5 August 2014 OUR REF: TO3147TOC
Windmill Development Corporation 1327 Wellington Street West, Suite 203 Ottawa, ON K1Y 3B6
Attention: Mr. Rodney Wilts
Dear Sir:
Re: Domtar Lands Redevelopment Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Study Addendum #1
This addendum has been prepared to address the combined comments of the Cities of Ottawa and Gatineau (dated June 13, 2014) following their respective review of the above-noted study. Each question/comment is listed below in italics, and each is followed by the answer in normal font.
A. STUDY Comment #1: The goal of the Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Study, that cannot realistically follow the existing Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) Guidelines, should look for ways to ensure that the goals of the OP and the TMP are achieved. For this project, the study scope is to be expanded to a community level study and follow the TIA guidelines for a Community Transportation Study.
Response #1: Following a series of very informative and productive meetings with senior planning and transportation staff of both Cities (Vivi Chi and Don Herweyer of the City of Ottawa and Renée Ruberge and Manon Belanger of the City of Gatineau), as well as technical staff from different departments, the general scope of work and the title of the transportation study were agreed to. As such, the current intent is not to rename the study to a CTS/TIS, but to keep the agreed-upon name and add as much information in this Addendum #1 as is practical to address comments.
In reviewing the Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Study (MMTIS), it is important to be cognizant of the following: This development is not a single project that will occur at a definitive point in time. Build- out could take 15 to 25 years, and there will be many smaller component projects that will come forward, each requiring their own Traffic Impact Study addressing the conditions of the day. Each of these studies will address the traffic conditions of the day as well as any updates on a new interprovincial bridge, interprovincial transit and redesign of Rue Laurier. Both municipalities have identified significant development potential in the general proximity of the north and south ends of the Booth-Eddy corridor. As noted in the MMTIS the development potential is significant, it has no timing and it will take decades.
Page | 2
Both Cities and their provinces are responsible for resolving the current interprovincial bridge issue and interprovincial transit issue. Resolution of both will have a significant impact on interprovincial transit, vehicle and truck travel, and will, to a degree, impact the extent to which the Booth-Eddy corridor can become a successful “complete street”. The timing of completion of these studies and provision of the resultant required infrastructure is not known to us.
In light of the foregoing, we cannot be specific as to what intersection improvements are required within and adjacent to the study area at full development, what is the appropriate bus priority lane solution at full development and what will be the delays to current busses or trucks at full development. There are far too many variables over far too long a time horizon to provide meaningful answers to these questions. If the municipalities wish to invest in a detailed modelling exercise to assess the full range of variables and time frames associated with area development and interprovincial travel issues with a micro intersection by intersection focus, that is an option for them, but an expensive one.
Comment #2: The study needs to identify transit network or service strategies that are necessary to support the sustainability of the proposed redevelopment – including how the proposed development meets the ‘One Planet’ Principle on Sustainable Transport: Encouraging low carbon modes of transport to reduce emissions, reducing the need to travel. In addition, given the constraints of the development lands and surrounding transport infrastructure, the mobility solutions for this redevelopment must be driven by demand management and ease and convenience of access for residents and visitors to non-auto modes of transportation. The distribution of site trips and diversion of trips to various parts of the broader network is fundamental to the Windmill transport demand management study. The analysis should identify trips added or reduced in other traffic zones.
Response #2: The MMTIS placed significant importance on making the Booth-Eddy corridor a “complete street” with sidewalks and bicycle tracks in both directions connecting to the City-wide multi- use pathway systems at either end of the corridor. The proposed design of the development’s internal streets also placed significant emphasis and priority on pedestrians and cyclists over the automobile. As well, the proponent is proposing to provide parking maximums at reduced rates so as to discourage auto use and maximize transit/bikes/walk. The report also contains a chapter on Transportation Sustainability summarizing all this. It is not the intent of the MMTIS or this Addendum #1 to show how site-generated trips are distributed, zone to zone, throughout the region. If this information is considered important, perhaps the municipalities could do a EMME/2 model run.
Comment #3: A clear delineation of the study area is not provided and should be added.
Response #3: The site is depicted in Figures 1 and 2. The study area with regard to traffic analysis, is within Figure 2 and includes the rectangle made up of the Wellington/Portage, Wellington/Booth, Laurier/Eddy and Laurier/Portage intersections. Other development sites in close proximity to the study area are the Bayview, City Centre and Lebreton sites in the City of Ottawa and the 14 sites identified by the City of Gatineau in Attachment 1 to this addendum.
Comment #4: The report’s Policy Context should include reference to the Sustainable Transport Strategy STI (2005) developed by the NCC.
Response #4: The NCC’s Strategic Transportation Initiative represents their perspective on sustainable urban transportation for the NCR. It consists of strategies and actions by the Commission and its partners that support and advocate high quality public transit and alternative transportation
Page | 3
options as well as environmentally sensitive and clean transportation. The STI confirms the recognition by the federal government that is has a meaningful role to play in the development of new approaches to resolving regional and municipal transportation issues. This recognition has led to a new understanding that espouses partnerships and incentives for greater cooperation, and that makes it possible for the federal government to become more involved in urban transport enhancement and development in a shared responsibility with its partners.
The STI emphasizes NCC support for improvements to transit and roadway infrastructure and rapid transit systems with special focus on interprovincial integration and continuity, interprovincial capacity with a view to enhancing access to federal employment areas, and supports the integration of transport and land use in the planning and administration of federal lands in the NCR, including emphasis on trip reduction and demand management programs and the provision of sustainable transport options that reduce demands on transportation infrastructure, reduce impacts on congestion and reduce impacts on air quality, and that promotes a sustained and integrated approach to urban transport funding.
Comment #5: Table 1, Table 10 and Table 11 should all match in headings and intersection so that they can easily be compared.
Response #5: Table 1 has been reformatted as per Attachment #2 to be consistent with the format of Tables 10 and 11.
Comment #6: The percentage of cross border trips identified in Table 9 doesn’t seem to match the anticipated percentages indicated in Section 5.3 on page 37.
Response #6: They are not supposed to. The distribution on page 34 is for the proposed Domtar Lands mixed-use development. The values in Table 9 are for the other identified potential development sites and their trip distributions will be somewhat different due to their location and land use.
Comment #7: Does the Total Projected Volumes illustrated in Figure 13 reflect the percentage of border trips defined in Table 9?
Response #7: No, as explained in Section 6.1 of the report.
Comment #8: Why are there more parking spaces than required being proposed for the site on the Ottawa side?
Response #8: Most likely to reflect market demand and/or retail and visitor parking.
