Feds commit $1B for LRT's Stage 2 extension

In the lead-up to this year's federal election, the current Conservative Government has committed its one-third share of Stage 2, the City of Ottawa's planned $3B extension of our nascent light-rail system.

From the Ottawa Metro:

Ottawa-Orleans MP Royal Galipeau confirmed Wednesday the long-awaited money from the Conservative government that have been earmarked to fund phase two of the $3 billion project, which will extend the LRT farther east, west and south for a combined 30 kilometres of rail and 19 stations.

Ottawa City Council recently endorsed the full plan, which will extend rail service south to Riverside South (and likely the Airport), west to Bayshore and Bayview, and east to Place D'Orléans. All in all, the expansion will add 10 new stations to the system, with construction expected to begin as soon as the current phase is done with the expanded system scheduled to take its first riders in 2023.

The province has not officially committed its share of the funding, but the current Liberal government has heavily invested in transit for other cities and should be expected to do so for Ottawa, as well.

What might Surrey's transit funding request mean for Ottawa?

The City of Surrey is in the Metro Vancouver region of British Columbia, and it boasts a population of less than half a million people.

It's also hoping to embark on a massive light-rail project to bring the city together, not unlike that Ottawa city council has recently approved. For their part, Surrey recently applied for $1.8B in federal funding for their plan, and they expect that--if approved--they'd receive about one-third of that (which is in line with historical funding agreements between the three levels of government). That would equal about $600M from the feds--the same amount they pledged to Ottawa for the first phase of this city's light-rail transit system, which is under construction now.

Apparently TransLink, the provincial transit authority for Metro Vancouver, is advocating an extension of the SkyTrain further into Surrey in combination with bus-rapid transit, while Surrey city council favours an all-light rail system in the city. Each option is roughly $2.2B (SkyTrain/BRT just over, LRT just under). The province is considering a regional referendum in Metro Vancouver to determine priorities for TransLink, which--as one might expect--has concerned Surrey, considering the relatively small population and large spread of the municipality.

But setting aside provincial and regional politics on the west coast, Surrey's ask is an interesting one because of the potential influence it has on other decisions. Ottawa, which is a municipality twice as large as Surrey, received $600M from the feds some time ago, and is now beginning to spend it on the first phase of the light-rail plan. But Stage 2, that plan's second phase, is slated to begin construction immediately after completion of the first stage and expand LRT service in three directions at a cost of about $2.5B.

(Note: Although you would be right to mention that Metro Vancouver is twice as large as Metro Ottawa, this proposal from Surrey isn't a Metro Vancouver improvement--it's a locally-oriented transit solution for Surrey specifically, so I don't think comparing metro populations is right.)

That $2.5B price tag sets the stage for a near-future federal funding ask of another roughly $830M, plus the equivalent from the province. In proportional terms, it's not far off what Surrey is asking for their plan, so it might not be as much of a reach as it seems at first glance.

Supposing, of course, that Surrey's request gets support from the federal government.

Flaherty not in favour of national transit strategy

Although it likely comes as no surprise, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty--the member of parliament who holds the purse strings for the federal government--is not in favour of a national transit strategy to offer predictable funding to municipalities for public transit projects.

Flaherty was recently quoted in the Edmonton Journal about a project taking place in Alberta's capital on the issue:

"Quite frankly, I’m not a big fan of fancy, big national programs. I’d much rather take the approach we’ve been taking, and deal with the City of Edmonton … deal with the various municipalities."

So far, that strategy has worked fairly well for Ottawa, as the city has received $600M in federal funding for the $2.1B Confederation Line LRT project. However, it also means that the city--as well as other cities across Canada--are forced to plan transit blindly, designing systems they'd like under the assumption that the federal government might offer one-time funding for it. We're seeing that right now with Ottawa's Stage 2 draft transit plan, which has a price tag of about $2.5B and therefore expects the federal government to come forward with another $830M or so--roughly one-third of the overall cost (the remaining two thirds, in line with past funding agreements, would be split equally between the city and the Province of Ontario).

A national transit strategy was a campaign promise of both the NDP and Liberal parties in the last federal election (the NDP even tabled a motion to establish one), and it's something very strongly supported by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM). The idea behind the strategy would be to commit dedicated funding in the annual federal budget that would be invested in eligible transit-related projects. Ideally, it would provide more predictable funding and make municipalities more able to plan transit projects thanks to the guaranteed funding.

Canada is, according to FCM, the "only OECD country without a long-term, predictable federal transit-investment policy."

