AGENDA

SPC ON TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSIT

October 4, 2018, 9:30 AM IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER Members

Councillor S. Keating, Chair Councillor J. Gondek, Vice-Chair Councillor G. Chahal Councillor S. Chu Councillor J. Davison Councillor J. Farkas Councillor E. Woolley Mayor N. Nenshi, Ex-Officio

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. OPENING REMARKS

3. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA

4. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the SPC on Transportation and Transit, 2018 September 06

5. CONSENT AGENDA

5.1 Safer Mobility Plan Annual Report 2018 - Deferral, TT2018-1110

5.2 Status of Outstanding Motions, TT2018-1142

6. POSTPONED REPORTS (including related/supplemental reports)

None

7. ITEMS FROM OFFICERS, ADMINISTRATION AND COMMITTEES

7.1 Hyperloop Development and Testing in , TT2018-1054 7.2 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review, TT2018-0979

7.3 Update, TT2018-1089

8. ITEMS DIRECTLY TO COMMITTEE

8.1 REFERRED REPORTS None

8.2 NOTICE(S) OF MOTION None

9. URGENT BUSINESS

10. CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

10.1 ITEMS FROM OFFICERS, ADMINISTRATION AND COMMITTEES None

10.2 URGENT BUSINESS

11. ADJOURNMENT Item #4.1

MINUTES SPC ON TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSIT

September 6, 2018, 8:30 AM IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER

PRESENT: Councillor S. Keating, Chair Councillor J. Gondek, Vice-Chair Councillor G. Chahal Councillor S. Chu Councillor J. Davison Councillor J. Farkas Councillor E. Woolley *Councillor D. Farrell ALSO PRESENT: General Manager and One Calgary Executive Sponsor S. Dalgleish General Manager M. Thompson Acting City Clerk B. Hilford Legislative Assistant M. A. Cario Legislative Assistant D. Ford

1. CALL TO ORDER Councillor Keating called the Meeting to order at 8:33 a.m. 2. OPENING REMARKS Councillor Keating provided opening remarks. 3. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA Moved by Councillor Gondek That the Agenda for today's meeting be amended by adding an item of Confidential Urgent Business entitled "Green Line Update (Verbal), VR2018-0072". MOTION CARRIED

Moved by Councillor Chahal That the Agenda for the 2018 September 06 Regular Meeting of the SPC on Transportation and Transit be confirmed, as amended. MOTION CARRIED

4. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

1 Item #4.1

4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the SPC on Transportation and Transit, 2018 July 19 Moved by Councillor Davison That the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the SPC on Transportation and Transit held on 2018 July 19, be confirmed. MOTION CARRIED

5. CONSENT AGENDA None 6. POSTPONED REPORTS None 7. ITEMS FROM OFFICERS, ADMINISTRATION AND COMMITTEES 7.1 One Calgary 2019-2022. A City That Moves – Service Plan Previews, TT2018- 1019 Stuart Dalgleish, General Manager and One Calgary Executive Sponsor provided introductory comments. Ryan Vanderputten, Director of Transportation Planning, provided an overview of the One Calgary - A City That Moves Citizen Priority. Public Speakers: 1. Lois Kelly 2. Agustin Louro 3. Bill Phipps 4. Hilary Chapple 5. Bob Morrison 6. Amber Cannon 7. Alex Shevalier 8. Matthew Yeung 9. Barry Vendergust 10. Brad Robertson 11. Celia Lee 12. Sarelle Azuelos 13. Bonnie Pacaud 14. Colleen Houston 15. Lloyd Thornhill 16. Nigel Kirk 17. Jean Blackstock

Distributions made with respect to Report TT2018-1019: • a PowerPoint presentation entitled "Item 7.1 One Calgary 2019-2022 - A City That Moves Remarks and Revised Process", dated 2018 September 06; • a PowerPoint presentation entitled "One Calgary - A City That Moves", dated 2018 September 06;

2 Item #4.1

• an emailed letter from Mary Salvani, dated 2018 August 28; and • PowerPoint Presentation slides entitled "Calgary Climate Hubb Presentation to the SPC on Transportation and Transit", dated 2018 September 05

Received for the Corporate Record with respect to Report TT2018-1019: • Speaking notes from Lois Kelly; and • a PowerPoint presentation entitled "CTCAG One Calgary Presentation", dated 2018 September 06 and speaking notes from Matthew Yeung

The following Service Plans were presented by the respective Service Owners: 1. Parking - Glen Furtado, General Manager of Calgary Parking Authority Moved by Councillor Gondek That Committee revise the lunch recess to start at 12:45 p.m. and to reconvene at 1:45 p.m. MOTION CARRIED 2. Public Transit - Doug Morgan, Director of Transit

Committee recessed at 12:45 p.m. and reconvened at 1:47 p.m. with Councillor Keating in the Chair.

3. Sidewalks & Pathways - Troy McLeod, Director of Roads 4. Specialized Transit - Doug Morgan, Director of Transit 5. Streets - Troy McLeod, Director of Roads Pursuant to Section 6(1) of Procedure Bylaw 35M2017, Section 78(2)(b) was suspended by general consent, to complete the remainder of the agenda prior to the scheduled afternoon recess.

6. Taxi, Limousine & Vehicles-for-Hire - Abdul Rafih, Chief Livery Inspector

Moved by Councillor Chahal That with respect to Report TT2018-1019, the following be approved: That the SPC on Transportation & Transit receive this report for information. MOTION CARRIED

8. ITEMS DIRECTLY TO COMMITTEE 8.1 REFERRED REPORTS None 8.2 NOTICE(S) OF MOTION

3 Item #4.1

None 9. URGENT BUSINESS None 10. CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS 10.1 ITEMS FROM OFFICERS, ADMINISTRATION AND COMMITTEES None 10.2 URGENT BUSINESS Moved by Councillor Davison That the SPC on Transportation and Transit move into Closed Meeting, at 3:45 p.m., in the Council Lounge, to consider confidential matters with respect to the following item pursuant to Sections 24 and 25 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act: • 10.2.1 Verbal Report VR2018-0072 MOTION CARRIED Committee reconvened in Public Meeting at 4:01 p.m. with Councillor Keating in the Chair. Moved by Councillor Gondek That Committee rise and report. MOTION CARRIED

10.2.1 Green Line Update (Verbal), VR2018-0072 Administration in attendance during the Closed Meeting discussions with respect to Verbal Report VR2018-0072: Clerk: B. Hilford, M. A. Cario. Advice: M. Thompson. Moved by Councillor Gondek That with respect to Verbal Report VR2018-0072, the following be approved: That Committee direct that the closed session presentation and discussion remain confidential pursuant to Sections 24 and 25 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. MOTION CARRIED

11. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Councillor Davison That this meeting adjourn at 4:02 p.m. MOTION CARRIED

4 Item #4.1

The next Regular Meeting of the SPC on Transportation and Transit has been scheduled to be held on 2018 October 04 at 9:30 a.m.

CONFIRMED BY COMMITTEE ON

______CHAIR ACTING CITY CLERK

5

Page 1 of 2 Item #5.1

Transportation Report to ISC: UNRESTRICTED SPC on Transportation and Transit TT2018-1110 2018 October 04

Safer Mobility Plan Annual Report 2018 - Deferral

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Administration requests to defer the update of the 2018 Safer Mobility Report to the 2018 December session of the SPC on Transportation and Transit. This will better balance the agenda and allow for a more wholesome discussion of the recommendations based on One Calgary deliberations and recent Council direction on speeds limits. This report typically provides an annual update on The City of Calgary’s (The City) programs for improving safer mobility and summarizes various traffic safety issues in Calgary, identifies focus areas for improvement and presents strategies to achieve these goals, with an overall focus on reducing the number of fatal and injury collisions.

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: That the SPC on Transportation and Transit recommends that Council defer the report on the Safer Mobility Plan Annual Report and report back to the SPC on Transportation and Transit on 2018 December 6.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION / POLICY On 2017 December 18 at the Regular Meeting of Council, Council approved that with respect to Report TT2017-1121, that Council receive this report for information; and Direct Administration to report back to the SPC on Transportation and Transit with a proposed traffic safety plan for 2019-2022 by Q3 2018.

BACKGROUND The City carries out projects and activities to improve road safety for all users and pilot new technologies as part of the Transportation Department’s mission to provide a safe transportation system. The Safer Mobility Plan was developed to align and direct these traffic safety efforts and to identify future actions. The plan also provides direction on collaboration efforts with internal and external stakeholders to achieve improvements in safety. Annual collision data reviews are completed to identify issues, trends and opportunities for safety improvements.

INVESTIGATION: ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS

Stakeholder Engagement, Research and Communication This will be detailed in the forthcoming report.

Strategic Alignment This will be detailed in the forthcoming report.

Social, Environmental, Economic (External) This will be detailed in the forthcoming report.

Approval(s): Michael Thompson concurs with this report. Author: Tony Churchill Page 2 of 2 Item #5.1

Transportation Report to ISC: UNRESTRICTED SPC on Transportation and Transit TT2018-1110 2018 October 04

Safer Mobility Plan Annual Report 2018 - Deferral

Financial Capacity Current and Future Operating Budget: This will be detailed in the forthcoming report. Current and Future Capital Budget: This will be detailed in the forthcoming report.

Risk Assessment There are no known risks from this deferral request.

REASON(S) FOR RECOMMENDATION(S): Administration is requesting the deferral to better align plans with One Calgary budget deliberations and to incorporate Council direction related to changes in speed limits.

ATTACHMENT(S) None

Approval(s): Michael Thompson concurs with this report. Author: Tony Churchill Page 1 of 2 Item #5.2

Transportation Report to ISC: UNRESTRICTED SPC on Transportation and Transit TT2018-1142 2018 October 04

Status of Outstanding Motions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Outstanding motions for the SPC on Transportation and Transit.

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: That the SPC on Transportation and Transit receives this report for information.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION / POLICY On 2007 February 06, Personnel and Accountability Committee approved PAC2007-05 Status of Outstanding Motions and Directions, directing Administration to bring forward as an item of business to each SPC a list of tabled and referred motions and reports for each committee; such lists to be reviewed by each Standing Policy Committee to be dealt with on a quarterly basis.

BACKGROUND This report and attachment provides a summary of outstanding motions and directions for the SPC on Transportation and Transit as of 2018 June 7.

INVESTIGATION: ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Not applicable.

Stakeholder Engagement, Research and Communication Not applicable.

Strategic Alignment Not applicable.

Social, Environmental, Economic (External)

Financial Capacity Current and Future Operating Budget: Not applicable Current and Future Capital Budget: Not applicable.

Risk Assessment Not applicable.

REASON(S) FOR RECOMMENDATION(S): This is a report for information, to assist the committee in tracking its initiatives over time.

Approval(s): Michael Thompson concurs with this report. Author: Lorie Boychuk Page 2 of 2 Item #5.2

Transportation Report to ISC: UNRESTRICTED SPC on Transportation and Transit TT2018-1142 2018 October 04

Status of Outstanding Motions

ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Attachment – Status of Outstanding Motions as of 2018 October 4

Approval(s): Michael Thompson concurs with this report. Author: Lorie Boychuk TT2018-1142 ATTACHMENT STATUS OF OUTSTANDING MOTIONS AS OF 2018 OCTOBER 4

ITEM ANTICIPATED T&T OWNER PAGE MEETING DATE

OCT-DEC, JAN- GM OUTSTANDING REPORTS 1-2 MAR TRANS

TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR STUDY Q4 2018 TP 3

SUPPORT FOR HYPERLOOP VACUUM TRAIN Q4 2018 TP 3 DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING IN CALGARY

SAFER MOBILITY PLAN ANNUAL REPORT Q4 2018 ROADS 4

IMPROVING COMPLIANCE DURING SNOW ROUTE PARKING BANS Q4 2018 ROADS 4

GREEN LINE PROGRAM UPDATE – FUTURE Q4 2018 GL 5 STAGES & PLANNING UPDATE

BYLAW REVIEW RELATED TO FUTURE RIDE Q1 2019 TP 5 SHARE TECHNOLOGY

FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY Q1 2019 TP 6

ROUTE AHEAD UPDATE – PRIORITIZATION Q1 2019 TRANSIT 6 FRAMEWORK

CALGARY TRANSIT PARK AND RIDE REVIEW Q2 2019 Transit 6 UPDATE

BIKE SHARE IN CALGARY UPDATE Q4 2019 TP 7

TT2018-1142 ATT Page 1 of 8 ISC: Unrestricted

ITEMS FOR OTHER COMMITTEES ANTICIPATED OWNER PAGE MEETING DATE

GREEN LINE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT Q4 2018 (PFC) GL 8 DELIVERY MODEL RECOMMENDATION

GREEN LINE CITY SHAPING IMPLEMENTATION Q4 2018 (CPS) GL 8 STRATEGY

GREEN LINE TRANSIT ORIENTED Q1 2019 (PUD) GL 8 DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

TT2018-1142 ATT Page 2 of 8 ISC: Unrestricted

DATE OF ANTICIPATED ITEM SOURCE SUBJECT REQUES MEETING DATE T At its meeting of 2007 June 20, the Personnel and Accountability Committee approved the following (PAC2007-05), That Administration, on a

quarterly basis, bring MAR forward as an item of JUN business to each Standing OUTSTANDING 2007 SEP COUNCIL Policy Committee a list of REPORTS JUNE DEC tabled and referred motions T&T and reports for each

committee; such lists to be reviewed by each Standing Policy Committee to be dealt with on a quarterly basis.

APPROVE, Moved by Councillor Chu That the Recommendations contained in the following Reports, be approved in an omnibus motion:

Transportation Corridor Study Policy Update - Deferral, TT2017-1217: Q4 2018 TRANSPORTATION 2016 TT2016- T&T CORRIDOR STUDY JUNE 0438 That the SPC on

Transportation and Transit recommend that Council defer the update report on the implementation of the Transportation Corridor Study Policy and report back to the SPC on Transportation and Transit no later than Q3 2018.

ADOPT, Moved by ADOPT, Moved by Councillor Carra, Seconded Councillor Carra, SUPPORT FOR by Councillor Pootmans, Seconded by Councillor HYPERLOOP that Councillor Carra’s Pootmans, that Councillor VACUUM TRAIN 2017 NM2017- Motion, NM2017-33 be Q4 2018 Carra’s Motion, NM2017- NM2017-33 DEVELOPMENT AND SEP 33 adopted, after amendment, T&T 33 be adopted, after TESTING IN as follows: amendment, as follows: CALGARY NOW THEREFORE BE IT NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that RESOLVED that

TT2018-1142 ATT Page 3 of 8 ISC: Unrestricted

Administration, in Administration, in collaboration with Calgary collaboration with Calgary Economic Development, Economic Development, Innovate Calgary and post- Innovate Calgary and post- secondary institutions and secondary institutions and within existing budgets, within existing budgets, support the development of support the development a research centre and test of a research centre and track as the first steps in test track as the first steps determining the viability of in determining the viability this technology and report of this technology and on progress to the SPC on report on progress to the Transportation and Transit SPC on Transportation no later than Q2 2018. and Transit no later than Q2 2018. APPROVE, Moved by Councillor Woolley, that the Administration Recommendations contained in Report TT2017-1121, be approved, as follows:

That the SPC on SAFER MOBILITY Q3 2018 2017 TT2017- Transportation and Transit PLAN ANNUAL T&T DEC 1121 recommend that Council: REPORT

Receive this report for information; and Direct Administration to report back to the SPC on Transportation and Transit with a proposed traffic safety plan for 2019-2022 by Q3 2018.

Notice of Motion, March 19, 2018, Combined Council - C2018-0312, APPROVE, IMPROVING Moved by Councillor Colley- COMPLIANCE Urquhart and Seconded 2018 C2018- Councillor Farrell That hat Q4 2018 DURING SNOW MARCH 0312 Council directs City T&T ROUTE PARKING Administration to review BANS improvements to increasing compliance for snow route parking bans.

TT2018-1142 ATT Page 4 of 8 ISC: Unrestricted

That the SPC on Transportation and Transit recommend that Council: 1. Direct Administration to report in Q4 2018 with a staging recommendation and update on layers 1 (LRT infrastructure design), 2 (station connections), 3 (planning and development), and 4 (City Shaping) for the long-term Green Line vision; and 2. Continue land acquisition outside of the Stage 1 project guided by a risk-based process until land requirements are GREEN LINE updated with PROGRAM UPDATE completion of the Q4 2018 2017 TT2017- – FUTURE STAGES preliminary design for T&T JUNE 0534 PLANNING AND the North leg. DESIGN 3. Direct Administration to explore the ways and means that the existing right of ways (ROWs), north of 16th Avenue N and south of 126 Avenue S, can be activated for community purposes that may include, but are not limited to BRT, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, that can then convert to LRT infrastructure. Report back to Council through the SPC on T&T by Q4 2018. [Recommendation 3 added as an amendment by committee]

AND FURTHER BE IT BYLAW REVIEW RESOLVED that Council RELATED TO direct Administration to 2018 C2018- Q1 2019 FUTURE RIDE review the existing bylaw JULY 0934 T&T SHARE rules governing mobility TECHNOLOGY devices such as scooters, skateboards, roller skates TT2018-1142 ATT Page 5 of 8 ISC: Unrestricted

and personal mobility devices with electric motors and to bring forward any necessary bylaw amendments to facilitate the use of such devices no later than Q1 2019 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that City Council directs City Administration to: ISC: UNRESTRICTED 2018 May 28 Regular Meeting of Council 15 1. Explore potential interim alternative uses for the reserved LRT ROWs for the Blue Line NE, north of Saddletowne Station, that may include, but are not limited to, FUTURE BLUE LINE transit improvements, 2018 C2018- pedestrian and bicycle Q1 2019 RIGHT-OF-WAY MAY 0689 infrastructure, and parks that T&T can be converted to LRT infrastructure. 2. Provide an assessment of feasibility, capital costs required, return on investment and timelines for the potential interim uses. 3. Report back to Council through the SPC on Transportation & Transit by Q1 2019. Result of report - C2018-0689

That Council:

2. Direct Administration to use the attached ROUTE AHEAD prioritization framework for UPDATE – 2018 TT2018- major transit growth Q1 2019 PRIORITIZATION JUNE 0617 projects, and provide an T&T FRAMEWORK update to Council through the SPC on Transportation & Transit by Q1 2019

That Council: 2. Direct Administration to continue to review intermunicipal transit CALGARY TRANSIT solutions including regional 2016 TT2016- Q2 2019 PARK AND RIDE satellite park and ride lots MAY 0319 T&T REVIEW UPDATE outside of the Calgary city limits through the Calgary Metropolitan Region Board and report back with an update

TT2018-1142 ATT Page 6 of 8 ISC: Unrestricted

on the feasibility of such lots by Q2 2019

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Council direct administration to initiate a two-year pilot for bike share by September 2018 that will include: • An intake process for interested operators to participate • Data sharing requirements with permitted operators • A pilot consisting of up to 10,000 bicycles, scooters or other personal mobility devices • A performance-based system for permitted operators to gradually increase their fleet size, within set pilot BIKE SHARE IN 2018 C2018- limits Q4 2020 CALGARY - UPDATE JULY 0934 • A permit and fee T&T structure that covers administrative costs to regulate and manage the pilot program • Any other permit conditions to be imposed on bike share operators to ensure that the safety and convenience of roadway and sidewalk users is not unduly impacted

And report back to Council through Transportation and Transit Committee with an update on the pilot in Q4 2019 and a final report with potential further recommendations no later than Q4 2020.

TT2018-1142 ATT Page 7 of 8 ISC: Unrestricted

ITEMS TO OTHER

COMMITTEES

1. Direct Administration to report back no later than Q4 2018 to the Priorities and GREEN LINE LIGHT Finance Committee of RAIL TRANSIT Council with the 2018 PFC2018- Q4 2018 PROJECT DELIVERY recommended budgets for MARCH 0207 PFC MODEL approval including financing RECOMMENDATION and confirmation of funding from the other orders of government for the Project.

That the SPC on Community and Protective Services recommend that Council defer the report on GREEN LINE CITY Green Line City Shaping SHAPING 2018 CPS2018- Q4 2018 Implementation Strategy to IMPLEMENTATION JUNE 0549 CPS report back to the SPC on STRATEGY Community and Protective Services no later than Q4 2018.

That the SPC on Planning and Urban Development recommends that Council GREEN LINE approve Administration’s TRANSIT ORIENTED Q1 2019 2018 PUD2018- request to defer the report DEVELOPMENT PUD JUNE 0549 on Green Line transit IMPLEMENTATION oriented development STRATEGY planning to no later than Q1 2019.

TT2018-1142 ATT Page 8 of 8 ISC: Unrestricted

Page 1 of 4 Item #7.1

Transportation Report to ISC: UNRESTRICTED SPC on Transportation and Transit TT2018-1054 2018 October 04

Hyperloop Development and Testing in Calgary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Hyperloop is a proposed mode of freight and passenger transportation that uses a vacuum tube system to propel pods at high speeds (over 1,000 km/h) over long distances. While the idea of using a vacuum tube to transport people and goods has been around for over a century, hyperloop has recently been made popular by Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk, when he announced in 2012 that the hyperloop would be the “fifth mode of transport” (the others being: roadway, water, air and rail). Several hyperloop companies have emerged since Musk’s 2012 announcement including Virgin Hyperloop One, Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (HTT), DGWHyperloop, and TransPod. There are no functioning hyperloops in service, and only two test tracks in the world – the Virgin Hyperloop One 500 m test track in the Nevada Desert and the SpaceX subscale model in Hawthorne, California. In 2017, a hyperloop company approached The City of Calgary looking to establish a research office, and construct a 10 km test track in . The hyperloop company investigated several locations for tests tracks outside of Calgary city limits. Administration supports the development of a privately funded test track outside the city boundary due to the economic and research benefits that could arise from its development. However, due to the hyperloop technology still being in a conceptual/developmental stage, regional plans should not be changed to account for it, and the development of a test track within city boundaries is not recommended. The decision to allow for the construction and operation of a hyperloop test track falls outside of The City of Calgary’s jurisdiction. The Government of Alberta is in ongoing discussions with the hyperloop company regarding the company’s interest in moving forward with a safe and suitable hyperloop test track location in the province. If a hyperloop test track does move forward near Calgary, The City will be able to provide transportation data, staff expertise and can work to understand how The City can assist in its success. In reviewing the Hyperloop concept administration consulted with Calgary Economic Development, Innovate Calgary, , TransPod, Delta Loop, State of Nevada, City of and the Provincial and Federal Governments.

