station.
April 2008
t Study 57 ications
Figure 6.5: Network Option 4: LRT Tunnel – East & West Downtown LRT plus North-South LRT
MCCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requiremen Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Impl
April 2008
M C R C
7. Preliminary Integration Opportunities for STO Services
Bus operations on the Albert and Slater Street Central Transitway is only one component of the overall transit congestion being experienced on Ottawa’s downtown streets. There are many buses that service interprovincial commuters during peak hours on the Rideau/Wellington Street corridor. As outlined in section 1.3.2, the Société de transport de l’Outaouais (STO) currently operate approximately 120 buses serving 4,400 peak hour transit passengers through Ottawa’s central core. This interprovincial ridership demand is expected to increase to 8,500 peak hour passengers by 2031, which translates to approximately 250 standard buses. Operational experience on Albert and Slater indicates that they can theoretically accommodate a maximum of 195 buses per hour, but to maintain service reliability no more than 180 buses are scheduled during peak hours. The combined operation of STO interprovincial and OC Transpo local transit on the Rideau/Wellington corridor is currently nearing capacity, and as such there is no room for any capacity growth within this corridor by the 2031 planning horizon. It is therefore important to consider the implications of STO transit operations when developing future rapid transit options for Ottawa’s downtown.
7.1. Alternatives Considered:
The four primary rapid transit network options developed in Chapter 6 all include a tunnel under the downtown to address current transit congestion and future downtown transit demand. These options were developed to identify the implications of a downtown transit solution on the balance of the rapid transit network. Options 1 & 2 allow for bus operations through the tunnel while options 3 & 4 include rail-only tunnels. STO currently uses mostly standard buses to service their interprovincial passengers. Their operating strategy provides a direct to downtown bus service that utilizes transit priority measures on existing arterial streets with plans for a future BRT operation in a freight rail corridor. Given the success of the service and the ability for growth and service flexibility, they do not anticipate any need to convert to rail transit service within the planning horizon. A number of very preliminary alternatives were developed to show how interprovincial STO service might be integrated in downtown Ottawa with the primary rapid transit network options described above. Alternative 1: Surface Transit Alternative 2: Shared Transit Tunnel Alternative 3: Separate Transit Tunnel Alternative 4: Transfer between STO and OC Transpo
7.2. Description of Alternatives
The following sections describe the four main alternatives for interprovincial transit service as well as their implications for each one of the primary rapid transit network options. These alternatives were developed to show how service can be provided as well as to show a comparison of costs. A more detailed analysis and the selection of a preferred alternative for interprovincial rapid transit service will be undertaken in the up-coming joint NCC/Ottawa/Gatineau-STO Interprovincial Rapid Transit Strategic Integration Study.
C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 58
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
7.2.1. Alternative 1: Surface Transit Regardless of which of the proposed network options developed in Chapter 6 is chosen for Ottawa’s rapid transit system, STO might choose to continue to operate on the surface in downtown Ottawa. However, with a projected 250 buses per hour in the peak direction, a single corridor will not provide enough capacity. STO buses would therefore require using more streets in Ottawa’s downtown to service the future interprovincial transit demand. In addition, even the present day operation is causing serious concerns on Rideau Street and in the By-ward Market area and its surroundings calling out for a more acceptable solution to the growing congestion and degradation of the street ambiance in the Market and around Parliament Hill. While continuing operation on Ottawa city streets is an option it is not an acceptable option and solutions have to be developed.
7.2.2. Alternative 2: STO Buses in a Shared Transit Tunnel Ottawa’s proposed primary rapid transit network options 1 & 2 include twin tunnels for buses under downtown Ottawa. These tunnels cannot effectively accommodate all of the future OC Transpo bus service required so there is certainly no room for sharing with an additional 250 STO buses. Option 2 has slightly fewer buses than option 1, but this reduction in buses due to passengers being accommodated on the North- South LRT would not provide the additional capacity required to allow STO buses to operate with OC Transpo buses. STO buses can therefore not be accommodated in the OC Transpo bus tunnels as shown in options 1 & 2. Ottawa’s proposed primary rapid transit network options 3 & 4 include twin tunnels for LRT under downtown Ottawa. As proposed, these tunnels are smaller than the bus tunnels proposed above and cannot accommodate STO buses. It is possible to widen the tunnels so that it could also accommodate STO buses. As one alternative for accommodating STO buses in the tunnel, it might be possible to widen only the westbound LRT tunnel (Albert Street) to accommodate joint STO BRT and Ottawa LRT westbound. This would mean that STO buses would run in a loop entering Ottawa at the east end of the tunnel and exiting at the west end. The widened tunnel would be 2 lanes wide accommodating LRT in the left lane and the STO buses the right lane. The buses would be able to cross into the LRT lane should a problem arise in the bus lane. At the station, an additional lane would allow for buses to pass each other without impacting the LRT operations. Platforms for the LRT and the buses would be separate with bus passengers alighting on a north platform and the LRT passengers alighting on a south platform. The widened tunnel would include a 10m diameter bore instead of the 6m diameter (LRT only) bore to accommodate the 2 transit lanes. Stations would be further widened to accommodate an additional passing lane for the STO buses. Buses would enter downtown Ottawa from the east on the Macdonald-Cartier or Alexandria bridges and would travel south on King Edward. A tunnel portal would be located in the vicinity of King Edward and St. Patrick with a 10m diameter tunnel connecting to Ottawa’s westbound tunnel at the Rideau Centre. STO buses would exit the tunnel west of Ottawa’s CBD and would cross back into Gatineau via the Portage Bridge. STO buses can therefore be accommodated in an OC Transpo LRT tunnel as shown in options 3 & 4 with an estimated construction cost of $475M.
7.2.3. Alternative 3: STO Buses in a Separate Tunnel Regardless of the technology choice for Ottawa’s downtown transit tunnel, a separate tunnel facility might be considered for STO transit operations. Since STO plans to operate buses throughout the planning horizon, this would be a bus tunnel with portals on either end of downtown. For costing purposes, one portal is assumed to be located west of downtown for buses crossing the Portage Bridge. The portal would be located south of the Ottawa River Parkway intersection with the tunnel being potentially aligned under Wellington, Sparks, or
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 59 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
Queen Street. The other portal will allow buses to access the tunnel from the east in the vicinity of the King Edward and St. Patrick intersection. The 10m diameter tunnel would be approximately 3km long and would include 2 bus lanes, 1 for each direction. Stations would be widened to include an additional 2 lanes allowing buses to pass each other. The HOV lanes on the Portage Bridge would be converted to exclusive bus-only transit lanes with special signals at the Ottawa River Parkway intersection to allow buses to access the tunnel portal. Additional exclusive bus-only lanes would be required on King Edward Avenue and across the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge. Construction costs for this option are estimated at $610M.
7.2.4. Alternative 4: Transfer from STO buses to LRT The proposed primary rapid transit network options 2, 3 & 4 include a tunnel that accommodates LRT through downtown Ottawa. There is capacity in all the options to accommodate some of the additional STO passengers if they transferred to the LRT system. This would mean adding additional trains to the system to accommodate this extra demand. This transfer point could be located on either side of the river (i.e. in Ottawa or Gatineau) and the objective would be to eliminate most or all of the interprovincial buses operating through the downtown. A) Transfer in Ottawa This alternative would require the STO buses to travel into Ottawa to a location where all interprovincial passengers can transfer to/from Ottawa’s LRT facility. The transfer station would likely be located on the west side of downtown near Bayview/LeBreton and the buses would use the existing bridges (Portage, Chaudière) to cross the Ottawa River. The transfer station would require significant space and would need to accommodate the large number of STO buses. The estimated construction cost for the transfer station is $25M or more. A rail crossover and 120m long double tail track is included just east of the Rideau Centre station. This allows for some LRT vehicles to service only the downtown and avoid travelling further east to Hurdman. These modification to the LRT tunnel are estimated to cost an additional $10M. B) Transfer in Gatineau (spur) This concept suggests a transfer station be located on the Quebec side of the river where passengers can access an LRT that travels into downtown Ottawa via the proposed LRT transit tunnel. On the west side of downtown the LRT could travel over the Portage Bridge and across the Ottawa River Parkway intersection to access the Ottawa LRT tunnel. This STO LRT would use the same stations as the OC Transpo LRT. A tail track located just east of the Rideau Centre allows LRT vehicles to short-turn and return back to Gatineau. Estimated costs for tracks over the Portage Bridge connecting to Ottawa’s LRT, the tail track, and intersection modifications are in the range of $60M. The $25M transfer station is still required and can be located in Gatineau at Place du Portage. C) Transfer in Gatineau (loop) A variation to the above alternative would include an additional tunnel portal on King Edward allowing the LRT to operate as a loop (2 directions) through both downtown Ottawa and Gatineau instead of short-turning east of the Rideau centre. This option requires additional 2.5km long 3m radius tunnel to be bored as well as LRT tracks on King Edward, over the Macdonald-Cartier bridge and through downtown Gatineau for an estimated cost of $165M. The $25M transfer station would still be required resulting in a total construction cost of $190M.
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 60 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
7.3. Vehicles
Vehicle costs for Alternative 1 would only be considered if the surface transit would be a rail based system. If buses are going to continue to be the selected vehicle, then existing bus purchasing and replacement programs would cover the increased number of buses to accommodate the transit demand. Alternatives 2 and 3 would require additional costs for vehicles as new hybrid–electric buses would be required if they are to operate in a tunnel. At an estimated cost of $630,000 per standard hybrid-electric bus, 250 buses would cost approximately $160M. Including 15% spare vehicles and assuming that half of the buses would be replaced within the planning horizon, an additional $115M is added to the vehicle costs for a total vehicle cost of $275M. In Alternative 4A, the interprovincial transit passengers are being loaded on Ottawa’s LRT, therefore an additional 12 LRT vehicles (including spares) would be required to provide the increased capacity. At $5M a vehicle, this option requires $60M for LRT vehicles. Similarly, in Alternative 4B, an additional 16 LRT vehicles would be required (including spares) with a cost of $80M and option 4C requires 18 LRT vehicles for $90M. The differences in these vehicle costs are due to the variations in travel time for the LRT to perform a complete trip.
7.4. Summary
The following table summarizes these very preliminary options to accommodate STO transit service in downtown Ottawa. No attempt has been made to develop detailed options as these and other options would be undertaken in the upcoming interprovincial transit study.
STO Alternative Accommodates
Network Options Construction Costs Vehicle Costs
1) Surface Transit 1, 2, 3, 4 2) Shared OC Tunnel 3, 4 $ 475 M $ 275 M 3) Separate STO Tunnel 1, 2, 3, 4 $ 610 M $ 275 M 4a) Transfer (Ottawa) 2, 3, 4 $ 35 M $ 60 M 4b) Transfer (Gatineau spur) 2, 3, 4 $ 85 M $ 80 M 4c) Transfer (Gatineau loop) 2, 3, 4 $ 190 M $ 90 M
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 61 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
M C R C
8. Summary of Consultation To Date
8.1. Objective
The mandate of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Infrastructure Requirements Study Consultation Program is to engage, in a meaningful way, a broad range of citizens and stakeholders in a dialogue around Ottawa’s long-term transportation planning. This chapter summarizes the findings of the Phase II component of the Consultation Program, which was to inform the public and obtain feedback on the four Primary Rapid Transit Network options.
8.2. Methodology
Consultation began March 3rd, and concluded March 31st, 2008. A number of activities were designed and executed to provide flexible and convenient opportunities for the public to provide comment to the City. These included: • Open Houses and Discussion Groups • Stakeholder Focus Group Sessions • City Advisory Committee Briefings • Online Materials and Consultations • Internal and External Agency Group Meetings • A Mayor’s Streeter Survey The following sections describe the logistics and provide summaries of the outcomes of the various methods of consultation. For more detailed information, refer to Appendix G: Consultation, which includes the following report: Transportation Master Plan Infrastructure Requirement Study Summary Report: Phase II Consultations – A Review of the Downtown Rapid Transit Network Options (PACE 2008).
8.3. Public Open Houses and Discussion Groups
8.3.1. Logistics Four Public Open House events took place, in various regions of the city. Thirty bilingual project boards on the TMP Update and the network options were displayed. Members of the Study Team were available to answer any technical questions. The project boards were arranged around the perimeter of the event rooms to allow for facilitated Registered Discussion Group sessions to take place inside the same venue as the Open House. The open houses occurred as follows:
C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 62
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
Table 8-1: Public Open House and Discussion Group Logistics
Dates Location # of Open House Participants
# of Discussion Group
Participants East
Monday, March 3 Bob MacQuarrie Recreation Complex
1490 Youville Drive, Orleans 70 25
Central Tuesday, March 4
City Hall 100 Laurier Avenue West 200 80
West Wednesday, March 5
Earl March High School 4 The Parkway, Kanata 65 35
South Thursday, March 6
John McCrae High School 103 Malvern Drive, Nepean 60 24
Promotion and Recruitment: Promotion for the Open Houses and recruitment for the discussion groups was through various media. Newspaper advertisements were inserted in The Citizen and Le Droit on Friday, February 21st and 28th. Promotional postcards were distributed on all OC Transpo buses, and made available at public libraries, City kiosks and recreation facilities. Citizens that had participated in Phase I of the TMP consultations, as well as those registered in the City’s Ottawa 20/20 mailing list were also emailed an invitation to register for the Discussion Groups. Members of the public were also invited to call 3-1-1, and register online on the City’s website.
8.3.2. Comment Summary-Open House In total, 156 comment sheets were submitted at the Public Open Houses. Members of the public were asked to provide responses to three questions. Seventy-three per cent (68%) of the submissions indicated Option #4 as the preferred option, followed by twenty-seven per cent (25%) for Option #3. Table 8-2: Public Open Houses ~ Question 1
Which downtown rapid transit option do you prefer?” Options Location
1 2 3 4 N/A Total Choices Made
West 0 0 17 17 1 35 East 2 1 7 17 3 30 South 0 0 3 25 0 28 Central 0 1 15 55 5 72 Total 2 2 42 114 9 169* What you like about your chosen option - Key Trends(Comments refer to Option 4) •Operating costs are cheaper •Environmentally friendly •Goes direct from downtown to airport •Services all communities of Ottawa with use of Hub
and Spoke •Ability to expand network
•Converts Transitway to LRT (use of existing assets) •High capacity service where it is needed most •Underground tunnel removes congestion •Underground tunnel promotes business development
– offsetting costs Is a world transit system for Nation’s Capital
*Please note that some comment sheets included two selected options
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 63 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
Table 8-3: Public Open Houses ~ Key Trends Question 2
“Are there other features you would like to see included into Ottawa’s rapid transit network?” Key Trends •N/S rail to connect to Gatineau •Extension of LRT to Kanata and Orleans •Use existing rail lines •Encourage intensification inside greenbelt •One transit pass for all transit systems •Bike routes, paths and parking at transit stations is
necessary
•Comfortable transit stations •Security for underground tunnel •Accessibility for underground tunnel and all LRT
stations •Free downtown LRT use to promote ridership and
tourism •Option of running LRT on waterway as a tourist
attraction Table 8-4: Public Open Houses ~ Key Trends Question 3
Other Comments •Consider the environment in any option •STO/Gatineau sharing of costs and integration •The proposed options are too narrow and should
extend even further •Personal safety needs to be considered
•Ensure Walking and Cycling is integrated and maintained
•Make transit attractive and affordable •Ensure that the correct corridors are chosen •Money is not the deciding point - it is what is best for
Ottawa
8.3.3. Comment Summary – Discussion Groups Over 150 people registered for the Discussion Groups held at the Public Open House events. Discussions focused largely around Option numbers 3 and 4. While discussions at each table were designed to reflect the questions listed in the Comment Sheets, some led to other relevant topics. Facilitators were encouraged to carry the conversation wherever participants felt it needed to go. With this in mind, the following table provides a summary of key trends captured at each of the Discussion Group tables. Table 8-5: Discussion Groups ~ Key Comments on the Four Options
M C R C
Network Key Comments Option 1
•Buses do not help us overcome the congestion issue in the downtown core •Buses are less reliable •There is no clear benefit for choosing this option •Operating costs are very high •This is not a sustainable option •There is no room for growth •It is the least efficient use of time, money and the environment •Buses in the tunnel would cause serious health concerns
Option 2 •There is no clear benefit for choosing this option •This option is too expensive •There is no consideration for growth •This option is the most expensive •It is not a sustainable choice •Buses in the tunnel would cause serious health concerns
Option 3 •Option 3 is a good interim starting point to get to Option 4 •The link to the airport is important •Future growth is possible with this option
C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 64
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
•If this option is selected, an increase in O-Train service is needed Option 4 •It is the best option for the environment
•It offers best long-term solution •It supports urban growth realities •Option 4 is the best use of money •It is adaptable •It is convenient
The following table reflects what participants indicated was most important for the City to consider when implementing a new transit plan. Table 8-6: Registered Discussion Groups ~ Key Areas of Consideration
Area of Dialogue Key Areas of Consideration Location of Corridors, Stops, etc.
•Explore the feasibility of existing corridors •Ensure the appropriate corridor choices (e.g. Baseline vs. Barrhaven, East-West
vs. North-South) Environment •Technology choice is important to investigate – hybrid vs. electric vs. diesel
•Choose the best alternative for the environment •Consider future fuel costs •Choose a system that considers Ottawa’s environment and winter temperatures
Considering STO •A solution for the Gatineau buses must be considered •Create a transfer point on the Gatineau side •STO link is imperative •Ensure systems are compatible •STO system must not be detrimental to Ottawa (e.g. contribute to the congestion
issues in the downtown core) Construction and Disruption of Service
•Concern about construction at transfer stations •Concern about construction disruption in residential areas •Concern that disruption to service will result in losses to ridership and increases
in car use Transfer Stations with Hub and Spoke System
•Must encourage acceptance of transferring •Determine elements that make transferring attractive (e.g. shopping, etc.) •Accommodate multi-modal use (e.g. bike paths, bike stations, walkways and
more Park and Rides) •Personal safety at transit station and tunnel •One transfer limit
Urban Planning •Increase development density •Land use planning is critical for transit planning
Encouraging Transit Ridership
•Choose the system that will encourage the highest ridership •Aim for high modal splits •Convenience, reliability and speed will appeal to citizens •Incentives for transit use •Internet access on trains •Affordability (e.g. car ownership and parking costs vs. transit pass)
Financing •Focus on decreasing maintenance costs •Secure funding from other levels of government
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 65 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
8.4. Stakeholder Focus Groups
8.4.1. Logistics Three Focus Group sessions were held at City Hall on March 4th and 5th providing key stakeholders in the process an opportunity to supply their input on the four network options. Participants at the Stakeholder Focus Group sessions were grouped according to their various interests and areas of expertise, and represented the City’s Industry, Economic, and Downtown sectors.
8.4.2. Comment Summary-Stakeholder Groups The feedback generated at each of the Stakeholder Focus Group sessions was collected by the facilitator on flip-charts and in notes taken by a scribe. The following table provides a summary of the key trends captured at each of the three Stakeholder sessions. Table 8-7: Stakeholder Focus Group Sessions ~ Key Trends
Stakeholder Focus Group
Comments
Industry Voices •Option #4 best option •Future growth with rail is a benefit •LRT moves people quickly and is cheaper •Inter-provincial support is needed for STO problem •Public buy-in is important – market the options well
Downtown Voices •Option #4 makes sense •Intensification is needed as it relieves congestion •Flexibility with being able to add more rail cars, extending rail lines and
seeing multi-modalities integrated •Inter-provincial support is needed for STO problem •Local service will need improvements •Public buy-in is crucial – market the options well
Economic Voices •Downtown emphasis is good •Tunnel is needed •Build economic nodes within the transfer areas •Inter-provincial support is needed for STO problem •Public buy-in is important – market the options well •Intensification is necessary
8.5. City Advisory Committee Briefings
A number of the City of Ottawa’s Advisory Committees, with an interest in transit and transportation, were invited to participate in a briefing session on the four network options.
• Roads and Cycling Advisory Committee • Environmental Advisory Committee • Rural Issues Advisory Committee • Accessibility Advisory Committee • Pedestrian and Transit Advisory Committee.
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 66 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
No direct feedback was received at this session. Those Advisory Committees whose mandates do not directly pertain to transit or transportation issues were invited to participate in the Open House sessions and Registered Discussion Groups.
8.6. Internal and External Agency Meetings
The City of Ottawa held Internal and External Agency meetings during the week of March 3rd. The primary objective of the Agency meetings was to provide the two groups with information on the four network options. Both meetings consisted of a 45 minute presentation updating participants on the TMP project, and providing an overview on the four options. This was followed by an open discussion. Meeting minutes for both the Internal and External sessions can be found in the Phase II Consultation Report. The External Agency meeting took place on Tuesday, March 4th, at City Hall from 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. Participants included representatives from the following agencies: Federal Government • PWGSC • Health Canada • Transport Canada • Infrastructure Canada • National Capital Commission City of Gatineau
Société de transport de l'Outaouais (STO) Provincial Government
• Ontario Ministry of Transportation • Ontario Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal Advisory Agencies and Private Interest • Rideau Valley Conservation Authority • Canadian Pacific Railway The Internal Agency meeting took place on Friday, March 7th, at City Hall from 9:30 to 11:30 a.m. Participants at the Internal Agency Meeting consisted of various departmental staff from the City of Ottawa.
8.7. Online Consultation
8.7.1. Logistics The Beyond Ottawa 20/20 web site (www.ottawa.ca/beyondottawa2020) was used to promote the public consultation activities and to provide browsers with information on the four network options. The Open House display boards were uploaded to the website, along with supporting materials, in both official languages for review and comment
8.7.2. Comment Summary-Online Consultation Comments were submitted to the City by email, mail and fax. Over 600 comments were received and are summarized in Tables 12, 13 & 14 of Appendix G and below:
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 67 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
Table 8-8: On-line Comments
Which downtown rapid transit option do you prefer?” Options Location
1 or 2 3 4 None Total Choices Made
Total* 27 111 413 88 631 Key Comments • Access to all citizens regardless of region
EW/NS/etc. • Tunnel is a good idea and eliminates congestion • LRT is the best for the environment • Option 4 is the best long term choice with the
ability to expand rail to outlying areas in the future
• Option 4 has the cheapest Operating and Maintenance costs
• Phase out reliance on fossil-fuel-burning buses • LRT will reduce the congestion going into and
out of downtown • Greater reliability • Streamlining of inner-greenbelt transit helps
improve liveability •LRT connection to ot• her areas (e.g. Barrhaven, Gatineau, Fallowfield Via Station) Accessibility is important •
• Convenience and reliability of transfers is important Tunnel pathw• ay and connections to shops, residences, buildings is important Bike paths and walkways along the • Transitway is
• k and rides for late night routes to
• uld be removed off Albert, Slater, t
g. bike paths,
• the system that will encourage the highest
• mart card system for all types of transit
nance costs nment
• the plan now; not in 30 years
essential Larger par
• Ongoing consideration service downtown core and entertainment destinations All buses sho Queen and Laurier downtown and should connec to bus station hubs
• The LRT should be faster than the bus, which will entice more transit riders
• Tunnel should only be accessible to LRT • Technology choice is important to investigate –
hybrid vs. electric vs. diesel • Eventual conversion/extension of LRT promotes
further environmental benefits • Increase development density • Land use planning is critical for transit planning • A solution for the Gatineau buses must be
considered • Concern about construction at transfer stations • Concern about construction disruption in
residential areas • Concern that disruption to service will result in
losses to ridership and increases in car use Must encourage acceptance of transferring •
• Determine elements that make transferring attractive (e.g. shopping, etc.) Accommodate multi-modal use (e.• bike stations, walkways and more Park and Rides) Choose ridership One pass/s
• Aim for high modal splits • Focus on decreasing mainte • Secure funding from other levels of gover • Make the planning process open and transparent
to citizens Implement
8.8. Mayor’s Streeter Survey
8.8.1. Logistics conducted during the week of March 17th to provide a brief snapshot of the
he Streeter Survey locations were selected to capture a diverse set of opinions, mostly from transit users.
asked them to participate in the brief questionnaire.
A Mayor’s Streeter Survey was public’s awareness and opinion of the City’s long-term transit plans. T Locations included downtown at the McKenzie King Bridge; the Eagleson Park and Ride Lot in Kanata; the Place d’Orléans Station transit shelter in Orléans; and the Fallowfield Park and Ride Lot in Barrhaven. The survey team approached various people at transit stations, bus stops, city parking lots and sidewalks, and
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 68 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
8.8.2. Comment Summary – Mayor’s Streeter Survey The Mayor’s Streeter Survey generated over 400 completed questionnaires. The following is an overview of the key findings:
• The majority of participants had heard about the downtown tunnel proposal and/or the four Downtown Rapid Transit Network Options
• Ottawa needs a light rail system to service its growing population • A connection to the airport is necessary • Light rail should be extended to service suburban communities such as Kanata, Orleans and
Barrhaven • It is more fiscally prudent to spend an increased amount upfront in capital costs to develop a transit
system, and spend less on operating and maintenance costs over the lifetime of the project • There is support for the tunnel and decongestion of the core • The light rail system should be phased so that it serves the demand
Key comments in reference to financing a transit system were as follows:
• A good system is needed now - spend the money to do it well • Do not increase taxes • Do not increase transit fees • More information is needed on the options and what the overall costs will be
8.9. Conclusions
In total, approximately 1,200 written comments were received through the Public Open Houses, Online Consultations and the Mayor's Streeter Survey consultation activities. Overall, a strong majority of the public and stakeholders indicated Option 4 as their preferred long-term transit solution for the City of Ottawa (approximately 70% of all comments received supported Option 4). Many people commented that Option 4 provides the highest quality of transit service; the best approach for urban intensification; the lowest operating costs; optimum long-term transit growth capacity; the most positive environmental, social and economic impacts; and the most favourable perceptions of Ottawa as the Nation's Capital City. While there was also support for Option 3 (approximately 22% of all comments received). Many suggested that this alternative could serve as a ‘staged’ implementation for ultimately developing Network Option 4. There was little to no support for Option 1 and Option 2 (approximately 3% of all comments received). People found these options to be the least sustainable and economically viable networks for the future. Few people were either undecided or did not prefer any of the four options (approximately 5% of all comments received).
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 69 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
M C R C
9.
e report sets out the criteria that have been used to assess the network options, provides a eta d nd
prov s The ne. The criteria have been applied to t velop a com eh After ea essment, whi e
The al d a common understanding of how they are e criteria are relative; that is, they measure the effectiveness of options rela nd the a able at the TMP stage criteria have been established that will allow for a comprehensive comparative evaluation. However more
g the environmental assessment and design stages to determine the details of alignment, station locations and localized impacts and mitigation. The criteria that are used in this evaluation
horough assessment.
1
Assessment of Network Options
This section of th d ile assessment of each option against each criteria, summarizes the evaluation of the four options a
ide conclusions and a recommended network option.
groupings of criteria are developed along with a description of each o he various features, aspects and considerations of each the four network options to de pr ensive assessment, using a common set of evaluation criteria.
ch network has been evaluated, the evaluations are compared to provide a summary ass ch l ads to the development of a recommended option.
9.1. Criteria for Consideration
ev uation of the network options requires a common set of criteria an measured. In many cases, th
tive to each other. Where possible, criteria that can provide objective measurements are calculated, a bsolute values are compared to provide the analysis. At the level of detail avail
work will be required durin
can be broken down into the following general headings:
• Transportation; • Natural environment; • Social/cultural environment, and • Capital and operating costs.
ach of these general headings contains a number of sub-criteria that will allow for a tE
9.1.1. Transportation actors considered under the transportation criteria are principally related to transit ridership potential, andF
include discussion of the ability of the network to meet transit mode split targets, accommodate growth beyond the planning horizon and attract the highest possible levels of ridership. Operating issues relate to the
hysical arrangement of the infrastructure elements and their effects on service reliability. The forecast 203p ridership is outlined in chapter 4 of the report and the physical layout of the network is described in chapters 5 and 6.
C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 70
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
M C R C
More s
• Accommodating forecast ridership
o Ability to attract additional peak hour ridership
o Reliability and ability to maintain required service levels
vided to service the forecast demand to 2031
arying potential for attracting ridership.
9.1.2. Natural Environment
ir quality calculations used the projected 2031 transit service hours for the various vehicle types and the emi n ble 9.1, below. Pollutants evaluated include;
• Nitrogen oxides (NOx), and
•
buses is on routes with short distances between stops where the bus is required to start and stop very equently. For the operation on the Transitway, it is unlikely that reductions in emissions will be as
substantial as the controlled vehicle testing indicates, however there will be measurable benefits.
pecifically the criteria include:
• Accommodating growth beyond the planning period o Additional capacity left after accommodating the forecast ridership
• Ridership attraction
o Ability to attract additional midday, evening, weekend and special event ridership o Perception of quality of service and its effect on attracting new riders
• Operating issues
o Physical constraints that limit potential operational expansion o Qualitative analysis of level of service pro
Each of the four options being considered has v
This group of criteria include impacts on air quality and groundwater. Air quality factors are the principal comparators under the natural environment criteria. Air quality was assessed based on the vehicle emissions produced and the air pollutants that are created including smog and greenhouse gases. At this stage an estimate of the amount of pollutants created in operating the full transit system are used to compare the options. Reductions in automobile vehicle-kilometres of travel (VKT) will offset the pollutants created by operating rapid transit however estimating these additional benefits is difficult given the diverse range of vehicles on the road and the range of emissions they create. A
ssio rates listed in Ta
• Carbon monoxide (CO), • Hydrocarbons (HC),
• Suspended particulates, including both PM 2.5 and PM 10 Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
The approach to estimate the GHG produced by each option was to estimate the annual VKT for each type of transit vehicle and apply the emission rates to determine the total annual emissions for each of the options. Controlled vehicle testing8, confirmed by operation of Hybrid-Electric Buses, indicate that they produce significantly less emissions than diesel buses, which in the individual vehicle testing can range up to a 90% reduction in CO, HC, PM 2.5 and PM 10 levels, and up to a 30% reduction in NOx. The major benefit to hybrid fr
8 Federal Transit Authority report entitled “Transit Bus Life Cycle Cost and Year 2007 Emissions Estimation, July 2007
C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 71
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
Table 9.1: Vehicle Emission Rates
LB Decision Economics Inc.)
(Source: H
Bus Light Rail Emission Rate (g/vkt) Diesel Hybrid Diesel9 Electric
CO 11.101 5.770 6.66 0 HC/VOC 1.030 0.539 0.62 0 NOx 8.398 4.365 5.04 0 SOx 0.348 0.281 0.21 0 PM 0.190 0.098 0.11 0 CO 1348.94 751.37 791.36 0 2
The vehicle emissions rates are for the emissions produced at the vehicle. For that reason the electric options
produce emissions at the power plant where the electricity is
0 is a standard measure of air pollution and
e a construct the tunnel and underground stations is also considered. The volu s roduced have been estimated for comparative purposes. All excavated mat l efore it is transported off site. The j the tunnel and station excavation. Some
ate l e tunnel portals and the station sites will be more varied and will include
have rates equal to zero, however they may produced depending on the electricity generator. Total emissions are still substantially lower than for diesel or gasoline vehicles as approximately 75% of Ontario’s electricity is produced without using fossil fuels. Smog is produced when fossil fuels are burned. It is composed of many pollutants with the main components being ground-level-ozone and particulate matter (PM). Ground-level ozone can be especially harmful for people with heart and lung conditions such as emphysema, bronchitis, and asthma. It can also cause eye and nose irritation and dries out the protective membranes of the nose and throat and interferes with the body's bility to fight infection, increasing susceptibility to illness. PM1a
elevated concentrations are associated with a variety of health risks and in particular, cardio-respiratory illnesses. Th m terial that is excavated to
be pme of material that will eria will be tested for contaminants b
ma ority of the material will co ria that is excavated at th
nsist of ground limestone from m concrete and asphalt from roads and sidewalks on the sites and fill and overburden over the limestone bedrock. While none of these areas are thought to contain contamination, a soils testing program will be implemented to verify that materials are disposed of properly. At this stage haul routes and disposal locations have not been considered. The use of salt to control ice and snow in the winter is another major impact on the natural environment. As the snow and ice melt, the salt is carried into the local sewers, streams and groundwater. While less salt is used now than has been used in the past, there are still significant quantities of salt in use. Salt will continued to be used at stations under all scenarios, to maintain safe winter operations.
M C R C
valuation. 9 O-Train is assumed to use 40% less fuel than a transit bus, based on information from Transport Canada’s pilot project e
C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 72
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
9.1.3. Social/Cultural Environment The social and cultural features th tions relate primarily to
e ability of each option to intera ell as to influence the form of rban development. It should be noted for this criteria group assessment that each of the primary rapid transit
network options a he same corr with the only distin ure being the extent of LRT used. The presence of -order transit, su RT sup evelopme a direct w by providing additional transp acity to a c ned urb ronment, allowing highe nsities. It also supports develop n an indirect wa at the pr of LRT lp create nvironments that are more attracti development, du e perceiv anenc the rail infrastructure, the convenience of access and the lifestyle s associ ith access Generally, the higher order the transit techno , the greater the ent im vitaliz dors and downtown centres
ith LRT project ude St. Louis, Ka ity and sé where t g suburbs with a dynamic urban
o the
Ottawa Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) guideline describes TOD as a mix of moderate to
ides opportunities for TOD. Option 4
Operating Costs
e number of stations. Costs for dges, grade separations and other structures were developed on a per square metre cost multiplied by the
size of the structure. This approach is industry standard at this level of conceptual design. Allowances for engineering and design as well as contingencies were added to the costs by section to arrive at the totals indicated. For buses and rail vehicles, an initial capital costs as well as a mid-life allowance for replacement vehicles required over the planning period was included.
at twork op ct with existing and future communities as w
distinguish each of the four primary ne th u
re comprised of t idors, guishing feat
higher ch as L ports d nt in ay, ortation cap onstrai an envi r de ment i y, in th esence can he urban e ve for e to th ed “perm e” of
benefit ated w to transit. logy s incl
developm nsas C
pact. Re San Jo
ation of corri hrivinw
core have developed. Higher density development has a variety of social, environmental, physical, and fiscal benefits. It makes better use of existing municipal services, it can assist in revitalizing struggling urban areas, and reduces the eed for travel. Consequently, if LRT has the potential to attract higher levels of development adjacent tn
corridor, then by reason it would have better potential to limit urban sprawl by contributing to a more compact, high-density city – resulting in more liveable and sustainable communities. BRT can create some of the same influences if the stations are properly developed and the service provides rapid, frequent and fast service to a large market area. There is less evidence that BRT is as successful in fostering the same level of intensification of development.
he City of T high-density transit-supportive land uses located within an easy walk of a rapid transit stop or station that is oriented and designed to facilitate transit use. LRT enhances opportunities for high-quality transit-oriented development encourages vibrant community centres. The proposed development of large multi-modal stations t Lincoln Fields, Baseline, Blair and Hurdman as part of options 3 prova
also includes TOD opportunities at Bowesville Station. LRT enhances property values and areas in the vicinity of light rail stations normally see an increase in land value (People for Modern Transit, Seattle (Adapted by Light Rail Progress) – March 2001). Generally, the options with the greater level of LRT service have the greater potential impact.
9.1.4. Capital and Capital and operating cost estimates for the full build-out of each option are presented in 2008 dollars. They are broken down and presented in more detail in Sections 9.5 and 9.6. The capital cost estimates were developed on an elemental basis, that is, the cost per metre of track or per
ation was developed and multiplied by the number of metres of track and thst bri
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 73 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
Operating costs were estimated for the entire OC Transpo system modelled to be in place for the planning e
ent of
atineau.
east e
of vehicles required to arry this peak hour passenger volume is:
• 153-174 double-deck or double-articulated buses, or
idor in downtown Ottawa.
hat the theoretical capacity of that tunnel is 145 buses per hour or 33 trains per hour. The train throughput was limited by the geometry of a
the ture tunnel design. As a comparison, a Transport and Road
spans from 140 to 195 for systems in urkey and Brazil. The Research Report suggests that for a fully segregated, high volume station, with 4 bus
period year, 2031. These were based on per kilometre and per hour costs for OC Transpo and comparabl systems in North America.
9.2. Assessment of Transportation Criteria
9.2.1. Accommodating Forecast Ridership Chapter 3 outlined the development of the travel demand forecasts, and chapter 4 outlined the developm the future ridership forecasts for the year 2031. To accommodate the forecast ridership the network option must carry:
• 12,800 to 15,600 west of the downtown (at LeBreton) • 11,300 to 13,700 east of the downtown (at Hurdman) • 8,500 from G
The range for west of downtown and east of downtown ridership depends on whether the South Transitway or O-Train corridor is used to carry the majority of passengers from the southern areas into th downtown. Table 4.3 indicates that based on the current OC Transpo loading standard, the number c
• 305-347 standard 40-foot buses, or • 196-223 articulated buses, or
• 51-58 LRTs (2-car train), or • 26-29 LRTs (4-car train).
Before the options can be analyzed, the maximum number of vehicles that can be carried in the various tunnel configurations needs to be assessed. There are very few BRT tunnels or, in fact, BRT systems that operate at the volumes currently operating on the Albert/Slater corr Research into the vehicle throughputs of various BRT configurations indicate that the Seattle tunnel, which operated as a bus-only facility and has now been converted to rail-based operation, is the only North American example of a BRT tunnel. A report done for King County indicates t
curve in tunnel, which is instructive for a fu
M C R C
Research Laboratory Research Report10 has looked at BRT throughput in a number of systems in developing cities outside North America. In that paper the range of bus volumes T bays and fare pre-payment the maximum number of buses per hour is 217. A likely maximum theoretical value for Ottawa is about 220 buses per hour or a bus every 16 seconds. The number of articulated buses required in the planning period is at the high end of the likely range
10 G. Gardner, PR Cornwell and JA Cracknell, “The Performance of Busway Transit in Developing Cities”, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, research Report 329, 1991.
C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 74
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
As a comparison, the existing surface operation in the Downtown is at capacity with a limit of approximately 180 vehicles per hour (eastbound in the afternoon with a mix of 37% articulated buses and the remainder standard buses). Transferring this operation to a tunnel with pre-paid fares will provide an improvement. However, bus services will also have to be considerably restructured from the existing operation providing
ansfers required.
While this type of high capacity bus operation can be scheduled it will be very difficult to sustain the required s on d require significant route supervision to attempt to
from entering the downtown. Automated information systems to assist passengers in positioning emselves on the platforms to facilitate boarding would also be required. Reducing the total number of
rout t t would increase the number of passenger tran rs
or rail systems the capacity will be determined by the tunnel geometry and the signal system that is used.
fewer bus routes directly into the downtown with more bus to bus tr
headway a regular basis. This type of operation woul ensure that the buses entered the downtown stations in 4-bus platoons on a regular basis and leave the platforms at the same time. Any lag in any in this very tight operation will have a repercussion effect and delay service th
es hrough the tunnel would also improve conditions, bu sfe required elsewhere in the system.
F Industry standard signal planning is based on a 90-second minimum headway, or 45 trains per hour. This level of throughput will be more than sufficient to carry the required passenger volumes.
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Bus Based Bus with NS LRT EW LRT EW & NS LRT
Transportation – Accommodating Forecast Ridership
Requires stations can easily be with; • 4 bus bays
accommodated
• Fare pre- payment
Theoretically could operate at
but will operate close to theoretical capacity
be accommodated be accommodated • Bus platoons
capacity
NS LRT vehicles
Buses may be accommodated
LRT vehicles can LRT vehicles can
Mix of bus and LRT traffic is unbalanced
Summary
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 75 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
9.2.2. Accommodating Growth beyond the Planning Period The evaluation in the previous section is informative for evaluating the ability to accommodate growth beyond the planning period. Both options 1 and 2 are at or near the theoretical capacity for bus volumes operating in the tunnel. Options 3 and 4 have extra capacity, and with the addition of additional cars or
rvice frequency can further increase passenger throughput. se As the investment in a downtown tunnel is a “100-year solution” or at the very least a generational solution, the ability to handle increased ridership is important. Unforeseen changes in travel behaviour including substantial increases in the cost of owning or operating a private vehicle are just one possibility. The increase in riders who make a conscious decision to reduce their energy consumption, or who choose to let someone else do the driving for their commute can also increase ridership.
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Bus Based Bus with NS LRT EW LRT EW & NS LRT
Transportation – Accommodating Growth beyond the Planning Period
accom grow e
addit
r
mor serv prov
nger trains and mo
pr
No flexibility to Minimal room for Longer trains and Lo modate
th beyond th planning period LRT component
has additional
ional buses
capacity but it is not required fo this option
e frequent ice can be ided
re frequent service can be
ovided
Summary
9.2.3. Ridersh tion The attractiveness of each of the options to ing discussed extensively in the transit planning community. Research to support the popul ail-based transit is more attractive to riders, does more to increase land values around statio ore likely to attract development is now starting to emerge. all influe at is also being rec gnized is that rail-b sed transit encourages lower rates of ca and can reduce th total vehicle-kilom of travel in a co unity.
ip Attrac new riders is be ar belief that r ns and is m
Another sm r ownership
nce th o a e etres mm
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 76 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
M C R C
Research conducted for the World Bank, completed in March 200311 used the U.S. 1990 Nationwide Personal tatio
• How does the supply of public transportation (annual route miles supplied and availability of transit
tial influence on vehicle miles of travel.
esearch conducted by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute12, in 1994, evaluated the benefits of rail transit in American cities and fou other thing
se public transit, use it more often, and w use ut
• Cities with r er t d tr • Vehicle own r tran
Various research stud done pa ransit sys djacent land va es. A number of studies have shown a n, that is, proximity to a station increases the value of property. However other studies h conclusions. Research is currently focussed on finding ways to undertake meta-studies14, he information in many other studies and standardize the analysis to determine an ov . The meta-studies are finding that there is a positive correlation, but that a number of factors, including highway access make the results uncertain. Th d to estim hip has found a similar correlation. was designe commodate the pe hour ridership in 2 1, the actual forecast ridership varies by tion. As
oted in the evaluation table below, Option 4 is estimated to generate 9% more riders than Option 1. The nalysis of the model results also indicate that the increased riders are moving from auto travel to transit
transpor n Survey to address two questions:
• How do measures of urban form, including city shape, road density, the spatial distribution of population, and jobs-housing balance affect annual miles driven and commute mode choice of U.S. households? and,
stops) affect miles driven and commute mode choice? The authors of the report found that jobs-housing balance, population centrality and rail miles supplied significantly reduce the probability of driving to work in cities with some rail transit. The influences are individually quite small, but when put together can have a substan R
nd, among s, that:
• People living close to rail stations were many times more likely to u ere more likely to ail transit had high ership rates are lowe
ies
rail transit to substit ransit mode splits an n cities with rail
e for car travel a higher number of sit
ct of urban t
ips per capita
tems on a
i
13 have been to quantify the im positive correlatio ave contradicting or studies that use t erall impact
lu
e model use d to ac
ate riders While each of the network options ak 03 op
n a travel. LRT service is also more likely to attract additional midday, evening and special event ridership for the same reasons identified in the Victoria Transport Policy Institute report. As the ridership model used in this evaluation specifically addresses the AM Peak Hour, this additional ridership is not included in the analysis.
11 Antonio M. Bento, Maureen L. Cropper, Ahmed Mushfiq Mobarak and Katja Vinha, “The Impact of Urban Spatial Structure on Travel Demand in the United States”, prepared for the World Bank Development Research Group, Infrastructure and Environment, March 2003. 12 Todd Litman, “Rail Transit in America, A Comprehensive Evaluation of Benefits”, published by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute with support from the American Public Transit Association, October 2004. 13 Parsons Brinkerhoff, “The Effect of Rail Transit on Property Values: A Summary of Studies”, Draft Report, February, 2001. Results are derived from a number of other quoted reports. 14 G. Debrezion, E. Pels and P. Rietveld, “The Impact of Railway Stations on Residential and Commercial Property Value”, 2004.
C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 77
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
The evaluation of the four options is outlined in Table 9.2.
