U-Pass controversy getting out of control

It's pretty amazing to think that the City of Ottawa's U-Pass pilot project has become such a hugely divisive issue. The project, for those who use public transit regularly, means a 50 per cent savings for those with a regular student pass (based on an eight-month school year). And since it qualifies for up to and including rural express fares, it means a nearly 60 per cent savings for 'express' students, and a massive nearly 70 per cent discount for 'rural express' students.

The problem, though, arises when considering those students who don't use transit. And maintain that they won't, whether or not they're given a pass. Without an opt-out clause, it means a $290 tuition increase for those students who don't use transit that comes without direct benefit.

Charlie Taylor eventually lost his run for Ottawa's mayoralty, but his campaign was memorable for his passionate calls to end the U-Pass project, which he called an "unethical" tax on students who choose to walk or bike rather than take the bus or train. He mustered a small but active following based on his stance.

Complaints about the U-Pass have peppered local papers for months now. Quebec residents, for instance, are not eligible for the pass. And there was the memorable case of a Carleton University student caught in a sting operation trying to sell her non-transferable U-Pass on Kijiji. For her efforts trying to recoup the $290 expense, she was fined $610 for illegally trying to sell her pass.

The story prompted a bit of a back-and-forth in the Ottawa Citizen's letters to the editor, beginning with a letter of support from a University of Ottawa student who said the pass, and the charge therefor, are "unfair" because all students must pay for a service that not all students use.

That letter was followed by a rebuttal validly pointing out how commonplace it is for municipal services to be paid for by all, but only used by some. Take, for instance, OC Transpo itself, which is hugely subsidized by Ottawa's taxpayers--a 50 per cent subsidy--even though far from all residents in the city use the service. The author of the letter also cited other social programs, like employment insurance, welfare, and, fittingly, higher education, as instances where all must pay for the benefit of some.

Some history on the U-Pass: It was heavily promoted by the student federations at both the University of Ottawa and Carleton University, as well as the Canadian Federation of Students. Reluctantly, OC Transpo agreed to a pilot project for the U-Pass after referenda at both universities passed (albeit with characteristically low student-voter turnouts). But it's still a pilot project: Right now it's for one year, and OC Transpo hasn't really changed anything in preparation for the project--although they seem to expect lost revenue as a resul of the project--because they're waiting to see what becomes of it. From the 2010 city budget:

Council implement a two-semester pilot program establishing a U-Pass for $145/semester, beginning in September, 2010 with no changes to the service levels and with any resulting revenue deficit in 2010 to be taken from the Transit Reserve. Staff to evaluate the actual costs and benefits of the pilot program after the first semester and provide a report to City Council prior to the 2011 Budget.

So there's nothing permanent here: The city, OC Transpo, and--one would assume--the student federations are waiting to see what comes of the pilot project. But this also means that students outraged by the project have plenty of opportunity to make waves during this year's student elections, either by running directly for positions, proposing referenda, or just getting their peers out to vote.

This isn't something that's been forced on students. And if students are looking to change it, they have every opportunity to do so. But if other students want to keep it around, they'll have to be vocal about it, as well.

Recap of the mayoral debate on the environment

The first ever Ottawa mayoral debate on the environment took place at Saint Paul University on Sunday night, and there was no shortage of... excitement for those in attendance.

Fireworks started right off the bat, when candidate Jane Scharf questioned the fairness of the questions participants were to be asked, and withdrew from the debate. This opened up a spot for candidate Andy Haydon (who hadn't responded in time to be an official member of the debate), but he declined the opportunity--but still joined into the debate, informally and periodically. Candidate Joseph Furtenbacher was also in attendance, but because he hadn't responded in time to become an official candidate (he said he wasn't invited, possibly because he joined the race late) [Ed. note: Mr. Furtenbacher contacted be to explain that he wasn't invited to the debate because invitations were sent out prior to his registration as an official mayoral candidate], he wasn't invited to participate, and simply sat in the seat vacated by Scharf--without participating.

And all that excitement was before the debate had even officially started.