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: That the SPC on Transportation and Transit recommend that Council receive this report for information.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION / POLICY On 2017 September 11, Council unanimously approved Notice of Motion, NM2017-33, with the following direction: ADOPT, Moved by Councillor Carra, Seconded by Councillor Pootmans, that Councillor Carra’s Motion, NM2017-33 be adopted, after amendment, as follows: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Administration, in collaboration with Calgary Economic Development, Innovate Calgary and post secondary institutions and within existing budgets, support the development of a research centre and test track as the first steps in determining the viability of this technology and report on progress to the SPC on Transportation and Transit no later than Q2 2018

Approval(s): Thompson, Michael concurs with this report. Author: Sedor, Andrew Page 2 of 4 Item #7.1

Transportation Report to ISC: UNRESTRICTED SPC on Transportation and Transit TT2018-1054 2018 October 04

Hyperloop Development and Testing in Calgary

On 2018 June 25, Council approved a deferral report to defer the Hyperloop Development and Testing in Calgary report to no later than the 2018 October meeting of the SPC on Transportation and Transit.

BACKGROUND Hyperloop Hyperloop is a proposed mode of freight and passenger transportation that uses a vacuum tube system to propel pods at high speeds (over 1,000 km/h) over long distances. The hyperloop technology serves as a potential future alternative to high-speed rail (HSR). While the idea of using a vacuum tube to transport people and goods has been around for over a century, hyperloop has recently been made popular by Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk, when he announced in 2012 that the hyperloop would be the “fifth mode of transport” (the others being: roadway, water, air and rail). Several hyperloop companies have emerged since Musk’s 2012 announcement including Virgin Hyperloop One, Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (HTT), DGWHyperloop, and TransPod. Hyperloop test tracks There are no operating hyperloops in existence and currently only two test tracks in the world: 1. Virgin Hyperloop One’s 500 m test track is in the desert 30 minutes north of Las Vegas. In conversations with the State of Nevada, this location was deemed acceptable as it did not endanger the public or property; in case of an accident, only the surrounding desert would be impacted. The Nevada government was supportive of the test track largely due to the private capital investment of over $120 million USD and the creation of 100 new jobs.

2. A 1.6 km subscale model (a six-foot outer diameter) has been constructed adjacent to SpaceX’s headquarters in Hawthorne, California. Since 2015, SpaceX has hosted a university hyperloop pod competition, which challenges university teams to design and build the best / fastest transport pod and test it at the test track.

Proposed Hyperloop projects 1. In April 2018, HTT started construction of a 320 m test track near its research and development centre in Toulouse, France. It will be the first test track of Hyperloop in Europe. HTT are looking to build a commercial hyperloop in Abu Dhabi for Expo 2020. 2. In February 2018, Virgin Hyperloop One announced it is proposing building a 700 km hyperloop in India between Prune and Mumbai, which would connect around 26 million people. Virgin is looking to construct a 10 km test track in the area, prior to starting the full line. Virgin Hyperloop One also reached an agreement in August 2018 with Spanish state- owned rail infrastructure company, Adif, to build a $500 million research centre in Spain. 3. TransPod has secured 50 million euros of funding and has put in an application to build a 3 km, 2 m diameter test track near Limoges, France.

Approval(s): Thompson, Michael concurs with this report. Author: Sedor, Andrew Page 3 of 4 Item #7.1

Transportation Report to ISC: UNRESTRICTED SPC on Transportation and Transit TT2018-1054 2018 October 04

Hyperloop Development and Testing in Calgary

INVESTIGATION: ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Role of the Municipal Government The City of Calgary has a limited role when it comes to the development of hyperloop technology for use over long distances. The Government of Alberta has jurisdiction over the use of any provincial highway right-of-way as well as intra-provincial short-line railway standards, while the Government of Canada has jurisdiction over federal railways and related standards. Land It is recommended that if a hyperloop test track is built, it is constructed in an isolated area, much like the Nevada test track. Funding The City will be able to provide transportation data and staff expertise. The decision to allow for the construction and operation of a hyperloop test track outside of Calgary falls outside of The City of Calgary’s jurisdiction. The Government of Alberta and/or the Government of Canada would be largely responsible for hyperloop or other high speed intercity transit technologies.

Stakeholder Engagement, Research and Communication Administration consulted with Calgary Economic Development, Innovate Calgary, University of Calgary, TransPod, Delta Loop, State of Nevada, City of Edmonton and the Provincial and Federal Governments. The stakeholder engagement, research and communication results are attached to this report.

Strategic Alignment The only City document that references the hyperloop technology is the Future of Transportation report. The Calgary Transportation Plan looks at high speed rail connections to Edmonton. Future of Transportation – The hyperloop technology is identified as a “medium impact” technology that is in the “concept / prototype stage”. It was recommended that regional plans should not be modified for the technology, and The City should monitor developments with the technology.

Social, Environmental, Economic (External)

Hyperloop test tracks and research centres could attract specialized engineers and researchers in addition to the direct and indirect construction jobs.

Once proven, hyperloop technologies may provide significant travel time savings for people and businesses and could reduce CO2 emissions.

Financial Capacity Current and Future Operating Budget: The information contained in this report contains no decisions that would impact operational budgets.

Approval(s): Thompson, Michael concurs with this report. Author: Sedor, Andrew Page 4 of 4 Item #7.1

Transportation Report to ISC: UNRESTRICTED SPC on Transportation and Transit TT2018-1054 2018 October 04

Hyperloop Development and Testing in Calgary

Current and Future Capital Budget: The information contained in this report contains no decisions that would impact capital budgets.

Risk Assessment It was determined that a hyperloop test track should be outside city limits. Construction of a test track away from built up areas is consistent to what is occurring globally with other hyperloop test tracks.

REASON(S) FOR RECOMMENDATION(S): The development of a privately funded test track outside the city boundary is supported by The City due to the economic and research benefits that could arise from its development. However, due to the hyperloop technology still being in a conceptual/developmental stage, regional plans should not be changed to account for it, and the development of a test track adjacent to a roadway or built up area is not recommended.

ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Hyperloop Stakeholder Engagement

Approval(s): Thompson, Michael concurs with this report. Author: Sedor, Andrew TT2018-1054 Hyperloop Stakeholder Engagement ATTACHMENT Hyperloop Stakeholder Engagement Administration consulted with Calgary Economic Development, Innovate Calgary, University of Calgary, TransPod, Delta Loop, State of Nevada, City of Edmonton and the Provincial and Federal Governments. Below is a summary of the consultations.

Calgary Economic Development Calgary Economic Development can provide a number of services if a hyperloop project in the Calgary region moves forward including: assist with real estate needs, talent attraction from Calgary and international markets, business to business and business to government connections, market and industry research on Calgary, trade and global development, and marketing. Calgary Economic Development has advised that companies can apply through the formal OCIF channels for funding.

Innovate Calgary and The University of Calgary A workshop was held at The University of Calgary in 2017 May on the hyperloop, with Innovate Calgary in attendance. The University of Calgary sees some research potential for the civil engineering faculty if a hyperloop was to be constructed, however the university noted that the hyperloop is not an area of focus and no follow up work has occurred since the 2017 workshop.

The State of Nevada Administration talked with the State of Nevada about their role in the privately funded Virgin Hyperloop One test track located outside of Las Vegas. They stated that they were supportive of the private investment made by the company and provided details to City Administration on the history of the test track.

City of Edmonton The City of Edmonton is preparing a Smart Transportation Action Plan, the purpose of which is to guide decision-making around actions that The City should take to prepare for - and in some cases advance - automated, connected, shared and mobility. As part of the development of the Action Plan, The City is engaging an international subject matter expert (SME) panel with expertise in mobility, transportation, and urban planning. Hyperloop was identified as one of the possible future mobility technologies along with others and presented to the SME panel to advise on the applicability of the technology to Edmonton and how Edmonton could prepare for it. The panel’s findings included:

• Hyperloop technology is a mobility solution that addresses land-based, long distance, high-speed transport needs between major urban hubs. • From an urban perspective, there are likely more important priorities for cities to consider and prepare for in the short term.

TT2018-1054 Hyperloop Development and Testing in Calgary - Att.pdf Page 1 of 2 ISC: Unrestricted Hyperloop Stakeholder Engagement • The technology would likely require an abundance and allocation of long, linear tracks of land to accommodate. • Hyperloop is still undergoing testing so there is still a lot of unknowns and uncertainty as to when it will be available and the operational needs that will be required.

Based on this feedback from the SME panel, the City of Edmonton is not currently pursuing hyperloop technology as an immediate priority in their Smart Transportation Action Plan.

Provincial Government Administration contacted The Government of Alberta to understand their position with respect to hyperloop technology. The Government of Alberta is in ongoing discussions with a hyperloop company to move forward with a safe and suitable hyperloop test track location in the province. At this time, none of the proposed test track sites are adjacent to or within the city of Calgary city limits. Alberta Transportation officials will be in contact with The City of Calgary if any such locations are proposed or under consideration in the future. Administration understands that The Government of Alberta welcomes the development of new and innovative businesses in the province. Such businesses can support Alberta’s economic diversification and growth, as well as contribute to social and environmental vitality.

Federal Government Transport Canada provided the following statement regarding the hyperloop technology: Transport Canada’s Innovation Centre is closely following developments with respect to Hyperloop technology on behalf of the department. For example, the Centre, through its Clean Rail Academic Grant Program, is funding preliminary research into this technology. The Clean Rail Academic Grant Program is part of the Government of Canada’s efforts to reduce emissions from the rail sector, and to support research into new and emerging clean rail technologies. The program provides grants to support academic researchers that are developing emission-reduction technologies and practices. Further research, analysis and pilot deployments are likely required, prior to identifying potential regulatory requirements, guidelines, or industry standards that could emerge as a result of a potential Canadian Hyperloop deployment. The Innovation Centre is considering conducting an in-depth analysis of the technology over the next fiscal year, including potential policy, technical and regulatory issues. Should this work be approved, they will be in touch to discuss potential collaboration opportunities.

TT2018-1054 Hyperloop Development and Testing in Calgary - Att.pdf Page 2 of 2 ISC: Unrestricted Page 1 of 5 Item #7.2

Transportation Report to ISC: UNRESTRICTED SPC on Transportation and Transit TT2018-0979 2018 October 04

Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Transportation Corridor Study Policy (Policy) was approved by Council in 2014 and provided direction to Administration on the engagement of stakeholders during transportation corridor studies. The aim of the Policy was to ensure appropriate levels of engagement were undertaken to allow citizens and stakeholders to participate in the project, to understand the project process and recommendations, and to better reflect citizen desires for the minimization of community impacts.

A review has been undertaken of projects completed since the Policy approval to determine the effectiveness of the Policy implementation. The review was based on the examination of ten case studies and an assessment of their alignment with the Policy, to determine whether any policy amendments were required.

Overall, the case studies showed moderate to strong alignment with the main Policy points. They highlighted lessons learned and successes which can be used to guide future projects. The effectiveness of the Policy has been demonstrated through increased stakeholder acceptance of project recommendations and satisfaction with engagement processes. As such, no amendments to the Policy are recommended.

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: That the SPC on Transportation & Transit receive the Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report for information.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION / POLICY On 2014 July 28, Council approved the Transportation Corridor Study Policy (TT2014-0400). Approval of the Policy included the following recommendation: 4. Direct Administration to report to the SPC on Transportation and Transit no later than the end of Q2 2016 on the implementation of the Policy based on the experience with the Corridor Study and other Transportation corridor studies initiated after approval of the Policy. On 2016 July 04, Council approved the deferral of the update report on the implementation of the Transportation Corridor Study Policy and directed Administration to report back to the SPC on Transportation and Transit no later than Q4 2017. On 2017 December 18, Council approved the deferral of the update report on the implementation of the Transportation Corridor Study Policy and directed Administration to report back to the SPC on Transportation and Transit no later than Q3 2018.

BACKGROUND The City conducts a number of different types of planning studies intended to identify our long-, medium-, and short-term transportation infrastructure needs. At the highest level is the Calgary Transportation Plan (CTP) which sets out the objectives to which all studies must align. Corridor studies are then conducted on specific transportation routes within the city network.

Approval(s): Thompson, Michael concurs with this report. Author: Leonhardt, Heather Page 2 of 5 Item #7.2

Transportation Report to ISC: UNRESTRICTED SPC on Transportation and Transit TT2018-0979 2018 October 04

Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review

A transportation corridor study is a long-term transportation system analysis which examines the current and future transportation planning needs. These studies are typically completed 10 to 30 years in advance of construction to determine the general elements of the corridor, the required right-of-way and associated land impacts. Although long-term in nature, corridor studies impact both current and future citizens. In 2012, Council directed Administration to develop a Corridor Study Policy which would address how citizens were engaged throughout corridor studies and would require that those studies, in addition to the traditional engineering objectives, identify community improvements, focus on the minimization of negative community impacts, and preserve community integrity. The Transportation Corridor Study Policy was approved by Council in 2014 following significant public engagement and has been implemented on all corridor studies undertaken since then. This report provides a review of the implementation of the Transportation Corridor Study Policy since its approval.

INVESTIGATION: ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The purpose of this review was to examine how the Policy has been implemented since its approval and identify if any amendments were required. In order to complete this review, ten projects were examined which have been undertaken since the policy was implemented. As well, project team members including project managers, communication leads and engagement specialists provided feedback and input on the study processes and outcomes. Lastly, where available, reports from external consultants were used to measure outcomes and provide project details. The case studies (Attachment 2) were:  McKnight Transportation Study ( to )  16 Avenue NE Corridor Study (Deerfoot Trail to Barlow Trail)  Crowchild Trail Corridor Study (17 Avenue S to 24 Avenue N)  17 Avenue SE Corridor Study ( to East City Limits)  50 Avenue SW Corridor Study (Crowchild Trail to 14A Street)  South Study  East Study  Deerfoot Trail Study  Shaganappi Trail North Study  / Richmond Road Study The ten case studies comprised a variety of road types, adjacent land use typologies and technical scope. Each project was assessed to determine alignment with key Policy points and to identify successes and lessons learned. The six key policy points examined were:  Use a multi-faceted communications approach  Use the appropriate level of engagement based on classification of corridor, impact to surrounding community and engage! policy  Develop clear definitions of desired outcomes and trade-offs for all modes  Identify existing and potential issues with stakeholders

Approval(s): Thompson, Michael concurs with this report. Author: Leonhardt, Heather Page 3 of 5 Item #7.2

Transportation Report to ISC: UNRESTRICTED SPC on Transportation and Transit TT2018-0979 2018 October 04

Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review

 Develop concepts that preserve the integrity of adjacent communities, identify community improvements, minimize negative impacts, include a ‘do nothing’ concept, include staging/prioritization for interim and ultimate solutions  Communicate timelines/triggers for each concept Overall, the projects all showed moderate to strong alignment with the Policy points. In particular, a fluid and responsive engagement program was very well received by stakeholders on all projects, as was the inclusion of short-term options intended to address issues raised by stakeholders at the project outset. The Transportation Corridor Study Policy has changed the way The City approaches corridor studies in two ways: 1. The defined scope of the technical work undertaken has been consistently broadened to include short-term improvements that provide near-immediate benefit, and the inclusion of ‘do nothing’ options that provide a basis for understanding the benefit of transportation infrastructure investments. 2. The Transportation Corridor Study Policy allows for better scoping of the amount, type and timing of engagement that will be required for the success of the project, but has also provided a commitment for fluidity during the project, and responsiveness to stakeholder needs. The primary objective of the Transportation Corridor Study Policy was to outline The City’s commitment to stakeholders and the public regarding the engagement process to be followed during corridor studies and to provide consistency in the type of information and analysis that would be undertaken and shared. The review conducted indicates that the Transportation Corridor Study Policy, as approved in 2014, achieves its objectives and no amendments are necessary.

Stakeholder Engagement, Research and Communication Project managers, engagement and communication specialists, and technical leads on projects undertaken by Transportation Planning since 2014 provided input on the implementation of the Transportation Corridor Study Policy. Their insights regarding successes, lessons learned and alignment of engagement strategies with the Policy were instrumental in the creation of the case studies which formed the basis of the review. The case studies themselves reflect the broad engagement of citizens, special interest groups, and key stakeholders on transportation projects, as directed by the Transportation Corridor Study Policy and The City’s engage! Policy. Feedback obtained on individual projects indicate a high level of overall satisfaction with the engagement process and opportunities for participation.

Strategic Alignment This review examines how the Transportation Corridor Study Policy has been implemented since its approval. In addition, both the Transportation Corridor Study Policy and the transportation corridor studies examined align with the engage! Policy.

Approval(s): Thompson, Michael concurs with this report. Author: Leonhardt, Heather Page 4 of 5 Item #7.2

Transportation Report to ISC: UNRESTRICTED SPC on Transportation and Transit TT2018-0979 2018 October 04

Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review

Social, Environmental, Economic (External)

This report was reviewed for alignment with The City of Calgary’s Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Policy Framework. The following implications were identified:

Social

The implementation of the Transportation Corridor Study Policy on corridor studies over the past 4 years has demonstrated an increased understanding of stakeholder/citizen needs and has provided opportunities to facilitate community building. Concepts are more robustly evaluated against community priorities and support the preservation of community integrity.

Environmental

The Transportation Corridor Study Policy includes guidance on the minimization of negative impacts to open spaces and encourages the provision of active modes facilities.

Economic

The Transportation Corridor Study Policy requires, where appropriate, the inclusion of a ‘do nothing’ concept and the development and evaluation of short-term recommendations to address current issues. These guidelines assist with the optimization of existing infrastructure and allow for a more robust assessment of investment priorities.

Financial Capacity Current and Future Operating Budget: There are no impacts to the current or future operating budgets. Current and Future Capital Budget: As identified in Attachment 1, engagement costs on projects have increased from approximately 10% of the total consultant budget to between 20% and 30% of the total consultant budget. These additional costs are being managed through existing program funding. Administration will continue to do further evaluation of these costs and identify efficiencies while still conducting meaningful engagement.

Risk Assessment A potential risk of continued implementation of the Transportation Corridor Study Policy is the management of citizen expectations surrounding implementation and funding of short-term recommendations. To mitigate this risk, project teams provide communication throughout the lifecycle of a project to assist citizens in understanding The City’s evaluation and prioritization processes for infrastructure investment.

Approval(s): Thompson, Michael concurs with this report. Author: Leonhardt, Heather Page 5 of 5 Item #7.2

Transportation Report to ISC: UNRESTRICTED SPC on Transportation and Transit TT2018-0979 2018 October 04

Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review

REASON(S) FOR RECOMMENDATION(S): The Transportation Corridor Study Policy review determined that the implementation of the Policy on ten corridor studies undertaken since the Policy’s development has been effective. No changes to the Policy are required to continue its applicable use.

ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Attachment 1 – Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report 2. Attachment 2 – Appendix A: Case Studies

Approval(s): Thompson, Michael concurs with this report. Author: Leonhardt, Heather

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report ATTACHMENT 1

Transportation Corridor Study Policy

Review and Recommendations

October 4, 2018

calgary.ca | contact 311 03

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 1.pdf Page 1 of 14 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Table of Contents Introduction Background 1

Policy Summary 2 Purpose of Review 2 Methodology Overview of Case Studies 3 Analysis Alignment with Policy Points 6 Conclusions Policy Amendments 11 Updates to Guidelines 11 Workplan and Resource Impacts 12

i October 4, 2018 Transportation Corridor Study Policy

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 1.pdf Page 2 of 14 ISC: Unrestricted

Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Introduction right-of-way. However, it has become apparent Background that this strategy does not place an appropriate amount of emphasis on the impacts of roadway The City conducts a number of different types of planning studies on adjacent communities and planning studies intended to identify the long-, citizens. Recognizing this, The City identified a medium-, and short-term needs of the city’s need to create a policy guiding the way corridor transportation infrastructure. At the highest level is studies are conducted to ensure that the process the Calgary Transportation Plan (CTP) which sets incorporates appropriate levels of collaborative out the objectives with which all studies must engagement with the general public and impacted align. Corridor studies are then conducted on stakeholders in an open and transparant manner specific transportation routes within the city throughout the planning process. network. A transportation corridor study is a long- term transportation system analysis which Direction was provided by Council in 2012 to examines the current and future transportation create a Corridor Study Terms of Reference planning needs and is typically completed 10 to Policy which would address (but not be limited to): 30 years in advance of construction to determine the general elements of the roadway (i.e., number • The preservation of community integrity of lanes, cycling facilities, intersection • The identification of community configurations, etc.), the required right-of-way, improvements and associated land impacts. Figure 1 illustrates • The minimization of the negative impacts of the transportation planning spectrum and where corridor improvements on communities corridor studies fit in. • The establishment of clear definitions and corridor study outcomes at the beginning of Although long-term in nature, corridor studies can the process impact both current and future citizens in a • The provision of the establishment of number of different ways. In the past, corridor options and staging of corridor alternatives studies were conducted with an eye towards utilizing criteria such as community impacts, achieving the engineering objectives of the study cost/benefit, traffic optimization and – determination of roadway requirements and feasibility

Figure 1 – Planning Spectrum and Timeframes

1 October 4, 2018 Transportation Corridor Study Policy

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 1.pdf Page 3 of 14 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

• And to develop a new community o Include a ‘do nothing’ concept engagement and communications approach o Include staging and prioritizing which collaborates with stakeholders using both interim and ultimate solutions the engage! policy. • Communicate the approximate timelines and possible triggers for each potential The project team tasked with developing the concept for improvement Corridor Study Policy undertook a literature review, examined a number of case studies, The City will not: conducted a jurisdictional survey, and worked • closely with Calgarians to understand past Review the classification of the experiences and priorities and to collaboratively transportation corridor as part of the create a draft policy document. transportation corridor study process. The policy was approved by Council in 2014. Stakeholders will: • Policy Summary Have an opportunity to participate in an active two way process to develop and The Transportation Corridor Study Policy was evaluate concepts. approved in 2014 following significant public • Have an opportunity to understand the engagement. The policy clarifies what may or may issues and/or need for a transportation not be undertaken as part of a Transportation corridor study. Corridor Study. • Have the ability to follow up on the corridor study process through various engagement The City of Calgary will: and communication tactics. • Undertake Transportation Corridor Studies An accompanying document entitled ‘2014 Interim to facilitate long term growth of the City Transportation Corridor Study Guidelines’ was based on the goals and objectives of the also created to foster an understanding of the CTP. process followed in the undertaking of • Use a multifaceted communications transportation corridor studies by The City. Its approach to communicate with purpose is to supplement the Transportation stakeholders. Corridor Study Policy and facilitate the • Conduct the appropriate level of implementation of appropriate engagement engagement based on the classification of throughout the course of a project. the corridor, impact to the surrounding community and the engage! policy. Purpose of Review • Provide clear definitions of desired outcomes and tradeoffs for the movement of The purpose of this review is to examine the all transportation modes. application of the Transportation Corridor Study • Work with stakeholders to identify existing Policy in the 4 years since its approval and to and potential issues along a transportation identify any required amendments or updates to corridor. enhance its benefit. This review will consist of • Use the issues identified and work with addressing the following three items: stakeholders to develop concepts for improvements to a transportation corridor, 1. Amending the policy if required. • Seek to develop concepts that: 2. Updating the Interim Guidelines as o Preserve the integrity of adjacent necessary to be considered Complete. communities o Identify community improvements 3. Understanding the implications of the o Minimize negative impacts on policy on work plans and resourcing. adjacent land uses and open spaces

2 2 October 4, 2018 Transportation Corridor Study Policy

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 1.pdf Page 4 of 14 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report Methodology 1. Crowchild Trail Corridor Study (17 Avenue In order to complete the review of the S to 24 Avenue N) Transportation Corridor Study Policy and develop the recommendations within this report, ten 2. Shaganappi Trail North Corridor Study projects were examined which have been 3. McKnight Blvd Transportation Study undertaken since the start of development of the (Deerfoot Trail to Barlow Trail) policy. As well, project team members including 4. 16 Avenue NE Corridor Study (Deerfoot project managers, communications leads and Trail to Barlow Trail) engagement specialists provided feedback and input on the study processes and outcomes. 5. 17 Avenue SE Corridor Study (Stoney Trail to East City Limits) Lastly, where available, reports from external consultants were used to measure outcomes and 6. Deerfoot Trail Study provide project details. 7. Glenmore Trail East Study Overview of Case Studies 8. Sarcee Trail / Richmond Road Interchange Study Ten studies were initiated and substantially 9. Shaganappi Trail South Study completed since the Transportation Corridor Study Policy began development in 2012. These 10. 50 Avenue SW Corridor Study (Crowchild Trail to 14A Street) projects were used as case studies to examine the effects of the policy on project outcomes and Corridor studies can be undertaken on any to identify any correlations between policy roadway, regardless of classification. The effectiveness and type of corridor being majority of the corridors identified within the examined. The following sections and figures are CTP fall into the categories of Livable Streets intended to demonstrate the diversity of projects (Parkways, Urban or undertaken; detailed case analyses are provided Neighbourhood Boulevards), Arterial Streets in subsequent sections of the report. or Skeletal Roads. Figure 2 illustrates the types of roadways captured within the ten The ten projects examined were: case studies.

Project Skeletal Road Arterial Street Urban Boulevard Parkway

Crowchild Trail

Shaganappi Trail N

McKnight Blvd

16 Avenue NE

17 Avenue SE

Deerfoot Trail

Glenmore Trail East

Sarcee Tr/Richmond Rd

Shaganappi Trail S

50 Avenue SW

Figure 2 – Case Study Road Classifications

3 3 October 4, 2018 Transportation Corridor Study Policy

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 1.pdf Page 5 of 14 ISC: Unrestricted

Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report The Transportation Corridor Study Policy was the surrounding land uses and community fabric developed in response to concerns from the public, forms a basis of the policy. Figure 3 illustrates the in part regarding the need to be more mindful of the variety of adjacent land use typologies found along impacts of road studies on the adjacent the case study corridors. communities. The need to understand the context of

Development of the Transportation Corridor Study policy, all new projects were initiated under the Policy began in 2012, with Council approval of the guidance of the policy. Figure 4 depicts the final draft occurring in 2014. During that time, timelines of the ten case studies, showing initiation, ongoing projects were modified as the learnings of completion and any re-scoping due to policy the policy became apparent; after approval of the development.

Project Center Standard Industrial Corridors Inner City Greenfield Residential Community Established Space Green Major Activity Activity Center Urban Corridor Neighbourhood

Crowchild Trail

Shaganappi Trail N

McKnight Blvd

16 Avenue NE

17 Avenue SE

Deerfoot Trail

Glenmore Trail East Sarcee Trail/Richmond

Rd

Shaganappi Trail S

50 Avenue SW Figure 3 – Case Study Land Use Typologies

4 4 October 4, 2018 Transportation Corridor Study Policy

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 1.pdf Page 6 of 14 ISC: Unrestricted

Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Figure 4 – Case Study Timelines

5 5 October 4, 2018 Transportation Corridor Study Policy

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 1.pdf Page 7 of 14 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report Analysis

The case studies provide details related to each Alignment with Policy Points project’s alignment with the Transportation Corridor Study Policy, the successes and lessons Understanding how well the case study projects learned for each project and the overall have achieved alignment with the Transportation engagement process undertaken. This section of Corridor Study Policy’s main points indicates both the review is intended to synthesize the trends the appropriateness of the policy points and their observed from the ten case studies and identify relative impact on project success. Figure 5 any areas of improvement or recommendations provides a summary of the case studies’ for policy amendment. alignment, engagement budget (as a percentage of the overall consultant budget), project duration and highlights of successes and lessons learned.

Figure 5 – Case Study Summary

Overall Project Engagement Project Policy Duration Notes Budget (%) Alignment (months)

• The inclusion of the ‘do-nothing’ option allowed stakeholders to provide informed feedback on the highest value investment decision McKnight Blvd 36% 48 • The formation of an Advisory Group would be more appropriate on a project with complex issues and differing interest groups • There was little focus on short-term improvements or communicating the impacts of the ‘do-nothing’ option 16 Avenue NE 18% 54 • Original stakeholder list didn’t include some adjacent communities; the stakeholder list was later expanded • The development of the engagement process was stakeholder-driven so there was a high level of satisfaction Crowchild Trail 55% 32 with the process

• Communication focused on building line-of-sight between engagement and technical progress • Very fluid engagement plan to respond to changes in stakeholder interest levels throughout the project 17 Avenue SE 26% 19 • Clear definition of project boundaries and what elements/decisions were not included in the study scope

6 6 October 4, 2018 Transportation Corridor Study Policy

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 1.pdf Page 8 of 14 ISC: Unrestricted

Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Overall Project Engagement Project Policy Duration Notes Budget (%) Alignment (months)

• Clearly defined benefits and trade-offs of accommodating various users in a retro-fit situation were communicated 50 Avenue SW 35% 18 • The short-term plan developed to address numerous community concerns was well-received • The short-term plan was developed in close collaboration with local residents based on their desire to understand and influence impacts to their Shaganappi 45% 36 neighbourhood Trail S • Significant work was done to adjust the engagement plan throughout the project to respond to stakeholder needs • Little information was shared regarding staging information and timelines Glenmore Trail 17% 30 • Key stakeholders were closely East involved in concept refinement to minimize impacts • Partnership with Alberta Transportation resulted in a communications/engagement plan that Deerfoot Trail 17% Ongoing was acceptable to both authorities

• Significant participation in online events is appropriate given the length and breadth of the corridor • Scope of engagement was revised post Policy approval and better reflected stakeholder needs Shaganappi • 21% 36 Project team was responsive in Trail N examining alternative technical solutions when faced with significant stakeholder concerns regarding impacts on the community 10% 30 • Engagement level was appropriate given work had previously been done Sarcee Tr / to confirm interchange need Richmond Rd • The evaluation criteria reflected the benefits and tradeoffs of different modes Strong alignment Moderate alignment Weak alignment

7 7 October 4, 2018 Transportation Corridor Study Policy

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 1.pdf Page 9 of 14 ISC: Unrestricted

Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report as have substantial insight into area stakeholders’ Policy Point 1: Use of a multi-faceted interests and a strong understanding of risk communications approach factors such as other previous or ongoing projects in the area. In general, the projects all had fair to strong alignment with this policy point. The breadth of Although this policy point is deliberately non- communications and engagement tactics prescriptive, the case studies provide additional available to project staff, and the variety used, is insight into how the ‘appropriate level of reflected in the reach achieved. Public feedback engagement’ can be determined for a specific reflected an appreciation for the variety of project. The McKnight Blvd Transportation Study communications outlets as well as the balance of is an example of a project where the level of in-person and online opportunities. As well, the engagement was higher than necessary for the varied use of traditional open houses, community level of complexity and impact of the project, and pop-up events, workshops and select stakeholder interest and involvement of stakeholders waned groups as appropriate was well rececived. as the project progressed. The Crowchild Trail Corridor Study, on the other hand, demonstrates Requesting input from the public and stakeholders how the original scope assumed a level of at project initiation allows the project team to engagement based primarily on the road adjust the engagement process and scope to classification and neglected to account for the address the specific desires of the affected influence of impacts on the surrounding stakeholder groups and the public, in a project- communities on the engagement requirements of specific manner. This does result in difficulties stakeholders. The revised scope of the Crowchild with delineating a project scope in the pre- Trail Corridor Study was much better aligned with planning and pre-procurement stages of the stakeholder needs, reflected an understanding of project, however, and can result in a misalignment the influence of community impacts on the level of of anticipated and actual budgets and scope. interest and involvement of stakeholders, and the outcome was much more positive in terms of the The process has worked well on projects where level of understanding and acceptance of the the preferred consultant has a strong recommendations. understanding of the Transportation Corridor Study Policy, the importance of structuring the Policy Point 3: Provide clear definitions engagement process correctly and has of desired outcomes and tradeoffs for demonstrated flexibility in adjusting the project scope to reflect the learnings of the initial all modes engagement events. This policy point reflects both the changing nature Policy Point 2: Appropriate level of of the scope of corridor studies in terms of accommodating the users of a variety of engagement based on classification of transportation modes and the importance of corridor, impact to surrounding communicating the necessity of balancing the community and engage! policy interests of a variety of perspectives. Previously, transportation corridor studies focused primarily Alignment with this policy point is critical to the on the needs of vehicles, and ‘balance’ was success of the project. The ‘appropriate level of reflected generally in cost and land versus engagement’ is a highly subjective statement and mobility. Today, we examine corridor studies from requires the project team (encompassing project the perspective of improving travel choices, and manager, communications and engagement staff need to more clearly reflect the tradeoffs between and consultant) outline clearly at the pre-planning modes as well as associated impacts such as stage the project objectives and anticipated extent cost, land and environment. of impacts of potential recommendations, as well

8 8 October 4, 2018 Transportation Corridor Study Policy

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 1.pdf Page 10 of 14 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

The Shaganappi Trail North Corridor Study addressed. The importance of communicating that provides an example of outlining how the the concerns were heard by the project team incorporation of enhanced mobility for vehicles cannot be understated. would affect the adjacent communities and where a balance of needs was required. The 50 Avenue The second lesson learned is related to the S.W. Corridor Study very clearly outlined the importance of outlining project constraints early in opportunities for each concept in terms of the project. Being open and transparent as to why accommodating the various modes of travel, and certain topics/issues may be ‘off the table’ can go allowed stakeholders to understand that, in a a long way to fostering an environment of trust retrofit situation, not all modes can be and communication between the project team and accommodated to the highest degree without the stakeholders and public. The 50 Avenue S.W. associated land and cost impacts. Clearly Corridor Study clearly stated at the project outset outlining the balance of perspectives resulted in that no modifications to the Crowchild Trail the public and stakeholders reaching a level of interchange would be considered. This helped acceptance with recommendations while feeling focus stakeholders on identifying issues and informed as to the tradeoffs. concerns that the project team had the ability to address. Similarly, the Crowchild Trail Corridor In previous studies, stakeholder dissatisfaction Study was clear from the project outset that a often resulted from a perception, at the reclassification of the roadway would not be completion of the study, that they hadn’t fully considered and this helped alleviate stakeholder understood the impacts or tradeoffs of the frustration. recommendations, and that they would have made a different choice or provided different input Policy Point 5: Develop concepts that had they seen the complete picture. Alignment preserve the integrity of adjacent with this policy point has diminished the frequency communities, identify community of this issue at project completion. improvements, minimize negative Policy Point 4: Work with stakeholders impacts, include a ‘do nothing’ to identify existing and potential issues concept, include staging/prioritization for interim and ultimate solutions In general, the case study projects have shown strong alignment with this policy point. Of equal In general, the case study projects achieved importance to working with stakeholders to varying levels of alignment with this policy point. identify existing and potential issues in the early In most cases, an understanding of the need to stages of the project is following through on minimize negative impacts was recognized, addressing the issues raised as the project although ‘negative impacts’ can be subjective as progresses, where possible, and explaining why well. The balance of minimizing negative impacts they are not addressed if they cannot be. This is while still achieving project objectives can be known as answering ‘if not, why not’. Without difficult if stakeholders and the public do not providing that line of sight for stakeholders, the support the project objectives in the first place. An recommendations at project completion may be example of this is the incorporation of bike seen as not reflective of stakeholder concerns, facilities which may reduce opportunities for other misaligned with their understanding of the project roadway elements (e.g., green boulevards or objectives and can lead to a feeling of ‘why did travel lanes) or increase land requirements or you bother asking?’. costs. For stakeholders who do not clearly see the benefits of accommodating cyclists, they may feel There were two key lessons learned on the case that negative impacts have not been minimized to study projects related to this policy point. The first the fullest extent possible. This occurred on the was mentioned above – the importance of .E. Functional Planning Study where addressing the issues raised or providing an the incorporation of bike lanes was not seen as explanation as to why they could not be

9 9 October 4, 2018 Transportation Corridor Study Policy

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 1.pdf Page 11 of 14 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

outweighing the associated impacts of additional A long term project such as the 17 Avenue S.E. required right-of-way. (East of Stoney Trail) Corridor Study, for example, is almost wholly dependent on adjacent The inclusion of a ‘do nothing’ concept was development occurring for funding and generally well received on the case study implementation. While the project team was able projects. As part of the McKnight Blvd to share a possible staging scenario, there was no Transportation Study, stakeholders and the public certainty on timing. For stakeholders and the provided informed feedback that they saw the public who have invested time in participating in highest value in waiting for long-term grade the project, this can result in frustration over not separation improvements at some locations, having a sense of when, if at all, the rather than achieving limited benefits through recommendations will be realized. short-term investment, regardless of the scale of cost. On the 50 Avenue S.W. Corridor Study and Although the case studies highlight the difficulties the South Shaganappi Study, public and associated with strong alignment to this policy stakeholder feedback changed from a belief that point as written, alternative messaging was found no changes or investment were needed to an to help the public and stakeholders.For example, understanding that there is a cost associated with although the 17 Avenue S.E. Corridor Study ‘doing nothing’ and that a higher overall value project team could not communicate specific could be achieved through making more timelines for implementation, an explanation of appropriate investment decisions. ‘next steps’ throughout the project gave stakeholders an understanding of The City’s In general, most of the case study projects were prioritization, funding and implementation able to provide staging and prioritization scenarios processes. The project team shared that, upon for interim and ultimate solutions. approval at the corridor study level, projects are evaluated against each other based on items Policy Point 6: Communicate timelines such as need, availability of right-of-way, / triggers for each concept readiness for construction, etc. Once funding is secured, the project then moves into preliminary Alignment with this policy point was moderate for design, detailed design and finally construction. most of the case study projects. Although there is This process outline allows stakeholders to a clear desire from stakeholders and the public to understand that its appearance on the Investing in really understand timelines associated with study Mobility list and the initiation of preliminary design recommendations, the long term, unfunded and are indicators that the project is moving forward. unapproved nature of corridor studies results in difficulties providing this information with any degree of accuracy.

0 10 October 4, 2018 Transportation Corridor Study Policy

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 1.pdf Page 12 of 14 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report Conclusions

This review was undertaken to determine: variety of factors which individualize each corridor study, regardless of corridor type (see Figure 3: 1. Any required amendments to the Policy. Case Study Land Use Typologies), such a prescriptive approach would likely result in a lack 2. Required updates to the Interim of responsiveness to stakeholder needs and an Guidelines. increase in unresolved issues throughout the project. 3. The implications of the Policy on work plans and resourcing. The development of the ten case studies used in this review should provide additional information Policy Amendments which practitioners can use to inform the case-by- case determination of ‘appropriate’ levels of The primary objective of the Transportation engagement, without the need for a prescriptive Corridor Study Policy was to outline The City’s policy. commitment to stakeholders and the public regarding the engagement process to be followed Conclusion: The Transportation Corridor during corridor studies and to provide consistency Study Policy, as approved, achieves its in the type of information and analysis that would objectives and no amendments are necessary. be undertaken and shared. Updates to 2014 Interim Transportation The Transportation Corridor Study Policy has changed the way The City approaches corridor Corridor Study Guidelines studies in two ways: The 2014 Interim Transportation Corridor Study 1. The defined scope of the technical work Guidelines supplement the Transportation undertaken has been consistently broadened Corridor Study Policy and provide detailed to include short-term improvements that information regarding the technical and provide near-immediate benefit, and the engagement processes undertaken when inclusion of ‘do-nothing’ options that provide a completing a corridor study. Their aim is to basis for understanding the benefit of provide practitioners, stakeholders and the public transportation infrastructure investments. with a consistent understanding of the commitments The City has made regarding 2. The Transportation Corridor Study Policy engagement on corridor studies, and to provide allows us to better scope the amount, type suggestions for implementing appropriate and timing of engagement that will be required engagement which aligns with the Transportation for the success of the project, but has also Corridor Study Policy. provided a commitment for fluidity during the project, and responsiveness to stakeholder The Guidelines were developed through needs. examination of case studies of projects completed prior to the development of the Policy and were One of the outstanding questions during the intended to provide guidance on filling in creation of the Policy in 2014 was whether it engagement gaps that were identified in those should be more prescriptive in terms of outlining projects. Projects completed subsequent to the the ‘appropriate’ level of engagement based on Policy’s approval provide examples of how the corridor type. The benefit of a more prescriptive Policy was implemented and what level of approach would be the transparency of the ‘appropriate’ engagement was determined based process for stakeholders, consistency across on project type. Categorizing the case study similar types of projects, and the setting and projects by road type and land use provides meeting of expectations. However, given the wide relevant information for use on similar projects.

1 11 October 4, 2018 Transportation Corridor Study Policy

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 1.pdf Page 13 of 14 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

As such, the case studies used in this review of the year which less suitable for engagement would enhance the application of the Guidelines activities, such as during summer and Christmas for future transportation corridor studies. holidays. In addition, the feedback obtained during engagement phases must be synthesized Conclusion: Update the 2014 Interim and interpreted for inclusion in the technical work Transportation Corridor Study Guidelines by: being undertaken by the project team. The result is that there may be times throughout the project • Replacing the 2014 case studies with where work cannot advance until the next phase those developed as part of this review of engagement is undertaken. In general, corridor • Including a section summarizing this studies are taking anywhere from 24 to 42 months review and its conclusions to complete. Prior to the Policy implementation, a more typical project duration would be 18 to 30 • Updating the title to 2018 months. Transportation Corridor Study Understanding the implications of implementation Guidelines of the Policy requires that extended project • Updating the document to reflect timelines and budgets be accommodated during current City of Calgary branding and annual work plan and budgeting exercises. report templates Conclusion: Work planning and project Work Planning and Resourcing resourcing should account for longer project timelines and increased budgets to align with The case studies highlight the effectiveness of the the Transportation Corridor Study Policy. Policy and the successes seen on projects post- implementation in terms of transparency, stakeholder acceptance and minimization of unresolved issues at project close. In order to implement the Policy, changes have been made to both work planning and resourcing of projects. In general, both budget and schedule of projects have increased since the Policy’s approval. The additional and enhanced engagement being undertaken has budget implications. A typical transportation corridor study, before Policy implementation, would see approximately 10% of the consultant’s budget being used for engagement. Our case studies show that more recent projects are allocating between 20% and 30% of the consultant budget towards engagement. As a result, overall project budgets have increased.

In addition, the need to provide an appropriate level of engagement as well as working with stakeholders early in the project process to identify existing issues has led to the use of 3 to 5 phase engagement strategies rather than the 2 to 3 phases previously accounted for. Project schedules are now primarily driven by the need to appropriately time engagement and communication activities. There are specific times

2 12 October 4, 2018 Transportation Corridor Study Policy

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 1.pdf Page 14 of 14 ISC: Unrestricted TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report ATTACHMENT 2 Crowchild Trail Corridor Study

Roadway Classification: Skeletal Road Adjacent Land Uses: Established Residential, Inner City, Major Activity Center

Project Objective: Crowchild Trail is a skeletal road and the primary north- south link across the west side of Calgary and connecting to Start Date: February 2010 major destinations across the city. This was identified as Re-scoped: August 2014 early as 1959 and has been confirmed through a number of Completion Date: April 2017 transportation plans over the past decades, including the % of Budget for Engagement: 55% 1978 plan for Crowchild Trail and in Calgary’s 60-year Calgary Transportation Plan (CTP).

Over the next 30 to 60 years, Calgary’s population is expected to more than double. The Crowchild Trail Study was initiated to address issues on Crowchild Trail today and accommodate its long-term transportation needs as Calgary’s population grows in the coming decades.