Comment #9: The study should identify the need, with the discussion on the NCC’s Plan for Canada’s Capital (Horizon 2067); to have all jurisdictional stakeholders engaged for long-term transportation planning. NCC should be included as a key stakeholder in the search for sustainable transport solutions, particularly in the context of interprovincial transport.
Response #9: We agree with the need for NCC involvement as noted in this comment. They have been attending the stakeholder meetings to this point in the process.
B. MODAL SHARE Comment #10: The addition of cycling lanes and improved pedestrian facilities has been addressed in the report. The question arising is if the change in modal share will be achieved. Currently, Table 2 indicates that there are no pedestrian trips and 34 two-way cycling trips over the bridge.
Page | 4
Table 7 indicates that there will be 689 non-motorized trips (cycling and pedestrian). This is a significant increase and will likely only be achievable in the summer months. What is the projected modal share in the winter?
Response #10: The projected increase in pedestrian and cycling volumes along the Booth-Eddy corridor is all generated by the proposed Domtar development of 3M ft2. Like any new community, there will be significant increases in cycling and walking along its central spine road, particularly if the Booth-Eddy corridor is rebuilt to a “complete street” similar to that proposed.
With regard to projecting bike/walk modal share for winter months, we are not sure that the City does this. If there is a reduction factor that the City uses, please provide. Often what happens in the winter months is that those who no longer want to cycle or walk, take transit. There is, however, likely some increase in vehicle trips.
Comment #11: The development of bicycle paths and continuous sidewalks between Laurier Street in Gatineau and the Sir John A. Macdonald Parkway in Ottawa is essential to ensure a significant modal share of active modes. These facilities should be provided at the construction of the first units.
Response #11: Agreed, and this will require significant cooperation from all stakeholders/agencies to be achieved due to the trade-offs required.
Comment #12: The Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Plans provides an ambitious modal split target for lands within the TOD study areas (roughly 800 m walk from station platforms): 65% transit, 15% active (ped/cycle), 15% auto driver, and 5% auto passenger. These targets were developed in partnership with the City’s Transportation Planning group along with consultants, Delcan and Stantec. The study anticipates a 45% transit share from the future residents of the project – what are the assumptions and proposed strategies to meet this target?
Response #12: Contrary to the above statement, Delcan did not do TOD studies for the City. The assumptions and strategies for the Domtar project to achieve a 45% transit modal split in 15 to 25 years at full development are likely similar to those in the City’s TOD study. Assumptions included appropriate transit stops on both the Laurier and Booth-Eddy corridors, maximum limits for the provision of on-site parking, development of a communication plan for future residents/employees with regard to the sustainability objectives of the project and the available travel mode choices, and the provision of sufficient bus capacity to meet the demand. It will also be helpful if/when the region’s interprovincial bridge and transit solutions are in place.
Comment #13: In Section 5.4, similar to the vehicular traffic (approximate) generated based on the Potential Local Area Development, approximate transit trips needs to be calculated on this Potential Local Area Development, as well, the directional split for these transit trips needs to be calculated.
Response #13: Assuming OC Transpo will continue to provide the two-way transit service in the Booth-Eddy Corridor, the projected site-generated transit ridership in the corridor at full site development is established approximately as follows:
Page | 5
Morning peak hour: 300 NB (5) and 500 SB (7) Afternoon peak hour: 300 NB (5) and 670 SB (10)
The numbers in brackets are the number of new bus trips required assuming an articulated bus loading factor of 70 people/bus and no spare capacity on existing routes. These numbers will likely reduce when the spare capacity is identified/provided.
With regard to projected new transit riders using STO buses on the Pont du Portage, they are estimated to be approximately as follow:
Morning peak hour: 60 NB (1-2) and 65 SB (1-2) Afternoon peak hour: 65 NB (1-2) and 80 SB (1-2)
Assuming there is no existing spare capacity on the peak hour STO buses, and additional 1 to 2 more bus trips per hour are required. If there is spare capacity, there may be only 0 to 1 additional buses required.
Comment #14. We would like to see more details on projections for modal use on the bridge, and how it aligns with population forecasts. With increased density around the bridge (over 7000 dwelling units based on Table 8), what will the impact be to traffic in the area? What solutions are recommended to alleviate traffic that can be implemented in the short-term?
Response #14: Apart from the above-noted Responses 10 and 13, plus the traffic projections identified in the MMTIS, we have no further details on the projected use of the bridge. We do not know what the staging plan for development is at this time or when the municipalities will be implementing their interprovincial bridge or transit solutions. We do know that the City of Gatineau is developing plans for the redesign and reconstruction of Laurier from Montcalm east to Portage, but they have not yet been formalized. We are not aware of any plans/improvements the Cities of Ottawa or Gatineau have to improve the current failing movements at the four intersections on either end of the Pont du Portage or Booth-Eddy bridge corridors.
Comment #15: It is necessary to specify the source of modal share projected for both the Windmill development and other developments in Ottawa and Gatineau. Regarding the modal share of the Windmill development, is that the same source used in the modal share for trips generated by the project (residents) for trips attached (offices and shops)?
Response #15: The modal share percentages were based on information provided to us by the City of Ottawa, as summarized in the 2nd paragraph on page 35 of the MMTIS. Note that for this level of macro analysis, the same modal splits were used for residential and office. If/when each stage of development eventually proceeds, the required Traffic Impact Study of the day can be more precise on the directional splits and modal shares for the specific land uses being constructed.
C. TRANSIT Comment #16: In terms of road safety the development of bus bays at bus stops would be preferred to avoid the risk of accidents by overtaking vehicles or potential rear end accidents. Given the high speed on the bridge and the lack of a passing lane, Windmill, OC Transpo and STO must confirm that these maneuvers are safe.
Response #16: The Figure 9 Corridor Concept shows the bus stops either in the lane (Option 1) or in bus bays (Option 2). OC Transpo’s last response to us that they preferred Option 1 as it reduces
Page | 6
delays to buses. Windmill is agreeable to whichever solution the City’s/transit providers agree to.
Comment #17: The travel efficiency on the Booth-Eddy corridor is critical to achieving the targets as referred in the modal share. Clarify how this efficiency can be achieved with congestion problems at the Eddy/Laurier intersection. In addition, approaches should also be introduced to facilitate the movement of busses and access to bridge.