Over the course of the debate, a large number of environmental issues came up, from protecting aquifers and sensitive ecological areas to water management to 'smart growth' and urban planning. Although no question was directly asked about public transit, it did come up periodically, and there was a significant discussion about cycling in Ottawa.

As for public transit, candidates spoke up about their plans. Incumbent Larry O'Brien spoke about his support for the current plan, as did Jim Watson; Mike Maguire and Clive Doucet each briefly mentioned their alternative transit plans; Andy Haydon very briefly mentioned his support for expanding Ottawa's BRT system, and called Ottawa's transit system Canada's best (citing ridership per capita to support his claim); and Robin Lawrance one again expressed his concerns for public safety with regard to the plan to build a tunnel. The only other speaker given an opportunity were César Bello--who didn't discuss transit plans, but did say he'd ensure no more transit strikes--and Charlie Taylor, who didn't speak much to public transit in general (but has in the past expressed grudging support for the city's current transit plan).

As I write this post, hours after the debate, I'm still not sure what to think about what I just witnessed. There were some good points made, but they were rare gems hidden in the personal attacks and ideological statements and slogans that dominated the debate. And, as was pointed out by Taylor, the whole thing was dominated with 'greenwashing', and many of the candidates were definitely speaking to the audience in front of them.

Still, the debate can be seen as nothing but a positive thing for this city. There were a couple hundred people in attendance (it was standing-room only by the time it started), and most of the audience were very interested in what was said. In terms of getting the environment on the radar for the mayoral race, as well, the event was a huge success.

Good news for those of you who missed the debate, but want to watch it: It will be on Rogers 22 in Ottawa this Tuesday, Sept. 28, at 8:30 p.m. Tune in, if you can; you won't be sorry.

Cancelling tunnel would mean cancelling project: Cullen

An artist's rendition of LRT trains emerging from an overpass. © City of Ottawa

The Ontario government accepted the environmental assessment for Ottawa's new light-rail transit plan--downtown tunnel included--so cancelling the tunnel, according to current transit committee chair Alex Cullen, would bring transit planners back to the square one.

From the Ottawa Citizen:

"Bay Councillor Alex Cullen, who is running for mayor, on Wednesday took a shot at anyone questioning the need for a tunnel, saying a significant change to the project would mean redoing the environmental assessment, and more public
consultation and background studies — something that took council four years to complete for its current project.

[...]

"Deputy city manager Nancy Schepers, who’s in charge of transit, said cutting the tunnel would mean the city would have “to go back to the drawing board” on its transit plan. Looking at another option, such as surface light-rail, would require figuring out how the system would work with different traffic volumes, Schepers said."

A few of Ottawa's mayoral candidates have talked about cancelling or changing the transit plan. Jim Watson is the only one who seemed interested in trying to cut the tunnel out of the plan, and he hasn't said much about it recently. Mike Maguire and Clive Doucet want completely different plans, so it makes sense that cancelling the tunnel would bring Ottawa back to square one. Charlie Taylor seems resigned to moving forward with the current plan, although he's said he'd have chosen something else if it wouldn't cost the city so much time. Stan Pioro seems interested in cancelling public transit in any measure, aside from buses to Richmond. Both Larry O'Brien and Alex Cullen want to move forward with the plan as it is today.

But for some reason, Metro Ottawa's story on the issue--and Cullen's quote about the tunnel being a 'dead issue'--is titled "Feasibility of tunnel an issue". Go figure.

2010 Election: Taylor on cycling

bicycle parking lot in Japan, from Wikipedia

Over the course of the 2010 Mayoral Election campaign, Public Transit in Ottawa will be sitting down with mayoral candidates, discussing their platforms and thoughts on transit in this city, and what they hope to achieve during their mandate, if elected mayor.

An interesting fact about mayoral candidate Charlie Taylor is that he's made the personal choice to use cycling as his primary form of transportation. Citing the health and environmental benefits, along with the convenience, Taylor's been a cyclist all his life. But he's also got a few changes he'd make to the city's approach to cycling to make it more appealing, if elected mayor.

