Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[lrt's friend]

Of course, but they still get plan approved (same EAs as Ottawa much faster), plus their lines have lower ridership than suburbs would have here. Toronto or not, it's still the same government.

I think that because Metrolinx is in business to plan and operate rapid transit and only rapid transit, they can concentrate on just that one thing and therefore they can be more decisive and less prone to false starts. As it stands, council and staff have many other responsibilities to run the city, therefore they can not advance this project as quickly as a more specialized organization.

Christine Leadman pointed out in her interview that city staff don't have the expertise to plan a rail system. We all know that the city had some of this expertise when the previous plan was being designed but those staff members left the city following the cancellation of that plan.

Regarding the 5 year time line, Christine pointed out that while the tunnel is being planned and constructed, the Carling plan could be advancing as well and construction also taking place. Because the Western Transitway is not being interfered with, there are fewer complications or disruptions. Eventhough the tunnel may take 8 to 10 years to complete, it is quite possible that a Carling route (and others) could be operational sooner.

[eemy]

I'm going to have to agree with people that city staff is not necessarily neutral in the whole process and don't necessarily respect the principles behind public consultation.

Just as an example, does anyone really believe that the public wants only two stations downtown? I'm willing to bet that the public is almost universally opposed to that; however, apparently due to insurmountable engineering reasons, the core simply cannot have anymore. Nevertheless, most people are well aware that the subway in Toronto operates at very high frequencies through the core with stations spaced very closely together and negotiating extremely tight curves and thus are rather suspicious of the staff assessment.

The planning has to be shifted away from guessing what people want, showing them their options (which reastically are usually just a single option), and then saying this constituted public consultation. It's time that the engineering and technical planning waited and staff listened to what the public actually wants first, developing the solutions after the public consultation. Instead, we're presented with watered down proposals that the city staff might think makes the most sense to them, but which offers nothing appealing to the public.

While the Doucet-Leadman report might not meet the engineering and technical rigor which the staff desire, I do think it is more responsive to public opinion and presents a better starting point. I also think that Doucet in particular, seems to have a broader sense about public transit's position within the urban framework as a tool for shifting land use practices while staff seems to be entrenched in analysing it exclusively from its transportation utility and cost. The Carling corridor may not be the quickest (I suspect this would be due to more stations and the need to slow down for tighter curves) or cheapest route downtown from the west end and thus be a poor choice from an engineering and financial point of view; however, the potential for rail along that corridor to influence the land use along Carling is far greater than along Richmond and Byron when you consider that the potential growth in employment and population along that corridor is far less than along Carling. Consider also the city's goals for main arterial streets and which streets are slated for the most growth and thus require the greatest supportive measures. I think Carling was near the top in that regard.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

I'm going to have to agree with people that city staff is not necessarily neutral in the whole process and don't necessarily respect the principles behind public consultation.

Just as an example, does anyone really believe that the public wants only two stations downtown? I'm willing to bet that the public is almost universally opposed to that; however, apparently due to insurmountable engineering reasons, the core simply cannot have anymore. Nevertheless, most people are well aware that the subway in Toronto operates at very high frequencies through the core with stations spaced very closely together and negotiating extremely tight curves and thus are rather suspicious of the staff assessment.

The planning has to be shifted away from guessing what people want, showing them their options (which reastically are usually just a single option), and then saying this constituted public consultation. It's time that the engineering and technical planning waited and staff listened to what the public actually wants first, developing the solutions after the public consultation. Instead, we're presented with watered down proposals that the city staff might think makes the most sense to them, but which offers nothing appealing to the public.

While the Doucet-Leadman report might not meet the engineering and technical rigor which the staff desire, I do think it is more responsive to public opinion and presents a better starting point. I also think that Doucet in particular, seems to have a broader sense about public transit's position within the urban framework as a tool for shifting land use practices while staff seems to be entrenched in analysing it exclusively from its transportation utility and cost. The Carling corridor may not be the quickest (I suspect this would be due to more stations and the need to slow down for tighter curves) or cheapest route downtown from the west end and thus be a poor choice from an engineering and financial point of view; however, the potential for rail along that corridor to influence the land use along Carling is far greater than along Richmond and Byron when you consider that the potential growth in employment and population along that corridor is far less than along Carling. Consider also the city's goals for main arterial streets and which streets are slated for the most growth and thus require the greatest supportive measures. I think Carling was near the top in that regard.

