Gov't Downsizing

These mini-traffic lights were on a post in Gatineau. I could not determine if they were for cyclists. Or pedestrians. Or if they went off and on with the bigger lights.

I recall seeing these everywhere in France, but that is because they skip the big light fixtures on the far side of the intersection in favour of big ones over the stop line only.

The plethora of push buttons didn't make it any clearer. I eventually walked my bike across against a red light (I was on a bike path detour that led me to the intersection and abandonned me).

It felt like bait and switch. Segregated bike path: good. Detour sign -- they were thinking of me! good. Abandonned at the intersection: bad.

Ottawa has more overhead traffic signals than anywhere I have been in the world (and that's lots of places!). More signalized intersections. More signals at the intersection. More posts. More big metal arms. More signage. No wonder we are high tax and low results sort of place, the highest and best use of tax dollars is installing signalized intersections. Maybe, just maybe, the new age of austerity will give us these cuter, more friendly and human scaled signals.

Festival Externalities

Every festival has impacts external to the site it operates on. These get managed in different ways.

Winterlude and the Tulip Festival have numerous events along the canal, abutting neighborhoods like the Golden Triangle and The Glebe. For both these festivals, shuttle buses run along the canal to get crowds to and from the event sites. This distributes parking impacts over a larger area. It also means the City Hall garage and Lansdowne Park parking lots get used.

For Bluesfest, there are no shuttle services, leaving adjacent neighborhoods to suffer from a huge influx of parkers. This is most noticeable in the Dalhousie neighborhood immediately to the south of LeBreton Flats, and Hintonburg to the west. As a resident of Dalhousie, I am astounded at how many people cruise the streets at 8.45 pm expecting to find on-street parking in the first few blocks from Bluesfest, and then expressing their frustration by driving aggressively or parking on the boulevards or paths and right on corners.


The Glebe even gets some its streets temporarily privatized during the festivals, with guards and barriers to control access, keeping out the general public and limiting access to invited guests. There are no similar controls for the neighborhood to the north of Dows Lake, which is Dalhousie again. What's the difference between the north (Dalhousie) side and south (Glebe) side of Carling Avenue? Would it be that houses on the south side sell for $900,000 and up and on the south side for $250,000?

Right after the Bluesfest, there was the Classical Series on LeBreton Flats. Sponsored by the NAC and NCC, the concerts attract smaller crowds than Bluesfest, but they are handled much better, with continuous shuttle bus service from Tunney's Pasture's huge parking lots to the site, via the Ottawa River Commuter Expressway. As a result, the neighborhood was not overrun with parked vehicles. Unfortunately, the City's enforcement of parking regulations during Bluesfest was largely lifted, with the prompt result that parkers once again began taking over the parkland and boulevards and Albert St path with illegal parking that went unticketed.

The Tulip festival and Winterlude get signage at the Carling OTrain station advising patrons OTrain transit access and sidewalks to Dows Lake and Commissioners Park. The Bayview Otrain station remains unconnected to the Ottawa River bike paths just a few hundred feet north of the station, which also offer a fast direct pedestrian route to Bluesfest. There is no signage indicating the way to walk, of course, but OC Transpo employs additional security to prevent people from walking along the transitway to Bluesfest.

Why does the Classical Music series, Winterlude, and Tulip Fest get shuttle buses and Bluesfest doesn't? And it is not the cost of the shuttles, the City already pays for a glorious shuttle service that doesn't operate. I am speaking here of the ridiculous situation whereby OC Transpo supplies extra post-concert buses to handle the exiting crowds. The drivers and vehicles show up around 6pm, gathering in large red herds along old Wellington east of Booth, and at the bus staging area at Bayview. The drivers stand around chatting and having coffee for hours, to make one or two runs at 11pm. I guess they have to paid for an entire shift. Instead of having these drivers stand there, why not run shuttle service from the City Hall garage, from Lansdowne, and from Tunney's, from 6pm to 11.30?

