Ottawa Municipal Election 2010

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Dado

Personally, I think the talk of "reset" buttons is bit overheated.

The only issue is really the tunnel downtown. That would likely be the only thing to be "reset" and given the timeline of tunnel construction we could have an operational at-grade system long before a tunnel gets built anyway. We could even do a planning and EA study on a surface option all the while that engineering design work goes ahead for the tunnel, because it's not like it's going to be done quickly. That allows a decision to be taken on either course of action once the designs are complete for both without slowing anything down.

And what if this "reset" led to an earlier completion of the Tunney's Pasture-Baseline portion of the system using the savings from the tunnel?

I think there is a lot of wisdom in what you are saying. I have felt for a while that we must bring the tunnel engineering to a completion so that this project is ready to go when we can fund it and when it makes sense. No more silly reset buttons!

I will go back to what I have said for years, that in the long-run, we need both a surface and tunnel route for rapid transit. This is how we gain a true large increase in downtown capacity and is needed if we want to connect both sides of the river. In this respect, a surface route may only provide a temporary solution to our downtown problems, but it is part of the long-term solution.

I am truly concerned that this 'tunnel or nothing' approach may not lead us anywhere, at least not for a long time. I am also concerned that the current approach is closing off surface transit access to downtown except by congested streets. In other words, in our rush to move forward with the tunnel first, we are closing other options permanently.

As it stands, O'Brien and Cullen are not really LRT boosters. Their interest is in the tunnel and if it doesn't reach the citizens of Ottawa beyond a starter system, that will be left to those who follow to build, if ever. We know that Watson has not been keen on the tunnel but I believe that he has enough political acumen to not use such terms as 'reset button'. We will see what his position is, but I expect that he will attempt to get things moving based on the funding available. He would be wise not to cancel anything but try to gather support around a plan that can be built faster. This may involve taking parts of various plans that have already advanced substantially through the engineering stage and then patch it together.

As it stands, with O'Brien's and Cullen's leadership for the past 4 years, LRT has completely fallen off the radar with most taxpayers. Most no longer care or don't expect anything to come of it.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Watson has not been keen on the tunnel but I believe that he has enough political acumen to not use such terms as 'reset button'.

He's come perilously close.

We will see what his position is

Before or after the election?

but I expect that he will attempt to get things moving based on the funding available.

He's already said as much; how could he say otherwise? He was in an Ontario provincial government that offered Ottawa a measly $600-million with the caveat to never ask for any more.

As it stands, with O'Brien's and Cullen's leadership for the past 4 years, LRT has completely fallen off the radar with most taxpayers. Most no longer care or don't expect anything to come of it.

And those taxpayers who don't care about LRT, or any kind of T, are going to vote for Watson in droves. Watson himself doesn't care about transit, and from what I can gather is quite happy to have Ottawa be Canada's largest bus-only system (O-train excepted) forever.

He could prove me wrong, but that would mean he'd have to take a stance on something.

[lrt's friend]

You would think that Watson has something in mind for LRT, when $600M of funding was offered before he threw his hat in the ring for mayor. We all know that the timing was deliberate. One thing we know, if Watson is elected as mayor, Cullen and O'Brien are gone. With that, the leadership behind the tunnel idea is gone and there is a good chance that we will be heading in a different direction or at least a different set of priorities.

You may be right that this may lead us nowhere, but that big funding carrot and a more cooperative atmosphere at city council may get things moving again.

I would say if you support the current tunnel concept as a first priority, you should vote for Cullen or O'Brien.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You would think that Watson has something in mind for LRT, when $600M of funding was offered before he threw his hat in the ring for mayor.

Or, true to form for a Queen's Park type, he could blow it all on more friggin' busways.

We all know that the timing was deliberate. One thing we know, if Watson is elected as mayor, Cullen and O'Brien are gone. With that, the leadership behind the tunnel idea is gone and there is a good chance that we will be heading in a different direction or at least a different set of priorities.

The "reset button" in other words: different directions, or different sets of priorities, mean different funding planning, different routing, different engineering, different design, different environmental work, different community consultation, and a different three or four years wasted re-inventing the wheel, before unveiling yet another plan which will fall victim to another, somewhat different, but mostly the same set of blockage from another, somewhat differnt, but mostly the same set of crusading columnists and radio hosts, NIMBY groups, politicians who don't like the politicians who are championing the latest pet project, and NCC.

