HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Business, Politics & the Economy


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2009, 1:38 AM
Kitchissippi's Avatar
Kitchissippi Kitchissippi is offline
Busy Beaver
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,611
Also, let's put it in perspective. The costs for the tunnel peg it at about triple of what is being spent on Baseline station at the moment. There's a lot more fat to be trimmed elsewhere and stupid short term transitway expenditures should be cut first.

I'd love to see a ward by ward pie chart of where the city's tax revenues (commercial and residential) come from, and I'm sure the core wards (Sommerset and Rideau-Vanier) probably pull in more than their fair share. Contrast that with transit infrastructure expenditure, they'd probably be in the low end of the scale.

The tunnel will be a 100+ year investment, and the sooner it is built, the sooner it gets amortized in today's cheaper dollars in hindsight. Enough talk, consultation and discussion has gone on in the last few years, and anyone who is sour because "their idea" was not considered is just confusing the issue.

I find it disturbing that the tunnel is becoming a filibustering point. Its only downside is the cost, which when factored beyond transit issues (yes, aesthetics, noise and surface pedestrian/cycling environment are worthy factors) make it worth every penny even at twice the projected cost in my opinion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2009, 2:29 AM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,252
It's amazing all the fuss about a measly 3 KM tunnel. We have the 4th highest % of commuters using transit (and riders per capita) in all metros of North America, behind only New York, Toronto and Montreal. We don't need to cheap out to build up ridership or build out into the suburbs, we already have an extensive suburban busway system.

Why spend billions on a system that still stops at red lights in the downtown? (and a surface downtown section would cost $100-200 million anyways). Like Kitchissippi said, this is a 100+ year decision; when Toronto built it's first subway in the 1950s, replacing a busy surface route, it had about the same metro population as us, 1.2 million, look at how 50 years later that line shapes the city and the core.

Last edited by waterloowarrior; Sep 27, 2009 at 3:27 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2009, 3:56 AM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,600
Quote:
Such a downtown can handle a subway, in fact a subway will enhance it and make it easier for more people to come downtown.
This is only true if we can have an adequate buildout of the system. If Phase 1 goes way overbudget, then buildout will not occur in a timely fashion as was the case in Edmonton. In fact, all transit may stagnate.

I have to say that the current rail plan makes it no more convenient to reach downtown than the existing Transitways since both use the same routes. I still have to take the same local bus to the same station or drive to the same Park n Ride lot. There will be no boom of new transit riders going downtown unless it is the result of other factors.

Quote:
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.
Just because its in the plan doesn't mean it will ever get built. If the city can't afford to build it because prior phases went overbudget or the plan was beyond our means in the first place, it won't happen.

The problem with the 'tunnel or nothing' approach is that if the tunnel fails to be built for whatever reason, we will simply abandon LRT, probably for a generation or more. It will be considered a total political failure, and we will return to building only busways. A tunnel may come eventually but it will be Andy Haydon's bus tunnel this time. The existing TMP actually leads us down this path because it allows busways to be built easier. LRT depends entirely on successfully funding a tunnel. If the tunnel is not funded, the entire LRT proposal collapses, and there will be no improvements to downtown transit whatsoever.

The pricetag on the tunnel is important. Taxpayers will need a lot of convincing if their taxes are going to increase to pay for it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2009, 4:32 PM
Richard Eade Richard Eade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nepean
Posts: 2,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
...
The problem with the 'tunnel or nothing' approach is that if the tunnel fails to be built for whatever reason, we will simply abandon LRT, probably for a generation or more. It will be considered a total political failure, and we will return to building only busways. A tunnel may come eventually but it will be Andy Haydon's bus tunnel this time. The existing TMP actually leads us down this path because it allows busways to be built easier. LRT depends entirely on successfully funding a tunnel. If the tunnel is not funded, the entire LRT proposal collapses, and there will be no improvements to downtown transit whatsoever.