Why do some festivals better control their external parking and crowd access impacts than other festivals? It wouldn't just be the a$$luence of the impacted neighborhoods would it?

LRT Technical Session

The City hosted a technical session on Saturday, June 20th for all those people who delight in spending a summer Saturday listening to streetcar vendors. About 100 of the public showed up, and at least 30 staff and consultants and vendors. The stated purpose of the meeting was to examine technical issues such as low floor vs high floor LRTs, dedicated vs shared rights of way, driverless vs on-board staff, etc. But I think the unstated purpose of the meeting was to educate the bloggers and transit hobbyists and community activists, so as to raise the tone of the debate when real decisions on technology are being made in September. If this was the covert objective, it succedded admirably. A number of participants prefaced statements with " I used to think ... but now ..."

The meeting started with spiels from Mayor Bellemare (sorry, I dont have a TV so I didn't recognize him - he was startingly young looking ...), Alain Mercier (OC Transpo) and Mona the head of the Transportation Master Plan project (TMP). I am not sure which speaker actually said it, but I did catch the comment that the LRT system will function with bus service as feeders to the line-haul LRT service. I didn't notice Marianne Wilkinson around to hear that one. But when the vendors spoke, two of the three emphasized that it was illogical to continue to run any bus rapid transitway - BRT - service to the core once the LRT was up and running. I have long suspected the LRT planners are saying YES to continued direct bus express service from Kanata and Barrhaven only until later in the process when the idea can be proved to be infeasible.

Three transit system vendors had display tables, brochures, free pens, models, and each gave a forty minute presentation. Alstom displayed their range of product to fit every market niche, and surprisingly to me he gently chided Ottawa for looking at LRT: in his mind, the City volumes along the transitway were enought to justify going straight to a metro-capacity train. He emphasized, as did all the speakers, that new LRT and metro systems always generate more traffic than transportation models predict. Since the system must be put in place to last 50 years (the life expectancy of a LRT or subway car) it is shortsighted fiscally and adminstratively to install a system that meets today's needs but which will be undercapacity in a few years. Why did I think he was directing his comments to certain shortsighted and tightfisted City councillors? Surely his remarks weren't directed to Alex Cullen who was in the audience, or the other councillors' staff members in attendance?

Dan Braund (an Ottawa boy, and old colleague from our days in the urban transit directorate at Transport Canada) spoke on behalf of Bombardier. Both he and the Alstom man claimed to represent the biggest LRT/metro vendors. The third speaker, Rainer, was from Shinkinsaro, an admittedly small firm that has a number of significant installs in North America. Most uniquely, his firm has no North Amercian assembly plant to put the vehicles together and then ship them to Ottaws via conventional heavy rail (the DOTT consultants have insisted the LRT maintenance yards be located adjacent a freight line to bring in the LRTs from eleswhere). Instead, Shinkinsaro uses the City's new LRT maintenance facility and its staff to assemble the cars here in Ottawa, which adds local value and thoroughly teaches the maintenance staff how the cars go together and work. This proceedure impressed me a lot. I will be going to the DOTT maintenance yard meeting this week.

Notably absent was Siemens, which won the previous round for Ottawa's LRT trainsets. I asked, and yes they were invited, they declined to attend. I suspect I hear a lawyer in the background at Siemens saying that if the show up to bid for this LRT project they are acknowleding that they somehow lost the previous bid. Nonetheless, I hope the City staff and consultants are busy reviewing their specs: after all, if they were deemed the best vehicle two years ago then presumably they must at least be a contender now.

The presentations and speaches were followed by a series of round-table discussions, with all points raised being written down by a scribe (each table had its own moderator/facilitator and another person to act as scribe - that's two staff to each 5 or 6 attendees. Can't say they weren't listening).

