2010 Mayoralty race to be fought on LRT again

[lrt's friend]

Jeff Pollowin was interviewed today suggesting that the next mayoralty race will be fought on LRT for the second election in a row. He suggested that in addition to Alex Cullen, Peter Hume and Larry O'Brien, Jim Watson and even Bob Chiarelli may run. He also suggested that current City Councillors will take the brunt of the anger from the electorate.

The timing is indeed ripe for this scenario with an election only a year off. We have already set a precedent that city council should not sign a major capital contract during an election year, and it will be impossible to complete the necessary EAs, obtain funding, complete a RFP competition, and negotiate a final contract in time. This has been my prediction for the last year or two.

Although nobody will say as much, I am sure this will be sweet revenge by the provincial Liberals against Larry O'Brien and John Baird but pity the poor Ottawa voter who is being subjected to this again. We deserve better than this ongoing fight between Liberals and Conservatives, but it could easily be tit for tat.

I cannot imagine anything good coming from Bob Chiarelli's return to politics on an "I told you so" platform, no matter how right he was, since his LRT vision has been permanently discredited. The voters have 'burned that bridge' and I mean it in those terms. There is no going back as so many have said.

We could end up cleaning the City Council house and dumping the current LRT plan if it is perceived to be too expensive as was argued against the previous plan. If we burn that bridge, we will have few options left.

Cleaning the City Council house may easily become very popular, very quickly, as was Larry O'Brien's candidacy in the last election, but LRT may become an indefinite casualty of such a voter revolt.

It will be an interesting election campaign. I will absolutely not vote for Alex Cullen or Larry O'Brien.

[jeremy_haak]

I say get rid of them all. There are a few there who should stick around, but this Council is beyond repair.

[eternallyme]

I wonder if a candidate will come along to the right of O'Brien proposing to scrap the proposal altogether? While that would get virtually no support in the downtown and inner city, it would get decent support in the suburbs and very strong support in rural Ottawa...

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

I wonder if a candidate will come along to the right of O'Brien proposing to scrap the proposal altogether? While that would get virtually no support in the downtown and inner city, it would get decent support in the suburbs and very strong support in rural Ottawa...

Hmm, like Kilrea or Lowell....

[bikegypsy]

Even if this happens and the project is cancelled, in10 or 20 years at most, the core will be so clogged up with buses that traffic will be frozen at peak hours and they won't even have the luxury of going through lenghty debates, or debacles, at council. They'll just 'do it' like cities in South Korea or Japan handle such issues... right away and without public consultation.

[Dado]

Bob Chiarelli brought the defeat upon himself. 5 years ago this week, he was on the O-Train in Carp promoting rapid expansion of rail transit:


http://otra.sandelman.ca/otrain/carp/

Within 2 years, he had abandoned any notion of incremental expansion of the O-Train and went down the track of an expensive replacement project - and one that didn't even solve the bus congestion downtown. He never championed conversion of the main parts of the E-W Transitway system as a way out of the bus jams, nor did he champion the O-Train as a way to quickly expand service outwards beyond the Greenbelt. He, our most pro-LRT mayor in a long time, had gone off supporting an expensive rail replacement project (it extended southwestwards, I know, but the bulk of the cost was north of the airport) that neither solved the problem most transit users faced every day nor was it going to increase ridership by anything commensurate with its expense. If it had gone ahead, I think it would have been revealed to be such an extravagant failure that it would have given LRT a bad name for years to come and merely would have kept us on the path towards even more BRT - Bonsall and Haydon would be even more vocal in promoting their bus tunnel panacea.

I wasn't in Ottawa in 2006 and I'm glad because there was no one running I could have supported.


I think Council essentially has to be swept away. Not just because of the councillors themselves, but because it would also send a message to City staff that the population was unhappy with City Hall generally. For too long have staff been doing things that make no sense, and this Council has not stopped it, which is why they have to go. But I also don't subscribe to the simplistic "it's all Council's fault" reasoning. Council didn't conceive of a $200M Baseline Station; they approved it, true, and they should take the blame for that, but they didn't come up with it. They didn't write reports to justify it. Councillors didn't come up with the idea that it would take forever to determine a west-end routing for LRT, and therefore it should not be included in the first expansion increment. Council are not the ones who sat on their hands for two decades without getting an EA out the door for the Dominion-Lincoln Fields portion of the West Transitway. Council are not the ones who had the idea of re-studying the Lincoln Fields-Pinecrest portion of the West Transitway, long after a route was already determined and property acquired for it. Council ordered traffic studies be conducted on King Edward during its reconstruction, and this was disobeyed, as were other orders, among them Lansdowne. City Hall's problems go deeper than that of two dozen elected officials, but replacing the entire lot of them is the only tool available for voicing displeasure and getting a change in attitude.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

Hmm, like Kilrea or Lowell....