In the news: Ottawa's proposed Transportation Master Plan

The City of Ottawa's proposed Transportation Master Plan was released publicly earlier in the week, and it features light-rail extensions from the current Confederation Line spine to Bayshore, Baseline, Bowesville, and Place D'Orleans (plus a whole bunch of other stuff complementing those extensions). Such a massive and ambitious project is rare for our usually conservative and glacially-paced city, so it should come as no surprise that the TMP is receiving ample media coverage--including prominent front-page coverage in all three local dailies:

Here's a quick look at what some people are saying:

General coverage

David Reevely, Ottawa Citizen:

"Hoping to position himself as a transportation visionary before next year’s civic election, Mayor Jim Watson announced major changes to the city’s master plan for transit, roads and cycling Wednesday morning that would extend rail west, south and east by 2023. 

"It would also handcuff the city’s transit spending for 25 years after that, and it relies on charging buyers of new homes and offices a lot more in development levies than they’re used to paying."

Jon Willing, Ottawa Sun:

"A $3-billion expansion of Ottawa's rail system can happen in 10 years with the help of upper-tier governments, a 2.5% annual property tax increase and inflationary increases to transit fares, Mayor Jim Watson said Wednesday."

Steve Collins, Ottawa Metro:

"Light rail emerged Wednesday as the showpiece of the city’s new Transportation Master Plan, with an ambitious $2.48-billion proposal to add 35 km of rail and 19 new stations."

Matthew Pearson, Ottawa Citizen: Collected initial reactions from local federal and provincial politicians, including John Baird, David McGuinty, Lisa MacLeod, Glen Murray, and Yasir Naqvi.

Mark Brownlee, Ottawa Business Journal
Catherine Kitts, Orléans Star
CBC News


Opinion

Joanne Chianello, Ottawa Citizen:

"In an unusually pre-hyped speech Wednesday morning, Watson not only laid out his vision for transit expansion in the capital but signalled what will undoubtedly be one of his major re-election platform planks: expanded rail. 

"Instead of eking rail service out across the city over the next two decades (or more), Watson opted for the bolder move of extending service to the east, west and south simultaneously in a single $3-billion project he says can be completed between 2018 and 2023. [...] 

"Watson’s plan is a brilliant tactical move, not only because it’s actually a great idea to fast-track rail — finally! — but there’s almost no political downside."

Susan Sherring, Ottawa Sun:

"Under Watson's plan, the cost of the light-rail portion of the plan is roughly $3 billion, requiring about $1 billion each from the city, the province and the feds. 

"That is problematic on many levels. 

"How likely is it either the province or the feds are going to belly up to the bar — all in?"

Eric Darwin, West Side Action:

"Mayor Jim made a big deal of his success on the Confederation Line project by having a budget first, then build to the budget (rather than design the best line, and figure out how to pay for it). He praised his initiative in bringing in this new budgeting system, and announced other cities are copying it. (Having just read Margaret Thatcher’s biography, I recall that she fought the same battle in the 1980′s in Britain and was roundly vilified for it. Maybe Jim will do better; it is, after all, 30 years later.)"

Proposed transportation plan features light rail extensions to be completed by 2023

Mayor Jim Watson announced the City of Ottawa's proposed Transportation Master Plan this morning, and the ambitious plan includes light-rail extensions to Baseline, Bayshore, and Place D'Orleans, plus conversion of the O-Train to light-rail before adding in new stations on the current line and then extending the whole thing to Bowesville -- all happening concurrently, all finished before 2023, at a price tag of about $2.5B.

Here are the details of the mayor's speech from various city hall reporters and the mayor himself:

"We did not change the balance of investments towards transit and away from roads." That's maintained in the new TMP.
— David Reevely live (@ReevelyLive) October 9, 2013

Plan is to connect La Cite to the rail network. NOT waiting for provincial or federal contributions.
— David Reevely live (@ReevelyLive) October 9, 2013

Not sure what that entails. It could mean better bus service connecting to the Confederation Line, since the college is not considered within walking distance from either Cyrville or Blair Station.

New Transitway from Bayshore to Moodie and from March to Terry Fox. New bus measures in the east along Blair as well. #ottcity
— Jim Watson (@JimWatsonOttawa) October 9, 2013

The new busways in the west are nothing new. Kanata North will likely see more reliable and less travel times for route 93 once the busway opens.

These "new bus measures in the east along Blair" are probably for route 94. Innes was mentioned as one of the "transit priority" roads in the city's media release. The others are Montreal Road, Hunt Club Road, Carling Avenue, and Bank Street. Transit priority usually means an adjustment of the traffic lights to minimize delays to transit vehicles.

Q about the Airport Parkway. I think JW said it’ll be twinned, but new lanes for HOV and cabs.
— David Reevely (@davidreevely) October 9, 2013

The Airport Parkway will be expanded to four lanes total. The HOV lane will certainly improve service on the 97 route. Creating dedicated lanes act as an alternative to extending the O-Train to the airport. (As you'll see later, the O-Train line extends south of the airport, but doesn't connect to it.)