Amongst the comments at my table, I heard (or made myself...) the following:

1. greater respect for the idea that the LRTs along the transitway should be 'line haul" offering fast service with fewer stations rather than 'local" service with frequent stops.

2. a consequence of this was greater support for using the Ottawa River Parkway from Dominion to Lincoln Fields, with maybe one walkin stop along the route

3. there was less support for the Byron right of way, as its main virtue would be frequent stops for walk ins, at the price of slower express service and a very expensive precedent of perhaps burying the LRT where NIMBYs are loudest. Is McKeller Park the new Glebe?

4. while Carling is of interest, it is not likely to offer as fast a line-haul service as converting the transitway

5. there were mixed opinions on how to run the service on the ORP. I favour removing the southside lanes and making the northside lanes two directions of car traffic, and using the freed-up space for the LRT. Others favour running the LRT down the middle of the two road surfaces.

6. everyone agreed that we almost have enough transitway infrastructure that we could have a totally grade-separated and segregated system with no mixed-traffic. All the three vendors lauded the perfect conditions for Ottawa to convert the transitway and felt we are in an extremely lucky position due to the foresight of the builders of the transitway in the 1980s

7. but if we go for segregated system, there must be frequent grade-separated underpasses, for pedestrians and cylists, say every 500', to compensate for the 'barrier effect' of having a segregated right of way. Specifically mentioned were current at-grade crossings at Preston (install it from day one, not in the future), Dominion, along the ORP, Lincoln Fields, Iris, south of Iris, etc. Such a committment might make selling a segregated system easier.

8. LRTs can be dual mode. If diesel-electric, then it is not necessary to electrify all the track, for eg along the ORP there could be no overhead wires, and even more exciting, it would be much cheaper to extend the LRT beyond the greenbelt if electric catenary is not required. Thus the LRT service could be extended to Orleans, Barrhaven, Kanata years or decades sooner than currently envisioned using dual track overhead electric power.

9. Another version of dual mode would be electric-battery, whereby the LRT vehicle uses battery power in selected short distances, such as along the ORP.

10 Several attendees wanted on-board transpo staff, if not as a driver then as a guard. Totally automated trains made people uncomfortable. A chorus of voices was raised that the on-board staff need not be premium-paid "drivers" since running the almost-automated LRT is simpler and less-responsible than driving a bus. I heard the word "conductor" used for the on-board position. This will be unpleasant news to the OC TRanspo union which got a hefty premium from taxpayers for the "drivers" of the O-Train.

In conclusion, it was certainly refreshing and interesting to hear "outsiders" comment on our planning process, the opportunities available to us, and to speak some plain truths (yes, yes I know they are vendors) about what we should be doing.

I was left wondering about the meetings on Friday June 19th, which were not public meetings as far as I know, with operators of LRT systems in a number of US and Cdn cities. Presumably they also gave blunt advice about what to do or not to do. I wonder if any councillors were present? I would definately like to see made public a transcript of those advisory sessions.

Greenroofs

Today's paper had a major front page story on green roofs (www.nationalpost.com). Apparently Mayor Millar in Toronto is trying to position Toronto as a green sweepstakes winner. Green roofs have a number of widely recognized benefits (and less widely recognized costs) so Council is considering mandating them on new buildings.

Curiously, they propose to exempt themselves from the rule: their new municipal housing would be exempt, as would schools and, curiouser and curiouser: large commercial buildings. The buildings that would be targeted (ie, forced to install green roofs) include condos and retail malls. Note that both of these types of buildings divide up the cost amongst a myriad of smaller space users. Could it be that the Council is trying to conceal the cost from the payers? This slight of hand trys to hide costs from voters, it's akin to opposing the oil sands out west while Ontario burns coal ... or imposing costs upstream on the producer hoping that the consumer won't realize the cost increase was due to taxes.

It seems to me that large sprawling buildings are a better target: wal marts, factories, and schools (which seem to me to be major polluters, but they go largely uncriticized).