[lrt's friend]

In Christine Leadman's interview this morning, she mentioned that there were certain best case scenario assumptions made in coming up with the $135 M price tag for using the Parkway route. One thing she specifically mentioned, is land ownership. We should not assume that use of the parkway for light rail would be for free. A more likely scenario would require the city to purchase the right of way from the federal government for fair market value.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

I'm going to have to agree with people that city staff is not necessarily neutral in the whole process and don't necessarily respect the principles behind public consultation.

Just as an example, does anyone really believe that the public wants only two stations downtown? I'm willing to bet that the public is almost universally opposed to that; however, apparently due to insurmountable engineering reasons, the core simply cannot have anymore. Nevertheless, most people are well aware that the subway in Toronto operates at very high frequencies through the core with stations spaced very closely together and negotiating extremely tight curves and thus are rather suspicious of the staff assessment.

Great post. It just shows that it goes well with Ottawa's loser mentality. For a normal engineer, there is nothing insurmountable, there are always solutions to a problem, then you can cost it out properly. Amsterdam can build a subway underwater, Ottawa can't even build 3 stations. Just to show.

[the capital urbanite]

So, let's say we choose Carling Avenue for the Western route....

What happens to the West BRT Transitway?

...all the money and upgrades goes into LRT, while the Transitway becomes a crumbling 2nd tier rapid transit route.

...our operational costs more than double, while ridership is simply shifted from the West BRT Transitway to the Carling LRT.

The smartest long-term option is to convert the Transitway to LRT and introduce at-grade LRT along Carling when it becomes feasible and relevant.

....fiscal prudence and common sense calls for fixing EXISTING rapid transit routes before digging out new ones.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by the capital urbanite

So, let's say we choose Carling Avenue for the Western route....

What happens to the West BRT Transitway?

....fiscal prudence and common sense calls for fixing EXISTING rapid transit routes before digging out new ones.

You can add a 2km stretch for 90M$. Common sense doesn't call for anything, as it's different for everyone. There's no Transitway either for that sector Parkway, or Carling, it's yours to choose.

You can say the same thing, what happens to the SE Transitway after converting the O-Train?

In the best of worlds, both would be built as rapid transit, but I'll take rapid transit on Carling, before a streetcar.

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Ha! There really wasn't that much of a debate. As we saw the 4 options, all the routes were predetermined. When I attended public meetings, nobody was listening to the public, the consultants were telling the public that this was the way it had to be. Bah! And remember the mayor telling the councillors to shut up and quit questioning the plan. Just vote for it! No wonder councillors are now rebelling and producing an alternative that public is anxious to embrace.

Regarding the O-Train and Carling LRT sharing the same corridor, electrifying the O-Train will solve the problem as the track could be shared.

Regarding the O-Train extension to Gatineau, this is for Ottawa residents travelling to downtown Hull, not for Gatineau residents travelling to downtown Ottawa.

Regarding Tunney's Pasture and Westboro, that portion of the Transitway could also be converted to LRT at a low cost, and in the longer-term this could be extended possibly via Byron. All possibilities still remain, even if Carling were to be chosen as the primary route.

We are now seeing Doucet and Leadman stealing Cullen's thunder on the eve of voting through the transit plan he was leading. Was Alex Cullen the right person to be leading the Transit Committee?

At best, Tunney’s Pasture and Westboro residents would get a little stump in the distant future. And we’d be lucky if we got headways of 10 minutes (peak) and 20 minutes (off-peak) versus less than 1 minute (peak) and less than 5 minutes (off-peak), which is what we have now, because we’d no longer be on the main route. And we’d probably lose our access to the West because the Parkway would be blocked off (believe it or not, there is a steady traffic going from Westboro and Tunney’s Pasture to the West, including Kanata). People from the West going to Tunney’s Pasture (there are lots of them) would face a particularly circuitous route and an additional transfer. This would be totally unacceptable.