Response #17: Until the Cities/Provinces resolve the interprovincial bridge and interprovincial transit issues, and provide the additional required infrastructure, on-going growth in Ottawa and Gatineau will add to the congestion and delay at key intersections at both ends of all interprovincial corridors. It is proving challenging to achieve a “complete street” solution for the Booth-Eddy corridor. All stakeholders appear to want a corridor that is compatible with (as opposed to a barrier between) the adjacent Windmill development, and that has appropriate width sidewalks and cycle tracks on both sides, while continuing to accommodate high volumes of car, truck and bus traffic. Combine this with OC Transpo preferring buses stopping in the travel lane, and the traffic operations staff prefer bus bays so that other vehicular traffic can move more efficiently, and the challenges in arriving at a solution are obvious.
It has been suggested that bus queue jump lanes could be introduced at the intersections at either end of the Booth-Eddy corridor. This idea has merit, however, implementation is another matter. We have seen preliminary Gatineau plans for the redesign of Laurier from Montcalm east to Portage, and bus queue jump lanes were not part of the proposed solution. More priority was given to sidewalks and multi-use pathway connections through this area.
Fortunately, the Windmill project will be phased over many years and there will be time to address operational issues and possibly make changes to off-site intersections. At this time, we have no magic solution to addressing this corridor’s pedestrian, bicycle, auto, truck and transit requirements to the satisfaction of all modes. Compromise will be required.
Comment #18: With the reduction in roadway capacity anticipated by reducing the vehicle lanes, the impact on transit would be significant. This is pointed out in the Conclusions section of the report (page 56, item k); however, it is not quantified. As well, there are no recommendations on how to address the situation. There is a reference to working with the City to provide protected transit stops and ensure that there are food pedestrian connections to these facilities, which is a necessary step to encouraging transit usage but other steps are needed. One issue is the number of projected transit trips; the numbers are large and there is no discussion about storing these riders in the right of way or providing sufficient buses. In Table 7: Total Site Trip Generation - Ottawa and Gatineau, the total PM Peak transit trips is estimated at 1558 persons/hour. We need to see a review of the capacity of the current system and capacity on the roadway for transit. A more detailed plan for transit and ridership is to be developed as part of the update to this study.
Response #18: We agree that as the project evolves a more detailed plan for transit and its ridership is required. The challenges are noted in the preceding response. In Response 13, the peak hour site-generated transit riders in the Booth-Eddy and Pont du Portage corridors were identified, by direction, as were the related number of additional buses. We have requested information from OC Transpo on the current transit ridership in the Booth-Eddy corridor, but have not yet received this data.
It is acknowledged that reduction in vehicle lane capacity without provision for dedicated transit or transit priority measures is likely to result in increased delay to transit vehicles, as it
Page | 7
will for other traffic. However, it is very difficult to quantify this delay within the scope of a transportation impact assessment given the analysis software (Synchro) used and the number of variables which need to be considered, particularly with respect to medium and long-term transit network changes. Resolution of transit issues requires a much broader corridor-focused approach which reflects potential changes to the regional transit network, including implementation of higher-order transit service on the Chaudière Crossing (as identified in the Interprovincial Transit Strategy), and/or use of the Prince of Wales bridge for rapid transit are all envisaged as part of the region’s long-term (2031) transit network.
From a long-term perspective it would be simple enough to say that implementation of transit/transportation infrastructure identified in NCC, City of Ottawa and Ville de Gatineau planning documents will address existing deficiencies in terms of delay and capacity, and provide quality transit infrastructure which will drive increased modal share to transit within the corridor and across the region.
Comment #19: As the federal government is a major employer in the National Capital Area and in an effort to reduce vehicular circulation on roads, PWGSC encourages federal public servants to use transit to commute to work. In an effort to do so, buses crossing the Chaudière Bridge must be able to move easily and fluidly to bring workers to their destination. We have some concern that buses will be slowed down on the bridge, as there will be only one lane per direction and no bus bays for buses to stop. A bus having to stop could delay missed traffic flow behind (which includes other buses).
Response #19: Agreed, any lane reduction in the Booth-Eddy corridor without government resolution of the current and projected interprovincial bridge and transit problem will cause delay to all travel across the Booth-Eddy corridor, including buses. The current proposed concept plan has two options, one includes a bus bay and the other has the buses stopping in the traffic lane. Different departments within the City have different priorities and therefore different perspectives on the best solution.
Comment #20: Given the need to maximize transit was identified a number of times in the Study, what transit solutions/options have been explored in addition to buses stopping in the travel lane for customers to board? Have cue jump land opportunities been explored on the non-bridge structure segments of the roadway?
Response #20: Bus queue jumps have not yet been explored on the non-bridge structure segments of the roadway. Once there is resolution/agreement on how best to accommodate sidewalk and cycle lanes, and on the reduction or not in traffic lanes, consideration can be given to maximizing transit effectiveness.
D. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Comment #21: Discussions of roadway capacity should be in terms of “person capacity” consistent with the sustainability principles espoused by the proponent. Person capacity is more important to know than vehicle capacity particularly in the case of this development.
Response #21: We don’t disagree, but regardless, there seems to be limited desire to reduce lane capacity which makes it more challenging to develop a “complete street” corridor that would maximize the use of the non-auto travel modes. Compromise will be required to arrive at a successful “complete street” solution.
Comment #22: A number of important considerations seem to have been overlooked by the study scope; longer term transportation implications on the broader network are not mentioned or analyzed and will likely have important consequences for the Capital’s core area, including impacts on other interprovincial crossing, goods movement, and longer term interprovincial infrastructure
Page | 8
capacity. As indicated early in the planning process, the study must analyze and quantify the effects of proposed changes to the Chaudière crossing and the impacts of the development. The analysis needs to extend beyond only this immediate corridor.
Response #22: The MMTIS has looked at a 20 to 25 year horizon and estimated the projected pedestrian, bicycle, transit and vehicle travel for the proposed development of the Domtar Lands as well as other potential developments identified in both municipalities. As discussed with senior City staff at the commencement of the Study, the potential additional traffic or displaced traffic that has to accommodate elsewhere has also been identified. We do not view this study as the vehicle to address/resolve the City’s interprovincial travel issues for the next few decades. An extensive and expensive modelling exercise is required as is a definitive answer on the combined City’s interprovincial transit and bridge solution. This type of long-term modelling study, and answers to these questions, is best done by the Cities of Ottawa and Gatineau.
Comment #23: While identifying the potential for traffic displacement from the Chaudière Crossing corridor, the study does not appear to identify network capacity implications of displaced and site generated traffic. This study should identify the traffic and infrastructure modifications needed to sustainable and successfully accommodate the proposed redevelopment.
Response #23: The answer is implementation of the interprovincial transit and bridge solutions that Ottawa and Gatineau have been addressing for years. There are no other magic solutions. Fortunately, project build-out is 15 to 25 years, so there is time for the involved governments to address and solve these larger long standing problems.