The pricetag on the tunnel is important. Taxpayers will need a lot of convincing if their taxes are going to increase to pay for it.
No problem then since the estimated price for the tunnel is $600M, and the Province has pledged $200M and the Feds have pledged $200M (-$35M for the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge) and the City says it has the matching $200M. Thus, all $600M for the tunnel is already accounted for.

What our politicians need to do is get funding commitments for expanding the LRT network. This should be no problem since both the Prov. and the Feds have said that they will support Green Transit initiatives. For instance, the estimated price for converting 12 Km of the eastern arm of the Transitway was $227M; do you think the Prov. or Feds will not be able to come up with $80M each in the near future? The Rail Yard was estimated at $100M, but that seems to have jumped to about $175M. Will our funding partners not be able to find $60M each?

Quite honestly, there have been any number of values thrown around, but one of the most consistent has been that the upper levels are willing to go easily to $400M each, which, when matched by the City, would total $1.2B. So far, we have estimates for a $600M tunnel, $227M for the Tunneys to Blair conversion, and a $175M Rail Yard for a total of $1.002B. That leaves about $200M for vehicles which is just over 1/2 the amount estimated in the plan ($390M). Personally, I think the Province has been great at coming up with $50M+ every year for new buses, so I think they could be counted on for a few score of millions for more trains over a couple of years. Like the hybrid buses, I expect that we will be aquiring the vehicles over a few years any way, so not having the whole amount at the beginning is likely not a problem.

That means that for a City investment of $400M, with matching funds from the others (which I think we can count on), we can have the West-East line running, with the tunnel. The additional vehicles would be bought over time, and system extensions could be built as money permits. Every four years (or less), there are big elections for which Politicians throw around money. I am pretty sure that relatively inexpensive extensions to a train system would make good press.

I do find it a little disconcerting that people who have put forth the view that Bus-ways should not be built only to be converted to rail later, should be advocating that surface rail should be built now and the trains moved down into a tunnel in 20 years. I understand that some are suggesting that there should always be surface trains, and that the tunnel would augment that service, but is running a parallel rail system really the most efficient idea?

Any way, this thread seems to have gotten off topic a bit (a lot?). Maybe if this discussion is to continue, it would be better to move it to the Transit thread.

As for mayor, I think it would be suicide for a candidate to run on the platform that they are going to 'Press the RESET button yet again'. I think that they could, however, gather ideas on how to make 'small' modifications to substancially improve the current plan. I think people could be sold on 'Tweeks' which would differenciate the candidates.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2009, 10:24 PM
Jamaican-Phoenix's Avatar
Jamaican-Phoenix Jamaican-Phoenix is offline
R2-D2's army of death
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Downtown Ottawa
Posts: 3,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy_haak View Post
I say get rid of them all. There are a few there who should stick around, but this Council is beyond repair.

Ditto. We need to get rid of this group of Kindergarteners.
__________________
Franky: Ajldub, name calling is what they do when good arguments can't be found - don't sink to their level. Claiming the thread is "boring" is also a way to try to discredit a thread that doesn't match their particular bias.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2009, 3:06 AM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Eade View Post
I do find it a little disconcerting that people who have put forth the view that Bus-ways should not be built only to be converted to rail later, should be advocating that surface rail should be built now and the trains moved down into a tunnel in 20 years. I understand that some are suggesting that there should always be surface trains, and that the tunnel would augment that service, but is running a parallel rail system really the most efficient idea?
That was the recommendation of the Peer Review Panel - they suggested adding in the Carling LRT line and running it through downtown on the surface. One of them even suggested building surface downtown first. The reason they wanted LRT on the surface is for the same reason I have stated in the other thread - to improve the downtown environment and act as part of the local surface transport network in a way that a tunnel simply cannot.



I do find one thing curious in all this... weren't most of you in favour of the N-S LRT that would have put light rail on the surface downtown in and amongst the buses?
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2009, 3:34 AM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,252
Going back down the rabbit hole
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Going+b...137/story.html
Ottawa’s transit vision is facing the same problems that dogged the old plan: rising costs, details and politics.