Last week, you posted a letter and asked that we sympathize with someone who had moved to far-away, sparsely-populated Riverside South on the expectation that rapid transit would be built there. For every person like that, there are hundreds of people who moved to Tunney’s Pasture and Westboro, both well-established, growing, inner core areas, in order to take advantage of the high-quality transit corridor that is already in place and has been there for twenty-five years. Now you want to take that away and put it in a parallel corridor that is less desirable in terms of ridership, speed and cost. This does not make any sense.

Carling is a longer corridor and would have more stations:
- Parkway Route: 7.6km with 3-5 stations (Tunney’s Pasture, Westboro, Dominion and perhaps one or two more (Ambleside and Woodroffe)).
- Carling Route: 8.7km with 6-8 stations (Carlingwood, Maitland, Churchill, Merivale, Civic Hospital, Carling and perhaps one or two more (Gladstone and Sommerset, as per the North-South LRT)). Plus, a sharp curve to reach the O-Train corridor.

So clearly, the Carling route would take significantly longer. And as I said on my original post, Carling is likely to lose the Civic (probably its biggest trip generator) and other major employers.

I’m not a fan of streetcars generally and don’t think it would make sense to put one on Carling. A simple BRT line could do the job, be up-and-running in less than one year and cost nothing. If, in 25 years, demand reaches a level where an LRT would be justified, the money was available, and development opportunities in Westboro/Tunney’s Pasture/Bayview/Lebreton were largely exhausted, then maybe. But it certainly should not be the priority.

Doucet is an fanatical bus-hater. He’s made it clear he wants to eliminate buses from the downtown core, STO buses included. So yes, there would be pressure to force STO riders to use the O-Train stump to Hull. To provide decent headways (less than five minutes), you’d need to twin that bridge at huge cost. To have stations that are as close to the big office towers as the current bus stops, you’d need to tunnel. Again at huge cost. And, as I noted in my original response, STO would suffer a severe loss in service quality. Unless you spent obscene amounts of money, this O-Train stump would also be definite downgrade for the vast majority of OC Transpo riders that go to Hull to work. The only ones that would be better off are the handful of riders that already use the O-Train. The rest would face much longer waits, a more circuitous route (especially from the East) and longer walks since the stations would be located much farther from the office buildings. Talk about the tail wagging the dog.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Suzie

At best, Tunney’s Pasture and Westboro residents would get a little stump in the distant future. And we’d be lucky if we got headways of 10 minutes (peak) and 20 minutes (off-peak) versus less than 1 minute (peak) and less than 5 minutes (off-peak), which is what we have now, because we’d no longer be on the main route. And we’d probably lose our access to the West because the Parkway would be blocked off (believe it or not, there is a steady traffic going from Westboro and Tunney’s Pasture to the West, including Kanata). People from the West going to Tunney’s Pasture (there are lots of them) would face a particularly circuitous route and an additional transfer. This would be totally unacceptable.

Last week, you posted a letter and asked that we sympathize with someone who had moved to far-away, sparsely-populated Riverside South on the expectation that rapid transit would be built there. For every person like that, there are hundreds of people who moved to Tunney’s Pasture and Westboro, both well-established, growing, inner core areas, in order to take advantage of the high-quality transit corridor that is already in place and has been there for twenty-five years. Now you want to take that away and put it in a parallel corridor that is less desirable in terms of ridership, speed and cost. This does not make any sense.

A short route local bus would satisfy the needs of Tunney’s Pasture and Westboro, in fact, it would probably be better because there would be street pickup at more than just 2 stops as would be the case with LRT. Going to LRT in general means taking a short local bus, transferring to 1 or more trains then taking another local bus to destination.
An alternative is to use Personal Automated Transit as feeders to LRT stations. I won't hold my breath on that one though, but on-demand service to all of the buildings at Tunney's pasture to the nearby LRT station would work really well.

Originally Posted by Suzie

Carling is a longer corridor and would have more stations:
- Parkway Route: 7.6km with 3-5 stations (Tunney’s Pasture, Westboro, Dominion and perhaps one or two more (Ambleside and Woodroffe)).
- Carling Route: 8.7km with 6-8 stations (Carlingwood, Maitland, Churchill, Merivale, Civic Hospital, Carling and perhaps one or two more (Gladstone and Sommerset, as per the North-South LRT)). Plus, a sharp curve to reach the O-Train corridor.