Table 9.2: AM Peak Hour Ridership – City-wide
Forecast Planning Horizon (2031) Existing
AM Peak Hour Ridership 2007 BRT with O-Train
Option 1 BRT with Existing
O-Train
M C R C
(City-Wide)
Option 2 BRT with N-S LRT Extension
Option 3 E-W LRT with
Existing O-Train
Option 4 E-W LRT and
N-S LRT Extension
City-Wide Transit Ridership (% growth over 2007 levels) 44,500 76,400 (72%) 76,900 (73%) 78,700 (77%) 79,200 (78%)
City-Wide Mode Split 23% 29.3% 29.5% 30.2% 30.4%
Growth in Ridership (% growth over Option 1) 31,900 32,400 (2%) 34,200 (7%) 34,700 (9%)
he assessment of ridership attraction is summarized as follows: T
Option 1 Bus Based
Option 2 Bus with NS LRT
Option 3 EW LRT
Option 4 EW & NS LRT
Transportation – Ridership Attraction
(Growth of 31,900 trips)
Limited potential
2% more than Option 1)
Some potential
7% more than Option 1)
Greater potential
9% more than Option 1)
Greatest potential
Base ridership of 76,400 trips
Ridership of 76,900 trips
Ridership of 78,700
Ridership of 79,20
(Growth of 32,400, (Growth of 34,200, 0 trips
(Growth of 34,700,
Summary
9.2.4. Operating Issues This criterion focuses on how the options will function on a day-to-day basis. Emphasis is placed on how the vehicles and passengers interact, and whether the service that can be provided will be reliable and robust. OC Transpo customers, like all transit users, place a premium on fast and reliable service. The Albert Slater section of the Transitway currently experiences reliability problems. The number of buses has been reduced to manage congestion, yet delays still happen. There are several reasons why bus the current service is less reliable than the proposed rapid transit tunnel, including:
• Fare payment and transfer checking is done on-board the vehicle, increasing the average boarding time per passenger and the variability of average boarding time;
C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 78
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
• Boarding does not effectively use all vehicle doors, resulting in uneven dwell times; • Buses arrive in random patterns and passengers have to walk along the platform (often in conflicting
direction to other pas • Buses have to move in a coordinated fashion with the other buses operating around them, leading to
duced productivity as reaction time, vehicle manoeu eleration
In Op bus pa t e on, w elp add he bu issues; however in Option 2 th the o meaning will h ter t tunnel and follow in platoon from one end to the other. There may be some potential for buses to use the LRT
mited a ber o es. I e jo bus he same lane, the safety concerns required that all vehicles slow down, reducing the cap f the tunn
d 4, LRT movements in the tunnel will be controlled by a signal system. This system will ng distances between train w for b ance t hieve
mixed operation or under unsignalized operation.
Option 4 trains serving both the west and south LRT lines will use the same platform. The introduction of ultiple branch lines into the tunnel will not impact operations if the rail junctions are designed to
tems, including clear signage and nnouncem ts will reduc ate any im ms wo operate mul m a
single plat rm.
sengers) to access the bus route they want; and,
re vrability, and acceleration and dec rates vary.
tion 1, there is a s asing lane
e LRT is in ach station locati
ther lane hich will h ress some of t
ave to queue to en s
that buses he
lane, but this will be li trains was proposed in t
s the num f trains increas n Seattle, wher int operation of es and
throughput and affecting
acity o el.
In Options 3 an maintain safe operati s and allo etter perform han can be ac d in a
In m accommodate the required movements. Passenger information sys a en
fo e or elimin pacts. Many syste rldwide tiple lines fro
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 79 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
M C R C
Option 1 Bus Based
Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Bus with NS LRT EW LRT EW & NS LRT
Transportation – Operating Issues
Operating at capacity will mean that the service reliability is substantially reduced
operating close to capacity, which may alleviate some of the reliability issues however the loss of the passing lane wil
Buses will be
l affect
e LRT lane will require
Signalized system will operate well
Signalized system will operate well
Small delays will cascade through the system causing larger delays well
service Allowing buses to use th
after the first delay is cleared reduced operating
speed, affecting capacity
Summary
9.2.5. Summary
Option 1 Bus Based
Option 2 Bus with NS LRT
Option 3 EW LRT
Option 4 EW & NS LRT
Transportation
Accommodating Forecast Transit Ridership Accommodating Growth Beyond the Planning Period
Ridership Attraction
Operating Issues
Transportation Summary
C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 80
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
9.3. Assessment ral Env nt Crite
9.3.1 The estimated vehicle kilometres for all O rvices in each of the four options were used to calculate the total emissions generated. Th onsider the reductions in emissions that result from the different rid that eac ve. In the next phase of the study, when the secondary transit facil v el by automobile will be estimated by the model and used to est n in ributed to increase transit travel.
of Natu ironme ria
. Air Quality C Transpo se
ese values do not c h option will achie ehicle kilometres of trav
vehicle emissions att
ership levels ities are defined, the imate the reductio
Option 1 Bus Based
Option 2 Bus with NS LRT
Option 3 Option 4 EW LRT EW & NS LRT
Natural Environme r Quality nt – Ai
O
O x
00 kg PM 88,880 t CO2
646,900 kg CO
Ox x
O2
557,300 kg CO 52,200 kg HC
421,700 kg NOx 27,200 kg SOx 9,600 kg PM
72,560 t CO2
512,000 kg CO 47,800 kg HC
387,300 kg NOx 25,000 SOx 8,800 kg PM
66,665 t CO2
682,800 kg C 63,900 kg HC
516,500 kg N 33,300 kg SO 11,8
x
60,400 kg HC 489,400 kg N 31,600 kg SO 11,100 kg PM 84,230 t C
Summary
9.3.2. Excavated Mate he material that will be excav
rial ated for the tunnels, the portals and the stations will have to be removed from
e downtown area. Assumptions used to create the conceptual cost estimates can be used to determine the approximat ount of materi ated.
ons, a 6 metre diameter tunnel was assumed to accommodate a single LRT track. This will vehicles commercially available. The LRT options also assume three stations.
mbined BR el is assum d to be a 10 metre ter to accommodate the bus ption 1 or the bus lane and LRT lane in Option 2. This added tunnel size has a substantial
f at will be excavated. The LRT tu els will generate app imately etres of material, whereas the larger BR d combined BRT/LRT tunnels will generate
approximately 390,000 cubic metres based on two 2.5 km tunnels.
The size of the stations will vary depending on the construction technique and the depth of the stations. For this evaluation the size is assumed to be similar for Options 1, 3 and 4. The combined BRT/LRT operation in
larger stations to accommodate the adde platform requirements.
T th
e am al to be excav
For the LRT opti fit the majority of LRT The BRT and co T/LRT tunn e diame passing lane in O impact on the quantity o 140,000 cubic m
material th nn rox T an
Option 2 requires d
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 81 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
M C R C
Option 1
Bus Based Option 2
Bus with NS LRT Option 3 EW LRT
Option 4 EW & NS LRT
Natural Environment – Excavated Materials
Tunnels: 390,000 cu. m. Stations: 3 standard stations
Tunnels: 390,000 cu. m. Stations: 3 larger stations (to accommodate
Tunnels: 140,000 cu. m. Stations: 3 standard stations
Tunnels: 140,000 cu. m. Stations: 3 standard stations
extra platforms)
Summary
Use of Salt The use of salt has been estim he tec d. Sal n each lt snow and ice at stations, and way po etwork uired f cks except in areas where the track bed is surfaced to allow emergency vehicle access. If all of the track bed is hard s ll be a sma ut significant redu tion in salt use as th standard for sno g will be less for infrequent emergency u e than for full BRT use.
9.3.3. ated based on t hnology selecte t will be used i scenario to me
on the Transit rtions of the n . No salt is req or the LRT tra
urfaced there will sti ll b s
c e clearinw
Option 1
Bus Based Option 2
Bus with NS LRT Option 3 EW LRT
Option 4 EW & NS LRT
Natural Environment – Use of Salt
Highest use Second highest use Second lowest use Lowest use
Summary
C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 82
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
M C R C
9.3.4. Summary
Option 1 Bus Based
Option 2 NS LRT
Option 3 LRT
Option 4 Bus with EW EW & NS LRT
Natural Environment
Air Quality
Excavated Materials
Salt Use
Natural Environment Summary
9.4. Assessment of Social/Cultural Environment Criteria
9.4.1. Property and Development Criteria One of the most importan id tran will hav to its im jacent properties. Improved rap prove e stati d the d ition the station sites can serve as cing th pacts on In the same way that utility servicing, roads and highways improve neighbourhoods and increase their value, rapi transit service ca ilar ca is d re, however there are some conclusions that can be drawn:
s 1 an BRT services using the downtown will be operating se to their theoretical capacity by 2031. As demand for travel increases and the reliability of the BRT system is reduced due to high demand there will additional pressure to add service back to the surface. This will impact the potential redevelopment opportunities in the Downtown, particularly along Albert and Slater Streets.
• Access to Downtown is improved through convenient access to rapid transit. Congestion and reliability problems associated with near-capacity operation of BRT will make that access less convenient.
t impacts a rap sit system e is related reas a
pact on ad id transit im
potential TOD s accessibility to th sites, further enhan
on a n e positive im
owntown. In add property.
d n have a sim effect. The quantifi tion of this impact ifficult to measu
• In Option e d 2, th tunnel clo
C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 83
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
M C R C
Option 1
Bus Based Option 2
Bus with NS LRT Option 3 EW LRT
Option 4 EW & NS LRT
Social/ ultural Environm ty and ent CriteC ent – Proper Developm ria
Continuation with the current
technology will encourage r
property and development
pattern
Introduction of some LRT will encourage mo development i
those areas
ubstan network will encourage a substan amount
property and devel
in
Largest LRT network with the greatest potential
to encou property and devel
in
re n
S tial LRT
tial of simila
rage
opment terest opment terest s
Summary
9.4.2. Culture and National Capital Image Criteria general LRT is perceived to have more prestige than buses and so tends to receive more public support as
was evident by the public support of Option 4 and the suggestions that the LRT be extended beyond the ed higher quality ride on, the presence of a
m LRT syste , projecting a strong national capital image of Ottawa ld cl n.
inations nd good rapid transit connection to other major destinations within the City. Options 2 and 4 have direct
In
Greenbelt and to the outlying communities. This attraction is attributed to the perceiv provided by LRT, being faster, quieter and more comfortable than buses. In additi
odern m aids Ottawa’s vital tourism sector as a wor ass G-8 Capital and international tourist destinatio Direct rail service to the Airport from the Downtown is also a major transportation objective for many cities in the world. The benefits include a stronger tourist and business travel link to important central dest a LRT service to the Airport. Option 1
Bus Based Option 2
Bus with NS LRT Option 3 EW LRT
Option 4 EW & NS LRT
So l/cia Cultural – Cultural and National Capital Image
Capital Image
Public Support
Direct Airport Service
Summary
C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 84
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
9.4.3. Noise and Vibration Noise pollut n can be des unde noys terferes ion, disturbs sleep or rest or ca rin a nu urces, i l and air tr
“Almost 37% hey w extr y no from road traffic. to rate ey we ffi noise on a scal the 2.14 an ra was 1.00, sugg a ered at lightly b road noise. The e p hered d by s age category, inc n, work unity s .”
Traffic Noise Outside the Home: HealthIns December 2002 Noise can affect the qua existing and futur ents with ect to the enjoym the indoor living space and the outdoor amenity environment. Noi e levels of the various options have been ed on qualitative basis for the purposes of comparison and in general, buses produce more noise than LRT. A
detailed analysis of the actual levels adjacent to sensitive receptors (i.e., households) will need to be done uture
receptors are an issue.
io c uses loss of hea
ribed as an sirab hat an g. It can come from
le sound t people, in wi nicat ncluding road, rai
th commu mber of so
affic and construction and industrial activities
of Canadians said t When asked
e from zero to ten, esting that 50% of C
xtent to which res ome, educatio
ere slightly to how bothered th mean rating was
nadians are both ondents were bot
status, comm
emely bothered b re with road tra and the medi least very s
by noise varie ize and region
ider No. 8,
ise c ting
y ex,
M C R C
lity of life of e resid s
resp ent of assess
a
during f assessments. The pass-by noise levels for rail and bus transit technologies are very similar, with electric LRT being slightly quieter (typically in the range of 72 dB versus 74 dB). With respect to acceleration/deceleration, LRT vehicles will be noticeably quieter than existing buses on the street (typically 60-65 dB for LRT versus 70-75 dB for buses). For diesel engines, this increase in ambient noise is quite intrusive whereas electric LRT vehicles have no noticeable start-up/acceleration sound increase. Vibration levels for the buses, being lighter vehicles, will be less than those of the heavier LRT vehicles. While higher than that of buses (except where buses cross a structural expansion joint, drainage catch basin or utility access cover and create a vibration from the impact), the typical LRT vibration is not intrusive and can be mitigated where sensitive
Option 1 Bus Based
Option 2 Bus with NS LRT
Option 3 EW LRT
Option 4 EW & NS LRT
Social/Cultural Environment – Noise and Vibration
Large proportio he networ -
based
Less bus-based activity tha
Opti however st routes rema
bus-b
Similar to Op on 4, but with more bus-base rvice
in the sout
Sma proportio he networ -
based
st n of t
k is bus
n ti llest on 1, busi
n of t k is be
in usd se
h ased
Summary
C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 85
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
9.4.4. Summary
Option 1 Bus Based
Option 2 Bus with NS LRT
Option 3 EW LRT
Option 4 EW & NS LRT
Social/Cultural Environment
Propert Develo
y and pment
Culture Capital
and National Image
Noise and Vibration
Social/Cultural Summary
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 86 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
9.5. Capital Costs
V mates for each of the four options are provided in Table 6.1 for comparative pu nclude engineering and contingency costs, but make no allowance for property costs. Details are included in Appendix F.
Table 9.3: Capital Cost Estimate for OC Transpo (in Millions of $)
ery preliminary capital cost esti rposes only. These estimates i
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Section tion BRT Tunnel
BRT / LRT Tunnel
(NS LRT)
M C R C
Descrip LRT Tunnel (E&W
Downtown LRT)
(E&W Downtown + NS
LRT)
Bayview to Hurdman (excluding Tunnel) $49 $68 $112 $112Central
Downtown Downtown Tunnel $780 $1032 $555 $555
West Downtown Baseline to Bayview $22 $22 $237 $237
East Downtown Blair to Hurdman 0 0 $97 $97
South Downtown
Bayview to Bowesville Including Airport Link $100 $435 $100 $435
South Transitway
Barrhaven Town Centre to Bowesville $100 $100 $100 $100
West Transitway
From Southwest Transitway to Kanata $338 $338 $338 $338
Southwest Transitway
Cambrian to Baseline $180 $180 $180 $180
Southeast Transitway
Greenboro to Hurdman Includes Hospital Link $44 $44 $44 $44
East Transitways
Blair to Trim & Blair to Millennium $239 $239 $239 $239
LRT Maintenance Facilities $100 $100 $200
Bus Maintenance Facilities $300 $240 $120 $120
Infrastructure Sub-Total $ 2,152 $ 2,798 $ 2,222 $ 2,657
LRT Vehicles 0 $140 $750 $890
Initial Fleet $800 $720 $400 $320 BRT Vehicles* Replacement Vehicles $600 $540 $200 $160
Vehicles Sub-Total $1,400 $1,400 $1,350 $1,370
TOTAL $3,552 $4,198 $3,572 $4,027
C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 87
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
M C R C
* Note: that the capital cost estimates presented above include an allowance for vehicle replacement costs. onger than buses. Therefore, in order to compare the vehicle costs between the ould also need to be considered. A 30 year period was assumed in determining
the replacement fleet. For options 1 & 2, where all or most of the existing express buses continue to run
Operatin
The bus and LRT vehicle requirements for t ions used t 2031 vehi ppendix were used to estimate the operating cost of each scenario. These peak hour vehicle requirements also epresent peak hours. The hou ortion o re nd an
vehicle hours for each of the vehicle types ed. Hourly operatin ses, high capac uses and LRT v e applie e annual
cle hours for s used for this analysis are $105 per h r for standard buse $115 per hour for high cap per car-hour RT vehicles. bers represen dollars. The bus costs a at OC Transp rently uses in s e planning and sis. The
T cost come algary and is 2008 operating t per car-hou includes maintenance costs. four car train of L T vehicles is used, e actual operatin st of that
ain-set would be $6
e following ults of this analysis.
Cost of Rapid Transit Options for the Year 2031
Typically LRT vehicles last l options, replacement buses w
downtown, it is assumed that ¾ of the buses would need to be replaced over the 30 years. For options 3 & 4, only ½ of the buses would need to be replaced within the 30 year time frame.
9.6. g Costs
he four opt o develop cle costs (A D)
r hour vehicle- rs were prop being consider
ally expanded t present daily a nual
g costs for standard bu ity b ehicles wer ou
d to th s, vehi each vehicle. The cost
acity buses and $172 for L All num t 2008 re representative of wh s from the City of C
o cur the
ervic cos
analy r and LR
This means that if a 88 per hour15.
R th g co tr
Th table summarizes the res
Table 9.4: Operating
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
BRT Tunnel
BRT / LRT Tunnel
(NS LRT)
LRT Tunnel (E&W
Dow ntown LRT)
(E&W Downto wn +
NS LRT)
Operat $ 47 $ 45 $ 43ing Costs $ 485 M 2 M 3 M 4 M
A more detailed determination of operational costs is ed in Appendi
includ x F.
15 Hourly costs for LRT operation include a component for the operator. The hourly cost assumes a mix of single and multi-unit trains and accounts for the fact that there will not be an operator required for each vehicle hour but each average train hour.
C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 88
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
9.7. Evaluation Summary
Based on the assessment summary presented above, a relative comparison of each of the 4 primary rapid transit network options was undertaken based on the previously discussed evaluation criteria. The results of this evaluation are presented in the following table:
Option 1 Bus Based
Option 2 Bus with NS
Option 3 EW LRT
Option 4 EW & NS
LRT LRT Evaluation Summary
Transportation
Natural Environment
Social/Cultural Environment
Capital Costs $3,552 M $4,198 M $3,572 M $4,027 M
Operating Costs $ 434 M $ 485 M $ 472 M $ 453 M
Results
9.8. and mmen
Based on the analysis of the long-range issues in the downtown and the assessment of the options the following conclusions can be drawn: • Projected long-range transit ridership volumes into downtown Ottawa cannot be accommodated on the
surface streets, consequently a grade separated solution is required; • Elevated options were previously reviewed and rejected. This previous rationale has been reviewed and
remains valid, thereby, leaving underground options as the only possibility; • A transit tunnel is required through the Downtown; • Any “west of Downtown” LRT should be extended at least to Lincoln Fields and Baseline Stations to
minimize bus to rail transfer volumes; and, • Any “east of Downtown” LRT should be extended at least to Blair Station in order to minimize bus to
rail transfer volumes.
Conclusions Reco dations
9.8.1. Conclusions
M C R C C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 89 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
April 2008
M C R C
• Any “south of Downtown” LRT should be extended to Bowesville in order to provide a connection to the onnect to the preferred maintenance yard site selected at Bowesville
• Network Option 4 is the preferred long-term primary rapid transit network option, offering the greatest
ts; o highest annual ridership; o lowest nega n the en a result t greenh
emissions ount ntami o best overall quality of rapid transit over the entire City;
l image of the City as a world capital including a direct and attractive rail from the airport to downtown and the parliament precinct for visiting tourists
and world dele ns; and, most direct rail con s between key City destination
essment work included in this report, which developed ridership forecasts for the 2031
passeng ws in the downtow develope etwork and e downtown needs, it is recommended that:
opt an “inside- roach to r ntation. T cus of ra
implementation should start in the Downtown and radiate out across the urban area. ich includes c g an LRT he Downto ast and W wn rth-South LR ed as the id transit net o year 2031 hich
to build the remaining transportation components of the Transportation Master Plan. 4 be recognized as a um network and that through the di of Council, ility of funding, additional gments of Transitway be converted to LRT if growth and ride hip
forecasts support such conversion.
3.1.1. Next Steps the adoption of the recommendations
ary corridors will play, and which of th d for implementation over the planning period. Work will also proceed on
e merits of each corridor segment to assist in developing an
Airport, serve Riverside South and c Rd.
benefit and value to the city. While the long-term capital cost of this option is the most expensive, it provides a number of major benefits to the City. This system results in the:
o lowest future annual operating cos
tive impact o vironment as of the lowes ouse gas and the least am of winter salt co
service nation;
o best overal connection
gatio o nection s.
9.8.2. Recommendations Based on the ass planning period, assessed options to meet th
lo n, and r ner f d fou technology
1. Council ad to-out” app ail impleme hat is, the fo il
2. Option 4, wh LRT plus No
onstructin T, be select
Tunnel in t primary rap
wn, and E work (t
est downto ) upon w
3. Option availab
minim rection and the se rs
There are still several stages to completing the TMP update. With outlined below work will proceed to define the roles that the second
ose corridors will be recommende developing a framework to assess th implementation and phasing plan.
C ORMICK ANKIN ORPORATION Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study 90
Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIN ANKIN ANKIN ANKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfrTransportation InfrTransportation InfrTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Aastructure Requirement Study Aastructure Requirement Study Aastructure Requirement Study A1111 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
Appendix A: Existing & Future Population & Employment
Distribution of Existing and Future 2031 Population and Employment by Planning District
Population Employment
District Location Base Year 2031 % Growth Base Year 2031 % Growth
Ottawa Centre 8,300 15,600 88% 94,200 109,000 16%
Ottawa Inner Area 87,500 102,900 18% 59,700 72,000 21%
Ottawa East 54,900 55,500 1% 25,400 27,800 9%
Beacon Hill 32,900 46,000 40% 21,800 28,800 32%
Alta Vista 80,900 85,900 6% 75,500 91,100 21%
Hunt Club 56,100 59,200 6% 19,900 28,400 43%
Merivale 78,200 81,000 4% 56,100 61,000 9%
Ottawa West 50,000 57,200 14% 36,700 41,900 14%
Bayshore/Cedarview 84,300 82,500 -2% 39,300 45,500 16%
Greenbelt Subtotal 533,100 585,800 10% 428,600 505,500 18%
Orleans 99,000 123,500 25% 17,900 35,000 96%
South Gloucester/ Leitrim 9,500 44,600 369% 4,400 12,900 193%
South Nepean 55,100 103,000 87% 5,400 36,400 574%
Kanata/Stittsville 88,400 162,200 83% 43,600 77,000 77%
Urban
Outside Greenbelt Subtotal 252,000 433,300 72% 71,300 161,300 126%
Rural East 12,100 13,700 13% 3,000 4,800 60%
Rural Southeast 25,000 36,200 45% 5,600 10,000 79%
Rural Southwest 25,000 34,800 39% 7,700 12,500 62%
Rural West 23,600 31,900 35% 5,500 8,900 62% Rural
Subtotal 85,700 116,600 36% 21,800 36,200 66%
City of Ottawa - Total 870,800 1,135,700 30% 521,600 703,000 35%
Ile de Hull 11,500 15,000 30% 25,100 49,600 98% QC
Gatineau & MRC - Total 279,200 368,200 32% 102,600 163,000 59%
National Capital Area (ON & QC) 1,150,000 1,503,900 31% 624,300 866,000 39%
Base Year is used consistently throughout this report to reference the common set of OD Survey data, employment and population data, and ground traffic/transit ridership counts used in both the model calibration and validation to base year conditions (2005-2006). Note also that the geography used in presenting information by planning district within the long range planning model differs slightly from the aggregations used in the Official Plan. Rounding may also introduce slight differences when compared with other city data sources.
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIN ANKIN ANKIN ANKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure RequiremTransportation Infrastructure RequiremTransportation Infrastructure RequiremTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Bent Study Bent Study Bent Study B1111 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
Appendix B: 2003 Transportation Master Plan - Rapid Transit Network
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIN ANKIN ANKIN ANKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfrasTransportation InfrasTransportation InfrasTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Ctructure Requirement Study Ctructure Requirement Study Ctructure Requirement Study C DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
Appendix C: Existing and Future Trip Tables
C1 – Base Year - Motorized Person Trips
C2 – Forecast 2031 Planning Horizon – Motorized Person Trips
C3 – Forecast Percentage Growth 2031 Planning Horizon – Motorized Person Trips
C4 – Base Year – Transit Trips
C5 – Forecast 2031 Planning Horizon – Transit Trips
C6 – Forecast Percentage Growth 2031 Planning Horizon – Transit Trips
C7 – Base Year – Transit Trip Mode Split
C8 – Forecast 2031 Planning Horizon – Transit Trip Mode Split
C9 – Base Year – Auto Vehicle Trips
C10 – Forecast 2031 Planning Horizon – Auto Vehicle Trips
C11 – Forecast Percentage Growth 2031 Planning Horizon – Auto Vehicle Trips
C12 – Base Year – Auto Person Trips
C13 – Forecast 2031 Planning Horizon – Auto Person Trips
C14 – Forecast Percentage Growth 2031 Planning Horizon – Auto Person Trips (All tables are a.m. Peak Hour)
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIN ANKIN ANKIN ANKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfraTransportation InfraTransportation InfraTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Cstructure Requirement Study Cstructure Requirement Study Cstructure Requirement Study C1111 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network and Network and Network and Network ImplicationsImplicationsImplicationsImplications
Existing and Future 2031 Person Trip Tables by Planning District
C-1 BASE YEAR Motorized Person Trips (a.m. Peak Hour)
O tt a w a I n n e r A re a
O tt a w a E a s t
B e a c o n H il l
A lt a V is ta
H u n t C lu b
M e ri v a le
O tt a w a W e s t
B a y s h o re /C e d a rv ie w
G re e n b e lt S u b to ta l
O rl e a n s
S o u th G lo u c e s te r/
L e it ri m
S o u th N e p e a n
K a n a ta /S ti tt s v il le
O u ts id e G re e n b e lt
Il e d e H u ll
A ll D is tr ic ts
6,890 870 510 1,820 470 1,440 910 700 13,600 290 50 70 510 930 14,700 50 2,050 16,700
3,470 1,750 1,010 1,610 180 610 330 250 9,200 340 70 20 180 610 9,900 270 840 10,800
1,920 700 1,400 1,070 90 320 210 140 5,800 450 20 20 110 590 6,500 150 360 6,900
4,830 960 790 4,460 810 1,240 460 450 14,000 550 70 120 300 1,030 15,200 260 800 16,000
2,830 330 310 2,720 1,590 1,250 360 360 9,800 180 160 70 220 630 10,700 290 470 11,100
4,410 440 250 1,640 500 4,460 1,370 1,550 14,600 160 120 360 770 1,410 16,300 330 780 17,100
2,440 250 160 750 130 1,330 1,630 900 7,600 120 30 90 370 610 8,300 280 690 9,000
3,410 310 220 1,130 330 2,700 1,460 4,020 13,600 140 80 420 1,470 2,120 16,000 350 760 16,800
30,200 5,600 4,600 15,200 4,100 13,400 6,700 8,400 88,200 2,200 600 1,200 3,900 7,900 97,600 2,000 6,800 104,300
5,180 1,360 1,900 2,710 320 1,000 560 470 13,500 6,660 130 120 270 7,180 21,100 490 1,070 22,200
370 40 30 290 180 240 60 80 1,300 20 230 40 50 340 1,800 50 90 1,900
1,950 200 120 910 340 1,780 530 1,280 7,100 100 80 2,530 720 3,430 10,800 150 370 11,200
2,710 300 150 900 250 1,550 530 2,220 8,600 120 50 250 7,340 7,760 17,000 210 470 17,500
10,200 1,900 2,200 4,800 1,100 4,600 1,700 4,000 30,500 6,900 500 2,900 8,400 18,700 50,700 900 2,000 52,700
42,600 8,000 7,200 21,400 5,700 19,300 8,800 13,500 126,600 9,800 1,400 4,600 14,300 30,100 163,400 3,000 9,200 172,600
Ile de Hull 660 80 50 120 20 130 130 70 1,300 30 0 10 40 90 1,400 230 930 2,300
All Districts 9,340 1,220 840 2,180 420 1,490 1,450 750 17,700 460 160 90 540 1,230 19,200 4,580 33,000 52,100
52,000 9,200 8,000 23,600 6,200 20,800 10,300 14,200 144,300 10,300 1,500 4,600 14,900 31,300 182,600 7,610 42,200 225,000
Outside Greenbelt Subtotal
Orleans
South Gloucester/ Leitrim
South Nepean
Kanata/Stittsville
Merivale
Ottawa West
Bayshore/Cedarview
Greenbelt Subtotal
Alta Vista
Hunt Club
Urban Area (Greenbelt) Urban Area Outside Greenbelt
U rb a n A re a ( G re e n b e lt )
Total Person Trips - Base Year
Ottawa Inner Area
Ottawa East
Beacon Hill
N a ti o n a l C a p it a l A re a
National Capital Area
U rb a n A re a
O u ts id e
G re e n b e lt
City of Ottawa - Total
Gatineau & MRC
C it y o f O tt a w a - T o ta l
Gatineau & MRC
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIN ANKIN ANKIN ANKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfraTransportation InfraTransportation InfraTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Cstructure Requirement Study Cstructure Requirement Study Cstructure Requirement Study C2222 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network and Network and Network and Network ImplicationsImplicationsImplicationsImplications
Existing and Future 2031 Person Trip Tables by Planning District
C-2 FORECAST 2031 PLANNING HORIZON Motorized Person Trips (a.m. Peak Hour)
O tt a w a I n n e r A re a
O tt a w a E a s t
B e a c o n H il l
A lt a V is ta
H u n t C lu b
M e ri v a le
O tt a w a W e s t
B a y s h o re /C e d a rv ie w
G re e n b e lt S u b to ta l
O rl e a n s
S o u th G lo u c e s te r/
L e it ri m
S o u th N e p e a n
K a n a ta /S ti tt s v il le
O u ts id e G re e n b e lt
Il e d e H u ll
A ll D is tr ic ts
6,950 740 600 2,050 560 1,370 940 700 13,900 480 100 210 710 1,500 15,610 50 870 16,480
3,410 1,420 1,150 1,810 210 580 340 230 9,200 460 90 40 260 850 10,180 520 1,240 11,420
2,370 810 2,050 1,470 160 380 270 180 7,700 770 30 60 190 1,050 8,860 360 920 9,780
5,150 940 910 5,250 980 1,250 530 470 15,500 770 170 310 430 1,670 17,430 500 1,260 18,690
2,830 290 320 2,750 1,780 1,180 380 360 9,900 230 280 190 280 970 11,220 490 740 11,960
4,380 400 270 1,730 580 4,340 1,460 1,530 14,700 230 260 750 1,070 2,300 17,330 610 1,190 18,520
2,700 250 200 910 160 1,320 1,940 960 8,400 190 50 170 500 910 9,480 610 1,200 10,670
3,360 280 230 1,210 340 2,360 1,520 3,830 13,100 170 110 690 1,770 2,740 16,220 560 1,010 17,230
31,200 5,100 5,700 17,200 4,800 12,800 7,400 8,300 92,400 3,300 1,100 2,400 5,200 12,000 106,300 3,700 8,400 114,800
5,340 1,300 2,120 3,050 380 920 630 470 14,200 10,470 180 220 360 11,240 26,030 850 1,730 27,770
1,090 80 140 1,030 880 740 210 280 4,500 170 2,480 1,230 270 4,140 9,340 320 540 9,880
2,600 300 150 1,340 590 2,250 670 1,810 9,700 250 1,150 8,620 1,760 11,780 22,040 380 970 23,010
3,810 390 250 1,320 440 1,960 750 2,990 11,900 290 230 1,580 16,990 19,080 32,200 600 1,500 33,690
12,800 2,100 2,700 6,700 2,300 5,900 2,300 5,600 40,300 11,200 4,000 11,600 19,400 46,200 89,600 2,100 4,700 94,400
47,000 7,800 8,800 25,800 7,800 20,300 10,200 15,100 142,900 15,500 5,700 15,000 27,500 63,800 217,200 6,200 13,900 231,100
Ile de Hull 730 90 70 150 30 140 140 80 1,400 60 10 20 70 150 1,580 500 1,550 3,130
All Districts 11,770 1,840 1,740 3,370 610 1,820 1,880 1,010 24,000 1,300 220 380 980 2,870 27,320 7,920 47,400 74,700
58,740 9,630 10,590 29,170 8,450 22,140 12,060 16,140 166,900 16,780 5,970 15,410 28,470 66,630 244,550 14,110 61,300 306,000
N a ti o n a l C a p it a l A re a
National Capital Area
U rb a n A re a
O u ts id e
G re e n b e lt
City of Ottawa - Total
Gatineau & MRC
C it y o f O tt a w a - T o ta l
Gatineau & MRC
U rb a n A re a ( G re e n b e lt )
Total Person Trips - 2031
Urban Area (Greenbelt) Urban Area Outside Greenbelt
Ottawa Inner Area
Ottawa East
Beacon Hill
Alta Vista
Hunt Club
Merivale
Ottawa West
Bayshore/Cedarview
Greenbelt Subtotal
Orleans
South Gloucester/ Leitrim
South Nepean
Kanata/Stittsville
Outside Greenbelt Subtotal
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIN ANKIN ANKIN ANKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfraTransportation InfraTransportation InfraTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Cstructure Requirement Study Cstructure Requirement Study Cstructure Requirement Study C3333 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network and Network and Network and Network ImplicationsImplicationsImplicationsImplications
Existing and Future 2031 Person Trip Tables by Planning District
C-3 FORECAST PERCENTAGE GROWTH 2031 PLANNING HORIZON Motorized Person Trips (a.m. Peak Hour)
O tt a w a I n n e r A re a
O tt a w a E a s t
B e a c o n H il l
A lt a V is ta
H u n t C lu b
M e ri v a le
O tt a w a W e s t
B a y s h o re /C e d a rv ie w
G re e n b e lt S u b to ta l
O rl e a n s
S o u th G lo u c e s te r/
L e it ri m
S o u th N e p e a n
K a n a ta /S ti tt s v il le
O u ts id e G re e n b e lt
Il e d e H u ll
A ll D is tr ic ts
1% -15% 18% 13% 19% -5% 3% 0% 2% 66% 100% 200% 39% 61% 6% 0% -58% -1%
-2% -19% 14% 12% 17% -5% 3% -8% 0% 35% 29% 100% 44% 39% 3% 93% 48% 6%
23% 16% 46% 37% 78% 19% 29% 29% 33% 71% 50% 200% 73% 78% 36% 140% 156% 42%
7% -2% 15% 18% 21% 1% 15% 4% 11% 40% 143% 158% 43% 62% 15% 92% 58% 17%
0% -12% 3% 1% 12% -6% 6% 0% 1% 28% 75% 171% 27% 54% 5% 69% 57% 8%
-1% -9% 8% 5% 16% -3% 7% -1% 1% 44% 117% 108% 39% 63% 6% 85% 53% 8%
11% 0% 25% 21% 23% -1% 19% 7% 11% 58% 67% 89% 35% 49% 14% 118% 74% 19%
-1% -10% 5% 7% 3% -13% 4% -5% -4% 21% 38% 64% 20% 29% 1% 60% 33% 3%
3% -9% 24% 13% 17% -4% 10% -1% 5% 50% 83% 100% 33% 52% 9% 85% 24% 10%
3% -4% 12% 13% 19% -8% 13% 0% 5% 57% 38% 83% 33% 57% 23% 73% 62% 25%
195% 100% 367% 255% 389% 208% 250% 250% 246% 750% 978% 2975% 440% 1118% 419% 540% 500% 420%
33% 50% 25% 47% 74% 26% 26% 41% 37% 150% 1338% 241% 144% 243% 104% 153% 162% 105%
41% 30% 67% 47% 76% 26% 42% 35% 38% 142% 360% 532% 131% 146% 89% 186% 219% 93%
25% 11% 23% 40% 109% 28% 35% 40% 32% 62% 700% 300% 131% 147% 77% 133% 135% 79%
10% -3% 22% 21% 37% 5% 16% 12% 13% 58% 307% 226% 92% 112% 33% 107% 51% 34%
Ile de Hull 11% 13% 40% 25% 50% 8% 8% 14% 8% 100% >1000% 100% 75% 67% 13% 117% 67% 36%
All Districts 26% 51% 107% 55% 45% 22% 30% 35% 36% 183% 38% 322% 81% 133% 42% 73% 44% 43%
13% 5% 32% 24% 36% 6% 17% 14% 16% 63% 298% 235% 91% 113% 34% 85% 45% 36%
City of Ottawa - Total
Gatineau & MRC
National Capital Area
U rb a n A re a
O u ts id e
G re e n b e lt
Orleans
South Gloucester/ Leitrim
South Nepean
Kanata/Stittsville
Outside Greenbelt Subtotal
U rb a n A re a ( G re e n b e lt ) Ottawa Inner Area
Ottawa East
Beacon Hill
Alta Vista
Hunt Club
Merivale
Ottawa West
Bayshore/Cedarview
Greenbelt Subtotal
Percentage Growth in Total Person Trips - Base Year to 2031
Urban Area (Greenbelt) Urban Area Outside Greenbelt
C it y o f O tt a w a - T o ta l
Gatineau & MRC
N a ti o n a l C a p it a l A re a
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIN ANKIN ANKIN ANKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfraTransportation InfraTransportation InfraTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Cstructure Requirement Study Cstructure Requirement Study Cstructure Requirement Study C4444 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network and Network and Network and Network ImplicationsImplicationsImplicationsImplications
Existing and Future 2031 Transit Trip Tables by Planning District
C-4 BASE YEAR Transit Trips (a.m. Peak Hour)
O tt a w a I n n e r A re a
O tt a w a E a s t
B e a c o n H il l
A lt a V is ta
H u n t C lu b
M e ri v a le
O tt a w a W e s t
B a y s h o re /C e d a rv ie w
G re e n b e lt S u b to ta l
O rl e a n s
S o u th G lo u c e s te r/
L e it ri m
S o u th N e p e a n
K a n a ta /S ti tt s v il le
O u ts id e G re e n b e lt
Il e d e H u ll
A ll D is tr ic ts
2,340 200 120 420 80 390 240 150 4,000 60 0 10 110 170 4,100 210 370 4,500
1,480 190 300 270 20 160 80 40 2,500 50 0 0 40 90 2,600 80 180 2,800
950 120 180 170 10 90 60 20 1,600 50 0 0 20 70 1,700 50 70 1,700
2,210 140 190 760 70 250 100 60 3,800 70 0 10 30 110 3,900 90 160 4,100
1,360 60 70 700 150 230 70 40 2,700 20 0 0 10 40 2,700 90 120 2,800
1,880 80 50 280 40 640 320 200 3,500 20 0 30 90 140 3,600 90 130 3,800
1,070 50 40 160 20 280 230 130 2,000 20 0 10 40 80 2,100 80 140 2,200
1,770 80 60 240 30 490 380 650 3,700 30 0 40 140 210 3,900 120 190 4,100
13,100 900 1,000 3,000 400 2,500 1,500 1,300 23,700 300 0 100 500 900 24,600 800 1,400 26,000
3,300 340 430 610 50 390 210 130 5,500 670 0 20 60 760 6,200 240 340 6,600
150 10 0 30 10 20 10 0 200 0 0 0 0 10 200 10 10 200
1,110 50 30 150 20 280 140 130 1,900 20 0 380 50 440 2,400 60 90 2,400
1,720 90 40 210 20 300 130 220 2,700 20 0 10 610 640 3,400 80 120 3,500
6,300 500 500 1,000 100 1,000 500 500 10,300 700 0 400 700 1,900 12,200 400 600 12,800
20,100 1,400 1,500 4,100 500 3,600 2,000 1,800 35,000 1,000 0 500 1,200 2,800 37,900 1,200 2,000 39,800
Ile de Hull 300 20 10 30 0 40 40 20 500 10 0 0 10 20 500 40 150 630
All Districts 3,810 210 140 290 40 210 260 80 5,000 60 0 10 50 120 5,200 1,350 4,500 9,700
23,900 1,700 1,700 4,300 600 3,800 2,300 1,900 40,000 1,100 0 500 1,300 2,900 43,000 2,560 6,500 49,000
Greenbelt Subtotal
City of Ottawa - Total
Gatineau & MRC
U rb a n A re a
O u ts id e
G re e n b e lt
Orleans
South Gloucester/ Leitrim
South Nepean
Kanata/Stittsville
Outside Greenbelt Subtotal
U rb a n A re a ( G re e n b e lt )
Hunt Club
Merivale
Ottawa West
Bayshore/Cedarview
Ottawa Inner Area
Ottawa East
Beacon Hill
Alta Vista
Transit Ridership - Base Year
Urban Area (Greenbelt) Urban Area Outside Greenbelt
C it y o f O tt a w a - T o ta l
National Capital Area
Gatineau & MRC
N a ti o n a l C a p it a l A re a