BY MOHAMMED ADAM, THE OTTAWA CITIZENSEPTEMBER 27, 2009 11:19 PM


OTTAWA-Three years ago, city council killed its own plan to build a major new rail-transit system. Now, its even more ambitious replacement is facing the same problems that dogged the old plan: costs that seem to be rising quickly, a city council that’s having trouble explaining its plans, and political interference.

“One of the two things that was disturbing to me about the last plan was that it started as something that was going to max us out, but was manageable. But bite by bite it became bigger, to the point where I didn’t think we could afford it,” says Councillor Rick Chiarelli, who voted against the old plan because he didn’t think it was affordable. “I see those same caution flags emerging on this one. With the number of balconies flying by me, I am getting the feeling I am falling.”

The city’s new 25-year transit plan has been controversial from the beginning.

The plan, which councillors approved last spring, will see a downtown tunnel, an east-west electric rail line from Tunney’s Pasture to Blair Road, a north-south electric rail line from Bayview to South Keys, and extended Transitway lines to suburbs outside the Greenbelt.

Rising out of the ruins of the cancelled $880-million north-south rail project, it divided council and initially met with lukewarm support from the provincial government.

The first phase of construction, with a cost pegged at $1.7 billion, was supposed to be the tunnel, a partial east-west rail line, and extended busways. But recently the city added another wrinkle by giving the provincial government another option as city officials negotiate for funding: the same tunnel and east-west rail, but instead of extended busways, a north-south rail link. The bill for that option is $1.8 billion, including $400 million for the north-south rail.

As it was with the old plan, cost is becoming the Achilles heel of the new plan. Part of the reason north-south rail failed was that even as then-mayor Bob Chiarelli was dismissing claims of cost overruns, the cost was ballooning from $600 million to $880 million. Councillor Chiarelli, who also voted against the new plan, says he can see affordability becoming a big issue again.

After news reports claimed the current project, meant to be the first part of the decades-long master transit plan, is $100 million over budget before it’s even received approval, Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Watson waded in, saying that reported changes to the plan raise serious questions about its affordability.

“There are significant changes, changes to the routing, rail yards and so on and this comes as a surprise because I thought the plan submitted had taken care of these things. Obviously it hasn’t,” says Watson, the senior Ottawa minister in the provincial government. “I am concerned that costs keep escalating… and my message to the city is (to) make sure that when you submit your numbers in October, they are credible and defensible and are not going to evaporate off a page in a month’s time.”

Councillor Alex Cullen, the chairman of council’s transit committee and an ardent supporter of the new transit plan, says the reports of a $100-million cost overrun are “fabricated,” and it is absurd to draw parallels with north-south rail. Nancy Schepers, the deputy city manager responsible for the transit plan, says it is not unusual for cost estimates of major projects to escalate as concepts turn into reality. The city won’t know the exact cost of the project until a final design is approved.

Watching all the to-ing and fro-ing as the transit plan approaches final approval, it seems like déjà vu all over again for former regional councillor Frank Reid.

Reid believes the transit plan is getting caught up in the politics of the day as people who are considering running for mayor use it to position themselves for the race. The same thing happened in 2006, when the north-south project became a political football in the middle of a municipal election: John Baird, the Ottawa West-Nepean Tory MP and then president of Treasury Board, withheld federal funding for the plan that had been promised under the previous Liberal government, turning a done deal into an election issue and helping conservative candidate Larry O’Brien defeat Liberal mayor Bob Chiarelli.

“It is no secret that Jim Watson is thinking of running for mayor and people have to ask the question: is all the protest from the province because of cost overruns or is it because somebody is positioning himself for mayor?” Reid says. “The politics of this thing makes me wonder if everything is to do with the dollar — or ambition. I smell Watson, I smell (planning committee chairman and possible mayoral contender) Peter Hume, I smell politics, politics, politics.”

Indeed, given Baird’s role in killing the north-south plan, which the provincial Liberals fully supported, some have wondered whether the McGuinty government will ultimately back any plan fronted by O’Brien. Watson dismisses any such doubts, saying both he and the premier represent Ottawa and there is no reason why they’d want the city to fail. Politics, he says, has nothing to do with making sure that a plan that’s pegged at $5 billion is worth the money.