You may be right that this may lead us nowhere, but that big funding carrot

What big funding carrot?

and a more cooperative atmosphere at city council may get things moving again.

There has to be a co-operative atmosphere at city council. I can pretty well guarantee, the next one is going to be even worse than this one. For once, there were at least some suburban councillors willing to forego quick links to their own wards. That will NEVER be the case again. They want it all, now, and cheap.

I would say if you support the current tunnel concept as a first priority, you should vote for Cullen or O'Brien.

That is my plan, unless and until Watson unveils his "Super Magic Plan To Build Mass Transit To Every Suburb In Five Years For Less Than Two Billion Dollars With Absolutely No Overruns While Solving The Downtown Bottleneck And Without Asking Dalton McGuinty For One Dime More Than The Six Hundred Measly Million That They Offered To Ontario's Second Largest CMA And The Capital Of Canada Even While Pledging Eleven Billion To Toronto."

I'm not holding my breath.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by Dado

The only issue is really the tunnel downtown. That would likely be the only thing to be "reset" and given the timeline of tunnel construction we could have an operational at-grade system long before a tunnel gets built anyway. We could even do a planning and EA study on a surface option all the while that engineering design work goes ahead for the tunnel, because it's not like it's going to be done quickly. That allows a decision to be taken on either course of action once the designs are complete for both without slowing anything down.

And what if this "reset" led to an earlier completion of the Tunney's Pasture-Baseline portion of the system using the savings from the tunnel?

But the rest of the system is affected by the decisions made about the DT portion. If it's a tunnel then it's segregated from traffic, can handle higher frequency, can handle automated operation, can handle merging multiple lines into a single DT segment.

All the decisions about this transit stuff are like a house of cards. It's very hard to just pull one out. And going through the disruption of creating surface routes and stations, only to close them down 3 or 4 years later would be very costly.

My priority is getting a viable core network built as quickly as possible, and getting it built in a way that supports quick expansion. Building it with the intention of rebuilding it in 10 years is not something I want to see.

I'd rather see nothing built than see them waste money on a system that will fail, and then push back the possibility of a good LRT system for another 30-40 years.

EDIT: I should add that I do want to see surface rail, but as streetcars that run in at grade, and separated where space permits (e.g. Carling).

[Dado]

The way out is to simply make it clear that surface is the starting point to get the ball rolling while still planning for the tunnel and making preparations for it. If you put the line on Albert, we make sure we put in some pedestrian underpasses, portals in the platforms and the like when building the surface line for the future subway stations to tie into. I certainly would not advocate building a surface line as the be-all and end-all without regard to building in provisions for a future tunnel because that would be just as daft as building busways without first figuring out how you're going to convert them to rail. That way there won't be anything like the surface disruptions when the tunnel is built. When someone redevelops a site along the route, we take the opportunity to build a station or part of the tunnel so that the tunnel can be built bit-by-bit as part of long-term plan. Once a tunnel is built, the surface line is still available to serve the Carling line and/or the line from Gatineau.

[eternallyme]

Better yet, get transit planning OUT of City Hall and into a metropolitan transit authority dedicated solely to the transit system, which would be a mixture of appointments from Ottawa, Gatineau, the provincial governments and other municipalities.

[lrt's friend]

The "reset button" in other words: different directions, or different sets of priorities, mean different funding planning, different routing, different engineering, different design, different environmental work, different community consultation, and a different three or four years wasted re-inventing the wheel, before unveiling yet another plan which will fall victim to another, somewhat different, but mostly the same set of blockage from another, somewhat differnt, but mostly the same set of crusading columnists and radio hosts, NIMBY groups, politicians who don't like the politicians who are championing the latest pet project, and NCC.

We don't press any reset buttons. You complete the engineering on the tunnel and the eastern route. You already have engineering on a north-south route including a downtown surface option. You connect the two together with an improved surface route downtown and you have 40km of track probably within budget. You also have the tunnel ready for construction. We are not going backwards or pressing a reset button by approaching it in this manner. We are always moving forward.

All the decisions about this transit stuff are like a house of cards. It's very hard to just pull one out. And going through the disruption of creating surface routes and stations, only to close them down 3 or 4 years later would be very costly.