Comment #24: A comment was made in Section 43.1 that the Booth/Wellington intersection is failing and constraining the capacity over the bridge. Table 1 indicates an overall LOS of D which does not indicate a constraint to the bridge capacity. However, if this is accurate, what recommendation is being made to improve the LOS at this intersection to reduce the impact on the capacity of the bridge?
Response #24: The relevant paragraph talks about “congested/failing signalized intersections at both ends of the corridor”. This is a bit misleading in that summarized in Table 1 (pg. 19) it is the Eddy/Laurier/Taché intersection that is failing (LOS F) and the Booth/Wellington that is congested (LOS D).
Comment #25: Depending on the assumptions made by Delcan, the proposed development will produce a 5% increase in the traffic volume compared to the current situation in the Eddy/Taché/Laurier intersection. It is therefore not that the development causing congestion in Gatineau, but the reconfiguration of lanes on the bridge and approaches as well as the addition of traffic lights. This requires further discussion in the study.
Response #25: The following table summarized the projected intersection operation for total projected volumes (Figure 13), assuming the existing road and intersection geometry remains. As noted, there are still failing intersections at the corridor’s terminals. As such, it is the combination of both increased volume, new signalized intersections and possible lane reductions that adds to travel delay and potential congestion.
Total Projected Volumes and Existing Geometry Weekday AM Peak (PM Peak)
Intersection Critical Movement Intersection ‘as a whole’ Max. v/c or LoS Movement Delay(s) LoS v/c avg. delay(s) Booth/Sir John A. F(D) 1.03(0.86) EBT(WBT) 41.4(32.0) D(D) 0.85(0.85) Macdonald/Wellington
Booth/War Museum(1) A(A) 0.53(0.49) SBT(NBT) 6.0(4.3) A(A) 0.53(0.49)
Page | 9
Weekday AM Peak (PM Peak)
Intersection Critical Movement Intersection ‘as a whole’ Max. v/c or LoS Movement Delay(s) LoS v/c avg. delay(s) Booth/Eddy/Alexandre- F(F) 1.76(1.33) WBL(EBT) 123.5(61.8) F(F) 1.34(1.00) Taché/Laurier
Wellington/Pont du Portage E(E) 0.94(0.92) EBL(EBL) 34.5(30.9) D(C) 0.83(0.79)
Maisonneuve/Laurier/ F(F) 1.01(1.20) SBT(SBT) 53.6(73.8) E(F) 0.97(1.03) Pont du Portage Alexandre-Taché/ F(F) 1.62(1.50) WBR(WBR) 99.4(88.9) F(F) 1.56(1.35) Montcalm
Laurier/Laval B(B) 0.67(0.64) SBL(SBL) 13.2(14.0) A(A) 0.36(0.55)
Booth/Albert B(C) 0.66(0.74) EBL(NBT) 23.6(28.3) A(A) 0.53(0.59)
Note: Analysis of signalized intersections assumes a PHF of 0.895 and a saturation flow rate of 1800 veh/h/lane. (1) Booth/War Museum intersection analyzed with balanced volumes.
Comment #26: All planned developments in Ottawa and Gatineau will also have significant impacts on Chaudière bridge, this aspect is addressed only briefly in the study.
Response #26: Agreed. If the two municipalities wish to assess the 20 to 25 year implementation of full development of LeBreton Flats, Bayview Yards, City Centre and the 14 Gatineau development sites, in addition to the proposed Domtar Lands development, they can undertake the appropriate modelling studies. It was agreed to with senior City staff at the commencement of this process that this level of analysis, which would also have to give consideration to the presence, or not, of a new interprovincial bridge and an interprovincial transit solution, would not be within the scope of the MMTIS.
Comment #27: In order to better assess the impacts on the road network in Gatineau, some sensitivity tests should be performed (you should speak with Gatineau representatives before undertaking this analysis): Test 1 - Impact of the proposed geometry: compare the levels of service, delays queues and v/c each of the approaches based on the current flow with the current geometry and the proposed geometry in the same table. Test 2 – “Worst case scenario”: compare the current situation the level of service, delays and queues and the v/c each of the approaches based on assumptions of the modal share which are less optimistic, integrating growth rates of the given geometry and transit in the same table. Test 3 – Modal share target: what are the modal shares required to achieve similar levels of services of the existing situation, including an increase in demand for transit and the development.
Response #27: Test 1 has been done as addressed in Response 25. The other sensitivity tests involve too many variables and too many scenarios to the conducted within this MMTIS.
Comment #28: It is interesting that Table 11: Projected Intersection Performance – Some Traffic Removed indicates that the LOS at the Booth/Wellington intersection will be improved from current conditions without any road modifications. This should be explained.
Response #28: For the “some traffic removed” scenario, the Booth/Sir John A. Macdonald/Wellington intersection got worse in the morning peak compared to existing conditions (v/c of 0.90 versus 0.85) and got better in the afternoon peak hour (0.79 versus 0.85). The potential improvement during the afternoon peak hour is related to the amount of traffic that would
Page | 10
have to be removed from the Eddy/Laurier/Taché intersection to make it operate acceptably. Some of this intersection/corridor removed traffic would also then have to be removed from the Booth/Sir John A. Macdonald/Wellington intersection, and if removed from the intersection’s critical movement, would result in an improved level of service.
Comment #29: Any changes to the Chaudière Crossing will impact traffic on the other bridges. These impacts are to be addressed in the Community Transportation Study.
Response #29: We agreed that any reduction in the Booth-Eddy corridor capacity combined with interprovincial traffic growth will impact other bridges. See Responses 1, 2, 22, and 26 regarding further analysis of other bridge crossings.
E. TRUCKS/GOODS Comment #30: The shift toward a “complete street” concept as advocated by the development may not be compatible with the continued accommodation of freight transport and heavy track movement along the Chaudière Crossing corridor. The study seems to be silent on the implications of the development on interprovincial goods movement demand and capacity. For instance, the report should include a sensitivity of the potential diversion or elimination of freight transport from the Chaudière Crossing corridor.
Response #30: Unless there is a solution implemented to address current and project interprovincial issues with regard to interprovincial vehicle traffic, truck traffic and transit, as the Cities of Ottawa and Gatineau grow over the next 20 years, all river crossings will carry more traffic and travel time will increase. This is without the proposed Domtar Lands development and without any change in the Booth-Eddy cross-section. The current proposed “complete street” cross- section would remove some corridor capacity and would introduce some delay due to the two proposed signalized site driveway connections. Even if the road cross-section remains as is, the condition of the two signalized site driveways and the projected increases is site and background traffic will add delay to the corridor. If the municipalities want the corridor to be a “complete street”, but do not want to lose any road capacity or alter the existing cross-section, then there will need to be negotiations with Windmill and PWGSC to obtain additional right-of- way and to widen the existing bridge or build a new bridge. It is our opinion that a sensitivity analysis of the potential impact on goods movement is not needed at this time to make a decision on the ultimate corridor cross-section.