“The premier is very much a big-picture person. We represent the same constituents and taxpayers and it is in no one’s interest to have the city fail,” Watson says. “We want to make sure this is done right and we are not going to rush to meet some artificial deadline.”

Cullen, who is the only declared candidate for mayor in the next election in 2010, acknowledges the plan is expensive and, given its history, understands why people get nervous when the issue of rising costs — real or imagined — are raised. But there’s nothing unusual or alarming about how the city’s transit plan is unfolding, he says.

“In the evolution of a concept to a construction project, you go through the same steps whether it’s in Toronto, Vancouver or some other place. It is an issue we have to address and it is going to be a more transparent process than the previous plan,” Cullen says.

“Planning-level estimates are done for planning purposes and it will come as no surprise to anyone that the numbers that finally come out will be different from the estimates,” says deputy city manager Schepers, herself an engineer.

She says those numbers will be made public in the last week of October. In December or early January, the city will make a formal request for funding from the provincial and federal governments.

The bill for the first phase was estimated in 2007 dollars and two years on, the cost may already have gone up simply because of inflation. Councillor Marianne Wilkinson says if construction doesn’t begin in two years, the price is expected to hit $2.1 billion. That’s not counting costs that were never included in the initial estimate: for property acquisition, including subterranean rights, and design changes discovered to be needed as more engineering work is done.

Wilkinson says it is premature to talk about cost overruns when no firm budget has been established and no contract has been signed with any builder. Still, she believes the city could have done a better job of handling the project estimates. She is also unhappy with the decision to give the province the north-south rail option, because she believes it comes at the expense of busway expansion in her Kanata ward. She believes it is being done for political reasons, to entice the province with a recognizable version of the north-south rail plan the government previously agreed to support.

“Politics is definitely creeping into this,” Wilkinson says.

Reid says a big part of the reason the plan is being pulled apart in different directions is poor communications. For instance, Mayor Larry O’Brien should have been in front of the cameras explaining a $37-million settlement agreement with the consortium that had been contracted to build the original rail line — and how that squared with the city’s proposal to build a north-south rail line after all.

Instead, he allowed others to saddle the city with their own spin and interpretation. And as rumours swirled around cost overruns, he should have been out there quickly and emphatically putting them rest. O’Brien is the mayor, and Reid says that leaving Cullen and others like Hume to lead the way doesn’t inspire confidence.

“The thing that bothers me is that the communication on this has been pathetic. The way it has been handled, the information comes out in dribbles, it comes out as rumours. No one is out there to explain what is going on and pre-empt a lot of the stuff,” Reid says. “The mayor needs to show leadership. He has not done that.”

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2009, 12:31 PM
Mille Sabords's Avatar
Mille Sabords Mille Sabords is offline
Elle est déjà vide!
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Big Bad Ottawa
Posts: 2,081


What a joke. I think Ottawa's transit vision is facing the same problem as the one before: small-minded and underperforming media, ambitious politicians out for only themselves, and pompous outrage about consultation that's never enough despite reams and reams of material available to anyone at the click of a frikkin' mouse.

Makes me puke.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2009, 1:39 PM
Richard Eade Richard Eade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nepean
Posts: 2,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mille Sabords View Post


What a joke. I think Ottawa's transit vision is facing the same problem as the one before: small-minded and underperforming media, ambitious politicians out for only themselves, and pompous outrage about consultation that's never enough despite reams and reams of material available to anyone at the click of a frikkin' mouse.

Makes me puke.
Well, that might be a big part of the problem: The CONSULTATION provides (filtered) information but doesn't actually 'consult'. That is, it is a one-way street.

On Oct. 29, 2008, Staff had their 'starting point' for developing an alignment for the DOTT. The report contained the following image:



When the final alignment recommendation was made in the report on May 6, 2009, the following image was used to portray the line:



So after six full months of study, all the feed-back that was received at the Open Houses, all the thousands of comments that were submitted, and all of the changes and alterations suggested, Not a single detail of the route changed. The 'Consultation' process was entirely for naught.

