The after-effects of the cancelled O-Train extension raise their head

The arguments for cancelling the north-south extension of the O-Train are well-understood by this point: Questions about the suitability of surface-rail downtown; questions about the bidding process, and what was costed where; questions about the rapidly rising pricetag; and questions about whether to start north-south instead of east-west were all brought up, and all have their own merits.

Similarly, arguments against cancelling the project are well-known by this point, and have merits of their own: A development built around transit, instead of the other way around; a project that would be done by now; a fixed-price contract that would have controlled costs; and other infrastructure (the Strandherd-Armstrong bridge, in particular) also being done by now.

The immediate repercussions of the cancellation was a lawsuit from the consortium hired to build the project, which was eventually settled for about $37M when all was said and done. But the repercussions of the planning decisions that had been put in place with an understanding of light-rail south towards Barrhaven and Chapman Mills weren't all cancelled with the project, and they continue to be seen today, as demonstrated in an article in Saturday's Ottawa Citizen about a traffic light in Chapman Mills, but which is really about more than that. From the Citizen's article:

“This community was being built while the LRT contract was being signed, and it was built with the LRT at the centre of it. It really is a community that is now haunted by the decision to cancel the LRT,” [councillor Steve Desroches] said. “That said, we have to pick up the pieces and move on.”

The area in question, Chapman Mills, is an interesting development. [Full disclosure: It also happens to be where I live, although I moved in with full knowledge that the train had been cancelled.] A triangle of land bounded by Fallowfield Road to the north, Prince of Wales Drive to the east, and Woodroffe Avenue to the west, it's different from older 'traditional' suburban development thanks to a fairly high population density, with terrace and townhomes at least as common as single-family homes. And nowhere will this stark difference be more apparent than in the forthcoming Ampersand development by Chapman Mills, billed as "urban development in a suburban setting" by representatives of the developer. The area is still well-served by bus infrastructure--and the new Southwest Transitway Extension through the Riocan Marketplace will only improve that--but one can only imagine how positive a light-rail line from the area right into downtown would be for the residents, as well as for the environment (courtesy of a few thousand single-commuter vehicles or a few hundred buses off the road).

And given the work that's already been done securing rights-of-way from Bayview to the area, it seems like a prime candidate for the second phase of the current light-rail project.

2010 Election: Scharf on the DOTT

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

One of the main questions Jane Scharf has about the current transit plan is why Ottawa is moving forward with the Downtown Ottawa Transit Tunnel (DOTT). Scharf claims that there is a tunnel in place right now in downtown Ottawa, and that should be able to handle rail for the city. She also feels that rail should go across Alexandra Bridge into Gatineau, and that Byron Way should be looked at for an O-Train extension.

I think that there are a few questions we need to investigate before proceeding with this LRT tunnel deal. They would include: an investigation of the feasibility of putting the O-Train across the Alexandra Bridge, and the train link; investigating the use of the Byron right-of-way, we could have a streetcar on it; and a proper explanation of why the existing tunnel can’t be used.

I suspect that they don’t want to use it because there’s a plan to extend the congress centre across the area where the train would come up, you know, where Union Station is there?

[...]

There’s no reason, I don’t see any reason [why this tunnel isn't used], and I’m not getting any answers. I discussed this at length with Alex Cullen, and I have it on e-mail, the e-mail discussion, on my blog.

While talking to Scharf about these ideas of hers, a number of questions came up. Chief among them was her claims of a tunnel in downtown Ottawa; as far as I can tell, this 'tunnel' is the small opening at the former Sapper's Bridge downtown, underneath Wellington Street. This is the tunnel Alex Cullen describes in the e-mail discussion he and Candidate Scharf had. Scharf maintains that "one existing tunnel is enough", which is true, but this is hardly a tunnel, and even if it were, the question of getting trains to it and from it raise more questions.

Second is the possibility of using Alexandra Bridge for an O-Train extension. I thought Scharf had mis-spoke and, in fact, been referring to the Prince of Wales Bridge--which seems an obvious extension of the existing O-Train, and has been suggested by many in the past. But Scharf maintained that Alexandra was her desired spot for a river crossing, but she failed to outline how the train would get across downtown from where the O-Train arrives at Bayview to the Alexandra Bridge, which is to the east of the city's centre--although I assume the small tunnel under Wellington would be part of her explanation.

Finally is the suggestion of using Byron Avenue and the City's right-of-way there as an extension of the O-Train. This seems like the Western leg of the current transit plan and, as far as I understand, Byron will be one of several possibilities (also including the Ottawa River Parkway and Carling Avenue) investigated.

Scharf's main problem, though, is that she doesn't feel these possibilities have been suitably explored.