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIN ANKIN ANKIN ANKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfraTransportation InfraTransportation InfraTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Cstructure Requirement Study Cstructure Requirement Study Cstructure Requirement Study C5555 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network and Network and Network and Network ImplicationsImplicationsImplicationsImplications
Existing and Future 2031 Transit Trip Tables by Planning District
C-5 FORECAST 2031 PLANNING HORIZON Transit Trips (a.m. Peak Hour)
O tt a w a I n n e r A re a
O tt a w a E a s t
B e a c o n H il l
A lt a V is ta
H u n t C lu b
M e ri v a le
O tt a w a W e s t
B a y s h o re /C e d a rv ie w
G re e n b e lt S u b to ta l
O rl e a n s
S o u th G lo u c e s te r/
L e it ri m
S o u th N e p e a n
K a n a ta /S ti tt s v il le
O u ts id e G re e n b e lt
Il e d e H u ll
A ll D is tr ic ts
2,990 200 180 590 150 470 300 220 5,100 160 20 70 290 530 5,640 640 1,070 6,710
1,690 210 420 430 50 220 100 70 3,200 130 10 10 100 240 3,410 230 410 3,820
1,280 150 380 350 30 150 90 50 2,500 170 0 20 80 270 2,760 180 290 3,050
2,830 190 310 1,460 160 360 170 110 5,600 210 20 80 150 450 6,040 260 400 6,450
1,540 70 90 840 250 320 110 80 3,300 50 30 20 80 190 3,500 260 310 3,810
2,260 110 80 400 80 880 440 310 4,600 80 20 140 310 560 5,120 270 360 5,490
1,440 70 60 280 40 370 440 210 2,900 70 10 40 150 270 3,180 300 430 3,610
2,060 100 80 390 60 540 500 870 4,600 70 10 170 450 700 5,300 310 400 5,700
16,100 1,100 1,600 4,700 800 3,300 2,100 1,900 31,700 900 100 600 1,600 3,200 35,000 2,400 3,700 38,600
3,710 420 720 970 100 470 280 180 6,800 1,720 10 80 160 1,970 8,820 560 760 9,580
620 20 30 210 130 120 50 30 1,200 40 290 190 30 550 1,770 190 260 2,030
1,780 110 50 380 110 540 260 420 3,700 90 360 1,500 420 2,360 6,030 270 460 6,490
2,870 190 120 570 110 700 300 630 5,500 140 20 210 2,860 3,220 8,720 400 610 9,330
9,000 700 900 2,100 400 1,800 900 1,300 17,200 2,000 700 2,000 3,500 8,100 25,300 1,400 2,100 27,400
26,200 1,900 2,600 7,000 1,300 5,300 3,100 3,300 50,700 3,000 800 2,600 5,200 11,600 62,300 3,900 5,800 68,200
Ile de Hull 400 30 20 50 10 60 50 30 700 20 0 10 30 70 720 150 480 1,200
All Districts 6,110 470 490 910 140 470 570 260 9,400 380 20 170 290 860 10,300 3,310 10,700 21,000
32,350 2,400 3,060 7,950 1,420 5,750 3,690 3,530 60,100 3,420 820 2,740 5,460 12,440 72,650 7,240 16,500 89,000
N a ti o n a l C a p it a l A re a
Urban Area (Greenbelt)
National Capital Area
Gatineau & MRC
Ottawa Inner Area
Ottawa East
Beacon Hill
Alta Vista
Hunt Club
Transit Ridership - 2031
Urban Area Outside Greenbelt
C it y o f O tt a w a - T o ta l
Kanata/Stittsville
Outside Greenbelt Subtotal
Merivale
Ottawa West
Bayshore/Cedarview
Greenbelt Subtotal
U rb a n A re a ( G re e n b e lt )
City of Ottawa - Total
Gatineau & MRC
U rb a n A re a
O u ts id e
G re e n b e lt
Orleans
South Gloucester/ Leitrim
South Nepean
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIN ANKIN ANKIN ANKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfraTransportation InfraTransportation InfraTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Cstructure Requirement Study Cstructure Requirement Study Cstructure Requirement Study C6666 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network and Network and Network and Network ImplicationsImplicationsImplicationsImplications
Existing and Future 2031 Transit Trip Tables by Planning District
C-6 FORECAST PERCENTAGE GROWTH 2031 PLANNING HORIZON Transit Trips (a.m. Peak Hour)
O tt a w a I n n e r A re a
O tt a w a E a s t
B e a c o n H il l
A lt a V is ta
H u n t C lu b
M e ri v a le
O tt a w a W e s t
B a y s h o re /C e d a rv ie w
G re e n b e lt S u b to ta l
O rl e a n s
S o u th G lo u c e s te r/
L e it ri m
S o u th N e p e a n
K a n a ta /S ti tt s v il le
O u ts id e G re e n b e lt
Il e d e H u ll
A ll D is tr ic ts
28% 0% 50% 40% 88% 21% 25% 47% 28% 167% >1000% 600% 164% 212% 38% 205% 189% 49%
14% 11% 40% 59% 150% 38% 25% 75% 28% 160% >1000% >1000% 150% 167% 31% 188% 128% 36%
35% 25% 111% 106% 200% 67% 50% 150% 56% 240% >1000% >1000% 300% 286% 62% 260% 314% 79%
28% 36% 63% 92% 129% 44% 70% 83% 47% 200% >1000% 700% 400% 309% 55% 189% 150% 57%
13% 17% 29% 20% 67% 39% 57% 100% 22% 150% >1000% >1000% 700% 375% 30% 189% 158% 36%
20% 38% 60% 43% 100% 38% 38% 55% 31% 300% >1000% 367% 244% 300% 42% 200% 177% 44%
35% 40% 50% 75% 100% 32% 91% 62% 45% 250% >1000% 300% 275% 238% 51% 275% 207% 64%
16% 25% 33% 63% 100% 10% 32% 34% 24% 133% >1000% 325% 221% 233% 36% 158% 111% 39%
23% 22% 60% 57% 100% 32% 40% 46% 34% 200% >1000% 500% 220% 256% 42% 200% 164% 48%
12% 24% 67% 59% 100% 21% 33% 38% 24% 157% >1000% 300% 167% 159% 42% 133% 124% 45%
313% 100% >1000% 600% 1200% 500% 400% >1000% 500% >1000% >1000% >1000% >1000% 5400% 785% >1000% >1000% 915%
60% 120% 67% 153% 450% 93% 86% 223% 95% 350% >1000% 295% 740% 436% 151% 350% 411% 170%
67% 111% 200% 171% 450% 133% 131% 186% 104% 600% >1000% 2000% 369% 403% 156% 400% 408% 167%
43% 40% 80% 110% 300% 80% 80% 160% 67% 186% >1000% 400% 400% 326% 107% 250% 250% 114%
30% 36% 73% 71% 160% 47% 55% 83% 45% 200% >1000% 420% 333% 314% 64% 225% 190% 71%
Ile de Hull 33% 50% 100% 67% >1000% 50% 25% 50% 40% 100% >1000% >1000% 200% 250% 44% 275% 220% 90%
All Districts 60% 124% 250% 214% 250% 124% 119% 225% 88% 533% >1000% 1600% 480% 617% 98% 145% 138% 116%
35% 41% 80% 85% 137% 51% 60% 86% 50% 211% >1000% 448% 320% 329% 69% 183% 154% 82%
Percentage Growth in Transit Trips - Base Year to 2031
City of Ottawa - Total
Gatineau & MRC
U rb a n A re a ( G re e n b e lt ) Ottawa Inner Area
Ottawa East
Beacon Hill
Alta Vista
Hunt Club
National Capital Area
U rb a n A re a
O u ts id e
G re e n b e lt
Orleans
South Gloucester/ Leitrim
South Nepean
Kanata/Stittsville
Outside Greenbelt Subtotal
Merivale
Ottawa West
Bayshore/Cedarview
Greenbelt Subtotal
Urban Area (Greenbelt) Urban Area Outside Greenbelt
C it y o f O tt a w a - T o ta l
Gatineau & MRC
N a ti o n a l C a p it a l A re a
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIN ANKIN ANKIN ANKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfraTransportation InfraTransportation InfraTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Cstructure Requirement Study Cstructure Requirement Study Cstructure Requirement Study C7777 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network and Network and Network and Network ImplicationsImplicationsImplicationsImplications
Existing and Future 2031 Transit Mode Split Tables by Planning District
C-7 BASE YEAR Transit Trip Mode Split Percentage (a.m. Peak Hour)
O tt a w a I n n e r A re a
O tt a w a E a s t
B e a c o n H il l
A lt a V is ta
H u n t C lu b
M e ri v a le
O tt a w a W e s t
B a y s h o re /C e d a rv ie w
G re e n b e lt S u b to ta l
O rl e a n s
S o u th G lo u c e s te r/
L e it ri m
S o u th N e p e a n
K a n a ta /S ti tt s v il le
O u ts id e G re e n b e lt
Il e d e H u ll
A ll D is tr ic ts
34% 24% 24% 23% 17% 27% 27% 22% 29% 19% 6% 11% 21% 19% 28% 34% 23% 28%
43% 11% 30% 17% 12% 27% 23% 17% 28% 15% 3% 9% 21% 15% 27% 28% 22% 26%
49% 16% 13% 16% 12% 29% 27% 17% 27% 11% 1% 10% 21% 12% 26% 32% 20% 25%
46% 14% 25% 17% 9% 20% 22% 13% 27% 12% 3% 9% 12% 11% 26% 33% 20% 25%
48% 19% 22% 26% 9% 18% 19% 11% 27% 11% 3% 3% 7% 6% 26% 32% 25% 25%
43% 18% 21% 17% 8% 14% 23% 13% 24% 15% 2% 8% 11% 10% 22% 28% 17% 22%
44% 22% 24% 21% 16% 21% 14% 14% 26% 18% 4% 11% 12% 12% 25% 30% 20% 24%
52% 24% 27% 21% 9% 18% 26% 16% 27% 20% 2% 9% 10% 10% 24% 34% 25% 24%
43% 16% 22% 20% 10% 19% 22% 15% 27% 14% 3% 9% 12% 12% 25% 32% 21% 25%
64% 25% 23% 23% 16% 39% 37% 28% 40% 10% 3% 21% 24% 11% 30% 49% 32% 30%
40% 14% 7% 10% 7% 10% 13% 5% 18% 4% 1% 2% 3% 2% 13% 19% 14% 13%
57% 25% 27% 16% 6% 16% 26% 10% 27% 18% 1% 15% 6% 13% 22% 44% 24% 22%
63% 30% 30% 23% 10% 19% 24% 10% 32% 20% 1% 4% 8% 8% 20% 41% 26% 20%
61% 26% 23% 21% 10% 22% 29% 12% 34% 10% 2% 14% 9% 10% 24% 45% 28% 24%
47% 18% 21% 19% 9% 19% 23% 13% 28% 11% 2% 11% 9% 9% 23% 34% 22% 23%
Ile de Hull 46% 26% 25% 23% 16% 30% 29% 22% 36% 22% 2% 12% 18% 19% 35% 15% 17% 28%
All Districts 41% 18% 17% 13% 9% 14% 18% 10% 28% 14% 1% 7% 9% 10% 27% 29% 14% 19%
46% 18% 21% 18% 9% 18% 22% 13% 28% 11% 2% 11% 9% 9% 24% 31% 16% 22%
Transit Mode Split - Base Year
City of Ottawa - Total
U rb a n A re a ( G re e n b e lt )
U rb a n A re a
O u ts id e
G re e n b e lt
South Gloucester/ Leitrim
South Nepean
Ottawa Inner Area
Ottawa East
Beacon Hill
Alta Vista
Kanata/Stittsville
Urban Area Outside GreenbeltUrban Area (Greenbelt)
Greenbelt Subtotal
Ottawa West
Hunt Club
Merivale
Outside Greenbelt Subtotal
Orleans
Gatineau & MRC
C it y o f O tt a w a - T o ta l
N a ti io n a C a p it a l A re a
Natiiona Capital Area
Gatineau & MRC
Bayshore/Cedarview
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIN ANKIN ANKIN ANKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfraTransportation InfraTransportation InfraTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Cstructure Requirement Study Cstructure Requirement Study Cstructure Requirement Study C8888 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network and Network and Network and Network ImplicationsImplicationsImplicationsImplications
Existing and Future 2031 Transit Mode Split Tables by Planning District
C-8 FORECAST 2031 PLANNING HORIZON Transit Trip Mode Split Percentage (a.m. Peak Hour)
O tt a w a I n n e r A re a
O tt a w a E a s t
B e a c o n H il l
A lt a V is ta
H u n t C lu b
M e ri v a le
O tt a w a W e s t
B a y s h o re /C e d a rv ie w
G re e n b e lt S u b to ta l
O rl e a n s
S o u th G lo u c e s te r/
L e it ri m
S o u th N e p e a n
K a n a ta /S ti tt s v il le
O u ts id e G re e n b e lt
Il e d e H u ll
A ll D is tr ic ts
43% 28% 30% 29% 27% 34% 32% 31% 37% 34% 20% 31% 41% 36% 36% 49% 38% 36%
50% 14% 37% 24% 22% 37% 29% 28% 35% 27% 7% 23% 37% 28% 34% 45% 33% 33%
54% 18% 18% 24% 22% 40% 34% 29% 32% 22% 9% 32% 44% 26% 31% 50% 32% 31%
55% 20% 34% 28% 16% 29% 32% 23% 36% 27% 13% 25% 34% 27% 35% 52% 32% 34%
55% 26% 27% 31% 14% 27% 29% 23% 33% 23% 10% 13% 30% 20% 31% 53% 42% 32%
52% 27% 29% 23% 14% 20% 30% 20% 31% 34% 8% 19% 29% 24% 30% 44% 30% 30%
53% 30% 32% 30% 26% 28% 23% 22% 35% 34% 14% 26% 30% 29% 34% 48% 36% 34%
61% 34% 34% 32% 18% 23% 33% 23% 35% 40% 9% 25% 25% 26% 33% 55% 39% 33%
52% 21% 28% 28% 17% 26% 29% 23% 34% 28% 11% 23% 31% 27% 33% 49% 35% 33%
69% 32% 34% 32% 26% 51% 44% 39% 48% 16% 5% 34% 45% 18% 34% 66% 44% 34%
57% 28% 23% 21% 15% 16% 23% 10% 27% 24% 12% 15% 13% 13% 19% 61% 48% 21%
68% 38% 33% 28% 18% 24% 39% 23% 38% 37% 31% 17% 24% 20% 27% 70% 47% 28%
75% 49% 48% 43% 24% 36% 40% 21% 46% 47% 8% 13% 17% 17% 27% 67% 40% 28%
70% 36% 35% 32% 19% 31% 39% 23% 43% 18% 17% 17% 18% 18% 28% 66% 44% 29%
56% 25% 29% 27% 16% 26% 31% 22% 35% 20% 14% 17% 19% 18% 29% 53% 37% 29%
Ile de Hull 55% 33% 35% 34% 31% 43% 37% 41% 46% 43% 23% 39% 48% 44% 46% 31% 31% 38%
All Districts 52% 26% 28% 27% 22% 26% 30% 26% 39% 30% 8% 44% 30% 30% 38% 42% 23% 28%
55% 25% 29% 27% 17% 26% 31% 22% 36% 20% 14% 18% 19% 19% 30% 47% 26% 29%
Bayshore/Cedarview
Natiiona Capital Area
Gatineau & MRC
Gatineau &
MRC
C it y o f O tt a w a - T o ta l
N a ti io n a C a p it a l A re a
Transit Mode Share - 2031
Outside Greenbelt Subtotal
Greenbelt Subtotal
Orleans
Ottawa West
Hunt Club
Merivale
Urban Area Outside GreenbeltUrban Area (Greenbelt)
City of Ottawa - Total
U rb a n A re a ( G re e n b e lt )
U rb a n A re a
O u ts id e
G re e n b e lt
South Gloucester/ Leitrim
South Nepean
Ottawa Inner Area
Ottawa East
Beacon Hill
Alta Vista
Kanata/Stittsville
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIN ANKIN ANKIN ANKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfraTransportation InfraTransportation InfraTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Cstructure Requirement Study Cstructure Requirement Study Cstructure Requirement Study C9999 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network and Network and Network and Network ImplicationsImplicationsImplicationsImplications
Existing and Future 2031 Auto Vehicle Trip Tables by Planning District
C-9 BASE YEAR Auto Vehicle Trips (a.m. Peak Hour)
O tt a w a I n n e r A re a
O tt a w a E a s t
B e a c o n H il l
A lt a V is ta
H u n t C lu b
M e ri v a le
O tt a w a W e s t
B a y s h o re /C e d a rv ie w
G re e n b e lt S u b to ta l
O rl e a n s
S o u th G lo u c e s te r/
L e it ri m
S o u th N e p e a n
K a n a ta /S ti tt s v il le
O u ts id e G re e n b e lt
Il e d e H u ll
A ll D is tr ic ts
3,440 520 330 1,180 340 870 540 460 7,700 200 40 50 350 640 8,400 330 1,020 9,500
1,530 1,140 490 1,130 130 360 220 170 5,200 240 50 20 100 410 5,700 160 520 6,200
790 470 920 770 70 200 130 100 3,400 330 10 10 70 430 3,900 90 240 4,200
2,090 710 450 2,880 650 840 310 350 8,300 400 60 90 230 780 9,200 150 480 9,700
1,220 220 200 1,620 1,190 840 260 280 5,800 140 130 60 180 510 6,600 170 310 6,900
2,040 300 170 1,190 410 2,980 800 1,140 9,000 110 110 280 580 1,080 10,300 200 480 10,800
1,110 170 100 510 90 820 1,020 650 4,500 80 30 70 280 460 5,000 170 440 5,400
1,370 210 140 770 260 1,870 860 2,580 8,100 100 70 320 1,150 1,630 10,000 200 460 10,400
13,600 3,700 2,800 10,000 3,100 8,800 4,100 5,700 52,000 1,600 500 900 2,900 5,900 59,100 1,500 3,900 63,000
1,580 860 1,110 1,840 240 520 310 300 6,800 4,530 110 80 180 4,900 12,000 220 630 12,600
190 30 20 230 150 180 50 70 900 20 180 40 50 280 1,300 30 60 1,300
700 140 80 670 280 1,290 330 980 4,500 70 70 1,530 590 2,260 6,900 70 240 7,200
830 180 90 600 200 1,090 360 1,720 5,100 80 40 200 5,350 5,670 11,300 110 300 11,600
3,300 1,200 1,300 3,300 900 3,100 1,100 3,100 17,200 4,700 400 1,800 6,200 13,100 31,500 400 1,200 32,700
18,100 5,300 4,400 14,600 4,500 13,000 5,500 9,700 75,100 6,800 1,200 3,100 10,700 21,800 102,200 2,000 5,500 107,700
Ile de Hull 290 50 30 80 10 70 80 40 700 20 0 0 30 60 700 150 600 1,330
All Districts 4,530 870 590 1,650 340 1,090 1,040 570 10,700 340 130 70 420 960 11,800 2,630 22,500 34,400
22,700 6,200 5,000 16,200 4,800 14,100 6,600 10,300 85,800 7,100 1,300 3,200 11,200 22,800 114,100 4,660 28,000 142,000
Ottawa West
Bayshore/Cedarview
Auto Vehicle - Base Year
Urban Area (Greenbelt) Urban Area Outside Greenbelt
C it y o f O tt a w a - T o ta l
Gatineau & MRC
N a ti o n a l C a p it a l A re a
Gatineau & MRC
Greenbelt Subtotal
Orleans
South Gloucester/ Leitrim
South Nepean
Kanata/Stittsville
Outside Greenbelt Subtotal
U rb a n A re a ( G re e n b e lt )
U rb a n A re a
O u ts id e
G re e n b e lt
City of Ottawa - Total
Ottawa Inner Area
Ottawa East
Beacon Hill
Alta Vista
Hunt Club
Merivale
National Capital Area
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIN ANKIN ANKIN ANKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study CCCC10101010 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
Existing and Future 2031 Auto Vehicle Trip Tables by Planning District
C-10 FORECAST 2031 PLANNING HORIZON Auto Vehicle Trips (a.m. Peak Hour)
O tt a w a I n n e r A re a
O tt a w a E a s t
B e a c o n H il l
A lt a V is ta
H u n t C lu b
M e ri v a le
O tt a w a W e s t
B a y s h o re /C e d a rv ie w
G re e n b e lt S u b to ta l
O rl e a n s
S o u th G lo u c e s te r/
L e it ri m
S o u th N e p e a n
K a n a ta /S ti tt s v il le
O u ts id e G re e n b e lt
Il e d e H u ll
A ll D is tr ic ts
2,970 440 360 1,230 350 750 520 410 7,000 270 70 130 360 820 7,990 550 1,420 9,410
1,330 990 520 1,200 150 300 210 150 4,800 280 60 30 110 480 5,410 240 700 6,120
900 570 1,270 990 110 200 150 110 4,300 500 30 40 80 640 5,050 150 530 5,580
1,890 660 480 3,060 740 760 310 320 8,200 480 120 200 250 1,050 9,490 210 740 10,230
1,080 190 210 1,600 1,260 730 240 250 5,600 160 210 140 170 670 6,510 200 370 6,880
1,740 250 170 1,180 440 2,780 790 1,030 8,400 130 190 520 610 1,450 10,120 290 700 10,820
1,040 150 120 550 100 770 1,120 640 4,500 110 40 110 300 550 5,140 270 630 5,770
1,100 160 130 730 250 1,590 830 2,320 7,100 90 90 440 1,150 1,760 9,170 220 540 9,710
12,100 3,400 3,300 10,500 3,400 7,900 4,200 5,200 49,900 2,000 800 1,600 3,000 7,400 58,900 2,100 5,600 64,500
1,390 780 1,140 1,860 250 400 320 260 6,400 7,040 150 130 180 7,500 14,370 250 850 15,220
400 50 100 730 670 550 140 230 2,900 110 1,680 910 210 2,910 6,380 110 240 6,620
700 170 90 850 430 1,490 350 1,200 5,300 140 640 5,680 1,120 7,590 13,320 90 430 13,750
800 180 120 670 300 1,120 410 2,080 5,700 130 190 1,210 11,370 12,900 19,530 170 750 20,280
3,300 1,200 1,400 4,100 1,700 3,500 1,200 3,800 20,200 7,400 2,700 7,900 12,900 30,900 53,600 600 2,300 55,900
16,800 5,000 5,100 16,100 5,700 12,800 5,800 10,100 77,400 10,100 4,000 10,400 18,200 42,800 128,600 3,000 8,400 137,000
Ile de Hull 260 50 40 80 10 70 70 40 600 30 10 10 30 70 710 260 860 1,580
All Districts 4,520 1,090 940 2,020 410 1,140 1,100 620 11,800 620 160 160 550 1,500 13,660 3,860 30,200 43,900
21,360 6,130 6,000 18,160 6,140 13,910 6,900 10,680 89,300 10,760 4,180 10,530 18,800 44,260 142,220 6,820 38,700 181,000National Capital Area
U rb a n A re a ( G re e n b e lt )
U rb a n A re a
O u ts id e
G re e n b e lt
City of Ottawa - Total
Gatineau & MRC
Greenbelt Subtotal
Orleans
South Gloucester/ Leitrim
South Nepean
Kanata/Stittsville
Outside Greenbelt Subtotal
Auto Vehicle - 2031
Urban Area (Greenbelt) Urban Area Outside Greenbelt
C it y o f O tt a w a - T o ta l
Gatineau & MRC
N a ti o n a l C a p it a l A re a
Ottawa Inner Area
Ottawa East
Beacon Hill
Alta Vista
Hunt Club
Merivale
Ottawa West
Bayshore/Cedarview
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIN ANKIN ANKIN ANKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study CCCC11111111 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
Existing and Future 2031 Auto Vehicle Trip Tables by Planning District
C-11 FORECAST PERCENTAGE GROWTH 2031 PLANNING HORIZON Auto Vehicle Trips (a.m. Peak Hour)
O tt a w a I n n e r A re a
O tt a w a E a s t
B e a c o n H il l
A lt a V is ta
H u n t C lu b
M e ri v a le
O tt a w a W e s t
B a y s h o re /C e d a rv ie w
G re e n b e lt S u b to ta l
O rl e a n s
S o u th G lo u c e s te r/
L e it ri m
S o u th N e p e a n
K a n a ta /S ti tt s v il le
O u ts id e G re e n b e lt
Il e d e H u ll
A ll D is tr ic ts
-14% -15% 9% 4% 3% -14% -4% -11% -9% 35% 75% 160% 3% 28% -5% 67% 39% -1%
-13% -13% 6% 6% 15% -17% -5% -12% -8% 17% 20% 50% 10% 17% -5% 50% 35% -1%
14% 21% 38% 29% 57% 0% 15% 10% 26% 52% 200% 300% 14% 49% 29% 67% 121% 33%
-10% -7% 7% 6% 14% -10% 0% -9% -1% 20% 100% 122% 9% 35% 3% 40% 54% 5%
-11% -14% 5% -1% 6% -13% -8% -11% -3% 14% 62% 133% -6% 31% -1% 18% 19% 0%
-15% -17% 0% -1% 7% -7% -1% -10% -7% 18% 73% 86% 5% 34% -2% 45% 46% 0%
-6% -12% 20% 8% 11% -6% 10% -2% 0% 38% 33% 57% 7% 20% 3% 59% 43% 7%
-20% -24% -7% -5% -4% -15% -3% -10% -12% -10% 29% 38% 0% 8% -8% 10% 17% -7%
-11% -8% 18% 5% 10% -10% 2% -9% -4% 25% 60% 78% 3% 25% 0% 40% 44% 2%
-12% -9% 3% 1% 4% -23% 3% -13% -6% 55% 36% 63% 0% 53% 20% 14% 35% 21%
111% 67% 400% 217% 347% 206% 180% 229% 222% 450% 833% 2175% 320% 939% 391% 267% 300% 409%
0% 21% 13% 27% 54% 16% 6% 22% 18% 100% 814% 271% 90% 236% 93% 29% 79% 91%
-4% 0% 33% 12% 50% 3% 14% 21% 12% 63% 375% 505% 113% 128% 73% 55% 150% 75%
0% 0% 8% 24% 89% 13% 9% 23% 17% 57% 575% 339% 108% 136% 70% 50% 92% 71%
-7% -6% 16% 10% 27% -2% 5% 4% 3% 49% 233% 235% 70% 96% 26% 50% 53% 27%
Ile de Hull -10% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% -13% 0% -14% 50% >1000% >1000% 0% 17% 1% 73% 43% 19%
All Districts 0% 25% 59% 22% 21% 5% 6% 9% 10% 82% 23% 129% 31% 56% 16% 47% 34% 28%
-6% -1% 20% 12% 28% -1% 5% 4% 4% 52% 222% 229% 68% 94% 25% 46% 38% 27%
City of Ottawa - Total
Gatineau & MRC
National Capital Area
U rb a n A re a
O u ts id e
G re e n b e lt
Orleans
South Gloucester/ Leitrim
South Nepean
Kanata/Stittsville
Outside Greenbelt Subtotal
U rb a n A re a ( G re e n b e lt ) Ottawa Inner Area
Ottawa East
Beacon Hill
Alta Vista
Hunt Club
Merivale
Ottawa West
Bayshore/Cedarview
Greenbelt Subtotal
Percentage Growth 2031 Planning Horizon
Urban Area (Greenbelt) Urban Area Outside Greenbelt
C it y o f O tt a w a - T o ta l
Gatineau & MRC
N a ti o n a l C a p it a l A re a
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIN ANKIN ANKIN ANKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study CCCC12121212 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
Existing and Future 2031 Auto Person Trip Tables by Planning District
C-12 BASE YEAR Auto Person Trips (a.m. Peak Hour)
O tt a w a I n n e r A re a
O tt a w a E a s t
B e a c o n H il l
A lt a V is ta
H u n t C lu b
M e ri v a le
O tt a w a W e s t
B a y s h o re /C e d a rv ie w
G re e n b e lt S u b to ta l
O rl e a n s
S o u th G lo u c e s te r/
L e it ri m
S o u th N e p e a n
K a n a ta /S ti tt s v il le
O u ts id e G re e n b e lt
Il e d e H u ll
A ll D is tr ic ts
4,550 670 390 1,400 390 1,050 670 550 9,600 230 50 60 400 760 10,600 -160 1,680 12,200
1,990 1,560 710 1,340 160 450 250 210 6,700 290 70 20 140 520 7,300 190 660 8,000
970 580 1,220 900 80 230 150 120 4,200 400 20 20 90 520 4,800 100 290 5,200
2,620 820 600 3,700 740 990 360 390 10,200 480 70 110 270 920 11,300 170 640 11,900
1,470 270 240 2,020 1,440 1,020 290 320 7,100 160 160 70 210 590 8,000 200 350 8,300
2,530 360 200 1,360 460 3,820 1,050 1,350 11,100 140 120 330 680 1,270 12,700 240 650 13,300
1,370 200 120 590 110 1,050 1,400 770 5,600 100 30 80 330 530 6,200 200 550 6,800
1,640 230 160 890 300 2,210 1,080 3,370 9,900 110 80 380 1,330 1,910 12,100 230 570 12,700
17,100 4,700 3,600 12,200 3,700 10,900 5,200 7,100 64,500 1,900 600 1,100 3,400 7,000 73,000 1,200 5,400 78,300
1,880 1,020 1,470 2,100 270 610 350 340 8,000 5,990 130 100 210 6,420 14,900 250 730 15,600
220 30 30 260 170 220 50 80 1,100 20 230 40 50 330 1,600 40 80 1,700
840 150 90 760 320 1,500 390 1,150 5,200 80 80 2,150 670 2,990 8,400 90 280 8,800
990 210 110 690 230 1,250 400 2,000 5,900 100 50 240 6,730 7,120 13,600 130 350 14,000
3,900 1,400 1,700 3,800 1,000 3,600 1,200 3,500 20,200 6,200 500 2,500 7,700 16,800 38,500 500 1,400 39,900
22,500 6,600 5,700 17,300 5,200 15,700 6,800 11,700 91,600 8,800 1,400 4,100 13,100 27,300 125,500 1,800 7,200 132,800
Ile de Hull 360 60 40 90 20 90 90 50 800 20 0 10 30 70 900 190 780 1,670
All Districts 5,530 1,010 700 1,890 380 1,280 1,190 670 12,700 400 160 80 490 1,110 14,000 3,230 28,500 42,400
28,100 7,500 6,300 19,300 5,600 17,000 8,000 12,300 104,300 9,200 1,500 4,100 13,600 28,400 139,600 5,050 35,700 176,000
City of Ottawa - Total
Gatineau & MRC
National Capital Area
U rb a n A re a
O u ts id e
G re e n b e lt
Orleans
South Gloucester/ Leitrim
South Nepean
Kanata/Stittsville
Outside Greenbelt Subtotal
U rb a n A re a ( G re e n b e lt ) Ottawa Inner Area
Ottawa East
Beacon Hill
Alta Vista
Hunt Club
Merivale
Ottawa West
Bayshore/Cedarview
Greenbelt Subtotal
Auto Person Trips - Base Year
Urban Area (Greenbelt) Urban Area Outside Greenbelt
C it y o f O tt a w a - T o ta l
Gatineau & MRC
N a ti o n a l C a p it a l A re a
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIN ANKIN ANKIN ANKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study CCCC13131313 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
Existing and Future 2031 Auto Person Trip Tables by Planning District
C-13 FORECAST 2031 PLANNING HORIZON Auto Person Trips (a.m. Peak Hour)
O tt a w a I n n e r A re a
O tt a w a E a s t
B e a c o n H il l
A lt a V is ta
H u n t C lu b
M e ri v a le
O tt a w a W e s t
B a y s h o re /C e d a rv ie w
G re e n b e lt S u b to ta l
O rl e a n s
S o u th G lo u c e s te r/
L e it ri m
S o u th N e p e a n
K a n a ta /S ti tt s v il le
O u ts id e G re e n b e lt
Il e d e H u ll
A ll D is tr ic ts
3,960 540 420 1,460 410 900 640 480 8,800 320 80 140 420 970 9,970 -590 -200 9,770
1,720 1,210 730 1,380 160 360 240 160 6,000 330 80 30 160 610 6,770 290 830 7,600
1,090 660 1,670 1,120 130 230 180 130 5,200 600 30 40 110 780 6,100 180 630 6,730
2,320 750 600 3,790 820 890 360 360 9,900 560 150 230 280 1,220 11,390 240 860 12,240
1,290 220 230 1,910 1,530 860 270 280 6,600 180 250 170 200 780 7,720 230 430 8,150
2,120 290 190 1,330 500 3,460 1,020 1,220 10,100 150 240 610 760 1,740 12,210 340 830 13,030
1,260 180 140 630 120 950 1,500 750 5,500 120 40 130 350 640 6,300 310 770 7,060
1,300 180 150 820 280 1,820 1,020 2,960 8,500 100 100 520 1,320 2,040 10,920 250 610 11,530
15,100 4,000 4,100 12,500 4,000 9,500 5,300 6,400 60,700 2,400 1,000 1,800 3,600 8,800 71,300 1,300 4,700 76,200
1,630 880 1,400 2,080 280 450 350 290 7,400 8,750 170 140 200 9,270 17,210 290 970 18,190
470 60 110 820 750 620 160 250 3,300 130 2,190 1,040 240 3,590 7,570 130 280 7,850
820 190 100 960 480 1,710 410 1,390 6,000 160 790 7,120 1,340 9,420 16,010 110 510 16,520
940 200 130 750 330 1,260 450 2,360 6,400 150 210 1,370 14,130 15,860 23,480 200 890 24,360
3,800 1,400 1,800 4,600 1,900 4,100 1,400 4,300 23,100 9,200 3,300 9,600 15,900 38,100 64,300 700 2,600 67,000
20,800 5,900 6,200 18,800 6,500 15,000 7,100 11,800 92,200 12,500 4,900 12,400 22,300 52,200 154,900 2,300 8,100 162,900
Ile de Hull 330 60 50 100 20 80 90 50 700 40 10 10 40 80 860 350 1,070 1,930
All Districts 5,660 1,370 1,250 2,460 470 1,350 1,310 750 14,600 920 200 210 690 2,010 17,020 4,610 36,700 53,700
26,390 7,230 7,530 21,220 7,030 16,390 8,370 12,610 106,800 13,360 5,150 12,670 23,010 54,190 171,900 6,870 44,800 217,000
City of Ottawa - Total
Gatineau & MRC
National Capital Area
Bayshore/Cedarview
Greenbelt Subtotal
U rb a n A re a
O u ts id e
G re e n b e lt
Orleans
South Gloucester/ Leitrim
South Nepean
Kanata/Stittsville
Outside Greenbelt Subtotal
Gatineau & MRC
N a ti o n a l C a p it a l A re a
U rb a n A re a ( G re e n b e lt ) Ottawa Inner Area
Ottawa East
Beacon Hill
Alta Vista
Hunt Club
Merivale
Ottawa West
Urban Area (Greenbelt) Urban Area Outside Greenbelt
C it y o f O tt a w a - T o ta l
Auto Person Trips - 2031
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIN ANKIN ANKIN ANKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study CCCC14141414 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
Existing and Future 2031 Auto Person Trip Tables by Planning District
C-14 FORECAST PERCENTAGE GROWTH 2031 PLANNING HORIZON Auto Person Trips (a.m. Peak Hour)
O tt a w a I n n e r A re a
O tt a w a E a s t
B e a c o n H il l
A lt a V is ta
H u n t C lu b
M e ri v a le
O tt a w a W e s t
B a y s h o re /C e d a rv ie w
G re e n b e lt S u b to ta l
O rl e a n s
S o u th G lo u c e s te r/
L e it ri m
S o u th N e p e a n
K a n a ta /S ti tt s v il le
O u ts id e G re e n b e lt
Il e d e H u ll
A ll D is tr ic ts
-13% -19% 8% 4% 5% -14% -4% -13% -8% 39% 60% 133% 5% 28% -6% 269% -112% -20%
-14% -22% 3% 3% 0% -20% -4% -24% -10% 14% 14% 50% 14% 17% -7% 53% 26% -5%
12% 14% 37% 24% 63% 0% 20% 8% 24% 50% 50% 100% 22% 50% 27% 80% 117% 29%
-11% -9% 0% 2% 11% -10% 0% -8% -3% 17% 114% 109% 4% 33% 1% 41% 34% 3%
-12% -19% -4% -5% 6% -16% -7% -13% -7% 13% 56% 143% -5% 32% -4% 15% 23% -2%
-16% -19% -5% -2% 9% -9% -3% -10% -9% 7% 100% 85% 12% 37% -4% 42% 28% -2%
-8% -10% 17% 7% 9% -10% 7% -3% -2% 20% 33% 63% 6% 21% 2% 55% 40% 4%
-21% -22% -6% -8% -7% -18% -6% -12% -14% -9% 25% 37% -1% 7% -10% 9% 7% -9%
-12% -15% 14% 2% 8% -13% 2% -10% -6% 26% 67% 64% 6% 26% -2% 8% -13% -3%
-13% -14% -5% -1% 4% -26% 0% -15% -8% 46% 31% 40% -5% 44% 16% 16% 33% 17%
114% 100% 267% 215% 341% 182% 220% 213% 200% 550% 852% 2500% 380% 988% 373% 225% 250% 362%
-2% 27% 11% 26% 50% 14% 5% 21% 15% 100% 888% 231% 100% 215% 91% 22% 82% 88%
-5% -5% 18% 9% 43% 1% 13% 18% 8% 50% 320% 471% 110% 123% 73% 54% 154% 74%
-3% 0% 6% 21% 90% 14% 17% 23% 14% 48% 560% 284% 106% 127% 67% 40% 86% 68%
-8% -11% 9% 9% 25% -4% 4% 1% 1% 42% 250% 202% 70% 91% 23% 28% 13% 23%
Ile de Hull -8% 0% 25% 11% 0% -11% 0% 0% -13% 100% 1000% 0% 33% 14% -4% 84% 37% 16%
All Districts 2% 36% 79% 30% 24% 5% 10% 12% 15% 130% 25% 163% 41% 81% 22% 43% 29% 27%
-6% -4% 20% 10% 26% -4% 5% 3% 2% 45% 243% 209% 69% 91% 23% 36% 25% 23%
City of Ottawa - Total
Gatineau & MRC
National Capital Area
Bayshore/Cedarview
Greenbelt Subtotal
U rb a n A re a
O u ts id e
G re e n b e lt
Orleans
South Gloucester/ Leitrim
South Nepean
Kanata/Stittsville
Outside Greenbelt Subtotal
Gatineau & MRC
N a ti o n a l C a p it a l A re a
U rb a n A re a ( G re e n b e lt ) Ottawa Inner Area
Ottawa East
Beacon Hill
Alta Vista
Hunt Club
Merivale
Ottawa West
Urban Area (Greenbelt) Urban Area Outside Greenbelt
C it y o f O tt a w a - T o ta l
Percentage Growth in Auto Person Trips - Base Year to 2031
MCCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study D1 Development of a Downtown Transit Solution and Network Implications
Appendix D: Detailed Downtown Ridership and Vehicle Requirements
Design of Downtown Transit Service - Required Service Frequencies (not including STO)
Alternative 1 Serves south Via SW Transitway
Peak Point between Hurdman and Campus 13,700 passengers / hour
305 buses @ 45 per standard Bus = 11 sec headway 196 buses @ 70 per articulated Bus = 18 sec headway
Alternative 2 Serves south Via NS-LRT
LRT designed for Peak at Carleton 4,300 passengers / hour on LRT
32 LRT unit @ 135 per unit = 112 sec headway = 1 min 52 sec 16 2-car LRT trains @ 135 per car = 225 sec headway = 3 min 45 sec
BRT designed for Peak entering downtown 11,300 passengers / hour
252 buses @ 45 per standard Bus = 14 sec headway 162 buses @ 70 per articulated Bus = 22 sec headway
Alternative 3 Serves South Via SW Transitway
Peak Point between Hurdman and Campus 13,700 passengers / hour
102 LRT unit @ 135 per unit = 35 sec headway = 0 min 35 sec 51 2-car LRT trains @ 135 per car = 70 sec headway = 1 min 10 sec 26 4-car LRT trains @ 135 per car = 138 sec headway = 2 min 18 sec
Alternative 4 Serves south Via NS-LRT
Peak point West of Downtown 15,600 passengers / hour
116 LRT unit @ 135 per unit = 31 sec headway = 0 min 31 sec 58 2-car LRT trains @ 135 per car = 62 sec headway = 1 min 2 sec 29 4-car LRT trains @ 135 per car = 124 sec headway = 2 min 4 sec
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIN ANKIN ANKIN ANKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfrastrTransportation InfrastrTransportation InfrastrTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Sucture Requirement Sucture Requirement Sucture Requirement Study tudy tudy tudy D D D D2222 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
Network configurations (Considering STO Passengers) The numbers of customers that need to be accommodated are tabulated in this section to find the numbers that govern the design of the possible downtown transit facility. The greater the number of customers travelling through a single point in a single direction, the greater must be the level of service provided and the greater must be the capacity of the possible transit facility.
The numbers of customers are tabulated on six possible network configurations. As described above, two possible paths are included to carry customers from the south, either via Hurdman Station and entering downtown from the east (options marked with an “A”) or via Carleton Station and entering downtown from the west (options marked with a “B”). Also as described above, three possible paths are included to carry customers from the north, either in a separate corridor from the possible downtown transit facility (options marked with a “1”), or on a facility entering downtown from the west (options marked with a “2”), or on a facility carrying customers into downtown equally from the west and from the east (options marked with a “3”).
The options are:
• A1 – From the south via Hurdman, from the north on a separate corridor • A2 – From the south via Hurdman, from the north entering downtown from the west • A3 – From the south via Hurdman, from the north entering downtown equally from the west and from
the east
• B1 – From the south via Carleton, from the north on a separate corridor • B2 – From the south via Carleton, from the north entering downtown from the west • B3 – From the south via Carleton, from the north entering downtown equally from the west and from
the east
Each of these network configurations carries different groups of customers into downtown over different paths, and thus has different requirements for the level of service and the capacity of the possible downtown transit facility.
All of these network configurations are compatible, in different ways, with options for transit facilities throughout the rest of the City. The evaluation of those options is the subject of subsequent parts of this report and subsequent parts of the preparation of the Transportation Master Plan later in 2008.
The following table summarizes the projected ridership levels into downtown Ottawa for each of the network configuration options.
Projected ridership levels into Downtown Ottawa
In 2031, Morning peak hour
Network configuration Entering Downtown from
the west
Entering Downtown from
the east
Entering Downtown from the north (if via separate corridor)
A1 From south via Hurdman From north via separate corridor
12,800 13,700 8,500
A2 From south via Hurdman From north via west
21,300 13,700 –
A3 From south via Hurdman From north via east and west
17,050 17,950 –
B1 From south via Carleton From north via separate corridor
15,600 11,300 8,500
B2 From south via Carleton From north via west
24,100 11,300 –
B3 From south via Carleton From north via east and west
19,850 15,550 –
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIN ANKIN ANKIN ANKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfrastrTransportation InfrastrTransportation InfrastrTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Sucture Requirement Sucture Requirement Sucture Requirement Study tudy tudy tudy D D D D3333 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
The higher of the two directions through downtown governs the level of service required through downtown and the capacity required of the possible downtown transit facility. The following table shows the number of customers that the facility would be required to handle in 2031 under each of the six network configuration options.
Principal ridership flows governing required facility capacity
Basic network configuration Customers per hour Direction
A1 From south via Hurdman From north via separate corridor
13,700 Entering downtown from the east
A2 From south via Hurdman From north via west
21,300 Entering downtown from the west
A3 From south via Hurdman From north via east and west
17,950 Entering downtown from the east
B1 From south via Carleton From north via separate corridor 15,600 Entering downtown from the west
B2 From south via Carleton From north via west
24,100 Entering downtown from the west
B3 From south via Carleton From north via east and west
19,850 Entering downtown from the west
All of the network configurations accommodate approximately the same total level of transit ridership into downtown each morning. The table shows that, even though the number of customers is the same, the possible transit facility must be designed to have different capacities, ranging from 13,700 to 24,100 customers per hour, depending on the network configuration that is selected.
The conclusions of this analysis are:
- Most customers travelling from the east will enter downtown through Hurdman Station; - Most customers travelling from the west will enter downtown through Tunney’s Pasture Station; - Customers travelling from the south can be accommodated either through Carleton and Bayview
Stations, entering downtown from the west, or through Billings Bridge and Hurdman Stations, entering downtown from the east;
- Customers travelling from the north can be accommodate either on a separate corridor, on a facility entering downtown from the west, or on a facility bringing customers into downtown from both the west and the east;
- The level of service required through downtown and the capacity required of the possible downtown transit facility are greatly affected by the configuration of the rapid transit flows approaching downtown from the south and the north; and
- If customers from the north are to be accommodated in the possible downtown transit facility, the level of service required through downtown and the capacity required of the facility is least if Option A3 is selected, carrying customers from the south into downtown via Hurdman Station and carrying customers from the north into downtown equally from the west and from the east.
The following table provides a detailed breakdown of vehicle requirements and service frequencies for all of the network options and a variety of vehicle types and configurations.
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIN ANKIN ANKIN ANKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study DDDD4444 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicaand Network Implicaand Network Implicaand Network Implicationstionstionstions
Service levels required in Downtown facility
Considering different vehicle types and different basic network configurations Shown in vehicles or trains per hour
A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3
Passenger Design Capacity
From south via Hurdman
From north via separate corridor
From south via Hurdman
From north via west
From south via Hurdman
From north via east and west
From south via Carleton
From north via separate corridor
From south via Carleton
From north via west
From south via Carleton
From north via east and west
13,700 21,300 17,950 15,600 24,100 19,850
40-foot standard bus 45 305 474 399 347 536 442
60-foot articulated bus 70 196 305 257 223 345 284
75-80-foot double-articulated bus 90 153 237 200 174 268 221
40-foot double-decker bus 90 153 237 200 174 268 221
Single light rail car 135 102 158 133 116 179 147
2-car light rail train 270 51 79 67 58 90 74
3-car light rail train 405 34 53 45 39 60 49
4-car light rail train 540 26 40 34 29 45 37
Service levels required in Downtown facility Considering different vehicle types and different basic network configurations Shown in vehicles or trains per hour
A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3
Passenger Design Capacity
From south via Hurdman
From north via separate corridor
From south via Hurdman
From north via west
From south via Hurdman
From north via east and west
From south via Carleton
From north via separate corridor
From south via Carleton
From north via west
From south via Carleton
From north via east and west
13,700 21,300 17,950 15,600 24,100 19,850
40-foot standard bus 45 0 min 11 s 0 min 7 s 0 min 9 s 0 min 10 s 0 min 6 s 0 min 8 s
60-foot articulated bus 70 0 min 18 s 0 min 11 s 0 min 14 s 0 min 16 s 0 min 10 s 0 min 12 s
75-80-foot double-articulated bus 90 0 min 23 s 0 min 15 s 0 min 18 s 0 min 20 s 0 min 13 s 0 min 16 s
40-foot double-decker bus 90 0 min 23 s 0 min 15 s 0 min 18 s 0 min 20 s 0 min 13 s 0 min 16 s
Single light rail car 135 0 min 35 s 0 min 22 s 0 min 27 s 0 min 31 s 0 min 20 s 0 min 24 s
2-car light rail train 270 1 min 11 s 0 min 45 s 0 min 53 s 1 min 2 s 0 min 40 s 0 min 48 s
3-car light rail train 405 1 min 45 s 1 min 7 s 1 min 20 s 1 min 32 s 1 min 0 s 1 min 13 s
4-car light rail train 540 2 min 18 s 1 min 30 s 1 min 45 s 2 min 4 s 1 min 20 s 1 min 37 s
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIN ANKIN ANKIN ANKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfrastrTransportation InfrastrTransportation InfrastrTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study ucture Requirement Study ucture Requirement Study ucture Requirement Study D D D D5555 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
These tables show the dramatically different numbers of vehicles or trains required with different vehicle types and with different network configurations. To carry the same number of customers into downtown each morning, the possible downtown transit facility could be designed to accommodate 305 articulated buses per hour, at an average interval of 11 seconds, or to accommodate 26 four-car light rail trains per hour, at an average interval of 2 minutes and 18 seconds.