Comment #31: As truck traffic will impacted, more detail is to be provided in the updated study.
Response #31: See Response 30.
F. CROSS-SECTION GEOMETRY Comment #32: Removal of a turn lane at the intersection of Eddy Street and Alexandre-Taché Boulevard will have a significant impact on traffic conditions in Gatineau. The problem with this cross- section is the impact on travel efficiency at this intersection. Worsening traffic conditions on Chaudière Bridge will also bring additional delays generated by the movement of goods. The study conducted by AECOM identified accidents resulting from inadequate turning radii for right turning heavy vehicles at the Eddy/Laurier intersection. Given the closeness of the intersections from Alexandre-Taché Boulevard to Eddy Street the trucks lack space to perform a turn to a single lane and overlap into the second turn lane. One concern is the proposed land width in the southbound direction. The southbound left lane currently is 3.7 m, but would be reduced to 3.25 m as shown in Figure 10. Where Chaudière Bridge remains one of the two interprovincial bridges allowed for heavy vehicles, the intersection geometry
Page | 11
should all for ease of truck movement. Windmill must show that the proposed land widths are adequate to accommodate the turning movement of heavy vehicles.
Response #32: If the municipalities want a “complete street” solution for the Booth-Eddy corridor that provides significantly better facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, and also integrates the future new communities on both sides of the corridor, there are three options. The current proposed option accomplished this within the available right-of-way, but with some loss of road capacity that will impact all peak hour vehicle travel along the corridor. The second option is to keep the existing geometry at the Eddy/Laurier/Taché intersection (with the exception of providing sidewalks both sides) and providing the cycle tracks through the new development to the east between the Chaudiere bridge crossing and Laurier. The third option is to keep the existing road cross-section as is throughout the whole corridor and acquiring additional right-of-way to provide sidewalks and cycle tracks on both sides. Bridge widening or a new bridge is also required.
As one moves from Option 1 to Option 3 the street becomes less “complete” and the corridor becomes wider and more difficult to cross, but road capacity is maximized. Once a preferred functional concept for the corridor has been agreed to, and depending on the status of Gatineau’s redesign/reconstruction plans for Laurier, details such as truck turn radii and lane widths can be addressed/resolved. Comment #33: The proposed right lane in the Booth/Eddy corridor is shown as 3.5 m width, which would pose a problem with winter snow removal and reduce the width available on the roadway. This would impact on the movement of heavy vehicles and buses. Gatineau usually requires an additional minimum width of 0.5 m for snow storage. For winter maintenance, the City of Gatineau typically requires a minimum width of 4.5 m.
Response #34: Once a preferred functional concept for the corridor has been agreed to, and depending on the status of Gatineau’s redesign/reconstruction plans for Laurier, details such as truck turn radii and lane width can be addressed/resolved. They will be included in future road plans.
Comment #34: There are concerns regarding the proposed mid-block pedestrian crossings, which are outside intersections with traffic lights, shown on Figure 9. Mid-block crossing are not permitted.
Response #34: Agreed. These were on the wish list of the proponent, but they were advised that unsignalized pedestrian crossing would not be permitted.
G. CHAUDIERE BRIDGE Comment #35: A preliminary cost estimate is requested for the proposed pedestrian cantilever on the Chaudière Bridge, along the up-stream side of the main 70 m bridge span. The feasibility of this critical link in the proposal was called into question due to concerns over potential high implementation costs. The estimate should follow guidelines within City of Ottawa Project Delivery and Cost Estimating review (ref: ACS2013-PAI-INF-0012), for class C or D level estimate. The City has asked PWGSC to share any engineering background information that they may already have on this span, which they are currently looking into.
Response #35: Once a preferred functional plan for the corridor is agreed to, the proponent has advised that they would then consider investing further funds to undertake a Class D cost estimate, and to discuss with PWGSC.
Comment #36: As the study recommends modification to the Chaudière Bridge, PWGSC has advised the City that it is looking to divest the inter-provincial bridge and that they are unable to invest
Page | 12
funding to increase functional ability of the bridge. There should be a discussion in the study on the implementation of the bridge modifications, the ownership of the new bridge structure components, and the impact of the bridge modifications on the proposed transportation initiatives.
Response #36: Once a preferred functional plan for the corridor is agreed to, the proponent has advised that they would then consider investing further funds to undertake a Class D cost estimate, and to discuss with PWGSC.
Please call if you have any questions of the foregoing.