More stations means more ridership. The sharp curves are nulled by placing stations at these points.

Originally Posted by Suzie

So clearly, the Carling route would take significantly longer. And as I said on my original post, Carling is likely to lose the Civic (probably its biggest trip generator) and other major employers.

If the civic goes away and Carling is the transit corridor, you can bet something significant would replace it.

Originally Posted by Suzie

I’m not a fan of streetcars generally and don’t think it would make sense to put one on Carling. A simple BRT line could do the job, be up-and-running in less than one year and cost nothing. If, in 25 years, demand reaches a level where an LRT would be justified, the money was available, and development opportunities in Westboro/Tunney’s Pasture/Bayview/Lebreton were largely exhausted, then maybe. But it certainly should not be the priority.

I agree here, but it means dumping the whole LRT boondoggle and go with Double-deck hybrid electric buses. even at $1M per, 1,000 buses is only $1B dollars - 1/5th the cost with an immediate 40% reduction in GHG. You could even throw in a tunnel and still be way ahead of the game.
Also, a single, 2 direction, 10 m diameter tunnel would do fine. In the unlikely event a bus was disabled, and could not be moved, buses could simply go around the disabled bus, slowing traffic slightly. 3 lanes in a single (oval?) tunnel would allow disabled buses to be circumvented without ANY traffic impact. So, the $780M for twin 10 m tunnels becomes $390M for a single 10 m tunnel.

Originally Posted by Suzie

Doucet is an fanatical bus-hater. He’s made it clear he wants to eliminate buses from the downtown core, STO buses included. So yes, there would be pressure to force STO riders to use the O-Train stump to Hull. To provide decent headways (less than five minutes), you’d need to twin that bridge at huge cost. To have stations that are as close to the big office towers as the current bus stops, you’d need to tunnel. Again at huge cost. And, as I noted in my original response, STO would suffer a severe loss in service quality. Unless you spent obscene amounts of money, this O-Train stump would also be definite downgrade for the vast majority of OC Transpo riders that go to Hull to work. The only ones that would be better off are the handful of riders that already use the O-Train. The rest would face much longer waits, a more circuitous route (especially from the East) and longer walks since the stations would be located much farther from the office buildings. Talk about the tail wagging the dog.

I agree, double tracking the bridge would be too expensive.
Well, what you say Clive wants and what will happen are 2 different things. Again, hybrid buses with their silent "idling" (because the engine stops) would take care of many of the objections to buses in the city core.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Suzie

At best, Tunney’s Pasture and Westboro residents would get a little stump in the distant future. And we’d be lucky if we got headways of 10 minutes (peak) and 20 minutes (off-peak) versus less than 1 minute (peak) and less than 5 minutes (off-peak), which is what we have now, because we’d no longer be on the main route. And we’d probably lose our access to the West because the Parkway would be blocked off (believe it or not, there is a steady traffic going from Westboro and Tunney’s Pasture to the West, including Kanata). People from the West going to Tunney’s Pasture (there are lots of them) would face a particularly circuitous route and an additional transfer. This would be totally unacceptable.

Last week, you posted a letter and asked that we sympathize with someone who had moved to far-away, sparsely-populated Riverside South on the expectation that rapid transit would be built there. For every person like that, there are hundreds of people who moved to Tunney’s Pasture and Westboro, both well-established, growing, inner core areas, in order to take advantage of the high-quality transit corridor that is already in place and has been there for twenty-five years. Now you want to take that away and put it in a parallel corridor that is less desirable in terms of ridership, speed and cost. This does not make any sense.

Carling is a longer corridor and would have more stations:
- Parkway Route: 7.6km with 3-5 stations (Tunney’s Pasture, Westboro, Dominion and perhaps one or two more (Ambleside and Woodroffe)).
- Carling Route: 8.7km with 6-8 stations (Carlingwood, Maitland, Churchill, Merivale, Civic Hospital, Carling and perhaps one or two more (Gladstone and Sommerset, as per the North-South LRT)). Plus, a sharp curve to reach the O-Train corridor.