Some key issues and challenges that were addressed by the Crowchild Trail Study include:

• Traffic merging and weaving on the bridge over the and at intersections along the corridor • Bottlenecks that have resulted from high volumes of traffic, lane reductions, and lane changes in short distances (e.g. Bow River Bridge) along the roadway • Balancing what’s important to communities that border the study area and the needs of Calgary’s transportation network • Identifying upgrades for the Crowchild Trail corridor that will support its role in the Calgary Transportation Plan

Crowchild Trail Corridor Study Page 1

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 1 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Corridor Characteristics: Crowchild Trail is a skeletal road that carries a large amount of vehicular traffic and supports the transportation needs of people and the movements of goods city-wide. It is also an important transit corridor and has been identified as part of the Primary Transit Network, providing for frequent, fast, and reliable bus service. It is also a primary route for the delivery of emergency response and health services for Calgarians and southern Alberta and it connects key destinations including universities, shopping centres, stadiums and hospitals. Crowchild Trail is also an important river crossing for a wide area of the city.

The Crowchild Trail Corridor Study encompassed the length of the corridor from 24 Avenue N.W. to 17 Avenue S.W. South of the river, Crowchild Trail was designed as a skeletal road and is accessed via interchanges. North of the river is the older segment of the corridor, and there are a number of at-grade intersections and commercial access points. The residential neighbourhoods on either side of the corridor are built quite close. The corridor varies between a four and six lane divided cross section and carries between 81,000 and 107,000 vehicles per day.

Study Process: The Crowchild Trail Study was first initiated in 2010; the project team examined the role and function of Crowchild Trail, developed preliminary design concepts and presented them to the public in Fall 2012 for discussion. At that time, public concerns were raised regarding the potential impacts of the options and the perception that the opportunity for input and influence had already passed. This resulted in Council’s Notice of Motion 2012-51 which stopped work on the Crowchild Trail Corridor Study and directed the creation of a new policy that would guide how corridor studies are conducted, including an engagement process that seeks the public’s input before design concepts are developed. The Transportation Corridor Study Policy was approved in July 2014, and the Crowchild Trail Corridor Study was re-initiated and re-scoped to align with the Transportation Corridor Study Policy.

In developing the revised study process, the following were taken into consideration:

• Outcomes of the study are perceived to be of high risk to those who live in adjacent communities – risks to their home, community and livelihood • The 2010-2012 iteration of the study left a strong, negative impression amongst community members. There was a prevailing sense that The City’s engagement efforts were only lip service to the public – that decisions had already been made and The City was not truly asking for meaningful input • There were two key positions among stakeholders – adjacent communities and commuters – with opposing interests

Three key principles from the Transportation Corridor Study Policy formed the foundation of the study process:

• Key Principle #1: Maintain and enhance bordering communities • Key Principle #2: Improve travel along the corridor

Crowchild Trail Corridor Study Page 2

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 2 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

• Key Principle #3: Improve mobility across the corridor

Given these considerations, a six phase study process was developed, which would include appropriate engagement at each phase, as required by the Transportation Corridor Study Policy. Engagement throughout the study maintained a focus on building participant and project team understanding of differing perspectives relating to Crowchild Trail and how to balance those within the parameters of the study.

The revised study process is outlined in Figure 1 and elaborated on below:

Figure 1 – Engagement Process Diagram Used During Study

Phase 1: Engagement Process Design Phase 1 was about determining how to engage communities and Calgarians throughout all phases of the Crowchild Trail Study. An engagement design team (EDT) was established to work with the project team to develop an engagement process for the project. Engagement events were selected to facilitate focused discussions with key stakeholders representing diverse perspectives including neighbouring communities, the broader community of Calgary, differing socio-demographics and different types of Crowchild Trail users.

Engagement events during Phase 1 consisted of 3 EDT Workshops with 18 attendees and online participation, with approximately 500 respondents.

Phase 2: Confirm Project Goals The second phase of engagement was about understanding what was important to stakeholders when thinking about maintaining and enhancing bordering communities, and improving travel along and across the Crowchild Trail corridor. The project team worked with stakeholders and Calgarians to develop goals and measures that defined success for the project. Engagement events were to obtain feedback from a broad audience.

Engagement events during Phase 2 consisted of 25 workshops, bus and walking tours and community events; 3 rounds of online participation; and 2 open houses; drawing over 850 participants online.

Phase 3: Concept Identification The third phase of engagement was about identifying and evaluating ideas on possible changes to Crowchild Trail. Engagement events were selected to provide opportunities for the two-way sharing of ideas from a broad audience.

Crowchild Trail Corridor Study Page 3

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 3 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Engagement events during Phase 3 consisted of 6 stakeholder and public workshops, 2 rounds of online participation, 7 public drop in sessions, 5 idea boards and 6 stakeholder and public open houses; over 500 unique ideas were submitted.

Phase 4: Concept Evaluation The fourth phase of engagement was about evaluating the preliminary concepts for Crowchild Trail. Engagement events were selected to provide opportunities for input from a broad audience.

Engagement events during Phase 4 consisted of 7 stakeholder and public workshops, 3 walking tours, 3 drop-in events and online participation; over 9,500 participants submitted online evaluations.

Phase 5: Concept Selection The fifth phase of engagement was about presenting the draft recommended short, medium-long term and long-term plans for evaluation, with participants being asked to identify strengths and weaknesses of the plan in order to help the project team refine and finalize the plans. Engagement events were selected to obtain input from a broad audience.

Engagement events during Phase 5 consisted of 9 open houses and drop-in events and online participation; over 780 participants attended in-person events and over 6,700 users participated online.

Phase 6: Reporting and Completion The sixth and final phase of engagement was to review and refine the recommended concepts and verify that the project goals were met. Engagement events were selected to facilitate the sharing of information with a broad audience.

The Phase 6 engagement events consisted of 2 public open house and online participation; approximately 180 participants attended the open houses.

Alignment with Corridor Study Policy: The Crowchild Trail Corridor Study was re-scoped after work on the project was stopped in order to create the Transportation Corridor Study Policy. Table 1 below summarizes the study’s original and revised alignment with the policy:

Table 1 – Policy Alignment

Policy Point Alignment Notes

Use of a multi-faceted • Engagement events consisted of: Open houses communications approach Original o Workshops Scope: o o Bus and walking tours Drop-in community events o o Internal and external stakeholder meetings o One-on-one meetings o Online participation

Crowchild Trail Corridor Study Page 4

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 4 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Policy Point Alignment Notes

Revised o Community idea boards Scope: • Communications tools included: o Email distribution list o Bus shelter ads o Radio ads o Project video / Report to Calgarians o Digital Display Units o Community Association newsletters o Direct mailing o Project website o Roadside signs o Social media

Appropriate level of • The original scope for engagement was focused on engagement based on: the classification of the corridor as a Skeletal Road and assumed and understanding and acceptance of • Classification of corridor the project objectives based on Crowchild Trail’s • Impact to surrounding Original function as a high volume network road community Scope: • The revised scope developed an engagement • Engage! policy process that accounted for both the classification of the roadway and the impacts to the surrounding communities by bringing different perspectives to Revised the table Scope: • The revised scope provided additional engagement opportunities, more detailed information to aid in understanding project objectives and superior responsiveness in incorporating feedback into option development, evaluation, selection and refinement

Provide clear definitions of Original • The classification of Crowchild Trail as a Skeletal desired outcomes and Scope: Road focused the original scope on the benefits of tradeoffs for all modes the concepts for the movement of vehicles • The revised scope outlined benefits and tradeoffs for all modes, and looked for opportunities to Revised enhance mobility, connectivity and access for Scope: pedestrians and cyclists along and across the corridor

Crowchild Trail Corridor Study Page 5

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 5 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Policy Point Alignment Notes

Work with stakeholders to • The original scope included an online survey at the identify existing and project outset which allowed for input from potential issues stakeholders regarding existing issues and concerns. However, there was no follow up indicating how those concerns were being incorporated into the Original project or addressed in the concepts developed, nor Scope: was there any opportunity for face-to-face discussions with stakeholders and concerned citizens. • The revised scope numerous in-person Revised opportunities for engagement throughout the Scope: project process, including bus and walking tours, community drop-in events and community idea boards. The project team incorporated and addressed existing and potential issues as brought forward by stakeholders and the public and was very transparent in sharing the reasons why some feedback could not be incorporated.

Develop concepts that: • The original concepts prioritized the project objectives of increasing corridor capacity over the • Preserve the integrity of minimization of property impacts, did not identify adjacent communities short-term community-level improvements and • Identify community were not reflective of an understanding of improvements Original community priorities and needs • Minimize negative Scope: • The project team worked closely with stakeholders impacts under the revised scope to develop options which • Include a ‘do nothing’ would better reflect the specific needs of certain concept segments of the corridor and managed to minimize • Including Revised property impacts while achieving project objectives staging/prioritization for Scope: • The project team worked closely with stakeholders interim and ultimate under the revised scope to include solutions recommendations for improvements that would benefit neighbouring communities, such as enhanced green spaces, better pedestrian and cyclist mobility across the corridor, and addressing noise concerns through concept refinements

Communicate timelines / Original • The final open house focused messaging on the long triggers for each concept Scope: term plan which is currently without specific timing

Crowchild Trail Corridor Study Page 6

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 6 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Policy Point Alignment Notes

Revised Scope:

Strong alignment Moderate alignment Weak alignment

Project Status The Crowchild Trail Corridor Study was completed in late 2016 with Council approval of the short- and long-term recommendations obtained in April 2017.

Successes and Lessons Learned The Crowchild Trail Corridor Study saw the following successes:

• Feedback from the public on the engagement process shifted very clearly from Phase 1, with lingering trust issues from the 2010-2012 iteration, to Phase 6, where the majority of feedback received indicated acceptance of project outcomes, satisfaction with engagement opportunities and an overall sense of process transparency and trust • Final recommendations which achieve the project objectives, similar to those of the 2010-2012 iteration, but enhanced to better serve the adjacent communities and provide ‘value-added’ improvements to local, community-level issues and concerns

The Crowchild Trail Corridor Study provided the following lessons learned:

• Early in the process, the project team received criticism for limiting the size of the Engagement Design Team in Phase 1. Those who criticized the process felt excluded because they did not have the opportunity to provide input, which in turn contributed to their sense of distrust. The project team was responsive to this concern and offered an online questionnaire available to the public for input on engagement. • The project team made a commitment to demonstrating how stakeholder input was used, or if it could not be used, why not. This proved to be a vitally important step to building trust with stakeholders and to building confidence with the project team’s ultimate recommendations. • The engagement process was designed to give equal consideration to all points of view and to create an environment where stakeholders could hear different perspectives and help find common ground. Furthermore, no additional weight was given to responses that were heard more frequently. This was aided by focusing on the ‘why’ (for example: benefits, impacts, constraints and trade-offs) as much as the ‘what’. • Given the wide area and complex nature of the study, there was a potential risk of ‘information overload’ for stakeholders. The engagement process helped manage this by focusing discussion

Crowchild Trail Corridor Study Page 7

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 7 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

on specific topics at specific times in the study, and by progressively building a Project Library of background information, project information, and historical data that was available at all times.

Crowchild Trail Corridor Study Page 8

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 8 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report Shaganappi Trail North Corridor Study

Roadway Classification: Arterial Street, Skeletal Road Adjacent Land Uses: Established Residential, Inner City, Major Activity Center, Community Activity Center

Project Objective: Transportation Planning conducted a study of the Shaganappi Trail corridor between north of 16 Avenue and Start Date: February 2012 Stoney Trail. The study looked at how best to Re-scoped: February 2013 accommodate all modes of transportation (walking, Completion Date: February 2015 cycling, transit and driving), including High Occupancy % of Budget for Engagement: 21% Vehicle (HOV) lanes, in a long-term vision for Shaganappi Trail.

The Shaganappi Trail study was made up of two components:

1. Corridor Study from north of 16 Avenue N to Crowchild Trail N.W. 2. HOV Implementation Study from north of 16 Avenue N to Stoney Trail N.W.

The Study was undertaken after the 2009 Calgary Transportation Plan re-designated Shaganappi Trail from a Skeletal Road to an Arterial Street south of Crowchild Trail N.W. and identified Shaganappi Trail as part of the Primary Transit Network, Primary HOV Network and Primary Cycling Network. As such, a new plan that recognized the desired characteristics of the roadway was required.

The Shaganappi Trail Corridor Study was also required in order to consider other planning initiatives in the area such as the University of Calgary Master Plan, West Campus Master Plan and South Shaganappi Communities Area Plan. An analysis of future traffic volumes indicated that by 2039 traffic volume increases on Shaganappi Trail would be 40 percent over capacity if no changes were made to the existing roadway configuration, potentially creating gridlock conditions and unreliable transit service. For this reason, a full evaluation of the future HOV lanes on Shaganappi Trail was completed.

Shaganappi Trail North Corridor Study Page 1

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 9 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

The purpose of this study was two-fold:

1. To align future corridor plans for Shaganappi Trail with the Calgary Transportation Plan (CTP) and land use plans. 2. To develop a long-term vision for Shaganappi Trail that accommodates all modes of transportation and is integrated with surrounding communities and land uses.

Corridor Characteristics: The Shaganappi Trail corridor transitions through a number of adjacent land use types. At the south end, the inner city community of Montgomery is on the west side; on the east side is a Major Activity Centre which houses the Alberta Children’s Hospital and the University of Calgary West Campus. Moving north, the corridor travels through several commercial and established residential zones, and forms the western border of , a significant urban natural environment park.

The Shaganappi Trail corridor has generally four core lanes, although it widens to five or six lanes in some areas. Overall, the existing right-of-way varies between 45 m and 65 m. The constrained section is located between 40 Avenue N and Crowchild Trail. This segment accommodates not only Shaganappi Trail itself, but also parallel residential frontage streets on both sides of the corridor. These residential frontage streets currently provide for two-way driving plus on-street parking.

Existing access along the corridor is well controlled with appropriate spacing between intersections. As a former skeletal road, active modes are not well accommodated along Shaganappi Trail, with discontinuous sidewalks or pathways. Access across Shaganappi Trail is provided at signalized intersections as well as via three pedestrian overpasses.

Study Process: The Shaganappi Trail North Corridor Study was initiated in February 2012 (prior to the creation of the Transportation Corridor Study Policy) and was scoped in the traditional manner of conducting corridor studies. Internal and external stakeholder meetings were held early in the process and informed the development of options, which were then presented to the public for feedback. External stakeholders primarily included representatives from Community Associations and businesses.

The first open house was held in late 2012 and presented preliminary concepts for the corridor. There were significant concerns raised by landowners impacted by potential widening of Shaganappi Trail in the constrained section between 40 Avenue N.W. and Crowchild Trail. These concerns coincided with Council’s direction that Administration review requirements for corridor studies, particularly how The City would consult with communities and stakeholders to minimize impacts to adjacent land uses and develop options for staging and prioritizing interim and ultimate solutions.

The project team took this opportunity to re-scope the Shaganappi Trail North Corridor Study in Q1 of 2013 to better engage a broader cross section of the community with respect to concept development and evaluation.

The revised study process is outlined in Table 1 and elaborated on below:

Shaganappi Trail North Corridor Study Page 2

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 10 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Table 1 – Engagement Process Table Used During Study

Phase Purpose Dates

1 Stakeholder introduction July 2012

2 Public introduction and review of preliminary concepts Oct / Nov 2012

3* Community conversations to review preliminary concepts March / April 2013

4* Community conversations to review refined options Oct / Nov 2013

5* Review recommendations with adjacent homeowners Feb / April 2014

6 Open House to review recommended plan May 2014

* Additional phases as a result of project process re-scoping

Phase 1: Stakeholder Introduction The initial phase of engagement occurred at the outset of the study, to meet with internal and external stakeholders identified by the project team. The purpose of the meetings was to introduce the study, establish lines of communication, and obtain initial input on the scope of the corridor study. Engagement events were selected to reach a specific group of identified stakeholders.

Engagement events during Phase 1 consisted of internal and external stakeholder meetings.

Phase 2: Public Introduction and Review of Preliminary Concepts The second phase of engagement kicked off the broader public engagement component of the study, and included initial review of preliminary corridor concepts. Engagement events were selected to share information with a broad audience.

Engagement events during Phase 2 consisted of internal and external stakeholder meetings, a public open house and online participation; approximately 130 participants attended the open house.

After Phase 2, the project was re-scoped to better reflect the objectives and direction of the new Transportation Corridor Study Policy that was being developed.

Phase 3: Community Conversations to Review Preliminary Concepts The third phase of engagement was included to allow participants the opportunity to better understand the study and concepts presented during Phase 2. The Community Conversations were intended to identify and prioritize public suggestions and ideas. Engagement events were selected to provide opportunities for two-way dialogue with focused groups representing a broad audience.

Shaganappi Trail North Corridor Study Page 3

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 11 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Engagement events during Phase 3 consisted of internal and external stakeholder meetings, a site tour, and 2 Community Conversations; over 100 participants attended the Community Conversations.

Phase 4: Community Conversations to Review Refined Options The fourth phase of engagement involved a review of refined options that were developed in response to prior public input and continued technical evaluation. Engagement events were selected to share information with stakeholders and obtain input from a broad audience.

Engagement events during Phase 4 consisted of internal and external stakeholder meetings and 2 Community Conversations; over 80 participants attended the Community Conversations.

Phase 5: Review Recommendations with Adjacent Homeowners The fifth phase of engagement was undertaken in response to requests for individual meetings from several homeowners most directly impacted by the recommendations. Engagement events were selected to provide opportunities for two-way dialogue with focused groups.

Engagement events during Phase 5 consisted of one-on-one meetings and an invite-only Community Conversation; over 40 participants attended the Community Conversations.

Phase 6: Open House to Review Refined Plan The sixth and final phase of engagement was to present the recommended plans to the public and receive input prior to finalization of the study. Engagement events were selected to facilitate the sharing of information with a broad audience.

The Phase 6 engagement event was a public open house; approximately 180 participants attended.

Both the engagement and technical components of the study process were expanded to include:

• Additional opportunities for key stakeholders to participate in Community Conversations • Additional iterations of revised options to include public feedback and provide opportunities for evaluation against project objectives and resident priorities

Alignment with Corridor Study Policy: The Shaganappi Trail North Corridor Study was re-scoped after the first round of public engagement opportunities in late 2012 to better incorporate the intentions and early learnings of the Transportation Corridor Study Policy that was in development at that time. Table 2 below summarizes the study’s original and revised alignment with the policy:

Shaganappi Trail North Corridor Study Page 4

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 12 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report Table 2 – Policy Alignment

Policy Point Alignment Notes

Use of a multi-faceted • Engagement events consisted of: communications approach o Open houses Original o Internal and external stakeholder meetings Scope: o One-on-one meetings o Community conversations • Communications tools included: o Email distribution list Revised o Community Association newsletters Scope: o Direct mailing o Project website o Roadside signs o Social media

Appropriate level of • The potential impacts to the adjacent residents engagement based on: Original necessitated a higher level of engagement in option Scope: development, evaluation, refinement and selection • Classification of corridor to minimize impacts and appropriately reflect • Impact to surrounding resident priorities, where possible community • The revised scope provided additional engagement • Engage! policy Revised opportunities, more detailed information to aid in Scope: understanding project objectives and superior responsiveness in incorporating feedback into option refinements

Provide clear definitions of • Under the original scope, the information shared Original with the general public at the open houses provided desired outcomes and Scope: tradeoffs for all modes limited material related to the achieved benefits or tradeoffs between modes • The Community Conversations and one-on-one meetings provided more detailed information for Revised participants to reach an understanding of the need Scope: to balance the objectives of various stakeholders and modes

Work with stakeholders to Original • The original scope did include meetings with identify existing and Scope: external stakeholders to identify considerations; potential issues however, the cross section of stakeholders was limited and input was not sought regarding existing issues or potential short-term solutions Revised • The revised scope included meetings and site tours Scope: with representatives of the Varsity Community Association regarding specific existing concerns raised with the intersection of Varsity Drive and

Shaganappi Trail North Corridor Study Page 5

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 13 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report Table 2 – Policy Alignment

Policy Point Alignment Notes

Shaganappi Trail and short-term recommendations for improvements were included in the project deliverables

Develop concepts that: • The original concepts prioritized the project objectives of widening the corridor over the • Preserve the integrity of minimization of property impacts, did not identify adjacent communities short-term community-level improvements and • Identify community Original were not reflective of an understanding of improvements Scope: community priorities and needs • Minimize negative • The project team worked closely with stakeholders impacts under the revised scope to develop options which • Include a ‘do nothing’ would better reflect the specific needs of certain concept Revised segments of the corridor (the constrained right-of- • Including Scope: way segment) and managed to achieve the project staging/prioritization for objectives without any property impacts interim and ultimate • The project team worked closely with stakeholders solutions under the revised scope to identify existing community-level issues which could be improved in the near term

Communicate timelines / Original • The final open house focused messaging on the long triggers for each concept Scope: term plan which is currently without specific timing

Revised Scope:

Strong alignment Moderate alignment Weak alignment

Project Status The Shaganappi Trail North Corridor Study was completed in late 2014 with Council approval of the short- and long-term recommendations obtained in February 2015.