Sincerely,
Ronald M. Jack, P.Eng. Vice President Transportation Manager Ottawa Operations
Attachments
Attachment #1
Gatineau Development Sites
Saint-Hyacinthe
Pont Cartier-MacDonaldGatineau K Rue Saint-Rédempteur Sans nom Gatineau e
n
Mance t Mangin
Sacré-Coeur RueChamplain
RueLaurier
Rue Émile-BondRue Sacré-Coeur
Ducharme Boulevard Sacré-Coeur Brodeur Saint-Hyacinthe Saint-Henri Açores Brodeur Boulevard Sacré-Coeur
Émile-Bond WORK IN PROGRESS
Ruisseau de la Brasserie Sans nom Centre-Ville de Edgar-Chénier Monseigneur-Beaudoin Edgar-Chénier Curé-Armand-Larocque
RueKent
S Rue de Verdun
a Sainte-Hélène
i
n
s Arthur-Guertin
Taschereau i t
- o Verdun
R
Rue Arthur-Guertin L Outaouais
Gatineau é
d
Saint-Hyacinthe Amherst Allard e
m Amherst Isidore-Ostiguy
l
p
Falardeau a
t
e v
u a Saint-Henri
r L
Saint-Étienne e Arthur-Guertin Saint-Étienne v
h u Saint-Étienne p Saint-Étienne e
Sainte-Hélène
e n Champlain
s n
o o
Dollard-Des Ormeaux
J
Saint-Florent s
- i
t Marie-Le Franc Notre-Dame-de-l'Île a
Rue deCarillon n
Rue Morin
i
M
Dalpé a
Arthur-Guertin
S
Crémazie Allumettières
Jogues Marie-Le Franc
O
u t Charlevoix Laramée a o
u
a
i s Élisabeth-Bruyère
Kent M Garneau Élisabeth-Bruyère
o
r
Crémazie
C i
n
a Champlain
r
i l apineau l P
Jogues o Pont Alexandra
n Rue Montcalm
Corridor du Rapibus Papineau David-Laviolette Dollard-Des Ormeaux Papineau De Lorimier Braves-du-Coin Ludger-Duvernay
Lois
M Saint-Jacques on MUSÉE tca lm Hélène-Duval CANADIENS DES Gagnon Notre-Dame-de-l'Île Frontenac CIVILISATIONS Saint-Jean-Bosco Victoria
Morin r e Hanson i Pilon Vaudreuil r u
a Booth PARC L Laval MAISON DU CITOYEN Charles-Bagot Hôtel-de-Ville Kent T a Bienville y lo Sainte-Bernadette r Courcelette Aubry e g Wright a rt Jean-Dallaire o Lavigne P
Rue Wright Leduc PLACE Wellington AUBRY DuquesneRue Duquesne
e
v
u Hanson e
n Laval
Murray n
M o
s
Graham i i
l
l a
a
r M
Hadley Boulevard Alexandre-Taché s René-Roger u ib p a Alexandre-Taché R
Scott
SITE DOMTAR
Dumontier
Eddy
Pont du Portage
Pont des Chaudières
Kent Street
Timberslide Street
Middle Street Sparks Street
Rivière des Outaouais
Queen Street Lyon Street North Sparks Street
Bay Street
Lett Street
Québec
Ontario Vimy Place Private
Slater Street Wellington Street Wellington
Fleet Street Laurier Avenue West
Bronson Avenue Brickhill Street
Broad Street Gloucester Street Percy Street
River Street Empress Avenue Nepean Street
Perkins Street Wellington Street Lisgar Street Lorne Avenue
Cooper Street Primrose Avenue
Empress Avenue
Upper Lorne Place Cambridge Street North
MacLaren Street
Booth Street Albert Street
Primrose Avenue Ottawa River Parkway Gilmour Street Elm Street Rochester Street
City Centre Avenue Legend
Arthur Street James Street Bayview Road Lebreton Street North Bell Street North Intersections Christie Street Parkdale Avenue Forward Avenue Proposed Project Spruce Street Stonehurst Avenue
Carruthers Avenue 1km Radius Burnside Avenue Eccles Street Laval / Laurier
Hinchey Avenue Preston Street Eccles Street Eddy Somerset Street West Date : 27 février 2014 Anderson Street 0 50 100 200 m
Scott Street Poplar Street Willow Street Gladstone Avenue
Attachment #2
Reformatted Table 1
Table 1: Existing Intersection Performance Weekday AM Peak (PM Peak)
Critical Movement Intersection ‘as a whole’ Intersection Max. v/c LoS or avg. Movement Delay(s) LoS v/c delay(s) Booth/Sir John A. F(D) 1.03(0.86) EBT(WBT) 41.4(32.0) D(D) 0.85(0.85) Macdonald/Wellington Booth/War Museum(1) A(A) 0.53(0.49) SBT(NBT) 6.0(4.3) A(A) 0.53(0.49) Booth/Eddy/Alexandre- F(F) 1.76(1.33) WBL(EBT) 123.5(61.8) F(F) 1.34(1.00) Taché/Laurier Wellington/Pont du E(E) 0.94(0.92) EBL(EBL) 34.5(30.9) D(C) 0.83(0.79) Portage Maisonneuve/Laurier/ F(F) 1.01(1.20) SBT(SBT) 53.6(73.8) E(F) 0.97(1.03) Pont du Portage Alexandre-Taché/ F(F) 1.62(1.50) WBR(WBR) 99.4(88.9) F(F) 1.56(1.35) Montcalm Laurier/Laval B(B) 0.67(0.64) SBL(SBL) 13.2(14.0) A(A) 0.36(0.55)
Booth/Albert B(C) 0.66(0.74) EBL(NBT) 23.6(28.3) A(A) 0.53(0.59) Note: Analysis of signalized intersections assumes a PHF of 0.895 and a saturation flow rate of 1800 veh/h/lane. (1) Booth/War Museum intersection analyzed with balanced volumes.
2 September 2014 OUR REF: TO3147TOC BY EMAIL: [email protected]
Windmill Development Corporation 1327 Wellington Street West, Suite 203 Ottawa, ON K1Y 3B6
Attention: Mr. Rodney Wilts
Dear Sir:
Re: Domtar Lands Redevelopment Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Study Addendum #2
This addendum has been prepared to address the comments from a meeting with the City of Ottawa held on 19 August 2014 following their review of the above-noted Transportation Impact Study (TIS) and subsequent Addendum #1. The three primary topics addressed herein are:
analysis of existing and projected travel across the interprovincial screenlines; projected transit travel time impacts; and transportation demand management.
1. Screenline Analysis The existing performance of the most relevant interprovincial screenlines (SL 2, 3 and 4 composed of the MacDonald Cartier, Alexandria, Portage, Chaudière, and Champlain Bridges) are summarized below in Table 1. These data were provided by the Planning and Growth Management (PGM) Department at the City of Ottawa, and reflect 2011 vehicular traffic conditions in the southbound direction during the critical weekday morning peak hour only. Table 1: Existing Screenline Performance (AM Peak Hour: vehicles per hour) 2011 TRANS 2011 Observed Modelled Directional 1 Station Peak Directional v/c Peak Directional Capacity Volume Volume Macdonald-Cartier Bridge 4,600 4,190 4,725 0.89 Alexandria Bridge 1,370 970 1,000 0.97 Portage Bridge 2,740 2,050 2,350 0.87 Chaudière Bridge 2,160 1,340 1,5752 0.85 Champlain Bridge 1,850 2,380 2,350 1.01 Total 12,720 10,930 12,000 0.91 1 Volume-to-capacity ratio calculated based on observed peak directional volumes 2 Directional capacity of a single southbound lane
{ Page | 2
As shown in Table 1, the screenline is currently operating at or near capacity (v/c of 0.91), with the subject Chaudière Bridge (Booth-Eddy Corridor) operating at a Level of Service ‘D’ (v/c of 0.85) in the southbound direction during the critical morning peak hour.
PGM confirmed that the TRANS Model projections for the 2031 planning horizon do not include the proposed Domtar Lands Redevelopment. As such, the projections provided by the City of Ottawa need to be adjusted to reflect this additional development. The following Tables 2, 3 and 4 summarize three projected travel demand scenarios (as defined by the City of Ottawa) and the resultant area interprovincial screenline performances, namely:
Do nothing Scenario (existing transportation infrastructure and baseline travel demand); Alternative Scenario without non-motorized modes (reprogrammed Booth-Eddy Corridor (Chaudière Bridge) to include improved transit); and Alternative Scenario with non-motorized modes (reprogrammed Booth-Eddy Corridor (Chaudière Bridge)) and travel demand adjusted to reflect a shift to alternative walk/bike modes).