So clearly, the Carling route would take significantly longer. And as I said on my original post, Carling is likely to lose the Civic (probably its biggest trip generator) and other major employers.

I’m not a fan of streetcars generally and don’t think it would make sense to put one on Carling. A simple BRT line could do the job, be up-and-running in less than one year and cost nothing. If, in 25 years, demand reaches a level where an LRT would be justified, the money was available, and development opportunities in Westboro/Tunney’s Pasture/Bayview/Lebreton were largely exhausted, then maybe. But it certainly should not be the priority.

Doucet is an fanatical bus-hater. He’s made it clear he wants to eliminate buses from the downtown core, STO buses included. So yes, there would be pressure to force STO riders to use the O-Train stump to Hull. To provide decent headways (less than five minutes), you’d need to twin that bridge at huge cost. To have stations that are as close to the big office towers as the current bus stops, you’d need to tunnel. Again at huge cost. And, as I noted in my original response, STO would suffer a severe loss in service quality. Unless you spent obscene amounts of money, this O-Train stump would also be definite downgrade for the vast majority of OC Transpo riders that go to Hull to work. The only ones that would be better off are the handful of riders that already use the O-Train. The rest would face much longer waits, a more circuitous route (especially from the East) and longer walks since the stations would be located much farther from the office buildings. Talk about the tail wagging the dog.

First of all, and I said it here just in the last day or so, the O-Train extension to Gatineau will be for Ottawa residents travelling to the downtown Hull office complexes. I cannot imagine it replacing STO bus service, without huge additional expenditures. I do not believe the Leadman-Doucet plan proposes to replace STO bus service with the O-Train.

Second, Clive Doucet is not some raging anti-bus fanatic. He was a big supporter of the cancelled plan that did not call for removal of all buses from downtown. All he wants, is that the bulk of our new investment be for rail and not for buses. I think it is a reasonable alternative vision especially if we are attempting to make our transit system more cost efficient.

As far the outcome of not converting the Western Transitway to LRT, there are many things that can happen that are not all bad. We could end up with a branch LRT line going as far west as Westboro station. This could be supplemented with bus service between Lincoln Fields and downtown via the Parkway, and Scott Street, to maximize access to Tunney's Pasture particularly from the west. Another alternative might not see LRT extend west of Bayview, and be replaced with a high frequency bus route between Lincoln Fields and downtown using the Transitway. Then there is also the possibility that LRT might terminate in the short-term at Westboro and later be extended via the Parkway or Byron to Lincoln Fields. In any event, I cannot imagine those living in that part of the city and those working at Tunney's Pasture would be left with bad transit service. It will remain a key transit corridor.

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

First of all, and I said it here just in the last day or so, the O-Train extension to Gatineau will be for Ottawa residents travelling to the downtown Hull office complexes. I cannot imagine it replacing STO bus service, without huge additional expenditures. I do not believe the Leadman-Doucet plan proposes to replace STO bus service with the O-Train.

Second, Clive Doucet is not some raging anti-bus fanatic. He was a big supporter of the cancelled plan that did not call for removal of all buses from downtown. All he wants, is that the bulk of our new investment be for rail and not for buses. I think it is a reasonable alternative vision especially if we are attempting to make our transit system more cost efficient.

As far the outcome of not converting the Western Transitway to LRT, there are many things that can happen that are not all bad. We could end up with a branch LRT line going as far west as Westboro station. This could be supplemented with bus service between Lincoln Fields and downtown via the Parkway, and Scott Street, to maximize access to Tunney's Pasture particularly from the west. Another alternative might not see LRT extend west of Bayview, and be replaced with a high frequency bus route between Lincoln Fields and downtown using the Transitway. Then there is also the possibility that LRT might terminate in the short-term at Westboro and later be extended via the Parkway or Byron to Lincoln Fields. In any event, I cannot imagine those living in that part of the city and those working at Tunney's Pasture would be left with bad transit service. It will remain a key transit corridor.

I apologize for getting upset, but please understand that this plan would have a substantial negative impact on me personally.