Successes and Lessons Learned The Shaganappi Trail North Corridor Study saw the following successes:

• Responsiveness to public and stakeholder feedback through the evaluation, elimination and refinement of options based on feedback received. The recommended plan was based directly

Shaganappi Trail North Corridor Study Page 6

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 14 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

on community priorities, which included a significant reduction and elimination of residential and commercial property impacts from the original concepts. • Significant community support for the recommended plans as well as the engagement process

The Shaganappi Trail North Corridor Study provided the following lessons learned:

• The importance of ‘story-telling’ to help stakeholders understand the decisions and considerations of the project, rather than just bringing them in at certain touch points when decisions have already been made. • The importance of drawing a ‘line of sight’ between what was heard and how it was or was not incorporated. Once stakeholders and the public understood how feedback was incorporated, support for the final recommendations and the engagement process was increased. • The need to be fluid in the engagement and technical process of the study, to be able to respond to stakeholder needs as they are revealed • Soft messaging regarding the ’10-30 year timeframe’ for transportation planning studies may not be sufficient to address citizens’ interest in the planning of corridors within their communities

Shaganappi Trail North Corridor Study Page 7

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 15 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report McKnight Blvd Transportation Study

Roadway Classification: Skeletal Road Adjacent Land Uses: Standard Industrial

Project Objective: The McKnight Blvd Transportation Study was initiated to examine optimization opportunities to improve the flow of Start Date: September 2012 traffic in the short- and medium-term by better optimizing Completion Date: October 2016 the existing infrastructure using low-cost measures. The % of Budget for Engagement: 36% intention was to provide congestion relief between Deerfoot Trail and Barlow Trail until such time as grade- separation is provided along the corridor.

In addition, the scope of the study included an examination of McKnight Blvd’s role in the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) network between Deerfoot Trail and Stoney Trail, as well as a review of the current interchange functional plan for McKnight Blvd and 12 Street N.E.

Corridor Characteristics: McKnight Blvd is a skeletal road which serves as one of three east-west corridors in northeast Calgary that provide a continuous connection between Deerfoot Trail and Stoney Trail. McKnight Blvd is also identified as a candidate route in the HOV network. Between Deerfoot Trail and Barlow Trail, McKnight Blvd currently carries approximately 60,000 vehicles per day (vpd).

Northeast Calgary has undergone significant development over the last several years. Existing and future land development surrounding the corridor includes the Calgary International Airport (YYC) and industrial and commercial areas.

Study Process: The McKnight Blvd Transportation Study was scoped during the development of the Transportation Corridor Study Policy. As such, attempts were made to include early learnings from the policy

McKnight Blvd Transportation Study Page 1

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 16 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

development in the project scope. In developing the study process, the following were taken into consideration:

• The opportunity to work at a Collaborate level with a key group of stakeholders • The variety of stakeholders impacted by changes to the corridor • The more immediate nature of potential improvements to the corridor compared to typical transportation planning studies

Given these considerations, a four phase study process was developed, which would include appropriate engagement at each phase, as required by the Transportation Corridor Study Policy. For the McKnight Blvd Transportation Study, the appropriate level of engagement was predicated on:

• Engaging stakeholders and citizens early in the study • Collaborating with stakeholders and involving them in the decision making process

The engagement process consisted of four phases, as outlined in Figure 1 and elaborated on below:

Figure 1 – Engagement Process Diagram Used During Study

Phase 1: Information Gathering & Assessment Phase 1 informed the community and key stakeholders of the project objectives, scope and context. Public engagement was carried out to understand existing concerns and issues and develop option evaluation criteria with input from stakeholders. Engagement events were selected to reach a broad audience and gauge interest in being part of a core stakeholder group.

McKnight Blvd Transportation Study Page 2

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 17 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Engagement events during Phase 1 consisted of an external stakeholder meeting, 2 community meetings, 2 public open houses, and online participation, reaching over 150 participants.

Phase 2: Develop and Refine Options During Phase 2, the feedback from Phase 1 was reviewed and synthesized and preliminary design concepts were developed with consideration of the Phase 1 feedback. The preliminary design concepts were presented to stakeholders and the Advisory Group for feedback and refinement. Engagement events were selected to establish a core group of interested stakeholders who would provide input at key points throughout the study and participate in the decision making process.

Engagement events during Phase 2 consisted of 2 Advisory Group meetings and a stakeholder and Advisory Group workshop, with approximately 20 participants.

Phase 3: Select Recommended Plan In Phase 3, the recommended options were selected for further refinement by gathering additional stakeholder and public input and working with the Advisory Group on the evaluation and selection process. Engagement events were selected to gather feedback from a broad audience, work directly with potentially impacted landowners and involve the Advisory Group in the decision making process.

Engagement events during Phase 3 consisted of a public open house, online participation, 2 community meetings, 6property owner meetings, and an Advisory Group meeting; the public open house and online component reached over 180 participants.

Phase 4: Share Recommended Plans In the final phase, the recommended plans were presented to the public and study findings and recommendations were documented. Engagement events were selected to facilitate the sharing of information with a broad audience.

In Phase 4, the final study plans and recommendations were shared through the project website and an online information session which included 2 live chat opportunities.

Alignment with Corridor Study Policy: The McKnight Blvd Transportation Study was initiated during development of the Transportation Corridor Study Policy and was scoped to include early learnings from the policy development. Table 1 below summarizes the study’s alignment with the policy:

Table 1 – Policy Alignment

Policy Point Alignment Notes

Use of a multi-faceted • Engagement events consisted of: communications approach o Open houses o Online participation o Stakeholder workshops

McKnight Blvd Transportation Study Page 3

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 18 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Policy Point Alignment Notes

o Advisory Group meetings o Landowner meetings o Community meetings • Communications tools included: o Email distribution list o Community Association newsletters o Postcards (mailed and hand delivered) o Roadside signs o Project website o Social media

Appropriate level of • For this study, the engagement level was likely engagement based on: higher than appropriate given the limited impact of the study on the surrounding community • Classification of corridor • Maintaining the interest of the Advisory Group • Impact to surrounding throughout the length of the study was difficult, and community the level of effort that went into planning and • Engage! policy facilitating their involvement did not result in significant benefit to the project outcomes.

Provide clear definitions of • The options presented to the public included an desired outcomes and outline of benefits and tradeoffs to assist the public tradeoffs for all modes and stakeholders in evaluating and understanding the potential impacts of the different options • The evaluation criteria used included categories for each mode of travel and the results were shared with the public and stakeholders

Work with stakeholders to • The objective of Phase 1 of the engagement process identify existing and was to identify existing and potential issues as potential issues perceived by the public. • Numerous meetings were held with property owners as impacted stakeholders to identify potential issues with the design concepts. Refinements were made to address issues, particularly with respect to the Calgary Airport Authority.

Develop concepts that: • A ‘do-nothing’ concept was included as one of the preliminary design concepts for each intersection • Preserve the integrity of studied during the optimization phase. For two of adjacent communities

McKnight Blvd Transportation Study Page 4

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 19 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Policy Point Alignment Notes

• Identify community the three intersections, participant support was improvements highest for the ‘do-nothing’ options. • Minimize negative • The recommended optimization plan for the impacts McKnight Blvd & 12 Street N.E. intersection • Include a ‘do nothing’ consisted of the first phase of the ultimate grade concept separation plan, allowing for staging • Including staging/prioritization for interim and ultimate solutions

Communicate timelines / • The recommended optimization plans require the triggers for each concept acquisition of right-of-way and are unfunded which made it difficult to provide timelines for potential implementation

Strong alignment Moderate alignment Weak alignment

Project Status The McKnight Blvd Transportation Study was completed in June 2016 with the final recommendations presented to the public via the project website. Council approved the study recommendations, including right-of-way protection plans, in October 2016.

Successes and Lessons Learned The McKnight Blvd Transportation Study saw the following successes:

• Strong support was received from stakeholders and the public on the recommended plans, with an emphasis on their satisfaction with their involvement in the process and the opportunities presented to participate throughout the study in various ways • The McKnight Blvd Transportation Study was an opportunity to pilot different methods of engagement, including the formation of the Advisory Group. One of the key successes with this endeavour was the management of Advisory Group members’ influence on project outcomes; an example being their involvement in helping evaluate options against subjective criteria but reserving the evaluation of options against objective, analysis-based criteria for the technical experts on the project team. • The hosting of the public open houses at high traffic venues such as the Genesis Centre resulted in higher involvement from the public • The use of dotmocracy activities and electronic polling during the workshops provided enhanced interaction with stakeholders and the public and resulted in higher interest

McKnight Blvd Transportation Study Page 5

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 20 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

The McKnight Blvd Transportation Study provided the following lessons learned:

• An Advisory Group may not be appropriate for studies which are largely well-supported by stakeholders and the public as their ability to add value is diminished by the lack of issues to work through • A formal Advisory Group was used as the engagement technique for targeted stakeholder engagement for this study. This included the creation of Terms of Reference which involved a higher expectation of commitment and attendance throughout the study. The formalizing of the process added a layer of effort which was not supported by enhanced commitment from members. A more open and informal setting for participation may have resulted in better involvement.

McKnight Blvd Transportation Study Page 6

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 21 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report 16 Avenue N.E. Functional Planning Study

Roadway Classification: Skeletal Road Adjacent Land Uses: Standard Industrial, Established Residential

Project Objective: The 16 Avenue N.E. Functional Planning Study was Start Date: September 2012 originally initiated in Fall 2012 under the title 16 Avenue / Completion Date: April 2017 19 Street N.E. Interchange Functional Planning Study. The % of Budget for Engagement: 18% primary purpose of the study was to develop an interchange plan at that location and determine the potential impacts the future interchange might have at both the upstream and downstream interchange at 16 Avenue N and Deerfoot Trail and Barlow Trail.

The name of the study was later modified to 16 Avenue N.E. Functional Planning Study to better reflect the study limits which included Deerfoot Trail to the west and Barlow Trail to the east.

Corridor Characteristics: 16 Avenue N.E. is an important road in the City transportation network and serves as part of the Trans- Canada Highway. It is classified as a Skeletal Road and is a goods movement corridor. The section of 16 Avenue N.E. from Deerfoot Trail to Barlow Trail is currently constructed as a 6 lane roadway with a signalized intersection at 19 Street N.E. There are existing interchanges along 16 Avenue N.E. at both Deerfoot Trail and Barlow Trail. The segment of 16 Avenue N.E. between Deerfoot Trail and 19 Street N.E. is the busiest section of the Trans-Canada Highway within Calgary and currently carries over 80,000 vehicles per day.

Barlow Trail is also an important road in the City transportation network and is classified as an Arterial Street and a goods movement corridor. It serves as the central access corridor of the northeast

16 Avenue N.E. Functional Planning Study Page 1

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 22 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

commercial/industrial areas as well as the south access for the Calgary International Airport. Barlow Trail carries approximately 54,000 and 40,000 vehicles per day north and south of 16 Avenue N.E., respectively.

Study Process: The 16 Avenue N.E. Functional Planning Study was originally scoped just prior to the initiation of the Transportation Corridor Study Policy development. An early re-scoping was done to include initial learnings from the policy development in the project scope. In developing the study process, the following were taken into consideration:

• The opportunity to work collaboratively with a key group of stakeholders • The opportunity to understand current transportation issues from the perspective of stakeholders and the public, and to use that feedback in developing decision-making criteria • The constrained space between two existing interchanges and the likely upstream and downstream impacts of any recommendations at 19 Street N.E.

Given these considerations, a four phase study process was developed, which would include appropriate engagement at each phase, as required by the Transportation Corridor Study Policy. For the 16 Avenue N.E. Functional Planning Study, the appropriate level of engagement was predicated on:

• Engaging stakeholders and citizens early in the study, on both current transportation issues and the desired engagement process • Collaborating with stakeholders and involving them in the decision making process

At the completion of the fourth phase of the project, Council requested a fifth phase be added to provide additional opportunities for the public and stakeholders to understand the upstream and downstream impacts of the study recommendations.

The final engagement process consisted of five phases, as outlined in Figure 1 and elaborated on below:

Figure 1 – Engagement Process Diagram Used During Study

16 Avenue N.E. Functional Planning Study Page 2

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 23 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Phase 1: Needs Assessment Phase 1 informed the community and key stakeholders of the project objectives, scope and context. Public engagement was carried out to understand existing transportation concerns and issues in the area, and seek input on the engagement process and decision-making criteria which could be used during future phases of the project. Engagement events were selected to reach a broad audience.

Engagement events during Phase 1 consisted of an external stakeholder meeting, a public open house, and online participation, reaching approximately 150 participants.

Phase 2: Develop Options During Phase 2, the feedback from Phase 1 was reviewed and synthesized and preliminary design options were developed with consideration of the Phase 1 feedback. The preliminary design options were presented to a key group of stakeholders for feedback and refinement. Engagement events were selected to received focused feedback from a key group of stakeholders.

Engagement events during Phase 2 consisted of a stakeholder workshop, with approximately 10 participants.

Phase 3: Select Preferred Plan In Phase 3, the options were combined and refined based on the input received in Phase 2, and presented to the public for feedback. Engagement events were selected to gather feedback from a broad audience.

Engagement events during Phase 3 consisted of a public open house and online participation; the public open house and online component reached over 100 participants.

Phase 4: Report Back In the original final phase of engagement, the recommended short- and long-term plans were presented to the public and study findings and recommendations were documented. Engagement events were selected to facilitate the sharing of information with a broad audience.

In Phase 4, the final study plans and recommendations were shared through the project website and a public information session.

Phase 5: Refine Concept & Report Back In the additional final phase, further opportunities were provided to the public to view the recommended plans and understand the upstream and downstream impacts of the recommendations. Engagement events were selected to facilitate the sharing of information with a broader cross-section of the public.

In Phase 5, the final study plans and recommendations were shared at 3 public open houses, with over 150 attendees.

16 Avenue N.E. Functional Planning Study Page 3

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 24 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Alignment with Corridor Study Policy: The 16 Avenue N.E. Functional Planning Study was initiated during development of the Transportation Corridor Study Policy and was scoped to include early learnings from the policy development. Table 1 below summarizes the study’s alignment with the policy:

Table 1 – Policy Alignment

Policy Point Alignment Notes

Use of a multi-faceted • Engagement events consisted of: communications approach o Open houses o Online participation o Stakeholder workshops • Communications tools included: Email distribution list o o Delivery of information notices o Roadside signs o Project website o Social media

Appropriate level of • The engagement level was adjusted at each phase engagement based on: to reflect the type of feedback being solicited. Phases 1, 4 and 5 were about sharing information • Classification of corridor which was appropriate. Phases 2 and 3 were about • Impact to surrounding soliciting feedback, but Phase 2 was limited to community identified stakeholders and resulted in some area • Engage! policy residents feeling left out of the process, or unaware of impacts the recommendations might have on their transportation network.

Provide clear definitions of • The options presented to the public included an desired outcomes and outline of benefits and tradeoffs to assist the public tradeoffs for all modes and stakeholders in evaluating and understanding the potential impacts of the different options • The evaluation criteria used included categories for each mode of travel and the results were shared with the public and stakeholders

Work with stakeholders to • The objective of Phase 1 of the engagement process identify existing and was to identify existing and potential issues as potential issues perceived by the public.

16 Avenue N.E. Functional Planning Study Page 4

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 25 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Policy Point Alignment Notes

• A core group of stakeholders were involved at key stages of the study to provide input on concept refinement and evaluation.

Develop concepts that: • Recommendations focused on the achievement of the long-term objectives (i.e., grade separation of • Preserve the integrity of 19 Street N.E. at 16 Avenue N.E.) and did not adjacent communities include accommodation for community or short- • Identify community term improvements improvements • Where possible, property impacts were minimized • Minimize negative • The public was not presented with a ‘do-nothing’ impacts option which reflects the impacts of maintaining the • Include a ‘do nothing’ existing transportation infrastructure without concept improvements • Including staging/prioritization for interim and ultimate solutions

Communicate timelines / • The recommended optimization plans require the triggers for each concept acquisition of right-of-way and are unfunded which made it difficult to provide timelines for potential implementation

Strong alignment Moderate alignment Weak alignment

Project Status The 16 Avenue N. E. Functional Planning Study was finalized in Spring 2017 and Council approved the study recommendations, including right-of-way protection plans, in May 2017.

Successes and Lessons Learned The 16 Avenue N.E. Functional Planning Study saw the following successes:

• Early engagement of stakeholders and the public allowed the project team to receive input on preferred engagement tactics, which were reflected in the project phases moving forward. • The options presented to the public included very detailed benefits and tradeoffs to educate the public and stakeholders about balancing the needs to different users and project objectives. Such an education at this stage of the project leads to a stronger acceptance of final recommendations and associated impacts.

The 16 Avenue N.E. Functional Planning Study provided the following lessons learned:

16 Avenue N.E. Functional Planning Study Page 5

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 26 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

• As scope of the project expands, the engagement strategy should be reassessed to identify if additional stakeholders are affected. In this case, the upstream and downstream impacts of recommendations resulted in the need to inform commuters and residents from communities previously thought to be outside the affected study area.

16 Avenue N.E. Functional Planning Study Page 6

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 27 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report 17 Avenue S.E. (East of Stoney Trail) Corridor Study

Roadway Classification: Parkway, Urban Boulevard Adjacent Land Uses: Greenfield (current), Urban Corridor (future)

Project Objective: 17 Avenue S.E. between Stoney Trail and the east city limits (116 Street S.E.) will be the backbone of the Start Date: February 2015 transportation system within the Belvedere area as Completion Date: October 2016 identified in The City’s Belvedere Area Structure Plan (ASP). % of Budget for Engagement: 26% 17 Avenue S.E. will provide access to and within the area for all modes of travel and will also serve as an important component of The City’s overall transportation system linking with Stoney Trail S.E., the City of and the Trans-Canada Highway.

The 17 Avenue S.E. Corridor Study (Stoney Trail to East City Limits) was initiated to ensure a logical transition from the corridor’s existing rural state to a main street that supports the vision and role of the area. The study incorporated an inclusive assessment of all modes of travel and integration with future land uses. The main outcome of the study was a street design for the corridor that meets the needs of all modes and aligns with the area vision.

Corridor Characteristics: 17 Avenue S.E. between Stoney Trail and the East City Limits (116 Street S.E.) is currently a two-lane, undivided rural highway (formerly Highway 1A) in a greenfield area that is planned to transition to a productive and active urban corridor. In 2013, Council approved the Belvedere ASP to guide future development in the area. 17 Avenue S.E. plays a vital role in supporting this vision. The Belvedere ASP envisions this area to become a compact, vibrant community, with a population of 61,000 people and

17 Avenue S.E. (East of Stoney Trail) Corridor Study Page 1

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 28 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

14,000 opportunities for employment, supported by a connected, multimodal corridor on 17 Avenue S.E.

The Calgary Transportation Plan identifies the segment of 17 Avenue S.E. between Stoney Trail and 100 Street S.E. as a Parkway and the segment between 100 Street S.E. and 116 Street S.E. as an Urban Boulevard; both fall into the Liveable Streets category of roadway classification. In addition, 17 Avenue S.E. has been designated as part of the Primary Cycling Network, the Primary Transit Network and a link in the Regional Transit Plan.

Study Process: In developing the study process, the following were taken into consideration:

• The plan is visionary in that there is currently limited development along the corridor • Key stakeholders are area developers and commuters, with no established adjacent communities • As a Greenfield planning exercise, desirable Complete Streets standards should be attainable

Given these considerations, a four phase study process was developed, which would include appropriate engagement at each phase, as required by the Transportation Corridor Study Policy. For the 17 Avenue S.E. Corridor Study, the appropriate level of engagement was predicated on:

• Including the area developers and land owners in early visioning • Strong messaging on project timelines and triggers

The engagement process consisted of four phases, as outlined in Figure 1 and elaborated on below:

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4

Figure 1 – Engagement Process Diagram Used During Study

17 Avenue S.E. (East of Stoney Trail) Corridor Study Page 2

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 29 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Phase 1: Vision & Context Phase 1 informed key stakeholders of the project objectives, scope and context. Engagement was carried out to establish priorities, values and a future vision for the corridor, prior to investigating any improvement concepts, and to understand existing concerns and issues. This phase established the project’s guiding principles. Engagement events were selected to capture the vision and considerations of key stakeholders.

Engagement events during Phase 1 consisted of 4 landowner meetings, an internal stakeholder meeting and an external stakeholder Vision & Context Workshop, attended by 7 participants.

Phase 2: Options Development During Phase 2, the feedback from Phase 1 was reviewed and synthesized and preliminary corridor design concepts were developed with consideration of the Phase 1 feedback. The preliminary design concepts were prepared and presented to key stakeholders for feedback; input was also sought regarding roadway elements where multiple options for integration were still open for consideration. Engagement events were selected to obtain focused feedback from key stakeholders.

The primary engagement event during Phase 2 was an external stakeholder Options Development Workshop, attended by 14 participants.

Phase 3: Options Evaluation The refined options were presented to the public for feedback, and information shared on how the options would be evaluated and next steps. Engagement events were selected to share information and obtain input from a broad audience.

Engagement events during Phase 3 consisted of a public open house and online participation, reaching over 180 participants.

Phase 4: Preferred Option In the final phase, the completed corridor design was presented to stakeholders and the public. Study findings and recommendations were documented and presented to Council for approval. Engagement events were selected to facilitate the sharing of information.

In Phase 4, the final study plans and recommendations were shared through the project website, as well as an information package sent to key stakeholders.