Why would we close the surface stations? When Calgary finally builds its tunnel, they have no intention of closing its downtown surface route. Ottawa too will have more than one route if we can finally start moving. If we have two routes. One uses the tunnel. The other uses the surface route. This all becomes very beneficial down the road, when we want to build branches to Gatineau, to the Airport, to South Orleans and to Kanata.

My priority is getting a viable core network built as quickly as possible, and getting it built in a way that supports quick expansion. Building it with the intention of rebuilding it in 10 years is not something I want to see.

This is whole the problem. We are not building a core network quickly, and a tunnel going overbudget means that there will not be any quick expansion. As it stands, we are already delaying LRT implementation by 10 years at best. Is this what you call quick? Compare Edmonton and Calgary. Which expanded quickly and which built the 'core network' (tunnel) first? Which ended up being more successful?

I'd rather see nothing built than see them waste money on a system that will fail, and then push back the possibility of a good LRT system for another 30-40 years.

This is what I have been talking about. Tunnel or nothing. We are building an overall transit network. If we can't afford a tunnel with the available funding, we need to do the best we can with that money. We can't afford to just throw $600M of provincial funding back. Each time we do that, we end up losing.

[Mille Sabords]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The electorate, the morons, will say the exact opposite. Repeatedly. Exhibit A: LARRY O'BRIEN GOT ELECTED.

And we could say the same for Toronto and Mel Lastman...

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I know that. You know that. That's two of us. There are a lot of (a) stupid people in this town, and (b) people who can't give a rat's ass about transit in the first place, and they voter in larger proportions than in any of the other 10 largest cities in Canada.

Sadly, in Ottawa the planning, consulting, lobbying and NIMBYing industries are, each, much larger economically than the actual building stuff industry. The people who prolong the problem have more influence than anyone who might turn a buck implementing the solution.

Sadly, you're right, but I'll interpret the same thing you said a bit differently: Ottawa has a lot of highly educated people employed in mind-numbing, creation-killing jobs with the federal government, with a latent desire to be heard and to have a real role in decision-making, which they apply to their neighbourhoods. It is a shame that so much grey matter ends up being at the service of such pent-up frustration. But I do have faith that such a context is transitional and bound to end up on the positive side of things. There is only so far you can go with NO. Sooner or later, intelligent minds demand the WHAT rather than the NO.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

From the perspective of the home-owning and car-driving voters who are the bedrock of the electorate outside about three wards, that is EXACTLY what happened.

Every major city has its driving masses. They are the majority in every major city! Nothing different here.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Then you don't understand the personal politics of this city, especially the childish feud between provincial Liberals and Tories which has infected the elected politics one level up (federal) and one level down (municipal).

Transit is not a major industry in Ottawa, unlike Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver. Hell, even the ATU membership, who — at least the share who actually live in Ottawa — are anti-LRT, so they can't be counted on to vote and politic as a bloc.

For "transportation problems" read "car problems": the electorate who actually vote are overwhelmingly home-owning drivers, not renters or non-drivers, who need to start showing up at the municipal ballot box.

I don't see any confluence of interests. In fact, I see a divergence; Ontario gave Ottawa the shaft in its piddly $600-million-and-don't-ask-for-any-more pledge; the feds are still not on board; the NCC is being obstrucionist, as usual in all matters transit.

The thing with the driving masses is that they want everyone else to get the fuck off the road so that they can drive in peace. And in every case, it will never work. Every major city goes through this. We are getting to the point where congestion is beyond annoying. I say congestion is our friend. The more congestion there is, the more self-selection there will be of people toward rapid transit, and that's where the LRT comes in.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Indeed, and the good burghers of Ottawa, with their federal and provincial taxpayer hats on, have already given tens of millions in funding for the Canada Line in Vancouver, the Montreal Metro, major transit projects in Toronto and the GTA, and then get shafted even by our own locally-elected federal and provincial members.

And then we re-elect them.

If they don't care about transit in their own city, and if there are no consequences for their ineptitude — Watson, Meilleur, Baird, Poilièvre, all got re-elected — why should MPPs or MPs from elsewhere in the province or country?

On this, I'm with you 100%. In fact, it's nice to meet you over this forum. Instead of skipping town, why don't you run for office?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We don't press any reset buttons. You complete the engineering on the tunnel and the eastern route. You already have engineering on a north-south route including a downtown surface option. You connect the two together with an improved surface route downtown and you have 40km of track probably within budget. You also have the tunnel ready for construction. We are not going backwards or pressing a reset button by approaching it in this manner. We are always moving forward.