When the first LRT plan was in its last throws, I recall Doucet proposing that all East-West buses be removed from downtown and truncated at Bayview and Hurdman (I acknowledge that he was not the only one to suggest this). I took note of this and raised it with my neighbours as we rode the bus to work. They were unanimous in saying the forced transfer would lead them to drive and pay the $200 a month for parking. In fact, they were not happy that someone would suggest something like that.

Based on his current and past rhetoric about the need to remove buses from downtown, I am certain that Doucet would try to force most, if not all, STO buses out with the O-Train spur, no matter how poorly suited it would be for that purpose.

On his views on buses generally, check out the picture on page 3 of the document he put out yesterday. How is that picture relevant to his plan? Perhaps, he could have put, instead, a picture of the Invero buses I rode in during last winter’s big snowstorms. Yes, I took the bus during every one of those big storms and those Invero’s got me home every time (despite not having winter tires). They did that even when the O-Train was shut down and the artics were in the garages. Or Doucet could have put pictures of Toronto’s streetcars, subway system and GO Transit trains when they were paralized by the January 1999 snowstorms (i.e., the storms that forced Mel Lastman to call in the Army).

We already have local bus service to downtown and Tunney Pasture (the #18, which goes down Scott Street, and the #151, respectively). These routes are poorly used and I have seen them completely empty at times. Local residents much prefer to walk to the three Transitway stations because the service is fast, direct and frequent. Those who want to take that away from us will have a fight on their hands. In particular, I’ll do what I can to make sure councillor Leadman never gets elected again.

All of the options that you suggest would cause a serious deterioration in service for a lot of people and/or are not realistic. There is no way buses would be allowed to continue all the way to downtown, since the downtown business owners and Doucet & Co would never allow it. In fact, we’re probably going to lose the #18. Also, with the Carling route in place, I could easily see buses being banned from the Parkway altogether.

Hopefully, I’m getting upset over nothing and this plan will not go anywhere.

[Franky]

I can tell from speaking to the man, Clive Doucet is neither stupid nor is he insensitive, in fact, it's quite the opposite. How many councillors allow you to show up and have coffee with them? You might want to take an hour off work and go talk to him.

[AuxTown]

How did we go from having N-S and E-W high-frequency LRT running in a dedicated ROW to having some ridiculous Carling streetcar that will have to stop for cross streets (most of them major busy roads) and leaving Tunney's/Westboro in the dark? I don't see how this can be done on Carling without building expensive under/overpasses at the cross streets which, considering the number, would be very expensive. Doucet talks of interuptions to the Transitway, but what of the massive interuptions to be seen on Carling, a major E-W arterial. Not to mention the fact that the Transitway has a number of viable options to run one during construction. The Carling drivers will be relegated to the already congested 417. We have a plan with a downtown tunnel that promises to set the tone for Ottawa's transit future. I don't want our entire transit dream to be built on an at-grade glorified streetcar, the reason we cancelled the 2007 plan in the first place.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey

How did we go from having N-S and E-W high-frequency LRT running in a dedicated ROW to having some ridiculous Carling streetcar that will have to stop for cross streets (most of them major busy roads) and leaving Tunney's/Westboro in the dark? I don't see how this can be done on Carling without building expensive under/overpasses at the cross streets which, considering the number, would be very expensive.

Which is why Carling is so expensive, it won't be a streetcar in any way, there will be underpasses for streets, but will still be at grade. It won't be different from the Parkway. It's 3x the price that city puts for a streetcar. Start reading the reports and posts before complaining about a streetcar, you know I would be the first one to do so!

The city plan is based on a glorified streetcar technology, so be mad at the staff plan instead. The Carling route in the official plan is a streetcar, it isn't in Doucet's plan. The consultant that Clive hired even said that building a streetcar in this day an age is sending money through a rat's hole..

[Luker]

Ok im confused maybe I missed something but are we just getting streetcars now, and how affective do u guys figure this will be...

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Luker

Ok im confused maybe I missed something but are we just getting streetcars now, and how affective do u guys figure this will be...