For pedestrians, there'll be funding for pedestrian bridges, including the Somerset-Donald bridge.
— David Reevely live (@ReevelyLive) October 9, 2013

This benefits transit users in that area too because they'll now have access to either routes 16 or 18.

So the western extension from Tunneys to Baseline, we've heard lots about. NCC still not completely on board, last I heard.
— Joanne Chianello (@jchianello) October 9, 2013

Plenty of discussion about the Richmond Underground already.


One of the proposed light-rail extensions is from Lincoln Fields to Bayshore Shopping Centre and here's how it's supposed to look:

Plan is to skip the Transitway planned there. Go straight to rail on the planned route, including in the little tunnel.
— David Reevely live (@ReevelyLive) October 9, 2013

Line runs north along the Queensway past Leon's, etc. New ped overpass to Ikea (and, er, the Citizen).
— David Reevely live (@ReevelyLive) October 9, 2013

So, it appears the Pinecrest-Bayshore busway, where routes 93 and 96 travel, will be converted into light-rail.


The O-Train south extension:

LRT South: Further enhancements to O-Train: New stations at Gladstone, Walkley and South Keys, extend line to Leitrim and Bowsville #cbcott
— Alistair Steele (@alistairsteele) October 9, 2013

Interesting how there's an LRT extension to a rural area, but not to the airport. The additional ridership from the added stations and line extension can't be supported from the existing single track sections of the line. It would have to be expanded entirely to double-tracking eventually.

The new stations in the south will take some pressure off buses on the south-east Transitway, which is likely the goal here. To the north, the Gladstone O-Train station is a welcome addition.


Orleans LRT extension:

And now to the east: new LRT stations at St-Joseph, Jeanne d'Arc, Orleans Drive, Place d'Orleans along the 174.
— David Reevely live (@ReevelyLive) October 9, 2013

Most of the 95 bus line will be replaced in the east end and Orleans Boulevard Station will be a new station since there isn't an existing BRT one at the moment. One thing to note is the rail line will extend through the Greenbelt on NCC land, which is not something the crown corporation will easily give up.


This is supposed to be one large project, both physically and financially:

Mayor says will expand rail to east, west and south "together."
— Joanne Chianello (@jchianello) October 9, 2013

All this can be done for less than $2.5B, JW says. Rattles off numbers quickly. $500M to get to Orleans, for one thing. $100M for O-Train.
— David Reevely live (@ReevelyLive) October 9, 2013

$2.5B in rail extensions east, west and south can be done by 2023 if feds, province provide money, Mayor Watson says. #OTTPoli
— Jon Willing (@JonathanWilling) October 9, 2013

Hard to imagine all rail extensions would be constructed simultaneously within ten years, given that both federal and provincial governments are experiencing enormous budget deficits.


The new bold LRT plan is called "Stage 2":

Stage 2: 35 kilometres of new rail and 19 new stations. Not multiple phases. One project. East, west, south. Together pic.twitter.com/KnFNOdBLTa
— Jim Watson (@JimWatsonOttawa) October 9, 2013

The draft outline of the Transportation Master Plan can be seen on the city's website and further details are to be released later this afternoon by the city. The plan will be debated at a Transit Commission meeting next week, and at a Transportation Commission and City Council meetings in November.

Fare hikes don't pay for capital projects

I was rather perturbed when I came across an article on the 580 CFRA website, entitled "Fare Bumps Down the Road," which included the following lede:

A long road of transit fare hikes is facing OC Transpo riders to help pay for the $2.1 billion Light Rail Transit system.

It then went on to discuss the long-range financial plan for Ottawa until 2048, which states that transit fares and taxes can be expected to increase at the rate of inflation.

It's a strange story for two reasons:

1. Transit fares will not be used to "help pay" for Ottawa's $2.1B light-rail system; the construction of it has long been budgeted out using $600M from each of the federal and provincial governments, and another $900M from the city's treasury. Transit fares are, in fact, never used to fund capital projects; they're put towards the operating costs of OC Transpo.

2. Even if a decision were made to use transit hikes to fund the project (which, I will state once again, is not the case), rises in fares which follow the inflation rate will do nothing but compensate for inflation. There's no net gain when fares rise with inflation, because expenses also rise with inflation.

I'm not sure if this misconception is a common one, but I figured I'd point out that it's misleading.

Federal election day: What are parties saying about transit?

Today, Canadians vote for our next federal government. What might some parties do with respect to public transit, if they're given a mandate to govern out country?