What we want is Kilrea AND Lowell...

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by Dado

Bob Chiarelli brought the defeat upon himself. 5 years ago this week, he was on the O-Train in Carp promoting rapid expansion of rail transit:

http://otra.sandelman.ca/otrain/carp/
Within 2 years, he had abandoned any notion of incremental expansion of the

Wow, does Eli ever look younger in that photo.

[adam-machiavelli]

The problem is not with city council -it has NEVER been. It's with scary Larry, his greasebag supporters and ruralites being able to tell urban residents how to run the city. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the rural areas of the city should have the Ontario Greenbelt Act applied to them to prevent sprawl and then they should be kept politically separate from Ottawa. This could solve many of our problems.

Oh and by the way, I'd support Alex Cullen for Mayor. He may be a bit bookish but at least he cares about urban residents.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli

The problem is not with city council -it has NEVER been. It's with scary Larry, his greasebag supporters and ruralites being able to tell urban residents how to run the city. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the rural areas of the city should have the Ontario Greenbelt Act applied to them to prevent sprawl and then they should be kept politically separate from Ottawa. This could solve many of our problems.

Oh and by the way, I'd support Alex Cullen for Mayor. He may be a bit bookish but at least he cares about urban residents.

I doubt they would accept having the Greenbelt Act applied to the benefit of a municipality they would be legally separated from. They would be seen as being "bullied" by Ottawa. Unlike in Toronto where it is (somewhat) more reasonably applied by being on the Oak Ridges Moraine and Niagara Escarpment, that would be just for political reasons and not for any real environmental benefit and likely lead to expensive litigation with the rural municipalities.

Secession yes. Secession with the Greenbelt Act applied - no way, no how. The City of Ottawa would have no jurisdiction in those areas .

[adam-machiavelli]

They could have jurisdiction applied in rural areas if a Greenbelt isn't implemented. The old Metro government of Toronto had final say on all planning issues in every adjacent municipality.

[waterloowarrior]

I disagree eternallyme, the greenbelt is much more than NEP and ORM, it protects huge swaths of agricultural and rural land beyond those areas, most (56%) of the Greenbelt is outside those plans. Greenbelt offers key protection of agricultural resources (no settlement expansion from outside) and rural lands (no estate lot subdivisions) from development beyond the PPS. Combined with places to grow and metrolinx plan it's designed to reshape growth at a regional level

e.g. if Ottawa decides to prohibit estate lot subdivisions or 'stop sprawl', they'd be worried other places outside or the new "Carleton County" would encourage them, a Greenbelt or other regional plan could help prevent those types of decisions being based on what other ppl are doing rather than on 'good planning' as there is one set of rules that can't be overridden by municipal politicians

[jeremy_haak]

And further to what waterloowarrior said, it doesn't necessarily matter what those rural municipalities would think anyway. Ultimately, the decision and the implementation of such a plan would be a provincial matter.

[Mille Sabords]

The transit plan that we have now is too important to be a political issue. It is a city-building necessity and any candidate that opposes it should be discredited automatically as a city-destroyer. At least, that's how I hope things will play out.

Enough is enough. I was very pleased that Larry O'Brien read the riot act to Ken Gray this week after that article he wrote about the subway being an unnecessary frill. It isn't, and the media shouldn't be infecting people with stupid thoughts like that. At some point, even the media in its role as a society divider, should recognize when something is for the Greater Good and play ball. Governments cannot be indefinitely portrayed as incompetent (that becomes a game in itself). At some point, they have to be supported in the most basic, elementary functions they are there to accomplish.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

The transit plan that we have now is too important to be a political issue. It is a city-building necessity and any candidate that opposes it should be discredited automatically as a city-destroyer. At least, that's how I hope things will play out.

Enough is enough. I was very pleased that Larry O'Brien read the riot act to Ken Gray this week after that article he wrote about the subway being an unnecessary frill. It isn't, and the media shouldn't be infecting people with stupid thoughts like that. At some point, even the media in its role as a society divider, should recognize when something is for the Greater Good and play ball. Governments cannot be indefinitely portrayed as incompetent (that becomes a game in itself). At some point, they have to be supported in the most basic, elementary functions they are there to accomplish.

