Mayor says review could be finished within a year
Jake Rupert, Ottawa Citizen
Published: Wednesday, September 12, 2007
City council fast-tracked a mandatory study on the feasibility,
environmental impact and costs of a downtown transit tunnel Wednesday, and
Mayor Larry O'Brien said he thinks it can be completed within a year.
Pushing the tunnel study ahead was one of a series of transit planning
decisions council made Wednesday.
The decisions put other transit moves on hold until a new rapid transit
plan for the city is developed, but council is now firmly locked in on a
subway across the downtown core as the centrepiece of any new plan.
The tunnel option was reaffirmed as council's preference when a move to
also study a street level "transit mall" option as an alternative to the
tunnel was voted down 12 to 11.
Councillor Peggy Feltmate suggested looking at a street mall as a backup
plan in case the tunnel idea turns out to be too expensive.
Mr. O'Brien said he believed running light-rail rapid transit on city
streets was studied extensively during the process that led to the defeat
of city's former light-rail plan, and to do so again would be a waste of
money.
Instead, he said it was time to push on with the tunnel option, and that
he was glad council unanimously approved doing so.
"I think it was a great step forward," he said. "There's no reason this
can't be done in a year, and then we can really get this moving forward."
Mr. O'Brien has long been a supporter of a tunnel across downtown, and it
was the central recommendation in his transportation task force's vision
for rapid transit in the city.
Many on council support the idea, but the cost of the project needs to be
determined and then funding, estimated to be more than $500 million, must
be found. It is expected to come largely from the provincial and federal
governments.
Another council decision Wednesday saw a number of proposed short-term
transit projects, including extending the current O-Train south, deferred
until city staff comment on an unsolicited light-rail plan, including a
tunnel, submitted to the city last month by an area developer.
Council also deferred debate on sending 12 people, including all
councillors on the transit committee, to the Pacific northwest to look at
transit systems in three cities - Eugene and Portland, Oregon, and in
Seattle, Washington - considered transit leaders in North America.
The debate is scheduled to take place at council later this month after
the cost of the trip is known.
© Ottawa Citizen 2007
And how many North American
And how many North American cities have chosen to put modern light rail in Transit Tunnels? Dallas?, Houston, Minneapolis, Portland, Salt Lake City, San Diego, Calgary, all NO.
Downtown Transit tunnels are used for heavy metro, (Atlanta, Washington DC, Lod Angles Red Line, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver Canada Line). We are not talking about that in Ottawa.
Which ones have? Los Angeles (Blue Line), Edmonton (a definite mistake), Vancouver (the tunnel was already there), Seattle (this was under a mountain, not a street), Pittsburgh (ditto).
In Britain: Sheffield, Manchester, Croydon, Nottingham, all NO.
This does not mean that I oppose or that we should oppose the study of the tunnel. It is just that the surface LRT alternative must not be excluded from comparison, just in case the tunnel doesn't work. Otherwise the ONLY alternative is continued surface bus.
David Jeanes
agreed
I do not oppose the study of a tunnel, but right now I would say that all information I have seen, points to surface rail.
Surface rail is about 1/3 to 1/2 the cost, and given that zero no longer means zero I would say that money needs to be saved for things like, Bringing the O-Train to Hull, putting trains on existing rail lines "within" the city limits, free downtown service, more transit lanes, etc....
agree with surface rail
Underground tunnels so expensive - I dont understand why our mayor decided to can the 2006 project becuase it was too expensive, rack up lawsuits, and then choose an even more expensive option? Why can't we just get something that WORKS? Even a mix of diesel and electric systems could work - other cities have transfer points in their subways/commuter train systems, I'm sure we could handle that as well - have an electric system in the downtown areas and areas with narrow streets and then a diesel system in the outlying areas (east of vanier, west of downtown (where the existing system is) and south of the airport would be FINE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Also what is up with no priority of the train to Gatineau? There's a bridge already, there are tracks already, this one should be a no brainer! This would give service to Environment Canada employees coming over from Ottawa - why are they not leading the charge on this?
Also what is up with no
Also what is up with no priority of the train to Gatineau? There's a bridge already, there are tracks already, this one should be a no brainer! This would give service to Environment Canada employees coming over from Ottawa - why are they not leading the charge on this?
I would have to say that the first priority in getting to Hull is not EC and the Casino, but rather just go across to Tache as a stage one plan to see how that goes.
Save the STO buses some time getting across the bridge and back.
The main problem with going to the EC building is that there is no exclusive right of way currently and it would be expensive to build (over/under)passes, and if you didn't build them you would have more of a political fight on your hands.
Re: agree with surface rail
Previous comment stated - "I dont understand why our mayor decided to can the 2006 project becuase it was too expensive, rack up lawsuits, and then choose an even more expensive option?"
RESPONSE:
I believe the mayor decided to do all of the above to stall. Firstly, the City approved the transportation taskforce report to appese the pro-transit community. This was followed by a number of other "good ideas" such as commuter rail service between Ottawa and smaller outlying communities.
So what did this actually accomplish?.. We have accumulated many "GOOD IDEAS". The problem with these "good ideas" is that it provides an easy out for council to further investigate other solutions and thus continue with delays.
Although the previously approved "above ground" rail plan did have flaws, so too will ANY plan put forward whether it be from a cost, functional, public opinion, or servicability perspective. And as long as they want to stall progress - council will continue to exploit the problems with any plan put forward or at least try to dust them under the rug.
I agree that the above ground downtown system did have flaws, however the City needs to lay the foundation of a system before it's too late - Any transit system implemented will have it's issues during the transition period
- implementation will be expensive;
- usage will be limitied in the beginning; and
- initially the majority of the public will not find it usefull for their own purposes.
These of course are all temporary inconveniences which would be reconciled by the future benefits associated with the system (in its entirety), yet seem to be the strongest reasons for council and public to avoid progressing with projects of this nature.
In the meantime, the City will continue to jump from idea to idea spending millions of dollars on studies, field trips, and hours of debate until the issue either loses public interest or worse - traffic problems escalate to a point of no return where progress for other city services (i.e. emergency service performance), economic stability, and/or environmental responsibility is compromised.