We have EAs ready right now for the N-S Route. Whether we build the whole thing right away is something that can be debated, but at least we could have something up and running in 3 years. Every other route still requires further study and it is unfortunate that we shut down EAs on all the E-W routes in 2006, as this has also delayed progressing in that direction also. People who objected to the original plan forget an important point. The opening of the first line would have built enthusiasm and even demand to get more lines built faster. We are seeing this in cities like Portland, Denver, Salt Lake City and even an anti-transit city like Houston. What we did by pushing the reset button, has built up frustration and unrealistic expectations, and the frustrations will become magnified as the priortization debate begins this fall.
Regarding surface rail, d_jeffrey is right that it doesn't add greatly to capacity downtown, but it may allow more people to be moved with the same number of vehicles. The whole point is getting some of the advantages of rail transit sooner, even if congestion downtown is not immediately resolved. I have believed for quite some time that a surface line through downtown will be needed even when a tunnel is built so there will be no loss in doing this. I have concluded that no more than 2 rail lines can share the tunnel, unless we are prepared to double decker the tunnel and that seems highly unlikely. Now, I am not saying to stop work on the tunnel. It should move full speed ahead, but in the meantime we should get a rail network started so we don't have to wait 7 years or more. Whether we are dragging our feet on the tunnel, that is another matter. I remember the process was outlined here at one point and it seems that there are many steps still to occur before construction can begin. Settlement of the lawsuit with Seimens is mandatory or none of the rail manufacturers will do business with this city. This alone could delay progress. I have said that we need a champion for light rail in this city, and Bob Chiarelli filled that role very effectively in the past. In fact, he clearly was criticized for moving forward too fast. A political champion will push through light rail much faster. It is really unfortunate that a big supporter of light rail, Clive Doucet, is not presently on side, but I think everybody should listen to him, whether you support the current plan or some other incarnation of light rail. He does have some objections to the route, but his main concern is about the likely priorities (and money) given to busways, which may delay or kill the light rail components of the plan if we cannot secure full funding.
Regarding operating cost benefits, yes, the longer the train the lower the operating costs per passenger, but clearly Calgary's C-Train has shown very significant operating cost benefits with only 3 car trains and even that was built up towards over a number of years. Again, get light rail started fast, and work towards the tunnel. Provide new service, attract new customers. This is the whole point of what we are trying to do.
I can't see any 'Save the Streetcars' campaign for a number of reasons. First of all, building a tunnel should not and must not shut down surface LRT, especially for 3 years. Second, the intent will be to continue to use the surface route, whether for a N-S route, a Gatineau Route, or a Carling-Montreal route. The debate about the cost of the tunnel will be ongoing regardless, the difference being, if we have surface rail, we will have LRT in this city even if a tunnel is deemed too expensive. If LRT is totally dependent on a tunnel, then we could easily end up with an all bus system for another generation. I guess I am of the feeling that we shouldn't put all our eggs in one basket, and furthermore, we need to show progress on rail in less than 10 years.
I know there are many supporters of an O-Train extension, but as d_jeffrey experienced, nobody wants to ride it on weekends if it means double transfers to reach downtown. We simply don't have a good enough supporting bus network during off-peak hours to make a double transfer system attractive, and as I pointed out before, you are kidding yourself, if you believe that local bus routes will have service frequencies better than 30 to 60 minutes during off-peak hours after LRT is introduced. I think we are taking a big step backwards if southenders like myself are left with a choice of transfering both at South Keys and at Hurdman or Bayview. Extending the O-Train means:
1. It becomes permanent for a generation or more.
2. We provide no rapid transit service directly into the southern urban community. The closest stop will be outside the community which will mean that a large proportion of the users will drive to use rail and virtually nobody will use it during off-peak hours.
3. It becomes even more difficult and costly to electrify and double track at any point in the future.
4. It becomes pointless to run trains to the airport with no direct service downtown.
Extending the O-Train is a choice of last resort and will demonstrate that the city has run out of ideas and cash.
Now in saying all this about the O-Train, I can definitely see an application crosstown on existing track where we don't have sufficient potential ridership demand to justify a double tracked electric system for the forseeable future.
I have to say that I find Alex Cullen very annoying. He personifies a city that is not listening to the public. I have always been under the impression that for him, the transit plan is the downtown tunnel and the rest really doesn't matter that much. The tunnel is his pet project, and I am sure that is why he was an opponent of the previous plan. I cannot share his optimism about a 5 year completion for a tunnel, especially considering that we are just starting a 20 month environmental assessment. This is much like Marianne Wilkinson's comment, about the shovel being in the ground within a year of killing the last plan. Ridiculous and very naive.