People are feeling that there has been NO consideration of other alternatives and options. That the plan had already been 'finalized' before it was presented for public input. Even bringing up the same north-south route which had previously been cancelled makes it look as if the people's wisher have been completely ignored. It is easy for Politicians to say "Oh, it is very different from the old N-S LRT plan." But people don't see it as being different.

In Mohammed Adam's article, Frank Ried is quoted as saying that there has been a terrible communications job done on the entire rail proposal, and I think he is dead-on. You have been closely following these events so you have a much better knowledge of what has happened than most people. If you only had a few (sensationalized) media reports to go on, do you think your opinion would be different?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2009, 2:06 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Here's an idea: the federal government should create an interprovincial transit authority covering the National Capital Region and its surroundings. It would take power out of the hands of city bureaucrats and into the hands of an independent authority.

The committee should have 13 seats and be made up of the following:

*Mayor of Ottawa
*Mayor of Gatineau
*5 additional representatives from Ottawa (6 total - ensuring it does not have a majority)
*3 additional representatives from Gatineau (4 total)
*1 representative from the National Capital Commission
*1 representative from the surrounding Ontario municipalities
*1 representative from the surrounding Quebec municipalities
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2009, 2:10 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternallyme View Post
*5 additional representatives from Ottawa (6 total - ensuring it does not have a majority)
Why should Ottawa not have a majority, it has a clear majority in the population and especially the amount of people using transit
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2009, 2:50 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
Why should Ottawa not have a majority, it has a clear majority in the population and especially the amount of people using transit
If any one group is given a majority, it would be able to hijack the committee and pass things on their own to the detriment of others. The only other option is to require a 2/3 vote to pass committee.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2009, 3:54 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternallyme View Post
If any one group is given a majority, it would be able to hijack the committee and pass things on their own to the detriment of others. The only other option is to require a 2/3 vote to pass committee.
You could say the same the opposite way, that everyone else could join up to oppose Ottawa and increase their own funding disproportionately or there could be political deadlock... thus the problem with a political board and why in many places the boards are mostly made up of planners, engineers, business people/economists, and industry representatives rather than parochial politicians.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2009, 3:55 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mille Sabords View Post


What a joke. I think Ottawa's transit vision is facing the same problem as the one before: small-minded and underperforming media, ambitious politicians out for only themselves, and pompous outrage about consultation that's never enough despite reams and reams of material available to anyone at the click of a frikkin' mouse.

Makes me puke.
I wonder if the proponents of the original Transitway back in the late 70s and early 80s had the same sentiments (with "click of a frikkin' mouse" being replaced with "visit to the frikkin' library")?

And then again in the late 1980s when the Transitway tunnel was being contemplated.

Of course, the public perception was different than that of the proponents back then, too:

Quote:
Meetings on tunnel plan called sham
Doug Yonson, The Ottawa Citizen
Oct 12, 1989

Two public meetings on a proposed bus tunnel under downtown Ottawa next week won't mean much because regional staff have already decided they want a tunnel, some regional councillors say.

"It's perfectly obvious where staff is headed for, where the consultants are headed for and quite frankly where the politicians are headed for," said Kanata Mayor Des Adam.

" You're going to get a tunnel -- it's going to be a question of when."

Adam told the regional transportation committee Wednesday that two recent studies on ways to improve transit flow in the downtown "are trying their hardest to justify the conclusion (of regional staff) that a tunnel is necessary."

Adam wondered why the region is bothering with the open houses on Tuesday and Wednesday "if in fact we have already decided."

He was particularly critical that no cost estimates will be available at the open houses.

"I don't know how meaningful the response will be from the public when they don't know what the cost will be.

"It's like you saying you want to buy a new car. Well, if the car is $140,000, you likely don't want it."

The recommended tunnel route would link the current LeBreton and Campus transitway stations. There would actually be two single-lane tunnels, under Albert and Slater streets, which would also serve the Rideau Centre.

