Presentations: Public Advisory Committee Meeting #3

Brian Ruck, P. Eng., C.V.S.
TSH Project Manager

---

Agenda

• Introduction of Attendees and Role of PAC
• Project Status Update
• Project Schedule
• EA for deck replacements
• Evaluation Methodology
• Alternatives - Mainline and Interchanges
• Other Business

---

Role of PAC

• Facilitate exchange of information between the Project Team and Communities
• Provide an opportunity to discuss issues
• Provide an opportunity to provide comments on evaluation criteria and proposed weighting

---

Project Status Update

Work completed to date

• Environmental inventories
• Traffic Operations Report
• Draft Study Design Report
• Problem identification
• Development of alternatives at concept level
• Presentation of foregoing to agencies and public
• Development of alternatives at greater level of detail
• Development of evaluation methodology

Work to be completed

• Select Technically Preferred Alternative(s) for mainline and interchanges (TPA)
• Present TPA to agencies and PAC for comments
• Revise TPA as may be required
• Present TPA to public at PIC #2 (fall 2003)
• Revise TPA as may be required
• Complete Preliminary Design of TPA
• Present Preliminary Design to agencies and PAC
• Present Preliminary Design to Public at PIC #3
• Complete documentation and file TESR for public and agency review (Winter/Spring 2005)

Traffic Report

Projected Population Employment

	Inside Greenbelt	West Urban Centre	South Urban Centre	East Urban Centre	Rural Area	Total
Population 2001	517,000	73,000	42,000	88,000	80,000	800,000
Population 2021	588,000	186,000	172,000	131,000	115,000	1,192,000
Population Growth	71,000	113,000	130,000	43,000	35,000	392,000
Population Growth Distribution	18%	29%	33%	11%	9%	100%
Employment 2001	403,000	36,000	8,000	15,000	18,000	480,000
Employment 2021	514,000	90,000	70,000	45,000	29,000	749,000
Employment Growth	111,000	54,000	62,000	30,000	11,000	268,000
Employment Growth Distribution	41%	20%	23%	11%	4%	100%

Future Conditions Update

• Scope:
  • Travel demand forecasting/traffic volume projections
  • INTEGRATION modelling
  • Operations analysis
• Based on final Ottawa TMP (Sept. 2003)
• Supersedes previous Traffic Operations Report - Future Conditions (Oct. 30, 2002)

Travel Demand Forecasting

• City of Ottawa/TRANS EMME/2 model
• TMP population and employment
• TMP 30% transit mode split
• p.m. peak hour
• Model runs used for volume projections:
  • 2001 base year (existing conditions)
  • 2021 horizon, TMP road network improvements; no Highway 417 improvements

Increases in demand caused by:

• change in modelling process
• use of 1996 travel survey instead of 1986 survey
• adjustments to work trips to account for increased labour force participation between 1995 and 2021
• adjustments to account for commercial activity (trips not captured in survey and heavy truck counts)
• higher community to community trip making in 2003 TMP

Decrease in demand caused by:

• Change in overall transit target from 20% to 30%

Results

• No existing screenline capacity deficiencies
• A capacity deficiency (equivalent to 1 lane per direction) will exist on Highway 417 from Highway 416 to Innes Road by 2021
• Adding capacity to Highway 417 attracts trips from City streets
• Minor benefit to Highway 417 from OTC and/or Interprovincial bridges
• Overall network benefits more significant than Highway 417 benefits
• Despite implementation of all transportation upgrades contained in the 2003 TMP, including realization of transit mode share targets, there is still a need to consider improvements to the Queensway

INTEGRATION
Corridor Performance Results

a.m. Peak Period Averages

Time Period	2001 Speed (km/h)	2011 Speed (km/h)	2021 Speed (km/h)	2001 Stops (%)	2011 Stops (%)	2021 Stops (%)
06:00-07:00	105.6	106.2	104.9	4.5	4.2	4.6
07:00-08:00	81.7	78.3	72.6	8.3	8.5	9.0
08:00-09:00	64.4	60.4	57.4	10.5	10.2	10.8

p.m. Peak Period Averages

Time Period	2001 Speed (km/h)	2011 Speed (km/h)	2021 Speed (km/h)	2001 Stops (%)	2011 Stops (%)	2021 Stops (%)
15:00-16:00	80.7	63.4	58.4	10.3	12.2	13.4
16:00-17:00	68.0	41.8	35.9	11.4	14.7	16.2
17:00-18:00	59.2	30.7	27.4	12.2	16.4	17.7