For Carling:
Official Plan == Streetcar (using LRT vehicles) 22 stops
Doucet's Plan == Rapid Transit (like rest of Network), with 7 stops

[waterloowarrior]

Cut transit plan to 'realistic' level, city told

Patrick Dare
Ottawa Citizen

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

OTTAWA-On the eve of a major vote on expanding Ottawa's transit system, the chairman of city council's planning committee said the city should cut $500 million worth of projects from the first stage of the plan.

The city needs to recognize the reality of limited federal and provincial government funds as it starts the final debates about what transit projects to do first, said Peter Hume, who is the councillor for Alta Vista Ward and president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

There's no point in insisting on a very expensive transit plan, then complaining that other levels of government won't fund it, he said.

"What is going to be realistic in the current environment? The affordability question is really critical," said Mr. Hume. "We need to have a dose of realism about what we can expect our funding partners to support."

In a joint meeting of the transportation and transit committees Wednesday, councillors are to debate the staging of a list of rail, bus and road projects that chart the transportation system until 2031. By then, officials expect the city could have a population of 1.1 million residents. The current population is about 870,000.

Mr. Hume said there will be new federal and provincial programs to fund transit in the future, but Ottawa needs to trim its projects for the next few years to fit the money that is available.

Failure to do so could result in the city treading water in a year's time - with a big plan and no construction.

Mr. Hume estimates that in addition to the $200 million the federal and the provincial governments have each pledged for transit projects, there will be an additional $200 million each for the first projects.

Assuming the city pays its traditional one-third of the cost by spending $400 million of its own, that makes for $1.2 billion for the first set of projects.

He said it's fine to have an ambitious, long-term plan, but the proposed projects must be staged in such a way that city taxpayers and other governments, which are providing money, understand and support them. For instance, he said the city could choose to complete bus-transitway projects, plus build a north-south electric commuter-rail service. Or it could build its proposed commuter-rail service from Blair Station west via a downtown tunnel to Tunney's Pasture.

The whole long-term public transit plan is worth $5.1 billion and calls for electric commuter rail running from Blair Station in the east to Baseline Station in the west and also to Riverside South. Much of the plan involves laying rail track on the existing bus transitway inside the Greenbelt. It also calls for running bus transitway to the farthest suburbs.

College Councillor Rick Chiarelli said the ambitious plans were drawn up when everyone assumed the federal government would be adding a lot of money to its city infrastructure funding, but those assumptions are out of date.

"In a recession government, you can't count on anything," he said. "If the money doesn't come, we will be delaying and deferring things."

Nancy Schepers, the deputy city manager in charge of the transportation plan, said officials planning the transportation system tried to make the spending more easily digested by keeping the first stage to $1.7 billion. She acknowledged that a shortfall of federal or provincial funding is one of the major risks of the project.

The city's spending plan for the first stage includes $600 million for a downtown tunnel, $227 million for the rail corridor from Blair Station to Tunney's Pasture and $390 million for electric trains.

Stittsville-Kanata West Councillor Shad Qadri said the current financial problems of governments don't negate the need for transit and the city cannot start to cut out parts of its plan to fit trimmed budgets. He said there's no point in building a downtown tunnel unless you have trains running from Blair Station to Tunney's Pasture.

Arguing that the federal government will benefit from rail transit that delivers loads of workers to government offices, Mr. Qadri said that if the federal and provincial governments can't give Ottawa the money, the city should borrow it from them.

"The time has come for the city to put its foot down and say we need public transit," Mr. Qadri said.

© Ottawa Citizen 2008

[Franky]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Cut transit plan to 'realistic' level, city told
...

Is this just a way to make the Doucet-Leadman plan ineffective or does it actually make it more attractive?

[lrt's friend]

Hasn't the Prime Minister agreed with other world leaders that we need to stimulate the economy with extra government spending? Isn't long-term infrastructure like rail transit a perfect use of such extra spending? Peter Hume may have got a feeling about federal and provincial spending on our project but it is unlikely that this latest agreement has yet filtered through as to how much extra money will be spent and for what. We better be prepared not just for what Peter Hume is expecting in funding but we better have other projects ready to go as well. This might be the time to get going on these projects.

[Aylmer]

But has Mr.Harper ever done a thing for canadian cities? ever?