Based on the cost of a transit tunnel nearing completion in Seattle, Wash., and including several future years of inflation, regional staff have suggested the twin tunnels could cost about $700 million.

One of the studies, released in August, examined three options to carry bus traffic when surface streets reached capacity -- an elevated roadway, a shallow tunnel and a deep tunnel. The study recommended a deep tunnel.

The other report, tabled Wednesday, recommended ways to extend the life of the current bus lanes on Albert and Slater Streets. It says construction of a tunnel can be delayed as long as 16 years by timing traffic signals to favor the bus lanes, installing passenger information screens at bus stops and allowing passengers to prepay cash or ticket fares at the bus stops.

Ottawa Ald. Tim Kehoe and Gloucester Mayor Harry Allen said they are concerned that other transitway priorities may be ignored in the current emphasis on a tunnel.

Allen said he feels the extension of the transitway east to Orleans and west to Kanata has a higher priority than a downtown tunnel. Kehoe said the region still has five years of construction to complete the initial transitway to South Keys, and is also under pressure to extend service to Barrhaven and to get transitway traffic off the Ottawa River Parkway in Ottawa's west end.

They said the public should not misled that the tunnel is the only priority.

"I get the feeling the region is pushing for the tunnel and trying to get it ahead of transitway extensions to Kanata and Orleans," Allen said.
Kehoe said he could not advocate a tunnel "without knowing how many other major legs we have to fund."

The region's transitway director, Ian Stacey, told Allen there were indeed a number of priorities, and a major decision facing council in the next couple of years is in determining which goes first.

He said regional council committed itself to some sort of tunnel or elevated busway 15 years ago when it endorsed a major role for rapid transit in the region's development.
I guess that bit about BRT being cheaper was all made up, then...


I also found this quite amusing:

Quote:
Hottest air rose to top on transitway
Claire Hoy, The Ottawa Citizen
Oct 29, 1989

Once upon a time, there was a stupid man.

He wandered the land, lost and confused, until he found another stupid man in downtown Ottawa.

And so it went. Soon there were three, then four. Before long they had a quorum.

None of them had the wits to do anything useful with their lives, so they did the only thing they could - they got elected.

First to city council. Then the region.

The hottest air rose to the top.

One of the first things they did was set up a transit system.

They bought buses.

Other cities were using cleaner, more efficient, less congestive forms of transportation, using buses as feeders.

They bought more buses.

The city grew. The region grew. And the bus fleet, like Topsy, grew.

Wiser people told the stupid people to plan for alternatives, but they wouldn't listen.

They discarded the streetcars, ripped up railway tracks, and rejected modern alternatives.

They worshipped the bus.

Of course, some of them voted themselves limousines and generous taxi chits so they wouldn't have to ride in them.

Before long another stupid person wandered in with a dream. He called his dream the Transitway. He envisioned miles of grey, ugly concrete strips slashing through empty fields, met here and there by monstrous glass and steel stations.

Nobody knew what the cost would be. But it didn't matter.

Property taxes soared, soon to double that of comparable homes in Toronto.

Transit was more expensive and considerably less efficient.

But the Transitway was underway and the stupid men and women surveyed the blotted landscape and declared it good.

Soon, it wasn't enough.

They needed a tunnel. Two tunnels.

Again they hired engineers and planners who live their lives to build massive things, and they asked if they should build a tunnel underneath downtown.

The builders said yes. And for sharing this wisdom they were paid $1.6 million by the stupid men and women.

They will build the tunnels.

Again, they don't know how much it will cost. $500 million? $800 million? $l billion?

Who cares? After all, they cry, it will save the average commuter four minutes -- yes, that's F-O-U-R minutes.

So what's a billion?

Ottawa must have tunnels. Toronto has some. Montreal, too.

Are we a real city or not, they cry?

They didn't want to be accused of not consulting the public, so they held open houses and pretended to seek advice.

Of the 400 who came, only about 50 said yes, 25 said no, but the bulk left, speechless, some shaking their heads and muttering that these people must be crazy.