• Conservatives: The Conservative Party, over the past six years while they've run the federal government, has been forthcoming with funding for municipal transit projects--and Ottawa is no exception. But they haven't made any pledge to sustained, consistent funding, and their platform only mentions past investments, without promise of future ones.
• Liberals: Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has said he's interested in funding public transit, although there's no commitment for a funding strategy as of yet. Their platform mentions local and regional rapid transit, as well as high-speed inter-regional rail, as priorities, but it remains to be seen how they'd prioritize them.
• NDP: The NDP actually proposed a national transit strategy during the last parliament, and that's also a major part of their platform as well. The platform also says they'll immediately transfer "another cent of the existing gas tax to public transit funding for municipalities".
• Green: The Green platform has a commitment for "[s]ustainable long-term funding support for municipalities to repair decades-old crumbling infrastructure", and their budget includes a Mass Transit Promotion municipal "superfund" worth $700M per year nationally.

Canada needs national transit strategy: FCM

Last week, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities issued their 2011 federal election platform. It outlined a series of measures to increase funding available to cities and communities, including a need for consistent and significant investment in transportation and public transit. The FCM levelled a criticism at the reliance of municipalities on property taxes (in their words, "an out-of-date and regressive funding tool that hits middle- and low-income Canadians hardest"), and suggested reform to the funding tools available to them. It also recommended that more of the gax taxes the federal government collects should be invested into public transit, and, more ambitiously, that the federal government should "legislate clear targets for increasing access to public transit". The latter suggestion would likely come through a national transit strategy, which the FCM said is a necessary measure for Canada to take. From their section on public transit:

Canada needs a national strategy to cut commute times, improve public transit, and bridge gaps in the national transportation system. All parties must commit to dedicating funding for public transit in the long-term fiscal framework; legislate clear targets for increasing access to public transit; and implement supportive tax policies, including a tax-deductible, employer-provided public transit pass; and work with provinces, territories, and municipalities to prioritize and address strategic gaps in Canada’s air, rail, road, and marine networks.

As a first step, all parties should commit to invest more of the federal taxes Canadians already pay at the gas pump in shorter commutes and better public transit. In addition to its existing Gas Tax Fund, the federal government must dedicate a share of its current gas tax revenues to replace $400 million in recently expired federal transit funding.

The election campaign kicked off with a fair amount of discussion around municipal issues and public transit, but most party leaders have been derailed by political attacks on their counterparts. We'd all be better off if they stuck to the issues at hand, and make tangible promises for more funding for public transit.

The economic cost of inefficient public transit

For some time now, people dissatisfied with public transit service have made suggestions that maybe our politicians and city managers should have to take transit to really get a hands-on feel for the issues everyday riders face, and an honest understanding of the service they're responsible for. It's a good idea, in theory, and something most people would love to see done. David Reevely, however, poured some cold water onto the idea a little while back, stating--correctly--that we're paying these people handsomely, and while they're "on the clock", it makes sense for them to get around the city as quickly as possible; rarely is OC Transpo the quickest option.

Practically, also, our senior transit officials and their political bosses don't ordinarily have enough hours in the day to do the business we want them to do. These people have a lot more places to be in a day than the average white-collar worker. The more time they spend in transit, so to speak, the less time they're actually working.

This all speaks to a larger problem, though: The fact that having slow, inefficient public transit is costing our people, our cities, and our national economy greatly. While I have no way of measuring it, I can hardly imagine the economic cost of lost productivity as a result of ever-lengthening commutes in cities.

The real solution to this problem is a pretty obvious one: Have people work closer to where they live, or live closer to where they work. But this isn't always an option. When it isn't, finding innovative ways to get commuters from point A to point B as quickly as possible, but also as cheaply as possible, if the best we can hope for.

Adding more roads is the typical solution, but more roads rarely (if ever) provide a long-term solution to traffic congestion in Canada's big cities. Investing in public transit can improve the capacity and service level (including time, comfort, and environmental cost), but it's always a challenge for cities due to the unpredictable nature of transit funding from federal and provincial partners, and the fact that municipalities simply can't foot the bill on their own.

In a recent article in the Globe and Mail, the fact that Canada doesn't have and hasn't ever had a national transit stategy to fund municipal projects was lamented, and many explained the need to make it an election issue this year.

“We would certainly hope that one of the key issues that this election is fought on is around a national transit strategy,” said Board of Trade president and CEO Carol Wilding. “There has to be a vision brought to it across all levels of government.” Unlike other countries, Canada has never had a national transit strategy. Although Ottawa has grown increasingly involved in transit over the past 10 years, averaging investments of about $600-million a year, the funding remains ad hoc, with no predictability. In the lead-up to this week’s federal budget, the mayors of some of Canada’s largest cities appealed to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty to address transit and the $123-billion urban infrastructure deficit.

Both the NDP and Liberal parties have recently outlined plans for a national transit funding strategy for Canada. The Conservative Party, while in government, has been willing to fund transit projects--including $600M for Ottawa's current project, among others--but neither they nor the Green Party have committed to putting one in place.

For cities to adequately plan and fund transit projects, consistent and predictable funding is of utmost importance. Through a national transit strategy, whoever ends up running this country acter May 2 could guarantee their cities exactly that.