It's quite unfair to characterize those who oppose a tunnel as being "city-destroyers". How does wanting to have rail on the surface downtown where it will be visible and well-used and will become an important part of the downtown transport network make one a "city-destroyer"? How does wanting to get something running sooner rather than later and freeing up funds for earlier expansion make one a "city-destroyer"? If we are to realize the benefits of light rail, it has to be extended outwards to at least the inside edge of the Greenbelt. If a tunnel detracts from that without providing a necessary component, then it should be dropped. John Bakker, who was part of the group that built the Edmonton LRT tunnel, has said that it was a mistake in hindsight in part because it moved activity off the streets of downtown Edmonton and it also delayed system and ridership growth. Is he guilty of being a "city-destroyer" now, or then? A tunnel will just take people from their office towers and out of downtown in a hole in the ground; people will see very little of the downtown itself and won't use the tunnel (especially 10 storeys down) to travel around downtown. In cities like London and Paris, which have plenty of sights and things to do on the surface already, this isn't too big an issue but in smaller North American cities like Ottawa, Calgary and Edmonton what a tunnel will do is exacerbate the 9-to-5 problem.

We do not need a tunnel, and we certainly do not need the tunnel as it is being proposed. It could be dug a lot closer to the surface and it should have more stations. Having too few stations will do a lot more to destroy the city than having light rail on the surface.

What is the price of this tunnel? I mean that in the economic sense, not the financial sense. What do we have to give up or forego to get this tunnel? Let's assume that the rest of Phase I will be built and we'll have light rail from Blair to Baseline and South Keys. But will our finances then permit anything else? Perhaps LRT on Carling Avenue will be the price (not unreasonable since the difference in cost between tunnel and surface would be about the same as the cost of building LRT on Carling). Is foregoing LRT on Carling a worthwhile price to pay for a tunnel downtown? What is going to contribute more towards city-building? A tunnel alone, or surface LRT downtown and LRT on Carling? This isn't a question that can be dodged; there will always be an opportunity cost to any expenditure decision.


And BTW, Ken Gray never called it "an unnecessary frill". He simply called it "unnecessary", with no pejorative.

[lrt's friend]

Wow, what diversity of opinion about how LRT should be implemented! This has really summarized our differences.

I cannot support Alex Cullen's LRT tunnel or nothing approach because this may indeed lead to nothing and we can't have that. The province has expressed concerns repeatedly about the cost of the tunnel and hedged and hedged about funding for this reason. This has been going on for 3 years now and we have influential local politicians saying this. It is not like Toronto politicians are dictating this to us.

I also believe that we have closed too many doors on alternative ways to move transit through downtown. Too many special interest groups are having too much say on how downtown transit works or doesn't work. Why are downtown BIAs acting like NIMBYs when it comes to transit? Why can't the MacKenzie King Bridge be restricted to transit only? Why can't Sparks Street be used for LRT? Why can't Albert and Slater Street be more restricted to regular traffic during peak periods? Why can't LRT run through Confederation Square? Heaven knows, modern LRT can't be worse than streams of STO buses. Too many doors have been closed too quickly.

It was stated that LRT to Barrhaven would have been a big failure, but how could that be, when it would be serving a community which is already experiencing explosive growth, and areas with inadequate alternate transportation routes into the city. The bigger risk is some truncated route whose growth cannot take place because of choking civic debt. Indeed, the Edmonton scenario that Dado mentioned and I have in the past. Aren't we preparing for that truncated route that won't be expanded, when we start building those mega transfer stations at Baseline, Blair and now Tunney's Pasture?

The higher the pricetag for the tunnel gets, the longer we will have to wait for LRT in this city. Calgary's success was not built around a tunnel. They built their system first out to the suburbs, concentrated downtown employment, and built ridership. This will continue until they absolutely need to build that very expensive tunnel. For the most part, we are moving passengers to downtown and not through downtown. Tunnels are very difficult to fund for mid sized cities. This is easier to fund and justify in large cities because of the larger tax base and sprawling downtown areas, where moving people across downtown areas becomes more important.

[rodionx]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Wow, what diversity of opinion about how LRT should be implemented! This has really summarized our differences.

I cannot support Alex Cullen's LRT tunnel or nothing approach because this may indeed lead to nothing and we can't have that.

Regardless of the merits of any particular LRT plan, Cullen is right. Politically we're at a point where it's downtown tunnel or nothing. Support for the tunnel plan was about as close to consensus as this city is ever going to get. If LRT becomes an issue in the next election, the choice before voters will be whether to proceed with the tunnel, or just drop the whole thing and try to muddle through with buses for another ten years.

[Suzie]

As compared to the current plan, converting the Transitway along with a surface alignment downtown would be better for taxpayers (lower costs and risk) and riders (the system could be implemented in the East, the West and the South more quickly, and the downtown stations would be more numerous and not buried deep underground). Politically-speaking, this sounds like a winner.

Really, the only obstacle would be the Albert/Slater Coalition, the big winner under the current plan.

[acottawa]

The problem with a surface LRT is you're spending a lot of money to get a marginal improvement over a bus. A surface route is still subject to all the obstacles that impede buses (traffic lights, accidents, snow, Tamil protesters, parades) and has less flexibility that buses to get around obstacles or be re-routed. They also pose a risk to cyclists and pedestrians.