The choice of vehicle type for the possible downtown transit facility will have ramifications for the network configuration and for the design of the transit facilities outside downtown.
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIN ANKIN ANKIN ANKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfrastrucTransportation InfrastrucTransportation InfrastrucTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study ture Requirement Study ture Requirement Study ture Requirement Study E E E E DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
Appendix E: Tunnel Alignments / Profiles / Cross sections
Exhibit No. 1A Downtown Transit Tunnel – Westbound BRT Tunnel Exhibit No. 1B Downtown Transit Tunnel – Eastbound BRT Tunnel Exhibit No. 2A Downtown Transit Tunnel – Westbound LRT Tunnel Exhibit No. 2B Downtown Transit Tunnel – Eastbound LRT Tunnel Exhibit No. 3A Downtown Transit Tunnel – Westbound BRT/LRT Tunnel Exhibit No. 3B Downtown Transit Tunnel – Eastbound BRT/LRT Tunnel Exhibit No. 4 Downtown Transit Tunnel – Typical Sections
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIN ANKIN ANKIN ANKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfrastrucTransportation InfrastrucTransportation InfrastrucTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study ture Requirement Study ture Requirement Study ture Requirement Study F F F F DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
Appendix F: Cost Estimates
Capital Costs F1
• Summary of Capital Infrastructure Costs F1 • Rapid Transit Network Option Summary F11 • Section # Index and Contingencies F12 • Downtown Tunnel F13 • C1 LRT Greenboro to Bayview F14 • C2 LRT Bayview to Bronson F15 • C2 BRT Bayview to Bronson F16 • C2 BRT / LRT Bayview to Bronson F17 • C3 LRT Campus to Hurdman F18 • C4 LRT Hurdman to Blair F19 • C5 LRT Bayview to Lincoln Fields F20 • C5 BRT Bayview to Lincoln Fields F21 • C6 LRT Lincoln Fields to Baseline F22 • C7 BRT Lincoln Fields to Bayshore F23 • C8 BRT Hurdman to South Keys F24 • C9 BRT Hospital Link F25 • S1 BRT Bowesville to Greenboro F26 • S1 LRT Bowesville to Greenboro F27 • S2 BRT Baseline to BTC F28 • S3 BRT BTC to Cambrian F29 • S4 BRT Barrhaven to Bowesville F30 • S5 LRT Airport Link F31 • S5 BRT Airport Link F32 • E1 BRT Blair to Trim F33 • E2 BRT Blair to Innes F34 • E3 BRT Innes to Millennium F35 • W1 BRT Bayshore to Terry Fox F36 • W2 BRT Terry Fox to Arena F37 • W3 BRT Arena to Kanata West F38 • W4 BRT Eagelson Kanata North F39
Vehicle Costs F40 • Summary of Vehicle Costs F40 • Vehicle and Maintenance Facility Worksheet F43
Operational Costs F44
Integration of STO F45
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRAAAANKIN NKIN NKIN NKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfrastTransportation InfrastTransportation InfrastTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study ructure Requirement Study ructure Requirement Study ructure Requirement Study F F F F1111 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
Summary of Capital Infrastructure Costs Cost estimates were prepared for various segments of the proposed primary rapid transit network. As the technology has not been determined for a number of the corridors, estimates were done for both a BRT facility and an LRT facility. In some sections a shared facility for both BRT and LRT was considered. The following lists the rapid transit corridors as well as the technologies considered for developing cost estimates.
Rapid Transit Corridor Section LRT BRT BRT/LRT
Bayview to Bronson X X X
Downtown Tunnel (Bronson to Campus) X X X
Campus to Hurdman X
Hurdman to Blair X
Bayview to Lincoln Fields X X
Lincoln Fields to Baseline X
Lincoln Fields to Bayshore X
Hurdman to South Keys X
Hospital Link X
Bayview to Greenboro X
Greenboro to Bowesville X X
Airport Link X X
Baseline to Barrhaven Town Centre (BTC) X
BTC to Cambrian X
BTC to Bowesville X
Blair to Trim X
Blair to Innes X
Innes to Millenium X
Bayshore to Terry Fox X
Terry Fox to Arena X
Arena to Kanata West X
Eagelson to Kanata North X
An additional 15% is added to the cost of each section for engineering and project management. A contingency allowance to account for the project uncertainty is applied to the cost estimates for each section. The contingency accounts for uncertainty in project limits, number of station, park and ride lot and locations, soil foundation conditions, pavement design, drainage outlet capacity and SWM measures required. A 30% contingency is used for all sections except for the downtown tunnel where a 50% contingency is used since fewer details are known. More detailed tunnel costs would be developed as part of an Environmental Assessment (EA) process. The EA would identify a recommended preliminary design for a tunnel including its associated cost estimates.
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRAAAANKIN NKIN NKIN NKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfrastTransportation InfrastTransportation InfrastTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study ructure Requirement Study ructure Requirement Study ructure Requirement Study F F F F2222 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
The following table includes descriptions of what was included in the cost estimates.
Description Scope
Property and Right of way Property is not included as part of the cost estimate.
Clearing & Removals The costs associated with the removal of natural vegetation within the right-of-way, Also includes removal of curbs, asphalt, sidewalks, medians, boulevards, barriers signs, and drainage structures. A unit cost per meter of new alignment is applied.
Grading The cost estimate for the removal of earth and rock including stripping and reuse of excavated materials for earth fill required to construct embankments to the design subgrade elevation.
Drainage & Erosion Control Cost associated with; ditching, supply and installation of the storm sewer pipe manholes, catchbasins, and subdrains to accommodate the surface runoff. Unit costs were used depending on weather it is an urban or rural cross section.
SWM Facility SWM facilities required to facilitate the quantity and quality control of the outlet waters. If it was decided that a SWM facility is required, a Lump sum cost was included for each facility.
Running Surface For LRT, the cost includes the construction of the granular bedding, ties, rails, switches, crossover tracks and turnouts. Costs were also included for asphalt during construction as buses will still need to use the Transitway while the LRT facility is being constructed.
The running surface for a Bus Transitway includes granular materials (A, B, O), asphalt, curbs sidewalks, and boulevards. If the Transitway is located in rural areas then sidewalks and boulevards may not be needed. At grade intersections would require new signals and may need to be reconstructed.
Regardless of weather the alignment is for a BRT or LRT facility, fencing and lighting will be required.
Utilities The cost of engineering, design and the relocation of utilities (Enbridge Gas, Ottawa Hydro, Hydro One, Bell, Rogers, Watermains, Telcom, Telus, Videotron, Allstream, other City Services) in conflict with the construction limits.
Structures The cost estimate associated with the construction of structural elements including; wing walls, retaining walls, abutments, foundations, bridge decks, retaining walls, culverts and structures to accommodate pedestrian and vehicular grade separation along the right-of-way.
Landscaping Supply and placement of topsoil, sodding (staked/unstaked), seeding, mulching and/or aesthetic landscaping (coniferous and deciduous trees, shrubs and street hardware)
Stations The cost estimate associated with the construction of transit station at key locations along the right-of-way. May include station elements such as the station structure, elevator and stair wells, platform, shelters, links, pedestrian access, passenger waiting areas, platform and station lighting, wayfinding signage, HVAC, and furnishings.
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRAAAANKIN NKIN NKIN NKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfrastTransportation InfrastTransportation InfrastTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study ructure Requirement Study ructure Requirement Study ructure Requirement Study F F F F3333 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
Description Scope
Associated Works Includes additional cost estimates such as relocation of existing freight rail tracks and impacts to the airport operations during construction.
Park and Ride Lots The cost associated with the development of new park and ride facilities to service the expanded network. Cost includes earth works, pavement structure, pavement markings, illumination, transformer installation, access roads, fencing, barriers, signage, curbs and drainage. Cost does not include the development of a rail or bus station.
Traction Power The cost associated with delivery of electric power to the train includes; connections to a Hydro supply, overhead DC system, substations, and support structures.
Train Control System The cost estimate associated with the installation of vehicle location and control equipment, connecting duct and wiring, passenger information system, and security telephones and surveillance equipment.
Summaries of the cost estimates are included on the following tables for each portion of the Rapid Transit Network. The tables list the stations, park and ride lots, and structures that have been included in the cost estimate. Additional costs for property, vehicles, and maintenance facilities are not included.
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRAAAANKIN NKIN NKIN NKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfrastTransportation InfrastTransportation InfrastTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study ructure Requirement Study ructure Requirement Study ructure Requirement Study F F F F4444 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
Central Downtown
C2 Bayview to Campus C3 Campus to Hurdman Downtown Tunnel
Option 1 BRT Based
Option 2 NS LRT
Option 3 EW LRT
Option 4 NS & EW LRT
New Alignment outside Tunnel
New Alignment outside Tunnel
New Alignment outside Tunnel
New Alignment outside Tunnel
10m diameter tunnel bore Ventilation
10m diameter tunnel bore Ventilation
6m diameter tunnel bore
6m diameter tunnel bore
Stations Lebreton Lebreton Lebreton Lebreton 3 Underground 3 underground 3 Underground 3 underground Campus Campus Campus Lees Lees Lees Hurdman Hurdman Hurdman
Structures
Preston Street Booth Street Cliff Street Access
Preston Street Booth Street Cliff Street Access
Preston Street Booth Street Cliff Street Access Rideau River Rehab
Preston Street Booth Street Cliff Street Access Rideau River Rehab
Cost
$829M $1100M $667M $667M
Central East C4 Hurdman to Blair
Option 1 BRT Based
Option 2 NS LRT
Option 3 EW LRT
Option 4 NS & EW LRT
Existing Transitway Existing Transitway Conversion of Transitway
Conversion of Transitway
Stations Train Train St. Laurent St. Laurent Cyrville Cyrville Blair Blair
Structures
Cost
0 0 $97M $97M
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRAAAANKIN NKIN NKIN NKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfrastTransportation InfrastTransportation InfrastTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study ructure Requirement Study ructure Requirement Study ructure Requirement Study F F F F5555 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
Central South C1 Bayview to Greenboro S1 Greenboro to Bowesville S5 Airport Link
Option 1 BRT Based
Option 2 NS LRT
Option 3 EW LRT
Option 4 NS & EW LRT
New Transitway: South Keys to Bowesville
Conversion of O- Train: Bayview to Greenboro
New Transitway: South Keys to Bowesville
Conversion of O- Train: Bayview to Greenboro
New LRT: Greenboro to Bowesville
New LRT: Greenboro to Bowesville
Stations Bowesville Bowesville Bowesville Bowesville Leitrim Leitrim Leitrim Leitrim Lester Lester Lester Lester Alert Alert Alert Alert Airport Airport Airport Airport South Keys South Keys Greenboro Greenboro Walkley Walkley Confederation Confederation Carleton Carleton Carling Carling Gladstone Gladstone Somerset Somerset Bayview Bayview
Park and Ride Bowesville Bowesville Bowesville Bowesville Leitrim Leitrim Leitrim Leitrim
Structures
Delta Taxiway/Alert rd
Walkley Diamond Walkley Road Sawmill Creek Southeast Transitway Ellwood Diamond Heron Road Rideau River Carleton Pedestrian Carleton Station Dows Lake Tunnel Hwy 417 East Transitway Hunt Club Delta Taxiway/Alert rd
Delta Taxiway/Alert rd
Walkley Diamond Walkley Road Sawmill Creek Southeast Transitway Ellwood Diamond Heron Road Rideau River Carleton Pedestrian Carleton Station Dows Lake Tunnel Hwy 417 East Transitway Hunt Club Delta Taxiway/Alert rd
Cost
$100M $435M $100M $435M
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRAAAANKIN NKIN NKIN NKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfrastTransportation InfrastTransportation InfrastTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study ructure Requirement Study ructure Requirement Study ructure Requirement Study F F F F6666 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
Central West C5 Bayview to Lincoln Fields C6 Lincoln Fields to Baseline
Option 1 BRT Based
Option 2 NS LRT
Option 3 EW LRT
Option 4 NS & EW LRT
New Transitway: Dominion to Lincoln Fields
New Transitway: Dominion to Lincoln Fields
Conversion of Transitway: Bayview to Dominion
Conversion of Transitway: Bayview to Dominion
New LRT: Dominion to Lincoln Fields
New LRT: Dominion to Lincoln Fields
Stations Tunney’s Pasture Tunney’s Pasture Westboro Westboro Dominion Dominion Lincoln Fields Lincoln Fields Queensway Queensway Baseline Baseline
Structures
Woodroffe Ave Richmond Road
Woodroffe Ave Richmond Road
Carling Highway 417 Creek Baseline Woodroffe Ave Richmond Road
Carling Highway 417 Creek Baseline Woodroffe Ave Richmond Road
Cost
$22M $22M $237M $237M
Central Area Summary
in millions $ Option 1 BRT Based
Option 2 NS LRT
Option 3 EW LRT
Option 4 NS & EW LRT
Central Downtown $829 $1100 $667 $667
Central East 0 0 $97 $97
Central South $100 $435 $100 $435
Central West $22 $22 $237 $237
TOTAL $951 $1,557 $1,101 $1,436
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRAAAANKIN NKIN NKIN NKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfrastTransportation InfrastTransportation InfrastTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study ructure Requirement Study ructure Requirement Study ructure Requirement Study F F F F7777 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
East Transitway E1 Blair to Trim E2 Blair to Innes E3 Innes to Millennium
Option 1 BRT Based
Option 2 NS LRT
Option 3 EW LRT
Option 4 NS & EW LRT
New Transitway: Place d’Orleans to Trim New Transitway: Blair to Millennium
Stations Innes @ Blair Blackburn Hamlet E 2 on line stations Blackburn Hamlet W Page mere Bleue 10th Line / Bypass Navan (P&R) Millennium Station (P&R) OTC 10th Line / 174 Taylor Creek Trim
Park and Ride
Navan Millennium
Structures
Montreal Road & Hwy ramps over creek . Rockliffe Boulevard Jean Darc Boulevard & Hwy Ramps Orleans Boulevard Champlain Place D'orleans Drive & Hwy Ramp 10th line hwy ramps Trim Road & Ramps Blair hwy ramp HWY 174 east of Blair Innes Road Mere Bleue 10th line / Bypass Esprit Portobello
Cost
$239M
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRAAAANKIN NKIN NKIN NKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfrastTransportation InfrastTransportation InfrastTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study ructure Requirement Study ructure Requirement Study ructure Requirement Study F F F F8888 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
West Transitway C7 Lincoln Fields to Bayshore W1 Bayshore to Terry Fox W2 Terry Fox to Arena W3 Arena to Fernbank (Stittsville) W4 Kanata North
Option 1 BRT Based
Option 2 NS LRT
Option 3 EW LRT
Option 4 NS & EW LRT
New Transitway: Lincoln Fields to Pinecrest Shoulder lanes HWY 417 Arterial Bus Lanes in Kanata
Stations Dumaurier Pinecrest Moodie Eagelson Pedestrian Bridge Campeau Scotiabank Place Huntmar N. of Maple Grove S. of River Hazeldean Eagelson Klondike 4 On Line Stations
Park and Ride
Hazeldean Campeau Klondike
Structures
pedestrian bridge over 417 at Bayshore Pinecrest Creek Cut and Cover Tunnel Pinecrest Road & hwy Ramps March Road & hwy ramps modification of existing pedestrian bridge Terry Fox Drive Carp River x2 Over 417 to Arena
Cost
$338M
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRAAAANKIN NKIN NKIN NKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfrastTransportation InfrastTransportation InfrastTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study ructure Requirement Study ructure Requirement Study ructure Requirement Study F F F F9999 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
Southeast Transitway C8 Hurdman to Greenboro C9 Hospital Link
Option 1 BRT Based
Option 2 NS LRT
Option 3 EW LRT
Option 4 NS & EW LRT
New Transitway: Hospital Link
Stations Hospital
Structures
Riverside Drive access Via Rail Alta Vista
Cost
$44M
Southwest Transitway S2 Baseline to Barrhaven Town Centre (BTC) S3 BTC to Cambrian
Option 1 BRT Based
Option 2 NS LRT
Option 3 EW LRT
Option 4 NS & EW LRT
New Transitway: Baseline to Hunt Club & Strandherd to Cambrian Conversion of Transitway: Hunt Club to Strandherd
Stations Tallwood Knoxdale Hunt Club Longfields Strandherd Marketplace Chapman Mills 3 online stations
Structures
Tallwood CP Rail Line Cut and Cover Tunnel Highburry Strandherd North Drive Isle Jock River
Cost
$180M
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIN ANKIN ANKIN ANKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation Infrastructure Requirement Study FTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study FTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study FTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study F10101010 DevDevDevDevelopmentelopmentelopmentelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
South Transitway S4 Bowesville to Barrhaven Town Centre (BTC)
Option 1 BRT Based
Option 2 NS LRT
Option 3 EW LRT
Option 4 NS & EW LRT
New Tway Bowesville to BTC
Stations Woodroffe River Road 12 online stations
Park and Ride
Woodroffe River Road
Structures
Cresthaven Rideau River Mosquito Creek
Cost
$100 M
Transitway Summary
in millions $ Option 1 BRT Based
Option 2 NS LRT
Option 3 EW LRT
Option 4 NS & EW LRT
East Transitway $ 239
West Transitway $ 338
Southeast Transitway $ 44
Southwest Transitway $ 180
South Transitway $ 100
TOTAL $ 901
TOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE SUMMARY
in millions $ Option 1 BRT Based
Option 2 NS LRT
Option 3 EW LRT
Option 4 NS & EW LRT
Core Area $ 951 $ 1,557 $ 1,101 $ 1,436
Transitways $ 901 $ 901 $ 901 $ 901
TOTAL $ 1,852 $ 2,458 $ 2,002 $ 2,337
Note: The costs shown above exclude the maintenance facility costs of $300, $340, $220 and $320 million
respectively for the Options 1 to 4.
Rapid Transit Network 14-Apr-08
Option 1
BRT Tunnel
Option 2
BRT / LRT Tunnel
(NS LRT)
Option 3
LRT Tunnel
(E&W Downtown LRT)
Option 4
LRT Tunnel
(E&W Downtown + NS
LRT)
Bayview to Campus
(Excluding Tunnel)
48,093,200.68$ 67,992,771.93$ 62,249,729.43$ 62,249,729.43$
Tunnel portion 780,000,000.00$ 1,032,000,000.00$ 555,000,000.00$ 555,000,000.00$
Campus to Hurdman Existing Transitway Existing Transitway 49,215,400.00$ 49,215,400.00$
829,000,000.00$ 1,100,000,000.00$ 667,000,000.00$ 667,000,000.00$
Hurdman to Blair Existing Transitway Existing Transitway 96,360,972.50$ 96,360,972.50$
-$ -$ 97,000,000.00$ 97,000,000.00$
Bayview to Lincoln
Fields
21,916,700.00$ 21,916,700.00$ 125,574,020.00$ 125,574,020.00$
Lincoln Fields to
Baseline
Existing Transitway Existing Transitway 110,525,350.00$ 110,525,350.00$
22,000,000.00$ 22,000,000.00$ 237,000,000.00$ 237,000,000.00$
Bayview to Greenboro Existing O-Train 226,976,693.13$ Existing O-Train 226,976,693.13$
Greenboro to Bowesville 59,087,632.50$ 133,423,415.95$ 59,087,632.50$ 133,423,415.95$
Airport Link 40,391,910.00$ 74,141,535.00$ 40,391,910.00$ 74,141,535.00$
100,000,000.00$ 435,000,000.00$ 100,000,000.00$ 435,000,000.00$
Blair to Trim 110,857,987.50$ 110,857,987.50$ 110,857,987.50$ 110,857,987.50$
Blair to Innes 24,397,652.50$ 24,397,652.50$ 24,397,652.50$ 24,397,652.50$
Innes to Millenium 103,588,550.00$ 103,588,550.00$ 103,588,550.00$ 103,588,550.00$
239,000,000.00$ 239,000,000.00$ 239,000,000.00$ 239,000,000.00$
Smyth to Hospital 43,792,287.50$ 43,792,287.50$ 43,792,287.50$ 43,792,287.50$
Hurdman to Greenboro Existing Transitway Existing Transitway Existing Transitway Existing Transitway
44,000,000.00$ 44,000,000.00$ 44,000,000.00$ 44,000,000.00$
Bowesville to Barrhaven
Town Centre
97,129,781.11$ 97,129,781.11$ 97,129,781.11$ 97,129,781.11$
100,000,000.00$ 100,000,000.00$ 100,000,000.00$ 100,000,000.00$
Baseline to Barrhaven
Town Centre
154,572,535.00$ 154,572,535.00$ 154,572,535.00$ 154,572,535.00$
Barrhaven Town Centre
to Cambrian
24,636,852.50$ 24,636,852.50$ 24,636,852.50$ 24,636,852.50$
180,000,000.00$ 180,000,000.00$ 180,000,000.00$ 180,000,000.00$
Lincoln Fields to
Bayshore
171,885,756.25$ 171,885,756.25$ 171,885,756.25$ 171,885,756.25$
Bayshore to Arena 80,833,902.50$ 80,833,902.50$ 80,833,902.50$ 80,833,902.50$
Arena to Fernbank
(Stittsville)
31,871,905.00$ 31,871,905.00$ 31,871,905.00$ 31,871,905.00$
Kanata North 52,952,152.50$ 52,952,152.50$ 52,952,152.50$ 52,952,152.50$
338,000,000.00$ 338,000,000.00$ 338,000,000.00$ 338,000,000.00$
1,852,000,000.00$ 2,458,000,000.00$ 2,002,000,000.00$ 2,337,000,000.00$
LRT Vehicles -$ 140,000,000.00$ 750,000,000.00$ 890,000,000.00$
BRT Vehicles 800,000,000.00$ 720,000,000.00$ 400,000,000.00$ 320,000,000.00$
replacement Buses 600,000,000.00$ 540,000,000.00$ 200,000,000.00$ 160,000,000.00$
1,400,000,000.00$ 1,400,000,000.00$ 1,350,000,000.00$ 1,370,000,000.00$
LRT Maintenance Yard -$ 100,000,000.00$ 100,000,000.00$ 200,000,000.00$
BRT Maintenance Yard 300,000,000.00$ 240,000,000.00$ 120,000,000.00$ 120,000,000.00$
300,000,000.00$ 340,000,000.00$ 220,000,000.00$ 320,000,000.00$
3,552,000,000$ 4,198,000,000$ 3,572,000,000$ 4,027,000,000$
note: includes engineering & Project Management
note: does not include vehicles or property
note: cost estimates are preliminary and are subject to change through EA Studies
Central Downtown
Central East
Central West
Central South
East Transitway
SW Transitway
West Transitway
South Transitway
30 % Contingency + 50% on Tunnel
Section
INFRASTRUCTURE
Vehicles
VEHICLES
MAINTENANCE FACILITIES
SE Transitway
Ottawa TMP Update
Rapid Transit Network Study
14-Apr-08
Section # Description Length Estimate 30% 50% Tunnel LRT Downtown Tunnel 2500 370,000,000.00$ 481,000,000.00 555,000,000.00
Tunnel BRT Downtown Tunnel 520,000,000.00$ 676,000,000.00 780,000,000.00 Tunnel BRT / LRT Downtown Tunnel 688,000,000.00$ 894,400,000.00 1,032,000,000.00
C1 LRT Greenboro to Bayview 7800 174,597,456.25$ 226,976,693.13 C2 LRT Bayview to Bronson 1275 47,884,407.25$ 62,249,729.43
C2 BRT Bayview to Bronson 36,994,769.75$ 48,093,200.68
C2 BRT / LRT Bayview to Bronson 52,302,132.25$ 67,992,771.93
C3 LRT Campus to Hurdman 2000 37,858,000.00$ 49,215,400.00
C3 BRT Campus to Hurdman -$ -
C4 LRT Hurdman to Blair 5300 74,123,825.00$ 96,360,972.50
C4 BRT Hurdman to Blair -$ -
C5 LRT Bayview to Lincoln Fields 7600 96,595,400.00$ 125,574,020.00
C5 BRT Bayview to Lincoln Fields 16,859,000.00$ 21,916,700.00
C6 LRT Lincoln Fields to Baseline 3000 85,019,500.00$ 110,525,350.00
C6 BRT Lincoln Fields to Baseline -$ -
C7 BRT Lincoln Fields to Bayshore 132,219,812.50$ 171,885,756.25
C8 BRT Hurdman to South Keys -$ -
C9 BRT Hospital Link 33,686,375.00$ 43,792,287.50
S1 BRT Bowesville to Greenboro 45,452,025.00$ 59,087,632.50
S1 LRT Bowesville to Greenboro 7000 102,633,396.89$ 133,423,415.95
S2 BRT Baseline to BTC 118,901,950.00$ 154,572,535.00
S3 BRT BTC to Cambrian 18,951,425.00$ 24,636,852.50
S4 BRT Barrhaven to Bowesville 74,715,216.24$ 97,129,781.11
S5 LRT Airport Link 2500 57,031,950.00$ 74,141,535.00
S5 BRT Airport Link 31,070,700.00$ 40,391,910.00
E1 BRT Blair to Trim 85,275,375.00$ 110,857,987.50
E2 BRT Blair to Innes 18,767,425.00$ 24,397,652.50
E3 BRT Innes to Millenium 79,683,500.00$ 103,588,550.00
W1 BRT Bayshore to Terry Fox 30,119,535.00$ 39,155,395.50
W2 BRT Terry Fox to Arena 32,060,390.00$ 41,678,507.00
W3 BRT Arena to Fernbank (Stittsville) 24,516,850.00$ 31,871,905.00 W4 BRT Eagelson Kanata North 40,732,425.00$ 52,952,152.50
note: includes engineering & Project Management
note: does not include vehicles or property
note: cost estimates are preliminary and are subject to change through EA Studies
Downtown Tunnel
T1 LRT T2 BRT T3 BRT/LRT Length (Km) 2.5 2.5 2.5
twin bore per KM 45,000,000.00$ 125,000,000.00$ 125,000,000.00$
Tracks/ electrical 55,000,000.00$ 55,000,000.00$
Asphalt/ ventilation 35,000,000.00$ 35,000,000.00$
Tunnel Bore 250,000,000.00$ 400,000,000.00$ 538,000,000.00$
Stations (each) 40,000,000.00$ 40,000,000.00$ 50,000,000.00$
# of Stations 3 3 3
Station Cost 120,000,000.00$ 120,000,000.00$ 150,000,000.00$
Sub-total 370,000,000.00$ 520,000,000.00$ 688,000,000.00$
includes engineering and project management
50% contingency 555,000,000.00$ 780,000,000.00$ 1,032,000,000.00$
cost per KM - single bore 111,000,000.00$ 156,000,000.00$ 206,400,000.00$
combined = 5 m radius = 78.53982 m2
LRT = 3 m radius = 28.27433 m2
larger = 178%
C1 LRT GREENBORO TO BAYVIEW 7800
WBS # Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
10 Property and Right of Way
10.1 Property Acquisition
10.2 ROW Preparation
10.3 Property Maintenance
10.4 Recovery
10.99 Contingency
WBS 10 Subtotal -$
20.6.01 Clearing & Removals
New corridor 7800 m 375.00$ 2,925,000.00$
20.6.02 Grading
Fill 200000 m3 20.00$ 4,000,000.00$
Ex 300000 m3 22.50$ 6,750,000.00$
Rock Ex 60000 m3 85.00$ 5,100,000.00$
20.6.03 Drainage & Erosion Control
ditching 65 m 175.00$ 11,375.00$
20.6.04 SWM Facility
20.6.05 Running Surface
Tracks 7,800 m 1,215.00$ 9,477,000.00$
Crossings 1 each 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$
Turnout 2 each 500,000.00$ 1,000,000.00$
fencing 15,600 m 80.00$ 1,248,000.00$
roadwork 1 LS 700,000.00$ 700,000.00$
20.6.06 Utilities
relocation 1 LS 5,615,000.00$ 5,615,000.00$
20.6.07 Structures
Walkley Diamond 500 m2 3,500.00$ 1,750,000.00$
Walkley Road 1 LS 75,000.00$ 75,000.00$
Sawmill Creek 2,500 m2 3,500.00$ 8,750,000.00$
Southeast Transitway 400 m2 3,500.00$ 1,400,000.00$
Ellwood Diamond 500 m2 3,500.00$ 1,750,000.00$
Heron Road 825 m2 2,500.00$ 2,062,500.00$
Rideau River 600 m2 4,000.00$ 2,400,000.00$
Pedestrian Underpass - Carleton Uni 100 m2 2,500.00$ 250,000.00$
Pedestrian Underpass - Carleton Station 100 m2 2,500.00$ 250,000.00$
Dow's Lake Tunnel 580 m 26,500.00$ 15,370,000.00$
Hwy 417 Modifications 1 LS 200,000.00$ 200,000.00$
Grade Separate Transitway 860 m2 3,500.00$ 3,010,000.00$
WBS 20 Subtotal 74,143,875.00$
FACILITIES
30.1 Storage Yards, Maintenance
30.2 Stations
Greenboro 1 each 3,300,000.00$ 3,300,000.00$
Walkley 1 each 3,300,000.00$ 3,300,000.00$
Confederation 1 each 3,300,000.00$ 3,300,000.00$
Carleton 1 each 3,300,000.00$ 3,300,000.00$
Carling 1 each 3,300,000.00$ 3,300,000.00$
Gladstone 1 each 3,300,000.00$ 3,300,000.00$
Somerset 1 each 3,300,000.00$ 3,300,000.00$
Bayview transfer (7M LRT-LRT, 5M Otrain-LRT, 3M LRT-Tway) 1 each 7,000,000.00$ 7,000,000.00$
30.3 Associated Works
relocate existing track 7800 m 300.00$ 2,340,000.00$
30.4 Park and Ride Lots
WBS 30 Subtotal 32,440,000.00$
40 Traction Power System
45.3.01 Traction Power 7800 m 1,350.00$ 10,530,000.00$
45.3.02 Power Supply 7800 m 1,000.00$ 7,800,000.00$
45.3.03 Sub-stations 7800 m 1,200.00$ 9,360,000.00$
WBS 40 Subtotal 27,690,000.00$
50 Train Control System
50.3.01 Control / Signals 7800 m 1,500.00$ 11,700,000.00$
50.3.02 Communication System 7800 m 750.00$ 5,850,000.00$
WBS 50 Subtotal 17,550,000.00$
SECTION TOTAL 151,823,875.00$
Engineering & Project Management 15% 22,773,581.25$
TOTAL 174,597,456.25$ 30% 52,379,236.88
TOTAL 226,976,693.13$
C2 LRT BAYVIEW TO CAMPUS excluding tunnel 1275
WBS # Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
10 Property and Right of Way
10.1 Property Acquisition
10.2 ROW Preparation
10.3 Property Maintenance
10.4 Recovery
10.99 Contingency
WBS 10 Subtotal -$
20.5.01 Clearing & Removals
20.5.02 Grading
Fill 80000 m3 20.00$ 1,600,000.00$
Ex 20000 m3 22.50$ 450,000.00$
-$
20.5.03 Drainage & Erosion Control -$
bayview to west portal 1275 m 475.00$ 605,625.00$
-$
20.5.04 SWM Facility -$
-$
20.5.05 Running Surface -$
Tracks 2,550 m 1,215.00$ 3,098,250.00$
Crossings 4 each 50,000.00$ 200,000.00$
At Grade Crossings 0 each 400,000.00$ -$
fencing 2,550 m 80.00$ 204,000.00$
-$
20.5.06 Utilities -$
-$
20.5.07 Structures -$
Preston Street 300 m 2
2,500.00$ 750,000.00$
Booth Street - heritage style 900 m 2
4,000.00$ 3,600,000.00$
Cliff Street Access 300 m 2
2,500.00$ 750,000.00$
retaining walls 1200 m 2
1,000.00$ 1,200,000.00$
20.5.08 Landscaping
downtown beutification (Albert & Slater Streets) 3000 m 4,000.00$ 12,000,000.00$
Albert / Slater Asphalt Removals (12 m width) 36000 m 2
10.00$ 360,000.00$
Albert / Slater Material Removals (12 m width x 0.3m depth) 10800 m3 25.00$ 270,000.00$
Albert / Slater Resurface (12m width) 36000 m2 61.97$ 2,230,740.00$
Mackenzie King Bridge 550 m 3,500.00$ 1,925,000.00$
WBS 20 Subtotal 29,243,615.00$
FACILITIES
30.1 Storage Yards, Maintenance
30.2 Stations
Lebreton new LRT station 1 each 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$
30.3 Associated Works
WBS 30 Subtotal 5,000,000.00$
Traction Power System
45 Traction Power 1275 m 1,350.00$ 1,721,250.00$
45.3.01 Power Supply 1275 m 1,000.00$ 1,275,000.00$
45.3.02 Sub-stations 1275 m 1,200.00$ 1,530,000.00$
WBS 40 Subtotal 4,526,250.00$
50 Train Control System
50.3.01 Control / Signals 1275 m 1,500.00$ 1,912,500.00$
50.3.02 Communication System 1275 m 750.00$ 956,250.00$
WBS 50 Subtotal 2,868,750.00$
SECTION TOTAL 41,638,615.00$
Engineering & Project Management 15% 6,245,792.25$
TOTAL 47,884,407.25$ 30% 14,365,322.18
TOTAL 62,249,729.43$
C2 BRT BAYVIEW TO CAMPUS excluding tunnel 1275
WBS # Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
10 Property and Right of Way
10.1 Property Acquisition
10.2 ROW Preparation
10.3 Property Maintenance
10.4 Recovery
10.99 Contingency
WBS 10 Subtotal -$
20.5.01 Clearing & Removals
20.5.02 Grading
Fill 80000 m3 20.00$ 1,600,000.00$
Ex 20000 m3 22.50$ 450,000.00$
20.5.03 Drainage & Erosion Control
bayview to west portal 1275 m 475.00$ 605,625.00$
20.5.04 SWM Facility
20.5.05 Running Surface
fencing 2,550 m 80.00$ 204,000.00$
Transitway Surface 1,275 m 660.00$ 841,500.00$
20.5.06 Utilities
20.5.07 Structures
Preston Street 300 m 2
2,500.00$ 750,000.00$
Booth Street - heritage style 900 m 2
4,000.00$ 3,600,000.00$
Cliff Street Access 300 m 2
2,500.00$ 750,000.00$
retaining walls 1200 m 2
1,000.00$ 1,200,000.00$
20.5.08 Landscaping
downtown beutification (Albert & Slater Streets) 3000 m 4,000.00$ 12,000,000.00$
Albert / Slater Asphalt Removals (12 m width) 36000 m 2
10.00$ 360,000.00$
Albert / Slater Material Removals (12 m width x 0.3m depth) 10800 m3 25.00$ 270,000.00$
Albert / Slater Resurface (12m width) 36000 m2 61.97$ 2,230,740.00$
Mackenzie King Bridge 550 m 3,500.00$ 1,925,000.00$
WBS 20 Subtotal 26,786,865.00$
FACILITIES
30.1 Storage Yards, Maintenance
30.2 Stations
Lebreton new BRT station 1 each 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$
30.3 Associated Works
WBS 30 Subtotal 5,000,000.00$
50.3.02 Communication System 1275 m 300.00$ 382,500.00$
WBS 50 Subtotal 382,500.00$
SECTION TOTAL 32,169,365.00$
Engineering & Project Management 15% 4,825,404.75$
TOTAL 36,994,769.75$ 30% 11,098,430.93
TOTAL 48,093,200.68$
C2 BRT LRT BAYVIEW TO CAMPUS 1275
WBS # Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
10 Property and Right of Way
10.1 Property Acquisition
10.2 ROW Preparation
10.3 Property Maintenance
10.4 Recovery
10.99 Contingency
WBS 10 Subtotal -$
20.5.01 Clearing & Removals
20.5.02 Grading
Fill 80000 m3 20.00$ 1,600,000.00$
Ex 20000 m3 22.50$ 450,000.00$
20.5.03 Drainage & Erosion Control
1275 m 475.00$ 605,625.00$
20.5.04 SWM Facility
20.5.05 Running Surface
Tracks 2,550 m 1,215.00$ 3,098,250.00$
Crossing 4 each 50,000.00$ 200,000.00$
fencing 2,550 m 80.00$ 204,000.00$
Transitway Surface 1,275 m 660.00$ 841,500.00$
20.5.06 Utilities
20.5.07 Structures
Preston Street 300 m 2
2,500.00$ 750,000.00$
Booth Street - heritage style 900 m 2
4,000.00$ 3,600,000.00$
Cliff Street Access 300 m 2
2,500.00$ 750,000.00$
retaining walls 1200 m2 1,000.00$ 1,200,000.00$
20.5.08 Landscaping
downtown beutification (Albert & Slater Streets) 3000 m 4,000.00$ 12,000,000.00$
Albert / Slater Asphalt Removals (12 m width) 36000 m 2
10.00$ 360,000.00$
Albert / Slater Material Removals (12 m width x 0.3m depth) 10800 m3 25.00$ 270,000.00$
Albert / Slater Resurface (12m width) 36000 m2 61.97$ 2,230,740.00$
Mackenzie King Bridge 550 m 3,500.00$ 1,925,000.00$
WBS 20 Subtotal 30,085,115.00$
FACILITIES
30.1 Storage Yards, Maintenance
30.2 Stations
Lebreton Bus and Rail Station 1 each 8,000,000.00$ 8,000,000.00$
30.3 Associated Works
WBS 30 Subtotal 8,000,000.00$
Traction Power System
45 Traction Power 1275 m 1,350.00$ 1,721,250.00$
45.3.01 Power Supply 1275 m 1,000.00$ 1,275,000.00$
45.3.02 Sub-stations 1275 m 1,200.00$ 1,530,000.00$
WBS 40 Subtotal 4,526,250.00$
50 Train Control System
50.3.01 Control / Signals 1275 m 1,500.00$ 1,912,500.00$
50.3.02 Communication System 1275 m 750.00$ 956,250.00$
WBS 50 Subtotal 2,868,750.00$
SECTION TOTAL 45,480,115.00$
Engineering & Project Management 15% 6,822,017.25$
TOTAL 52,302,132.25$ 30% 15,690,639.68
TOTAL 67,992,771.93$
C3 LRT CAMPUS TO HURDMAN 2000
WBS # Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
10 Property and Right of Way
10.1 Property Acquisition
10.2 ROW Preparation
10.3 Property Maintenance
10.4 Recovery
10.99 Contingency
WBS 10 Subtotal -$
20.4.01 Clearing & Removals
2000 375.00$ 750,000.00$
20.4.02 Grading
Fill 0 m3 20.00$ -$
Ex 0 m3 22.50$ -$
20.4.03 Drainage & Erosion Control
20.4.04 SWM Facility
20.4.05 Running Surface
Tracks 4,000 m 1,215.00$ 4,860,000.00$
Crossings 1 each 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$
Turnout 1 each 500,000.00$ 500,000.00$
fencing 0 m 80.00$ -$
asphalt during construction 2,000 m 330.00$ 660,000.00$
20.4.06 Utilities
20.4.07 Structures
Modifications to Rideau River 1 LS 1,500,000.00$ 1,500,000.00$
20.4.08 Landscaping
WBS 20 Subtotal 8,320,000.00$
FACILITIES
30.1 Storage Yards, Maintenance
30.2 Stations
30.2.1 Lees 1 each 4,000,000.00$ 4,000,000.00$
30.2.2 Hurdman 1 each 8,000,000.00$ 8,000,000.00$
30.2.3 Campus 1 each 1,000,000.00$ 1,000,000.00$
30.3 Associated Works
WBS 30 Subtotal 13,000,000.00$
Traction Power System
Traction Power 2000 m 1,350.00$ 2,700,000.00$
45.3.01 Power Supply 2000 m 1,000.00$ 2,000,000.00$
45.3.02 Sub-stations 2000 m 1,200.00$ 2,400,000.00$
WBS 40 Subtotal 7,100,000.00$
50 Train Control System
50.3.01 Control / Signals 2000 m 1,500.00$ 3,000,000.00$
50.3.02 Communication System 2000 m 750.00$ 1,500,000.00$
WBS 50 Subtotal 4,500,000.00$
SECTION TOTAL 32,920,000.00$
Engineering & Project Management 15% 4,938,000.00$
TOTAL 37,858,000.00$ 30% 11,357,400.00
TOTAL 49,215,400.00$
C4 LRT HURDMAN TO BLAIR 5300
WBS # Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
10 Property and Right of Way
10.1 Property Acquisition
10.2 ROW Preparation
10.3 Property Maintenance
10.4 Recovery
10.99 Contingency
WBS 10 Subtotal -$
20.1.01 Clearing & Removals
5,300 m 375.00$ 1,987,500.00$
20.1.02 Grading
Fill
Ex
20.1.03 Drainage & Erosion Control
20.1.04 SWM Facility
20.1.05 Running Surface
Tracks 10,600 m 1,215.00$ 12,879,000.00$
Crossings 2 each 50,000.00$ 100,000.00$
Turnout 2 each 500,000.00$ 1,000,000.00$
fencing 0 m 80.00$ -$
asphalt during construction 5,300 m 330.00$ 1,749,000.00$
20.1.06 Utilities
20.1.07 Structures
20.1.80 Landscaping
WBS 20 Subtotal 17,715,500.00$
FACILITIES
30.1 Storage Yards, Maintenance
30.2 Stations
Train 1 each 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$
St. Laurent 1 each 2,000,000.00$ 2,000,000.00$
Cyrville 1 each 1,000,000.00$ 1,000,000.00$
Blair 1 each 10,000,000.00$ 10,000,000.00$
16,000,000.00$