Table 2: 2031 Do-Nothing Scenario Screenline Performance (AM Peak Hour: vehicles per hour) Peak Directional Directional Station v/c Demand Capacity Macdonald-Cartier Bridge 5,220 4,725 1.10 Alexandria Bridge 1,900 1,000 1.90 Portage Bridge 3,190 2,350 1.36 Chaudière Bridge 3,0281 1,5752 1.92 Champlain Bridge 2,720 2,350 1.16 Total 16,058 12,000 1.34 1 Peak Directional Demand across Chaudière Bridge includes projected Domtar redevelopment site-generated traffic volumes 2 Directional capacity of a single southbound lane
As shown in Table 2, assuming no person capacity improvements across the area interprovincial crossings (with regard to transit, walking and cycling) and no shift in travel behavior, the vehicular demand across the screenline is projected to significantly exceed the available capacity in the southbound direction during the weekday morning peak hour with a v/c ratio of 1.34.
The following Table 3 provides a summary of the alternative scenario and area interprovincial screenline performance assuming transit priority service and bicycle tracks in the Booth-Eddy Corridor. According to the projected 2031 TRANS Model, this is expected to result in an increase in transit person trips and a shift of vehicle trips from the Chaudière Bridge to other interprovincial crossings. Table 3: 2031 Alternative Scenario without non-motorized modes Screenline Performances (AM Peak Hour: vehicles per hour) Peak Directional Directional Station v/c Demand Capacity Macdonald-Cartier Bridge 5,390 4,725 1.14 Alexandria Bridge 2,000 1,000 2.00 Portage Bridge 3,450 2,350 1.47 Chaudière Bridge 1,9081 1,5752 1.21 Champlain Bridge 2,860 2,350 1.22 Total 15,608 12,000 1.30 1 Peak Directional Demand across Chaudière Bridge includes Domtar redevelopment site-generated traffic volumes 2 Directional capacity of a single southbound lane { Page | 3
As shown in Table 3, assuming transit priority service and bicycle tracks in the Booth-Eddy Corridor, the vehicular demand across the screenline is still projected to significantly exceed the available capacity in the southbound direction during the weekday morning peak hour (v/c = 1.3).
The following Table 4 provides a summary of the projected screenline performance assuming a shift in travel demand to non-motorized modes in order that the screenline is able to achieve an approximate v/c approaching 1.0 in the southbound direction during the weekday morning peak hour. Table 4: 2031 Alternative Scenario with non-motorized modes Screenline Performances (AM Peak Hour) Peak Directional Directional Station v/c Demand Capacity Macdonald-Cartier Bridge 5,000 4,725 1.06 Alexandria Bridge 1,000 1,000 1.00 Portage Bridge 2,350 2,350 1.00 Chaudière Bridge 1,9081 1,5752 1.21 Champlain Bridge 2,350 2,350 1.00 Total 12,608 12,000 1.05 1 Peak Directional Demand across Chaudière Bridge includes Domtar redevelopment site-generated traffic volumes 2 Directional capacity of a single southbound lane
As shown in Table 4, assuming a shift in travel demand to non-motorized modes consistent with policy targets identified in the City’s TMP, the Booth-Eddy Corridor (Chaudière Bridge) is projected to exceed capacity (v/c of 1.21) in the southbound direction during the weekday morning peak hour. In the absence of a new interprovincial bridge, the opportunities to achieve a v/c of less than 1.0 would be limited to continued reliance on a shift to alternative travel modes and a spreading of vehicle demand to outside of the peak hour.
The following Table 5 provides a summary, by mode, of the existing and projected person trips (at 2031 and assuming the full Domtar development) crossing Chaudière Bridge, in the southbound direction during the weekday morning peak hour. Table 5: Existing and Projected Chaudière Bridge Modal Shares Morning Peak Hour Inbound Mode Persons Trips/Hour Existing Projected Drivers 1,340 (81%) 1,801 (29%) Passengers 120 (7%) 409 (7%) Transit Riders 170 (10%) 2,850 (46%) Cyclists 14 (1%) 522 (8%) Pedestrians 1 (0%) 612 (10%) Total 1,645 6,194
As shown in Table 5, there is a projected significant increase of approximately 4,500 person trips in the southbound direction during the weekday morning peak hour. It is quite clear that in order to achieve a v/c across the Chaudière Bridge that approaches 1.0, a significant increase in transit and non-motorized modal share, as identified in Table 5, will be required.
2. Transit Travel Time In estimating potential increases in transit travel time crossing the Chaudière Bridge, it was assumed that passenger vehicle and bus travel times were equivalent. This is reasonable to assume given dedicated { Page | 4 transit facilities are currently not provided. As such, vehicle travel times were obtained from the SYNCHRO/SimTraffic traffic analysis software package. Ideally, a more robust traffic analysis/modelling software packages (i.e. VISSIM) would be used to conduct the assessment of transit operations within such a corridor. However, the level of effort to develop/calibrate a more detailed traffic model to estimate transit travel times is not practical within the scope of a traditional TIS (given so many uncertainties in regional/interprovincial travel demand and transportation infrastructure at year 2031).
As such, the following Table 6 summarizes existing and projected approximate travel times between the Promenade/Terrasses De La Chaudière transit station and the Booth/Wellington intersection (according to SYNCHRO/SimTraffic), assuming the ‘required peak hour traffic displacement’ identified in the original TIS for projected travel times. Table 6: Estimated Travel Time Performance Total Bus Route Travel Time (seconds) Scenario Southbound Northbound AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Existing 138 134 96 138 Projected (volumes removed) 156 166 102 175
As shown in Table 2, the projected increase in transit travel time between the above-noted locations is approximately 20 to 40 seconds, according to SYNCHRO/SimTraffic.
A possible mitigative measure to improve transit travel times (as suggested by the City of Ottawa) is to provide a dedicated transit facility south of the Chaudière Bridge to Wellington Street. To estimate the travel time benefit of a dedicated transit facility (bus only lanes), a theoretical free-flow travel time on Booth Street between the Chaudière Bridge and Wellington Street was assumed. As such, a dedicated transit facility on Booth Street between the Chaudière Bridge and Wellington Street is projected to result in transit travel times of 100 to 145 seconds, according to SYNCHRO/SimTraffic1. This results in an approximate 0 to 30 second travel time benefit for transit. A key future consideration is to determine if this travel time savings is worth the impact and cost of introducing two additional lanes into the Ottawa section of the Booth-Eddy Corridor, in addition to the requirement for cycle tracks and wider sidewalks.