But they haven’t even investigated it, that’s my point. I’m not saying this is my transportation plan, but I’m saying that all viable options haven’t been investigated.

The importance of fair comparisons and accurate numbers

There are all sorts of reasons for someone to take issue with Ottawa's current transit plan. You can pose questions about the cost. You can question the need for a tunnel at all. You can ponder the cost-benefit ratio of light-rail transit compared to bus rapid transit. All of these, in fact, have been questioned in the current election. But in doing so, you have to be fair in your comparisons and accurate in looking at the numbers behind the plan before reaching your conclusions. Otherwise, you're deceiving yourself, and if you're running for mayor, you're deceiving the people you hope will vote for you.

The most recent example of inaccurate comparisons has come in the aftermath of the cancellation of NJ Transit's Trans Hudson Mass Transit Tunnel (also known as the ARC tunnel) project. As costs for the tunnel climbed at untenable rates, New Jersey governor Chris Christie decided (very controversially) that "[t]he only prudent move is to end this project" to at least contain the costs. And, of course, this made Ottawans nervous about our transit tunnel--for good reason, because tunnel projects to have a habit of exceeding their estimates. By a lot. And it's come up on the election trail, too, as Clive Doucet used the ARC tunnel example to support his argument for surface-rail through the city. From CTV Ottawa:

While the numbers in Ottawa are smaller, one mayoral candidate predicts a similar story. Clive Doucet is for light rail but against the downtown tunnel.

"Typically tunnels run, on average, 60 per cent over," says Doucet. "So, say it's budgeted $2.1 billion … you're looking at $3 billion."

Fair enough, cautioning about costs for transit plans is prudent for someone running for public office. I'm not sure where the 60 per cent cost-overrun figure comes from, but it's entirely conceivable that Ottawa's tunnel could generate a number in that range, especially considering the issues that have arisen with the University of Ottawa's excavation work for a new building on campus.

But it's important to be clear about such cautions. Doucet is projecting a 60 per cent overrun for the CAD2.1B price tag, but that's not the cost associated with a tunnel; that's the whole transit plan, including surface rail for the vast majority of the span. The actual tunnel portion is currently estimated at CAD735M, so even a 60 per cent cost overrun would bring that cost up to CAD1.176B, pushing the total project up to CAD2.541B overall. Which is definitely more than the city and citizens would prefer to pay, but certainly isn't enough to push the city into bankruptcy.

And comparing Ottawa's tunnel with the ARC tunnel project is a precarious comparison, at best. Ottawa's tunnel is to be a 3.2 km distance, under downtown Ottawa. The Trans Hudson project was a 5.6 km tunnel under the Hudson River. The New York Times called the ARC tunnel "the largest transit project in the nation"; Ottawa's project is a rather humble starting point, in comparison. The class-D (+/- 25 per cent) cost estimate of Ottawa's tunnel is CAD735M, and the total project is $2.1B; the total initial cost estimate for the ARC tunnel was USD8.7B, which had climbed and was expected to end up between USD11-14B when all was said and done. Fairly big difference in scope between the projects.

For the last few weeks, Andy Haydon has been making claims about the inferiority of LRT compared to BRT, and cautioning that proceeding with the current plan could bankrupt Ottawa. Almost post-for-post, David Reevely has blasted holes through Haydon's claims, offering counter-points to Haydon's "cherry-picked" facts and expanding the number of comparison cities to offer a more representative sample.

You expect mayoral candidates to enter a race running through plans with a very fine-toothed comb, simply as due diligence. And it's entirely possible that both Doucet and Haydon have sound arguments to support their alternative transit plans. But they're both hurting their arguments by presenting weak supporting "facts" or estimates for them.

2010 Election: Doucet on OC Transpo

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

Most mayoral candidates are looking at some way to re-organize OC Transpo into what they think would be a more efficient structure, and Clive Doucet is no exception. His idea, though, is different from any others: Break it up into branches, and have them compete with one another for the city's transit funding.

I want to divide OC Transpo into three divisions: A community division, a commuter bus division, and a light-rail division. Right now, the Transitway is running everything, and if you’re on the Transitway you get fabulous service, and if you’re in a community that’s not [then your service isn't as good.] We have no light-rail experts, really, whatsoever. We’ve got to break that monolith up into three divisions, and I want to see them competing to give us great service, not telling us how we all have to fit into the same shoe.

In Doucet's opinion, the change would improve the service across every level of OC Transpo. And rather than having a review to examine the re-organization, Doucet thinks it should happen right away, and each level will be responsible "to come forward to council and explain to me how they’re delivering better service each year".

