| |
Posted Nov 27, 2008, 5:11 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,805
|
|
Quote:
Nothing rapid about transit
Wheels on city council's bus go round and round ... and go nowhere fast
By SUSAN SHERRING
A train wreck.
That was the description of one seasoned city hall observer watching from the gallery yesterday.
Healthy cynicism or a bang-on assessment?
After a marathon 14-hour committee meeting last week on the future of the city's transportation master plan, council as a whole got back at it yesterday.
But after a day's worth of questions and answers, they barely made a dent in the work that needs to be done.
The meeting will reconvene tomorrow -- and they should keep Saturday open.
What's the problem?
Well, there are 23 councillors and one mayor, and it seems clear the plan satisfies none of them completely.
That's not so surprising. But in fact, the plan doesn't come close to completely satisfying a bunch of them.
And there's still that nagging doubt lingering in the room -- can taxpayers really afford the proposed system?
Somehow, out of the blue, the $1.7-billion price tag for the first phase of the light-rail proposal grew to $2.1 billion -- and there wasn't a blink of an eye.
The price difference is taking into account inflation -- the estimated cost to build in the years ahead.
But somehow, it's not going to cost taxpayers any more money on their tax bill.
How the heck does that work?
Well, according to city treasurer Marian Similuk, the city's $700-million share of the project will be paid with borrowed money over a 30-year period.
(Perhaps the city should be buying our houses.)
Will the feds and the province pony up? No one knows for sure, though that leads to a couple of other interesting questions.
QUESTIONABLE TIMING
The timing of the letter from provincial Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Watson can only be described as questionable. But then, so too are the comments from federal Infrastructure Minister John Baird.
Baird, of course, will always go down as a footnote in the history of light rail, having pulled federal funding on the original north-south LRT plan just before the 2006 municipal election. Now it seems Baird is suggesting the feds have got money to spare. Wouldn't he like to see the plan first?
Speaking of comments from the gallery, one staffer suggested if the meeting dragged on much longer, instead of light rail, the city could investigate anti-matter transportation, maybe bring along Capt. Kirk and the gang.
Reporters jokingly tried to pay off the technicians watching the five minutes allowed for councillors' questions, offering to pay them to speed up the clock.
There are more than three dozen motions on the agenda, and yesterday, they only got to a few.
One, from Knoxdale-Merivale Coun. Gord Hunter, was deemed a "nasty little motion" by River Coun. Maria McRae -- just to give you an idea of the calibre of the debate.
Capital Coun. Clive Doucet wasn't about to let a long and dreadfully boring meeting deter him from talking.
"I've got five crummy minutes," Doucet complained.
It would be nice to argue in favour of public debate, but really, are councillors actually learning anything?
IT'S A MYSTERY
It would seem not, with Doucet himself describing many of the responses from staff as "mystery answers."
You have to know there's something wrong with a meeting when Bay Coun. Alex Cullen suggests there's no reason for more questions or debate, and Innes Coun. Rainer Bloess agrees with him.
Gloucester-Southgate Coun. Diane Deans wondered what was going on.
"What did you want to hide?" she asked.
Interesting question. No good answer.
As it turns out, yesterday's meeting was the last for outgoing city clerk Pierre Page, which didn't go unnoticed by Mayor Larry O'Brien and council, who gave him a standing ovation and a great party.
"I'm glad we've made this a memorable day for you," O'Brien quipped at the end of yesterday's meeting.
Memorable?
Unfortunately, just like so many other council meetings, it was long, confusing and unproductive.
|
Quote:
Transit debate has lost its way
Randall Denley
The Ottawa Citizen
Thursday, November 27, 2008
City of Ottawa staff have a big plan to expand transit dramatically by 2031, but the question is, will city councillors still be debating it then? Judging by their inclination to spend entire days asking questions that have already been answered, the transit debate could easily stretch into 2031, if not to infinity.
Councillors' big new theme yesterday was affordability. This would have been a good point in any of the last four or five years, because nothing has changed. It's not exactly a news flash that the transit project is expensive and will increase the city's debt. Fortunately, federal and provincial gas tax money and development charges will cover most of that debt over time. This was always a base assumption in considering transit expansion. Without city ability to spend, there would be no project.
City treasurer Marian Simulik distributed a one-page explanation of where the money will come from for the city's share of the $1.7-billion first phase of the project. It's so simple that even Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Watson will be able to understand it.
The Ottawa West-Nepean MPP sent a letter to Mayor Larry O'Brien this week, expressing concern about affordability and the availability of federal money. It was pretty rich. The federal side has made it clear that $400 million will be available. The province has only offered half that and the money is not actually booked in any budget. Ask provincial officials where it will come from and they tell you it's a promise.