For one thing, Taylor noted that much of the city's cycling infrastructure is operated by the National Capital Commission, and seems suited more for recreation than function--noting in particular the 220 km of recreational paths collectively referred to as the Capital Pathway network. Of particular note, Taylor wanted the 20 km/h speed limit for cycling on the Capital Pathway taken away, "because it’s not feasible for commuting, going at a fast walking speed."

In terms of encouraging more citizens to take up cycling, Taylor said that finding a way to make people feel safer while on their bikes is a way to get them cycling. (This statement was backed up by an Ottawa Citizen-commissioned poll published just after our interview, in which more than half of all respondents said they'd bike more if they felt safer.) On top of establishing designated cycle lanes on roadways, and even cycling-only streets, Taylor suggested painting cycling lanes a different colour from roadways would make people feel safer.

Designated bicycle lanes, in Europe, they’re a different colour. They’re blue. I’ve biked a lot when cars are taking a corner, and they zip into the bicycle lane because it’s just another white line on the pavement and they don’t really pay attention. If you’ve got a whole different colour, it’s a lot more visible, and people think, “Oh, that’s where the bicycles are. That’s not for me, I’m a car driver; that’s where the bicycles are.” And how much does blue paint cost?

(There are numbers to support Taylor's idea: Spacing Toronto recently wrote about blue bike lanes in Portland, Oregon that made cyclists feel 50 per cent safer, and a Danish study suggested that painted cycle lanes reduced bike-car collisions by 38 per cent.)

Taylor also said that the city needs to find a way to define cyclists: Not quite motorists, and not quite pedestrians, and sharing some rights and responsibilities with both.

"There’s also this myth that bicycles are a motor vehicle, and are treated as such. A bicycle is not a motor vehicle, and they need to be recognized as a distinct form of transportation. I agree that most of the rules of the road should apply to cyclists, like stop signs, stoplights, all that good stuff, absolutely. But there are certain things. If a cyclist wants to make a left-hand turn on Bronson at rush hour, you can’t expect a cyclist to pull into the left-hand lane, sit in traffic with cars going by on both sides, you’d have to have a death wish to feel comfortable doing that."

2010 Election: Taylor on transit fares

Over the course of the 2010 Mayoral Election campaign, Public Transit in Ottawa will be sitting down with mayoral candidates, discussing their platforms and thoughts on transit in this city, and what they hope to achieve during their mandate, if elected mayor.

Chief among mayoral candidate Charlie Taylor's concerns about the city's transit system are bus fares. Stating that Ottawa has the most expensive transit fares in Canada (note: Ottawa [$3.25] appears to have the second-highest regular cash fares among municipalities in Canada, ahead only of Gatineau [$3.30]), Taylor said there was only one way to address fares: To reduce costs.

"There are ways that we can reduce costs; for one thing, making the system run more efficiently. Right now, we’ve got direct buses going from particular suburbs going to downtown; a lot of them aren’t running at maximum capacity. They are a little more expensive, but on the same note, if you’ve got feeder buses going to a central depot and then you’ve got long-haul buses that are full of commuters. You make people do one transfer, but if you’ve got the buses running on a regular basis it shouldn’t be a significant inconvenience."

But Taylor also said that "you can’t address costs without addressing [bus operator] salaries", and suggested that the city needs to find a way to bring them down in order to find a long-term solution. In a city still tender after a 53-day bus strike, angering the operators' union doesn't seem like it would be a popular idea, but Taylor--a self-described "leftie"--thinks the union has become too powerful, and suggested privatization as a possible way to redress that.

"We want to work with the union. If the union doesn’t want to work with us, we want to privatize. Not privatize the operation; the city would still govern the routes, schedules, own the buses, all that; only the labour aspect would be privatized. Basically, companies would bid on the positions, so they say they could provide you a driver for $50,000 a year; we give them the $50,000 a year, and they would then contract a driver for $40,000 a year.