Ignatieff promises national transit strategy

We're still very early in the 2011 federal election campaign, but already Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has stated his commitment to establishing a national public transit strategy for Canadian cities. As quoted on CBC's Inside Politics blog:

Ignatieff: I think it's crucial to have a national strategy on this, if you go to the lower mainland, Vancouver they need dedicated transit money, you go to Calgary, Winnipeg, you go to Toronto and especially Montreal. We have to sit down. I got a $56 billion deficit I gotta bail you out of. But the key thing here is to give people choices. The thing that bothers me most about the way we live is people are locked! They gotta be in their cars and we gotta renew public transport. We've got to have a plan. Ottawa can't tell Montreal how to do this stuff but...

Norris: Are you prepared to commit to a dedicated, recurring, reliable source of federal money for public transit?

Ignatieff: I'm prepared to commit to federal investment in public transit. You'll see it in the next platform.

It's really the first I've heard of public transit so far in the very young campaign. We can probably assume the NDPs will outline a national transit strategy because, well, they're always talking about transit funding and just last month they tabled one, and the Greens would likely have something in their platform, as well. The Conservatives didn't include any notable public transit promises in their recent (failed) budget, but time will tell if it forms part of their platform for the 2011 campaign.

We'll see which party ends up as the top choice for transit funding, but Ignatieff got a head start.

NDP tables "national transit strategy"

The New Democrat Party of Canada has a long history of making transit-related announcements, a couple recent ones being a couple of bills to protect transit operators, and before that--during the 2008 federal election campaign--a series of funding announcements in major Canadian cities.

Last week, Toronto NDP MP Olivia Chow introduced a National Public Transit Strategy. In a press release, the NDP said Canada was the only OECD member state without one. From the release:

“Canadians deserve fast, reliable, affordable and accessible public transit,” said Chow. “Every year billions of dollars are lost due to traffic congestion while simultaneously transit authorities struggle to meet demands.”

Chow’s legislation outlines a strategy for the federal government to:

• Provide a permanent investment plan to support public transit
• Establish federal funding mechanisms for public transit
• Work together with all levels of government to provide sustainable, predictable, long term and adequate funding
• Etablish accountability measures to ensure that all governments work together to increase access to public transit.

Hard to imagine how this could be a bad idea for municipalities looking for consistent funding for public transit infrastructure. The release goes on to discuss operating costs, which have never been funded by federal partners, but... hey, if it can help offer "predictable" transit funding, cities will be better able to plan their transit infrastructure development with the knowledge that the funding isn't dependent on how generous the government of the day is feeling.

Bus ride reading: Urban Nation

While browsing through the Ottawa Public Library collection, my interest was piqued by Alan Broadbent's Urban Nation: Why We Need to Give Power Back to the Cities to Make Canada Strong. Broadbent's premise is that Canada is becoming an increasingly urbanized nation, and the powers currently reserved for provinces need to be given to certain cities so that they've got the capacity and flexibility to respond to unique obstacles.

Although Broadbent mentions Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver as the cities which in particular deserve (and, in his opinion, need) this authority, his focus is undoubtedly on Toronto. Only a few passing examples show a concern for Vancouver, and Montreal is only mentioned a handful of times. The book is very much focussed on how a possible re-organization of government would benefit Toronto.

I was somewhat disappointed in Broadbent's dismissal of the City of Ottawa; although not nearly as large as the cities he focuses on, the Ottawa census metropolitan area is in the unique position of being affected by five levels of government as well as numerous different government agencies (the National Capital Commission and Parks Canada, to name a couple). If the idea is to build a more efficient and specifically capable municipal body, few Canadian cities would benefit from the change more than Ottawa would. But that wasn't a focus Broadbent dealt with, although I think the book would have benefited from it.

Much of the book is focussed on taxes: How taxes could shift towards urban uses, different taxation mechanisms that would open up to cities with province-like authorities, tax credits, and financing infrastructure projects through taxes. Which is rather interesting, if somewhat dry at times to read. Still, Broadbent brings up some very good points about the benefits that could come about.

Peculiarly, however, are the significant jurisdictional modifications Broadbent suggests towards the end of the book. Noting a disparity between representatives in the federal government and population between rural and urban populations, he not only proposes more representatives for urban areas, but also proposes a provincial reorganization for less populous provinces. The Atlantic provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick would be united as "The Maritimes" (a label which I'm sure residents of Newfoundland and Labrador wouldn't appreciate, given that that province isn't a maritime province), while Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba would be united as "The Prairies". It seemed to come out of nowhere, but I suppose the point is that if cities are to gain powers, it's likely that someone else would have to give them up. In Broadbent's vision, that would be the lower-populated provinces across Canada.