What you are describing is the reset button, given the political reality that this will span (A) at least one municipal, provincial, and federal electoral cycle, and (B) is happening at the worst possible time as public sector spending contracts.

Reset buttons all around.

Compare Edmonton and Calgary. Which expanded quickly and which built the 'core network' (tunnel) first? Which ended up being more successful?

In a lot of respects, Calgary is a failure. There is virtually no TOD that I could find, which is what happens when you choose the cheap and easy RoW, mainly running in or along side highways (which is also what happened with the Transitway and is happening in part with the existing LRT plan, such as it is.)

The only thing that the C-Train does do really right is provide a backbone to the system, which we could already have with the buses, if the political will were there to just kill the bloody express routes already and make the Transitway all-backbone, nothing but 90-somethings and 100-somethings plus a few other main lines like the 80s and the 8.

This is what I have been talking about. Tunnel or nothing. We are building an overall transit network. If we can't afford a tunnel with the available funding, we need to do the best we can with that money. We can't afford to just throw $600M of provincial funding back. Each time we do that, we end up losing.

Each time? It's the first, and according to McDingbat, the ONLY rail transit funding Ottawa will ever receive.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

There is only so far you can go with NO. Sooner or later, intelligent minds demand the WHAT rather than the NO.

A sixty-year (and counting) track-record of the NCC, intramural gridlock, and anti-city pathology in Ottawa very strongly suggests otherwise.

Every major city has its driving masses. They are the majority in every major city! Nothing different here.

Much different, at least compared to the next cohort up of city politics (Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver). Our politics is much more like Edmonton or Winnipeg.

The thing with the driving masses is that they want everyone else to get the fuck off the road so that they can drive in peace.

Yes, exactly like how "traffic" is what happens when OTHER PEOPLE drive! ("Oh, we can't have THAT built in our sacred neighbourhood. Think of the TRAFFIC!")

And in every case, it will never work. Every major city goes through this. We are getting to the point where congestion is beyond annoying. I say congestion is our friend. The more congestion there is, the more self-selection there will be of people toward rapid transit, and that's where the LRT comes in.

I'm a fan of congestion, myself.

On this, I'm with you 100%. In fact, it's nice to meet you over this forum. Instead of skipping town, why don't you run for office?

If I knew a hundred million languages, I'd post the word NO in every one of them right now!

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

This is what I have been talking about. Tunnel or nothing. We are building an overall transit network. If we can't afford a tunnel with the available funding, we need to do the best we can with that money. We can't afford to just throw $600M of provincial funding back. Each time we do that, we end up losing.

My goal isn't a tunnel, it's a transit plan that provides more service, attracts more riders, and costs less to run.

My goal also isn't to spend $600M of provincial funding. That's an input into the decision making, not an output.

If there's a viable plan that doesn't include a tunnel then great. I haven't seen a proposal for downtown rail surface rail that makes sense based on the transit volumes we're expected to have in 10-15 years.

I can imagine the outlines of a surface plan that might work. Build a 2 or 3 car surface rail section through downtown, connecting with the LRT transitway near Lees, and west along Carling to Lincoln Fields. And then convert to the higher capacity segregated core component (including tunnel). This allows you to divert a substantial portion of the existing BRT users to LRT, saving hundreds of millions of dollars in bus rerouting costs. I'd rather see those dollars sunk into a long-term secondary LRT along Carling than into widening Albert/Scott street and buying more buses.

I don't think council really understands how disruptive it is going to be to close the core of the BRT for years.

[lrt's friend]

What you are describing is the reset button, given the political reality that this will span (A) at least one municipal, provincial, and federal electoral cycle, and (B) is happening at the worst possible time as public sector spending contracts.

Reset buttons all around.

Why is this the reset button? We had engineering done from Ottawa U to Barrhaven. We will have engineering from Lees Station to Blair soon. We only have to connect that short distance between together by a surface option. If we really want to get moving we can do it.

In a lot of respects, Calgary is a failure. There is virtually no TOD that I could find, which is what happens when you choose the cheap and easy RoW, mainly running in or along side highways (which is also what happened with the Transitway and is happening in part with the existing LRT plan, such as it is.)