Perhaps they are, these stupid men, but they are going to have their tunnels.

And you are going to pay. So who is really stupid?

But even if some stupid people are replaced by other stupid people, it may be too late.

The course, once embarked upon, can not be altered.

Certainly not by common sense.

Without the tunnels, they say, the buses will clog the downtown streets.

That is because they have no alternatives to buses.

Ottawa buses carry more people out of the downtown during rush hour than any bus-only system on the continent, they cry. That's because there are so few bus-only systems. And it ignores the fact that at 6:05 p.m., nobody is left downtown. Except the bus drivers.

And so it seems we will have our three-kilometre tunnels, under Albert and Slater streets, linking both ends of the Transitway.

Generations will ask how this came to pass, how such awesome stupidity went unchallenged.

There is no answer.

Not as long as smart people stay away from elected office.

In local politics, stupidity is power.

Intelligent life need not apply.
One supposes a few more lines could be added to this poem today...
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2009, 6:37 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,600
Marianne Wilkinson's comments are so telling. We can't build a first phase without appeasing every part of the city in some way.

It is this kind of attitude that is creating so many compromises that we end of with a system that tries to satisfy everybody but ends up satisfying no one.

I do like the idea of setting up a regional transit authority like Metrolinx in Toronto, so that rapid transit planning gets at least a little more separated from the political process and the election cycle. The mandate of those on the transit authority board is to look at the big picture and this should reduce the demands to appease individual ward interests.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2009, 11:53 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
You could say the same the opposite way, that everyone else could join up to oppose Ottawa and increase their own funding disproportionately or there could be political deadlock... thus the problem with a political board and why in many places the boards are mostly made up of planners, engineers, business people/economists, and industry representatives rather than parochial politicians.
That would require Gatineau, the NCC and the rural municipalities all ganging up on Ottawa, when they have completely different interests.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 3:36 PM
Mille Sabords's Avatar
Mille Sabords Mille Sabords is offline
Elle est déjà vide!
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Big Bad Ottawa
Posts: 2,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Eade View Post
Well, that might be a big part of the problem: The CONSULTATION provides (filtered) information but doesn't actually 'consult'. That is, it is a one-way street.

On Oct. 29, 2008, Staff had their 'starting point' for developing an alignment for the DOTT. The report contained the following image:

When the final alignment recommendation was made in the report on May 6, 2009, the following image was used to portray the line:

So after six full months of study, all the feed-back that was received at the Open Houses, all the thousands of comments that were submitted, and all of the changes and alterations suggested, Not a single detail of the route changed. The 'Consultation' process was entirely for naught.

People are feeling that there has been NO consideration of other alternatives and options. That the plan had already been 'finalized' before it was presented for public input. Even bringing up the same north-south route which had previously been cancelled makes it look as if the people's wisher have been completely ignored. It is easy for Politicians to say "Oh, it is very different from the old N-S LRT plan." But people don't see it as being different.

In Mohammed Adam's article, Frank Ried is quoted as saying that there has been a terrible communications job done on the entire rail proposal, and I think he is dead-on. You have been closely following these events so you have a much better knowledge of what has happened than most people. If you only had a few (sensationalized) media reports to go on, do you think your opinion would be different?
You make some good points about communications, no question about it. But it's also true, I think, that the media exaggerates and overdramatizes things partly because readership is falling and people are turning to the Internet more and more for their news. A big city with big projects is an easy source of controversy. And mark my words, when the subway is built and is open for service, the same media will be all over it, salute its vision, rave about its city-building force, etc.