In Watson's perfect world, councillors would have fumbled the transit plan and the cash-strapped provincial government wouldn't have had to pay anything. This would be the same provincial government, by the way, that is paying two-thirds of the cost of transit expansions in the Greater Toronto Area. The province has promised $11.5 billion there.
Despite the hours of tortuous and inconclusive debate yesterday, there is really nothing complicated about what's in front of councillors. They have just lost the thread of the story.
What they are being asked to approve this week is a plan. City staff will then take the plan to the federal and provincial governments seeking a firm commitment for money. If the money isn't adequate, councillors will have to revisit the issue. Maybe they should book a month for discussion now, just in case.
The $1.7-billion price tag is making some councillors look back fondly at the city's aborted plan to send rail from Barrhaven to downtown. What a bargain that was, they say now, at a mere $900 million. Some bargain. The federal and provincial governments were only putting in $200 million each. The city's $500-million share was way out of proportion to the money contributed by the other governments and it would have left the city without enough money to pay its share of subsequent phases of the transit plan.
Worse, the old plan provided rail on the surface downtown, a "solution" that even its supporters admitted would last only eight to 10 years before the volume of trains, cars and buses overloaded the downtown again. By the time the surface rail was in place, it would have been just about time to start work on the tunnel to replace it.
Some councillors also seem to forget that the old rail plan was part of a much larger scheme, as is the new one. The old transit plan would have spent $4.4 billion on buses and rail, but it wouldn't have solved the transit congestion problem downtown or done anything meaningful to shift the major east and west commutes to rail. Instead, it would have put the expensive new rail in secondary transit corridors with limited ridership.
If councillors want to get cold feet about transit spending now, there is one good reason to do it, but it's not because there is anything wrong with the staff plan. To get to the real problem, they need to go back to the most fundamental question, the one that has never been properly asked. Why do we need to bring so many people downtown to work every day?
Telecommuting and relocating some federal office buildings to the suburbs would reduce and spread out the commute. Instead, the federal government will spend hundreds of millions of dollars on transit. The government is locked on the idea that transit is a good way to move people without really thinking enough about why the people are being moved in the first place.
Transit and infrastructure are popular with governments eager to do something in tough economic times, but if the transit plan is simply intended to create jobs and build something ministers can have their pictures taken in front of, I would suggest that we replace it with a series of Egyptian-style pyramids. These would create construction-sector jobs and boost tourism. Egypt's pyramids are so dusty and far away, you know. Best of all, we could bury a politician under each one.
Contact Randall Denley at 596-3756 or by e-mail,
[email protected]
© The Ottawa Citizen 2008
|
Quote:
Watson's sober second thoughts
The Ottawa Citizen
Thursday, November 27, 2008
It is disconcerting that as late as the day before the final rail debate was to occur at Ottawa City Council, the former mayor of Ottawa who is now the current provincial minister of municipal affairs had doubts about funding the $1.7-billion project.
Jim Watson's Nov. 25 letter to Mayor Larry O'Brien was enough to send shudders down taxpayers' spines. Mr. Watson inquired about:
- whether land acquisition and utilities had been considering in costing the project;
- whether the city could cover capital and operating costs of the project;
- if potential cost increases had been taken into account;
- if the project could be phased in such a way as to meet funding available from the other levels of government;
- what funding was available from the federal government;
- if federal funding might jeopardize other money from the federal government concerning infrastructure;
- what back-up plan the city had in case expected funding from the senior levels of government is not available.
These are not questions a senior minister should be unclear about the day before the final debate is about to occur. That leads one to believe that the provincial government has not been adequately sold on this project and raises questions about just how thorough this plan is. Has this been rushed to meet some arbitrary deadline? Has all the homework been done? Mr. Watson's comments cause taxpayers to wonder if this plan is much more than lines on a map.
Especially worrisome is the amount of money involved. A sum in the neighbourhood of $1.7 billion for the first phase is not something to be wrong about. This is hard-earned money by Ottawans who are worried, like other people in other places, about the economic future in the face of a financial downturn.
Mr. Watson mentions the "challenging economic time" in his letter to Mr. O'Brien, making one wonder if the province is worried about the amount of revenue it will receive during this uncertain period. Or perhaps the province is concerned about the amount it might have to spend to revive the troubled Ontario manufacturing sector.
Mr. Watson has voiced his views in a dramatic way -- he will surely be accused of political grandstanding -- but it's hard not to share his frustration. He's right to remind council that provincial officials will need to vet the plan on ridership, costing and environmental impact. The minister has also pointed out that the province is only in for $200 million on a $1.7-billion scheme, which puts considerable pressure on city finances.
One suspects that Mr. Watson has expressed what many taxpayers are thinking.
© The Ottawa Citizen 2008
|
Not exactly glowing press on the current council transit debate.
|
|
|
Prev
)
Linear Mode