Alignment with Corridor Study Policy: The 17 Avenue S.E. Corridor Study was initiated after approval of the Transportation Corridor Study Policy and was scoped to align with key policy points. Table 1 below summarizes the study’s alignment with the policy:

17 Avenue S.E. (East of Stoney Trail) Corridor Study Page 3

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 30 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Table 1 – Policy Alignment

Policy Point Alignment Notes

Use of a multi-faceted • Engagement events consisted of: communications approach o Open houses o Online participation o Stakeholder workshops o One-on-one meetings • Communications tools included: o Email distribution list

o Direct mailing o Roadside signs o Posters placed in local businesses o Project website o Social media

Appropriate level of • The long-term, visionary nature of the project and engagement based on: the lack of adjacent communities/residents made generating public interest difficult • Classification of corridor • The workshops provided a more involved • Impact to surrounding opportunity for key stakeholders to be engaged community • Engage! policy

Provide clear definitions of • The options presented to the public included an desired outcomes and outline of benefits and tradeoffs to assist the public tradeoffs for all modes and stakeholders in evaluating and understanding the potential impacts of the different options • The evaluation criteria used included categories for each mode of travel and the results were shared with the public and stakeholders

Work with stakeholders to • Given the lack of corridor development, the corridor identify existing and recommendations require wholesale change. As potential issues such, there are few current City programs which could address existing issues (e.g., lack of street lighting) until such time as development and the associated investments in the corridor occur • The project team did work closely with stakeholders to ensure the long term plans for the corridor was supported and reflected the ASP vision

17 Avenue S.E. (East of Stoney Trail) Corridor Study Page 4

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 31 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Policy Point Alignment Notes

Develop concepts that: • A ‘do-nothing’ concept was included as one of the preliminary design concepts. This concept provided • Preserve the integrity of a basis for comparison and highlighted the benefit adjacent communities of investment in the corridor. • Identify community • Staging plans were provided which reflected how improvements the ultimate corridor could be achieved over time. • Minimize negative This allowed stakeholders and the public to get a impacts sense of what components might be the first to be • Include a ‘do nothing’ implemented (e.g., a multi-use pathway could be concept constructed in advance of development and the • Including associated public realm facilities) staging/prioritization for interim and ultimate solutions

Communicate timelines / • One of the most frequent questions received by the triggers for each concept project team was related to when the corridor would transition. Given the dependence of the recommendations on the development of the corridor land use, no specific timeframe could be provided. Instead, triggers were outlined which would allow stakeholders to be more aware of what gradual changes along the corridor could mean for the plan’s implementation

Strong alignment Moderate alignment Weak alignment

Project Status The 17 Avenue S.E. (East of Stoney Trail) Corridor Study was completed in June 2016 with the final long- term plans and staging opportunities presented to the public via the project website and an information package sent to stakeholders. Council approved the study recommendations, including right-of-way protection plans, in October 2016.

Successes and Lessons Learned The 17 Avenue S.E. (East of Stoney Trail) Corridor Study saw the following successes:

• The opportunity to work closely with a small group of interested stakeholders and landowners on developing priorities and options • Overall support from stakeholders and the general public on the long term plan for the corridor, including an understanding of the need for right-of-way protection to provide a high standard corridor • Positive response to messaging related to staging and possible triggers for implementation

17 Avenue S.E. (East of Stoney Trail) Corridor Study Page 5

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 32 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

The 17 Avenue S.E. (East of Stoney Trail) Corridor Study provided the following lessons learned:

• The difficulty in engaging public interest in a Greenfield corridor; the project team modified the engagement approach during Phase 4 to be more flexible in meeting with stakeholders and providing information electronically

17 Avenue S.E. (East of Stoney Trail) Corridor Study Page 6

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 33 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report Deerfoot Trail Study

Roadway Classification: Skeletal Road Adjacent Land Uses: Standard Industrial, Established Residential, Green Space

Project Objective: Deerfoot Trail is Calgary’s oldest freeway, and the busiest in Alberta. The majority of Deerfoot Trail was built Start Date: February 2015 between 1971 and 1982. The city’s population has doubled Completion Date: Ongoing since 1981 and the road is no longer meeting current traffic % of Budget for Engagement: 17% demand, resulting in traffic congestion, unreliability and safety concerns.

The Deerfoot Trail Study was initiated jointly by The City of Calgary and Alberta Transportation (AT) to study Deerfoot Trail between the Stoney Trail interchanges in the north and south. The study considered a range of possible freeway management strategies, including some new to Calgary, and recommended ways to improve safety and mobility in the short- and long-term. The focus of the study was on making the most of the existing infrastructure, planning for future growth and alignment with the Calgary Transportation Plan (CTP).

The outcome of the study was to define and recommend a program of upgrades for Deerfoot Trail by:

• Identifying the existing and future travel needs on the corridor, and any associated impacts on the surrounding communities • Engaging the public, community groups and stakeholders to identify users and demands for the corridor, and build a range of potential solutions • Recommending safety and mobility improvements for people who drive and take transit

Deerfoot Trail Study Page 1

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 34 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

• Improving air quality and reducing vehicular emissions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the time needed to travel to and within the corridor

Corridor Characteristics: Deerfoot Trail is a core route in the National Highway System and has been managed by Alberta Transportation since 2001. In Calgary, Deerfoot Trail is part of the Primary Goods Movement Network, and is classified as a skeletal road in the CTP. As a skeletal road, Deerfoot Trail is a high-speed road aimed at moving cars and trucks over long distances; the average daily traffic ranges from 83,000 vehicles per day at the south end to 170,000 vehicles per day north of . Deerfoot Trail is the only road, other than Stoney Trail, which provides a continuous north-south connection across the city, and the only north-south skeletal road serving central and east Calgary. At 37.5 km long, and including 20 interchanges, Deerfoot Trail has 44 communities bordering it.

Study Process: A four phase study process was developed, which would include appropriate engagement at each phase. The engagement and communications plan was predicated on the following principles: Iterative and responsive: The plan was developed based on the current understanding of the requirements for each phase and the study overall. However, the plan was formally updated at the beginning of each new phase to reflect the growing knowledge and refined direction as the study progressed. Symbiotic: The technical and engagement processes were designed to work together and inform each other. Multi-faceted, with an emphasis on online opportunities: Many stakeholders prefer to participate online. The project established an online project hub and focused on providing online engagement opportunities supplemented with in-person events. Inclusive:

• Pop-up engagement were used throughout the consultation process to provide “passive” audiences with input opportunities, as well as target hard to reach or under-represented groups. • The team attempted to locate engagement events strategically across the corridor based on the five segments being used by the technical team, as well as covering as many stakeholder groups and road users as possible (for example, holding events at locations easily accessible to residential and employment areas at appropriate times of day). • Use of existing research and demographic information to advertise engagement to different language and cultural groups (for example, include cultural organizations and media outlets in the promotions and translate materials for top languages spoken). The technical and engagement process consisted of four phases, as outlined in Figure 1 and elaborated on below:

Deerfoot Trail Study Page 2

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 35 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Figure 1 – Engagement Process Diagram Used During Study

Phase 1: Existing conditions and problem definition The focus of Phase 1 was to inform key stakeholders and the public of the project and the opportunities for involvement in future engagement events. The main objective of Phase 1 engagement was to identify and understand the location and magnitude of operational deficiencies along the corridor. During Phase 1, the study goals, processes and outcomes were introduced. Input was sought to better understand citizen expectations and sentiment about the project and the engagement process and to understand citizen priorities for Deerfoot Trail, both functionally and geographically. Information was shared with the public and stakeholders about the findings of the existing conditions assessment and relevant happenings along the corridor. Engagement events were selected to provide a broad reach and capture a variety of different stakeholder/user groups.

Engagement events during Phase 1 consisted of an online questionnaire, an online map, five key stakeholder meetings, a pop-up event, and six open houses, attended by 148 participants. Over 11,500 feedback forms and mapping tool comments were received.

Phase 2: Short-term improvement recommendations Phase 2 consisted of the development of short-term improvement options, based on the feedback received and technical analysis undertaken in Phase 1, as well as previous studies conducted along the corridor. Short-term improvement options were reviewed during two stakeholder workshops held with representatives from over 10 different interest groups, including adjacent municipalities, economic development organizations and the goods movement industry. Engagement events were selected to obtain focused feedback from key stakeholders. The refined short-term improvement recommendations were shared with the public and stakeholders online.

The primary engagement events during Phase 2 were two landowner meetings and two external stakeholder workshops, attended by 20 participants.

Phase 3: Long-term improvement recommendations (current phase) The Deerfoot Trail Corridor Study is currently in Phase 3, working on the development, evaluation and refinement of long-term improvement options.

Deerfoot Trail Study Page 3

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 36 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Engagement events during Phase 3 will consist of educational materials, workshops, public open houses, online participation and stakeholder and landowner meetings as needed.

Phase 4: Implementation strategy / approvals In the final phase, the final long-term improvement recommendations and associated implementation strategy will be presented to stakeholders and the public. Study findings and recommendations will be documented and presented to Council for approval. Engagement events will be selected to facilitate the sharing of information.

In Phase 4, the final study plans and recommendations will be shared through the project website.

Alignment with Corridor Study Policy: The Deerfoot Trail Corridor Study was initiated after approval of the Transportation Corridor Study Policy. As a joint project between The City of Calgary and Alberta Transportation, the engagement plan was based on best practices to define what input was sought and how it will be used, but was not scoped to align specifically with key policy points. Table 1 below summarizes the study’s alignment with the policy:

Table 1 – Policy Alignment

Policy Point Alignment Notes

Use of a multi-faceted • Engagement events consisted of: communications approach o Open houses o Online participation o Pop-up events o Workshops o Landowner meetings o Key stakeholder meetings • Communication tools included: o Email distribution list o Report to Calgarians o Council briefings o Media tours and briefings o Roadside signs o Project website o Paid and organic social media (including geotargeting) o Online ads and Search Engine Optimization

Appropriate level of • The length of the corridor and number of impacted engagement based on: users is quite substantial; the broadest reach is achieved through online opportunities • Classification of corridor • The workshops provided a more involved opportunity for key stakeholders to be engaged

Deerfoot Trail Study Page 4

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 37 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Policy Point Alignment Notes

• Impact to surrounding • The general public was provided limited community opportunity to provide feedback on the short-term • Engage! policy improvement options

Provide clear definitions of • Both the short- and long-terms options have / will desired outcomes and include clear information about constraints and tradeoffs for all modes desired outcomes as well as benefits and trade-offs for each; the benefits and trade-offs are based more on a wide range of evaluation criteria that includes all modes but isn’t limited to type of mode (for example, social or environmental criteria) • The public engagement for Phase 3 may include input into evaluation criteria

Work with stakeholders to • Phase 1 was dedicated to identifying and confirming identify existing and existing issues to clearly define the problems the potential issues project needs to solve, and included five key stakeholder meetings (environment, developer, emergency and incident response, adjacent municipalities and goods movement)

Develop concepts that: • The study goals primarily align with the goals listed here, with the exception of identifying community • Preserve the integrity of improvements and the addition of informing a adjacent communities potential change in ownership of the roadway from • Identify community the Province to The City improvements • Both short- and long-term concepts will aim to • Minimize negative minimize negative impacts and maximize value for impacts citizens (measured in travel-time savings, improved • Include a ‘do nothing’ air quality and reduced greenhouse gas emissions) concept • Input has and will be sought into prioritizing • Including improvements, and the study recommendations will staging/prioritization for include an implementation plan interim and ultimate • A ‘do nothing’ concept was not examined for this solutions project

Communicate timelines / • Both the short- and long-term recommendations triggers for each concept include timelines for implementation and planning horizon, as well as what will trigger improvements

Strong alignment Moderate alignment Weak alignment

Deerfoot Trail Study Page 5

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 38 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Project Status The Deerfoot Trail Corridor Study is currently in Phase 3: Long-term improvement recommendations.

Successes and Lessons Learned The Deerfoot Trail Corridor Study saw the following successes:

• Successful promotion strategies resulting in significant input in Phase 1 engagement • Factual reporting and earned media coverage resulting from strategic media relations efforts • Relationship building with key stakeholders resulting from a comprehensive and genuine communications and engagement process (several stakeholder groups have expressed appreciation for being included, such as environmental groups, Livery Transport Advisory Committee, the former Calgary Regional Partnership and adjacent municipalities)

The Deerfoot Trail Corridor Study provided the following lessons learned:

• Almost all participation has been online, indicating that while there is significant interest in the study, participants have not yet been motivated to attend events in-person.

Deerfoot Trail Study Page 6

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 39 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report Glenmore Trail East Study

Roadway Classification: Skeletal Road Adjacent Land Uses: Greenfield

Project Objective: The City of Calgary, Alberta Transportation and Rocky View County initiated a study for a half interchange at Glenmore Start Date: March 2015 Trail / Highway 560 and 100 Street S.E. The study focused Completion Date: November 2017 on providing access to and from the west to accommodate % of Budget for Engagement: 17% the highest demand movements. Based on several factors, including public input, planned development in the area, the shifting role and function of parallel routes in the transportation network, and a review of the design criteria of Glenmore Trail, the study area was expanded to include 116 Street S.E. and to examine full interchange configurations at both locations.

The study identified the interchange layouts, the land required to build the interchanges and how access could be provided to the bordering lands. The Glenmore Trail East Study included the following outcomes:

• Determined long-term needs for capacity, lane configurations and land (right-of-way) requirements • Identified the impacts to properties in the study area and prepared an access management plan to establish access to bordering properties when the interchanges are constructed • Identified the interchange plans and profiles that accommodate and consider: o High load trucks on Glenmore Trail, 100 Street S.E., and 116 Street S.E. o Tie-ins to other interchanges and the surrounding network o Transit priority

Glenmore Trail East Study Page 1

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 40 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

o Pedestrian and cyclist mobility • Identified possible short-term improvements to reduce congestion at the intersection of Glenmore Trail and 100 Street S.E.

Corridor Characteristics: The study area was under the jurisdiction of three orders of government:

• Glenmore Trail (called Secondary Highway 560 east of Stoney Trail) is a Provincial road managed by Alberta Transportation (AT) • Lands and streets south of Glenmore Trail and west of 116 Street S.E. are under the jurisdiction of The City of Calgary • Lands and streets north of Glenmore Trail and east of 84 Street S.E. are under the jurisdiction of Rocky View County (RVC)

Glenmore Trail through the study area is primarily a two-lane undivided rural highway, widening to a divided cross section with turn lanes at 100 Street S.E. Both 100 Street S.E. and 116 Street S.E. are two- lane undivided rural roads. Glenmore Trail is a skeletal roadway, requiring future grade separation at all intersecting roads. It is also a designated provincial high load corridor for trucks, so any future interchanges must account for bridge clearance or bypass requirements.

This area is currently largely undeveloped, but the Shepard Industrial and Janet Area Structure Plans identify this area as a major business and industrial area in the future.

Study Process: In developing the study process, the following were taken into consideration:

• The study area is largely undeveloped so adjacent landowners and government agencies were the primary stakeholders • The primary goals of the study were to identify right-of-way requirements for future grade separation; expectations regarding development access were also considered

Given these considerations, a three phase study process was developed, which would include appropriate engagement at each phase, as required by the Transportation Corridor Study Policy. For the Glenmore Trail East Study, the appropriate level of engagement was predicated on:

• Collaboration between The City, AT, RVC, and directly impacted property owners • Management of project scope and focus on achieving objectives

The engagement process consisted of three phases, as outlined in Figure 1 and elaborated on below:

Glenmore Trail East Study Page 2

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 41 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Figure 1 – Engagement Process Diagram Used During Study dy

Phase 1: Issues Scoping Phase 1 informed the citizens and key stakeholders of the project objectives, scope and context. Public engagement was carried out to learn about stakeholder and citizen’s goals, perspectives, issues and concerns about the proposed interchanges so preliminary designs could incorporate and reflect feedback, and design options can be developed to proactively mitigate identified issues and concerns whenever possible. Engagement events were selected to reach key stakeholders to obtain the desired input.

Engagement events during Phase 1 consisted of a public information session, online participation and a technical Issues Scoping Workshop; the public events reached over 100 participants.

Phase 2: Develop Options During Phase 2, the feedback from Phase 1 was reviewed and synthesized and preliminary interchange design concepts were developed with consideration of the Phase 1 feedback. The preliminary interchange design concepts and short term recommendations were prepared and presented to the public for feedback. Engagement events were selected to facilitate the attainment of detailed feedback on the options from key stakeholders and to obtain feedback from a broad public audience.

Engagement events during Phase 2 consisted of a 7 stakeholder meetings, a public open house and online participation, reaching approximately 100 participants.

Phase 3: Develop Functional Plan Final recommendations were prepared based on the input received in Phase 2 and a technical evaluation. The evaluation results and final plans were shared individually with adjacent landowners prior to being shared with the general public. Engagement events were selected to facilitate the sharing of information.

Engagement events during Phase 3 consisted of stakeholder meetings, a public information session, and a project website update.

Glenmore Trail East Study Page 3

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 42 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Alignment with Corridor Study Policy: The Glenmore Trail East Study was initiated after approval of the Transportation Corridor Study Policy and was scoped to align with key policy points. Table 1 below summarizes the study’s alignment with the policy:

Table 1 – Policy Alignment

Policy Point Alignment Notes

Use of a multi-faceted • Engagement events consisted of: communications approach o Open houses o Online participation o Stakeholder workshops o Stakeholder meetings • Communications tools included: o Email distribution list o Direct mailing o Roadside signs o Project website o Social media

Appropriate level of • Engage! assessment indicated a Level 3B: High engagement based on: impact, medium complexity at project initiation • Although the area is largely undeveloped compared • Classification of corridor to future plans, the impacts of the study • Impact to surrounding recommendations on area access and mobility are community significant and of high interest to adjacent • Engage! policy landowners

Provide clear definitions of • The options presented to the public included short desired outcomes and descriptions of the features of the different tradeoffs for all modes interchange configurations including the ease with which each mode could maneuver

Work with stakeholders to • The scope of the project was expanded to include identify existing and short-term recommendations at 100 Street S.E. in potential issues response to issues identified by stakeholders in Phase 1 of the project • The project team worked closely with key stakeholders to understand impacts of the recommendations and refine the options where possible to mitigate concerns

Glenmore Trail East Study Page 4

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 43 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Policy Point Alignment Notes

Develop concepts that: • Short term recommendations for 100 Street S.E. were developed to provide near term • Preserve the integrity of improvements to issues identified by the public and adjacent communities stakeholders • Identify community • Options which had significant impacts on adjacent improvements lands were not moved forward in order to minimize • Minimize negative negative impacts impacts • No staging information was provided • Include a ‘do nothing’ • The impacts of maintaining the existing corridor concept without upgrades was not examined or • Including communicated to the public staging/prioritization for interim and ultimate solutions

Communicate timelines / • The long term nature of the plans were triggers for each concept communicated during Phase 1 • No timelines were provided with the options presented in Phase 2

Strong alignment Moderate alignment Weak alignment

Project Status The Glenmore Trail East Study was completed in Fall 2017 with the final interim and long-term plans presented to the public via the project website and stakeholder meetings, and approval obtained from Council.

Successes and Lessons Learned The Glenmore Trail East Study saw the following successes:

• The inclusion of all orders of government in initial discussions regarding project scope and desired outcomes allowed for a more collaborative arrangement and the expansion of scope to address individual objectives.

The Glenmore Trail East Study provided the following lessons learned:

• The need to manage expectations of key stakeholders in order to move the overall project objectives forward. Adjacent landowners were concerned primarily with confirming access options for future development, whereas the overall project objective was about the confirmation of interchange configuration and required right-of-way. It was important to communicate with stakeholders the project priorities.

Glenmore Trail East Study Page 5

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 44 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report Sarcee Trail / Richmond Road Interchange Study

Roadway Classification: Skeletal Road, Arterial Street, Neighbourhood Blvd Adjacent Land Uses: Established Residential, Activity Centres

Project Objective:

The Functional Planning Study (FPS) was an outcome of the Start Date: July 2015 2015 West and South West Downstream Traffic Completion Date: December 2017 Impacts Report, which confirmed that an interchange at % of Budget for Engagement: 10% Sarcee Trail and Richmond Road would provide significant benefits to the transportation network in both the short and long term, with or without the West Calgary Ring Road in place.

The objective of the FPS was to update the findings and recommendations of the 2008 Sarcee Trail Corridor Study within the study area to determine access to adjacent properties, protect right-of-way, and ensure proper tie-in to the Glenmore Trail and Sarcee Trail interchange which will be constructed as part of the SWCRR project. There was also a need to ensure the interchange plans align with the long- term vision and principles as identified in the 2009 Calgary Transportation Plan (CTP) while meeting Alberta Transportation standards within the Transportation and Utility Corridor (TUC).

Corridor Characteristics: Sarcee Trail is a north-south Skeletal Road serving communities in southwest Calgary and is an alternate route to Crowchild Trail connecting the TransCanada Highway (Highway 1) and Glenmore Trail (Highway 8). Sarcee Trail currently operates as a 4-lane divided road with split signal controlled intersections at Richmond Road S.W.

Sarcee Trail / Richmond Road Interchange Study Page 1

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 45 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Richmond Road is classified in the CTP as an east-west Arterial Street west of Sarcee Trail and a Neighbourhood Boulevard east of Sarcee Trail that is used as a connector to 69 Street S.W. (through Sierra Morena Boulevard S.W.) and 37 Street S.W.

Sarcee Trail currently carries an annual average daily traffic (AADT) volume of 40,000 vehicles per day (vpd) south of Richmond Road and 46,000 vpd north of Richmond Road. Richmond Road carries an AADT of 34,000 vpd east of Sarcee Trail and 41,000 vpd west of Sarcee Trail.

Study Process: The Sarcee Trail / Richmond Road Interchange Functional Planning Study was scoped after the creation and approval of the Transportation Corridor Study Policy. In developing the study process, the following were taken into consideration:

• The opportunity to work collaboratively with a key group of stakeholders • The opportunity to understand current transportation issues from the perspective of stakeholders and the public, and to use that feedback in developing decision-making criteria • The physical constraints due to proximity to the South West Calgary Ring Road (SWCRR) and surrounding established communities • Previous analysis and engagement completed as part of the West and South West Ring Road Downstream Traffic Impact Study in 2015 • Previous recommended plans from the 2008 Sarcee Trail Corridor Study

Due to the previous work done in the area in support of the SWCRR and the fact that this project was primarily an update of a previously approved plan, the Sarcee Trail/Richmond Road Interchange Study was further ahead in its planning process than a typical functional planning study would be at this stage. In addition, given the many physical constraints, there was limited flexibility in design for the interchange. For these reasons, engagement with stakeholders began at the introduction of feasible short-listed concepts and identification of stakeholder priorities, rather than project goal development or concept identification. Stakeholder input was used to further concept development and in the evaluation process. A key goal of the study’s engagement program was to ensure stakeholders clearly understood what kind of input The City was seeking and what would be done with that input, as well as the reasons for which the study had deviated from the engagement process set out by The City in its Transportation Corridor Study Policy. Given these considerations, a three phase study process was developed, which would include appropriate engagement at each phase, as required by the Transportation Corridor Study Policy. For the Sarcee Trail / Richmond Road Interchange Study, the appropriate level of engagement was predicated on:

• Engaging stakeholders and citizens early in the study • Collaborating with stakeholders and involving them in the decision making process

The engagement process consisted of three phases, as outlined in Figure 1 and elaborated on below:

Sarcee Trail / Richmond Road Interchange Study Page 2

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 46 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Figure 1 – Engagement Process Diagram Used During Study

Phase 1: Public and Stakeholder Engagement During Phase 1, stakeholders and members of the public had an opportunity to learn about the project, and provide their feedback regarding the study and the short-listed interchange concepts. Key outcomes of this phase included the prioritization of criteria to evaluate the concepts, an understanding of specific stakeholder concerns, and confirmation that stakeholders were generally in favour of the need for an interchange. A summary of feedback from Phase 1 and verbatim feedback from the public open houses were posted to the Engage! portal page.