3. Transportation Demand Management Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is about providing the infrastructure and the incentives to maximize the active transportation modes (walking and cycling) and transit use, and as a result minimize private automobile use, and particularly single occupant vehicle use. Providing good quality and accessible walking, cycling and transit facilities and networks will provide excellent mobility for those that do not own a car. For those that do own a car, it provides them with more healthy and affordable travel choices.
The Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Study (MMTIS) contains significant reference throughout to transportation sustainability and how it was going to be achieved. Within the MMTIS, transportation sustainability and transportation demand are effectively the same. Both are about developing a plan and providing the infrastructure for the redeveloped Domtar Lands that maximizes walking, cycling and transit while reducing auto use.
1 SYNCHRO/SimTraffic does not consider transit operations explicitly, the results and findings included herein should be considered a rough estimate { Page | 5
The following bullet points is an extract from the MMTIS which highlights what is proposed to maximize study area active transportation:
Provide a mixed-use development that retains people on site; Provide an on-site framework of small blocks with frequent intersections to encourage safe and efficient walking; Provide an extensive system of sidewalks, multi-use pathways and bicycle lanes/tracks that will accommodate all types of local and commuter cycling needs; Provide appropriately located and design bus stops to encourage transit ridership and give buses priority; Develop an on-site system of pedestrian streets and woonerfs that accommodate cars and service vehicles, but that give priority to pedestrian and bicycle circulation; Provide an abundance of visible, safe and secure bicycle parking for both residents and visitors; Providing parking maximums for development and encourage shared-use of parking between buildings and between land uses; Provide appropriate car sharing programs/facilities to reduce auto ownership and attract residents who do not own a vehicle; and Provide information/material to future residents and employees that make them aware of, and educates them about, the sustainability objectives of the redeveloped Domtar lands.
As clearly presented in the MMTIS, the following is the specific proposed infrastructure within and through the proposed redevelopment that will promote and accommodate growth in non-auto travel modes.
Sidewalks on both sides of the Booth-Eddy Corridor including widening the Chaudiere Bridge to accommodate a west side sidewalk; Two-way bicycle track along the Booth-Eddy Corridor from Wellington Street north to the north end of Chaudiere Bridge. Due to the location of historic buildings and right-of-way constraints, bicycle tracks will not be provided on Eddy Street from the traffic signal at the north end of the Chaudiere Bridge, north to Rue Laurier. Instead, they will be provided on the local streets within this north sector of the Domtar Lands and will connect to Laurier, and its multi-use pathway in this manner. The end result will be two-way cycle tracks extending from Wellington to Laurier that will connect the multi-use pathways on both sides of the Ottawa River and any on-road bicycle facilities provided on Laurier or Wellington; Within both the Ontario and Quebec components of the development, sidewalks will be provided on both sides of some streets, and the other more local streets will be designed as multi-modal woonerfs; Two key locations along the Booth-Eddy Corridor and adjacent to traffic signal controlled intersections have been identified for bus stops. There is the opportunity to provide these bus stops in the traffic lane or in a lay-by lane, with the two Cities and OC Transpo to determine which is preferred; Some consideration is being given to the merit of providing bus only lanes on Booth Street from the south end of the Chaudiere Bridge south to Wellington Street. Possible gains in transit travel time will come at the cost of an expanded roadway and possible wider right-of-way. A decision is yet to be made on these lanes; and If/when the O-Train is extended north across the Ottawa River to Gatineau, this will be of great benefit to transit ridership to/from the Domtar Lands. With a station/terminal likely to be located just to the west of the Domtar Lands, transit service will likely be reoriented to this station and away from the Booth-Eddy Corridor. This would provide direct and fast transit service to the O-Train and to the
{ Page | 6
LRT Confederation Line (at the Bayview Station) and would take some pressure off the Booth-Eddy Corridor.
In addition to the foregoing planned approaches to sidewalks, bicycle tracks, transit, reduced parking supply, safe and secure bicycle parking, ridesharing programs, VirtuCar and bike-sharing, Windmill also proposes to:
Initiate a community-based social marketing campaign to promote public and active transportation; Post transit schedules at key locations throughout the development and also provide them as part of the home-purchase/welcome package; Provide periodic bike repair clinics for residents/employees; and Explore the opportunity to locate a “business hub” type space, that would provide the required space and infrastructure to facilitate working from this location as opposed to commuting to a work place.
As the foregoing facilities/programs are provided/implemented as the proposed redevelopment advances, a high level of transportation demand management and active transportation will be achieved.
4. Findings and Conclusions Based on the foregoing analysis, the following transportation-related findings and conclusions are offered:
The existing area interprovincial crossings are currently at or near capacity in the southbound direction during the weekday morning peak hour; Area interprovincial crossings are projected to operate at or significantly beyond capacity in the southbound direction during the weekday morning peak hour, with the addition of projected background growth and site-generated traffic at 2031; Approximately 4,500 new person trips are projected to cross the Chaudière Bridge in the southbound direction during the weekday morning peak hour. There are currently approximately 1650 southbound peak hour person trips in the corridor. It is essential that the majority of these new trips be accommodated by transit and non-motorized modes, as passenger vehicle capacity is limited along the Booth-Eddy Corridor and at the two intersections at either end. As there are no imminent plans to widen or replace any of the bridges along the Booth-Eddy Corridor, and as all involved agencies have agreed that the corridor requires the appropriate pedestrian, cycling and transit facilities to be provided, there are trade-offs required to achieve a v/c that approaches 1.0; Existing transit travel times within the study area are estimated to be 100 to 140 seconds during peak hours; Projected transit travel times are estimated to be 100 to 175 seconds during peak hours, which is an approximate 20 to 40 second increase in travel time; With the provision of dedicated bus lanes between the Chaudière Bridge and Wellington Street, projected transit travel times are estimated to be 100 to 145 seconds during peak hours (according to SYNCHRO/SimTraffic), which is similar to existing transit travel times; and
A very substantive active transportation/transportation demand management plan has been prepared that when implemented will result in significantly improved pedestrian, cycling and transit patron infrastructure along the Booth-Eddy Corridor and within the Domtar redevelopment project. With the completion of this infrastructure and the other on-site TDM initiatives a very sustainable transportation solution has been proposed.
{ Page | 7
Please call if you have any questions of the foregoing.
Prepared By: Reviewed By:
Gordon R. Scobie, P.Eng. Ronald M. Jack, P.Eng. Project Engineer, Transportation Vice President Transportation Ottawa Operations Manager Ottawa Operations
{