Re: Domtar Lands Redevelopment Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Study Addendum #1

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.

Load more