Our Transitway is already recognized as one of the best in the country, and is an example to other cities around the world. But our local system leaves a lot to be desired. We need to improve our community level service, and we need to do it now—not in 20 years. Right now, we have two levels of service in the city, one for those who live near the Transitway, and one for everyone else. I want to change that by making community service a priority, and providing small buses for community service. I’ve heard from many people they don’t like these 60-, 90-foot buses rattling around small streets; we’re going to change that.

The proposed Ottawa subway, in perspective

Subway system of Seoul, South Korea



Subway system of Berlin, Germany

A few weeks ago, I saw a link (via Treehugger) to a set of to-scale illustrated renderings of the subway systems from major cities around the world. Above, you can see the subways of Seoul and Berlin. On US-based artist and urban planner Neil Freeman's website, you can see dozens more.

For the record, Ottawa's proposed 3.2 km subway would look something like this (although perhaps not as straight) when placed on the same scale:

It looks kind of funny on this scale, doesn't it?

Seems like a bad idea...

A very bad idea.

2010 Election: Scharf's transit idea

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

Rather than propose this possibility as a 'transit alternative', mayoral candidate Jane Scharf has presented it as a possible idea for council to consider--she feels the mayor's role is to "keep the process operating" rather than proposing a pet-project "to ram down everybody’s throat". Her idea? Aerial gondolas, positioned around downtown Ottawa and across the river into Gatineau, to complement existing transit infrastructure.

I like the idea of putting some gondola. Ottawa would be very suitable for that. Like the one they’re proposing for Montreal, to go over to the island; it’s seven miles long, and the stats on it are that it can move 5,000 people in an hour, and it goes roughly 60 miles an hour. Seven miles in seven minutes. It’s electric, there’s no drivers, you can get two-seater or four-seater—just like the ones they use to ski—they’re very cheap to put in, they’re one-third of the cost to install and one-third to operate. And, of course, no direct pollution, because it’s all electricity.

As Scharf mentioned, Montreal had plans to run an aerial gondola (the MAG) for seven miles over the St. Lawrence River, connecting the city's Old Port with Île Notre-Dame and Île Sainte-Hélène. The project seems to have hit a snag with the Old Port Corporation (similar, in a way, to the NCC), but the $100M privately-funded project was expected by some to bring in an extra $120M in tourist revenue per year, and was popular with some residents. According to Scharf, it could be a good fit for Ottawa:

I was thinking we could put them around downtown, and during the day or during rush hour it could help with congestion. But other than that, it’s worth it. And that’s what they’re saying in Montreal, they’re expecting it to be a world-class tourist attraction. So it’d be on the list of something to do when you come to Ottawa, and you could put those across the river, too, very easily.

'Next Stop' system means no more fines

By this point, most OC Transpo riders have probably had the chance to hear the Next Stop Announcement System on many of their buses--according to 580 CFRA, half of the fleet had the system installed as of this Monday. And although there have been some issues with the service--stops for wrong routes called out, or multiple stops called out at once--at least we can look forward to one thing (aside from knowing where the bus is, obviously): No more fines from the Canadian Transportation Authority.

The CTA had fined the City of Ottawa $5,000 in July 2009 and then another $12,500 in March 2010 for failing to call out the stops, determined by the tribunal to pose an undue obstacle to the visually impaired, among others. And although OC Transpo tried to have drivers call out stops, if just wasn't reliable enough: Some drivers were great about it, some less than enthusiastic, some refused to do it, and some were just too darn pre-occupied with driving a huge vehicle filled with people to worry about it. But now it's on.

My favourite stop so far? Alta Vista, because when translated into French it, for some reason, becomes Aulta Veesta.

LegoC Transpo, Lego-Train

Just a funny awesome transit-related news item from late last week: A Lego Public Transport Station. And they've got it right: Multi-modal system, complete with streetcars, buses, bike racks, parking, and... well, a street sweeper, for some reason. I'll be honest, I want one, although $139.99 is a little out of my price range.

(via The City Fix)

2010 Election: Doucet on ParaTranspo

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

Many users of ParaTranspo would suggest there are a lot of areas that it can improve, and Clive Doucet sees that there are problems with it, too. But instead of further investments into trying to make ParaTranspo more efficient, Doucet thinks that the increasing accessibility of OC Transpo's regular fleet--including wheelchair-accessible buses, priority seating, audio and visual stop-calling, and other measures--will allow ParaTranspo to narrow its focus.

Well, ParaTranspo is its own world. The problem with Para, I guess, is money. I think we’re slowly moving away from that as we get our system to be more accessible to the handicapped. Hopefully Para won’t be so necessary as we roll out; our buses will soon be 100% disable-friendly, and the same thing with our rail system. I’m hoping that Para will actually diminish in size, as we grow our capacity in other ways.