The defunct Barrhaven Streetcar project didn't replace buses downtown, it just added streetcars to the overcrowded chaos that already exists on Slater and Albert.

Surface LRT works best when there are wide streets and few intersections (Carling may work, downtown doesn't have a suitable street unless major demolition occurs).

[Mille Sabords]

Originally Posted by Dado

How does wanting to have rail on the surface downtown where it will be visible and well-used and will become an important part of the downtown transport network make one a "city-destroyer"? How does wanting to get something running sooner rather than later and freeing up funds for earlier expansion make one a "city-destroyer"?

Because it is short-sighted. A subway will take longer to build but it will be there forever. On the other hand, planning the city's major downtown rapid transit leg as a surface line basically says to everyone that we don't expect it to be used beyond a certain level. It's also postponing the inevitable by a relatively short time (10-15 years? 20 tops?) before the subway finally gets built. Replacing today's bus operation with a surface rail operation, with no consideration whatsoever to ridership growth, is tinkering with the status quo - and very expensive tinkering at that. Nothing could be more damaging to transit in the long run.

Originally Posted by Dado

If we are to realize the benefits of light rail, it has to be extended outwards to at least the inside edge of the Greenbelt.

The current plan does that.

Originally Posted by Dado

If a tunnel detracts from that without providing a necessary component, then it should be dropped.

It does provide a necessary component. Downtown is jammed. Surface service no longer works. Telling people to sit in traffic as you crawl through downtown is arrogant and amounts to considering transit as the service of the poor.

Originally Posted by Dado

John Bakker, who was part of the group that built the Edmonton LRT tunnel, has said that it was a mistake in hindsight in part because it moved activity off the streets of downtown Edmonton and it also delayed system and ridership growth. Is he guilty of being a "city-destroyer" now, or then? A tunnel will just take people from their office towers and out of downtown in a hole in the ground; people will see very little of the downtown itself and won't use the tunnel (especially 10 storeys down) to travel around downtown. In cities like London and Paris, which have plenty of sights and things to do on the surface already, this isn't too big an issue but in smaller North American cities like Ottawa, Calgary and Edmonton what a tunnel will do is exacerbate the 9-to-5 problem.

I've never been to Edmonton so I don't know what kind of downtown they have or what type of urban culture. I am envious of their subway. Here in Ottawa, I know we have an emerging urban culture and an attractive downtown with plenty of tourism and plenty of locals taking to the streets to check things out. Again, how arrogant can you get to force people to look at downtown from the windows of a bus that is stuck in traffic. What's the point? Once people are on transit, they're on their way to someplace else. People in Ottawa come downtown, shop downtown, live downtown - that's here to stay. Such a downtown can handle a subway, in fact a subway will enhance it and make it easier for more people to come downtown.

Originally Posted by Dado

We do not need a tunnel, and we certainly do not need the tunnel as it is being proposed. It could be dug a lot closer to the surface and it should have more stations. Having too few stations will do a lot more to destroy the city than having light rail on the surface.

This is being argumentative or wantonly contrarian for the sake of it and I'm just not impressed. None of these are arguments that cause a project like this one to be discarded. Could've, should've... There are subways with much deeper stations than ours and they work. People use a subway no matter how deep the stations are. People adapt.

Originally Posted by Dado

What is the price of this tunnel? I mean that in the economic sense, not the financial sense. What do we have to give up or forego to get this tunnel? Let's assume that the rest of Phase I will be built and we'll have light rail from Blair to Baseline and South Keys. But will our finances then permit anything else? Perhaps LRT on Carling Avenue will be the price (not unreasonable since the difference in cost between tunnel and surface would be about the same as the cost of building LRT on Carling). Is foregoing LRT on Carling a worthwhile price to pay for a tunnel downtown? What is going to contribute more towards city-building? A tunnel alone, or surface LRT downtown and LRT on Carling? This isn't a question that can be dodged; there will always be an opportunity cost to any expenditure decision.

What do we give up by NOT having a subway? Nothing less than people's perception of the whole transit system. How twisted is our sense of priorities when we don't blink when a $2-billion bailout is handed to bankrupt car companies so they can last til the end of the current fiscal year, but an $80-million subway station is deemed too expensive? Which of the two will be there a hundred years from now?

Is foregoing Carling a worthwhile price for a subway? They're not mutually exclusive, I thing we should have both, and the city's plan has'em both. But the subway comes first. Downtown has to come first. We simply can't keep pushing it back time and time again. Downtown's time is now and it has to be done right.

I stand by what I said earlier in this post. This is too big an issue for politics. It's our future. Any politician that has the presumption to challenge something like this should be seen as a small man. One who only wants to advance his own short term interest at the expense of the city's future.