50 year and 100 year decisions

[lrt's friend]

In making our transportation decisions, we must recognize that some decisions are very long-term. When you hear of upgrade and conversion plans, you have to be skeptical. I will give a number of examples.

The decision to build the Toronto subway, the Montreal Metro, the Vancouver Skytrain and the Ottawa Transitway were all 100 year decisions. It is highly unlikely that this infrastructure will be substantially changed. In regard to roads, the Queensway and the 401 were also 100 year decisions. All may be repaired, upgraded or extended but they will basically serve the same function for more than a lifetime.

The decision of the type of equipment used on all of those will likely remain unchanged for at least 50 years. Sure, trains and buses may be modernized but always using similar technology.

The fact that Calgary chose high-floor LRT cars was a 50 year decision. It is unlikely that Calgary will move to low floor trains any time soon.

The decision that the C-Train would run on 7th Avenue was a 50 year decision. Only now are they starting to think of subway route in downtown and that will not be built for years.

Likewise, Ottawa decided to use Albert and Slater Street for the Transitway. That was also a 50 year decision.

My whole point is that we must fully understand the significance of the decisions we are about to make regarding Ottawa's transportation system and there are serious limitations on how much these decisions can be changed in the future. Simply too much money will have been invested into the infrastructure and technology.

Most infrastructure decisions are for 100 years. Technological decisions will be for 50 years. A downtown tunnel will be a 100 year decision. A rapid transit route to the south and east will be 100 year decisions.

If chose to extend the diesel O-Train south, this is a technological decision and therefore a 50 year decision. If we make the new Cumberland route a bus Transitway, this will also be a 50 year decision. The type of LRT equipment we choose will be 50 year decisions, whether diesel Talents, S70s or whatever else. Even failure to double track the Dow's Lake tunnel will likely be a 50 year decision. The consequences of these decisions will be felt long into the future. Any deficiencies that we build into the system will also be felt for decades. The deficiencies of the Albert/Slater decision have been apparent for many years.

There have been many ideas presented in the past suggesting that the system will be 'upgraded' at a later date when necessary. Don't kid yourself, this will only happen if it becomes an absolute necessity and almost certainly only after years of delays.

All we have to look at is the Transitways built to LRT standards. This was really a foolish expectation that this upgrade would happen. I know many of you support it but realistically it isn't going to happen for a long long time. You are not going to spend $1B + to replace a system that is working well with something known to have a similar capacity. There are simply no compelling arguments to support this upgrade at the cost involved.

Similarly, FOTO suggested that diesel trains be used on all routes outside of downtown with future plan to electrify it, when necessary. This major change of technology and the changes in infrastructure to double-track (bridge upgrades etc.) will simply delay such a upgrade for a very long time. Even if ridership warranted the upgrade, it will still take many years to accomplish because of the enormous cost of the upgrade. We have a perfect example of the Lakeshore Go Train Line now in service for 40 years. Some say that ridership could increase substantially if the level of service was not restricted by the rail infrastructure and the type of equipment. Only now are they starting to talk of electrification and rail upgrades.

Even the simple failure to double track the Dow's Lake tunnel may take decades to correct even if growing ridership dictates the need of the double track tunnel.

Just as we are now finding out that the Transitway will not be converted to LRT any time soon, our new plans should not build in similar expectations for future conversions. If the N-S route is planned as a diesel O-Train extension, don't expect a downtown connection or electrification in our lifetimes. If we decide that the Cumberland Transitway route be built for buses, don't expect a conversion to LRT in our lifetimes.

Because of the costs involved, these are all effectively permanent infrastructure decisions.

If we believe that electric LRT is best choise for the long-term, then we should start now and make this our 50 year choice for new rapid transit infrastructure that we build. We will be sadly disappointed if we believe that short-term solutions will not become the long-term reality.

[the capital urbanite]

I don't think anybody here or on council are looking for short-term solutions...

[lrt's friend]

I wouldn't be too sure about that.

We have had repeated calls for short extensions of the O-Train from various councillors. We could have portions of the Cumberland Transitway opened as a busway. These are examples of 'quick' fixes or 'interim' solutions, which could easily become permanent.

We also have had FOTO advocating a 'fast' expansion of diesel rail service using existing track. Some councillors have been interested in this approach. It too would likely become permanent and as I previously mentioned, may be very expensive to upgrade to a double track electric system.

[Dado]

Oh come on, some decisions aren't '50 year' decisions. Using existing single track doesn't really preclude doubling unless structures are built for single track only, and even that problem is solveable with signalling and new structure construction. Similarly diesel vs electric. Railways can be upgraded while in use. In the specific case of diesel single track to electric double, it's downright easy: add the second track with electric infrastructure, switch the trains onto the new track (diesel or electric, doesn't matter), then electrify the original track. Or add a third and electrify it. Just like how we twin roads. Stations can be designed for low-floor with removable ramps or elevated sections for the medium-height Talents in the appropriate places. Other decisions, like Calgary's high floor LRT, are of a much longer term and decisions like busway vs LR can, as we have seen here, be of a fairly long term. But some '50 year' decisions, like Calgary's 7th Ave, were the right decision because it bought a much wider network and higher ridership with the available funds. If Calgary had built a tunnel, well, it wouldn't 'need' it for years to come because the rest of the network wouldn't be there. What prevents a second tunnel from being bored at a later date, other than an obsession in some parts that everything has to be shut down during construction? And that assumes it's even needed at all.

[lrt's friend]

I stand by what I said. Double tracking will be very expensive if the infrastructure was all originally designed for single track including bridges. The cost of double tracking the O-Train was one of the reasons the N-S line was cancelled.

If we build up a single track system based on its original low cost, knowing that the cost of an upgrade will be substantial, we may be scrambling for decades with patchwork fixes if the system is successful. We need to fully understand this before making such a decision.

In the case of the 7th Ave route in Calgary, it was the right decision. In the Edmonton case, the cost of building underground dwarfed the system for many years. I was not making a statement of whether 7th Avenue decision was right or wrong, just that it was a 50 year decision.

There has to be a cost/benefit analysis on all these decisions and part of this analysis must include the longterm nature of the decisions and the cost of upgrades.

So many have been advocating a fast extension of the O-Train. But this may be establishing a 50 year decision not properly taking into consideration what will ultimately planned for downtown, the Siemens lawsuit, and funding for the Strandherd Bridge.

Individual councillors have certainly voiced some shortsighted ideas. Hopefully City Council in their collective wisdom, will proceed wisely.