30.3 Associated Works
WBS 30 Subtotal 16,000,000.00$
45 Traction Power System
45.3.01 Traction Power 5300 m 1,350.00$ 7,155,000.00$
45.3.02 Power Supply 5300 m 1,000.00$ 5,300,000.00$
45.3.99 Sub-stations 5300 m 1,200.00$ 6,360,000.00$
WBS 40 Subtotal 18,815,000.00$
50.3.02 Train Control System
50.3.03 Control / Signals 5300 m 1,500.00$ 7,950,000.00$
50.3.04 Communication System 5300 m 750.00$ 3,975,000.00$
WBS 50 Subtotal 11,925,000.00$
SECTION TOTAL 64,455,500.00$
Engineering & Project Management 15% 9,668,325.00$
TOTAL 74,123,825.00$ 30% 22,237,147.50
TOTAL 96,360,972.50$
C5 LRT BAYVIEW TO LINCOLN 7600
WBS # Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
10 Property and Right of Way
10.1 Property Acquisition
10.2 ROW Preparation
10.3 Property Maintenance
10.4 Recovery
10.99 Contingency
WBS 10 Subtotal -$
20.3.01 Clearing & Removals
strip Tway surface / New alignment adjacent parkway 7600 m 375.00$ 2,850,000.00$
20.3.02 Grading
Fill 5000 m3 20.00$ 100,000.00$
Ex
20.3.03 Drainage & Erosion Control
ditch along LRT adjacnt Parkway 4000 from dominion to lincoln 4000 m 125.00$ 500,000.00$
20.3.04 SWM Facility
new facility for new alignment 1 LS 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$
20.3.05 Running Surface
Tracks 15,200 m 1,215.00$ 18,468,000.00$
Crossings 5 each 50,000.00$ 250,000.00$
Turnout 3 each 500,000.00$ 1,500,000.00$
fencing 8,000 m 80.00$ 640,000.00$
Asphalt during construction 7,600 m 330.00$ 2,508,000.00$
20.3.06 Utilities 1 LS 100,000.00$ 100,000.00$
20.3.07 Structures
Woodroffe Ave 400 m 2
2,500.00$ 1,000,000.00$
Richmond Road 600 m 2
2,500.00$ 1,500,000.00$
20.3.08 Landscaping
adjacent new alignment 1 LS 1,500,000.00$ 1,500,000.00$
WBS 20 Subtotal 33,916,000.00$
FACILITIES
30.1 Storage Yards, Maintenance
30.2 Stations
Tunney's Pasture 1 each 1,000,000.00$ 1,000,000.00$
Westboro 1 each 1,000,000.00$ 1,000,000.00$
Dominion 1 each 1,000,000.00$ 1,000,000.00$
Lincoln Fields 1 each 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$
6,000,000.00$
30.3 Associated Works
WBS 30 Subtotal 6,000,000.00$
45 Traction Power System
45.3.01 Traction Power 7600 m 1,350.00$ 10,260,000.00$
45.3.02 Power Supply 7600 m 1,000.00$ 7,600,000.00$
45.3.99 Sub-stations 7600 m 1,200.00$ 9,120,000.00$
50 WBS 40 Subtotal 26,980,000.00$
50.3.01 Train Control System
50.3.02 Control / Signals 7600 m 1,500.00$ 11,400,000.00$
50.3.03 Communication System 7600 m 750.00$ 5,700,000.00$
WBS 50 Subtotal 17,100,000.00$
SECTION TOTAL 83,996,000.00$
Engineering & Project Management 15% 12,599,400.00$
TOTAL 96,595,400.00$ 30% 28,978,620.00
TOTAL 125,574,020.00$
C5 BRT BAYVIEW TO LINCOLN 7600
WBS # Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
10 Property and Right of Way
10.1 Property Acquisition
10.2 ROW Preparation
10.3 Property Maintenance
10.4 Recovery
10.99 Contingency
WBS 10 Subtotal -$
20.3.01 Clearing & Removals
New alignment adjacent parkway 4000 from dominion to lincoln 4000 m 375.00$ 1,500,000.00$
20.3.02 Grading
Fill 5000 m3 20.00$ 100,000.00$
20.3.03 Drainage & Erosion Control
rural ditching 4000 m 125.00$ 500,000.00$
20.3.04 SWM Facility
new facility for new alignment 1 LS 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$
20.3.05 Running Surface
2 new lanes for transit 4,000 m 660$ 2,640,000.00$
fencing 8,000 m 80.00$ 640,000.00$
20.3.06 Utilities -$
20.3.07 Structures
Woodroffe Ave 400 m 2
2,500.00$ 1,000,000.00$
Richmond Road 600 m 2
2,500.00$ 1,500,000.00$
20.3.08 Landscaping
adjacent new alignment 1 LS 1,500,000.00$ 1,500,000.00$
WBS 20 Subtotal 12,380,000.00$
FACILITIES
30.1 Storage Yards, Maintenance
30.2 Stations
Tunney's Pasture each -$
Westboro each -$
Dominion each -$
Lincoln Fields each -$
-$
30.3 Associated Works
WBS 30 Subtotal -$
45 Traction Power System
45.3.01 Traction Power m -$
45.3.02 Power Supply m -$
45.3.99 Sub-stations m -$
50 WBS 40 Subtotal -$
50.3.01 Train Control System
50.3.02 Control / Signals m -$
50.3.03 Communication System 7600 m 300.00$ 2,280,000.00$
WBS 50 Subtotal 2,280,000.00$
SECTION TOTAL 14,660,000.00$
Engineering & Project Management 15% 2,199,000.00$
TOTAL 16,859,000.00$ 30% 5,057,700.00
TOTAL 21,916,700.00$
C6 LRT LINCOLN TO BASELINE 3000
WBS # Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
10 Property and Right of Way
10.1 Property Acquisition
10.2 ROW Preparation
10.3 Property Maintenance
10.4 Recovery
10.99 Contingency
WBS 10 Subtotal
20.1.01 Clearing & Removals
Strip Transitway surface 3,000 m 375.00$ 1,125,000.00$
20.1.02 Grading
Fill -$
Cut -$
20.1.03 Drainage & Erosion Control
ditch along LRT 3000 m 125.00$ 375,000.00$
20.1.04 SWM Facility
20.1.05 Running Surface
Tracks 6,000 m 1,215.00$ 7,290,000.00$
Crossings 1 each 400,000.00$ 400,000.00$
Turnout 1 each 600,000.00$ 600,000.00$
fencing m 80.00$ -$
Aspalt during construction 3,000 m 330.00$ 990,000.00$
20.1.06 Utilities
20.1.07 Structures
Carling Ave 600 m 2
2,500.00$ 1,500,000.00$
Queensway 3500 m 2
5,500.00$ 19,250,000.00$
creek 400 m 2
2,500.00$ 1,000,000.00$
Baseline 800 m 2
2,500.00$ 2,000,000.00$
20.1.80 Landscaping
WBS 20 Subtotal 34,530,000.00$
FACILITIES
30.1 Storage Yards, Maintenance
30.2 Stations
Queensway 1 each 1,000,000.00$ 1,000,000.00$
Iris 1 each 1,000,000.00$ 1,000,000.00$
Baseline (below grade station all in including approaches) 1 each 20,000,000.00$ 20,000,000.00$
22,000,000.00$
30.3 Associated Works
WBS 30 Subtotal 22,000,000.00$
45 Traction Power System
45.3.01 Traction Power 3000 m 1,350.00$ 4,050,000.00$
45.3.02 Power Supply 3000 m 1,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$
45.3.99 Sub-stations 3000 m 1,200.00$ 3,600,000.00$
50 WBS 40 Subtotal 10,650,000.00$
50.3.01 Train Control System
50.3.02 Control / Signals 3000 m 1,500.00$ 4,500,000.00$
50.3.03 Communication System 3000 m 750.00$ 2,250,000.00$
WBS 50 Subtotal 6,750,000.00$
SECTION TOTAL 73,930,000.00$
Engineering & Project Management 15% 11,089,500.00$
TOTAL 85,019,500.00$ 30% 25,505,850.00
TOTAL 110,525,350.00$
existing from Pinecrest to Bayshore 1500 m
new Tway from Pinecrest to Split 1700 m
widen SW Tway for turning lanes 400 m
C7 BRT LINCOLN TO BAYSHORE 1700
WBS # Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
10 Property and Right of Way
10.1 Property Acquisition
10.2 ROW Preparation
10.3 Property Maintenance
10.4 Recovery
10.99 Contingency
WBS 10 Subtotal -$
20.2.01 Clearing & Removals
Earth Ex 2100 m 375.00$ 787,500.00$
20.2.02 Grading
fill / grading
Cut / excavation 289000 m3 85.00$ 24,565,000.00$
20.2.03 Drainage & Erosion Control
600 storm sewer 1,700 m 600.00$ 1,020,000.00$
CB 2 @ 40m spacing 85 each 2,000.00$ 170,000.00$
CB leads ROW @ 40m spacing 425 m 250.00$ 106,250.00$
20.2.04 SWM Facility
20.2.05 Running Surface
Transitway Roadway (rural and urban) 2,100 m 660$ 1,386,000.00$
Sidewalks, boulevards (Urban) 2,100 m 330$ 693,000.00$
fencing 4,200 m 80$ 336,000.00$
20.2.06 Utilities
20.2.07 Structures
ped bridge over 417 320 m2 10,000.00$ 3,200,000.00$
Pinecrest Creek 400 m 2
$2,500 1,000,000.00$
Tunnel includes cut 6200 m 2
$6,500 40,300,000.00$
Pinecrest W-NS Ramp 1100 m 2
$2,500 2,750,000.00$
Pinecrest SW Ramp 200 m 2
$2,500 500,000.00$
Pinecrest 700 m 2
$2,500 1,750,000.00$
retaining walls 28900 m 2
$1,000 28,900,000.00$
20.2.08 Landscaping
WBS 20 Subtotal 107,463,750.00$
FACILITIES
30.1 Storage Yards, Maintenance
30.2 Stations
Dumaurier 1 each 3,500,000$ 3,500,000.00$
Pinecrest 1 each 3,500,000$ 3,500,000.00$
. 7,000,000.00$
30.3 Associated Works
30.4 Park and Ride Lots
WBS 30 Subtotal 7,000,000.00$
50.3.04 Communication System 1700 m 300.00$ 510,000.00$
WBS 50 Subtotal 510,000.00$
SECTION TOTAL 114,973,750.00$
Engineering & Project Management 15% 17,246,062.50$
TOTAL 132,219,812.50$ 30% 39,665,943.75
TOTAL 171,885,756.25$
C8 BRT HURDMAN TO SOUTH KEYS
WBS # Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
10 Property and Right of Way
10.1 Property Acquisition
10.2 ROW Preparation
10.3 Property Maintenance
10.4 Recovery
10.99 Contingency
20.6.01 Clearing & Removals
20.6.02 Grading
20.6.03 Drainage & Erosion Control
20.6.04 SWM Facility
20.6.05 Roadway
20.6.06 Utilities
20.6.07 Structures
20.6.08 Landscaping
FACILITIES
30.1 Storage Yards, Maintenance
30.2 Stations
30.3 Associated Works
40 Vehicles and Equipment
45 Traction Power System
50 Train Control System
SECTION 6 TOTAL
Engineering & Project Management 15% -$
TOTAL -$
Existing BRT
C9 BRT HOSPITAL 1500
WBS # Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
10 Property and Right of Way
10.1 Property Acquisition
10.2 ROW Preparation
10.3 Property Maintenance
10.4 Recovery
10.99 Contingency
WBS 10 Subtotal
20.6.01 Clearing & Removals
earth EX for new alignment 1,500 m 375.00$ 562,500.00$
20.6.02 Grading
fill / grading
Cut / excavation l=325, w= 25avg, h=7 57000 m3 85.00$ 4,845,000.00$
For Structure
20.6.03 Drainage & Erosion Control
Transitway urban 1500 m 475.00$ 712,500.00$
Culverts and Outlets 3200 m 1,000.00$ 3,200,000.00$
20.6.04 SWM Facility
Stormwater Management Facilities 1 LS 3,310,000.00$ 3,310,000.00$
20.6.05 Surface Roadway
Granulars & Asphalt 1,500 m 660.00$ 990,000.00$
Curbs & Sidewalks (Urban) 1,500 m 330.00$ 495,000.00$
At Grade Intersection (at transitway) 1 each 500,000.00$ 500,000.00$
fencing 3,000 m 80.00$ 240,000.00$
20.6.06 Utilities
Utilities (Bell, Hydro, Gas, Fibreoptic) + Tower Relocations 1 LS 1,250,000.00$ 1,250,000.00$
Municipal Services Relocations (Water, Sanitary and Storm) 1 LS 3,500,000.00$ 3,500,000.00$
20.6.07 Structures
Under Riverside Drive Access 15 15 m 2
2,500.00$ 562,500.00$
Under Via 10 15 m 2
2,500.00$ 375,000.00$
Under Alta Vista 20 15 m 2
2,500.00$ 750,000.00$
retaining walls 650 7 m 2
1,000.00$ 4,550,000.00$
20.6.08 Landscaping
WBS 20 Subtotal 25,842,500.00$
FACILITIES
30.1 Storage Yards, Maintenance
30.2 Stations
Hospital 1 LS 3,000,000$ 3,000,000.00$
WBS 30 Subtotal 3,000,000.00$
50.3.04 Communication System 1500 300 450,000.00$
WBS 50 Subtotal 450,000.00$
SECTION 6 TOTAL 29,292,500.00$
Engineering & Project Management 15% 4,393,875.00$
TOTAL 33,686,375.00$ 30% 10,105,912.50
TOTAL 43,792,287.50$
S1 BRT BOWESVILLE TO GREENBORO south keys to greenboro 6000
WBS # Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
10 Property and Right of Way
10.1 Property Acquisition
10.2 ROW Preparation
10.3 Property Maintenance
10.4 Recovery
10.99 Contingency
WBS 10 Subtotal
20.6.01 Clearing & Removals
earth EX for new alignment 6,000 m 375$ 2,250,000.00$
20.6.02 Grading
fill / grading 100000 m3 20.00$ 2,000,000.00$
Cut / excavation 51000 m3 22.50$ 1,147,500.00$
20.6.03 Drainage & Erosion Control
Transitway rural 6000 m 125.00$ 750,000.00$
20.6.04 SWM Facility
20.6.05 Surface Roadway
Granulars & Asphalt 6,000 m 660$ 3,960,000.00$
At Grade Intersection Lester / Leitrim 2 each 500,000$ 1,000,000.00$
Fencing 12,000 m 80$ 960,000.00$
20.6.06 Utilities 1 LS 2,806,000.00$ 2,806,000.00$
20.6.07 Structures
culvert 150 m 1,000.00$ 150,000.00$
retaining wall 1475 m2 1,000.00$ 1,475,000.00$
20.6.08 Landscaping
WBS 20 Subtotal 16,498,500.00$
FACILITIES
30.1 Storage Yards, Maintenance
30.2 Stations
Bowesville 1 each 3,000,000$ 3,000,000.00$
Leitrim 1 each 3,300,000$ 3,300,000.00$
Lester 1 each 3,200,000$ 3,200,000.00$
30.3 Associated Works
relocate existing track 4200 m 300.00$ 1,260,000.00$
Turnout for Freight Track to CN 1 each 150,000.00$ 150,000.00$
Track Removal 4,200 m 75.00$ 315,000.00$
30.4 Park and Ride Lots
Bowsville 1 LS 6,000,000$ 6,000,000.00$
Leitrim 1 LS 4,000,000$ 4,000,000.00$
WBS 30 Subtotal 21,225,000.00$
50.3.04 Communication System 6000 m 300 1,800,000.00$
WBS 50 Subtotal 1,800,000.00$
SECTION 6 TOTAL 39,523,500.00$
Engineering & Project Management 15% 5,928,525.00$
TOTAL 45,452,025.00$ 30% 13,635,607.50
TOTAL 59,087,632.50$
S1 LRT BOWESVILLE TO GREENBORO 7000
WBS # Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
10 Property and Right of Way
10.1 Property Acquisition
10.2 ROW Preparation
10.3 Property Maintenance
10.4 Recovery
10.99 Contingency
WBS 10 Subtotal
20.6.01 Clearing & Removals
New alignment 7000 m 375.00$ 2,625,000.00$
20.6.02 Grading
Fill 100000 m3 20.00$ 2,000,000.00$
Ex 51000 m3 22.50$ 1,147,500.00$
20.6.03 Drainage & Erosion Control
ditch along LRT 7000 m 125.00$ 875,000.00$
20.6.04 SWM Facility
20.6.05 Running Surface
Tracks 7,000 m 1,215.00$ 8,505,000.00$
Crossings 1 LS 175,848.75$ 175,848.75$
Turnout 1 LS 1,080,670.50$ 1,080,670.50$
fencing 7,000 m 80.00$ 560,000.00$
roadwork 1 LS 720,225.32$ 720,225.32$
20.6.06 Utilities
relocation 1 LS 2,806,000.00$ 2,806,000.00$
20.6.07 Structures
Hunt Club 900 m2 3,500.00$ 3,150,000.00$
culvert 150 m 1,000.00$ 150,000.00$
retaining wall 1,475 m2 1,000.00$ 1,626,187.50$
20.6.08 Landscaping
WBS 20 Subtotal 25,421,432.07$
FACILITIES
30.1 Storage Yards, Maintenance
Bowesville Yard 0 LS 75,000,000.00$ -$
30.2 Stations
Bowesville 1 each 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$
Leitrim 1 each 3,300,000.00$ 3,300,000.00$
Lester 1 each 3,200,000.00$ 3,200,000.00$
South Keys 1 each 2,000,000.00$ 2,000,000.00$
30.3 Associated Works
relocate existing track 4200 m 300.00$ 1,260,000.00$
Turnout for Freight Track to CN 1 each 150,000.00$ 150,000.00$
Track Removal 4,200 m 75.00$ 315,000.00$
30.4 Park and Ride Lots
Bowsville 1 LS 6,000,000.00$ 6,000,000.00$
Leitrim 1 LS 4,000,000.00$ 4,000,000.00$
WBS 30 Subtotal 23,225,000.00$
Traction Power System
45.3.01 Traction Power 7000 m 1,350.00$ 9,450,000.00$
45.3.02 Power Supply 7000 m 1,000.00$ 7,000,000.00$
45.3.03 Sub-stations 7000 m 1,200.00$ 8,400,000.00$
WBS 40 Subtotal 24,850,000.00$
50 Train Control System
50.3.01 Control / Signals 7000 m 1,500.00$ 10,500,000.00$
50.3.02 Communication System 7000 m 750.00$ 5,250,000.00$
WBS 50 Subtotal 15,750,000.00$
SECTION TOTAL 89,246,432.07$
Engineering & Project Management 15% 13,386,964.81$
TOTAL 102,633,396.89$ 30% 30,790,019.07
TOTAL 133,423,415.95$
baseline to Hunt Club 2600 m
Hunt Club to Fallowfield 3600 m
Fallowfield to Strandherd 3000 m
Strandherd to Marketplace 400 m
Marketplace to Chapman Mills 400 m
TOTAL 10000
Chapman Mills to Cambrian 2500 m
S2 BRT BASELINE TO BTC 10000
WBS # Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
10 Property and Right of Way
10.1 Property Acquisition
10.2 ROW Preparation
10.3 Property Maintenance
10.4 Recovery
10.99 Contingency
WBS 10 Subtotal -$
20.5.01 Clearing & Removals
earth EX for new alignment 6,400 m 375$ 2,400,000.00$
20.5.02 Grading
fill / grading 15000 m3 20.00$ 300,000.00$
Cut / excavation m3 -$
For Structures (not tunnel) 59000 m3 85.00$ 5,015,000.00$
20.5.03 Drainage & Erosion Control
Transitway urban 3400 m 475.00$ 1,615,000.00$
Transitway rural 3000 m 125.00$ 375,000.00$
Woodroofe Ave 500 m 690.00$ 345,000.00$
20.5.04 SWM Facility
20.5.05 Roadway
Granulars & Asphalt 6,400 m 660$ 4,224,000.00$
Curbs & Sidewalks (Urban) 3,400 m 330$ 1,122,000.00$
At Grade Intersection (at transitway) Fallowfield, Berrigan, Marketplace 3 each 250,000$ 750,000.00$
reconstruct woodroffe (35m wide, asphalt,A, B, Blvd, Sidewalk/Median, Curb, Lights) 550 m 3,900$ 2,145,000.00$
reconstruct woodroffe intersections knoxdale, hunt club 2 each 500,000$ 1,000,000.00$
20.5.06 Utilities
relocate utilities under woodroffe for tunnel 500 m 3,500$ 1,750,000.00$
20.5.07 Structures
retaining wall (btwn baseline & Knoxdale) 23100 m 2
1,000.00$ 23,100,000.00$
Tallwood 500 m 2
2,500$ 1,250,000.00$
CP Rail Line 625 m 2
3,000$ 1,875,000.00$
Cut and Cover Tunnel 550 10 m 2
4,000$ 22,000,000.00$
retaining wall (s of hunt club) 200 7.5 m 2
1,000$ 1,500,000.00$
Highburry 400 m 2
2,500$ 1,000,000.00$
Strandherd 900 m 2
7,500$ 6,750,000.00$
Strandherd retaining walls 1337 m 2
1,000$ 1,337,000.00$
North Drive Isle 300 m 2
3,000$ 900,000.00$
20.5.08 Landscaping
WBS 20 Subtotal 80,753,000.00$
FACILITIES
30.1 Storage Yards, Maintenance
30.2 Stations
Tallwood 1 each 4,000,000$ 4,000,000.00$
Knoxdale 1 each 4,000,000$ 4,000,000.00$
Hunt Club Station 1 each 3,000,000$ 3,000,000.00$
Longfields 1 each 3,000,000$ 3,000,000.00$
Strandherd 1 each 3,000,000$ 3,000,000.00$
Marketplace 1 each 1,500,000$ 1,500,000.00$
Chapman Mills 1 each 3,000,000$ 3,000,000.00$
30.3 Associated Works
WBS 30 Subtotal 21,500,000.00$
50.3.04 Communication System 3800 m 300.00$ 1,140,000.00$
WBS 50 Subtotal 1,140,000.00$
SECTION 5 TOTAL 103,393,000.00$
Engineering & Project Management 15% 15,508,950.00$
TOTAL 118,901,950.00$ 30% 35,670,585.00
TOTAL 154,572,535.00$
baseline to Hunt Club 2600 m
Hunt Club to Fallowfield 3600 m
Fallowfield to Strandherd 3000 m
Strandherd to Marketplace 400 m
Marketplace to Chapman Mills 400 m
TOTAL 10000
Chapman Mills to Cambrian 2500 m
S3 BRT BARRHAVEN TO CAMBRIAN 2500
WBS # Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
10 Property and Right of Way
10.1 Property Acquisition
10.2 ROW Preparation
10.3 Property Maintenance
10.4 Recovery
10.99 Contingency
WBS 10 Subtotal
20.6.01 Clearing & Removals
earth EX for new alignment 2,500 m 375$ 937,500.00$
20.6.02 Grading
fill / grading Marketplace to Greenbank 750 m3 20.00$ 15,000.00$
Cut / excavation Marketplace Mills to Greenbank 5700 m3 85.00$ 484,500.00$
20.6.03 Drainage & Erosion Control
Transitway urban (assumed main sewer line part of road project) 2500 m 475.00$ 1,187,500.00$
20.6.04 SWM Facility
20.6.05 Running Surface
Granulars & Asphalt 2,500 m 660$ 1,650,000.00$
Curbs / Sidewalks / Boulevards 2,500 m 330$ 825,000.00$
At Grade Intersection (not including stns) btwn Greenbank & Cambrian 3 each 250,000.00$ 750,000.00$
Reconstruct Intersection Chapman Mills, greenbank 2 each 500,000$ 1,000,000.00$
20.4.06 Utilities
20.4.07 Structures
2 lanes of new bridge over jock river 140 12 m2 3500 5,880,000.00$
20.4.08 Landscaping
WBS 20 Subtotal 12,729,500.00$
FACILITIES
30.1 Storage Yards, Maintenance
30.2 Stations
30.2.1 On Line Stations 3 each 1,000,000$ 3,000,000.00$
30.3 Associated Works
30.4 Park and Ride
WBS 30 Subtotal 3,000,000.00$
50.3.04 Communication System 2500 m 300.00$ 750,000.00$
WBS 50 Subtotal 750,000.00$
SECTION 4 TOTAL 16,479,500.00$
Engineering & Project Management 15% 2,471,925.00$
TOTAL 18,951,425.00$ 30% 5,685,427.50
TOTAL 24,636,852.50$
S4 BRT BARRHAVEN TO BOWESVILLE 10,600
WBS # Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
10 Property and Right of Way
10.1 Property Acquisition
10.2 ROW Preparation
10.3 Property Maintenance
10.4 Recovery
10.99 Contingency
WBS 10 Subtotal
20.6.01 Clearing & Removals
earth EX for new alignment 10,600 m 375$ 3,975,000.00$
20.6.02 Grading
fill / grading 134600 m3 20.00$ 2,692,000.00$
Cut / excavation 113000 m3 22.50$ 2,542,500.00$
20.6.03 Drainage & Erosion Control
Transitway rural 10600 m 125.00$ 1,325,000.00$
20.6.04 SWM Facility
20.6.05 Running Surface
Granulars & Asphalt 10,600 m 660$ 6,996,000.00$
At Grade Intersection 13 each 250,000$ 3,250,000.00$
roadwork 1 LS 416,000$ 416,000.00$
fence 10,600 m 80$ 848,000.00$
20.4.06 Utilities
electrical for pedestrian walkway 1 LS 374,078.25$ 374,078.25$
20.4.07 Structures
Cresthaven 50 20 m 2
2,500$ 2,500,000.00$
Rideau River (only 2 lanes of bridge) 156 8 m 2
4,000$ 4,992,000.00$
Mosquito Creek 79 20 m 2
3,000$ 4,740,000.00$
retaining wall 1 LS 959,175$ 959,175.00$
20.4.08 Landscaping
WBS 20 Subtotal 35,609,753.25$
FACILITIES
30.1 Storage Yards, Maintenance
30.2 Stations
30.2.1 Barrhaven/Riverside stations 12 each 1,000,000$ 12,000,000.00$
30.2.2 Woodroffe 1 each 3,000,000$ 3,000,000.00$
30.2.3 River Road 1 each 3,000,000$ 3,000,000.00$
30.3 Associated Works
30.4 Park and Ride
30.4.1 Woodroofe 1 each 4,000,000$ 4,000,000.00$
30.4.2 River Road 1 each 4,000,000$ 4,000,000.00$
WBS 30 Subtotal 26,000,000.00$
50.3.04 Communication System 11200 300.00$ 3,360,000.00$
WBS 50 Subtotal 3,360,000.00$
SECTION 4 TOTAL 64,969,753.25$
Engineering & Project Management 15% 9,745,462.99$
TOTAL 74,715,216.24$ 30% 22,414,564.87
TOTAL 97,129,781.11$ 9.16 M per KM
S5 LRT AIRPORT 2500
WBS # Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
10 Property and Right of Way
10.1 Property Acquisition
10.2 ROW Preparation
10.3 Property Maintenance
10.4 Recovery
10.99 Contingency
WBS 10 Subtotal -$
20.2.01 Clearing & Removals -$
New alignment 2,500 m 375.00$ 937,500.00$
20.2.02 Grading
Fill 40,000 m3 20.00$ 800,000.00$
Cut 94,000 m3 22.50$ 2,115,000.00$
20.2.03 Drainage & Erosion Control
New ditch for alignment to Airport 2500 m 125.00$ 312,500.00$
20.2.04 SWM Facility
SWM Facility 1 LS 100,000.00$ 100,000.00$
20.2.05 Running Surface
Tracks 5,000 m 1,215.00$ 6,075,000.00$
Crossings 3 each 50,000.00$ 150,000.00$
Turnout 1 each 500,000.00$ 500,000.00$
fencing 5,000 m 80.00$ 400,000.00$
roadwork 1 LS 68,000.00$ 68,000.00$
20.2.06 Utilities
Utility relocations 1 LS 85,000.00$ 85,000.00$
20.2.07 Structures
Under delta taxi / Alert / Retaining Walls 1 LS 8,000,000.00$ 8,000,000.00$
20.2.08 Landscaping
WBS 20 Subtotal 19,543,000.00$
FACILITIES
30.1 Storage Yards, Maintenance
30.2 Stations
Airport 1 LS 3,800,000.00$ 3,800,000.00$
Alert Rd. 1 LS 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$
30.3 Associated Works
impacts to Airport Operations / detours 1 LS 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$
WBS 30 Subtotal 11,800,000.00$
45 Traction Power System
45.3.01 Traction Power 2500 m 1,350.00$ 3,375,000.00$
45.3.02 Power Supply 2500 m 1,000.00$ 2,500,000.00$
45.3.99 Sub-stations 2500 m 1,200.00$ 3,000,000.00$
50 WBS 40 Subtotal 8,875,000.00$
50.3.01 Train Control System
50.3.02 Control / Signals 2500 m 3,000.00$ 7,500,000.00$
50.3.03 Communication System 2500 m 750.00$ 1,875,000.00$
WBS 50 Subtotal 9,375,000.00$
SECTION TOTAL 49,593,000.00$
Engineering & Project Management 15% 7,438,950.00$
TOTAL 57,031,950.00$ 30% 17,109,585.00
TOTAL 74,141,535.00$
S5 BRT AIRPORT 2500
WBS # Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
10 Property and Right of Way
10.1 Property Acquisition
10.2 ROW Preparation
10.3 Property Maintenance
10.4 Recovery
10.99 Contingency
WBS 10 Subtotal -$
20.2.01 Clearing & Removals
New alignment 2,500 m 375.00$ 937,500.00$
20.2.02 Grading
Fill 40,000 m3 20.00$ 800,000.00$
Cut 94,000 m3 22.50$ 2,115,000.00$
20.2.03 Drainage & Erosion Control
rural ditching 2500 m 125.00$ 312,500.00$
20.2.04 SWM Facility
SWM Facility 1 LS 100,000.00$ 100,000.00$
20.2.05 Running Surface
granulars & asphalt 2,500 m 660.00$ 1,650,000.00$
fencing 5,000 m 80.00$ 400,000.00$
roadwork 1 LS 68,000.00$ 68,000.00$
20.2.06 Utilities
Utility relocations 1 LS 85,000.00$ 85,000.00$
20.2.07 Structures
Under delta taxi / Alert / Retaining Walls 1 LS 8,000,000.00$ 8,000,000.00$
20.2.08 Landscaping
WBS 20 Subtotal 14,468,000.00$
FACILITIES
30.1 Storage Yards, Maintenance
30.2 Stations
Airport 1 LS 3,800,000.00$ 3,800,000.00$
Alert Rd. 1 LS 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$
30.3 Associated Works
impacts to Airport Operations / detours 1 LS 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$
WBS 30 Subtotal 11,800,000.00$
50.3.03 Communication System 2500 m 300.00$ 750,000.00$
WBS 50 Subtotal 750,000.00$
SECTION TOTAL 27,018,000.00$
Engineering & Project Management 15% 4,052,700.00$
TOTAL 31,070,700.00$ 30% 9,321,210.00
TOTAL 40,391,910.00$
E1 BRT BLAIR TO TRIM new alignment south of HWY174 btwn Place d'orleans and trim 12700 WBS # Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total 10 Property and Right of Way
10.1 Property Acquisition
10.2 ROW Preparation
10.3 Property Maintenance
10.4 Recovery
10.99 Contingency WBS 10 -$
20.3.01 Clearing & Removals New alignment 3,500 m 375.00$ 1,312,500.00$
20.3.02 Grading fill / grading 126,000 t 20.00$ 2,520,000.00$
20.3.03 Drainage & Erosion Control urban 3500 m 475.00$ 1,662,500.00$
20.3.04 SWM Facility
20.3.05 Running Surface Transitway 3,500 m 660.00$ 2,310,000.00$ At Grade Intersection 0 each 250,000.00$ -$ curbs 7,000 m 50.00$ 350,000.00$ sidewalks 0 m2 55.00$ -$
20.3.06 Utilities high tension hydro pole relocation spced at 160m 22 m 250,000.00$ 5,500,000.00$
20.3.07 Structures montreal: EB off ramp 25 15 m2 2,500.00$ 937,500.00$ montreal: EB on ramp s of mtl 10 15 m2 2,500.00$ 375,000.00$ Montreal Road 35 15 m2 3,000.00$ 1,575,000.00$ Montreal: EB on ramp n of mtl 40 15 m2 2,500.00$ 1,500,000.00$ over creek 20 15 m2 2,500.00$ 750,000.00$ Punch hole through Rockliffe 1 each 1,000,000.00$ 1,000,000.00$ Jean D'arc: EB off ramp 90 15 m2 2,500.00$ 3,375,000.00$ Jean D'arc: EB on ramp w of Jd'A 20 15 m2 2,500.00$ 750,000.00$ Jean Darc Boulevard 25 15 m2 3,000.00$ 1,125,000.00$ Jean D'arc: EB on ramp e of J'dA 50 15 m2 2,500.00$ 1,875,000.00$ Punch hole through Orleans 1 each 1,000,000.00$ 1,000,000.00$ Under Champlain 40 15 m2 3,000.00$ 1,800,000.00$ Under Place D'orleans Drive 75 15 m2 3,000.00$ 3,375,000.00$ Place D'orleans EB Hwy on ramp 50 15 m2 2,500.00$ 1,875,000.00$ 10th line EB HWY off ramp 30 15 m2 2,500.00$ 1,125,000.00$ Hwy On ramp 25 15 m2 2,500.00$ 937,500.00$ under trim off ramp 45 15 m2 2,500.00$ 1,687,500.00$ under trim 25 15 m2 3,000.00$ 1,125,000.00$ culvert extensions 100 m 10,000.00$ 1,000,000.00$ retaining walls half the length, both sides, 3m high 10500 m2 1,000.00$ 10,500,000.00$
20.3.08 Landscaping
WBS 20 51,342,500.00$ FACILITIES
30.1 Storage Yards, Maintenance
30.2 Stations OTC 1 each 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ 10th Line 1 each 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ Taylor Creek 1 each 1,500,000.00$ 1,500,000.00$ Trim 1 each 7,500,000.00$ 7,500,000.00$
30.3 Associated Works
30.4 Park and Ride Lots
WBS 30 19,000,000.00$ 50 Train Control System
50.3.02 Communication System 12700 m 300.00$ 3,810,000.00$
WBS 50 Subtotal 3,810,000.00$ 74,152,500.00$
Engineering & Project Management 15% 11,122,875.00$
TOTAL 85,275,375.00$ 30% 25,582,612.50
TOTAL 110,857,987.50$
E2 BRT BLAIR TO INNES 2300
WBS # Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
10 Property and Right of Way
10.1 Property Acquisition
10.2 ROW Preparation
10.3 Property Maintenance
10.4 Recovery
10.99 Contingency
WBS 10 Subtotal -$
20.2.01 Clearing & Removals
new alignment 2,300 m 375$ 862,500.00$
20.2.02 Grading
fill / grading 82,800 t 20.00$ 1,656,000.00$
Cut / excavation
20.2.03 Drainage & Erosion Control
urban ditching 800 m 475.00$ 380,000.00$
rural 1500 m 125.00$ 187,500.00$
20.2.04 SWM Facility
20.2.05 Running Surface
Transitway Roadway (rural and urban) 2,300 m 660$ 1,518,000.00$
At Grade Intersection 2 each 150,000$ 300,000.00$
fencing 4,600 m 80$ 368,000.00$
20.2.06 Utilities
20.2.07 Structures
Over HWY 174 50 15 m2 3,500.00$ 2,625,000.00$
Over EB on ramp 75 15 m2 2,500.00$ 2,812,500.00$
culvert 1 each 100,000.00$ 100,000.00$
20.2.08 Landscaping
WBS 20 Subtotal 10,809,500.00$
FACILITIES
30.2 Stations
Innes @ Blair 1 each 3,000,000$ 3,000,000.00$
on line stations 2 each 1,000,000$ 2,000,000.00$
30.3 Associated Works
31.4 Park and Ride Lots
WBS 30 Subtotal 5,000,000.00$
50.3.04 Communication System 1700 m 300.00$ 510,000.00$
WBS 50 Subtotal 510,000.00$
SECTION TOTAL 16,319,500.00$
Engineering & Project Management 15% 2,447,925.00$
TOTAL 18,767,425.00$ 30 5,630,227.50$
TOTAL 24,397,652.50$
Blair to Anderson 1600 m
Anderson to Bypass 1000 m
Bypass to Navan 2100 m
Navan to Hydro 1500 m
Hydro to 10th line 4200 m
10th line to Millenium 3100 m
TOTAL 13500 m
E3 BRT INNES TO MILLENIUM via Blackburn Hamlet Bypass 13,500
WBS # Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
10 Property and Right of Way
10.1 Property Acquisition
10.2 ROW Preparation
10.3 Property Maintenance
10.4 Recovery
10.99 Contingency
WBS 10 Subtotal -$
20.2.01 Clearing & Removals
new alignment 13,500 m 375$ 5,062,500.00$
20.2.02 Grading
fill / grading 486,000 t 20.00$ 9,720,000.00$
Cut / excavation
20.2.03 Drainage & Erosion Control
rural ditching 13,500 m 125.00$ 1,687,500.00$
20.2.04 SWM Facility
20.2.05 Running Surface
Transitway Roadway (rural and urban) 13,500 m 660$ 8,910,000.00$
At Grade Intersection 7 each 250,000$ 1,750,000.00$
fencing 27,000 m 80$ 2,160,000.00$
20.2.06 Utilities
20.2.07 Structures
Culvert 5 each 100,000.00$ 500,000.00$
Over Innes 40 15 m2 2,750.00$ 1,650,000.00$
Mere Bleue 30 15 m2 2,500.00$ 1,125,000.00$
10th line 30 15 m2 2,500.00$ 1,125,000.00$
Esprit 30 15 m2 2,500.00$ 1,125,000.00$
Portobello 30 15 m2 2,500.00$ 1,125,000.00$
20.2.08 Landscaping
WBS 20 Subtotal 35,940,000.00$
FACILITIES
30.2 Stations
Millenium Station (P&R) 1 each 3,000,000$ 3,000,000.00$
Navan (P&R) 1 each 3,000,000$ 3,000,000.00$
10th Line 1 each 3,000,000$ 3,000,000.00$
mere Bleue 1 each 3,000,000$ 3,000,000.00$
Page 1 each 3,000,000$ 3,000,000.00$
Blackburn Hamlet E 1 each 3,000,000$ 3,000,000.00$
Blackburn Hamlet W 1 each 3,000,000$ 3,000,000.00$
30.3 Associated Works
31.4 Park and Ride Lots
Millenium 1 each 4,000,000.00$ 4,000,000.00$
Navan 1 each 4,000,000.00$ 4,000,000.00$
WBS 30 Subtotal 29,000,000.00$
50.3.04 Communication System 14500 m 300.00$ 4,350,000.00$
WBS 50 Subtotal 4,350,000.00$
SECTION TOTAL 69,290,000.00$
Engineering & Project Management 15% 10,393,500.00$
TOTAL 79,683,500.00$ 30% 23,905,050.00
TOTAL 103,588,550.00$
Bayshore tp Moodie 2600 m
Moodie to March 4250 m
March to Terry Fox 2150 m
TOTAL 9000 m
Current cross section from Bayshore to March includes BUS lanes
New Transitway from March to Terry Fox adjacent N. Side of Highway
W1 BRT BAYSHORE TO TERRY FOX 9000
WBS # Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
10 Property and Right of Way
10.1 Property Acquisition
10.2 ROW Preparation
10.3 Property Maintenance
10.4 Recovery
10.99 Contingency
WBS 10 Subtotal
20.1.01 Clearing & Removals
2,150 m 375$ 806,250.00$
20.1.02 Grading
fill / grading 77,400 t 20.00$ 1,548,000.00$
20.1.03 Drainage & Erosion Control
600 storm sewer 2,150 m 600.00$ 1,290,000.00$
CB 4 @ 40m spacing 215 each 2,000.00$ 430,000.00$
CB leads ROW @ 40m spacing 1,075 m 250.00$ 268,750.00$
20.1.04 SWM Facility
20.1.05 Running Surface
asphalt 14,749 t 100.00$ 1,474,900.00$
Curbs 4,300 m 330.00$ 1,419,000.00$
At Grade Intersection 0 each 250,000.00$ -$
fencing 4,300 m 80.00$ 344,000.00$
20.1.06 Utilities
20.1.07 Structures
under March WB off ramp (skewed) 120 20 m2 2,500$ 6,000,000.00$
Flyover over Hwy 417 250 10 m2 2,500$ 6,250,000.00$
Under March 40 15 m2 3,500$ 2,100,000.00$
modification of existing ped bridge 1 LS 515,000$ 515,000.00$
Culvert 1 each 100,000$ 100,000.00$
20.1.80 Landscaping
WBS 20 Subtotal 22,545,900.00$
FACILITIES
30.1 Storage Yards, Maintenance
30.2 Stations
Moodie 1 each 1,000,000$ 1,000,000.00$
Eagelson 1 each 1,000,000$ 1,000,000.00$
Ped Bridge 1 each 1,000,000$ 1,000,000.00$
30.3 Associated Works
30.4 Park and Ride Lots
eagelson 0 4,000,000.00$ -$
WBS 30 Subtotal 3,000,000.00$
50.3.04 Communication System 2150 m 300.00$ 645,000.00$
WBS 50 Subtotal 645,000.00$
SECTION TOTAL 26,190,900.00$
Engineering & Project Management 15% 3,928,635.00$
TOTAL 30,119,535.00$ 30% 9,035,860.50
TOTAL 39,155,395.50$
Terry Fox to 1st Line 1000
1st line to Arean 2100
TOTAL 3100 m
W2 BRT TERRY FOX TO ARENA 3100
WBS # Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
10 Property and Right of Way
10.1 Property Acquisition
10.2 ROW Preparation
10.3 Property Maintenance
10.4 Recovery
10.99 Contingency
WBS 10 Subtotal
20.1.01 Clearing & Removals
3,100 375.00$ 1,162,500.00$
20.1.02 Grading
20.1.03 Drainage & Erosion Control
600 storm sewer 3,100 m 600.00$ 1,860,000.00$
CB 4 @ 40m spacing 310 each 2,000.00$ 620,000.00$
CB leads ROW @ 40m spacing 1,550 m 250.00$ 387,500.00$
20.1.04 SWM Facility
20.1.05 Running Surface
asphalt 21,266 t 100.00$ 2,126,600.00$
Curbs 6,200 m 330.00$ 2,046,000.00$
At Grade Intersection 0 each 250,000.00$ -$
fencing 6,200 m 80.00$ 496,000.00$
20.1.06 Utilities
20.1.07 Structures
Under Terry Fox Drive 40 20 m2 2,500$ 2,000,000.00$
Carp River 15 20 m2 2,500$ 750,000.00$
over 417 to scotiabank place 70 20 m2 3,500$ 4,900,000.00$
culverts 1 LS 500,000$ 500,000.00$
retaining walls 100 m2 1,000$ 100,000.00$
20.1.80 Landscaping
WBS 20 Subtotal 16,948,600.00$
FACILITIES
30.1 Storage Yards, Maintenance
30.2 Stations
Campeau 1 each 1,000,000.00$ 1,000,000.00$
Scotiabank Place 1 each 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$
30.3 Associated Works
30.4 Park and Ride Lots
Campeau 1 4,000,000.00$ 4,000,000.00$
WBS 30 Subtotal 10,000,000.00$
50.3.04 Communication System 3100 m 300.00$ 930,000.00$
WBS 50 Subtotal 930,000.00$
SECTION 1 TOTAL 27,878,600.00$
Engineering & Project Management 15% 4,181,790.00$
TOTAL 32,060,390.00$ 30% 9,618,117.00$
TOTAL 41,678,507.00$
Arena to Palladium 150 m
Palladium to Maplegrove 1200 m
Maplegrove to Hazeldean 950 m
TOTAL 2300 m
W3 BRT ARENA to FERNBANK (Stittsville) 2300
WBS # Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
10 Property and Right of Way
10.1 Property Acquisition
10.2 ROW Preparation
10.3 Property Maintenance
10.4 Recovery
10.99 Contingency
WBS 10 Subtotal
20.1.01 Clearing & Removals
2,300 375.00$ 862,500.00$
20.1.02 Grading
20.1.03 Drainage & Erosion Control
600 storm sewer 2,300 m 600.00$ 1,380,000.00$
CB 4 @ 40m spacing 3,230 each 2,000.00$ 6,460,000.00$
CB leads ROW @ 40m spacing 1,150 m 250.00$ 287,500.00$
20.1.04 SWM Facility
20.1.05 Running Surface
Tway 2,300 m 660.00$ 1,518,000.00$
Curbs 2,300 m 110.00$ 253,000.00$
At Grade Intersection 3 each 250,000.00$ 750,000.00$
fencing 4,600 m 80.00$ 368,000.00$
20.1.06 Utilities
20.1.07 Structures
Carp River 20 15 m2 2,500$ 750,000.00$
20.1.80 Landscaping
WBS 20 Subtotal 12,629,000.00$
FACILITIES
30.1 Storage Yards, Maintenance
30.2 Stations
Huntmar 1 each 1,000,000.00$ 1,000,000.00$
N. of Maple Grove 1 each 1,000,000.00$ 1,000,000.00$
S. of River 1 each 1,000,000.00$ 1,000,000.00$
Hazeldean 1 each 1,000,000.00$ 1,000,000.00$
30.3 Associated Works
30.4 Park and Ride Lots
Hazeldean 1 4,000,000.00$ 4,000,000.00$
WBS 30 Subtotal 8,000,000.00$
45 Traction Power System
45.3.01 Power Supply -$
45.3.02 Power Distribution -$
WBS 40 Subtotal -$
50 Train Control System
50.3.01 Control / Signals -$
50.3.02 Switches -$
50.3.03 Control Centre -$
50.3.04 Communication System 2300 m 300.00$ 690,000.00$
WBS 50 Subtotal 690,000.00$
SECTION 1 TOTAL 21,319,000.00$
Engineering & Project Management 15% 3,197,850.00$
TOTAL 24,516,850.00$ 30% 7,355,055.00
TOTAL 31,871,905.00$
417 to Herzberg 1700 m
Herzberg to Carling 1700 m
Carling to Klondike 2600 m 2950 m if aligned on Legget
TOTAL 6000 m
W4 BRT KANATA NORTH 6000
WBS # Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
10 Property and Right of Way
10.1 Property Acquisition
10.2 ROW Preparation
10.3 Property Maintenance
10.4 Recovery
10.99 Contingency
WBS 10 Subtotal
20.1.01 Clearing & Removals
widened roadway 6,000 375.00$ 2,250,000.00$
20.1.02 Grading
fill / grading 162,000 t 20.00$ 3,240,000.00$
Cut / excavation
20.1.03 Drainage & Erosion Control
600 storm sewer 6,000 m 600.00$ 3,600,000.00$
CB 4 @ 40m spacing 600 each 2,000.00$ 1,200,000.00$
CB leads ROW @ 40m spacing 2,250 m 250.00$ 562,500.00$
20.1.04 SWM Facility
20.1.05 Running Surface
At Grade Intersection 7 each 250,000.00$ 1,750,000.00$
asphalt 30,870 t 100.00$ 3,087,000.00$
curbs 24,000 m 50.00$ 1,200,000.00$
sidewalks 24,000 m2 55.00$ 1,320,000.00$
streetighting 300 each 3,200.00$ 960,000.00$
20.1.06 Utilities
20.1.07 Structures
3 culvert extensions 3 LS 150,000.00$ 450,000.00$
20.1.80 Landscaping
WBS 20 Subtotal 19,619,500.00$
FACILITIES
30.1 Storage Yards, Maintenance
30.2 Stations
Eagelson 1 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$
Klondike 1 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$
On Line Stations (including signal rebuild) 4 each 1,000,000.00$ 4,000,000.00$
30.3 Associated Works
30.4 Park and Ride Lots
Klondike 1 4,000,000.00$ 4,000,000.00$
WBS 30 Subtotal 14,000,000.00$
50.3.04 Communication System 6000 300.00$ 1,800,000.00$
WBS 50 Subtotal 1,800,000.00$
SECTION TOTAL 35,419,500.00$
Engineering & Project Management 15% 5,312,925.00$
TOTAL 40,732,425.00$ 30 12,219,727.50$
TOTAL 52,952,152.50$
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIN ANKIN ANKIN ANKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfraTransportation InfraTransportation InfraTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Fstructure Requirement Study Fstructure Requirement Study Fstructure Requirement Study F40404040 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
Summary of Vehicle Costs
This analysis compares the vehicle costs for the bus and LRT scenarios under consideration. It looks only at
the number of vehicles required to accommodate the demand at the end of the planning horizon and does not
consider the overall fleet requirements to operate the entire system.