"It would be regrettable, because nobody’s a big fan of privatization. Well, some people are big fans of privatization, but I’m a big leftie. I believe in labour unions, I believe in the value of unions, and I believe in the values of organized labour. But once the union begins to act more as a special interest group, that’s working for the interests of this particular small, privileged group at the expense of the working class, then you have to re-evaluate what their value is. They’re basically a lobby group now, working for a privileged group of people. They’re not actually a labour union fighting for the working class. So if they don’t want to work with us, then we’re going to work without them. We can’t have everybody in the City of Ottawa held hostage and paying ridiculous transit fees."

2010 Election: Taylor on interprovincial transit

Ottawa's Prince of Wales Bridge. © Padraic Ryan.

Over the course of the 2010 Mayoral Election campaign, Public Transit in Ottawa will be sitting down with mayoral candidates, discussing their platforms and thoughts on transit in this city, and what they hope to achieve during their mandate, if elected mayor.

Another key part of Charlie Taylor's mayoral platform is an extension of the current O-Train across the Ottawa River into Gatineau, over the currently city-owned Prince of Wales bridge. It's an idea that has come up often (which is why the city owns the bridge), but seems to have been left on the back-burner for public transit in the city. Taylor thinks it needs to be brought back to the forefront.

An integrated rail network tying the whole city together, to me, is a no-brainer. They’re talking about building new bridges for cars across the river. There are, I think, something like 5,000 buses going across the river every day, and surely you could divert some of that traffic if you had a reasonable rail network in Gatineau linked to a reasonable rail network in Ottawa. They’ve already got the infrastructure in Gatineau, and we’re going to be connecting to the Bayview Station shortly—which is where the O-Train runs.

Taylor claimed that Ottawa actually owns land in Gatineau across the river to build a rail station for the O-Train to cross the river, but hasn't pushed the issue after, according to Taylor, encountering resistance from the Gatineau municipal government. Taylor says he would push ahead, whether Gatineau was in favour or not.

If Gatineau won’t talk to us, then I wouldn’t be averse to applying some pressure, saying, “You guys run a lot of STO buses to Ottawa; if you want to keep running your STO buses to Ottawa, let us run our train.” It’s just ridiculous. Tearing up rail line and putting in bus systems is what we were doing in the 1950s and everyone regrets it. The whole world is switching back to rail. We’re the only major city in Canada that doesn’t have a rail-based transit system. It’s more efficient, it’s cleaner, it’s a more comfortable way to go. It’s a no-brainer.

After extending the O-Train into Gatineau, Taylor also suggested the line should be extended southwards to the McDonald-Cartier Airport.

2010 Election: Taylor on the U-Pass

photo © Simon Cremer

Over the course of the 2010 Mayoral Election campaign, Public Transit in Ottawa will be sitting down with mayoral candidates, discussing their platforms and thoughts on transit in this city, and what they hope to achieve during their mandate, if elected mayor.

Next up is Charlie Taylor. A journalism student at Carleton University, Taylor, 33, has released a series of key platform ideas on his website, from "fiscal responsibility" to "citizen friendly government"--and, of course, public transit.

One of the short-term transit goals Taylor outlined on his platform was to kill the U-Pass, the universal student bus pass which, for $145 per semester, would give any full-time university students a bus pass. One of the key issues debated about the U-Pass as it went through council was an opt-out clause, but it wasn't approved; every full-time student will pay that $145 per semester. Although he said he didn't want this issue to define his campaign, Taylor suggested that the U-Pass is unfair to those students who choose to live close to their campus.

It’s a disincentive for people to make the environmentally-friendly choice to live within walking or cycling distance of school if you charge people a blanket fee. People opt to live close to school, it’s a little more expensive rent-wise, but they’re making that decision to have that lifestyle, and they can invest some of the money that they save in transit into their increased rent. I think that’s a totally legitimate decision, and charging people $300 a year as a tax to walk or cycle is unethical.

The U-Pass, which is valid for bus and O-Train transportation, was brought forth by the student federations of Carleton University and the University of Ottawa, and passed referendums at both schools. Still, Taylor questioned the validity of those student votes.