LRT expected to head east first

According to a report on CBC.ca, city staff are recommending that light rail begin along east-west routes rather than the north-south line previously favoured by Mayor Larry O'Brien and some staff. The first-phase recommendation sounds a lot like Implementation Scenario One, which features light rail from Tunney's Pasture in the west to Blair Station in the east, a tunnel downtown, an extension of the O-Train to the south, and bus rapid transit improvements in Kanata and Barrhaven.

According to Ottawa Citizen columnist Randall Denley, the city finally has it right. In Denley's column today:

The decision to go east-west is strongly supported by the numbers. It would attract the most riders, five million a year more than the earlier east-south plan. It would also bring in far more fare revenue, easing the subsidy burden on homeowners.

East-west has a 50-per-cent lower capital cost per passenger kilometre. It also generates $90 million a year in operating cost savings because it takes more buses off the street. The east-west plan would remove 90 per cent of buses from Albert and Slater streets, twice as many as east-south.

Environmentally, east-west wins again. Because it relies more on electric rail, it produces nearly 50 per cent more greenhouse-gas reductions. The east-west line also fits within the city's goal of delivering the high-cost rail service inside the Greenbelt, where most of the riders live.

According to the Ottawa Sun, the change in priority was in large part because of feedback from public meetings, where many said that the east-west route should take precedence. The Sun presented some numbers to explain the change, as well, stating that there are 159,000 all-day east-west riders, compared to only 11,800 all-day riders travelling south.

Implementation a common debate

Perusing public transit headlines around the Internet, I came across a debate similar to Ottawa's current discussion of how best to begin our transit plans. The areas in and around Indianapolis, undertaking a similar project to upgrading their transit infrastructure, are also debating whether to begin North-South or East-West, ironically enough. Here's a quick excerpt from their debate, as published in the Indy Star:

One of the most common questions we get from constituents when they hear we serve as CIRTA board members is, "Why are we talking about building a mass transit line to Hamilton County first? Why not go west -- especially when a new airport is about to open?"

The answer is that while we represent the folks in our area, our job as CIRTA board members is to do what's best for the region. Starting with the Northeast Corridor is indeed what's best for the region. The good news is that it's also what's best for the west side.

The best way to prove that mass transit can work in Central Indiana is to start in the area of greatest opportunity and lowest cost. After plenty of study and discussion, it was decided that running a line from Downtown Indianapolis to Hamilton County offered the winning opportunity-and-cost combination.

Certainly an interesting debate. It also deals with the naturally opposed viewpoints of NIMBY people (not in my backyard!) and the WIMBY people (when in my backyard?). Most important for Ottawa to keep in mind is beginning with the most effective route--whether that prove to be north-south or east-west--in order to get off on the right foot, and to prove to funding partners (federal and provincial) that their money is spent wisely. Another part of the story, preaching lessons learned from improperly-implemented Nashville transit plans:

The Hamilton County-to-Downtown line is seen as the first leg in a region-wide system. Success there will give us a track record on which we can build a system that will reach in every direction.

That initial success is important to attracting federal funds for expansion. Our counterparts in Nashville, Tenn., started with a route in an area that was not ideal and, as a result, have seen ridership well below projections. It's unlikely that it will attract federal support for future legs.

Some lessons to learn from, to be sure.

Kanata councillors rail against beginning LRT to south and east

At the Transportation Master Plan Open House in Glen Cairn on Thursday night, all three Kanata councillors--Shad Qadri of Kanata West-Stittsville, Peggy Feltmate of Kanata South, and Mariannce Wilkinson of Kanata North--spoke out against the favoured implementation scenario of city staff and council's Planning Committee.

The third implementation scenario outlines a first phase which would see light-rail transit (LRT) east to Blair Station, south to Riverside South, and west to Tunney's Pasture, as well as bus-rapid transit improvements in Kanata, Barrhaven, and Orléans. As the Ottawa Citizen reported on Sept. 12, Scenario 3 (S3, for brevity's sake) "got the quick endorsement of some influential city council members yesterday, including Mayor Larry O'Brien, transit committee chairman Alex Cullen, planning and environment committee chairman Peter Hume and River Councillor Maria McRae."

Councillors Wilkinson and Feltmate, however, felt that this third scenario was simply reliving the old argument about whether to begin rail by moving east-to-west or by moving north-to-south. Much of the southern leg of the third scenario, critics say, is a reflection of the rejected North-South Line was such a huge issue--possibly the biggest--in the last election. (You can read a bit more about that debate in a previous blog post here.)

Both Feltmate and Wilkinson supported implementation Scenario 4 (S4), which includes in the first phase LRT east to Blair Station and west to Baseline as well as an extension of the O-Train southwards. The estimated cost is $2.4B, compared to $2.6B for Scenario 3.

