Queensway Coalition

Project: Highway 417, from west of Highway 416 easterly to west of Anderson Road
Agreement #4005-A-000090
G.W.P. 663-93-00
TSH No. 42-91026
Meeting Date: Wednesday April 7, 2004
Meeting Time: 7:00 p.m. – 9:30 p.m.
MEETING REPORT No. 3 Recorder: Valerie McGirr

LOCATION: Parks & Recreation Boardroom, Ben Franklin Place, 101 Centrepointe Drive

1.0 Meeting attendees introduced themselves and B. Ruck provided an overview of the
role of the Public Advisory Committee.
2.0 B. Ruck provided an update of the project and requested input from PAC on the
upcoming evaluation. A copy of the presentation material is attached. The
following topics were addressed:
· Project Status Update including work completed to date, work to be
completed, the updated traffic report and the HOV report
· Project Schedule
· EA for Bridge Deck Replacements in the vicinity of Carling Ave.
· Evaluation Methodology
· Alternatives – Mainline and Interchanges
3.0 The following questions and concerns were noted:
· Q. What is the interpretation of the 30% transit target? A. This is the overall
transit share of trips. Some routes will have greater than 30% transit share
and some routes will have less.
· Q. Did the traffic analysis look at induced travel if the Queensway is
widened? A. Growth will create more trips. The transportation model takes
into account the change in mode from auto to transit (and vise versa)
depending on travel conditions. It was also noted that there is no proposed
widening through the downtown core and therefore no induced travel.
· Q. Induced travel could affect air quality results. A. The impact of increased
traffic volumes on air quality will be addressed as part of the air quality study
that is being undertaken. The assessment will compare the level of pollutants
with respect to air quality standards.
· Q. Some people use auxiliary lanes for passing, where they are too long. A.
Auxiliary lanes will be restricted to locations where their use will improve
Queensway operations and/or improve safety.

· Q. Why is the buffer space required between high occupancy vehicle (HOV)
lanes and general purpose (GP) lanes? A. Because of the significant speed
variation between HOV and GP lanes during peak periods, a buffer is needed
to enhance safety through better visibility of vehicles entering and leaving the
HOV lane. Further, the buffer alleviates to some degree the perception of
significant speed differentials between the HOV and GPL, thereby increasing
the comfort of both users of the HOV and GPL’s. Enforcement areas are also
needed because of the significant number of violations that occur where
enforcement is absent (up to 70% reported in some other jurisdictions).
· Q. Were zipper lanes (reversible lanes) considered? A. Yes. These are most
effective in areas where the volumes are much greater in one direction than in
the other. In Ottawa traffic volumes are more balanced than in other
jurisdictions so a “reversible-type” lane would not work well.
· Q. What happens when the 8 lanes fill up? A. Once the ultimate
configuration of the Queensway is congested, the peak will spread and
become longer.
4.0 B. Ruck provided on overview of the project schedule. Completion is anticipated
in spring 2005.
· Q. Will PAC meetings be held in advance of future PICs? A. Yes. The
milestone schedule only provides the PAC information for the period in
advance of the next PIC series.
5.0 Keith Dustin of the MTO presented information on a planned EA Study for the
bridges carrying Highway 417 across Clyde Avenue, Carling EB, Kirkwood,
Carling WB and Island Park Drive. The condition of these bridges (exposed
reinforcing steel bars and salt contamination) makes it important to finalize plans
for their replacement so that the Ministry can avoid the ongoing expenditure of
significant sums of money for temporary repairs. MTO will be considering both
conventional and rapid replacement techniques (RRT) for the deck replacements.
Conventional techniques would require on-site detours to maintain 3 travel
lanes/direction during peak travel times while would require weekend full closures
of the Queensway.
· Q. The needs of cyclists on the arterials must be considered during the
development of plans. A. Although the most significant construction will be
on the Queensway, there will be some work required beneath the existing
bridges. Accommodations for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists will be
considered during the preliminary design.
· Q. What is the relationship between the widening of these bridges for
construction staging purposes and the potential widening of the Queensway as
a result of the larger planning study? A. The extra deck width can be used to
improve the median and/or outside shoulder widths and could be incorporated
into a widened highway.