This is a very sad statement. You expect a 'perfect' system which is not achievable. Success must be measured mainly in movement of people. Calgary's LRT system is the most successful in North America in that regard. To expect big time TOD, you are talking about subways under arterial streets. In a mid-sized city, this is simply not affordable. Surface LRT will be too slow along arterial streets to move people in from the suburbs. The other choice is what Calgary has done. This provides an excellent example of what Ottawa can do, yet we continue to prefer the less successful example in Edmonton, and believe me, with the funding that is coming, we will have the same outcome. It will be 2030, 2040 or 2050 before we can put together more money to build extensions west or south or to Orleans.

The only thing that the C-Train does do really right is provide a backbone to the system, which we could already have with the buses, if the political will were there to just kill the bloody express routes already and make the Transitway all-backbone, nothing but 90-somethings and 100-somethings plus a few other main lines like the 80s and the 8.

There are benefits of the Transitway over LRT, and that is its flexibility. Why would you want to eliminate that? This is a reason why Ottawa has higher per capita transit useage compared to Calgary. I would be very careful before advocating this approach. I am still waiting for statistics proving that cancelled express routes have resulted in higher ridership. This has been done strictly to address operational problems downtown. It is also being done because we are now putting all our eggs in the tunnel basket and therefore not investing in other possible improvements downtown.

Each time? It's the first, and according to McDingbat, the ONLY rail transit funding Ottawa will ever receive.

He actually said for the next 10 years. I remind you that we had $400M in funding in 2006, $200M from the province and $200M from the feds. We decided not to accept that money. You are kidding yourself if you think that money wasn't used somewhere else. I fully expect if we had proceeded in 2006 and spent that money, while at the same time moved ahead with a more ambitious East-West plan with or without a tunnel, we would have still received $600M over the next 10 years on top of the original money. The point I am making, when you have the money offered, you build something. The more we push things back as we have been doing for last 4 years, the more the funding simply gets recycled, and the less real new money is offered. What is now very important is that we have a practical plan that uses the $600M that is now on offer and that actually accomplishes something, that will improve transit in this city.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Why is this the reset button? We had engineering done from Ottawa U to Barrhaven. We will have engineering from Lees Station to Blair soon. We only have to connect that short distance between together by a surface option. If we really want to get moving we can do it.

It's a "reset" button because it involves going back to the engineering, financial, and political drawing board for an entire electoral cycle.

This is a very sad statement. You expect a 'perfect' system

I do?

To expect big time TOD, you are talking about subways under arterial streets.

Not at all. Big-time TOD could be achieved in Ottawa by incremental and truly transit-oriented changes to land use at or near several key stations. (And not just "car-oriented developments that just happen to be near transit facilities but basically ignore them". That means you, South Keys.)

The obvious one, of course, is Lebreton, whose potential has been seriously watered down by the NCC's fetish for green space, open space, and views. What little development is left is ghastly, unfortunately, with too-generous setbacks and no real mix of uses.

Tunney's has major redevelopment potential, if the feds will give up on that Greberesque prospect down that centre lane. The view of 1960s brutalist architecture is not worth the waste of perfectly good land.

Speaking of wastes of land: Lincoln Fields. Of course, the blessèd "green space" around that overbuilt piece of crap is a sacred cow... but hand me the knife, and I'd slit its throat without a moment's hesitation.

Hurdman; a bit further down the road, with the environmental remediation that needs to happen, but it should happen.

Baseline: again some major opportunities are being blown. The city archives project, in particular, perpetuates suburban styles, not the truly transit-oriented project it could have been.

There are also some big private- or semi-private landholdings near exising or future re-purposed transit stations (Cyrville, Blair, South Keys, Billings) that should be encouraged through regulatory carrots to be more intensely redeveloped in a truly TOD fashion.

The other choice is what Calgary has done.

We've already done it; run our transit system through the physically, financially, and politically most expedient rights of way... and then failed to bring the city to the transit, not that it's easy to do that when the system is bus-based in the first place.

This provides an excellent example of what Ottawa can do,

The only object lesson to draw from Calgary is to go to a trunk-line system, which we could do tomorrow by throwing the suburban express routes under the metaphorical bus. They are the elephant in the room. Or in the middle of Albert and Slater as the case may be.