Engagement events during Phase 1 consisted of 3 community meetings, external stakeholder meetings, 4 property owner meetings, 2 public open houses, and online participation, reaching over 350 participants. Project information and study progress were shared through the project website.

Phase 2: Targeted Stakeholder Engagement During Phase 2, the feedback from Phase 1 was reviewed and design options were developed with consideration of the Phase 1 feedback. The preliminary design options were presented to adjacent business property owners and Alberta Transportation for feedback and refinement, and evaluated based on stakeholder priorities identified in Phase 1.

Sarcee Trail / Richmond Road Interchange Study Page 3

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 47 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Engagement events during Phase 2 consisted of 4 property owner meetings, and an Alberta Transportation meeting, with approximately 20 participants.

Phase 3: Draft Recommended Plan Report Back In Phase 3, two public information sessions were held to provide members of the public with an overview of the proposed recommended plan for the interchange, provide information regarding how input from the previous open houses impacted the proposed design, and gather feedback on any final issues or concerns. Key outcomes of this phase included confirmation that stakeholders were generally supportive of the recommended plan. The recommended plan was further refined and finalized based on additional stakeholder and public input.

The Engage! portal page was updated on an ongoing basis to include updated project information as well as results from Phase 1 and 2 engagement. The final engagement summary report was posted to the Engage! portal page to provide a complete overview of the project engagement program, a summary of stakeholder feedback as well as verbatim stakeholder comments, and an overview of how stakeholders’ comments and suggestions were incorporated into the final recommended plan.

Engagement events during Phase 3 consisted of a community meeting, 4 property owner meetings, a tenant meeting, two information sessions and online participation; the public information sessions and online component reached over 300 participants. The final study plan and recommendations were shared through the project website.

Alignment with Corridor Study Policy: The Sarcee Trail / Richmond Road Interchange Functional Planning Study was initiated after approval of the Transportation Corridor Study Policy and was scoped to include early learnings from the policy development. Table 1 below summarizes the study’s alignment with the policy:

Table 1 – Policy Alignment

Policy Point Alignment Notes

Use of a multi-faceted • Engagement events consisted of: communications approach o Open houses o Online participation o Landowner meetings o Community meetings • Communications tools included: o Community Associated newsletters o Direct mailing o Roadside signs o Project website o Social media

Sarcee Trail / Richmond Road Interchange Study Page 4

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 48 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Policy Point Alignment Notes

Appropriate level of • For this study, the engagement level was engagement based on: appropriate given the previous work done in support of the SWCRR, and the need for an • Classification of corridor interchange was confirmed through previous • Impact to surrounding analysis and reporting community • One of the goals of the study was to update the • Engage! policy previous recommended plans to fit within the ROW with minimal impact to surrounding properties

Provide clear definitions of • The options presented to the public included an desired outcomes and outline of benefits and tradeoffs to assist the public tradeoffs for all modes and stakeholders in evaluating and understanding the potential impacts of the different options • The evaluation criteria used included categories for each mode of travel and the results were shared with the public and stakeholders

Work with stakeholders to • The objective of Phase 1 of the engagement process identify existing and was to identify existing and potential issues as potential issues perceived by the public • Numerous meetings were held with property owners to identify potential issues with the design concepts. Refinements were made to address issues, particularly with respect to the surrounding activity centres and tie-in with the SWCRR

Develop concepts that: • The objective of the study was to develop a balanced plan that will connect to the future • Preserve the integrity of SWCRR, improve active mode connectivity, and adjacent communities minimize impacts to surrounding communities and • Identify community businesses improvements • A ‘do-nothing’ scenario was analysed to provide a • Minimize negative high-level cost/benefit comparison and confirm impacts findings from the previous analysis done as part of • Include a ‘do nothing’ the downstream traffic impact analysis for the concept SWCRR • Including • The interchange has been planned for initial staging/prioritization for construction to its ultimate state. Interim staging to interim and ultimate tie in with the SWCRR may be warranted solutions

Sarcee Trail / Richmond Road Interchange Study Page 5

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 49 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Policy Point Alignment Notes

Communicate timelines / • The interchange plan fits within the ROW and City triggers for each concept owned land but is unfunded. Next steps and timelines of prioritization process for project funding were clearly communicated

Strong alignment Moderate alignment Weak alignment

Project Status The Sarcee Trail / Richmond Road Interchange functional planning study was completed in November 2017 with the final recommendation presented to the public via the project website. Council approved the study recommendations in February 2018.

Successes and Lessons Learned The Sarcee Trail / Richmond Road Interchange Study saw the following successes:

• Strong support was received from stakeholders and the public on the recommended plan, with an emphasis on their satisfaction with their involvement in the process and the opportunities presented to participate throughout the study in various ways • Extra effort put into ‘story-telling’ during initial stakeholder meetings and open houses to clearly communicated project objectives and constraints, and how feedback was used, was recognized and well received

The Sarcee Trail / Richmond Road Interchange Study provided the following lessons learned:

• The importance of educating and keeping the public and stakeholders focused on project objectives throughout the study. Downstream traffic impacts of the SWCRR and anticipated changes in the area were often associated with the study

Sarcee Trail / Richmond Road Interchange Study Page 6

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 50 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report South Shaganappi Study

Roadway Classification: Skeletal Road, Arterial Street, Urban Boulevard Adjacent Land Uses: Inner City, Major Activity Center, Neighbourhood Corridor

Project Objective: In 2009, Council approved the Calgary Transportation Plan (CTP). It reclassified Shaganappi Trail to an Arterial Street Start Date: August 2015 from a Skeletal Road and identified the corridor as a Completion Date: July 2018 primary route for transit, cycling and HOV (high occupancy % of Budget for Engagement: 45% vehicles). In addition, the CTP reconfirmed that the Bow River crossing would not be reconsidered. This means that Shaganappi Trail would not function as a north-south connector across the river.

These changes required The City to revisit how Shaganappi Trail was designed in the south end. The South Shaganappi Study worked with stakeholders and the public to determine the best way of addressing these challenges and ensure the future design of the study area meets the needs of the community.

The objective of the study was to review and recommend infrastructure that aligns the future corridor plans for Shaganappi Trail with the 2009 CTP, the Municipal Development Plan (MDP), and adjacent land uses, and to identify what land was no longer required for road infrastructure. Additional study objectives included:

• Improving safety for those who use and/or live by the corridor

South Shaganappi Study Page 1

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 51 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

• Improving accessibility across and throughout the corridor, reconnecting the adjacent communities of Montgomery and Parkdale/Point McKay • Accommodating all modes of transportation including walking, cycling, driving, HOV, and transit • Moving people and goods in an efficient way, providing continuous traffic flow and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions • Exploring opportunities for using the land in the study area that is not required for infrastructure

Corridor Characteristics: The Shaganappi South study area covers the junction of three major roadways:

• 16 Avenue N.W. (Trans-Canada Highway) which is classified as a Skeletal Road in the study segment, although it transitions to an Urban Boulevard east and west of the study area. 16 Avenue N.W. has traffic volumes of approximately 35,000 vehicles/day • Shaganappi Trail, an Arterial Street, with traffic volumes of approximately 24,000 vehicles/day • Bowness Road, a Neighbourhood Boulevard which transitions to a Parkway, with traffic volumes of approximately 12,000 vehicles/day

The study area is bordered to the east and west by the established inner city residential communities of Montgomery and Parkdale/Point McKay, to the south by the Bow River and its associated pathway system, and to the north by a steep hill leading to the Alberta Children’s Hospital and the University of Calgary West Campus.

Study Process: In developing the study process, the following were taken into consideration:

• Although the study area covers a junction of network-relevant routes, it is also a bordering area for several inner city, established residential communities so both adjacent residents and commuters will be impacted by any recommendations • The existing infrastructure is oversized for the current roadway classifications; reduction in infrastructure is counter-intuitive to a traditional planning process • Although a consideration of the study was to identify surplus right-of-way, the study would not examine or recommend potential uses for the surplus land

Given these considerations, a three phase study process was developed, which would include appropriate engagement at each phase, as required by the Transportation Corridor Study Policy. For the South Shaganappi Study, the appropriate level of engagement was predicated on:

• Bringing stakeholders and the public to understand the potential benefit of a reduction in infrastructure footprint • Involving key stakeholders in a more focused environment at key decision points throughout the study

The engagement process consisted of three phases, as outlined in Figure 1 and elaborated on below:

South Shaganappi Study Page 2

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 52 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Figure 1 – Engagement Process Diagram Used During Study

Phase 1: Project Initiation and Definition Phase 1 informed the community and key stakeholders of the project objectives, scope and context. Public engagement was carried out to establish community values and hopes for the corridor, prior to investigating any improvement concepts, and to understand existing concerns and issues. Engagement events were selected to reach a broad audience for input and to develop a core advisory group of stakeholders interested in participating at a more focused level throughout the study.

Engagement events during Phase 1 consisted of external stakeholder meetings, a public open house, online participation and a Community Advisory Group meeting, reaching over 100 participants.

Phase 2: Concept Development and Analysis During Phase 2, the feedback from Phase 1 was reviewed and synthesized. The project team worked with residents to generate design ideas which were used to develop preliminary corridor design concepts. The preliminary design concepts were prepared and presented to the public for feedback. Engagement events were selected to include interested stakeholders in the idea generation process and to share information and receive feedback from both a broad audience and the advisory group.

Engagement events during Phase 2 consisted of 2 Design Idea Workshops, online participation, 2 public open houses, external stakeholder meetings, and a Community Advisory Group meeting, reaching approximately 950 participants.

Phase 3: Preferred Concept Selection The feedback gathered from stakeholders and the community in Phases 1 and 2 was considered alongside technical data in Phase 3 and helped the project team to narrow the potential concepts to a single preferred design. The preferred concept was presented to the community, key stakeholders and the public. Engagement events were selected to gather feedback from a focused group on the presentation of the final concept and to facilitate the sharing of information with a broad audience.

South Shaganappi Study Page 3

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 53 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Engagement events during Phase 3 consisted of a Community Advisory Group meeting, and a public open house.

Alignment with Corridor Study Policy: The South Shaganappi Study was initiated after approval of the Transportation Corridor Study Policy and was scoped to align with key policy points. Table 1 below summarizes the study’s alignment with the policy:

Table 1 – Policy Alignment

Policy Point Alignment Notes

Use of a multi-faceted • Engagement events consisted of: communications approach o Open houses o Workshops o Online participation o External stakeholder meetings o Community Advisory Group • Communications tools included: o Email distribution list o Community Association newsletters o Postcards (mailed and hand delivered) o Roadside signs o Project website o Social media

Appropriate level of • Engage! assessment indicated a Level 3C: High engagement based on: impact, high complexity at project initiation • Although the study area comprises the junction of a • Classification of corridor number of network roads important to commuters, • Impact to surrounding the adjacent communities would see the most community impact from any large scale infrastructure changes. • Engage! policy The Community Advisory Group was established to provide strong representation from these stakeholders. • The adjacent communities were also provided with advance access to information and invite-only workshops and open houses prior to those for the general public in order to better reflect their specific interests.

Provide clear definitions of • The options presented to the public included an desired outcomes and outline of benefits and tradeoffs to assist the public tradeoffs for all modes and stakeholders in evaluating and understanding the potential impacts of the different options

South Shaganappi Study Page 4

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 54 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Policy Point Alignment Notes

• The evaluation criteria used included categories for each mode of travel and the results were shared with the public and stakeholders

Work with stakeholders to • The objective of Phase 1 of the engagement process identify existing and was to identify existing and potential issues as potential issues perceived by the public. These issues were then used to develop options that would ideally resolve them, as well as to identify short-term improvements that would provide more immediate benefit to the communities and public. • The project team worked closely with key stakeholders such as the Montgomery Community Association to identify impacts within the community and to understand the community’s concerns. This involved additional one-on-one meetings and communication.

Develop concepts that: • A ‘no-build’ concept was included as one of the preliminary design concepts. This option highlighted • Preserve the integrity of the latent potential of the area as well as the cost adjacent communities associated with leaving the infrastructure ‘as is’. • Identify community • Interim plans were developed to address safety improvements concerns and other issues identified by the public in • Minimize negative Phase 1. The impacts of the interim plans required impacts additional consultation with the Montgomery • Include a ‘do nothing’ Community Association as they raised concerns concept about the balance of improvements to address • Including safety concerns for commuters and the impacts to staging/prioritization for community traffic issues. interim and ultimate solutions

Communicate timelines / • The long term options are currently unfunded and triggers for each concept this messaging was shared with stakeholders and the public. The alignment of lifecycle rehabilitation work on the existing infrastructure and the implementation of long term plans was outlined and positively received.

Strong alignment Moderate alignment Weak alignment

South Shaganappi Study Page 5

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 55 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Project Status The South Shaganappi Study was completed in Fall 2017. Approval of the recommendations was obtained from Council in July 2018.

Successes and Lessons Learned The South Shaganappi Study saw the following successes:

• Responsiveness to public and stakeholder feedback, including the addition of one-on-one meetings with the Montgomery Community Association to respond to concerns • The introduction of the no-build option provided a clear understanding to stakeholders and the public of the implications of making no changes to the corridor, including outlining that there are still costs associated with maintaining the existing conditions

The South Shaganappi Study provided the following lessons learned:

• The original scope involved having the community and public develop design ideas that could be moved forward. However, this process needed to be revisited when it became apparent that the objective of reducing the infrastructure footprint wasn’t clearly understood by stakeholders. The project team needed to use strong ‘story-telling’ messaging to bring the public along and help bridge the gap between traditional infrastructure planning (increasing infrastructure) and the context-specific ‘right-sizing’ appropriate for this location. The fluidity of the process allowed for only minor impacts to project schedule and budget and allowed the project team to continue obtaining valuable feedback that helped move the project forward. • The project team presented the short term options to the public in Phase 2, prior to having the adjacent community provide input. This caused concerns with the community of Montgomery as they felt the short term recommendations had the most impact on their community and were looking for an opportunity to provide more focused feedback than what was asked of the general public. The project team had to work closely with the Montgomery Community Association to restore trust and re-open the lines of communication with this important stakeholder. Understanding the specific interests of different stakeholders and adjusting the communications and engagement strategy to provide appropriate opportunities for input is critical to project success.

South Shaganappi Study Page 6

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 56 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report 50 Avenue S.W. Corridor Study

Roadway Classification: Parkway Adjacent Land Uses: Inner City, Green Space

Project Objective: 50 Avenue S.W., between Crowchild Trail and 14A Street S.W., is an east-west corridor in southwest Calgary which Start Date: September 2015 provides access to adjacent residential communities and Completion Date: March 2017 connects people to schools and destinations such as the % of Budget for Engagement: 35% Glenmore Athletic Park, River Park and Sandy Beach. At one point, this corridor had been designed as an Expressway and was intended to carry a large volume of traffic over long distances, including over the Elbow River. However, this function has been superseded by a parallel route (the Glenmore Causeway), the provision of a future river crossing has been ruled out by Council (GoPlan 95 and CTP 2009), and the corridor has been reclassified as a Parkway.

Given that the function of 50 Avenue S.W. is no longer consistent with the existing design of the roadway, The City undertook the 50 Avenue S.W. Corridor Study to determine how the corridor could transition to a Parkway standard in the future, with an enhanced emphasis on multi-modal mobility and integration with adjacent natural areas and green spaces.

The objective of the corridor study was to develop a new design for 50 Avenue S.W. that would support all modes of transportation, improve the look of the corridor and create a plan for possible future construction. The study looked at both short-term and long-term improvements.

50 Avenue S.W. Corridor Study Page 1

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 57 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Corridor Characteristics: The 50 Avenue S.W. corridor essentially operates as a collector roadway between Crowchild Trail and 14A Street S.W., serving the communities of Altadore and North Glenmore Park. It terminates at the east end at the Elbow River and serves the associated recreational facilities including the River Park dog park, Sandy Beach Park and the Elbow River pathway system. There are a number of schools along the corridor, as well as the Glenmore Athletic Park and the Glenmore Water Treatment Plant, and residential frontages.

50 Avenue S.W. is a two lane roadway with parallel on-street parking on both sides, intersected by north-south streets in a traditional inner-city grid pattern. The corridor is straight, both vertically and horizontally, and has a right-of-way which varies between 20.1 m and 36.4 m. Approximately 12,000 vehicles per day travel along the busiest segment of 50 Avenue S.W., just east of Crowchild Trail.

Study Process: In developing the study process, the following were taken into consideration:

• 50 Avenue S.W. is primarily a community corridor, rather than a network-level facility • The destinations along 50 Avenue S.W. are regional attractors and primarily recreational and institutional in nature • There is sufficient existing right-of-way available to accommodate a number of corridor options; property impacts should be easily avoidable • Previous discussions with the adjacent communities through other projects indicated there existed community-level concerns regarding the need for traffic calming and pedestrian safety

Given these considerations, a four phase study process was developed, which would include appropriate engagement at each phase, as required by the Transportation Corridor Study Policy. For the 50 Avenue S.W. Corridor Study, the appropriate level of engagement was predicated on:

• Community-led issues identification • Development, evaluation and selection of options being strongly responsive to community priorities

The engagement process consisted of four phases, as outlined in Figure 1 and elaborated on below:

Figure 1 – Engagement Process Diagram Used During Study

50 Avenue S.W. Corridor Study Page 2

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 58 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Phase 1: Establish the Vision for 50 Avenue S.W. Phase 1 informed the community and key stakeholders of the project objectives, scope and context. Public engagement was carried out to establish community values and future vision for the corridor, prior to investigating any improvement concepts, and to understand existing concerns and issues. Engagement events were selected to reach a broad and varied audience to obtain the desired input.

Engagement events during Phase 1 consisted of a public open house, online participation and 3 pop-up events in the community, reaching over 800 participants.

Phase 2: Develop Potential Design Concepts During Phase 2, the feedback from Phase 1 was reviewed and synthesized and preliminary corridor design concepts were developed with consideration of the Phase 1 feedback. The preliminary design concepts were prepared and presented to the public for feedback. Engagement events were selected to facilitate the attainment of detailed feedback on the options from a broad audience.

Engagement events during Phase 2 consisted of a public open house and online participation, reaching approximately 950 participants.

Phase 3: Select Preferred Design Concepts A preferred corridor concept was selected and refined in Phase 3 based on technical evaluation and public feedback obtained in Phase 2. The preferred concept was presented to the community, key stakeholders and the public and the input provided was used to further refine the preferred concept. Engagement events were selected to share information and obtain feedback from a broad audience.

Engagement events during Phase 3 consisted of a public open house, online participation and 3 pop-up events in the community, reaching over 650 participants.

Phase 4: Present Final Design Concept In the final phase, the completed corridor design was presented to the public and study findings and recommendations were documented. Engagement events were selected to facilitate the sharing of information.

In Phase 4, the final study plans and recommendations were shared through the project website.

Alignment with Corridor Study Policy: The 50 Avenue S.W. Corridor Study was initiated after approval of the Transportation Corridor Study Policy and was scoped to align with key policy points. Table 1 below summarizes the study’s alignment with the policy:

50 Avenue S.W. Corridor Study Page 3

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 59 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Table 1 – Policy Alignment

Policy Point Alignment Notes

Use of a multi-faceted • Engagement events consisted of: communications approach o Open houses o Online participation o Pop up events at community gathering places • Communications tools included: o Email distribution list o Community Association newsletters

o Postcards (mailed and hand delivered) o Roadside signs o Posters placed in local businesses o Project website o Social media

Appropriate level of • Engage! assessment indicated a Level 2B: Medium engagement based on: impact, medium complexity at project initiation • The classification of the corridor as a Parkway • Classification of corridor categorizes it as a Liveable Street, and is considered • Impact to surrounding to be a community/neighbourhood corridor. This community classification supports strong community input on • Engage! policy the project outcomes and objectives.

Provide clear definitions of • The options presented to the public included an desired outcomes and outline of benefits and tradeoffs to assist the public tradeoffs for all modes and stakeholders in evaluating and understanding the potential impacts of the different options • The evaluation criteria used included categories for each mode of travel and the results were shared with the public and stakeholders

Work with stakeholders to • The objective of Phase 1 of the engagement process identify existing and was to identify existing and potential issues as potential issues perceived by the public. These issues were then used to develop options that would ideally resolve them, as well as to identify short-term improvements that would provide more immediate benefit to the communities and public. • The different methods used to ‘pull out’ the issues from the public involved feedback forms, online and in-person mapping tools, and pop-up events within the community. These methods were selected to

50 Avenue S.W. Corridor Study Page 4

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 60 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Policy Point Alignment Notes

provide a wide range of options, locations and times to get stakeholders involved.

Develop concepts that: • A ‘do-nothing’ concept was included as one of the preliminary design concepts. Although Phase 1 • Preserve the integrity of feedback reflected a desire by some participants to adjacent communities leave the corridor as is, Phase 2 showed that this • Identify community concept was much less desirable when clearly improvements compared to other options. • Minimize negative • Responding to public feedback, a roundabout was impacts examined as a potential intersection treatment at • Include a ‘do nothing’ one location along the corridor. Ultimately, it was concept not recommended as it had significant property • Including impacts without correspondingly significant benefits staging/prioritization for to traffic flow or safety. This recommendation was interim and ultimate positively received by the public. solutions • Interim plans were developed which addressed safety concerns and other issues identified by the public in Phase 1. These plans were generally met with support.