Basic Lane Needs - Eastbound

• 2011
  • 3 lanes from 416 to Pinecrest
  • 4 lanes from Pinecrest to Kent
  • 3 lanes from Kent to Metcalfe
  • 4 lanes from Metcalfe to 174
  • 3 lanes from 174 to Walkley
• 2021
  • 4 lanes from 416 to 174 excluding Kent to Metcalfe (3 lanes)
  • 3 lanes from 174 to east limits

Basic Lane Needs - Westbound

• 2011
  • 3 lanes from Hunt Club Interchange to 174
  • 4 lanes from 174 to Pinecrest
  • 3 lanes Pinecrest to 416
• 2021
  • 4 lanes extended to Richmond

Auxiliary Lanes

• In addition to the basic lanes, auxiliary lanes will be required at various locations to improve operations
  (hence there may be greater than 4 lanes/direction in some areas between interchanges)
  Note: Auxiliary lanes connect ramps between adjacent interchanges, and are used particularly where interchanges are spaced close to each other. These lanes are not continuous throughout the study area.

Summary

• The update of the traffic report did not significantly change future traffic forecasts for the Queensway.
• Despite overall transit targets being achieved, and all upgrades to transportation facilities described in the 2003 TMP being implemented, capacity deficiencies on the Queensway will still be realized resulting in increased congestion, mobility and safety concerns.

High Occupancy Vehicle Study.(HOV)

Results

Although a demand for HOV lanes can be demonstrated, operational and safety concerns associated with the Queensway corridor within the study limits eliminated HOV lanes from further consideration.

---

Project Schedule

Project Milestone Schedule

• Alternative evaluation - April 2004
• MTO endorsement - mid-May 2004
• PAC - early June 2004
• Transportation Committee - early June 2004
• PIC #2 - late June (June 21, 22, and 23)
• Preliminary design complete - Fall 2004
• PIC #3 - Fall 2004
• File TESR - Spring 2005

---

EA for deck replacements

Key Plan

"Thin Slab" EA

• Significant money spent to keep bridges operating
• Separate EA for bridges to commence soon with a 6 month completion timeframe
• Conventional and Rapid Replacement Technologies (RRT) to be considered

---

Evaluation Methodology

(Details on methodology are contained in Volume 1of the Preliminary Alternatives Report that was distributed in advance of the meeting.)

Preliminary Alternatives Report was prepared and outlines:

• Identified Problems and Opportunities
• Assessment and Evaluation Methodology
• Alternatives to the Undertaking
• Alternative Methods
• Long List and Short List of Alternatives

Evaluation Principles

• Comprehensive
• Understandable
• Traceable
• Replicable
• Participatory

Evaluation Methodology

• Use both Qualitative (reasoned argument) and Quantitative (arithmetic) with emphasis on quantitative method
• Quantitative method - "Weighted Additive, Multi-attribute Trade-off Method" includes:
  • Level of importance of each factor/sub-factor (weight)
  • Magnitude of the impact/benefit (score)
• Scores are derived from function forms
• Sensitivity testing carried out to test rigour of preferred alternative
• Evaluation carried out by multi-disciplinary team

PAC Input

The project team is looking for input from PAC members in two ways:

1. Comments on the evaluation factors to be applied (Table 5); and
2. Input into factor weights to be used in sensitivity testing (handouts)

Note: The evaluation is being carried out at the end of April, so PAC input is required by April 19, 2004.

---

Alternatives - Mainline and Interchanges

See Preliminary Alternatives Report, Volume 2 of 2 -- Alternative Plans

---

Other Business

HOV Study Update

HOV Alternatives considered:

• Major widening - widen throughout to provide HOV lane with full geometric cross section
• Strategic widening - widen to create basic 8 lanes from 416 to 174, and 6 lanes from 174 to east limit with one lane/direction for HOV

HOV Implementation Considerations

• Limits
  • EB -- continue lane from west and terminate east of St. Laurent
  • WB -- either east or west of 174 I/C to connect to east of Richmond Road
• Separated vs. Non-Separated
  • Separated preferred but would require extensive widening and property acquisition throughout the corridor
• Enforcement
  • Given site constraints, desirable enforcement areas not possible
  • Violations up to 75% reported in other jurisdictions
• Access/Safety
  • Grade separated not feasible with corridor constraints
  • Proximity of interchanges and congestion on GPL's significantly degrade HOV efficiency and safety on the whole facility