And I find it objectionable that Council is trying to achieve policy ends by forcing other people to pay for Council's wishes. A better course would be to charge each new development for its projected runoff. In Victoria, a large condo project with zero run off was exempted from contributing to storm sewer development fees. This puts the onus on the developer to minimize his costs, which may include green roofs, or things like storm ponds, gray water recycling, storm sewer flow capacity regulators, green walls, waterless toilets, meadows, permeable pavements, green parking lots, etc.

And I would like such charges to apply to existing buildings as well. There is no good reason for an older building to be exempted from its environmental costs. I would rather the city decide the cost of dealing with rainwater runoff is $x per cu.meter and charge for the runoff from a site. If the householder or landlord can reduce his costs, they'll go for it.

I spent some time last summer looking at the cost of green roof planting trays, as I have two sections of flat roof on my home. Partly I want to aid water conservation and improve the urban air environment and reduce the heat island effect, but partly I want to reduce summer heat gain on my flat roofs, and by shading them, prolong the life of the roofing material, ie I am motivated. But I found the cost much higher than I expected, and its difficult to calculate the payback.

The key problem as I see it, is that Cities give away or fail to charge correctly for storm sewer capacity. I would rather the City itemize its costs, charge individual users accordingly, and let each homeowner and landlord use their imagination to come up with the most cost effective solution. But as long as sewer capacity is given away or charged arbitrarily based on some criteria other than useage, the sewers will be abused, green solutions will go unimplemented, and heavy-handled politicans will try to garner votes by forcing a select few into an ordained "solution" that is only superficially green.

Trees Along the Albert St path

From today's Ottawa Citizen: "OTTAWA — The city is so serious about getting 100,000 trees planted that it’s now willing to deliver the trees right to your house. All you have to do is go to ottawa.ca/TREE or call 311, and you’ll be able to select the species of tree you want to plant on your property. They aren’t saplings, either: Each tree delivered under the program, aimed reforesting and enhancing tree cover in the city, is 1.5 to two metres tall. The trees are available on a first-come, first-served basis for June 2009 delivery. If the city runs out of trees, you can be placed on a list for delivery in the fall." [bold text added by me -- eric]

This is an interesting offer. Unfortunately I don't have room on my city lot for another tree. But I do spy an interesting spot on city land that begs for trees. Readers familiar with Albert St will have noticed the landscaping along the new multipurpose path built last year from Bronson to Empress. It is wide, asphalt, and has trees planted on both sides of it. Nice trees too: a number of them are oaks and other hardwoods. Potentially, this path will look very nice as the trees grow and provide shade and separation from the commuter cars and buses. The path is even supplied with decorative pedestrian scaled path lighting, although they havent been turned on yet. That may have to wait until the politicians assemble for an opening ceremony and photo op.

Unfortunately, the treed section ends at Empress. Is this because they were only beautifying the sight line from the luxury condos built at the corner of Bronson, The Gardens? Or is it because this path was sketched in on the City's Escarpment Community Development Plan and the water works folks delivered on what the plan dreamed of? In either case, they didnt plant any trees from Empress to Booth to Bayview.

I wrote to the City's tree planting guru last fall suggesting planting along at least the north side of this section of path, but got no reply. I made the suggestion because acquaintenances at City Hall had said the city was having a hard time finding places to plant trees to meet their quota.

Despite the lack of answer, the probable answer will be "NO" because this section of Albert is subject to reconstruction (promised every few years since 1980), lacks a long term plan (darn, there's the need for a CDP again ... although the section from Booth to City Centre Ave is subject to the NCC's LeBreton Flats master plan, not that that seems to help). I have no doubt that if this path was in the Glebe, there'd be trees there today.

So, back to the City offer of trees. Can a neighborhood association, volunteer group of gardeners, or the BIA actually get a few dozen of these trees to plant along the Albert St path? Anyone interesting in greening the City?