Communicate timelines / • There were a number of ongoing projects at triggers for each concept implementation stage within the study area during the course of the 50 Avenue S.W. Corridor Study. The long term, unfunded nature of the Corridor Study required additional messaging throughout the project as it became clear there was confusion regarding the potential timing for the recommendations. • Although efforts were made to communicate the City process for long-term transportation plans, there seemed to be a disconnect between people’s desire to be involved and the realization that there was no certainty to the implementation of the recommendations.

Strong alignment Moderate alignment Weak alignment

Project Status The 50 Avenue S.W. Corridor Study was completed in March 2017 with the final interim and long-term plans presented to the public via the project website. Approval was obtained through Administration’s Transportation Leadership Team (TLT) as there were no property impacts or near-term capital funding requirements.

50 Avenue S.W. Corridor Study Page 5

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 61 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review Report

Successes and Lessons Learned The 50 Avenue S.W. Corridor Study saw the following successes:

• Responsiveness to public and stakeholder feedback, including: o Refinements to the recommendations to address underlying stakeholder desires (i.e., the high public support for separate bike lanes related to the desire to have separation between pedestrians and cyclists, achieved through widening of pathway and sidewalk facilities in the recommended plan) o Addition of short-term improvements related to the Crowchild Trail interchange and 22 Street S.W. based on the issues raised by the public o The use of pop-up engagement events in Phase 3 based on the success of those in Phase 1 • The introduction of the do-nothing option provided a clear understanding to stakeholders and the public of the implications of making no changes to the corridor, including outlining that there are still costs associated with maintaining the existing conditions • The corridor study provided an opportunity to pilot messaging related to the way stakeholder feedback is integrated into the study, and that it is only one factor used by the project team in developing and evaluating options

The 50 Avenue S.W. Corridor Study provided the following lessons learned:

• There continued to be a disconnect between the level of engagement opportunity provided to stakeholders and the long-term, unfunded and unapproved nature of corridor studies. This disconnect resulted in some additional messaging being required in latter phases of the project.

50 Avenue S.W. Corridor Study Page 6

TT2018-0979 Transportation Corridor Study Policy Review - Att 2.pdf Page 62 of 62 ISC: Unrestricted Page 1 of 7 Item #7.3

Transportation Report to ISC: UNRESTRICTED SPC on Transportation and Transit TT2018-1089 2018 October 04

Green Line Update

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report constitutes the Green Line update for 2018 Q3. The primary activity for 2018 Q3 has been undertaking a constructability review, focused on delivering the Stage 1 project from 16 Avenue North to 126 Avenue Southeast. The goal of the constructability review has been to maintain the Council approved program objectives while balancing quality and planning for the safest work methods. The constructability review is nearing completion, with the intent of finalizing a Stage 1 reference concept design that will be moved into procurement.

Concurrently with the constructability review, enabling works have been underway focused on improving project readiness. Enabling works include land acquisition, clearing the right-of-way including relocation of two existing land fills, demolition of buildings, and utility relocation. Preparation for the upcoming procurement is also underway with the development of light rail vehicle specifications, and technical project requirements. The procurement strategy will be revisited following finalization of the constructability review prior to proceeding to the market. In 2018 April, The Government of Canada Treasury Board provided final approval for the Green Line Stage 1. The Federal government has signed an Integrated Bilateral Agreement (IBA) with Alberta, providing Alberta with the right to negotiate, on behalf of both Governments, an Ultimate Recipient Agreement (URA) with The City. This URA will cover terms & conditions for both the Federal $1.53 billion as well as the Provincial $1.53 billion of funding. Negotiations between the Province and the City are on-going, and the URA is expected to be in final form for execution in the next two months. A summary of the funding approved and still requiring approval are:  $360.6 million - Enabling Works and Right of way preparation – Approved and Funded;  $4.65 billion - Stage 1 Project – Pending Finalization of URA and Final Council Approval;  $23.7 million/year until 2044 - Green Line debt servicing – Approved and Funded; and  $40 million/year (2016-dollar net operating costs) - not yet Approved or Funded. The constructability review has identified a number of opportunities that will increase the cost certainty, mitigate risk, and reduce the construction impact of the project. One of the largest opportunities is utilizing a large single bore tunnel versus a more conventional double-bore tunnel configuration. Details regarding the opportunities identified will be presented to Committee at the 2018 Q4 project update. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: That the SPC on Transportation and Transit recommend that Council receive this report for information.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION/POLICY At the 2018 May 28 Regular Meeting of Council, Green Line Director Introduction (Verbal), C2018-0649. A PowerPoint presentation entitled "Green Line Introduction," dated 2018 May 28, with respect to Report C2018-0649, was distributed. Moved by Councillor Keating Seconded by Councillor Gondek that Council receive the Verbal Report for information. Green Line Committed to quarterly updates.

Approval(s): Michael Thompson concurs with this report. Author: Paul Giannelia Page 2 of 7 Item #7.3

Transportation Report to ISC: UNRESTRICTED SPC on Transportation and Transit TT2018-1089 2018 October 04

Green Line Update

At the 2018 March 19 Combined Meeting of Council, Report PFC2018-0207 (Green Line Light Rail Transit Project Delivery Model Recommendation) was approved as follows: 1. Approve Design-Build-Finance (“DBF”) as the delivery model for the Green Line LRT project from 16 Avenue North to 126 Avenue Southeast; 2. Authorize the General Manager, Transportation, to negotiate all funding agreements with the federal and provincial governments and the General Manager, Transportation, and the City Clerk to execute the funding agreements and any other agreements necessary to advance the procurement process. The General Manager, Transportation and the City Solicitor will also sign off on the funding agreements as to content and form, respectively; 3. Direct that Attachment 4 and the Closed Meeting discussions remain confidential pursuant to section 23, 24, 25 and 27 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy (FOIP) Act (Alberta) until the agreements for the Project considered in this Report are awarded and financial close is achieved, with the exception of information Administration needs to share with funding partners, which will be shared in confidence; and 4. Direct Administration to report back no later than Q4 2018 to the Priorities and Finance Committee of Council with the recommended budgets for approval including financing and confirmation of funding from the other orders of government for the Project. At the 2017 June 26 Regular Meeting of Council, Report TT2017-0534 (Green Line LRT Alignment and Stations: 160 Avenue N to Seton) was approved as follows: 1. Adopt the recommended alignment and station locations for the Green Line Light Rail Transit (LRT) long-term vision from 160 Avenue N to Seton as per Attachment 1 and 3; and 2. Adopt the recommended Green Line Urban Integration (GLUI) for the full Green Line LRT from 160 Avenue N to Seton as per Attachment 2; 3. Direct Administration to report back no later than Q1 2018 with a Stage 1: 16 Avenue N to 126 Avenue SE project update including a recommended contracting strategy and future staging approach; and 4. Direct Administration to bring this report forward to the 2017 June 26 Regular Meeting of Council along with the associated reports from the SPC on Community and Protective Services (CPS2017-0469) and the SPC on Planning and Urban Development (PUD2017-0471). Council provided the following direction to Administration at the 2017 May 15 Strategic Meeting of Council: 1. Proceed with Stage 1 Project based on: 16 Avenue N (Crescent Heights) to 126 Avenue SE (Shepard) subject to Council’s final approval of the alignment, station locations and transit-oriented development concept plans based on the Class 3 capital estimate of $4.65 billion construction cost contingent on securing funding as per #2 and #3 below; 2. Prepare the required business case(s) for submission to the Government of Canada to support a request of $1.53 billion plus financing to support the Stage 1 Project; 3. Prepare the required business case(s) for submission to the Government of Alberta to support a request of $1.56 billion plus financing to support the Stage 1 Project; 4. Request the Mayor to work with administration in the beginning making the case for funding of the rest of the line, beginning as soon as possible;

Approval(s): Michael Thompson concurs with this report. Author: Paul Giannelia Page 3 of 7 Item #7.3

Transportation Report to ISC: UNRESTRICTED SPC on Transportation and Transit TT2018-1089 2018 October 04

Green Line Update

5. Direct Administration to bring a revised financial strategy, pending confirmation of federal and provincial funding, and including capital, financing and operating cost models, to Council as part of the 2018 Business Plan and Budget deliberations; and 6. Direct that Attachment 2 and Distribution #3 remain confidential pursuant to Sections 24(1)(a), 24(1)(b) and 25(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, until the Green Line construction has been completed. MOTION ARISING, at the 2017 May 15 Strategic Meeting of Council moved by Councillor Chu, Seconded by Councillor Keating, that with respect to Report C2017-0467, Council direct Administration to: 1. Develop timeline scenarios for building the remainder of the Green Line showing the construction timelines assuming funding is secured for stations north of 16 Avenue N and south of 126 Ave SE; 2. Seek funding options so that the remainder of the line can be constructed without interruption once the opening day scenario is completed; 3. Continue land acquisition of North properties on an opportunity basis and develop funding options, in advance of construction; and 4. Host open houses to provide residents and businesses who are not part of the opening day scenario with information regarding the completion of the Green Line including land acquisition. BACKGROUND Following the approval of the Green Line long-term vision and Council direction to proceed with the Stage 1: 16 Avenue N to 126 Avenue SE project at the 2017 June 26 Regular Meeting of Council, Administration has transitioned from the planning phase to the project execution phase. The initial step in the execution phase has been developing a constructability review of the entire alignment and a new detailed CAPEX cost estimation for the Council approved Stage 1: 16 Avenue N to 126 Avenue SE project scope.

INVESTIGATION: ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS

Design Update Administration is nearing completion of a constructability review, which has entailed an extensive review and value-engineering exercise. The constructability review identifies, confirms and validates the construction means and methods; mitigates and reduces risk through engineering and design; and evolves until the optimum design that achieves project objectives is determined. The review must confirm that the project meets operational requirements, and that problems that may cause costly construction changes are identified and mitigated early in the process. The end outcome of the review is to ensure that the project is biddable, buildable, and cost-effective. The constructability review has identified critical construction risks, and the value engineering review is identifying opportunities for efficiencies and to manage the scope within the approved funding. To identify value engineering opportunities, a concerted effort was made to challenge stated project constraints and assumptions. The intent is to identify the highest value project by optimizing the trade-off between quality and cost.

Approval(s): Michael Thompson concurs with this report. Author: Paul Giannelia Page 4 of 7 Item #7.3

Transportation Report to ISC: UNRESTRICTED SPC on Transportation and Transit TT2018-1089 2018 October 04

Green Line Update

The following process was undertaken for the review:  Guidelines to enhance the probability of a cost-efficient buildable project were established for engineers, designers and planners;  Key engineering, design, and procurement deliverables that are assumed to have the greatest bearing on the ability to construct the project were outlined;  Construction means, and methods scenarios based on engineering, design and planning assumptions were built to improve safety, quality, cost and schedule; and  Execution risks and opportunities were identified, and various solutions were developed.

The significant design elements under review have focused on the highest risk areas, specifically the downtown tunnel segment. The initial design concept focused on a double-bore tunnel, while the constructability review has focused on a single-bore tunnel. The objective of the single-bore tunnel is to optimize station construction impacts and costs while maintaining the customer experience, functionality and aesthetics. The single-bore tunnel increases the horizontal curve geometry which will result in minor changes to the horizontal alignment which is currently being evaluated. Additionally, the station configurations will be different between the double-bore and single bore tunnel and administration is currently evaluating the impacts of the single-bore stations.

Cost Estimate and Schedule Update This constructability review will improve the quality of our procurement package. It is producing project cost estimates and schedule documents that have a higher level of certainty than previous versions. The cost estimate was stressed tested by using a bottom-up approach where labour, material, equipment, and productivity rates were established at a task level for every construction component. Administration remains focused on delivering the Stage 1 project within the approved funding, but additional work needs to be completed to establish that the project can be delivered at an increased level of certainty. Inflight Work Update Concurrently with the constructability review, enabling works has been underway focused on improving project readiness. Enabling works include land acquisition, clearing the right-of-way including relocation of two existing land fills, demolition of buildings, and utility relocation. Attachment 1 outlines some of the inflight work completed to date and currently underway. Next Steps Critical imminent milestones:  Completion of constructability review for Stage 1 that meets Council objectives within approved funding  Completion of Project Execution Plan informed by constructability review  Review of procurement strategy  Finalization and release to market of procurement documents Upcoming Green Line Reports to Committee and Council The following reports are scheduled to come to Committee and Council to provide additional updates on the Green Line project:

Approval(s): Michael Thompson concurs with this report. Author: Paul Giannelia Page 5 of 7 Item #7.3

Transportation Report to ISC: UNRESTRICTED SPC on Transportation and Transit TT2018-1089 2018 October 04

Green Line Update

 2018 October 10 – SPC on Utilities & Corporate Services - Update on Stage 1 Green Line Property Acquisitions  2018 Q4 – SPC on Community and Protective Services - City Shaping Update  2018 Q4 – SPC on Transportation and Transit – Green Line Update  2018 Q4 – SPC on Priorities and Finance - Recommended capital budgets for approval including financing and confirmation of funding from the other orders of government for the Project.  2019 Q1 – SPC on Planning and Urban Development - TOD update Strategic Alignment Social, Environmental, Economic (External) Stakeholder Engagement, Research and Communication Engagement for Green Line has been ongoing and has focused on the following:  Station area stakeholders “Green Line in My Community” - input on station area aesthetics and the preliminary station architecture was gathered;  Lessons learned from other jurisdictions; and  Interdepartmental design workshops were conducted. Input from all stakeholders has been critical to the reference concept design and cost estimate reviews. Strategic Alignment Social, Environmental, Economic (External) The project aligns with social, environmental and economic priorities of The City and the priorities of the provincial and federal governments. Green Line is designed to improve quality of life by providing people with options on how to move, work, live, and play, and allows more affordable access to essential community services. As part of its alignment with environmental priorities, the Environmental Management Program (EMP) focuses on realization of greenhouse gas (GhG) reduction benefits. The Green Line Project is tasked with satisfying City of Calgary, and Federal and Provincial funding partner requirements that include: climate resilience reporting; environmental assessments; First Nations consultation; application of the Envision management system; and the provision of technical environmental requirements and guidelines to satisfy the procurement process. Financial Capacity Current and Future Operating Budget: Current operating expenditures for the Project are capitalized as incurred and are funded by a combination of the Enabling Works Budget of $360.6 million, and previously approved Council funding of $1.56 billion, depending on the nature of the expenditure (refer to Capital Budget section below for additional detail). On 2017 May 15, and 2017 Nov 27, a preliminary estimate was provided to Council for the initial full year net operating costs of Green Line. This estimate is $40 million/year, in 2016 dollars. This estimate will be updated once the major construction contract has been awarded and the construction schedule is set. Operating costs at revenue service are not currently funded.

Approval(s): Michael Thompson concurs with this report. Author: Paul Giannelia Page 6 of 7 Item #7.3

Transportation Report to ISC: UNRESTRICTED SPC on Transportation and Transit TT2018-1089 2018 October 04

Green Line Update

In addition to operating costs post service commencement, the Project will incur debt servicing costs related to any portion of the funding that is received after Project completion. On 2017 Nov 27, an updated estimate of projected interest expense was presented to Council. Council approved the allocation of $23.7 million/year until 2044 toward Green Line debt servicing. Actual debt servicing will be dependent on a combination of interest rates, timing of expenditures and any potential change in the funding schedule. Current and Future Capital Budget: In April 2018, the Government of Canada Treasury Board provided final approval for Green Line to be an eligible project under Canada’s Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP). The Federal government also signed an Integrated Bilateral Agreement (IBA) with Alberta. This IBA provides Alberta with the right to negotiate, on behalf of both Governments, an Ultimate Recipient Agreement (URA) with The City. This URA will cover terms & conditions for both the Federal $1.53 billion as well as the Provincial $1.53 billion of funding. Negotiations between the Province and the Green Line Project are on-going, and the URA is expected to be in final form for execution in the next two months. This funding, in combination with the previously approved City funding, will support the Project’s $4.65 Stage 1 expenditure. The Project had earlier received funding for its Enabling Works projects, which are related to preparing the right-of-way for the Project’s major construction. The Enabling Works budget is $360.6 million, and is provided by funding programs from the three orders of government that is separate from the main Project’s funding (Federal Public Transit Infrastructure Fund (PTIF) 1 = $111 million, Provincial 50% PTIF match = $55.5, Provincial Green Trip = $92.4 million, City 50% match of PTIF 1 & Green Trip = $101.7 million) The full Project Capital Budget will be brought forth for Council approval after the Ultimate Recipient Agreement is finalized with the Province. Risk Assessment The Green Line Program risks are being tracked and actioned. The following risks are assessed as top priority:

1. Timeline  Resolution of all design decisions and conclusion of the design is key to completing the constructability review and preparing and releasing to market the procurement documents, all of which can impact ultimate project timelines and costs. 2. Land Acquisition  Resolution of land impacts is critical to ensure timely access for construction. A land acquisition dashboard has been developed to track and manage each property file. 3. Stakeholders  In anticipation of the management of community and business impacts during construction, Administration is developing a strategy that includes lessons learned from previous projects and other jurisdictions. 4. Procurement  The procurement strategy will be revisited following finalization of the constructability review prior to proceeding to the market. If a change in the procurement strategy is recommended from the currently approved strategy a report will be taken to the SPC on Priorities and Finance Committee.

Approval(s): Michael Thompson concurs with this report. Author: Paul Giannelia Page 7 of 7 Item #7.3

Transportation Report to ISC: UNRESTRICTED SPC on Transportation and Transit TT2018-1089 2018 October 04

Green Line Update

 Administration is working to implement opportunities to engage the private sector in discussions around the best methods to build the Green Line. This must be considerate of following a fair, open, and transparent procurement process.  Administration has identified a need to accelerate the relocation of existing utilities. An innovative approach to the relocation of utilities is required due to the extensive number of utilities to be relocated and the potential impact to the main construction project.

REASON(S) FOR RECOMMENDATION(S): This report is the first in a series of ongoing quarterly updates that will be provided to the Transportation and Transit Committee to update Committee and Council as to the progress of the Green Line project. The focus of 2018 Q3 has been a constructability review which has identified a number of opportunities that will increase the cost certainty, mitigate risk, and reduce the construction impact of the project.

ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Attachment 1 – Green Line LRT Stage 1 Inflight Work Summary

.

Approval(s): Michael Thompson concurs with this report. Author: Paul Giannelia

TT2018-1089 Attachment Green Line LRT Stage 1 Inflight Work Summary

Enabling Works Project Title Description Status Construction Progress Highfield Landfill Removal of waste from landfill Ongoing, construction to be 90% complete Remediation location complete Q4 2018. Minor clean-up planned for 2019 (including landscaping). Highfield Blvd Removal of waste from under Ongoing, construction to be 80% complete Waste Removal Highfield Blvd (adjacent to complete Q4 2018. landfill) CN Reconfiguration Relocation of CN tracks and Construction start Q4 2018. - at Highfield utilities Completion planned for Q4 2019. Inglewood/Ramsay Relocation of numerous utilities Construction start Q2 2019. 5% complete (material Utility Relocations Completion planned for Q4 has been ordered). at Jefferies Park 2019. Bonnybrook WWTP Relocation of numerous utilities Ongoing, construction to be 15% complete. Relocation of complete Q2 2019 Utilities 42 Avenue SE Water main upgrade to facilitate Substantially complete 99% complete. Waterline other water main shut-downs required for Green Line Utilities Hydrovac program in Centre City Ongoing, investigation 20% complete. Investigation to identify utility conflicts complete Q4 2018 Pop Davies Area Regrading of Millican Rd for Park Tender targeted for Q4 2018 - and Ride facility. Construction of parking lot at South to replace parking along Ogden Rd Douglas Glen Construction of a new transit Construction complete 100% complete Transit only road to facilitate station Improvements construction during main contract without transit disruption 78th Ave SE Tunnel Construction of CP underpass Construction start Q1 2019 - and Road Works and associated road infrastructure to enable closure of 69 Ave SE Shepard Sludge Removal of conflicts from GL Construction complete 100% complete Line Relocation alignment

Ogden Landfill Removal of waste from landfill Ongoing, construction to be 90% complete location complete Q4 2018

Building Conflicts Acquisition and demolition of Ongoing 10 Demolished properties 26 Scheduled for demolition TT2018-1089 Attachment Page 1 of 2 ISC: Unrestricted

TT2018-1089 Attachment Green Line LRT Stage 1 Inflight Work Summary Shallow Utilities Resolution of shallow utility Ongoing 30% complete conflicts

Elbow to Shepard Resolution of deep utility Ongoing 48% complete Deep Utilities conflicts Conflicts Resolution City Shaping Milestones Community Support Initiative Project Input Community Enhancement Projects Q1 2018 - Data gathering placemaking - Provide input into the Area - Coordinate with tool developed Redevelopment Plans/Area stakeholders from - Baseline data gathered at Structure Plans Community Services to Westbrook and Sunalta stations develop a toolkit Q2 2018 Three (3) pilot placemaking City Shaping included in the City Shaping toolkit events held at Westbrook and Green Line Technical Project developed. Sunalta Stations Requirements document. Q3 2018 - Feasibility Analysis for the GL Railway Garden Initiative - Pilot GBA+ tool as part of the stations design

Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Milestones Description Status Progress Q1 2018 -Established population targets Ongoing Monitoring progress within 400m and 1000m of GL through annual census to base Key Performance data Indicators for Provincial and Federal Funding Partners Q2 2018 -Drafted an Updated TOD Policy Ongoing -Second draft to be Guidelines Document to replace circulated internally – 2005 version Ongoing Mid October -Created a specific CPAG Team -Fully functioning team for Stage 1 Applications along reviewing the the Green Line Development Liaison Application for Stage 1 Q3 2018 -Finished the development of Complete Implementing Project Charter for TOD Strategy – Approved by TOD Working Group and Steering Committee

TT2018-1089 Attachment Page 2 of 2 ISC: Unrestricted