· Q. Will the bridges look the same? A. The structures may look similar. The
EA Study will look at structural needs as well as related works such as
enhanced landscaping and other architectural features.
· Q. Are funds approved? A. The funds for the planning are approved but not
for design and construction. It is hoped that this work will be done as soon as
possible. It is likely that construction on the structures will be done
concurrently.
6.0 B. Ruck described the evaluation methodology, noting how some concepts
previously presented to the public, such as the “basketweaves” between Metcalfe
and Nicholas, have been screened out as a result of additional work that indicated
that the impacts associated with these alternatives outweighed the benefits.
· Q. When and why has transit been screened out (Section 4.2)? A. While
transit is not a “stand-alone” solution, it is an integral part of the overall
transportation solution. All the transit improvements proposed by the City of
Ottawa for the next 20 years have been included in the traffic analysis and
these have been taken as a given in all of the future demand scenarios. The
traffic analysis assumed that the 30% transit mode share would be achieved.
This study is looking at what the Queensway needs to look like in the future
and is not a transit study or a master planning exercise such as the work
undertaken by the City.
· Q. What is meant by ridership “in the Queensway corridor”? A. The traffic
analysis used the same model as the City used to develop the results for the
Transportation Master Plan. Travel across screenlines and in corridors and
the projected transit usage used for the Queensway study is consistent with
the City’s TMP. The City’s work identified “residual demand” that exists
even when all of the transit usage targets set by the City are achieved. This
residual demand would have to be met by improvements not identified in the
current TMP. (A PAC member noted that the residual demand could be met
on the transit system.)
· Q. A PAC member noted his concern that City staff will not guarantee that
money obtained from the province or federal governments will be used for
transit projects. A. D. Lindensmith noted that there is no funding approved
for any improvements that may be recommended as a result of this
Queensway planning study. The identification of improvements to achieve
the ultimate configuration of Highway 417 is seen as an essential part of
transportation planning in Ottawa.
· Q. The City’s numbers for growth and transit share targets are being appealed
to the Ontario Municipal Board. Will the Highway 417 work be revisited if
this appeal is successful? A. If the City’s projections for growth change, then
additional analysis would be required.
· Q. In Table 5, is the Metcalfe interchange included in the segment described
as “Rochester to O’Connor? A. Yes, Metcalfe should be included in this
group.

· B. Ruck described the notation used for the alternatives provided in Volume 2
of the Preliminary Alternatives Report. He noted that most interchanges
include the do nothing alternative, ramp closure alternative(s) and ramp
modifications.
· The impact of ramp modifications on the needs and safety of cyclists must be
considered.
· D. McAvoy noted that the goal for feedback from PAC is the identification of
the interests and values of the community represented by each PAC member.
More that one submission from various groups is allowed, understanding that
it may not be possible to achieve consensus even within individual groups.
The range of community values will be used in the sensitivity analysis
following the evaluation.
· Q. The sub-factor for transit does not adequately address how improvements
may take people away from transit and into their cars. A. B. Ruck noted that
suggestions on ways to improve factors and sub-factors would be welcome.
· Q. Will road improvements make it more difficult for the City to achieve its
transit share target? How many people use the Queensway today instead of
transit because it is “convenient”? Want a quantitative approach to the
assessment of change in ridership due to the “convenience” of the highway.
A. The traffic analysis assumes a significant shift to transit, not just through
increased share but also through an increase in the absolute number of trips
due to growth. Smart growth principles are built into the assumptions. The
team will review means of quantifying ridership impacts.
· B. Ruck provided handouts to the attendees for their comment on weightings
to be applied to the factor areas. For the mainline, 100 points should be
divided into the five factor areas (transportation, natural environment,
social/cultural environment, land use and property, cost). This can also be
done for interchanges (on an individual or “group” basis as the importance of
various factors will vary from interchange to interchange depending on local
conditions).
· If desired, PAC members can also provide their assessment of how the sub-
factors within each of the factor areas should be weighted. These may
provide a general indication only as there may be cases where sub factors are
screened out because there is no difference between the alternatives with
respect to the particular sub-factor. PAC was advised that allocation of
weights to the sub-factors was of limited value without using the detailed
analysis tables which are not part of the handout package. Responses
received by April 19, 2004 will be considered during the evaluation.
· The range of community values (factor weights) will be applied to the
alternatives as part of the sensitivity analysis to determine if a change to the
weightings changes the preferred alternative.

· A PAC member suggested that more of the sub-factors have “costs” associated
with them (i.e. person-hours, air quality). B. Ruck noted that in the case of air
quality, reference is being made to provincial air quality objectives using a
recognized model of existing and future conditions.
The PAC meeting then broke out into small discussion groups on topics of interest
to the various participants. Some of the issues discussed are as follows:
· B. Ruck noted that design details to mitigate potential impacts would be
investigated during the preliminary design of the preferred alternative. These
include accommodation of cycling and pedestrian at intersections.
· Q. How will time of day ramp closures be assessed? A. Traffic diverted to
other routes (such as the Metcalfe exit and Catherine Street during the
Bronson exit ramp closure) will be analyzed and considered during the
evaluation.
· Table 4 on page 29 should be revised for the westbound direction as the
alternatives include provision of 4 lanes west of Metcalfe, whereas the text on
page 32 suggests that this is not the case. B. Ruck noted that some
alternatives do show a minor widening from Metcalfe to O’Connor to avoid
forcing two lanes to exit at Metcalfe Street.
7.0 The next PAC will be in early June, in advance of the next series of Public
Involvement Centres (PIC’s).