Bus Only Reference Scenario
• Analysis from the City of Ottawa network planning model suggests a total of 1,662 buses required
for peak service by the end of the planning horizon. 1,195 of these buses would be standard buses
while 467 would be high capacity buses (for this analysis, high capacity buses are assumed to be
articulated). The analysis undertaken matched the frequencies of the routes to the projected demand
on the route, resulting in a realistic reflection of the overall vehicle requirements.
• Review of the routes in the model has estimated that 627 of the standard buses and 92 of the
articulated buses would be required for routes that would not likely use a downtown bus tunnel.
Thus, 568 standard buses and 375 articulated buses would be assigned to routes that need to use the
downtown tunnel. OC Transpo’s operating strategy would see the exclusive use of high capacity
buses on rapid transit within the downtown in order to keep the absolute number of vehicles to a
minimum. This results in a total of 740 articulated buses would be required to provide the same
level of service (based on vehicle design capacity of 45 people on a standard bus and 70 on an
articulated bus). This does not include spare bus requirements.
• All of the buses required for the tunnel are desired to be very low emission vehicles. This would
likely require diesel electric hybrid propulsion technology that is capable of allowing the bus to
operate in full electric power mode through the length of the tunnel. Standard buses that have this
ability are being purchased beginning in 2009.
• No articulated buses are planned to be ordered with hybrid technology because the business case
previously completed by City of Ottawa staff did not identify this combination as cost effective.
• For a full bus tunnel operation, it will be necessary for a fleet of hybrid technology buses to be in
place. Thus, high capacity vehicle requirements in the tunnel are assumed to use hybrid technology.
• For the purpose of this analysis, calculations are for the purchase of the number of vehicles required
at the end of the planning horizon. Assumptions include a cost of $630,000 for a standard hybrid
bus and $900,000 for an articulated hybrid bus. These costs are based on recent purchases of similar
vehicles. Costs are likely to decline slightly as volume of purchases in the industry increases.
• A standard bus spare ratio of 15% and an articulated bus spare ratio of 20% is assumed
• 740 articulated hybrid buses plus 148 additional spare vehicles (a total of 888) result in total bus
costs of $799,200,000.
• It should be noted that these are the costs to purchase the minimum necessary number of buses to
meet the demand at the end of the planning horizon. Less cost will be necessary to meet some
interim date when the tunnel would actually open.
• It should also be noted that the costs of the other buses that are not being used in the downtown are
not considered in this analysis, as they are common to all scenarios.
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIN ANKIN ANKIN ANKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfraTransportation InfraTransportation InfraTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Fstructure Requirement Study Fstructure Requirement Study Fstructure Requirement Study F41414141 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
Blair to Baseline LRT
• This scenario assumes that only LRT will operate through the tunnel in the downtown. Bus
Transitway services will require customers to transfer to the LRT to travel to downtown.
• The number of trains necessary to meet the demand through the tunnel is calculated as follows:
• 21.7 km long line length operating at a 35 kph average speed. This requires 37 minutes of
travel time for one-way operation, or 74 two minutes for a round trip. Assume 3
minutes of layover at the end of each direction of travel for an overall round trip
running time of 80 minutes.
• The maximum number of passengers that must be accommodated during the peak hour is
13,500 (maximum link volume is north of Hurdman Station approaching the University
of Ottawa). The design capacity of an LRT car is 135 customers (seated plus
standing). Therefore, 13,500/135 or 100 trips per hour are required. This equates to a
frequency of every 0.6 minutes. Note that in reality LRT cars will be linked together
into a train of 4 to 6 cars in order to create a manageable frequency.
• Dividing an 80 minute round trip running time by the 0.6 minute frequency results in an
overall LRT car requirement of 133, not including spares vehicles requirements.
• A cost of $5,000,000 per LRT vehicle is assumed. Therefore, 134 vehicles will cost $670,000,000.
Assuming a 12% spare ratio for LRT vehicles results in an additional 16 vehicles being required at a
cost of $80,000,000. The total LRT cost, therefore, is 750,000,000
• The 627 standard and 92 articulated buses required for non downtown services would still be
required. It is estimated that approximately half of 568 standard and 375 articulated downtown
buses would still be required in order to provide sufficient frequency of service to access the LRT
service. This estimate of 50% of buses still being required comes from the fact that at least half of
the length of all of the downtown routes would be replaced by the LRT service (the actual length of
each route that would be replaced varies quite a bit, but on balance approximately 50% of the routes
could still be in tact). If hybrid technology is assumed for all of these vehicles, then the total bus
cost including spares would be $409,410,000.
Bowesville to Rideau Centre LRT
• This scenario assumes that the north/south LRT line would be in place from Bowesville in the south,
through downtown to St. Laurent in the east. No other LRT service would be in place.
• This line would be approximately 18.6 km in length, and assuming a 35 kph average operating speed
would result in a 64 minute round trip running time (70 minutes including a 3 minute layover at each
end).
• The service would be designed to accommodate the maximum demand on the north south line, just
south of Bayview Station, of 2,800 passengers during the peak hour (based on analysis from the
model).
• An LRT vehicle design capacity of 135 requires a headway of 2.9 minutes to accommodate the
2,800 passengers.
• The 70 minute round trip running time and 2.9 minute headway results in 25 LRT vehicles being
required for the service. Three spare vehicles will be required.
• At $5,000,000 per LRT vehicles, $140,000,000 is required for LRT vehicles.
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIN ANKIN ANKIN ANKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfraTransportation InfraTransportation InfraTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study Fstructure Requirement Study Fstructure Requirement Study Fstructure Requirement Study F42424242 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
• It is estimated that this scenario would still require approximately 90% of the downtown buses
required in the bus only scenario (all of the non-downtown buses would also still be required). This
90% estimate comes from the fact that this LRT scenario would reduce the total volume of
passengers entering the downtown on rapid transit by about 10% and would still require all of the
buses from the east, west and southwest to continue to serve the core. Hybrid buses would be
required in order to accommodate joint bus/LRT tunnel operation. Thus, 512 standard buses at
$630,000 and 338 articulated buses at $900,000 will be required for a total cost of $626,760,000. As
the OC Transpo operating plan assumes that all of the buses will be articulated, then the total bus
cost would be $600,300,000 for 667 articulated hybrid vehicles. 133 additional vehicles at a cost of
$119,700,000 will be required as spares, resulting in a total bus cost requirement of $720,000,000.
Baseline to Blair and Bowesville to Bayview LRT (Full LRT)
• This scenario combines the two LRT corridors from the previous discussion together into a single
scenario. It is assumed that both LRT routes as described above would be operated, including the
Bowesville to Bayview service operating into the downtown and on to St. Laurent.
• Total LRT vehicle costs would be the some of the two scenarios – 134+25 vehicles for a total cost of
$795,000,000. 19 spare vehicles add $95,000,000 for a total LRT vehicle cost of $890,000,000.
• Substantial bus service would still be required to feed the LRT service. It is estimated that about
forty percent of the downtown buses required in the bus only scenario would be required (the 50% of
buses identified in the Baseline to Blair scenario with additional buses removed to reflect the
replacement by rail as far south as Bowesville). Thus, 228 standard buses and 150 articulated buses
at will be required. Spare Buses include 34 standard and 30 high capacity for a total bus cost of
$327,060,000.
Replacement Fleet
Typically LRT vehicles last longer than buses. In order to compare the vehicle costs between the options,
replacement buses would also need to be considered. A 30 year period was assumed in determining the
replacement fleet. For options 1 & 2, where all or most of the existing express buses continue to run
downtown, it is assumed that ¾ of the buses would need to be replaced over the 30 years. For options 3 & 4,
only ½ of the buses would need to be replaced within the 30 year time frame.
Summary of Vehicle Costs
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Vehicle Costs BRT Tunnel
BRT / LRT Tunnel
(NS LRT)
LRT Tunnel
(E&W Downtown
LRT)
(E&W
Downtown + NS
LRT)
LRT $ 0 $ 140,000,000 $ 745,000,000 $ 890,000,000
Initial $ 799,200,000 $ 719,100,000 $ 408,960,000 $ 326,430,000
Bus
Replacement $599,250,000 $539,325,000 $204,480,000 $163,215,000
Total Vehicle Costs $1,398,450,000 $1,398,425,000 $1,358,440,000 $1,379,645,000
Note: The bus only scenario includes hybrid buses necessary for tunnel operation. Hybrids are also necessary
in the Bowesville to St. Laurent LRT scenario where buses and LRT will share tunnel operation. Standard
propulsion buses are assumed in the other LRT scenarios.
LRT Vehicles Required
length (m)
TT (min)
round trip (min)
layover (min)
Total (min) pass / hr veh / hr
headway (min) # of LRT veh 12% spare TOTAL @ $5M each
Option 2 Bayview to Bowesville 18,575 31.84 63.69 6 69.69 2800 20.7 2.9 25 3 28 140,000,000$ Option 3 Baseline to Blair 21,675 37.16 74.31 6 80.31 13500 100.0 0.6 134 16 150 750,000,000$
NS LRT 18,575 31.84 63.69 6.00 69.69 2,800 20.7 2.9 25 3 28 140,000,000$ EW LRT 18,575 37.16 74.31 6.00 80.31 13,500 100.0 0.6 134 16 150 750,000,000$ TOTAL 16,300 890,000,000$
LRT Maintenace Facilities Required
# of Vehicles Facilities required @ 100 M per facility
Option 1 Bus based 0 0 -$ Option 2 NS LRT 28 1 100,000,000$ Option 3 EW LRT 150 1 100,000,000$ Option 4 Rail based - 2 200,000,000$
Total Buses Required
standard
High Capacity Total standard
High Capacity Total standard
High Capacity Total
Option 1 Bus based 100% 568 375 943 627 92 719 1195 467 1662 Option 2 NS LRT 90% 512 338 850 627 92 719 1139 430 1569 Option 3 EW LRT 50% 284 188 472 627 92 719 911 280 1191 Option 4 Rail based 40% 228 150 378 627 92 719 855 242 1097
Cost for Downtown Buses
standard
High Capacity Total standard
High Capacity Total
Option 1 Bus based 100% 568 375 943 365 375 740 148 888 799,200,000.00$ Option 2 NS LRT 90% 512 338 850 329 338 667 133 800 720,128,571.43$ Option 3 EW LRT 50% 284 188 472 183 188 371 43 38 553 409,410,000.00$ Option 4 Rail based 40% 228 150 378 147 150 297 34 30 442 327,060,000.00$
Bus Maintenace Facilities Required
standard Total Existing Remaining Facilities Required 40ft 60ft 40 ft eq 40 ft eq @ $60M per facility
Option 1 Bus based 1195 179 467 701 140 2215 1000 1215 4.86 5 300,000,000.00$ Option 2 NS LRT 1139 171 430 645 129 2084 1000 1084 4.34 4 240,000,000.00$ Option 3 EW LRT 911 137 280 420 84 1552 1000 552 2.21 2 120,000,000.00$ Option 4 Rail based 855 128 242 363 73 1419 1000 419 1.68 2 120,000,000.00$
Total Cost
High Capacity per facility @ 250 buses
For CBD Articulated Equivilant
Standard 15% spares
Travel Time Service Frequency Required Vehicles
For CBD Not for CBD TOTAL BUSES
20% spares (std eq)
Option 4
High Capacity 20% spares Total w/ spares
Standard 15% spares
Operating Costs Assumptions: 2.7 peak period factor 2 for both peak periods
85% portion of peak period trips during the rest of the day
300 average service days per day
105 $/h to operate a standard bus
115 $/h to operate a high capacity bus
27 kph assumed average operating speed (reported by OC transpo 2005)
172 $/h to operate an LRT car ($/car-hour)
Alternative 1: Bus Only Standard
Buses
High Capacity
Buses LRT vehicles Total
2031 AM Peak Hour 627 832 2 1,461 0 LRT = 2 O-Trains + 0 LRT cars = 1 4-cars LRT vehciles 2031 AM Peak Period 1,693.00 2,247 6 3,946 1195 standard buses = 627 buses for non CBD service + 100% of 568 buses for CBD services 2031 AM & PM Peak Periods 3,386 4,494 12 7,892 467 high capacity buses = 92 buses for non CBD service + 100% of 375 buses for CBD services 2031 Off Peak Periods 2,879.000 3,820 11 6,710 943 2031 Daily Services Hours 6,265 8,314 23 14,602 2031 Annual Services Hours 1,879,500 2,494,200 6,900 4,380,600 2031 Annual Service KM 50,746,500 67,343,400 186,300 118,276,200 KM of Bus operation 2031 Operating Cost per Vehicle Type 197,347,500 286,833,000 1,186,800 485,367,300.00$ KM of Diesel LRT
Alternative 2: NS LRT Standard
Buses
High Capacity
Buses LRT vehicles Total
Notes
2031 AM Peak Hour 627 758 25 1,410 7 LRT = 0 O-Trains + 25 LRT cars = 7 4-cars LRT vehciles
2031 AM Peak Period 1,693.00 2,047 68 3,808 1138 standard buses = 627 buses for non CBD service + 90% of 568 buses for CBD services 2031 AM & PM Peak Periods 3,386 4,094 136 7,616 430 high capacity buses = 92 buses for non CBD service + 90% of 375 buses for CBD services 2031 Off Peak Periods 2,879.000 3,480 116 6,475 2031 Daily Services Hours 6,265 7,574 252 14,091 2031 Annual Services Hours 1,879,500 2,272,200 75,600 4,227,300 2031 Annual Service KM 50,746,500 61,349,400 2,041,200 114,137,100 KM of Bus operation
2031 Operating Cost per Vehicle Type 197,347,500 261,303,000 13,003,200 471,653,700.00$ KM of Diesel LRT
KM of electric LRT
Alternative 3: EW LRT Standard
Buses
High Capacity
Buses LRT vehicles Total
Notes 2031 AM Peak Hour 911 280 135 1,326 36 LRT = 2 O-Trains + 133 LRT cars = 34 4-cars LRT vehciles 2031 AM Peak Period 2,460.00 756 365 3,581 911 standard buses = 627 buses for non CBD service + 50% of 568 buses for CBD services 2031 AM & PM Peak Periods 4,920 1,512 730 7,162 280 high capacity buses = 92 buses for non CBD service + 50% of 375 buses for CBD services 2031 Off Peak Periods 4,182.000 1,286 621 6,089 2031 Daily Services Hours 9,102 2,798 1,351 13,251 2031 Annual Services Hours 2,730,600 839,400 405,300 3,975,300 2031 Annual Service KM 73,726,200 22,663,800 10,943,100 107,333,100 KM of Bus operation
2031 Operating Cost per Vehicle Type 286,713,000 96,531,000 69,711,600 452,955,600.00$ KM of Diesel LRT
KM of electric LRT
Alternative 4: EW + NS LRT Standard
Buses
High Capacity
Buses LRT vehicles Total
Notes 2031 AM Peak Hour 854 242 158 1,254 40 LRT = 0 O-Trains + 158 LRT cars = 40 4-cars LRT vehciles 2031 AM Peak Period 2,306.00 654 427 3,387 854 standard buses = 627 buses for non CBD service + 40% of 568 buses for CBD services 2031 AM & PM Peak Periods 4,612 1,308 854 6,774 242 high capacity buses = 92 buses for non CBD service + 40% of 375 buses for CBD services 2031 Off Peak Periods 3,921.000 1,112 726 5,759 2031 Daily Services Hours 8,533 2,420 1,580 12,533 2031 Annual Services Hours 2,559,900 726,000 474,000 3,759,900 2031 Annual Service KM 69,117,300 19,602,000 12,798,000 101,517,300 KM of Bus operation
2031 Operating Cost per Vehicle Type 268,789,500 83,490,000 81,528,000 433,807,500.00$ KM of Diesel LRT
KM of electric LRT
10,943,100
12,798,000
88,719,300
-
118,089,900 186,300
96,390,000
162,120
112,095,900
-
2,041,200
Annual Emissions
Diesel diesel-hybrid Diesel* Electric
VOC 1.030 0.539 0.618 -
CO 11.101 5.770 6.660 -
NOx 8.398 4.365 5.039 -
SOx 0.348 0.281 0.209 -
PM10 0.190 0.098 0.114 - CO2 1,318.940 751.370 791.364 -
Source: HLB Decision Economics inc.
* O-Train assumed to use 40% less fuel than a transit bus. (http://www.tc.gc.ca/programs/environment/UTSP/otrainlightrailproject.htm)
Bus O-Train Bus LRT Bus O-Train LRT Bus LRT Hybrid Diesel Hybrid Electric Hybrid Diesel electric Hybrid electric
118,089,900 186,300 112,095,900 2,041,200 96,390,000 162,120.00 10,943,100.00 88,719,300 12,798,000
VOC 63,700,000 200,000 60,400,000 0 52,000,000 200,000 0 47,800,000 0
CO 681,500,000 1,300,000 646,900,000 0 556,200,000 1,100,000 0 512,000,000 0
NOx 515,500,000 1,000,000 489,400,000 0 420,800,000 900,000 0 387,300,000 0
SOx 33,200,000 100,000 31,600,000 0 27,100,000 100,000 0 25,000,000 0
PM10 11,700,000 100,000 11,100,000 0 9,500,000 100,000 0 8,800,000 0 CO2 88,729,300,000 147,500,000 84,225,500,000 0 72,424,600,000 128,300,000 0 66,661,100,000 0
VOC
CO
NOx
SOx
PM10 CO2
11,100 84,225,500
8,800 66,661,100
9,600 72,552,900
387,300
25,000
421,700
27,200
47,800
512,000
52,200
557,300
60,400
646,900
489,400
31,600
Alternative4 Bus Only NS LRT NS + EW LRT
Alternative3 EW LRT
Total Emissions
(Kg)
Rounded
Total Emissions (g)
63,900
682,800
516,500
33,300
11,800 88,876,800
Emission Rate
(g/vkt)
Bus LRT
Annual Vehicle-Kilometres
Alternative1 Alternative2
Integration of STO
New BRT Tunnel no capacity for STO buses in OC BRT tunnel therefore separate STO tunnel, 2 directional loop
eng& PM: 15% contingency30% contingency50%
single tunnel 5m radius bore - 2 lanes 2970 m 62,500.00$ / m 185,625,000.00$ 278,437,500.00
station cost - widen by 2 lanes + 2 platforms 3 @ 60,000,000.00$ each 180,000,000.00$ 270,000,000.00
roadway / ventilations 1 @ 35,000,000.00$ LS 35,000,000.00$ 52,500,000.00
portals 2 @ 1,000,000.00$ each 2,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00
roadwork (outside tunnel) 2700 m 660.00$ / m 1,782,000.00 2,049,300.00 2,664,090.00
intersection reconstruction 2 @ 1,000,000.00$ each 2,000,000.00$ 2,300,000.00 2,990,000.00
communications 2700 m 300.00$ / m 810,000.00$ 931,500.00 1,210,950.00
Total STO Construction Cost
pass / hr Ottawa = 75% Peak
standard vehicles required 8500 11333 252 buses 158,760,000.00$
spare vehicles 15% 38 buses 23,940,000.00$
replacement vehicles 50% 145 buses 91,350,000.00$
TOTAL 435 buses 274,050,000.00$
STO Vehicles Required
TOTAL STO COST
Widen tunnel for BRT BRT connections to OC LRT Tunnel on both sides of downtown, 1 directional loop
eng& PM: 15% contingency30% contingency50%
premium from 3 to 5m radius bore 2000 m 40,000.00$ / m 80,000,000.00$ 120,000,000.00$
new single 5m radius tunnel 1210 m 62,500.00$ 75,625,000.00$ 113,437,500.00$
station cost - widen by 1 lane + 1 platform 3 each 40,000,000.00$ 120,000,000.00$ 180,000,000.00
roadway / ventilations 1 @ 35,000,000.00$ LS 35,000,000.00$ 52,500,000.00
portals 2 @ 1,000,000.00$ each 2,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00
roadwork 2700 m 660.00$ / m 1,782,000.00 2,049,300.00 2,664,090.00
intersection reconstruction 2 @ 1,000,000.00$ each 2,000,000.00$ 2,300,000.00 2,990,000.00
Total STO Construction Cost
pass / hr Ottawa = 75% Peak
standard vehicles required 8500 11333 252 buses 158,760,000.00$
15% spare vehicles 38 buses 23,940,000.00$
replacement vehicles 50% 145 buses 91,350,000.00$
STO Vehicles Required
TOTAL STO COST
610,802,540.00$
474,591,590.00$
274,050,000.00$
@ 45 passengers / vh
@ 45 passengers / vh
274,050,000.00$
748,641,590.00$
884,852,540.00$
Slater Albert Wellington
BRT BRT BRT
Slater Albert
LRT LRT BRT
Slater
Albert
Wellington
Slater
Albert
Wellington
Transfer in Gatineau connections to OC LRT tunnel on both ends of downtown, 2 directional LRT loop
eng& PM: 15% contingency30% contingency50%
Single tunnel 3m radius bore - 1 lane 2490 m 22,500.00$ / m 56,025,000.00$ 84,037,500.00$
Tunnel Portals 4 1,000,000.00$ 4,000,000.00$ 6,000,000.00$
tracks 11160 m 1,215.00$ / m 13,559,400.00$ 15,593,310.00 20,271,303.00
crossings 4 @ 50,000.00$ each 200,000.00$ 230,000.00 299,000.00
Traction power (twin track) 5630 m 1350 / m 7,600,500.00$ 8,740,575.00 11,362,747.50
power supply (twin track) 5630 m 1000 / m 5,630,000.00$ 6,474,500.00 8,416,850.00
sub stations (twin track) 5630 m 1200 / m 6,756,000.00$ 7,769,400.00 10,100,220.00
control/signals (twin track) 5630 m 1500 / m 8,445,000.00$ 9,711,750.00 12,625,275.00
communications (twin track) 5630 m 750 / m 4,222,500.00$ 4,855,875.00 6,312,637.50
modification to portage bridge 1 @ 1,000,000.00$ each 1,000,000.00$ 1,150,000.00 1,495,000.00
intersection reconstruction 2 @ 1,000,000.00$ each 2,000,000.00$ 2,300,000.00 2,990,000.00
Total STO Construction Cost
pass / hr pass / vh Vehicles / hr
headway
(min) Length (m) (loop)
aveage speed
(kph)
travel time (min)
1 way loop
travel time with 2
min layover (min)
STO Vehicles Required 8500 135 63 0.95 7630 35 13.08 15.08
15.83 trains required
1.90 12% spare
17.73 Total trains required 18 Trains =
STO Major Transfer Station
TOTAL STO COST
Transfer in Gatineau connections to OC LRT tunnel on west end of downtown, LRT link into gatineau
120m
eng& PM: 15% contingency30% contingency50%
Single tunnel 3m radius bore - 1 lane 610 m 22,500.00$ / m 13,725,000.00$ 20,587,500.00$
Tunnel Portals 2 1,000,000.00$ 2,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$
tracks 2800 m 1,215.00$ / m 3,402,000.00$ 3,912,300.00 5,085,990.00
crossings 2 @ 50,000.00$ each 100,000.00$ 115,000.00 149,500.00
Traction power 2800 m 1350 / m 3,780,000.00$ 4,347,000.00 5,651,100.00
power supply 2800 m 1000 / m 2,800,000.00$ 3,220,000.00 4,186,000.00
sub stations 2800 m 1200 / m 3,360,000.00$ 3,864,000.00 5,023,200.00
control/signals 2800 m 1500 / m 4,200,000.00$ 4,830,000.00 6,279,000.00
communications 2800 m 750 / m 2,100,000.00$ 2,415,000.00 3,139,500.00
modification to portage bridge 1 @ 1,000,000.00$ each 1,000,000.00$ 1,150,000.00 1,495,000.00
intersection reconstruction 1 @ 1,000,000.00$ each 1,000,000.00$ 1,150,000.00 1,495,000.00
Total STO Construction Cost
pass / hr pass / vh Vehicles / hr
headway
(min) Length (m) (round trip)
aveage speed
(kph)
travel time (min)
1 way loop
travel time with 2
min layover (min)
STO Vehicles Required 8500 135 63 0.95 6620 35 11.35 13.35
14.02 trains required
1.68 12% spare
15.70 Total trains required 16 Trains =
STO Major Transfer Station
TOTAL STO COST
163,910,533.00$
56,091,790.00$
25,000,000.00$
80,000,000.00$
161,091,790.00$
90,000,000.00$
278,910,533.00$
25,000,000.00$
Slater Albert
LRT LRT
Slater
Wellington
Slater Albert
LRT LRT
Slater
Albert
Wellington
Albert
Transfer in Ottawa downtown LRT shuttle goes from Lebreton to Rideau Centre = 2300 m
additional bore for tail track = 120m x 2
120m
Single tunnel 3m radius bore - 1 lane 240 m 22,500.00$ / m 5,400,000.00$ 8,100,000.00$
Tunnel Portals 0 1,000,000.00$ -$ -$
tracks 240 m 1,215.00$ / m 291,600.00$ 335,340.00 435,942.00
crossings 1 @ 50,000.00$ each 50,000.00$ 57,500.00 74,750.00
Traction power 240 m 1350 / m 324,000.00$ 372,600.00 484,380.00
power supply 240 m 1000 / m 240,000.00$ 276,000.00 358,800.00
sub stations 240 m 1200 / m 288,000.00$ 331,200.00 430,560.00
control/signals 240 m 1500 / m 360,000.00$ 414,000.00 538,200.00
communications 240 m 750 / m 180,000.00$ 207,000.00 269,100.00
Total STO Construction Cost
STO Major Transfer Station
pass / hr pass / vh Vehicles / hr
headway
(min) Length (m) (round trip)
aveage speed
(kph) travel time (min)
travel time with 2
min layover (min)
STO Vehicles Required 8500 135 63 0.95 4600 35 7.89 9.89
10.38 trains required
1.25 12% spare
11.63 Total trains required 12 Trains =
TOTAL STO COST
60,000,000.00$
10,691,732.00$
95,691,732.00$
25,000,000.00$
Slater Albert
LRT LRT Wellington
Slater
Albert
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIN ANKIN ANKIN ANKIN CCCCORPORPORPORPORATIONORATIONORATIONORATION
Transportation InfrastrTransportation InfrastrTransportation InfrastrTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study ucture Requirement Study ucture Requirement Study ucture Requirement Study G G G G1111 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
Appendix G: Consultation
Transportation Master Plan Infrastructure Requirement Study Summary Report: Phase II Consultations – A Review of the Downtown Rapid Transit Network Options March 3 to March 31, 2008
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIN ANKIN ANKIN ANKIN CCCCORPORPORPORPORATIONORATIONORATIONORATION
Transportation InfrastrTransportation InfrastrTransportation InfrastrTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study ucture Requirement Study ucture Requirement Study ucture Requirement Study G G G G2222 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
Table of Contents
Executive Summary……………………………………………………….……………… G3
Objective ……………………………………………………………………… G7
Methodology …………………………………………………………………. G8
Public Open Houses …………………………………………. G8 Registered Discussion Groups ……………………………….. G9 Stakeholder Focus Groups …………………………………… G10
Advisory Committee Meeting ……………………………….. G11 Internal and External Agency Group Meetings ……………… G12 Online Consultation…………………………………………... G13 Mayor’s Streeter Survey……………………………………… G13
Outcomes …………………………………………………………………….. G15
Public Open Houses …………………………………………. G15 Registered Discussion Groups ……………………………….. G17 Stakeholder Focus Groups …………………………………… G19
Advisory Committee Briefing……………………………….. G19 Internal and External Agency Meetings ……………………… G20 Online Consultation…………………………………………... G20 Mayor’s Streeter Survey……………………………………… G22
Appendix I – Registered Discussion Groups (Flip Chart Notes) ………...…. G24 Appendix II – Stakeholder Focus Groups Notes ……………………………. G49 Appendix III – Internal and External Agency Meeting Minutes …………… G53
Page G3
Executive Summary
Introduction The mandate of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Study Consultation Program is to engage, in a meaningful way, a broad range of citizens and stakeholders in a dialogue around Ottawa’s long-term transportation planning. The primary objective of the Phase II consultations was to inform and gather feedback from the public regarding the following four Downtown Rapid Transit Network Options:
• Bus Tunnel
• Joint Use BRT/LRT (North-South LRT)
• LRT Tunnel (East/West Downtown LRT)
• LRT Tunnel (East/West Downtown LRT and North-South LRT). Phase II consultations began March 3, and concluded March 31, 2008. A number of activities were designed and executed to provide flexible and convenient opportunities for the public to provide comment to the City. These included:
• Open Houses
• Registered Discussion Groups
• Stakeholder Focus Group Sessions
• City Advisory Committee Briefing
• Online Materials and Consultations
• Internal and External Agency Group Meetings
• A Mayor’s Streeter Survey.
In total, approximately 1,200 written comments were received through the Public Open Houses, Online Consultations and the Mayor’s Streeter Survey consultation activities. Overall, a strong majority of the public and stakeholders indicated Option 4 as their preferred long-term transit solution for the City of Ottawa (approximately 70% of all comments received supported Option 4). Many people commented that Option 4 provides the highest quality of transit service; the best approach for urban intensification; the lowest operating costs; optimum long-term transit growth capacity; the most positive environmental, social and economic impacts; and the most favourable perceptions of Ottawa as the Nation’s Capital City.
Page G4
While there was also support for Option 3 (approximately 22% of all comments received) many suggested that this alternative could serve as a ‘staged’ implementation for ultimately developing Network Option 4. There was little to no support for Option 1 and Option 2 (approximately 3% of all comments received). People found these options to be the least sustainable and economically viable networks for the future. Few people were either undecided or did not prefer any of the four options (approximately 5% of all comments received).
Activities and Outcomes
Open Houses:
Approximately 400 individuals attended four Public Open House sessions during the first week of March 2008. In total, 156 comment sheets were completed and submitted at the Open Houses, indicating:
• 68 per cent of respondents prefer Option 4 as their Downtown Rapid Transit Network.
• 25 per cent of respondents prefer Option 3
• One per cent prefers either Option 1 or 2
• Five per cent were undecided Additional key comments from the Open Houses are summarized in the Outcomes section of this report.
Discussion Groups:
Over 150 people participated in Registered Discussion Groups conducted at each of the Public Open Houses. A majority of participants supported Option 4 as a sustainable and forward- thinking plan. Some of those that supported Option 4 felt that it would be fiscally prudent to implement Option 3 as “stage one,” with the expectation that a future expansion would include the conversion and expansion of the O-Train to electric technology. Options 1 and 2 received little to no support.
Stakeholder Focus Group Sessions:
Three Focus Group sessions were held at City Hall during the first week of March 2008, providing key stakeholders from the City’s Industry, Economic and Downtown sectors an opportunity to supply their input on the four Downtown Rapid Transit Network Options. Option 4 was the preferred option at each Focus Group session, as it was seen to be the option that best
Page G5
promoted intensification and economic growth, and that was the most effective in alleviating downtown congestion and allowing for future expansion.
City Advisory Committee Briefings:
A briefing session on the Downtown Rapid Transit Network Options was held for City of Ottawa Advisory Committees with an interest in transit and transportation during the first week of March 2008. All Advisory Committees were also invited to participate in the Open House sessions and Registered Discussion Groups.
Online Consultation:
The Beyond Ottawa 20/20 website (www.ottawa.ca/beyondottawa2020) was used to provide information and solicit feedback regarding the various Downtown Rapid Transit Network Options from March 3 to March 31, 2008.
In total, 631 written submissions were received. Of these, a significant majority indicated Option 4 as their preferred option, consistent with the following multiple-choice results from the online questionnaire that was completed by nearly 500 participants:
• 70 per cent chose Option 4 as their preferred Downtown Rapid Transit Network
• 18 per cent chose Option 3
• Five per cent selected either Options 1 or 2
• Seven per cent were undecided Additional key comments from the online consultations are summarized in the Outcomes section of this report.
Internal and External Agency Group Meetings:
The City of Ottawa hosted Agency meetings during the first week of March 2008, which included representatives from various levels of governments, crown corporations, private interest groups and departmental staff from the City of Ottawa. The primary objective was to provide information about the four Downtown Rapid Transit Network Options through a presentation followed by an open discussion. Although the majority favoured Option 4, some recommended a more detailed analysis of the costs and benefits, including impacts on ridership and environmental impacts.
Mayor’s Streeter Survey:
A Mayor’s Streeter Survey was conducted during the week of March 17 th to provide a brief
snapshot of the public’s awareness and opinion of the City’s long-term transit plans.
Page G6
The Streeter Survey locations were selected to capture a diverse set of opinions, mostly from transit users. In total, 401 surveys were completed. Of these, 318 respondents (79%) wanted light rail in Ottawa. A strong majority (298 or 74%) thought light rail should service the suburban communities such as Kanata, Orleans and Barrhaven.
Page G7
Objective
The mandate of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Study Consultation Program is to engage, in a meaningful way, a broad range of citizens and stakeholders in a dialogue around Ottawa’s long-term transportation planning. The primary objective of Phase II of the Consultation Program was to inform the public on four Downtown Rapid Transit Network Options and the implications these options would have on the outlying transportation systems. The four options are:
1. Bus Tunnel 2. Joint Use BRT/LRT (North-South LRT) 3. LRT Tunnel (East/West Downtown LRT) 4. LRT Tunnel (East/West Downtown LRT and North-South LRT)
Consultation began March 3, and concluded March 31, 2008. A number of activities were designed and executed to provide flexible and convenient opportunities for the public to provide comment to the City. These included:
• Open Houses
• Registered Discussion Groups
• Stakeholder Focus Group Sessions
• Advisory Committee Briefings
• Online Materials and Consultations
• Internal and External Agency Group Meetings
• A Mayor’s Streeter Survey. For each of the consultation events, members of the public and stakeholders were provided with the opportunity to consult with technical experts on each of the options and to provide feedback. Comments collected have been summarized to highlight areas of common interest and concern. These summaries are provided in the main body of this report; full comments can be found in the appendices. Databases of compiled comments sheets and completed surveys were submitted to the City of Ottawa’s Planning, Transit and Environment Department.
Page G8
Methodology
The Phase II consultation activities were designed to provide members of the public and stakeholders with the technical information they required to meaningfully consider each of the four Downtown Rapid Transit Network Options and to assess which one best reflected their needs, and those of the city to 2031. Citizens were encouraged to participate and submit input on each of the alternatives through a variety of mechanisms. Below is a description on the seven consultation programs that were developed and used to engage the public and obtain their feedback.
1) Public Open Houses
Four Public Open House sessions took place between Monday, March 3, and Thursday, March 6, in various regions of the city (including in the east, west, south and downtown). Approximately 400 individuals participated in the Public Open House events. Attendees received an information package that included an update by the Mayor, an informational postcard, and a comment sheet. Upon request, attendees were also provided with paper copies of the display boards and more detailed information on the four network options. Thirty bilingual project boards on the TMP Update and the options were displayed at each event. Engineering and planning experts from the TMP Consulting Team (from McCormick Rankin, Delcan, and the City of Ottawa’s Planning Department) were on hand at all Open House sessions to answer any technical questions. The project boards were arranged around the perimeter of the event rooms to allow for facilitated Registered Discussion Group sessions to take place inside the same venue as the Open House. More information on the Registered Discussion Groups follows below. An ‘input’ table with bilingual resource materials, such as the 2003 TMP, Official Plan documents, and comment sheets, was also made available for attendees to further inform themselves and to provide detailed comment on the proposed alternatives. The Mayor attended all of the Open House sessions and was available to discuss the options with constituents and gauge their reaction first-hand. Several City Councillors also participated.
Page G9
Table 1: Public Open House and Discussion Group Location and Registration
Dates and Times
Open House,
Discussion Group
Location
# of Open House
Participants
(approximate)
# of Discussion
Group Participants
(approximate)
Monday, March 3 6:00 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.
East Bob MacQuarrie Recreation Complex
1490 Youville Drive, Orleans 70 25
Tuesday, March 4 6:00 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.
Central City Hall
100 Laurier Avenue West 200 80
Wednesday, March 5
6:00 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.
West
Earl March High School 4 The Parkway, Kanata
65 35
Thursday, March 6
6:00 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.
South
John McCrae High School 103 Malvern Drive, Nepean
60 24
2) Registered Discussion Groups
The Registered Discussion Groups provided citizens with the opportunity to engage in in-depth discussions around the four Downtown Rapid Transit Network Options. It was a participatory form of public engagement that allowed those involved to explore and consider the network options in an interactive, face-to-face setting. The Registered Discussion Groups were conducted between 7:00 and 8:00 p.m., to coincide with the Open Houses. While the majority of participants were pre-registered, spaces at the tables were left open to accommodate any of the Open House attendees that showed an interest in participating. Participants were seated at tables and supplied with copies of the four Downtown Rapid Transit Network Options. Technical facilitators led the discussions at each table, and a scribe captured the participants’ input on a flip chart. The Discussion Groups were also facilitated in French, as required. For the full notes from each of Discussion Group tables, please see Appendix I. The technical facilitators began the discussion by introducing the TMP and summarizing developments on the update program, before proceeding to describe the four Downtown Rapid Transit Network Options. Participants were then asked which option they preferred and the reasons why. Each participant had an equal opportunity to explain their likes and dislikes, and could ask the technical facilitator for further clarification on various concerns.
The discussion tables were located in the same room as the Open House, which gave citizens, the Mayor and City Councillors the opportunity to listen in on the Discussion Groups, as well as to provide the technical experts, located at the Open House project boards, easy access to provide technical advice and answers to specific questions, as required.
Page G10
Promotion and Recruitment: Promotion for the Open Houses and recruitment for the Registered Discussion Groups was conducted via media advisories, ad placements, promotional material, as well as through the City’s website and email lists. Newspaper advertisements were inserted in The Citizen and Le Droit on Friday, February 21, and Friday, February 28. Promotional postcards were distributed on all OC Transpo buses, and made available at public libraries, City kiosks and recreation facilities. Citizens that had participated in Phase I of the TMP consultations, as well as those registered in the City’s Ottawa 20/20 mailing list were also emailed an invitation to register for the Discussion Groups. Members of the public were also invited to call 3-1-1, register online on the City’s website, or contact Colin Simpson of the City’s Planning Department, to obtain more information on the events or to register.
3) Stakeholder Focus Groups
Three Focus Group sessions were held at City Hall from Tuesday, March 4, to Wednesday, March 5, providing key stakeholders in the process an opportunity to supply their input on the four Downtown Rapid Transit Network Options. Participants at the Stakeholder Focus Group sessions were grouped according to their various interests and areas of expertise, and represented the City’s Industry, Economic, and Downtown sectors. The 2-hour sessions consisted of a 45 minute presentation introducing the TMP project and the four Downtown Rapid Transit Network Options. This was followed by an open discussion on the benefits and drawbacks of each of the four alternatives, and to explore which one best met the needs of Ottawa’s growing population and employment demands to the year 2031. The Focus Group sessions were facilitated by a member of PACE Public Affairs & Community Engagement, and City of Ottawa staff provided and delivered the technical content. Two technical experts from McCormick Rankin and Delcan were also present at each of the three Stakeholder sessions, to provide detailed answers to technical questions. The feedback generated at each of the Stakeholder Focus Group sessions was collected by the facilitator on flip-charts and in notes taken by a scribe. Summaries of these notes can be found in Appendix II.
Page G11
Table 2: Stakeholder Focus Group Schedule
Date ‘Voices’ Representation
Tuesday, March 4
9.30 – 11.30 a.m. Industry Voices
Stakeholders that rely on the transportation system including school transit organizations, taxi services, car-sharing organizations, and general aviation organizations.
Wednesday, March 5
9.30 – 11.30 a.m. Downtown Voices
Business and community members representing the downtown area.
Wednesday, March 5
1.30 – 3.30 a.m. Economic Voices
Businesses, business associations, major employers, and other representatives that are interested in transportation from an economic perspective.
Recruitment: Attendance at the Stakeholder Focus Groups was drawn from existing City stakeholder lists, supplemented by additional research to create a broad-based pool of participants. Stakeholders were sent email invitations and received follow-up calls to confirm their interest and availability to attend.
4) Advisory Committee Briefing
A number of the City of Ottawa’s Advisory Committees, with an interest in transit and transportation, were invited to participate in a briefing session on the Downtown Rapid Transit Network Options. The session, which consisted of a presentation on the TMP update and the four options, was scheduled at City Hall in the evening of March 5. The Advisory Committees invited to attend included:
• Roads and Cycling Advisory Committee
• Environmental Advisory Committee
• Rural Issues Advisory Committee
• Accessibility Advisory Committee
• Pedestrian and Transit Advisory Committee. No feedback was received at this session. Those Advisory Committees whose mandates do not directly pertain to transit or transportation issues were invited to participate in the Open House sessions and Registered Discussion Groups. Invitations were sent to the following Advisory Committees:
• Arts, Heritage and Culture Advisory Committee
• Equity and Diversity Advisory Committee
• French Language Service Advisory Committee
• Health and Social Services Advisory Committee
• Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee
• Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee
• Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee
• Poverty Issues Advisory Committee
Page G12
• Seniors Advisory Committee. Note that representatives of the Business Advisory Committee were invited to attend the ‘Economic Voices’ Stakeholder Focus Group. The Taxi Advisory Committee, which had been invited to participate in Phase I consultation activities, was disbanded prior to the occurrence of Phase II events. Recruitment: Invitations were sent to each of the Advisory Committees by members of the Planning Department at the City of Ottawa.
