| |
Posted Nov 12, 2008, 1:48 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,767
|
|
Quote:
Transit future rides on many unknowns
By SUSAN SHERRING
The ghost of the city's former light-rail plan continues to haunt city council.
But the broken contract is just one of the concerns over plans for a $4.7-billion project to bring light rail to the nation's capital.
Yesterday, a series of potential risks compiled by consultant Brian Bourns with KPMG, warned councillors the city's reputation precedes it -- and that could impede companies from bidding on the project.
"The outcome of the north-south line will impact the number who bid on your project, particularly if there are other projects out there to bid on," said Bourns, himself a former city councillor.
Bourns said risk assessment studies are becoming more commonplace. And while there are many potential risks detailed in his report, that doesn't mean the project shouldn't proceed. There are ways to mitigate those risks.
In an interview with the Sun, Mayor Larry O'Brien said the risk factors don't deter him.
" One of the things I wanted is a list of challenges you have to overcome, threats to what we want to achieve, things that can bite you in the ass that you have to be aware of.
"I don't think any of them were terminal, except for choosing the wrong system. That's a mistake you can't afford to make. You have to keep track of everything that could cause a problem," O'Brien said.
That certainly makes sense.
HIDDEN COSTS
Still, the list of risk factors can't help but cause concern.
For starters, this city has only estimated the cost of the mega-project.
"Project costing was performed at a very high level -- program is conceptual, no designs available," the report says.
"Review determined that estimates prepared are reasonable for the level of information available, suggesting contingencies added are conservative, and the engineering and project management costs may be underestimated."
In addition, the cost of the land has not been included in the project cost estimates.
Of course, land was already purchased for the cancelled north-south route -- causing continued frustration for supporters of the last plan.
The list of unknowns continue. For example, according to the KPMG report, "The excavation for the downtown tunnel stations, required station excavation and construction more vulnerable to problems requires specialized skills and mining techniques."
And a big one -- while the plan relies on using the Ottawa Parkway -- the National Capital Commission hasn't even come close to saying it will allow that.
The spin yesterday suggested it was good news that while they hadn't said yes, they hadn't said no.
There are two options if the parkway is eventually turned down -- Byron and Carling. Both options are more expensive. Byron twice the cost, Carling, four times.
There are unknowns surrounding utility relocations, the risk of rising costs to meet the possibility of more restrictive environmental issues, and concerns over securing land and property rights.
There's also the issue of disrupting service during construction, and the worry about losing riders over that time -- which could be lengthy.
Not done yet.
There are Transport Canada railway regulations to contend with, inflation worries -- especially given that construction costs can increase faster than others -- and then there's the fluctuating exchange rate.
And with other cities also building light-rail systems, competition for companies is expected to increase.
Don't forget, the federal and provincial governments haven't committed beyond their $200 million.
(Think north-south and you could be thinking deja vu all over again.)
"The $4.7 billion will increase," Bourns said, estimating a 10% increase.
"In the worst-case scenario, everything will go wrong, and then there's a slight chance nothing will go wrong," he added.
O'Brien said he feels good about the future of LRT.
"Yeah, it's two years later, but I believe we have a plan that will survive the test of time.
"The public has spoken."
|
We need to build as much LRT in the first phase 'increment', since the risks described above could bring LRT expansion to a grinding halt for years if costs for the tunnel significantly exceed estimates and ridership growth does not meet expectations. Put Transitway expansion on hold and build more LRT while we can.
Quote:
Water with your wine
The Ottawa Citizen
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Could it be that our city -- its municipal staff, politicians and residents -- is finally getting it? That rather than building a sprawling, inefficient urban area, we are moving toward a compact, transit-oriented community?
The latest in a string of transportation plans gives us hope. Not that we haven't had optimism before and had it dashed when reality met the good ideas of official plans. Will this dissonance continue? We will see.
The good words are there, again. There is talk of fewer roads though part of the plan is to build the Strandherd Bridge under the guise that it will carry buses. Well of course it will carry buses, but it is far from a transit bridge. Reality says it is for cars. Let's be honest.
There are problems with the new transit plan. The costing is vague. There are fears that the rail tunnel might suck up all the money for light rail. As well, the financial problems of the municipality do not stand separate from this rail plan. The time-line stretches into 2031 or later, far too long. The project is front-loaded with inefficient Transitway buses.
One-third of the western line is planned to be built along the National Capital Commission Ottawa River Parkway. The NCC has grave reservations about this route. So do others. The river line does not have business or people along it, thus diminishing ridership. The economic development (commercial, retail, residential) that occurs along a light-rail line cannot happen on parkland, costing us good business, wealth and jobs. A speedy Carling Avenue route makes better economic and transit sense. But we will not stand in front of a parkway train if the entire project depends on using the Ottawa River lands.
The bright side of the economic downturn, if there is such a thing, is that there is much talk of infrastructure spending to spur business and create jobs. Our cities are likely to benefit from this at a time when there is a huge infrastructure deficit. It is refreshing to see economic necessity meet with practical needs such as improved sewage works and safe bridges.
Of course, we have seen much talk at city hall of smart growth, but little action. Had the city proceeded with the original north-south plan, trains would be operating from Barrhaven to the University of Ottawa next year and we would be discussing an east-west line right now, as good light rail was about to begin (and where it will eventually be built) -- rather than without light rail at all.
The time for talk ended many years ago. It is time for action to follow the good words we're now hearing on transit. The biggest deficit we have at city hall is not money, but leadership. We cannot allow faulty decision-making -- federal, provincial and municipal -- to fail Ottawa on transit again. We must have light rail.
© The Ottawa Citizen 2008
|
A luke warm endorsement from the Ottawa Citizen reflecting an increasing weariness of many Ottawans with the lack of progress on rapid transit.
I think many Ottawans are sick and tired of all of this and wonder why it still requires 10 more years to see tangible results, and all we get is only 12 kms of track. An enormous price tag for so little results.
And there is one more risk not mentioned. What happens if the people of Orleans don't find a transfer to LRT at Blair an improvement and they become vocal about it? There is a big difference between a couple of bus routes being truncated at Hurdman and some of those passengers grumbling about it, and having thousands facing something similar. I am not saying it will happen, but it is a legitimate risk.
Last edited by lrt's friend; Nov 12, 2008 at 2:42 PM.
|
|
|
Prev
Linear Mode