There are benefits of the Transitway over LRT, and that is its flexibility. Why would you want to eliminate that?

Because that "flexibility", with the sense of one-ass one-seat suburban entitlement it has engendered, has clogged the system, at least at peak periods, from day one. The last thing you want, if you want land owners and land users to make permanent, city-changing decisions based on the configuration of transit, is "flexibility".

It is also being done because we are now putting all our eggs in the tunnel basket and therefore not investing in other possible improvements downtown.

The only possible improvement downtown that will actually work, is one which involves eliminating this idiotic practice of people scurrying up and down the sidewalks to catch "their" bus.

Every bus (within a few small limits) on the Transitway should be "your" bus. In Calgary, do "you" have "your" C-Train? No, you do not.

He actually said for the next 10 years.

Not according to what I saw quoted in the papers; do you have the "next ten years" quote?

We decided not to accept that money.

Yes, because someone pushed the magic reset button.

I fully expect if we had proceeded in 2006 and spent that money, while at the same time moved ahead with a more ambitious East-West plan with or without a tunnel, we would have still received $600M over the next 10 years on top of the original money.

I do too. Just so we're on the same page here, I supported the 2006 plan.

But I'd still really like to see the dirty details of Watson's Magic Surface LRT to Everywhere in Five Years for $1.8-Billion! plan...

[Dado]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Why is this the reset button? We had engineering done from Ottawa U to Barrhaven. We will have engineering from Lees Station to Blair soon. We only have to connect that short distance between together by a surface option. If we really want to get moving we can do it.

Unfortunately the downtown engineering on the surface would have to be redone for anything more than 2-car trains and 2-car trains really don't have the capacity we're looking for (we'd have to be pushing one through every 100 seconds or every second light cycle just for current rider volumes). This was part of the problem with the N-S LRT in the first place: it was premised on serving only the line to Barrhaven and not dealing with the capacity issue downtown. The City and the consultants really messed up badly by not listening to anyone else. Official objections like "it would cost $40M more" to extend to Hurdman ring rather hollow now.

This is a very sad statement. You expect a 'perfect' system which is not achievable. Success must be measured mainly in movement of people. Calgary's LRT system is the most successful in North America in that regard. To expect big time TOD, you are talking about subways under arterial streets. In a mid-sized city, this is simply not affordable. Surface LRT will be too slow along arterial streets to move people in from the suburbs. The other choice is what Calgary has done. This provides an excellent example of what Ottawa can do, yet we continue to prefer the less successful example in Edmonton, and believe me, with the funding that is coming, we will have the same outcome. It will be 2030, 2040 or 2050 before we can put together more money to build extensions west or south or to Orleans.

I would further add that the claim by Uhunian that Calgary's LRT "mainly run[s] in or along side highways" is not true. That's only true of the Northwest line northwest of Banff Trail where it runs in the median of Crowchild Trail, an expressway. The rest of that line further south runs through more urban and suburban locales away from big roads and in fact has led to TOD, particularly at Lion's Park. The Northeast line runs along the Bow River and Memorial Drive until striking north in the median of 36th, a major suburban arterial. On the Memorial section is an infill project known as "The Bridges", which is by any measure quite a success. The remaining leg of the current network, the South line, first runs alongside MacLeod Trail to clear the Stampede grounds and a major cemetery before running in a railway right-of-way (albeit one roughly parallel to MacLeod Trail, or rather vice versa) all the rest of the way south. This passes through industrial areas, commercial areas and past suburban residential. As time went on Calgary has started to plan higher density development near the stations. A couple of stations, most notably Heritage, have seen condominium infill go up around them - and unlike here in Ottawa they actually advertise proximity to LRT.

I'm sure with hindsight Calgary's LRT planners would have done some things differently, but as the first large-scale LRT system in a North American city with a love of the car, it's hard to call it anything but a major success. It has certainly proved the wisdom of breadth of network over building a tunnel.

One more line is under construction, the West LRT, and it will be supported by land use planning around a few stations where opportunities present themselves for intensification.

There are benefits of the Transitway over LRT, and that is its flexibility. Why would you want to eliminate that? This is a reason why Ottawa has higher per capita transit useage compared to Calgary.