5) Internal and External Agency Meetings
The City of Ottawa held Internal and External Agency meetings during the week of March 3. The primary objective of the Agency meetings was to provide the two groups with information on the four options. Both meetings consisted of a 45 minute presentation updating participants on the TMP project, and providing an overview on the four alternatives. This was followed by an open discussion. Meeting minutes for both the Internal and External sessions can be found in Appendix III. The External Agency meeting took place on Tuesday, March 4, at City Hall from 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. Participants included representatives from the following agencies: Federal Government
• Public Works and Government Services Canada
• Health Canada
• Transport Canada
• Infrastructure Canada
Provincial Government
• Ontario Ministry of Transportation
• Ontario Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal
City of Gatineau
• Société de transport de l'Outaouais (STO)
Crown Corporations
• National Capital Commission
Advisory Agencies and Private Interest
• Rideau Valley Conservation Authority
• Canadian Pacific Railway
Page G13
The Internal Agency meeting took place on Friday, March 7, at City Hall from 9:30 to 11:30 a.m. Participants at the Internal Agency Meeting consisted of various departmental staff from the City of Ottawa, including representatives from:
• Economic Development
• Surface Operations
• Traffic & Parking Operations Branch
• Real Property Asset Management Branch. Feedback was not collected at either of these two Agency Meetings, as participants were asked to provide comments to Steven Boyle at the City of Ottawa, by March 31, 2008.
6) Online Consultation
The Beyond Ottawa 20/20 website (www.ottawa.ca/beyondottawa2020) was used to promote the Open Houses and the Registered Discussion Groups activities and to provide browsers with information on the various Downtown Rapid Transit Network Options.
The online consultation took place from Monday, March 3, to Monday, March 31. All thirty Open House display boards were uploaded to the website, along with supporting materials, in both official languages. Citizens were encouraged to review the information and provide comments through an online feedback form, by email, regular mail or by fax. The online feedback form included both multiple-choice and open-ended questions. A database compiling input obtained from the comments sheets and online submissions was submitted to the City of Ottawa’s Planning, Transit and Environment Department.
7) Mayor’s Streeter Survey
A Mayor’s Streeter Survey was conducted to provide a brief snapshot of the public’s awareness and opinion of the City’s long-term transit plans. The Streeter Survey locations were selected to capture a diverse set of opinions, mostly from transit users. Locations included downtown at the McKenzie King Bridge; the Eagleson Park and Ride in Kanata; the Place d’Orleans transit shelter in Orleans; and the Fallowfield Park and Ride in Barrhaven. The survey team approached various people at transit stations, bus stops, city parking lots and sidewalks, and asked them to participate in the brief questionnaire.
Page G14
The surveys were conducted during the week of March 17
th at the following six locations:
Table 3: Mayor’s Streeter Survey Schedule and Locations
DATE
LOCATION
TIME
Eagleson Park and Ride 7:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
Monday, March 17 th
Mackenzie King Bridge 7:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
Place d'Orléans Park and Ride 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, March 18
th
Mackenzie King Bridge 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Fallowfield Park and Ride 7:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. Thursday, March 20
th
Mackenzie King Bridge 7:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
In order to maximize the number of completed surveys within the allotted three days, teams of ‘surveyors’ were assigned to each location. Each team had a ‘team leader’ from PACE Public Affairs & Community Engagement. Surveyors were identified by a City of Ottawa winter toque. Team members were provided with surveys and copies of the Mayor’s Newsletter which highlighted the four Downtown Rapid Transit Network Options and also directed readers to the Ottawa.ca/BeyondOttawa2020 website for further information and opportunities to provide feedback. All materials were available in both official languages. The survey results were reviewed, collated and analyzed to identify key comments in the public’s attitude towards the City’s long-term transit plans. The database of completed surveys was submitted to the City of Ottawa’s Planning, Transit and Environment Department.
Page G15
Outcomes Overall, at each of the consultation events, a strong majority of the public and stakeholders indicated Option 4 as the preferred long-term solution for the City of Ottawa. While there was also support for Option 3, many suggested that this alternative could serve as a ‘staged’ implementation for ultimately developing Network Option 4. There was little to no support for Options 1 and 2, as these were found to be the least sustainable and economically viable networks for the future. In total, over 1,100 comments (1,188) were received through the Public Open Houses, Online Consultation and the Mayor’s Streeter Survey consultation activities.
1) Public Open Houses In total, approximately 400 individuals attended the Public Open Houses during the week of March 3, and 156 comment sheets were submitted. Members of the public were asked to provide responses to the following three questions/prompts:
• Which downtown rapid transit option do you prefer?
• Please outline below what you like about your chosen option.
• Other Comments Just over two thirds of the submissions indicated Downtown Rapid Transit Network Option 4 as the preferred option, while a quarter indicated Option 3. Options number 1 and 2 received next to no support.
Table 4: Public Open Houses ~ Preferred Downtown Rapid Transit Network Option, as
Submitted in Response to Question 1 of the Comment Sheet Question 1 ~ “Which downtown rapid transit option do you prefer?”
Options Location
1 2 3 4 N/A
Total Choices Made
West 0 0 17 17 1 35
East 2 1 7 17 3 30
South 0 0 3 25 0 28
Page G16
Central 0 1 15 55 5 72
Total 2 2 42 114 9 169*
*Please note that some comment sheets included two selected options
Table 5: Public Open Houses ~ Key Comments, as Identified in Response to Question 1a of
the Comment Sheet
Question #1a ~ “Please outline below what you like about your chosen option.” Key Comments
(Comments refer to Option 4)
• Operating costs are cheaper
• Environmentally friendly
• Goes direct from downtown to airport
• Services all communities of Ottawa with use of Hub and Spoke
• Ability to expand network
• Converts Transitway to LRT (use of existing assets)
• High capacity service where it is needed most
• Underground tunnel removes congestion
• Underground tunnel promotes business development – offsetting costs
• Is a world transit system for Nation’s Capital
Table 6: Public Open Houses ~ Key Comments, as Identified in Response to Question 2 of
the Comment Sheet
Question #2 ~ “Are there other features you would like to see included into Ottawa’s rapid transit network?” Key Comments
• N/S rail to connect to Gatineau
• Extension of LRT to Kanata and Orleans
• Use existing rail lines
• Encourage intensification inside greenbelt
• One transit pass for all transit systems
• Bike routes, paths and parking at transit stations is necessary
• Comfortable transit stations
• Security for underground tunnel
• Accessibility for underground tunnel and all LRT stations
• Free downtown LRT use to promote ridership and tourism
• Option of running LRT on waterway as a tourist attraction
Table 7: Public Open Houses ~ Key Comments, as Identified in Response to Question 3 of
the Comment Sheet
Question #3 ~ “Other Comments” Key Comments
• Consider the environment in any option
• STO/Gatineau sharing of costs and integration
Page G17
• The proposed options are too narrow and should extend even further
• Personal safety needs to be considered
• Ensure Walking and Cycling is integrated and maintained
• Make transit attractive and affordable
• Ensure that the correct corridors are chosen
• Money is not the deciding point - it is what is best for Ottawa
2) Registered Discussion Groups
Over 100 people registered for the various Discussion Groups held across the city. Discussions focused largely around Options number 3 and 4. There was little to no discussion or questions regarding Options 1 or 2. The majority of participants favoured Option 4 as the best long-term solution for Ottawa. While discussions at each table were designed to reflect the questions listed in the Comment Sheets, some led to other relevant topics. Facilitators were encouraged to carry the conversation wherever participants felt it needed to go. With this in mind, the following table (Table 8) provides a summary of key Comments captured at each of the Discussion Group tables. For in- depth notes captured on flip charts at each table, please see Appendix I.
Table 8: Registered Discussion Groups ~ Key Comments on the Four Options Network Key Comments
Option 1
• Buses do not help us overcome the congestion issue in the downtown core
• Buses are less reliable
• There is no clear benefit for choosing this option
• Operating costs are very high
• This is not a sustainable option
• There is no room for growth
• It is the least efficient use of time, money and the environment
• Buses in the tunnel would cause serious health concerns
Option 2 • There is no clear benefit for choosing this option
• This option is too expensive
• There is no consideration for growth
• This option is the most expensive
• It is not a sustainable choice
• Buses in the tunnel would cause serious health concerns
Option 3 • Option 3 is a good interim starting point to get to Option 4
• The link to the airport is important
• Future growth is possible with this option
• If this option is selected, an increase in O-Train service is needed
Option 4 • It is the best option for the environment
• It offers best long-term solution
• It supports urban growth realities
• Option 4 is the best use of money
• It is adaptable
• It is convenient
Page G18
The following table (Table 9) reflects what participants indicated was most important for the City to consider when implementing a new transit plan.
Table 9: Registered Discussion Groups ~ Key Areas of Consideration Area of Dialogue Key Areas of Consideration
Location of Corridors, Stops, etc.
• Explore the feasibility of existing corridors
• Ensure the appropriate corridor choices (e.g. Baseline vs. Barrhaven, East-West vs. North-South)
Environment • Technology choice is important to investigate – hybrid vs. electric vs. diesel
• Choose the best alternative for the environment
• Consider future fuel costs
• Choose a system that considers Ottawa’s environment and winter temperatures
Considering STO • A solution for the Gatineau buses must be considered
• Create a transfer point on the Gatineau side
• STO link is imperative
• Ensure systems are compatible
• STO system must not be detrimental to Ottawa (e.g. contribute to the congestion issues in the downtown core)
Construction and Disruption of Service
• Concern about construction at transfer stations
• Concern about construction disruption in residential areas
• Concern that disruption to service will result in losses to ridership and increases in car use
Transfer Stations with Hub and Spoke System
• Must encourage acceptance of transferring
• Determine elements that make transferring attractive (e.g. shopping, etc.)
• Accommodate multi-modal use (e.g. bike paths, bike stations, walkways and more Park and Rides)
• Personal safety at transit station and tunnel
• One transfer limit
Urban Planning • Increase development density
• Land use planning is critical for transit planning
Encouraging Transit Ridership
• Choose the system that will encourage the highest ridership
• Aim for high modal splits
• Convenience, reliability and speed will appeal to citizens
• Incentives for transit use
• Internet access on trains
• Affordability (e.g. car ownership and parking costs vs. transit pass)
Financing • Focus on decreasing maintenance costs
• Secure funding from other levels of government
Page G19
3) Stakeholder Focus Groups
Overall, attendees at the three Stakeholder Focus Group sessions provided very positive feedback on the focus group structure and were pleased with the opportunity to provide in-depth input on the four Downtown Rapid Transit Network Options. In each of the three Focus Group sessions, common themes and elements emerged. The majority of participants felt strongly that Downtown Rapid Transit Network Option 4 was the most comprehensive and beneficial to the city, providing citizens with a sustainable, reliable transit system that allowed for future growth as population and employment opportunities increase. The following table (Table 10) provides a summary of the key Comments captured at each of the three Stakeholder sessions. For full notes, please see Appendix II.
Table 10: Stakeholder Focus Group Sessions ~ Key Comments Stakeholder Focus Group Comments
Industry Voices • Option 4 best option
• Future growth with rail is a benefit
• LRT moves people quickly and is cheaper
• Inter-provincial support is needed for STO problem
• Public buy-in is important – market the options well
Downtown Voices • Option 4 makes sense
• Intensification is needed as it relieves congestion
• Flexibility with being able to add more rail cars, extending rail lines and seeing multi-modalities integrated
• Inter-provincial support is needed for STO problem
• Local service will need improvements
• Public buy-in is crucial – market the options well
Economic Voices • Downtown emphasis is good
• Tunnel is needed
• Build economic nodes within the transfer areas
• Inter-provincial support is needed for STO problem
• Public buy-in is important – market the options well
• Intensification is necessary
4) Advisory Committee Meeting
No feedback was received at this meeting.
Page G20
5) Internal and External Agency Meetings
Feedback was not collected at either the Internal or External Agency Meetings, as participants were asked to submit comments to Steven Boyle at the City of Ottawa, by March 31, 2008. Meeting minutes can be found in Appendix III.
6) Online Consultation
Citizens were encouraged to participate and provide feedback through a multitude of channels: by emailing the Mayor directly; emailing City staff at [email protected]; submitting online comments on the City’s website; mailing feedback to the City; or by faxing in their feedback. Of the 631 total comment submissions received, an overwhelming majority indicated Option 4 as their preferred option. The bulk of these comments (494 of the 631) were received through the online feedback form on ottawa.ca, which indicated the following multiple-choice results:
• 70 per cent chose Option 4
• 18 per cent chose Option 3
• 5 per cent selected either Options 1 or 2
• 7 per cent were undecided Participants that chose to email, fax or mail their feedback (126 or 20% of comments received) mostly commented openly about specific concerns they had about transit in Ottawa. Tables 11 through 14 summarize the feedback received through the online consultation process. All comments submitted are on file with City’s Planning, Transit and Environment Department.
Table 11: Online Consultation ~ Preferred Downtown Rapid Transit Network Option
Question #1 ~ “Which downtown rapid transit option do you prefer?”
Options Method of
Submission 1 2 3 4 N/A
Total Choices Made
Fax 0 0 3 0 0 3
Mail 0 0 1 5 4 10
Email 1 1 18 67 36 123
Online Form 14 11 89 341 40 495
Total 15 12 111 413 80 631
Page G21
Table 12: Online Consultation ~ Key Comments Identified with Respect to Option 4
Question #1a ~ “Please outline below what you like about your chosen option.” Key Comments
• Access to all citizens regardless of region EW/NS/etc.
• Tunnel is a good idea and eliminates congestion
• LRT is the best for the environment
• Option 4 is the best long term choice with the ability to expand rail to outlying areas in the future
• Option 4 has the cheapest Operating and Maintenance costs
• Phase out reliance on fossil-fuel-burning buses
• LRT will reduce the congestion going into and out of downtown
• Greater reliability
• Streamlining of inner-greenbelt transit helps improve liveability
Table 13: Online Consultation ~ Key Comments Identified with Respect to Features Question #2 ~ “Are there other features you would like to see included into Ottawa’s rapid transit network?” Key Comments
• LRT connection to other areas (e.g. Barrhaven, Gatineau, Fallowfield Via Station)
• Accessibility is important
• Convenience and reliability of transfers is important
• Tunnel pathway and connections to shops, residences, buildings is important
• Bike paths and walkways along the Transitway is essential
• Larger park and rides
• Ongoing consideration for late night routes to service downtown core and entertainment destinations
• All buses should be removed off Albert, Slater, Queen and Laurier downtown and should connect to bus station hubs
• The LRT should be faster than the bus, which will entice more transit riders
• Integration with STO and getting Ottawa residents access to major government workplaces in Gatineau
• The city should be encouraging higher density residential, commercial, and institutional development adjacent to LRT
• Incorporation of the old Union Station downtown as the main downtown stop
• Train connection to Scotia Bank Place
• Reduction / Freeze on fares
• Better coordination with STO schedules
• Phasing of Option 3 and Option 4 allows for immediate construction
Table 14: Online Consultation ~ Key Comments Identified as Other Question #3 ~ “Other Comments” Key Areas of
Consideration
Key Comments
Environment • Tunnel should only be accessible to LRT
• Technology choice is important to investigate – hybrid vs. electric vs. diesel
• Eventual conversion/extension of LRT promotes further environmental benefits
• Explore the feasibility of existing corridors
• Ensure the appropriate corridor choices (e.g. Baseline vs. Barrhaven, East-West vs.
Page G22
North-South)
• Consider future fuel costs
• Choose a system that considers Ottawa’s environment and winter temperatures
• LRT will increase transit ridership
Economic Benefits • Increase development density
• Land use planning is critical for transit planning
Ottawa/Gatineau Cooperation
• A solution for the Gatineau buses must be considered
• Inter-provincial cooperation is necessary
• Create a transfer point on the Gatineau side
Construction and Disruption of Service
• Concern about construction at transfer stations
• Concern about construction disruption in residential areas
• Concern that disruption to service will result in losses to ridership and increases in car use
• Use of existing infrastructure should be considered
Transfer Stations with Hub and Spoke System
• Must encourage acceptance of transferring
• Determine elements that make transferring attractive (e.g. shopping, etc.)
• Accommodate multi-modal use (e.g. bike paths, bike stations, walkways and more Park and Rides)
• Personal safety at transit station and tunnel
• One transfer limit
Encouraging Transit Ridership
• Choose the system that will encourage the highest ridership
• One pass/smart card system for all types of transit
• Aim for high modal splits
• Convenience, reliability and speed will appeal to citizens
• Incentives for transit use
• Internet access on trains
• Affordability (e.g. car ownership and parking costs vs. transit pass)
Financing • Focus on decreasing maintenance costs
• Secure funding from other levels of government
• Need to consider the costs and implement accordingly
Other • Consider the location of the tunnel and ensure it is the right choice
• Make the planning process open and transparent to citizens
• Implement the plan now; not in 30 years
• Do not cancel anymore transit contracts
• Rail cars should be longer than two cars
7) Mayor’s Streeter Surveys
The Mayor’s Streeter Survey – conducted at various transit stations, bus stops, City Park & Rides, and sidewalks across Ottawa during the week of March 17
th , generated a total of 401
completed questionnaires. The following is an overview of the key findings:
• 261 (65%) participants have heard about the downtown tunnel proposal and/or the four Downtown Rapid Transit Network Options
• 318 respondents (79%) believe that Ottawa needs a light rail system to service its growing population
• A majority (225 of 358 responses) would like to see a connection to the airport
Page G23
• 298 (74%) think light rail should service suburban communities such as Kanata, Orleans and Barrhaven
• 284 (71%) respondents believe it more fiscally prudent to spend an increased amount upfront in capital costs to develop a transit system, and spend less on operating and maintenance costs over the lifetime of the project (than the opposite).
Common themes heard throughout the duration of the survey, regardless of the location, include:
• Support for the tunnel and decongestion of the core
• Phasing of the light rail system so that it serves the demand
• Extension of light rail to the suburbs. Key comments in reference to financing a transit system were as follows:
• A good system is needed now - spend the money to do it well
• Do not increase taxes
• Do not increase transit fees
• More information is needed on the options and what the overall costs will be.
Page G24
Appendix I
Registered Discussion Groups — Flip Chart Notes
Orléans Public Open House – Monday, March 3, 2008
Table 1:
Leader Scribe
Peter Steacy, McCormick Rankin Monica Bailey, PACE
Questions & Discussion
Buses more expensive Health Issues Bus expense = driver (LRT requires 1 driver / large train)
• Option #1 is no good Buses slower
• Cause congestion and problems in downtown core
• Overtime bus very expensive Cost: operating cost - $700 million to build
• Same environment of congestion if we use BRT in tunnel
- limitations to this option for the future
• Rush hour – broad peak times
- buses aren’t moving
- only standing room Option #1 – least efficient Between option 1 and option 4
• Time it would take from start to end – Bus vs. LRT
- considering transfer (Blair to Baseline)
• Both same travel time - But not during peak hours
• Peak hour = buses slower Reliability – Option 1 vs. Option 4
• LRT would be far more reliable – especially during bad weather
• **Speed and reliability = key concerns** 2 min at downtown for LRT
• Transfer from bus to LRT – seamless
• Transfer nodes must consider bus to LRT Baseline to Blair and effects Rail should go to River Road
• Eliminates road widening
• Helps people cross bridge
Page G25
Greely – to be included in growth area Transfer points available to those in Greely Yellow = urban boundaries
• Development on those corridors How do people connect to LRT from Bus?
• Stations are at intersections of Arterial roads
- Frequent stations to be efficient Collection of people important – 8 must be accessible at bus routes / stops Option #1 = tunnel Scale – tunnel to give option for the future (two level) *Bike paths? Bike option. Convert O-Train to LRT – must make double rail and electric Option 3 – include widening?
• No
• Extension to Bowesville to be considered Airport rail – is it needed?
• To be looked into but is seen as an economic benefit to the city
Wrap Up
Table Preferences*
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
0 0 1 7 * Totals may exceed number of participants as individuals indicated more than one option as their preference
Comments
Extension to River Road (option 5) Tunnel needed and must be rail
• Should we keep O-Train? (fiscally responsible – extra cost) Interconnect rail Assumption that everyone wants to go downtown Grey line = 2003 TMP “Rapid Transit Expansion Study”
• Corridors – East-West / North-South
• To attain 30% transit modal split – look at these not just going downtown. Looked at interconnecting lines and modes
Plan doesn’t adequately look at growth outside urban boundary
• West rails “too close together”
• Navan to Trim Road bus transit approved - #94 Support inter-connecting links – Grey Lines **Rapid transit to Quebec side – STO / LRT / BRT to provide service
Page G26
**2031 cheap energy? – No available energy in 2031 Start thinking about walkability / biking and land use
• This is important to the TMP Bike routes, traffic free – roads accommodate bikes Timelines 2009
• EA for tunnel next
• Construction
• Bayview to Hurdman = #2 for construction
• Tunnel = #1 for construction Transit plan – 2 years planning
• City approved downtown tunnel network
• EA on tunnel
• Joint STO / City of Ottawa for transit to/from Quebec *Station locations will drive length of approval process
• City to get landowner approval for building LRT *Technical
• 1 ½ to 2 years for building
• Agencies
• Utilities
• Centre out – tunnel and downtown then construct outwards Bus vs. LRT – acceleration – ex: Edmonton Streetcars faster than bus because they don’t carry fuel Suburban communities gravity – LRT considers this Impact assessment?
• GHG part of analysis
• Focus on different technology
• Movement from place to place
• *Health impact assessment needed
- Especially considering cycling
- Diesel particles
- Asthma
- Heart attacks
- Money from Health budget
- Accident costs – Assess this. Are there fewer and what is the cost benefits to LRT vs. Car?
Page G27
Table 2:
Leader Scribe
Ronald Fournier, Delcan David Forsey, City of Ottawa
Questions & Discussion
Question 1: Which alternative do you prefer? And why?
• St-Laurent shows the environment of a bus tunnel. Any option with an LRT tunnel.
• Option 4. Start with 3 aim for 4
• Option 4. It extends to airport. Could use Diesel for Option #5
• Importance of train for airport to downtown
• Interlining
• Difficulty of serving N-S demand with diesel/stock
• (Use of tracks from Barrhaven to VIA) Question 2: Other features?
• Using the Ottawa River Parkway - Is it the right alignment for the money?
• Concerned about connections with STO Question 3: Other comments?
• First thing to do is to get LRT running in a tunnel
• Tunnel alignment built further South to serve downtown
Wrap Up
Table Preferences*
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
0 0 2 4 * Totals may exceed number of participants as individuals indicated more than one option as their preference
Table 3:
Leader Scribe
Colin Simpson, City of Ottawa Ian Borsuk, McCormick Rankin
Questions & Discussion
Option 1
• Phasing of tunnel first before building second tunnel
• Is maintenance of hybrid buses more expensive?
• Do we consider a diesel tunnel?
Page G28
Option 2
• Can O-Train be extended into Gatineau – benefits both downtowns
• Why is the Cumberland Transitway shown through Blackburn Hamlet and then South of the majority of Orleans?
Option 3
• Why is Blair shown as the transfer location? Could it not go to Place d’Orleans or Trim?
• Can we use the VIA track for rail from Barrhaven?
• Can we connect Trim (10 th Line) and Millennium with Rapid Transit?
• Is the East Transitway a candidate for LRT conversion? Option 4
• Why is rail going to Bowsville when Orleans still has Transitway?
Wrap Up
Table Preferences*
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
0 0 5 5 * Totals may exceed number of participants as individuals indicated more than one option as their preference
Comments
• Need to extend rail to Orleans to reduce transfers
• O-Train extension to Gatineau (x 3 comments)
• Link to airport is important
• The more rail the better for the environment
• If transfers are required, then we can save costs and not take it all the way to Blair
• **Transfers will lower ridership**
• #27 goes from Orleans to Gatineau and would require 3 transfers with Alternates 3 and 4
• Rail to Orleans: Build it and the density will develop
Table 4:
Leader Scribe
Steven Boyle, City of Ottawa Daydria Gordon, Delcan
Discussion & Questions
• Why not have a high-capacity hybrid electric train in the tunnel instead of an electric train and then a bio-diesel (purified) train for transit outside of the tunnel?
• We have a higher surface capacity (much like Montréal)
Page G29
• There is no double-track hybrid option
• We should consider using rails already in existence like those belonging to VIA and CN (this would help lower costs)
• We should have an electric battery in the trains themselves, this would make trains and buses interchangeable
- Avoid having diesel trains in the proposed downtown tunnels
• Should check out New flyer industry in Winnipeg – they have an efficient hybrid system
• Will the trains on the circuit be interchangeable or not?
• The frequency of buses seems ideal, but very realistic
• We should have trains that run both on diesel and electric battery
- Once in the tunnel they would switch from diesel to electric
• Have we considered the gas usage?
• Have we considered safety issues (especially inside the tunnel)?
• We could implement a system that blows the diesel fumes out of the tunnel (but this may be costly)
• The O-Train should be extended from Bayview to Lincoln Fields
Downtown Public Open House – Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Table 1:
Leader Scribe
Peter Steacy, McCormick Rankin Anna, Delcan
Discussion and Questions
Option 3
• Could be an interim step
• O-train – can be redeployed in a different place (e.g. to the South-East Transitway) – on Option 4
• What is the economic impact of removing travelers from the surface to the tunnel?
• What is an overall vision for downtown Ottawa?
- More pedestrian malls instead of buses
- Opportunities for stations (economic development)
• 2, 3 and 4 have more future
• Relationship to the bridges – has to be addressed
• Has to link up with the City of Gatineau (e.g., Prince of Wales bridge) - VERY strong opinion – NCR – demands it
• Transit plan should facilitate through the link to Gatineau
• No rail line along the river (would be a barrier)
• Concerned with safety issues along the rail line in an urban context Option 4
Page G30
• People in the South (Barrhaven) get a bad deal (buses)
• Access to airport a very good idea – light rail
• Potential for more light rail in the future Opportunities Downtown (with buses underground)
• More convenient, faster
• Businesses, some underground at stations
• Would the surface suffer (business, urban life?) with less people above?
• Streets would be returned to pedestrians
• Don’t make it easier on cars (fill the space with cars – no)
• Need good service during off hours (e.g., the market)
• Service people downtown?
• Need easy/simple pay structure Tourists
• Tourists are interested in transit/light rail – because it is easy (park and a park and ride)
• Why not use the VIA tracks – link up with the rest of the system?
Wrap Up
Table Preferences*
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
0 0 3 5 * Totals may exceed number of participants as individuals indicated more than one option as their preference
Table 2:
Leader Scribe
Ian Borsuk, McCormick Rankin Caroline Beaulieu, McCormick Rankin
Discussion and Questions
Option 1: Bus Only
• Use of hybrid bus questioned
• Why switch to electric only in tunnel
• 14s headway – operating issue (downtown)
• Not as much benefit for shopping as other options Option 2:
• Why not stop the LRT right before the tunnel or extend it more to get more benefit?
• Greenboro to south of Blair station LRT?
• In balance system
• Under-utilizing the technology as not enough demand for 4-car trains
Page G31
Option 3:
• Under-utilizing O-train. Should at least be extended to airport if not Bowesville and to the beginning of the tunnel with existing technology
• Double track only stations
• Put rail on the Hospital corridor instead of East Transitway
• Think about future technology – bi-level cars
• One alternative East/West route to be considered with dedicated ROW as a by-pass to CBD
• Keep Transitway portion to connect West Transitway and South Option 4:
• Cheaper to convert rest of Transitway E/W than the N/S LRT project
• Consider 4/7 for transit use to force transfer to transit
Wrap Up
Table Preferences*
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
0 0 All 0 * Totals may exceed number of participants as individuals indicate more than one option as their preference
Comments
Preferred Option: 3
• With O-Train extension to airport
• To bank
• Consider connection to Gatineau
• Rail on the Hospital Transitway instead of east Transitway
Table 3:
Leader Scribe
Mohammad Tayyaran, City of Ottawa Gareth Wood, Delcan
Discussion and Questions
• Option 3 & 4
• Good to expand to airport
• Everything transferred to train
• Prefer option 4
• Minimize transfer less than 2 mins
Page G32
• Prefer 3 & 4, more people on light rail
• More references to environment
• Option 4
• Consider Option 3 using extension of O-Train to Riverside South
• Refer fact we are using Transitway to convert to rail
• Status Quo
• Avoid tunnel
• Elevated surface option
• Option 3 – we have to build tunnel to reduce congestion. Riverside South
• Transitway Option 3 can be converted to train later on
• Can be extended to Gatineau site
• Option 4 – Do LRT, should not wait
• Can’t see how buses and LRT will work
• Difficult to choose between 3 and 4. Concentrate on 3 and then convert to 4 later on
• Emphasize link with Quebec side
• Prince of Wales bridge connection
• Like to see STO buses out of the downtown surface
• Transfer point in Gatineau
• Concern with effects of construction
• With the tunnel what happens to buses?
• Consideration of integration with Centrepoint town centre
• Need to increase service on O-Train if going for Option 3. Double track or increase train size
• Advantage of tunnel to improve streetscaping
• How much more construction at transfer stations?
• More transfer stations – less congestion
• Spread out as much as possible
• Transitway to suburban areas
• Transitway extensions to be designed to be converted to rail
Wrap Up
Table Preferences*
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
0 0 2 5 * Totals may exceed number of participants as individuals indicated more than one option as their preference
Table 4:
Leader Scribe
Colin Simpson, City of Ottawa Katie Peak, Delcan
Discussion & Questions
Page G33
• Residents of Centretown are very interested
• Ottawa U submissions representative present (bringing the student point of view) Option 1:
• Special conditions? Some believe it may not be possible
• Least intrusive option, but has the highest operating cost
• Theoretically impossible?
• How about including a double platform? Option 2:
• Still needs the use of double-decker buses?
• Could we use a double platform here as well?
• Still a belief from the group that this may not be possible and is not likely the best option
• A difference of technology
• Only looking at primary routes – big picture? Option 3:
• Major destinations are linked
• What kind of train?
• Airport not included in LRT could be a mistake
• Airport and VIA Train should be easily connected
• Transferring from LRT to bus – would this be easy?
• Enough space for train and bus? Did EA address this point?
• Transfer stations – Algonquin college
Option 4:
• LRT through core of the city
• More linked major stations
• Connection through airport and VIA rail train? – again not linked directly To Gatineau?
• Connect to Ottawa?
• It’s key to have a link to Gatineau (instead of driving). Mostly cars/bridges
• Will their system work with us?
• Quebec – Ontario linked?
• Prince of Wales bridge
• Is there a highway being extended (Gatineau?)
• Casino – readily accessible from downtown Ottawa?
• Does Ottawa bus transit suffer from transfer to get to Gatineau (LeBreton transfer station)
• Will people tolerate a delayed transfer?
• Capacity of these trains?
• Are 2 min interval between trains too much time? seems excessive for normal daily commute
Page G34
• How many tracks in the tunnel?
Comments
• All options are including tunnels – important to investigate surface alternatives
- keep car traffic away from Albert/Slater
- no interference
• Narrow streets if it’s exclusively rail
- include green space
- look at Calgary – transit above ground and is a similar size to our city
- blocking access to driveways and buildings
• Can work in a staged format so that upgrades can happen still during construction periods
- it’s the future volumes we have to plan for - plan for it now while we work on surface
• Consider future growth
- instead of widening Queensway and looking at car traffic, start working on bus/train transportation on Queensway
• We still have to look at cars since no matter what, people will still want to drive
• Increasing transferability between stations makes it convenient and easy for passengers (especially young people and students)
• Also have to make sure we are not only looking at a growing population but where it is growing
• Environment is a large issue – Alternative 4 is best for that
• Not only look at cost of these options but look at how much road maintenance costs would be in its place
• Could do better than 30% ridership – Aim higher!! Look at Europe!
• Would like to see a breakdown of the costs
• Just too expensive – will it be used enough to make it worth it?
• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions – make pedestrian friendly
• All other cities spend way more – have to keep it in perspective
• Most taxes are going to road maintenance – this will cut that down
• Community buses are woven in to the main downtown stops – important to residences
• LRT is also more quiet – better for downtown areas (offices/residence)
• Is the tunnel as important?
• Personal Automated Transit (PAT) was an option that came up. Probably better for small areas and is this really practical?
Wrap Up
Table Preferences*
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
0 0 0 All * Totals may exceed number of participants as individuals indicated more than one option as their preference
Page G35
Table 5:
Leader Scribe
David Hopper, Delcan Daydria Gordon, Delcan
Discussion & Questions
• Need plans with sustainability - go beyond 2031 – it would attract more people
• Criteria Used to Judge Transit
- Speed
- Reliability
- Comfort
- Convenience
- Cost
- Sustainability
- Emissions
- Gatineau – the ease of access
- Flexibility/adaptability
• Need to consider that all forms of fuel will rise in cost
• Need for greater frequency of non-polluting buses – shorter distance between stations
• Need to facilitate transportation to Hull – consider connections through downtown and not just to it
• Tunnel will improve reliability
• Should consider light rail for more areas
- less expensive in long run
- current plan leaves areas unserved
• Should criteria carry same weight when planning? public surveys used to determine weight of each criteria
• Land use issues
• Hospital route require additional consideration
• Why aren’t there anymore hybrid options?
• Integration with STO issue Option 1:
• Tunnel will not help bus congestion
• Lacks long-tern capacity
• Conclusion – Option 1 has no future Option 2:
Page G36
• Option is the most expensive Option 3:
• Electric vehicles less polluting and less problems with emissions in tunnel
• Narrow Ottawa street foundation eliminates the possibility of a single tunnel
• Double tunnels underground linked to adjacent buildings
• Riverside South to Barrhaven route not needed – Road bridge waste of money Option 4:
• Use “old” Railway instead of the Ottawa parkway
• Omit tunnel and extend light rail east/west
- congestion/population growth issues
- paradigm shift – car to public transit
• Speed of service issue – provisions for express rail line needed
• Extended electric rail unnecessary
Table 6:
Leader Scribe
Paul Croft, Delcan Brandon Jarvis, Delcan
Discussion & Questions
• 3 and 4 Best option, South-west separation
• 4� “Big bang” approach – connection to airport
• Supporting urban growth
• Oversight in core of city
• Bottleneck in core of city
• Increasing housing costs within city – can’t move outside city because accessibility will increase housing costs
• Plans don’t address downtown population, only the suburbs
• Move focus downtown
• Needs to look forward 50-60 years
• Build within the greenbelt – discourage building outside, encourage building inside (plan lacks this)
• Increased transportation might encourage school closings
• Concerns that tunnel is not big enough – the capacity is too small
• Population projections to 2031 – how come to this projection?
• Need policies to develop downtown
• Concerns about land purchase (tax money?)
• Need simple way to get people into downtown
• Environmental impact is a high priority
• 2031 needs increased number of buses and needs to look deeper at plan
Page G37
• East and downtown Montreal – use existing expressway for rail
• Consider other transportation lines
• Need expandable system for increased volume
• Encourage development but not Toronto
• Council has an interest in plan because line in suburbs
• Access onto system, encourage people with disabilities
• Reliable system – what about weather?
• Possible problems with outdoor transit system
• Bus not a viable option
• Lack of an integrated plan
• Planning has not been addressed
• There is a need for a full subway
• Why underground Tunnel?
• 4 – Scotiabank place?
• Less environmental impact; good vision
• Need to encourage inner city growth
• Tunnel will discourage pedestrian travel
• Plans designed by developer
• Environment
• Scale – look forward 60 years
Table 7:
Leader Scribe
Ronald Fournier, Delcan Greg Jodouin, PACE
Discussion & Questions
Question 1
• #4 – Consider fuel costs for a diesel technology and fossil fuel impact
• # 3 or 4 - would like Blair transfer station to be a little further East
• How many stops in the tunnel? 5-6 doesn’t seem like enough
• Understands need for tunnel but not perfect
• One train system only – convert the O-train
• #4 needs N/S also E/W needs buses
• #4 huge investment but option 4 is the most forward looking (invest big now and have it complement city as it expands)
• Trusting that electric is the way to go
• Needs to be paired with a program to get people off roads. Can’t spend billions on something people won’t use
• #2 is not feasible or safe to have buses and LRT in the tunnel
• O-Train needs to be converted to 2 tracks
• Free downtown ridership is a wonderful idea
Page G38
• Need incentives to get people to use transit
• You can start with #3, but need to end up at #4
• Interest in how conversion will happen on parkway after Scott Transitway
• For #4 full electric is the way to go
• Express buses are a problem
• Free zone downtown will encourage and make more vibrant (Rideau Centre to LeBreton) – “Fareless Square”
• Little value in most Southern leg of LRT (i.e., Bowesville station)
• Either 3 or 4. Prefers 4
• Takes his bike to O-train. Can he do this with the LRT?
• Need to plan for cycling as well. Need to incorporate with #4 on off peak hours
• Combine new paths as you construct system Question 2 – Other Features
• No fares in downtown
• Connection to Gatineau (LRT access on Prince of Wales Bridge)
• Consider conversion of BRT to LRT. Build it such that it can be converted later on
• Disincentives to drive or incentives to ride (e.g., London car tax)
• Bus route #2 needs improvements
• Diesel buses are bad for scheduling. Hard to keep up
• Consideration for students
- Carleton (esp. if we need to close O-train for 2 years of construction)
- need schooling institute in East end (college)
• What about a watercourse option on Outaouais River or Canal such as in Vancouver or Halifax? Not a priority but has good tourism value
• Park and Ride lots with security camera and staff
Wrap up
Table Preferences*
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
0 0 0 8 * Totals may exceed number of participants as individuals indicated more than one option as their preference
Table 8:
Leader Scribe
Mohammad Tayyaram, City of Ottawa David Forsey, City of Ottawa
Discussion & Questions
Question 1:
• Options 1 & 2 are not sustainable
• Option 3 lower capital $, but not significantly less than 4 billion
Page G39
• Option 4 is ideal (why not cut and cover)
• Bus tunnel more expensive than LRT tunnel
• Stage surface rail first, then build tunnel
• Putting off tunnel is not wise
• St. Laurent shows the poor environment of a bus tunnel
• Option 4 is ideal
• Baseline-Blair critical
• Elevated option discounted. Why? Current station design is lacking amenities which has an effect on costing
• Time savings by bus tunnel may be offset by the time accessing stations – depth of the tunnel is an issue
• The experience, impression left with the riders
• Security
• Must think about what happens when everything goes underground
• Look at the impact on the streets and need to plan accordingly
• Will the City look into ALRT?
• Favour electronic options – Power sources much more stable and reliable
• Increasing gas prices factored into operating costs?
• Why use Baseline instead of Bayshore
• Use of Byron trainway ROW
• Factor in the benefits of the City becoming a land developer at LRT stations into costing
• Why BRT between Bowesville and Barrhaven?
• Connect airport with VIA by LRT for tourism and business purposes
• Minimize or facilitate ease of transfers
• Security is with automated system. Access/egress
• Importance of building safe/efficient infrastructure for future generations
• Building for the future
• Facilitate connection with STO
• Ottawa should not suffer the consequences of STO’s bus-based system
• Loop through downtown Ottawa and downtown Gatineau
• Real time incident management
Wrap up
Table Preferences*
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Other
0 0 0 0 All prefer “light metro” * Totals may exceed number of participants as individuals indicated more than one option as their preference
Page G40
Kanata Public Open House – Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Table 1:
Leader Scribe
Ronald Fournier, Delcan Greg Jodouin, PACE
Discussion & Questions
Question 1
• 4: Wants remaining buses to be diesel hybrid. Second choice is number 3
- Covers most of the area
- Would like conversion to East and West extremities to happen sooner
- Interested in future commuter rail to be converted to LRT
• 3&4: But concerned about cost – because of that, would suggest a version of alternative 3 that extends LRT East and West (ie. Take savings from not doing alternative 4 and apply full East/West LRT line)
• 3&4: Combine with option 4. LRT extends to nowhere in the North; build were the people are, such as in Kanata and Stittsville. Keep the airport link
• 3&4: But problems as above – remove N/S LRT and spend it on an E/W line. Just put off an N/S plan for now
- Transfers are death
- We are an E/W city
• 3&4 Combo
- Keep single track diesel until you can justify electric
- Go full E/W LRT line
- Look at how regional buses fit in Kanata
- Consider inter-regional buses in Kanata
- Keep buses on roads for now until you can justify a dedicated expressway
- Take 6-lane roads and convert 2 for bus lanes (HOV)
- Get rid of Express buses and make local just as good
• 4: But implementation plan is crucial. Devil is in the details. Extend LRT to Kanata’s Park and Ride, more buses in Kanata rather than BRT and feed LRT.
Question 2
• Bicycle options for trains and buses
• Internet service/wifi if possible
• Train connector to Airport ASAP (but not at expense of E/W)
• Some participants wonder whether ridership would justify an airport link
• Diesel/hybrid buses � need to be plug-in hybrids to maximize electronic use and decrease diesel use
• Consider Hydrogen buses such as in Iceland
Page G41
• **Consider “Dial-a-Bus” system for Kanata. A shuttle-like service that you can call up for service to transfer stations**
• Consider an automated service
• SAFETY
• Build a proper transfer station in Kanata to encourage ridership, with retail
• Would be more attractive
• Extension of the O-Train
• Allow high density development around LRT lines to help fund system
Comments
Option 4
• With limitation on N/S and extension on E/W
• Service south with O-Train until population warrants
• Shows us the implementation plan
• With extension E/W, no transfers
Option 3
• Take off N/S and use for E/W LRT
• Extend O-Train (single-track diesel). Train only in tunnel
• Extend O-Train to Bowesville
• Build Kanata to Orleans LRT
Table 2:
Leader Scribe
Colin Simpson, City of Ottawa Ian Borsuk, McCormick Rankin
Discussion & Questions
• Downtown is Government and will not grow as much
• Is the Manotick Development being considered?
• Surface and elevated need to be considered further Option 1:
• Will there still be surface buses?
• Why is the city considering this option if it’s capacity is limited?
• How does STO get accommodated? Option 2:
• How many riders does the airport contribute?
• Why not continue the shared operation to Hurdman?
Page G42
Option 3:
• What would be the travel time from Lincoln to Blair?
• Why is the rail not extending to Kanata/Orleans? Option 4:
• Single O-train tunnel can work since elimination of Downtown variability
• Connect O-Train to Hurdman also
• Extend rail to Gatineau
Wrap up
Table Preferences*
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
0 0 4 3 * Totals may exceed number of participants as individuals indicated more than one option as their preference
Comments
• Alternative 3 is good but should be modified – extend diesel O-Train south (x2 comments)
• Rail tunnel should be able to accommodate emergency vehicles
• City is purchasing buses anyway – we should not be including their costs
Table 3:
Leader Scribe
Ron Jack, Delcan David Forsey, City of Ottawa
Discussion & Questions
• Should study elevated options in greater detail, straddled, suspended
• Interlining may reduce system reliability
• Rapid bus through Kanata may introduce bottlenecks
• Instead of LRT to Bowesville, bring LRT to Kanata
• Driverless trains save operating expenses
• Dedicated ROW is key
• Longer trains reduce operating costs
• Consider Carling Ave. as primary Rapid Transit corridor up to Tunney’s Pasture
• Consensus that LRT to Kanata and Orleans should be priority instead of to Riverside south
• To achieve 30% ridership, the ride must be safe, comfortable and timely. Two objectives which should be considered are: 1. Majority of riders traveling to the CBD should only be required to make one transfer
Page G43
2. Except where buses travel in a completely protected right of way separate from other traffic, no passengers should be allowed to stand-up if speed exceeds 50kph
Barrhaven Public Open House – Thursday, March 6, 2008
Table 1:
Leader Scribe
Mona Abouhenidy, City of Ottawa Cori Lytle, Delcan
Discussion & Questions
Lack of vision for greater plan Tunnel option too expensive
• Extend O-Train line to service Hull/Gatineau
• Middle lane on Alexandra Bridge - restore railway
• Restore railways to old Union Station Alternative 1 BRT Tunnel (cheapest option) => Highest operating cost Top employers consulted?
