It is time to rethink Ottawa’s transit options before spending billions on the wrong solution

With the municipal election campaign gaining momentum Ottawa’s proposed light rail project appears likely to become a serious issue again (Watson accused of playing to people’s fears, Alex Cullen, Ottawa Citizen, Letter to the Editor, June 9, 2010). As well there was something of a slanging match between Mayor Larry O’Brien and mayoralty candidate Jim Watson on the same issue. This all happened the same week that the Feds announced they will contribute up to $600M to the project, matching the provincial government’s commitment.

Some new entrants to the municipal elections have concerns about the municipal government’s current spending priorities. Plans for the proposed light rail system are high on their list of concerns.

James O’Grady, candidate for councillor in Ward 9 (Knoxdale-Merivale) has launched an on-line policy discussion group to interchange ideas with supporters and members of his campaign team. Transit and transportation are high on the list of priorities under discussion right now and some interesting ideas are being presented. some observations made by “Agnes of the Glens” particularly caught my attention:

“The issue is not whether we want LRT but whether we can afford it and also where it would go. In most European cities suburbs are connected to avoid driving cars and then they have metro. In our model the downtown area, where you can actually walk, gets all kinds of transit option but the suburbs will only get connected if they intensify….Provide train rail to downtown from major suburban areas (Kanata, Barrhaven, Orleans) and later work on other options. The way the tunnel is propose I do not see any change for the suburbs. I do not condone policy that people should know when they move, it is unrealistic. The tunnel has many issues; costs and security are the main constraints. Until design engineering studies are done we may not learn about what else might be there.

“As a taxpayer I see very little in actual clearing of the gridlock unless there is easy accessible transit from suburbia to downtown like the go- train in Toronto and after this is done consider the metro options and the digging. I have not seen anything in existing plans to make me a convert although I would love to see a train getting me downtown.”

Clinton Cowan, candidate for councillor in Ward 18, Alta Vista/Canterbury/Riverview, makes the following observations in a column in the June 2010 issue of Riverview Park Review:

“Light rail dependent on expropriation is a symptom of poor planning. That approach cannot continue in our city if we hope to shape it properly for future growth.

“The greatest challenge is not where transit goes but who uses it…. To encourage ridership in the short term what is needed is an expansion of the Eco Pass program and to tip the balance in favour of transit use versus car use. A shift in the funding ratio is needed and this requires innovative thinking. If the current council were truly sincere about encouraging ridership, they would minimize new road building. There is a piecemeal approach to road use, development of corridors, and traffic…. Communities are willing to share growing pains but they must be able raise awareness to what is not feasible or sustainable or acceptable to a community.”

The enlightened comments offered by these new candidates and by members of the public lead me to think that a great deal more analysis and planning needs to be done before a shovel is put in the ground for the light rail project. For instance, if priority were given to providing rail links from suburban areas to downtown, maybe we could make use of existing rail line infrastructure minimizing the need for costly expropriation and reducing construction costs as well as construction time.

Notwithstanding that all levels of government have now put a great deal of money on the table, the scope of studies undertaken to date appears to have been focused on strictly defined goals that have prevented serious consideration of alternatives. To my knowledge there have been no broadly based investigations and cost/benefit trade-offs that look at the overall needs of the municipality undertaken.

Maybe we need to go back to the drawing board and take a fresh look. This might even result in significant cost savings and free up money for other high priority needs within the municipality, water and sewer infrastructure renewal for example.