Putting aside his vision for a "New Canada", Broadbent's point about a lack of sufficient powers setting cities back is very apropos. He uses more examples that I can recount here, but his bottom line is that Canadians are flocking to cities, and our governance structure--established almost 150 years ago--has failed to adjust to reflect changing realities. As it is, cities are subject to the whims of provincial and federal funding partners, virtually relegated to beggars coming hat-in-hand to other levels of government to seek funding for significant projects.

For readers interested in urban issues in Canada or the relationship between different levels of government would likely enjoy reading Urban Nation. But don't go into it expecting much of an Ottawa perspective.

Getting a steal on light-rail land

The possibility of getting land owned by the federal government needed for building the city's light-rail transit plan for a symbolic $1 fee came up a while back, slipped below the radar, and is making headlines again now that politicians are commenting on it.

First off, Diane Deans had asked the federal transport minister, Chuck Strahl, where his government stood on the issue. Deans interpreted Strahl's rather vague e-mail with an air of victory, saying (as quoted by 580 CFRA) "if you don't ask, you don't get." But the comments were pretty non-committal; here's the section where he actually addresses Deans' request, as presented on Ken Gray's Citizen blog The Bulldog:

In your correspondence, you inquire about transferring federal lands along the Ottawa Light Rail Transit phase-one corridor-including rights-of-way and a station at Tunney's Pasture-at a cost of $1.00. Where possible, and as the law permits, the Government of Canada will explore opportunities to facilitate the City of Ottawa's request; however, some limitations may exist where the immediate disposal of federal real properties must be made at fair-market value.

A day after the e-mail was released, Strahl clarified his comments by couching them with a lot of ifs and buts. Ken Gray is calling it a 'flip-flop', although it seems like Strahl never really made any promises in the original e-mail, anyway. So now Strahl is saying there's nothing written in stone, and that the one-dollar deal wasn't something the government has agreed to (although he stopped short of saying it's something the government would never agree to). From the Citizen:

"Let me be clear. At no time did we indicate that a straight transfer of land for one dollar was an option that the government of Canada would agree to," Strahl wrote Thursday to Gloucester-Southgate Councillor Diane Deans.

Renewable energy and public transit

Interesting news story coming out of Massachusetts, where the Cape Cod Regional Transit Authority recently broke ground on a wind-power generator station to help reduce their electrical energy costs.

"The Northwind 100 wind turbine is expected to produce about 181,000 kilowatt hours of energy per year. In addition, one 100 KW turbine offsets about 257 tons of carbon emissions per year," said CCRTA Administrator, Thomas Cahir.

The project seems to be a relatively modest sum of $331,600, funded as part of a larger, $6.35M award the CCRTA was given by the Department of Transportation under the United States Recovery Act: The Cape Cod Smart/Green Transit Initiative.

Government-run services like public transit seem pretty uniquely situated for making use of renewable energy options: They have ample land and space for the projects, they have the financial wherewithall to invest in them (with government help, of course), and their lifespan is enough to justify the high up-front costs by spreading it over a long period of time.

I can think of a few instances where Ottawa could benefit from renewable energy in, at, on, or around transit stations. Taking the bus this past week proved one thing: More heating for transit stations would be nice. And if rooftop solar panels installed at transit stations could help offer, it's a good idea. And considering how vicious the wind can be at some stations, even wind turbines might work well (the hills at Hurdman Station, on top of the former dump, seem like a good option). I don't think the timing for projects like this is right these days, though, with the municipal government already spending a lot of money on the LRT project, and provincial and federal governments having posted fairly significant deficits after the recovery funding. But it's still a good idea.

MP Baird supports LRT tunnel

It's had its fair share of critics since the transit plan was launched, but Ottawa's $735M downtown transit tunnel (DOTT) has received a vote of confidence from one particularly notable politician: Ottawa-West Nepean MP John Baird.

Baird wasn't ready to say it was essential (that would be far too committal for a politician, no?), but he did say that in looking to the future, it seems highly likely that public transit will have to go underground in order to satisfy growing ridership levels.

From the Ottawa Citizen:

"By 2017, there just will not be room for any more buses," he said. "If you're not going to build a tunnel, you have to explain how you get that many buses or rail through the downtown core."

[...]

"The city's come forward with a plan," he said. "After the federal announcement, they said they would cut the cost to fit. We've put our money up, and it will be up to them to deliver the project."

He agreed, however, that the light-rail line is a "very, very big project. It's a huge expense."

At the same time, "I don't know what the expense is on gridlock and quality of life if we don't act on public transit," he said.

High-speed rail in Canada: Where to begin?

Possible HSR in Canada (click to enlarge)

Welcome to Canada: The only G8 country without high-speed passenger rail, and one of only four G20 nations similarly lacking. High Speed Rail Canada, a lobby group pushing for the federal government to invest--and invest heavily--in HSR in the country called it Canada's "High Speed Rail Embarassment". But with the United States government investing so heavily in HSR ($8B earmarked as a "initial investment" under the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program [HSIPRP]), and some of the selected HSR corridors including Canadian cities in their plans, can Canada afford not to invest into this?