One issue Wilkinson outlined specifically is the cost-effectiveness of S3 compared to S4: according to the City's own Evaluation Summary (PDF), S3 meets 'fewer' of the city's cost-effectiveness goals, whereas S4 meets 'more' (their words, not mine). Wilkinson predicted an 8-9% increase in property taxes to pay off the deficit S3's operating and capital costs per passenger-mile would, according to Wilkinson, bring about. Wilkinson also suggested that the time it would take to complete the downtown tunnel and east portion of the plan would be more than enough to answer the NCC's concerns with development on the Ottawa River Parkway, and to explore other options (Wilkinson suggested the Byron option as one alternative).

Feltmate had similar arguments to Wilkinson. She suggested that "bringing back the south plan is wrong at this point in time" because the last election was fought over whether to start with north-south or east-west transit. Something in favour of S3 is the Ease of Implementation (as outlined on the City's Evaluation Summary once again), in which S3 achieves far more goals than S4. Feltmate countered, however, suggesting that "just because it's ready doesn't mean we should be throwing good money away [on it]."

Although I didn't speak to Qadri personally, he was very vocal at the open house. He has also released e-mails and circulars stating his opposition to S3. You can read Qadri's stance on his website, but I think an e-mail that he sent to constituents sums up his position well:

I cannot support such an endeavour, as it closely resembles the original north-south proposal drafted in 2006, which I campaigned on defeating.

While the proposed third implementation scenario is the first phase in a long-term transit vision, it is imperative we properly capture the needs and demands of our entire City.

The west-end of Ottawa is growing at a rapid rate, both in terms of residential units, as well as employment. With this in mind, a reliable, fast and efficient transit system is vital to maintaining, and advancing, the infrastructure needs in Ottawa’s west-end.

--Shad Qadri

To learn more about the implementation options, I highly recommend you visit the City's Transportation Master Plan website, especially the section on Implementation, and look at the graphics on the various implementation scenarios. Although it seems to be a two-scenario race at the moment, there are certainly dfferences worth examining. And that Evaluation Summary is a great synopsis of the numbers behind the options. Feel free to e-mail peter@transitottawa.ca with any questions, or offer your comments in the comments section below.

Light rail on the Parkway: The Issues

Emerging as one of the most contentious issues in Ottawa's transit planning is the use of NCC land along the Ottawa River Parkway to run light-rail alonside the river. The NCC has expressed a reluctance--to put it mildly--and have implored city planners and councillors to explore other options before committing to the Parkway option.

Pros:

1. Scenic route allows for a pleasant train ride.
2. Arguably less environmentally damaging than buses.
3. Least disruptive to current roadways and residences.
4. Likely most cost-effective (due to lack of residential and road disruptions).
5. Possibly a shorter distane travelled.

Cons:

1. Difficult to cross when walking to river.
2. Low population density, so people need to walk to get to train stations.
3. Arguably disruptive to greenspace.
4. More banked curves for rail car to negotiate.

There are obviously opinions on both sides of the debate. Recently in the Ottawa Metro, columnist Nadine Doolittle argued in favour of running rail along the Parkway:

I’m assuming the only “buffer” residents will accept is the four-lane strip of tarmac affectionately known as the Ottawa River Parkway. Originally designed as a scenic route, it now functions primarily as a downtown commuter artery for west-end residents, where speed limits are routinely ignored and the air is always scented with exhaust fumes.

But hey, this is NCC land and it’s their call. For its part, the commission wants every other option exhausted before they’ll consider giving permission to run light rail along the route.

Apparently they can accept 250 diesel buses per hour currently bombing down the parkway, but a clean, quiet train has them puzzled. Which means three years of environmental assessments, consultations, studies, open houses, possible expropriation, and so on—all at a cost to the city—before the NCC can render its verdict.

Doolittle also mentions a number of Federal politicians in opposition of rail on the Parkway. Ottawa Centre candidates Penny Collenette (Liberal), Brian McGarry (Conservative), and Paul Dewar (NDP) all suggested that they wouldn't stand for it. Ottawa West-Nepean Conservative candidate and incumbent John Baird has been quoted as being strongly against the idea. Without federal will, it might be difficult to secure the permission of the NCC to go ahead. Difficult, but not impossible; it would be a shame if the Parkway turned out to be the best option, but political posturing forced the city into other alternatives.

On this blog, we have explored two other options: One running rail along the Queensway, and the other running rail along Carling. Both of these solve the cons, but have negative aspects of their own. There are likely more options, too, and I'm sure some of them are good ones. Any and all are welcome in the comments section. It is up to the city to determine which is the absolute best, taking all variables into consideration.