• Servicing + accommodating employees
- How to be better connected
• Don’t forget about reverse commuters Option 4 is the best
• Lower operating costs
• Most efficient
• Direct link to key areas in City
• Economical
• Very adaptable
• Consider more rapid extension of rail out to Kanata/Barrhaven **Get cars off road, cut down pollution – service outskirts **Cheapest option not always best
• Not a strategic vision – how does it link to schools, environment, and tourism?
• Alternatives put together in order to pick Option 4
• Extended rail into Barrhaven at start
- Line to Riverside South or N-S line Express bus problem in Barrhaven => buses full
• All mass transit should be light rail to move people efficiently
• Accommodate for growth in outer areas
• All extensions should be rail Option 2. Allow 2 technologies in tunnel
• Make tunnel available for both/flexibility
• Mixed traffic (bus/rail) Option 4 but allow buses – on Blair – mixed traffic
Page G44
• Leave buses as an option New Option (Option 5)
• All rail
• Simple stations, only a few major stations
• Use existing rail corridors / infrastructure Buses too much pollution – O-Train preferred Downtown core served by trolley cars Move towards “world-class” – show more than minimum requirements Highest population (Barrhaven) should be served by rail
Table 2:
Leader Scribe
Steven Boyle, City of Ottawa Cathie Lytle, Delcan
Discussion and Questions
• Not using railway corridors
• Downtown growth not as big as outlying areas
- Focus on downtown
- Why only 2 options to get downtown?
- Population growth on outskirts – why stay focused on downtown commute
• Better shelters
• Space on buses
• Remove buses on surface in the core area - both OC Transpo and STO
• Ventilation of tunnels / emissions – where do they go?
• Drainage in tunnels
• Longer travel time – Barrhaven to Core
• Greenspace usage
• Sparks Street
• Studies for ‘peak’ periods
• New routes for cost savings
- Better route planning for existing routes
• No tunnel as an option – use existing resources + improve routes
• Nice to see phases of the project
• Assumption making now in terms of future transit
• Process works closely with economic development
Wrap up
Table Preferences*
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
0 0 1 3
Page G45
* Totals may exceed number of participants as individuals indicated more than one option as their preference
Table 3:
Leader Scribe
Mohammad Tayyaram, City of Ottawa Monica Bailey, PACE
Discussion and Questions
Option 1 - Bus only tunnel
• lowest capital cost
• highest operating cost Option 2 - Bus and LRT tunnel
• electric O-Train
• highest capital cost Option 3 - LRT-only tunnel
• Transfer from bus to LRT to downtown
• Eliminate buses downtown?? → Yes, but local services will run
Option 4 - O-Train replaced with LRT
• Second highest capital cost
• Lowest operating cost Option 4
• O-Train conversion can wait
• O-Train extended to Airport. Strong Destination
• Airport destination = single train without stop
• Train and bus station should be closely integrated
• Inter-modal integration very relevant
• Land-use planning critical for transit planning
• Multi-use stations
• Do not split up modes of transports – create park-and-rides and station stops as multi-use modal areas
Option 4 – Costs
• Other level of the governments need to be approached
• Do we do this Piecemeal? Yes
• Option 3 could be done and then option 4 could be achieved with more funding
Page G46
Option 4/3 – Good
• Buses do not make sense
• Staff and vehicle maintenance is costly
• Buses unreliable during winter Option 4
• Bayshore transfer point = extension possible
• Station LRT plans
- Fare = subway style
• Bus plans:
- Smart card
- New technology needed for payment Better service to South Will there be problems with service during construction?
• Some interruptions – shift buses to one lane Will putting rail on same bus lane cause buses to change roads?
• Yes. LRT and bus could share same converted road Old rail line should be used Option 3
• O-Train could go across river
• Integration with STO
- NCC, City of Ottawa, City of Gatineau and STO = study of integration of LRT/bus Explain train cars:
• 4-car trains => walk-through to each car to keep people moving and comfortable Locate route => transfers
• Increase park-and-rides
• Transfers no problem as long as quick reliable service is available at Transitway (or LRT station)
• Do local buses go to LRT HUB or is there another spoke for buses to take you to LRT HUB? => Local bus to bus spoke to LRT spoke?
- Still needs to be worked on but possibility of local bus to LRT spoke Difference between Express and BRT transit
• Express direct from Orleans to downtown on BRT
• BRT = exclusive right of way – fewer steps
• Express also have their own dedicated lanes **All agreed rail based is best Bus problems:
• Loading and unloading
• Cramped
• Bus should be fuller-system to take far to Main HUB
- HUB should move many in great numbers in quick time
Page G47
• Bus is not well integrated with buildings (i.e., St-Laurent LRT could be integrated well) Train: How likely will train break down?
• Not likely. In emergency what would happen? Bronson-Nicholas = free LRT in downtown core
• Is this possible?
• Would make downtown pedestrian-friendly
• Can we make pedestrian tunnels through downtown?
- Downtown parking lots (underground) could become connected **Whichever option is chosen we must make sure people choose transit over cars! People need to know the benefits of transit as being comfort, cost, time and speed Construction date?
• 2014 / 2015 earliest Mayor’s Task Force:
• Congress Centre
• Old train station Is there a corridor that is protected and able to extend/increase for LRT at Richmond road?
• City is going to make use of corridors that are available as it is a cost savings
Wrap up
Table Preferences*
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
0 0 All All * Totals may exceed number of participants as individuals indicated more than one option as their preference
Table 4:
Leader Scribe
Ronald Fournier, Delcan Greg Jodouin, PACE
Discussion and Questions
Question 1: Option #3
• No longer feasible to have express buses
• Train can take more people Option #4
• Encouraged by whole process
• Cost aside, like #4 for convenience
• Doesn’t think population justifies LRT past Greenboro station (airport has no volume). Rather extend South from Baseline station
• Less interested in Supplying Gatineau with any service
Page G48
• Wants LRT
• For #2, likes option of giving E-W residents only 1 bus to downtown (no transfers for them)
• Most robust solution
• Would eliminate many buses
• Should complete LRT loop in the South Cover Bridge and back up to Baseline **OR** take advantage of Richmond/Smith VIA Rail corridor to have LRT from VIA station to Fallowfield VIA station
• Likes airport spur (as with other G8 cities)
• BRT needs to be built such that it can be converted to LRT in future
• Prefer to see LRT from Baseline station to Fallowfield No preference
• Vision for Ottawa isn’t clear so it’s hard to plan a transit system. Do we want to be a big city or a capital city?
• What will our destiny be? Doesn’t like any. All blue lines should be LRT (people don’t like buses) Question 2:
• Make system affordable to encourage transit (i.e., add a transit line to tax bill and make fares free. Roll into property taxes)
• Can we not use more existing rail lines in system for commuter rail (similar to Go-Train)
• Wants electric LRT
• More of the blue lines should be LRT – doesn’t want to transfer, no more than once
• Encourage density – reduce urban sprawl
• Need service to Gatineau
• What about inter-provincial bridge?
• Convert existing Transitway to LRT
Page G49
Appendix II
Stakeholder Focus Group Notes
Industry Voices Date: Tuesday, March 4
th
Location: City Hall, Billings Room Time: 9:30 – 11:30 a.m.
Presenter:
Colin Simpson, City of Ottawa
Experts:
Denis Callan, McCormick Rankin David Hopper, Delcan Corporation
Industry Voices:
Ottawa Central Railway Citizens for Safe Cycling Question 1: Which downtown rapid transit option do you prefer? Why?
• Option 4 is the best option as it allows for future growth and considers environmental issues
• In the future rail should go further west and east
• Rationale behind liking Option 4 is because LRT moves people quickly for less money
• Tunney’s Pasture should be considered Question 2: Are there other features you would like to see included?
• Using the existing rail bridge to Gatineau
• Train Yards - Walkley yard – it’s a brownfield so you’re not taking greenspace out Comments:
• Option 4 best option
• Future growth with rail is a benefit
• LRT moves people quickly and is cheaper
• Inter-provincial support is needed for STO problem
• Public buy-in is important – market the options well o Public must be aware of the costs, and why there is a benefit to moving this city to
LRT. Transfers should not cause concern and this issue must be properly expressed and addressed to the public
Page G50
Downtown Voices Date: Wednesday, March 5
th
Location: City Hall, Billings Room Time: 9:30 – 11:30 A.M.
Presenter:
Colin Simpson, City of Ottawa
Experts:
Denis Callan, McCormick Rankin David Hopper, Delcan Corporation
Downtown Voices:
Action Sandy Hill Domicile Ottawa U Centertown Citizens Ottawa Corporation Ottawa Gatineau Hotel Association (Westin) Question 1: Which downtown rapid transit option do you prefer? Why?
• Option 4 is the best option as it allows for future growth and considers environmental issues
• Hub integration is interesting
• Flexibility with being able to add more rail cars, extending rail lines and seeing multi- modalities integrated
Question 2: Are there other features you would like to see included?
• STO is a problem in the Market area. This must be addressed
• Use existing corridors
• Intensification is good. We must build with intensified land-use in mind. This relieves congestion
Comments:
• Option 4 makes sense
• Intensification is needed as it relieves congestion
• Inter-provincial support is needed for STO problem
• Local service will need improvements. o Do not let the local service get left aside while infrastructure is being developed for
LRT
• Public buy-in is crucial – market the options well o Public will need to understand how the new system will decrease the bus system
Page G51
o A breakdown of the costs should be given to the public with an explanation on how valuable the 10% savings is in Operating and Maintenance Costs compared to Option 1 (BRT Only). This is crucial
Economic Voices Date: Wednesday, March 5
th
Location: City Hall, Billings Room Time: 1:30 – 1:30 p.m.
Presenter:
Colin Simpson, City of Ottawa
Experts:
Denis Callan, McCormick Rankin David Hopper, Delcan Corporation
Economic Voices:
Morrision Hershfield (2 representatives) City Centre Coalition Crain Architects H&R Property Ottawa International Airport Authority Hanscomb Ltd Arnon Corp
Question 1: Which downtown rapid transit option do you prefer? Why?
• Option 4 is the best option because it connects to the airport
• The tunnel is the right thing to alleviate downtown congestion
• Reduced emissions are a real likelihood with this option
• The ability to build economic nodes at the various transit stations, and within the tunnel, allows for a great economic boon for businesses
• O-Train conversion is imperative and must be done before the ridership becomes even greater
Question 2: Are there other features you would like to see included?
• Gatineau connection is needed
• Intensification must become a reality to increase ridership Comments
• Downtown emphasis is good
• Tunnel is needed
• Build economic nodes within the transfer areas
• Inter-provincial support is needed for STO problem
Page G52
• Public buy-in is important – market the options well
• Properly express what the costs are
• People have a disconnect when thinking about buying something that appears to be so far into the future
• The business case must be sold to business owners
• Intensification is necessary
Page G53
Appendix III
Internal and External Agency Meeting Minutes
Internal Agency Meeting
Minutes of Meeting
Project: Ottawa Transportation Master Plan Update Progress: Meeting Number 2 File No.: 6939-702.3
Date: March 7, 2008 Place: Ottawa City Hall – Richmond Room
Present: Steven Boyle City of Ottawa Peter Steacy McCormick Rankin Monica Bailey PACE Public Affairs & Community Engagement
Participants: Kerry Gavan PWS – Fleet Services Douglas Bowron TPO – Safety and Traffic Services Ian Scott Economic Development Darrell Cox Economic Development Chris Cope Economic Development Glen Emond RPAM – CAM Dave Donaldson RPAM – RESD Gord MacNair RPAM – RESD Gary O’Conner Surface Operations Amira Shehata IAD
Purpose: Agency Consultation group (Internal Agencies)
Information session about work to date, and a presentation on the four Downtown Network Options and the implications the options will have on the outlying areas.
Proceedings
The following is an overview on the presentation “Downtown Transit Development & Network
Implications” presented by Steven Boyle, City of Ottawa.
Introduction on TMP
Context
• 2006: Decision not to proceed with N-S LRT
• 2007-2009: 5-year OP Review, TMP Update
Page G54
• June 2007: Mayor’s Task Force on Transportation
• Sept 2007: Council direction to initiate Tunnel EA
• Nov 2007: Council’s 4 key priorities for transit Existing Corridors
The Transitway Network (BRT): The existing Transitway can be seen as an asset with dedicated lines that could be Transitway or LRT.
• Planned in 1970’s, construction started in early 1980’s (with 75% Provincial funding)
• Dedicated, grade-separated corridors, protection for future conversion to rail
• “Outside � In” approach o 4 grade-separated corridors from suburbs to downtown o Surface operation on downtown streets o Deferred expensive grade separation of the downtown section to later o Established high ridership early, value for money
Ottawa’s Current Transit System
• 34 km of Transitway (BRT), 8 km of LRT lanes
• 37 transit stations; 8 Park & Ride Lots (6400 total spaces)
• 1,014 buses and 3 O-Trains
• Inter-provincial transit service coordination
• 96 M annual transit trips (360,000 daily) – the target is 100 M in 2008
• Transit trips per capita: 120
• Direct Service – no or minimal transfers
TMP Update (Work started in 2005) Requirements
• New growth projections (1.136M by 2031) – complete review of Growth from 2001 which was overestimated. The new projections are 5% less than what was projected for 2021, and the tech boom (and bust) have certainly affected these numbers
• 2005 Origin-Destination Survey ($1M) – This survey will be done by technical staff with the City of Ottawa, City of Gatineau, both provincial governments, and the NCC
• 2006 Commercial Vehicle Survey ($80k)
• TRANS model redevelopment ($400k)
• Transportation Visioning – consultation – (an overview on the Phase I Consultation events: Streeter Survey, White Papers and Ottawa Talks)
Deliverables
• Policies, targets
• Transportation Network
• Costs, Implementation Plan
Page G55
Public Comments – Vision, Issues
• 85% of public is satisfied with the existing networks. Many people said that they would be willing to transfer as long as the service was frequent, reliable and comfortable. Transfer stations also have to provide comfortable amenities
• Convenient, reliable transit system
• Transfers are acceptable provided that service is frequent and waiting area is pleasant
• More park-&-ride lots
• Variety of opinions regarding technology
• Strong interest in a downtown tunnel
• Care for the environment
• Affordable
Distribution of Growth - What Does It Mean? Projections to the Year 2031
• 265,000 population growth
• 181, 300 employment growth
• 80% of population growth will occur outside Greenbelt. A high percentage of employment is inside the greenbelt and downtown
Transit Modal Split Target
• City-wide peak hour transit modal split: Currently, 23% increase to 30% target by 2031. This means: 40,000 peak hour transit trips today must reach 73,000 in 2031
• Downtown, 54% today must reach 67% in 2031 – this translates to: every two out of three people would be taking transit
Transit Ridership (per Capita)
• Toronto and Montreal can not be looked at as fair comparisons to our city. We should focus on the European Cities
• Main Issues o Need to address capacity through the downtown – Cars avoid the MacKenzie King
bridge because of the heavy congestion of buses o Need to expand current rapid transit coverage
Travel Desire Lines – Existing
There is a big percentage of people from Orleans who travel to Downtown. There are no trips occurring from Orleans to Kanata. East to West connection is not needed as everyone is traveling to the downtown core. (The numbers of Travel Desire Lines are based on trips of 1,700+/hour)
Travel Desire Lines – Future
Different zones become a part of the picture. There is flow from suburban to suburban reaching the required Travel Desire Line of 1,700 + trips/hour
Downtown: 2031 Ridership Demand - The forecast is dependant on the system decided on.
Page G56
• East 11,300/hr
• West 15,600/hr
• 8,500/hr from Gatineau
• Peak load coming from East Downtown: 2031 Ridership Demand
• 2031 Vehicle Requirements
• Option based on accommodating 16,000 – 29,000 if we accommodate STO (This is per hour)
• Bus Option: We would be looking at 535 buses/hr which would not permit pedestrian crossings! The maximum number of buses has been achieved on Albert and Slater already at 180/hr.
• High Capacity trains would provide us with a reasonable frequency rate coming in every 2.08 minutes during high peak times. These numbers are based on the transit ridership figures we must accommodate in 2031.
Alternatives for Serving the Downtown
• Surface
• Grade-separated
• Combination
Surface Options
• Based on the numbers of population expected to take transit, this would not be possible and doesn’t permit for further growth on the surface
Bus LRT Combination Bus & LRT Conclusion: Not recommended
High volume of vehicles Growth capacity issues Size of LRT vehicles cannot be accommodated Physical limitation of the surface environment
Grade-Separated Options
• Elevated – this is not recommended because of: available right of way, would not be sufficient with station location, would be a visual distraction, weather would cause a problem and there would be emergency vehicle disruption.
• Deep Tunnel o BRT Tunnel o BRT-LRT Tunnel o LRT Tunnel o Combination (Surface & Tunnel operation) o Conclusion: Deep Tunnel & Combination (interim or ultimate)
Page G57
Downtown Rapid Transit Network Options
• The tunnel would run from LeBreton Flats to the University of Ottawa but this will be determined during the EA process
• Bus Tunnel (O-Train) - O-Train stays the same. Least number of transfers (Express service would stay), STO Option includes a second tunnel, a wider tunnel, or STO remains on the surface
• BRT-LRT Tunnel (N-S LRT) – Same as Option 1 except North-South LRT would be built from Riverside South to downtown (with a stop at Ottawa U). A bigger tunnel would be needed to accommodate both BRT and LRT. The Bowsville Rail Yard would be needed.
• Conclusion: Bus congestion would still be an issue
• LRT Tunnel (O-Train; E, W LRT) – Convert Transitway from Blair to Baseline with LRT. One transfer needed to get from suburbs to downtown. Extension to Orleans and Kanata is feasible. O-Train stays the same
• LRT Tunnel (E, W, N-S LRT) – Very similar to Option 3 except North-South extension and conversion of O-Train to LRT
• The cost of between Option 1 and Option 4 is significant however consider the Operation and Maintenance costs. Option 1 is far more expensive while Option 4 is reasonable
• STO cost is not included in any of the overall costs. STO will be an additional cost within these 4 Options
Mayor’s Task Force Report
Compatibility with TMP Approach:
• Address transit network “gap” in downtown
• Address multi-modal needs
• Engage public, agencies, businesses, institutions
• Encourage development that is supportive of sustainable transportation
• Make use of existing assets – Rail corridors and transitway
• Move forward in a fiscally-responsible manner
Peer Review Panel
The Peer Review Panel will report back on their findings at the April 16 Committee Meeting. To assess the reasonableness of the study’s assumptions, methodologies, findings and conclusions:
• Alan Jones (Steer Davies Gleave, UK)
• Alan Danaher (Kittelson & Associates Inc. USA)
• Russell Chisholm (Transportation Mgt & Design, USA)
• Glen Leicester (Shirocca Consulting, CANADA)
• Paul Bedford (Paul Bedford & Associates, CANADA)
Page G58
TMP Consultation Activities
• Mar 3-7: Agency & Public Consultation
• Open Houses: o Monday March 3 – East o Tuesday March 4 – Central o Wednesday March 5 – West o Thursday March 6 – South
• Discussion Groups during Open Houses (7 – 8 p.m.)
• Three Stakeholder Focus Groups (Industry, Economic, downtown)
• City Advisory Committees
What is Next?
• Apr 16: Tabling recommended downtown option
• May 21, 28: Committee & Council decisions
• April – Sept: City-wide transit network, Roads, cost
• Sept/Oct: Agency & Public Consultation – The “Gray Arrows” are the secondary transit corridors such as Road Networks, Cycling, and Walking and we will be consulting on these and the costs in the fall.
• Nov: Tabling of draft TMP (and OP)
• Feb 2009: Final TMP (Committee, Council)
Question Period
Q: Would North South Option change if the Greenbelt changed? A: If Greenbelt changes there are options such as a transit network that runs the line of the
Greenbelt. There is a position paper coming out on the Greenbelt and we will see what happens.
Q: Would none of the North-South LRT network go to the East-West? A: There is operational flexibility and things can change and move. Q: O-Train could be better used as a commuter rail to avoid cost of changing rail tracks. Option
three could extend O-Train and make it a commuter rail. A: These plans right now are looking at solving the downtown problem. Q: What is the current service of VIA to Fallowfield? A: There are six trains in the morning. Q: Is there a pattern on users in the morning?
Page G59
A: No. Council asked VIA to provide this service but that hasn’t yet started. Sharing the VIA track will be difficult as providing reliable and frequent service cannot be guaranteed on shared tracks.
Q: Is VIA not interested in providing a city service? A: The conversation has happened but the corridor isn’t big enough to accommodate their trains
and their service along with our trains and our service. Q: Is the Peer Review done? A: The final report will be submitted on April 16
th at the Transit and Transportation Committee.
Q: Would Option 4 promote growth in the South? A: No. In 2031 Barrhaven will not be as big as Orleans is right now. The rates of growth would
also depend on where they build the LRT. Q: If BRT is not expected to come downtown anymore, then why isn’t the surface option being
considered? A: There is no room for the platforms on the surface as they would block access points for
services like parking, entrances to buildings. The surface option is not being considered because of the physical limitations.
Q: Can’t the Ottawa River Parkway be used as a corridor? A: NCC will be looking into it. The other alternative would be the Richmond corridor. Q: Would the issue be more visual than noise on the Parkway? A: Yes, I suspect it is. Q: Is LRT considered quieter than buses? A: Yes, particularly during acceleration and stopping. Q: For Option 3 and 4 would it be a twinned tunnel? A: Yes. Q: How many stations would be downtown? A: This will be looked into during the EA process.
Page G60
External Agency Meeting
Minutes of Meeting
Project: Ottawa Transportation Master Plan Update Progress: Meeting Number 2 File No.: 6939-702.3
Date: March 4, 2008 Place: Ottawa City Hall – Richmond Room
Present: Mona Abouhenidy City of Ottawa Steven Boyle City of Ottawa Dennis Callan McCormick Rankin David Hopper Delcan Monica Bailey PACE Public Affairs & Community Engagement
Participants: Arto Keklikian NCC Sandra Candow NCC Phil Pawliuk MTO Glenn Higgins MTO Nadia Brescacin MTO Vance Bedore PWGSC Jocelyn Chandler RVCA Carolyn Dunn Health Canada Martin McKay Transport Canada Sandy Schaffhauser FoTenn (on behalf of CPR) Felix Fung Public Infrastructure Renewal Erinn Cunnigham Transport Canada Colin Stacey Transport Canada Gillian Webster Infrastructure Canada Chris Maziarski Infrastructure Canada Carmel Dufour Société Transport Outaouais
Purpose: Agency Consultation group (External Agencies)
Information session about work to date, and a presentation on the four Downtown Network Options and the implications the options will have on the outlying areas.
Proceedings
The following is an overview on the presentation “Downtown Transit Development & Network
Implications” presented by Mona Abouhenidy, City of Ottawa:
Page G61
Introduction on TMP
Context
• 2006: Decision not to proceed with N-S LRT
• 2007-2009: 5-year OP Review, TMP Update
• June 2007: Mayor’s Task Force on Transportation
• Sept 2007: Council direction to initiate Tunnel EA
• Nov 2007: Council’s 4 key priorities for transit
Existing Corridors
The Transitway Network (BRT): The existing Transitway can be seen as an asset with dedicated lines that could be Transitway or LRT.
• Planned in 1970’s, construction started in early 1980’s (with 75% Provincial funding)
• Dedicated, grade-separated corridors, protection for future conversion to rail
• “Outside � In” approach o 4 grade-separated corridors from suburbs to downtown o Surface operation on downtown streets o Deferred expensive grade separation of the downtown section to later o Established high ridership early, value for money
Ottawa’s Current Transit System
• 34 km of Transitway (BRT), 8 km of LRT lanes
• 37 transit stations; 8 Park & Ride Lots (6400 total spaces)
• 1,014 buses and 3 O-Trains
• Inter-provincial transit service coordination
• 96 M annual transit trips (360,000 daily) – the target is 100 M in 2008
• Transit trips per capita: 120
• Direct Service – no or minimal transfers
TMP Update (Work started in 2005) Requirements
• New growth projections (1.136M by 2031) – complete review of Growth from 2001 which was overestimated. The new projections are 5% less than what was projected for 2021, and the tech boom (and bust) have certainly affected these numbers
• 2005 Origin-Destination Survey ($1M) – This survey will be done by technical staff with the City of Ottawa, City of Gatineau, both provincial governments, and the NCC
• 2006 Commercial Vehicle Survey ($80k)
• TRANS model redevelopment ($400k)
• Transportation Visioning – consultation – (an overview on the Phase I Consultation events: Streeter Survey, White Papers and Ottawa Talks)
Page G62
Deliverables
• Policies, targets
• Transportation Network
• Costs, Implementation Plan Public Comments – Vision, Issues
• 85% of public is satisfied with the existing networks. Many people said that they would be willing to transfer as long as the service was frequent, reliable and comfortable. Transfer stations also have to provide comfortable amenities
• Convenient, reliable transit system
• Transfers are acceptable provided that service is frequent and waiting area is pleasant
• More park-&-ride lots
• Variety of opinions regarding technology
• Strong interest in a downtown tunnel
• Care for the environment
• Affordable
Distribution of Growth - What Does It Mean? Projections to the Year 2031
• 265,000 population growth
• 181, 300 employment growth
• 80% of population growth will occur outside Greenbelt. A high percentage of employment is inside the greenbelt and downtown
Transit Modal Split Target
• City-wide peak hour transit modal split: Currently, 23% increase to 30% target by 2031. This means: 40,000 peak hour transit trips today must reach 73,000 in 2031
• Downtown, 54% today must reach 67% in 2031 – this translates to: every two out of three people would be taking transit
Transit Ridership (per Capita)
• Toronto and Montreal can not be looked at as fair comparisons to our city. We should focus on the European Cities
• Main Issues o Need to address capacity through the downtown – Cars avoid the MacKenzie King
bridge because of the heavy congestion of buses o Need to expand current rapid transit coverage
Travel Desire Lines – Existing
There is a big percentage of people from Orleans who travel to Downtown. There are no trips occurring from Orleans to Kanata. East to West connection is not needed as everyone is traveling to the downtown core. (The numbers of Travel Desire Lines are based on trips of 1,700+/hour)
Travel Desire Lines – Future
Page G63
Different zones become a part of the picture. There is flow from suburban to suburban reaching the required Travel Desire Line of 1,700 + trips/hour
Downtown: 2031 Ridership Demand - The forecast is dependant on the system decided on.
• East 11,300/hr
• West 15,600/hr
• 8,500/hr from Gatineau
• Peak load coming from East Downtown: 2031 Ridership Demand
• 2031 Vehicle Requirements
• Option based on accommodating 16,000 – 29,000 if we accommodate STO (This is per hour)
• Bus Option: We would be looking at 535 buses/hr which would not permit pedestrian crossings! The maximum number of buses has been achieved on Albert and Slater already at 180/hr.
• High Capacity trains would provide us with a reasonable frequency rate coming in every 2.08 minutes during high peak times. These numbers are based on the transit ridership figures we must accommodate in 2031.
Alternatives for Serving the Downtown
• Surface
• Grade-separated
• Combination
Surface Options
• Based on the numbers of population expected to take transit, this would not be possible and doesn’t permit for further growth on the surface
Bus LRT Combination Bus & LRT Conclusion: Not recommended
High volume of vehicles Growth capacity issues Size of LRT vehicles cannot be accommodated Physical limitation of the surface environment
Grade-Separated Options
• Elevated – this is not recommended because of: available right of way, would not be sufficient with station location, would be a visual distraction, weather would cause a problem and there would be emergency vehicle disruption.
• Deep Tunnel o BRT Tunnel o BRT-LRT Tunnel o LRT Tunnel
Page G64
o Combination (Surface & Tunnel operation) o Conclusion: Deep Tunnel & Combination (interim or ultimate)
Downtown Rapid Transit Network Options
The tunnel would run from LeBreton Flats to the University of Ottawa but this will be determined during the EA process
• Bus Tunnel (O-Train) - O-Train stays the same. Least number of transfers (Express service would stay), STO Option includes a second tunnel, a wider tunnel, or STO remains on the surface
• BRT-LRT Tunnel (N-S LRT) – Same as Option 1 except North-South LRT would be built from Riverside South to downtown (with a stop at Ottawa U). A bigger tunnel would be needed to accommodate both BRT and LRT. The Bowsville Rail Yard would be needed.
• Conclusion: Bus congestion would still be an issue
• LRT Tunnel (O-Train; E, W LRT) – Convert Transitway from Blair to Baseline with LRT. One transfer needed to get from suburbs to downtown. Extension to Orleans and Kanata is feasible. O-Train stays the same
• LRT Tunnel (E, W, N-S LRT) – Very similar to Option 3 except North-South extension and conversion of O-Train to LRT
• The cost of between Option 1 and Option 4 is significant however consider the Operation and Maintenance costs. Option 1 is far more expensive while Option 4 is reasonable
• STO cost is not included in any of the overall costs. STO will be an additional cost within these 4 Options
Mayor’s Task Force Report
Compatibility with TMP Approach:
• Address transit network “gap” in downtown
• Address multi-modal needs
• Engage public, agencies, businesses, institutions
• Encourage development that is supportive of sustainable transportation
• Make use of existing assets – Rail corridors and Transitway
• Move forward in a fiscally-responsible manner
Peer Review Panel
The Peer Review Panel will report back on their findings at the April 16 Committee Meeting. To assess the reasonableness of the study’s assumptions, methodologies, findings and conclusions:
• Alan Jones (Steer Davies Gleave, UK)
• Alan Danaher (Kittelson & Associates Inc. USA)
• Russell Chisholm (Transportation Mgt & Design, USA)
• Glen Leicester (Shirocca Consulting, CANADA)
• Paul Bedford (Paul Bedford & Associates, CANADA)
Page G65
TMP Consultation Activities (by Stephen Boyle)
• Mar 3-7: Agency & Public Consultation
• Open Houses: o Monday March 3 – East o Tuesday March 4 – Central o Wednesday March 5 – West o Thursday March 6 – South
• Discussion Groups during Open Houses (7 – 8 p.m.)
• Three Stakeholder Focus Groups (Industry, Economic, downtown)
• City Advisory Committees
What is Next?
• Apr 16: Tabling recommended downtown option
• May 21, 28: Committee & Council decisions
• April – Sept: City-wide transit network, Roads, cost
• Sept/Oct: Agency & Public Consultation – The “Gray Arrows” are the secondary transit corridors such as Road Networks, Cycling, and Walking and we will be consulting on these and the costs in the fall.
• Nov: Tabling of draft TMP (and OP)
• Feb 2009: Final TMP (Committee, Council)
Question Period
Q: How are you going to rank and weigh all opinions from the Technical Advisory Committee,
Staff Recommendations, Peer Review and Public Opinion? A: We are looking at all comments and so far we have not seen anything blatantly contradictory.
The Peer Review has submitted draft comments and their opinions are in line with public opinion.
Q: Will “Grey Areas” (Road Networks) consultation in the fall affect the decision tabled to the
City in April? A: Downtown is the ultimate solution and the spine of the whole network so no the consultations
in the fall will not affect the decisions made in the spring. Q: How long will it take to build a 3 km $600 Million tunnel for LRT and all the stations? A: Implementation is based on how much money there is to spend to start building the rail
tunnel. There is an expectation that it may take 10-15 years to roll it all out. Q: What do you want from us? A: We need you to provide your Agency’s comments by March 31
st on what you think about the
four Downtown Rapid Transit Network Options. Q: Are there any technical reports you can send us?
Page G66
A: Mona will forward a draft report before the end of the month. Q: Is there a business case framework you can share? A: No business case has started since the network hasn’t been defined yet. The tunnel is not a
detailed estimate, just a unit estimate at $600 Million. It has been over-estimated and we expect to see concrete numbers emerge through the EA process.
Q: Are transfers from BRT to LRT causing people concern? A: There are speed and added comfort and reliability benefits with the transfer. In all there will
be far less congestion and less rider-confusion. So far there has been no penalty perceived from the transfer scenario. In fact there is room for growth and extension further out East, West and South in the future.
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIN ANKIN ANKIN ANKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfrastrTransportation InfrastrTransportation InfrastrTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study ucture Requirement Study ucture Requirement Study ucture Requirement Study H H H H1111 DevelopmenDevelopmenDevelopmenDevelopmentttt of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
Appendix H: Conversion of Transitway To Rail
Primary rapid transit network options 3 and 4 incorporate the conversion of sections of the east and west
Transitway to rail operation. This Appendix outlines a possible approach and estimated costs to undertake
this conversion.
The need or desire to convert the Transitway to rail was foreseen at the time of its inception. Accordingly,
the design criteria established for the Transitway were set to be compatible with rail usage. As such, the
horizontal and vertical geometrics, as well as all structural clearances along the Transitway and through
station areas, are compatible with LRT technologies.
Approach
The conversion of the Transitway from bus to rail technology needs to consider both station and running
way sections. Two basic approaches can be taken for the conversion: relocation of all Transitway services
to adjacent transportation facilities thus allowing unimpeded retrofitting of the Transitway; or, maintaining
one direction of service within the corridor while staging construction activities within the right-of-way
with the use of detours.
The requirements for construction staging will need to be carefully considered during the design stage to
balance provision of existing services against the speed and ease of construction. In all likelihood a
combination of transit operations on adjacent roads for off peak transit service and staging within the
Transitway right-of-way will be required. Construction will require a number of diverse activities
including:
• relocation of utilities in conflict with LRT;
• modification of Transitway pavement structure for tracks;
• installation of rail infrastructure;
• installation of the overhead catenary system, power supply and communications, including signal
systems;
• modifications to drainage;
• modifications to platforms and stations; and
• testing and commissioning.
Construction duration will be affected by the number of detours and stages required, but it is expected that
each segment will be under construction for 2 to 3 years.
Considerations for Transitway Conversion
In order to minimize Transitway service disruption to acceptable levels, the following will be considered.
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIN ANKIN ANKIN ANKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfrastrTransportation InfrastrTransportation InfrastrTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study ucture Requirement Study ucture Requirement Study ucture Requirement Study H H H H2222 DevelopmenDevelopmenDevelopmenDevelopmentttt of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
Running Way Sections
• Where there are wide shoulders or additional lands along the running way, construction activities could
be staged using the shoulders of the existing bus lanes or temporary localized widenings;
• If there is little or no extra space alongside the bus lanes, construction would be constrained, and some
bus services may have to be relocated; and,
• For a few specific locations, all Transitway service may need to be relocated to allow construction to
be completed more quickly and easily, but this would need to be balanced against the ability of the
local roads to accommodate services.
Stations
• The long station platforms and generous approaches will allow for the temporary stops to be located
outside the work zone;
• Removal of the median barrier will accommodate bus detours within the station during construction;
• Embedding the track in concrete or providing temporary planking for the end stages will accommodate
bus service while the conversion is underway and will accommodate emergency services in the final
configuration;
• The platform height will be a major consideration depending on whether the selected rail vehicles are
low or high floor vehicles. High floor vehicles are incompatible with the current bus boarding areas as
well as existing station waiting areas, stairs, escalators and elevators. .Low-floor rail vehicles will
reduce but not eliminate platform height issues; and,
• The implementation of rail may also be an opportunity to upgrade stations, which could add to the
duration and intensity of construction at each site.
Alternative Service Routes
• For most areas where some service needs to be relocated, a single peak direction Transitway lane may
be able to be maintained and off-peak direction buses to be rerouted onto local, parallel streets; and,
• Where the Transitway needs to be completely closed, all Transitway service may need to be relocated
to local streets to allow construction to be completed more quickly and easily, but this would need to
be balanced against the ability of the local roads to accommodate services.
Construction Staging
The following demonstrates one possible construction staging methodology that may be employed for
running way and station areas. The actual details will have to be developed as part of the design of
individual sections and contractors may suggest other alternatives when they bid on construction packages.
Main Line Running Way
Existing Transitway Configuration
• Typically the Transitway right-of-way is comprised of two 4m wide lanes with 2.5m boulevards
on either side (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Typical Transitway
April 2008April 2008April 2008April 2008
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIN ANKIN ANKIN ANKIN CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfrastrTransportation InfrastrTransportation InfrastrTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study ucture Requirement Study ucture Requirement Study ucture Requirement Study H H H H3333 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
Step 1:
• Relocate utilities as required within the right-of-way.
• Remove and pave 2.5m boulevards to accommodate
detours (Figure 2)
• Install construction barrier to separate construction zone
• Peak direction bus traffic operates in reconfigured
boulevard and existing bus lane
• Off-peak direction bus traffic detoured to adjacent
roadways
• Install ballast, ties and track flush with future running
surface (Figure 3)
• Install hard running surface within rail area to accommodate buses and emergency vehicle traffic
Step 2:
• Peak direction bus traffic relocated onto newly
constructed rail section (Figure 4)
• Off-peak direction bus traffic remains on adjacent
roadways
• Install ballast, ties and track flush with future running
surface
• Install hard running surface within rail area to accommodate buses and emergency vehicle traffic
Step 3:
• Bus traffic detoured onto paved shoulders during
installation of overhead power supply (Figure 5) Step 4:
• Bus service can run on the retrofitted Transitway until the
stations modifications are completed and sufficient rail
has been installed to operate the rail service. (Figure 6)
Figure 2: Remove Boulevards
Figure 3: Rail in 1 Direction
Figure 4: Rail in Other Direction
Figure 5: Install Electrical
Figure 6: Operate Buses on Shared LRT Alignment
April 2008April 2008April 2008April 2008
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIANKIANKIANKIN N N N CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfTransportation InfTransportation InfTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study rastructure Requirement Study rastructure Requirement Study rastructure Requirement Study HHHH4444 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
Stations
Existing Station Configuration:
• A typical Transitway station configuration includes 55m BRT Platforms, as well as queuing storage
and a deceleration lane.
• Stations also provide for 2 lanes in either direction for buses to pass each other. (Figure 7)
Figure 7: Typical Transitway Station Configuration
Step 1:
• Construct temporary bus platforms so service is outside the station work zone (deceleration zone)
with pathway connections to elevators, stairs
• Install rail and Power Source through the platform area as part of running way conversion.
Figure 8: Step 1 – Install Rail through Platform Area
Step 2:
• Remove existing platform furniture, provide temporary passenger information signs
• Construct extended LRT platform on existing 3m bus loading lane to meet rail line
April 2008April 2008April 2008April 2008
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIANKIANKIANKIN N N N CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfTransportation InfTransportation InfTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study rastructure Requirement Study rastructure Requirement Study rastructure Requirement Study HHHH5555 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
Figure 9: Step 2 – Modify Platforms for LRT
Step 3:
• Modify stairs and elevator access levels as required to match LRT platform elevation
• Reinstate platform furniture, lighting and passenger information signs on LRT platforms
Figure 10: Step 3 – Reinstate Platform Furniture
Transitway Conversion Capital Costs
The estimated costs to convert sections of the existing BRT Transitway to rail presented below include: the
cost of retrofitting the road bed; installation of ties and rails; switches; communications; signals and power
supply; station modifications; allowance for maintenance and storage facilities; engineering and
contingencies. The cost estimates do not include the operating costs for additional buses and temporary transit
priority measures required to maintain the desired service level during the retrofit process.
Section of Exclusive Transitway to be Converted to LRT
Dominion to Bayview 3.6 Km $ 54 M
Campus to Hurdman 2 Km $ 49 M
Hurdman to Blair 5.3 Km $ 97 M
April 2008April 2008April 2008April 2008
MMMMCCCCCCCCORMICK ORMICK ORMICK ORMICK RRRRANKIANKIANKIANKIN N N N CCCCORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATIONORPORATION
Transportation InfTransportation InfTransportation InfTransportation Infrastructure Requirement Study rastructure Requirement Study rastructure Requirement Study rastructure Requirement Study HHHH6666 DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown of a Downtown Transit Transit Transit Transit Solution Solution Solution Solution and Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implicationsand Network Implications
The existing Transitway is an exclusive corridor for most of its length with a few sections where buses
operate in transit lanes or shared with mixed traffic. All primary network options assume the LRT facility
operates in an exclusive corridor for its entire length. Therefore additional exclusive corridors sections will
need to be constructed. The following table lists the sections where new exclusive LRT corridors would need
to be created.
New Exclusive LRT to be Constructed
Baseline to Lincoln Fields 3 Km $ 110 M
Lincoln Fields to Dominion 4 Km $ 71 M
- Downtown Transit Final Text 14 April_Mod.pdf
- Introduction
- Background
- History
- Existing Downtown Transit Services
- OC Transpo
- Société de transport de l’Outaouais
- Approach
- Population and Employment Growth: 2031
- Travel Demand Forecast: 2031
- Background
- Planning Assumptions
- Growth in Travel Demands
- Non-Motorized Travel
- Motorized Travel
- Regional Travel Desire Lines
- Focussing on Travel in Ottawa’s Inner Area
- Transit Ridership: Implications for the Downtown
- Ridership and Service Levels in the Downtown
- Ridership Levels in 2031
- Future Transit Service Levels in the Downtown
- 2031 OC Transpo Service Levels
- 2031 STO Service Levels
- Alternatives for Serving the Downtown
- Technologies Considered
- Characteristics of the Generic BRT Vehicle
- Characteristics of the Generic LRT Vehicle
- Metro (or Subway)
- Options for Providing All Rapid Transit Service on the Surfa
- Bus-Only Surface Option
- LRT-Only Surface Option
- Combined Bus and LRT Surface Option
- Conclusions
- Elevated Options
- Tunnel Options
- Bus-Only Tunnel
- LRT-Only Tunnel
- Combined Bus/LRT Tunnel
- Combined Surface/Tunnel Options
- LRT on Street and Buses in a Tunnel
- BRT on Street and LRT in a Tunnel
- Conclusion
- Recommendations
- Primary Rapid Transit Network Options
- Network Option 1: BRT Tunnel-Bus Based
- Description
- Network Option 2: BRT/LRT Tunnel – Bus based with North-Sout
- Description
- Minimum Transitway Segments for LRT Conversion
- Network Option 3: LRT Tunnel - East & West Downtown LRT
- Description
- Network Option 4: LRT Tunnel - East & West Downtown LRT plus
- Description
- Preliminary Integration Opportunities for STO Services
- Alternatives Considered:
- Description of Alternatives
- Alternative 1: Surface Transit
- Alternative 2: STO Buses in a Shared Transit Tunnel
- Alternative 3: STO Buses in a Separate Tunnel
- Alternative 4: Transfer from STO buses to LRT
- Vehicles
- Summary
- Summary of Consultation To Date
- Objective
- Methodology
- Public Open Houses and Discussion Groups
- Logistics
- Comment Summary-Open House
- Comment Summary – Discussion Groups
- Stakeholder Focus Groups
- Logistics
- Comment Summary-Stakeholder Groups
- City Advisory Committee Briefings
- Internal and External Agency Meetings
- Online Consultation
- Logistics
- Comment Summary-Online Consultation
- Mayor’s Streeter Survey
- Logistics
- Comment Summary – Mayor’s Streeter Survey
- Conclusions
- Assessment of Network Options
- Criteria for Consideration
- Transportation
- Natural Environment
- Social/Cultural Environment
- Capital and Operating Costs
- Assessment of Transportation Criteria
- Accommodating Forecast Ridership
- Accommodating Growth beyond the Planning Period
- Ridership Attraction
- Operating Issues
- Summary
- Assessment of Natural Environment Criteria
- Air Quality
- Excavated Material
- Use of Salt
- Summary
- Assessment of Social/Cultural Environment Criteria
- Property and Development Criteria
- Culture and National Capital Image Criteria
- Noise and Vibration
- Summary
- Capital Costs
- Operating Costs
- Evaluation Summary
- Conclusions and Recommendations
- Conclusions
- Recommendations
- Next Steps