The U.S. HSIPR project map includes two Canadian cities in their plans: Montreal within the Northeast Region, and Vancouver within the Western Region. But it would only be natural for the Canadian government to look for ways to include other Canadian cities, especially Toronto but also Ottawa, Quebec, and Hamilton in the Northeast Region, and Windsor and Winnipeg in the Midwest Region. The HSIPR project doesn't include programs in the north-central United States, but Canada would obviously also want to look at the cities of Regina, Edmonton, and Calgary.

Over the last few months, High Speed Rail Canada has taken a look at a few different corridors on their website: Montreal-Boston, Montreal-New York, and Toronto-New York. In the process, they also outline the three most pressing issues in building cross-border high-speed rail: The many stakeholders (federal, provincial, state, and municipal governments), customs and the border, and Canada's status as an HSR laggard. They also outline the other potential barriers to each individual line, while also discussing the current state of them, and (of course) the potential benefits to be gained from their implementation. (If you think HSR isn't necessary, read John Parisella's recent chronicle of the 11-hour train ride from Montreal to New York.)

If the Canadian government decides that HSR is a good solution for us--and I've seen very good arguments in favour of HSR--then they would be well-served to take some initiative in the process. Rather than following the US on this ticket and extending American lines across the border to certain cities, Canada could move forward in building Canadian lines to take advantage of the technology that the rest of the G8 nations have enjoyed for so long. Such as a line bringing together the "Tor-Mon-ttawa" mega-region popularized by the work of author Richard Florida (who I've written about before). Uniting the cities of Toronto, Montreal, and Ottawa would bring together the first, second, and fourth most-populated municipalities (respectively) in the country, and almost five million Canadians (by 2006 census numbers).

If Quebec and Windsor are included in the line, it's a grand total of 1,267 km by roadway (according to Google Maps), making the three stops en route. It certainly wouldn't be a minor project; a cost in the billions of dollars is fairly certain. But built in phases, as an investment into the future of some of our country's largest and most geographically important cities, it's easy to imagine the many benefits politically, environmentally, financially, and personally.

City won't ask for discount on land purchase from feds

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

According to the Ottawa Sun on Wednesday, City Council voted against issuing a formal request to the Federal Government to buy federally-owned land for Ottawa's LRT project for $1. Instead, the city is going to budget $40M for land acquisition. The mentality of the decision:

Deputy city manager Nancy Schepers said staff fear the request could “skew” discussions for the light-rail project and others.

One can perhaps see why, during discussion of the project, the city would be well-served not to expect the city to make this request. And a decision today doesn't preclude Council from, in the future, making the request, nor does it preclude the Federal Government from making some sort of concession during the negotiation process.

2010 Election: Cullen on LRT affordability

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.

The second in a series of posts looking at Alex Cullen's thoughts on transit leading up to the election deals with the affordability of Ottawa's current $2.1B light-rail transit plan, including specifically the $735M Downtown Ottawa Transit Tunnel (DOTT). Cullen started by addressing the criticism that the LRT plan, and specifically the DOTT, has no upper limit budget.

I don’t want to fool people; the idea is not $735M come hell or high water, the idea is to get a tunnel in place that meets the need of our community. We think it’s $735M, but if it tends to be $750M, or $720M, that’s not such a big deal for me, as long as we get it in place, because we’re able to accommodate that. What is not sustainable is if a $735M tunnel becomes a $1.2B tunnel; that’s not sustainable. There are limits, and there would have to be limits, because we only have so much capacity. But we’re not in the danger zone of adopting something we cannot afford.

Leading up to and through the campaign so far, Cullen has been insistent that the City would be able to afford the current $2.1B LRT plan without breaking the bank. I asked him where that confidence came from.

We have the financial capacity [to fund this plan]. It does not bring us to our limit, and, as a matter fact, we’ve taken the whole transportation master plan, at $3.8B over the lifetime of that transportation master plan, and we can do it. So that’s where my confidence comes from. We have the revenues identified from development charges—that’s the portion of development charges dedicated to transit, that’s not 100 per cent of development charges—and we have the gas tax rebate, we have our federal and provincial funding partners, and we have what we normally allocate for transit capital, which is about $75M, and that gets us to $900M. And we don’t threaten our triple-A rating on that basis.

It is the biggest single project, it is going to transform our city, but the work that has gone into estimating the costs and estimating our financial capability of handling these costs, gives me the confidence to say that this is a very doable project.