Afraid not - this is a modern myth promoted heavily by OC Transpo and BRT apologists with no bearing in reality. The Transitway has not increased ridership in Ottawa (on a per capita basis) one iota over what it was before the Transitway commenced construction. Our higher per capita transit usage than Calgary is simply a result of always having had a higher per capita transit usage but this fact has been distorted in the last quarter century to imply that the Transitway is responsible. The best that can be said about the Transitway is that per capita ridership would have fallen faster without it than it did with it. That's the only claim that can be made based on the data, because even today we're still well below on per capita measures compared to where we started in the early 80s. Contrast that with Calgary where they are catching up to our enormous early lead - and really watch out when the West LRT comes online as well as the lengthening of the trains to 4 cars from 3.

Calgary's downtown 7th Ave, btw, handles more people today in the peak direction (which would be from east to west in the morning and west to east in the afternoon) than do Ottawa's downtown bus lanes - and that's using 3-car/75 m trains. In absolute ridership, they passed us in 2007 or 2008.

[lrt's friend]

Afraid not - this is a modern myth promoted heavily by OC Transpo and BRT apologists with no bearing in reality. The Transitway has not increased ridership in Ottawa (on a per capita basis) one iota over what it was before the Transitway commenced construction. Our higher per capita transit usage than Calgary is simply a result of always having had a higher per capita transit usage but this fact has been distorted in the last quarter century to imply that the Transitway is responsible. The best that can be said about the Transitway is that per capita ridership would have fallen faster without it than it did with it. That's the only claim that can be made based on the data, because even today we're still well below on per capita measures compared to where we started in the early 80s. Contrast that with Calgary where they are catching up to our enormous early lead - and really watch out when the West LRT comes online as well as the lengthening of the trains to 4 cars from 3.

Calgary's downtown 7th Ave, btw, handles more people today in the peak direction (which would be from east to west in the morning and west to east in the afternoon) than do Ottawa's downtown bus lanes - and that's using 3-car/75 m trains. In absolute ridership, they passed us in 2007 or 2008.

I don't disagree with you, but the trend since the 1970s has been to lower ridership in most cities and this has only turned around in the last 10 years. Part of the success in Calgary can also be attributed to planning the city with LRT in mind. Concentrating employment downtown and making parking expensive and scarce. It also didn't help our ridership figures when we had an O'Brien inspired 53 day transit strike.

Unfortunately the downtown engineering on the surface would have to be redone for anything more than 2-car trains and 2-car trains really don't have the capacity we're looking for (we'd have to be pushing one through every 100 seconds or every second light cycle just for current rider volumes). This was part of the problem with the N-S LRT in the first place: it was premised on serving only the line to Barrhaven and not dealing with the capacity issue downtown. The City and the consultants really messed up badly by not listening to anyone else. Official objections like "it would cost $40M more" to extend to Hurdman ring rather hollow now.

You are no doubt correct however, if we really wanted to get moving on this, it can be done, without having to wait 10 years.

I know the issue that you mention about the 2006 plan, however, where was the money going to come from to build further extensions to Hurdman and remove most of the buses from downtown? There was a budget to follow and even as it was, it was going well over that. At some point, you can't keep adding more and more, at least as part of the first phase.

[lrt's friend]

We've already done it; run our transit system through the physically, financially, and politically most expedient rights of way... and then failed to bring the city to the transit, not that it's easy to do that when the system is bus-based in the first place.

How is a rail based system any easier to place? Basically, unless you are going to bury it or run it along an arterial street, people don't want rail lines close by either.

Because that "flexibility", with the sense of one-ass one-seat suburban entitlement it has engendered, has clogged the system, at least at peak periods, from day one. The last thing you want, if you want land owners and land users to make permanent, city-changing decisions based on the configuration of transit, is "flexibility".

Why don't you just say it? Suburban people should not come downtown for any reason. The LRT plan as it stands does not even have any Park n Ride lots. There is little incentive to use such a system except in peak hours, because the transit connections are lousy and as we have seen from the bus network revision proposals, will get worse once LRT is implemented. The suburban transfer stations can also be intimidating for large portions of the population especially in the evening. I also wish to point out that the Transitway 'flexibility' also facilitates cross-town bus routes to speed up. When the Transitways convert to LRT, cross-town buses will return to slow, congested arterial roads for their full distance. Why is it that everything continues to focus on downtown?