Reliving the North-South/East-West transit debate

A story that appeared in Nepean This Week on Sept. 12 summed up the current debate of where to begin the current transit plan, with the north-south leg of the rail or the east-west leg, so check it out or read an entry I wrote about it a while ago here.

The issue is difficult. In favour of beginning with the west-to-east leg:

1. Ridership from the west is significantly higher than that from the south.
2. Population in the west (especially Kanata and Stittsville) is already much higher than in the south, and that gap is expected to increase significantly in the next two decades.
3. The last election was based on cancelling the previous North-South Transit Line after significant public outrage; Mayor Larry O'Brien made it the chief issue of the election.

The chief problem with beginning in the west, however, is that the plan in its current state calls for rail along the NCC-owned Ottawa River Parkway, and their assessment of whether to allow it to proceed could take up to three years. Even then it's not certain they'd allow it. So the risk is waiting up to three years in the hopes of starting the plan where it should, realistically, begin and then having those plans rejected by the NCC.

The mayor and members of the planning committee are suggesting that construction begin heading east and south from downtown. Critics, including West Carleton-March Coun. Eli El-Chantiry (as quoted in the Nepean This Week article), are suggesting this is simply presenting the old plan all over again:

“You’re going back to the original plan basically,” he said. “You have a goat dressed like a sheep now.”

--Eli El-Chantiry, in Nepean This Week

The difference is that this new plan has a much higher price tag, and stops short of the suburbs to the south of the city--namely Barrhaven, wheremost riders heading into town from the south would begin their trips.

This issue will not go away. City open houses, which have already begun and will continue this week, will generate feedback from citizens on their preferences (click here to see the schedule; I plan on attending the meeting tomorrow in Glen Cairn). Time will tell what citizens say, but I have a feeling that many will agree with El-Chantiry.

What seems obvious is that the only obstacle in the way of beginning with the downtown-bound west leg of rail is the NCC considering whether or not to allow rail along the Ottawa River Parkway, and whether or not citizens want the main rail line moving down a sparsely-populated, bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly greenspace. If the answer to either of these questions is no, then the city planners and council will need to find a new route for the west-to-downtown line. An interesting take on the NCC debate was presented in a letter published in the Ottawa Citizen by Ottawa resident Gerald Fiori last week:

I am wondering just what is the national mandate of the National Capital Commission?

Is it to allow pollution of the national capital with policies that encourage more and more cars? Is it to destroy the other rail locations so that its sacred ground is not touched?

Do the NCC officials think the only way to enjoy the parkway and the Ottawa River is to drive on it?

I am sure hundreds of thousands of commuters and public transit riders could enjoy the parkway from a train. In my mind, it is unfortunate that the current Transitway cuts off the parkway at Dominion station going into downtown rather than continuing along the river.

Whatever your opinion of rail on the parkway is, Fiori does make an interesting point. Something for Parkway rail critics and the NCC to consider, at any rate, and I'll leave it at that.

Transit plan timeline: Where to begin?

Since agreeing in principle to a light-rail transit plan, Ottawa city council is now faced with the problem of deciding what phases to construct the transit system. There have been a few stories about the problems, with Kanata North Councillor Marianne Wilkinson promising a "war" if Kanata isn't involved in the first phase of the plan, while four east end councillors, Rainer Bloess, Michel Bellemare, Rob Jellett and Bob Monette, declared that they wouldn't vote in favour of any plan unless rail heads east in the first phase.

The current debate, as elaborated upon in the Citizen today, is whether or not the plan should move forward on the east-to-west and north-south lines while negotiating the west-to-east line along the Parkway with the National Capital Commission--who have expressed a reluctance to allow rail on the scenic road--and explore other potential options for the west-to-east route--including Carling Avenue.

This is contentious because a large proportion of commuters are heading east from the west, including Stittsville and Kanata. It also raises the question of why council voted against the north-south rail line that former mayor Bob Chiarelli proposed if the transit plans, now several years later, are simply going to begin with what city council of his era had agreed upon. Still, some supporters of moving forward with the north-south and east-bound legs of the system rather than waiting until the NCC discussions, which may take several years, to be resolved.

Personally, I think it remains important that light-rail start moving forward as soon as possible. The studies, environmental assessments, and land purchases allow for the north-south line to go forward, but it isn't the most pressing portion of the plan. If a decision can't be made on the west-to-east line, however, beginning the plan with other phases while sorting out that one might be the best possible scenario. Then again, the work finished would hardly solve any problems on its own; the north-south line is only realistically positive as a part of a larger plan.

EDIT: To voice your opinions on the planning process of the new transit plan, visit one of the city's open houses (see the dates in this previous blog post, or on the Ottawa.ca website).