What if, despite all the input and feedback received, the proposed alignment is indeed the best one? I remember the Rideau Centre being in the media as furious that they would lose MacKenzie-King station, which ensures the north-south flow of pedestrians through the mall. Did you know that the Rideau Centre is built on stilts because of the sandy soils beneath it? I believe that was said as well in one of the public forums and it's one of the main reasons why the route tilts to the north - going under the canal and building a subway station where MacKenzie King is now would be much more expensive and much deeper too. This is just one of many I've heard or seen to explain the route. Was this ever reported in the paper? No? That's what I mean. The media is focusing more on controversies than on the actual project, which is overall well put together when all is said and done.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2009, 9:23 PM
RTWAP's Avatar
RTWAP RTWAP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 528
I can't understand why the city is being asked to pay for this at all. In Southwestern Ontario the provincial government allocated something like $17 Billion for transit, covered 2/3rds by the province and 1/3rd by the feds. Why should Ottawa be any different?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2009, 3:24 AM
Richard Eade Richard Eade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nepean
Posts: 2,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mille Sabords View Post
You make some good points about communications, no question about it. But it's also true, I think, that the media exaggerates and overdramatizes things partly because readership is falling and people are turning to the Internet more and more for their news. A big city with big projects is an easy source of controversy. And mark my words, when the subway is built and is open for service, the same media will be all over it, salute its vision, rave about its city-building force, etc.

What if, despite all the input and feedback received, the proposed alignment is indeed the best one? I remember the Rideau Centre being in the media as furious that they would lose MacKenzie-King station, which ensures the north-south flow of pedestrians through the mall. Did you know that the Rideau Centre is built on stilts because of the sandy soils beneath it? I believe that was said as well in one of the public forums and it's one of the main reasons why the route tilts to the north - going under the canal and building a subway station where MacKenzie King is now would be much more expensive and much deeper too. This is just one of many I've heard or seen to explain the route. Was this ever reported in the paper? No? That's what I mean. The media is focusing more on controversies than on the actual project, which is overall well put together when all is said and done.
Hmm, I'm sorry I didn't catch this earlier. As a matter of fact, I was aware that the Rideau Centre was built on piles. It turns out that there is a fairly deep valley in the bedrock under the north portion of the Rideau Centre which made deep piles necessary.

Now, my question to you would have to be "Do you remember where you heard that it would be more expensive to go under Mackenzie than the north route?"

The bedrock valley is shown nicely in the following image:



The orange area in the upper middle is the deep rock. You can see that it is under pretty much the entire north end of the Rideau Centre and continues north across Rideau. Notice that a southern route actually misses the worst of the valley.

It is generally much more expensive and risky to have to re-build the underpinnings of a building once you cut them off. By tunneling under the north of the Rideau Centre, many of the piles will need to be cut.

Using Delcan's own drawings:





The Mackenzie-King diagram is an older one, with the tunnel fallowing under the bridge. If the red line above is followed, the tunnel's bedrock buffer should be about the same. Recall, also, that now that the Campus Station is to be underground, the tunnel will not be heading 'UP' as shown in the picture, thus leaving even more rock between the tunnel and the piles.

Which do you think would be less expensive; cutting all those piles and re-building support for the Rideau Centre, or just tunneling through bedrock?

As for your other point, the depth: Recall that things generally flow north (roughly) in this part of the City. The canal flows north, so its bottom gets lower the farther north you go. Also, the large sewer, shown as a black rectangle in the profiles, flows north. It is clear that in the Mackenzie-King profile, the sewer is above about 51.5m, while in the Rideau route, it is down to about 47.5m. Also, there is a second deep sewer for the Rideau route, flowing under Colonel By, which must also be avoided.

Which do you think would force the tunnel the deepest; going under two sewers at 47m or one sewer at 51m?

I think that there is a lot of mis-information out there. Even the people of this forum, who follow things quite closely, occasionally take what Staff says as truth, when it might be incorrect. I'm not saying that Staff are trying to mis-lead the public, but not all of what they say is accurate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2010, 5:51 AM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
when Toronto built it's first subway in the 1950s, replacing a busy surface route, it had about the same metro population as us, 1.2 million, look at how 50 years later that line shapes the city and the core.
And I bet if you go back and look at the Toronto papers from the late 1940s, when they were first planning that initial subway (like the Blair-Tunney's proposal, it was about a dozen stations), the nattering nabobs of negativity were saying the same things there and then, as they are here and now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Business, Politics & the Economy
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:32 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.