[waterloowarrior]

Councillor Wilkinson is running again

http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa.../13611061.html

Running (12)
Running/may for Mayor (3)
May not run (2)
Not running (2)
Unknown (5)

Mayor Larry O-Brien
Councillor Georges Bédard
Councillor Michel Bellemare
Councillor Rainer Bloess
Councillor Glenn Brooks
Councillor Rick Chiarelli
Councillor Alex Cullen
Councillor Diane Deans
Councillor Steve Desroches
Councillor Clive Doucet
Councillor Eli El-Chantiry
Councillor Peggy Feltmate
Councillor Jan Harder
Councillor Diane Holmes
Councillor Peter Hume
Councillor Gord Hunter
Councillor Rob Jellett
Councillor Christine Leadman
Councillor Jacques Legendre
Councillor Maria McRae
Councillor Bob Monette
Councillor Shad Qadri
Councillor Doug Thompson
Councillor Marianne Wilkinson

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Councillor Wilkinson is running again
http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa.../13611061.html

Hmm, let me guess..she's running as she has unfinished business in her ward.

[Cre47]

Anyone read about Sue Sherring's column mentioning Deans is not running for mayor but will run in Gloucester-Southgate

Here's the piece at http://www.ottawasun.com/news/column.../13813481.html

Diane Deans won't run for mayor

By Susan Sherring, City Hall Bureau

Last Updated: May 3, 2010 11:00pm

Diane Deans, considered a good possibility to enter the race for the mayor’s chair, has decided against making the plunge.

Instead, Deans announced Monday she’ll be running again for councillor in Gloucester-Southgate.

“Running for mayor is a tricky business,” Deans said.

Absolutely.

And Deans is playing it safe by running for re-election.

The good news is the city will still have her around the council table. The bad news? She won’t be able to take the leadership role she would if she could guide council by way of the mayor’s chair.

“I’ve been talking to a lot of people. It is my intention to seek re-election in Gloucester Southgate. I’ve done extensive consultation with my constituents. They really want me to be their councillor.

“They value the work I do, and they want me to stay. I love my job, love what I do. I get a lot of personal satisfaction in the work I do as a city builder, so I’m seeking seek another term,” she said.

Too bad for the city as a whole, good news for residents of Gloucester-Southgate. Deans could have offered Ottawa voters a real option to the two frontrunners in the race.

Around council, Deans is a bright light, often taking a leadership role as she grills staff for the real and entire story around an issue.

Take the recent debate surrounding the $155-million purchase of new buses.

Deans rightly wanted to know not just the surface details, but the nitty-gritty.

What guarantee was there for Ottawa residents? Was the company, New Flyer, at any risk? What about the future possibility of parts for the buses? What about the lawsuit against the company the city had waged? Why the rush. Where was the fire?

Deans knows her stuff, does her homework, and isn’t afraid to be the one leading the opposition. In the end, she didn’t win the day, and was one of just three who voted against the plan.

And while she doesn’t always win the vote, her strong line of questioning never fails to raise awareness of the issue.

Making the decision to stay away from the mayor’s race wasn’t an easy one for Deans.

“It’s not something you take lightly. You consult a lot of people. It’s not just about me, it’s the city and people you represent. I think it became really clear to me to stay where I am.”

Deans said she’s hoping the new mayor proves to be a strong leader with a real vision for the city.

She worries the decision to cancel the north-south light rail plan made under former mayor Bob Chiarelli has really hurt the city — and set it back.

Can’t help but wonder if her homework on that file helped raise light rail to an election issue.

It was Deans who first suggested there was too much secrecy surrounding the plan, that council had been forced to approve it along the way without enough of the necessary details.

Deans’ decision on Monday, following the same one recently made by Alta Vista Coun. Peter Hume, another strong contender, leaves just two viable candidates for the mayor’s race — Bay Coun. Alex Cullen and former mayor Jim Watson.

When it comes to campaigning, Culled admits he’s barely in the race to date, though he’s promised to re- launch his campaign.

With Deans’ decision, Watson could be the runaway candidate.

That’s not good for anyone.

There’s no doubt O’Brien would love to run again, but only if he could win.

That seems unlikely.

And it seems equally unlikely he’ll risk his reputation if a loss is on the horizon.

Watson is a strong candidate, no doubt. He’s clearly well-organized, has the money to launch a strong campaign, and has the experience to do the job.

But choice is supposed to be what democracy is all about.