Current Projects
Past Projects
Neighbourhoods
LINKS
Ward Links
City Web Links
© Clive Doucet 2008
Plan B for Option 4
Backgrounder
Click on map to enlarge (pdf)
Interview with Steve Madley on CFRA, April 30 (mp3)
Option 4 is the right technology, but the wrong route
Ottawa – At a press conference today (April 29, 2008) at Lansdowne Park, City Councillor Clive Doucet approved the choice of electric light rail technology outlined in Option 4 of Ottawa’s Downtown Rapid Transit Network but dismissed the routing which is the same for all options as serving too few people at too high a cost. He made the following points:
The four options before us are not route choices. They all have the same route: using the existing transitway with a tunnel, expansion along the present O-train line and suburban busway extensions. Technologically they are very different.
Options 1 and 2 have been dismissed by staff and with good reason. Neither diesel nor hybrid buses are used in tunnels anywhere. They are too polluting, too unreliable and carry too few riders. Seattle’s bus tunnel is being converted to electric light rail service.
Option 3 with an interim expansion of the diesel light rail in the north/south corridor is band-aid planning. Why would one expand a system, only to convert it a few years later? That is throwing away construction dollars. . It will not integrate seamlessly into the larger system as it is constructed. A diesel single-track option will make any out-of-court settlement of the Siemens lawsuit impossible.
Option 4 – two-track electric light rail is the right technology choice. It’s the choice of Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, Portland and every other city which is investing in a modern public transit spine because it’s green, has the lowest operating costs, high reliability, high capacity and minimal community disruption. This is what a vast majority of people have said they want but they are not going to get because of the routing.
Option 4 is the wrong route for the following reasons:
-
There’s little new service along the light rail route.
-
Most of the cost of Option 4 will be to convert part of Ottawa’s existing transit service from bus to rail rather than offering new service.
-
No significant new ridership for the light rail portion means no federal or provincial funding for light rail. All of the other transit systems in the country that are being funded with the federal and provincial governments are for new lines and new services. There are no matching funds for converting existing services.
-
Only the suburban busway extensions of Option 4 will attract new riders and funding from other levels of government. Option 4 is a busway plan because that’s the only part that will be funded.
-
The last Ottawa light rail plan had a financial plan attached to it. There is no financial plan attached to Option 4 or any of the other options. There is no obvious way that the needed municipal funds can be raised as we are in the process of spending the money set aside for the previous LRT project on buses and more bus ramps. Further, the city treasurer informs us that city reserves are approaching the red zone.
In summary, Option 4 will result in extensions of our present busway system but no new electric light rail spine.
Ottawa needs a Plan B that is a realistic alternative.
Plan B should be lower cost, with an alternative to the conversion of the transitway and it should immediately solve some of the city’s pressing transit problems. Plan B should attract provincial and federal funding for light rail. Some alternate routes that come to mind are: Carling Avenue and the Prince of Wales Bridge.
Carling Avenue offers west Ottawa residents a whole range of possibilities that the busway conversion does not. It is the most direct route from Kanata to the city centre. It offers Ottawans more than a commuter service because it passes through well-populated communities (300,000 people).
The Prince of Wales rail bridge, which the city owns and which presents an immediate opportunity to extend present O-train services, is an ideal link to cross the river to Gatineau. 50,000 people cross the Ottawa River every day a mere stone’s throw from the current O-Train terminus. An electric light rail connection to Gatineau will remove many of the STO and the OC connecting buses from the road and give people a more efficient crossing.
Plan B needs to include a way of removing the Slater/Albert bus bottleneck without creating a billion dollar plus tunnel and stations. An option would be to have surface stations with underpass tunnels between them and a dedicated surface lane. This option avoids the very high capital and operating costs of underground stations while retaining a similar service.
This is why Councillor Doucet introduced the following Notice of Motion at the April 16th Transportation and Transit Committee meeting:
Notice of motion
Motion by Councillor Clive Doucet, Capital Ward
Motion
Whereas the recommended transit alternatives will be the most costly undertaking the City of Ottawa has ever undertaken and will take close to two decades to complete; and
Whereas there is considerable uncertainty about costs and revenue sources to fund such a large project over such an extended period of time; and
Whereas there is uncertainty about securing the right of way for portions of this plan (e.g. NCC granting access); and
Whereas potential funding from other levels of government will most likely be tied to projects that would increase ridership, which implies serving new areas or poorly served areas, as opposed to changing the vehicles serving existing ridership on high usage corridors; and
Whereas circumstances will change considerably over the course of two decades requiring adaptation and/or substantial changes to any transit plans; and
Whereas lack of alternatives or contingencies on the previous LRT plan contributed to the total collapse and years of lost effort; and
Whereas an "all or nothing" approach to a single recommended transit option creates a high risk of a failure comparable to the previous LRT plan;
Therefore Be It Resolved that alternative contingency plans be prepared in addition to the option recommended to enable LRT implementation to proceed in an incremental manner if the preferred option proves impossible to implement;
And Be It Further Resolved that these contingency plans include: lower cost options such as surface versus underground, alternate routes where the right of way is already secure and where there is strong potential for both new and increased ridership.