Citizen's Gray laments the cancellation of the north-south LRT line

On his The Bulldog blog yesterday, Ottawa Citizen columnist Ken Gray eulogized what he called the 'tragic' cancellation of the 2006 north-south light-rail line, citing a large number of reasons outlining why he thinks the move was a mistake:

• The first project would have cost $884 million with the Siemens consortium paying for any overruns. The current plan is expected to cost $2.1 billion or as much as 25 per cent more if overruns occur. The city is unlikely to be able to stick the builder of the project with overruns because of possible expensive difficulties with the tunnel
• Four lost years of planning
• The first project ran from Barrhaven to the University of Ottawa. The new project runs from Tunney's Pasture to Blair Road ... 12.5 kilometres or one stop west of where the north-south plan would have done
• The first project would be operating now. The new plan is expected to be completed in 2019
• The environmental assessment for east-west rail would be completed or near completion now, putting east-west rail farther ahead today than it is with the current plan

Those are just a few of the many points Gray outlined, before he began outlining some reasons he believes the downtown tunnel is a mistake. And, as long as the construction went as scheduled, every point he's made there is correct. The north-south line was to include 29km of surface rail through downtown (8km of which is existing O-Train service), while the current plan calls for 12.5km, including a tunnel downtown. Obviously, the distance traveled is a significant difference, but proponents of cancellation have consistently gone back to their suggestion that a tunnel downtown represents the only solution to the current congestion there.

Still, opponents of the cancellation have plenty of good arguments of their own--the most powerful being the fact that had we gone through with it, we would now be looking at adding an east-west portion to the north-south line that would be running today.

The process of cancellation was a complicated one, still shrouded in a fair bit of mystery. In the inaugural issue of the Journal of Public Transit in Ottawa, I tried to offer some clarification in the process, but it remains difficult to fully comprehend. The quick version is that many were put off by the secrecy surrounding the process, and many others opposed surface rail in the core; when a truncated line leaving the downtown portion out, the Ontario government refused to support the different plan; when it was restored, the federal government wasn't prepared to re-commit their money. So the plan was cancelled, and the process of building a new one began.

Whether you agree with Gray in seeing the cancellation as a mistake or not, there comes a point where re-hashing the same old arguments over and over again is no longer constructive. The plan was cancelled four years ago, and perhaps we all need to take the lessons from that plan, and focus on ensuring that the current plan doesn't fall victim to the same mistakes.

LRT Affordability on Talk Ottawa

On Monday's Talk Ottawa program, transit was once again the topic of discussion. Notably, we discussed how affordable the $2.1B light-rail plan is for the city. Along with myself (Peter Raaymakers) on the panel were David Jeanes of Transport Action Canada and Rideau-Rockcliffe Councillor Jacques Legendre, with Ottawa-West Nepean MP and Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities John Baird chiming in over the phone.

With his government's recent announcement of $600M in funding to support the transit plan, Baird's comments offered some strong insight into the meaning of the pledge. The most notable comment of his was that this funding is not necessarily tied to a tunnel; the government has given $600M for Ottawa to spend on this upcoming transit plan, but if they decide to revisit the tunnel (as mayoral candidate Jim Watson has suggested he might do), the funding won't necessarily be affected--the only time the feds would revisit it would be if the plan was altered so radically as to bring the bottom line below $1.8B or so. And although Baird wouldn't comment on municipal election issues, he did pose the question of why Watson (at the time Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing) and the provincial government offered their $600M for a plan he now has questions about.

Baird also said that, although this funding represented the last of the Building Canada Fund Ottawa would benefit from, that doesn't mean it's the end of transit funding for the foreseeable future. He said that, once this phase is well on its way and the City has its next stage in the overall plan ready to go, he and his government would be more than willing to sit down at the table and talk about funding the project again.

For his part, councillor Legendre pledged his confidence in the city's plan without wavering. His exact words, in fact, were that this plan is "not even close to unaffordable" for the City to handle. He cited the contingencies built in to the current budget, discussed the potential ways to offset the costs of the plan (development costs, station partnerships with towers downtown, et cetera), and said that this plan was not only good for the city, but necessary.

Jeanes offered quite a bit of insight into a number of issues, from the cancellation of the 2006 north-south rail line to the reality of Ottawa's commuter system inevitably changing and the end of the no-transfer ride. What he was most passionate about, though, was that whether or not this plan is affordable isn't our most pressing question: He said that the 12km of light-rail track in this plan pales in comparison to the 120km of rail track his organization (Transport Action Canada, then Transport 2000) recommended back in 2003. He recommended the city find some way to better stretch the funding they've secured in order to get more kilometres per dollar.

A number of viewers called into the show, with varied comments or concerns. One memorable question was how the LRT as proposed would help people waiting at suburban stations (the example used was those at Baseline) who are forced to watch full buses drive right by them. The response, from Jeanes and echoed by Legendre, was that buses will now be able to turn around at the start of the LRT line (in this instance, Tunney's Pasture) and turn back instead of having to crawl through the downtown logjam, essentially doubling their capacity to move people.